TH/Fvl‘.)

 

KI

. ’1 In- E.”

M... g

Michigan Effie

F I, .‘55' :91. nun-u- -11..
L-alv‘b.5.:._,_.__‘!
J . I

In.

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
The Development and Empirical Analysis
of an Information Processing Model of Executive
Scanning and Interpretation

presented by

Felicia Williams Seaton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D. degree in Psychology

Wé/
- l \J

Major professor

 

 

Date February 18, 1986

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
g3”

 

————

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

\

 

THE DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
0: AN INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL

OF EXECUTIVE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION

By

Felicia Williams Seaton

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1 985

.\‘.\

ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT AND EMPIRICAL STUDY OF AN
INFORMATION PROCESSING MODEL
OF EXECUTIVE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION
By

Felicia Williams Seaton

The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model of the
antecedents, characteristics, and consequences of executive scanning and
interpretation of the external environment. Scanning was defined as the activity
of searching for and acquiring data about events in the external environment.
Interpretation was defined as the process by which acquired data on the external
environment are transformed into information useful to the executive for decision
making and action. It was hypothesized that the scanning and interpretation
strategies used by executives would be bounded by Characteristics of the
organization (formalization, policy on intrusiveness), the perceived external
environment (analyzability, complexity), and executive role (function, hierarchy,
experience). In addition, it was predicted that scanning strategies would have an
impact on the effectiveness of the executive's subunit in securing resources from
and satisfying the demands of the external environment. Questionnaire and
interview responses of 131 executives from four public Midwestern research
universities were analyzed to provide evidence of the validity of the conceptual
model. Eight hypotheses were derived based on previous research and
theoretical descriptions of relationships between the variables proposed by the

model.

Results supported two of the proposed hypotheses. Frequency of use of
multiple scanning sources was found to vary according to the function and
hierarchical level of the executive, and was also found to be significantly related
to perceived environmental complexity. A Significant positive relationship was
found between organizational policy on intrusiveness and executive scanning
initiation. Structure did not, however, have the predicted moderator effect on the
correlation between intrusiveness and initiation. No relationship was found
between perceived analyzability of the external environment and source usage,
intrusiveness or equivocality reduction mode. Scanning initiation strategy was
not found to be significantly related to subunit performance.

The findings of the current study were interpreted in light of previous
research on scanning and interpretation, and the theoretical and practical
significance, as well as the limitations of the study were highlighted. Finally,

implications for further research and conceptual development were discussed.

TO MY PARENTS
Who made this possible because they taught me as a child
to never think of myself as anything less

than everything that I could be.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The final product of this dissertation is the result of several years of Struggle
which could not have been successful without the guidance, encouragement and
support of many people. It is with sincerest feelings of appreciation that I
acknowledge the contribution of these individuals here.

First, to my committee chair, academic advisor and friend, Dr. Neal Schmitt,
who provided calm and stable guidance through the stormiest periods of my
graduate career, read dissertation drafts in incredibly short time, and provided
well directed and specific feedback. To Dr. John Wagner, who introduced me to
Organization Theory, forced me to ”complicate my thinking” and stretch my
conceptual background beyond anything I had imagined--or thought
necessary--before returning to graduate school. My thanks to Dr. Kevin Ford,
who challenged me to always do more, to apply my conceptual discoveries in
new directions, and for his encouragement in moments of crisis. Dr. Steve
Kozlowski provided insightful comments which had a significant impact on the
direction of my dissertation research and career. Finally, my sincerest
appreciation to Dr. John E. Hunter, who guided me through my Master's thesis,
and first proposed the outlandish idea that I could finish coursework and ‘ .
comprehensive exams during a one-year sabbatical leave. My thanks also to Dr.
Hunter for his counsel on the importance of "frontal thinking” on conceptual

issues priorto undertaking empirical research.

The individuals who played a major part in facilitating the implementation of
the empirical research are also greatly appreciated. Dr. Richard V. Farace
provided access to the sample of universities, and Dr. Donald Pelz, Dr. Ann
Sheldon, Dr. Anil Jambekar, Dr. Herman Koenig and Dr. Meta Baba gave critical
feedback on early drafts of the questionnaire and general approach to the study.

My deepest gratitude to the Universidad Simon Bolivar of Caracas,
Venezuela, for providing me with an extended sabbatical leave in which to
complete my graduate degree. Colleagues in the Department of Psychology at
Wayne State University also provided helpful insight and general
encouragement during the data collection and analysis stages of my research. A
special thanks to my colleagues at Boston College, who gave me the space
during my first semester of full time, US. professional work to complete my
dissertation, and who provided an atmosphere conducive to productive work. A
very special thanks to Dr. Jean Bartunek who provided calm guidance and
feedback during the final stages of my dissertation.

Several graduate students were also key to the completion of this work, and
deserve mention as critical team members. Leslie Hames and Fred Mayo at
Wayne State University provided willing and extremely competent help in data
collection stages, and Andrew Kinney at Boston College was tireless,
dependable and invaluable in the computer programming and data processing
phases of this research.

. Finally, this dissertation and the completion of my graduate study would not
have been possible without the support of my friends and family. My deepest

appreciation goes to my friends in Lansing, Flint, and Detroit, who allowed me to

iv

discharge my frustrations so I could Continue to work. To my fellow graduate
students at Michigan State University, who believed in me, cheered me on
during the roughest of times and never failed to provide needed support,
patience and caring. My love, appreciation and sincerest thanks go to my
parents and family, who bore the bmnt of my "other" responsibilities while I
dedicated time to graduate school, and to my children, Carlos and Karina, who
were really too young to understand why Mommy had to write this book with gold
letters on it, but still tiptoed around the house and tried to be good so Mommy
could do her work and be a Doctor. These are the individuals who lived most
closely through the rough spots of my graduate career, and who never withheld
their emotional support in time of need. I shall be forever grateful to all of them for

making this a reality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .................................... . ............................................ 1
CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 8
Environmental Scanning .................................................................................. 8
Boundary Spanning .......................................................................................... 17
Information Processing ..................................................................................... 23
Organizations as Interpretation Systems ....................................................... 27
Summary and Research Questions ................................................................ 33
CHAPTER III A MODEL OF EXECUTIVE SCANNING AND
INTERPRETATION ..................................................................................................... 35
Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 35
Overview ............................................................................................................... 37
Definitions and Major Relationships ................................................................ 40
Executive Scanning and Interpretation ................................................... 40
Perceived Environment ........ 42
Organizational Characteristics ................................................................. 46
Individual Characteristics ........................................................................... 48
Organizational Effectiveness ..................................................................... 49

vi

Page

Summary ...................................................................................................... 51
Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER IV METHOD ............................................................................................. 64
Sample ................................................................................................................ 64
Procedure ............................................................................................................. 65
Research Instruments ........................................................................................ 66
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 72
Response Rate ..................................................................................................... 74
Psychometric Properties of the Survey Scales ............................................. 75
Reliability (Internal Consistency) .............................................................. 75
Inter-Scale Correlations ............................................................................ 77
CHAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................... 80
Description of Scanning and Interpretation Activities in University
Sample ......................................................................................................... 80
Test of Hypothesized Relationships ................................................................ 85
Summary .............................................................................................................. 98
CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 102
Consistency with Prior Research on Scanning ............................................ 103
Descriptions of Scanning Activities ............................................................... 103
Antecedents and Consequences of Scanning and Interpretation .......... 106
Methodological LImItatIons ...... 108
Conclusions About the Conceptual Model .................................................... 112
Implications for Future research ..................................................................... 114
Practiwl Implications ......................................................................................... 1 16

vii

Page

APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS AND INDICATORS FOR MAJOR VARIABLES
IN THE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION MODEL ............................... 117

APPENDIX B EXECUTIVE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION SURVEY... 119

APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE DIMENSIONS AND ITEMS ........................... 131
APPENDIX D INTER-ITEM CORRELATION MATRIX ............................................ 139
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 153

viii

Table

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Summary of Modes of Environmental Scanning ................................... 16
Conceptual Links and Hypotheses ........................................................... 62

Summary of Relationships for Hypothesis Testing and Data Analysis 73

Coefficient Alphas for Survey Scales ....................................................... 76
Inter-Scale Correlations ............................................................................... 78
Percentage and Frequencies of Active Versus Routine Search .......... 81
Mean Frequency of Use of Scanning Data Sources .............................. 82
Mean Frequency of Scanning Initiation Strategies ................................. 84

Proportion of Sample Using Autocratic and Consultative
Modes for Equivocality Reduction ........................................................... 86

Zero-order Correlations Between Source Usage and
Change, Predictability and Accessibility .................................................. 88

Average Frequency of Scanning Initiation by Level of
Experience .................................................................................................... 92

Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Function
and Hierarchy on Scanning Source Usage .............................................. 93

Mean Frequency of Use of Scanning Data Sources By
Hierarchical Level ........................................................................................... 95

Mean Frequency of Use of Scanning Data Sources By _
Functional Special Specialty ....................................................................... 96

Correlations Between Scanning Initiation and
Subunit Performance by Level of Structure ............................................. 100

Zero-Order Correlations Between Scanning Initiation
and Subunit Performance .............................................................................. 101

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1 Relationship Among Organizational Scanning,
Interpretation, and Learning ............................................................ 29
2 A Conceptual Model of Executive Scanning and
Interpretation of the External Environment .................................... 38
3 Relationship Between Structure, Intrusiveness and
Scanning Initiation ...................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, the dominant view of organization theorists and
researchers has emphasized the nature of organizations as social systems. A
major premise of the social systems perspective states that, in order to survive, an
organization must have an effective interaction with the environment upon which
it is dependent for inputs, acceptance of outputs, and Iegitimation. Given the
nature of organizational dependence upon the environment, a major determinant
of organizational effectiveness is the extent to which the organization accurately
perceives the characteristics of the relevant external environment. Failure to pay
attention to or serious misdiagnosis of environmental events can lead to
organizational crisis or failure (Starbuck, Greven & Hedberg, 1978).

Early models proposed for the study of organization-environment
interaction focused on the contingencies of organization-environment fit (e.g.,
Emery & Trist, 1965; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). The principle assumption of the
contingency approach maintains that the design and structure of the organization
must be matched to the characteristics of the external environment and
technology. A major research interest in the contingency approach was the
determination of the most appropriate organizational design and structure to fit
the given characteristics of the external environment. These Characteristics
included uncertainty, instability, turbulence, complexity and heterogeneity (Dill,

1958; Emery & Trist, 1965; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings & Turner, 1969; Terreberry,

1968; Thompson, 1967).

Results of contingency research failed to substantiate the assumption that
there is ”one best way” to design all organizations which face a given type of
environment. A major limitation of the contingency approach was the focus on a
one-way adaptation of organization to environment (i.e., with the environment
taken as the given, emphasis was placed on the appropriateness of the
organization's response). The need for a more dynamic, mutual-adaptation
perspective on the nature of organization-environment relations became
apparent. This dynamic approach suggests that, given the rapidly changing
Characteristics of an organization's environment, organizations must not only
respond to perceived characteristics of the environment, but can play an
important role in shaping subsequent environmental responses to
organizational actions. Thus, the nature of organization-environment interaction
is characterized by interdependence, dynamic exchange, and mutual adaptation.

Recently, models have been developed which focus on the ways in which
organizations both respond to and proactively shape the responses of their
external environments (e.g., Daft & Weick,1984; Weick and Daft, 1983). A
critical element in the process of responding to or manipulating the external
environment is the acquisition of information on the needs, demands, and
characteristics of the environment. Models which delineate the processes
through which individuals in organizations acquire and use information on the
external environment are referred to as information processing models.

From an information processing perspective, It is argued that organizational

survival and adaptation are heavily dependent on the organization's ability to

3
accurately sense the relevant demands and changes in its external environment.
Consistent with this view, it is assumed that organizations are heavily dependent
upon their environments for a multitude of cues which suggest the need for
ongoing organizational realignment. Data about trends, events, demands and
changes in the environment therefore assume critical importance. Strategies for
obtaining this type of data are considered important antecedents to both the
process of long-range strategic planning and organizational performance
outcomes (Hambrick, 1981 ; Culnan, 1983).

Scanning, or the search for and acquisition of data about events occuring
outside the organization, is one strategy that an organization may employ to gain
knowledge about its external environment. To be useful as a basis for strategic
action and decision-making, however, the acquired data must be transformed,
through a process of interpretation, to a language which is meaningful to
organizational members (Daft & Weick, 1984). Interpreted information may then
be used to define strategic actions that the organization should take to maintain
or Increase organizational performance and effectiveness.

Traditionally, it has been assumed that upper level management plays a
key role in the scanning and interpretation of information on the external
environment (Aguilar, 1967; Daft 8 Weick, 1984; Miller, Kets de Vries & Toulouse,
1982). Top level executives are supposed to have the best vantage point for
viewing the entire organizational system, and are responsible for monitoring'the
environment, translating critical information, and formulating appropriate
responses (Snow & Hrebiniak, 1980).

Research on environmental scanning has been largely descriptive of the

4

content and sources of information acquired by strategic managers (Aguilar,
1967; Thomas, 1980). Systems developed to classify the modes of individual
scanning have looked at the intentionality and degree of active search involved
in scanning, the routine versus non-routine nature of scanning activities, and the
degree to which scanning is a formally assigned activity. (Aguilar, 1967; Fahey &
King, 1977; Hambrick, 1981; Keegan, 1974).

The majority of research on environmental scanning has described the
scanning practices of large, often multinational, profit making organizations. Little
research has been encountered to date on the characteristics of scanning
activities in non-profit or service-oriented institutions. An important question yet
to be addressed involves the extent to which the findings of previous research
are generalizable to different types of organizations.

Environmental scanning has also been considered an important

component of the broader managerial activity labeled ”boundary spanning”.
Emphasis in the boundary spanning literature has been on the identification of
boundary spanning individuals (e.g., Miles, 1976; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981b),
the role of the individual boundary spanner (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1971 ),
the pressures and conflicts experienced by individuals in boundary spanning
roles (Keller & Holland, 1975; Keller, Szilagyi, & Holland, 1976; Wall & Adams,
1974), and the relative impact of role characteristics on scanning or ”boundary
spanning" activities (Adams, 1976; Leifer & Delbecq, 1978). Thus, the level of
analysis in the boundary spanning research has most often been the individual
boundary spanner, in most cases, the manager or executive. Few attempts have

been made to link boundary spanning activities with the process of sense-making

5
or interpretation, and little is known about the impact of the organizational context
on the strategies used by boundary spanners to acquire data on the external
environment.

Less is known about the process through which acquired data is
transformed to information which can impact organizational effectiveness. The
literature on individual information processing has outlined the stages of
cognitive processing and sought to define the conditions which govern the
determination of individual cue selection. Although Unson, Braunstein and Hall
(1981) identified the need to investigate the ways in which demands imposed by
organizational stmcture provide the context for explaining the mechanisms and
choice of interpretation strategy, until recently little interest has been devoted to
establishing the linkage between individual Interpretation and organizational
characteristics.

Daft and Weick (1984) presented an Interpretations system model which
defines interpretation strategy as an organizational, rather than individual
Characteristic. These authors suggested that organizations, as social systems,
have a definable pattern or mode of Interpretation based on the organization's
assumptions about its external environment and extent to which an organization
is passive or active in dealing with its environment. No research has been
encountered to date to substantiate the conceptual model which Daft and Weick
proposed.

In sum, various models of scanning and/or interpretation processes have
been suggested in the literatures on environmental scanning, boundary

spanning, and information processing. The different perspectives on scanning

6
and interpretation which are offered by these distinct literatures have not been
previously integrated. To more fully understand the nature of the scanning and
interpretation processes which occur in organizations, an integrated theoretical
model linking individual, organizational, and environmental characteristics
relevant to these processes is needed.

The present research initiates an exploration of the linkages between
organizational and environmental characteristics, scanning and interpretation
processes, and organizational effectiveness. The major objectives of the current
research are to: 1) develop a preliminary model of executive scanning and
interpretation, 2) construct instrumentation and design a study to provide
empirical evidence of the major relationships described in the model and,

3) describe the impact of scanning and interpretation activities on selected
criteria of organizational effectiveness. In addition, the current study seeks to
determine the extent to which the characteristics of scanning and interpretation
activities which have been described In large, for- profit business firms are
consistent for non-profit non-industrial organizations such as public universities.
The current study is organized in Six chapters. Following the introduction
presented in this chapter, Chapter II offers a detailed review of the relevant
literature on environmental scanning, boundary spanning, information
processing and interpretation systems. The second Chapter concludes with the
broad research questions which result from current gaps in our knowledge about
the antecedents, consequences and characteristics of executive scanning and

interpretation processes.

7
Chapter III presents a conceptual model of executive scanning and
interpretation which is developed as a heuristic for the design of an empirical
study. Chapter IV describes the methodology, process of instrument
development and data analysis techniques used in the current study. A
discussion of the results of the study is offered in Chapter V, followed in Chapter

VI by conclusions on the theoretical and practical implications of the research.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Although the need for acquisition and accurate interpretation of information
on the external environment has been frequently acknowledged in the study of
organizations, empirical research on managerial scanning and interpretation has
been scarce and fragmented. Conceptual models of scanning processes have
been developed in the literature on environmental scanning, as well as under the
title of boundary spanning activity. Interpretation processes, and to some extent
the preceeding phase of data acquisition (scanning), have been studied from
individual information processing and organization interpretation systems
perspectives.

In this chapter the empirical and conceptual literature relevant to an
understanding of the current status of theory on executive scanning and
interpretation of the external environment is discussed. The literature specific to
environmental scanning is first reviewed, followed by the review of relevant
models and studies of boundary spanning, individual information processing,
and interpretation systems.

E . | I S .

The earliest and now classic research on environmental scanning was ‘
performed by Aguilar (1967). In that study, environmental scanning was defined
as the activity of acquiring "information about events and relationships in a

company's outside environment, the knowledge of which would assist top

8

9
management in its task of charting the company's future course of action”
(Aguilar, 1967, p. 1). Aguilar's study focused on the manner in which external
strategic information is gained, and dealt with the recognition of, search for and
internal communication of external information by organization managers.
Specific questions addressed the content, source, and process used by
managers to obtain external information.

The model proposed by Aguilar suggested a classification of scanning
activities into four modes: 1) undirected viewing: the general exposure to
information where the viewer has no specific purpose beyond exploration, 2)
conditioned viewing: directed exposure, not involving active search, to a more or
less clearly identified area or type of information, 3) informal search: the
relatively limited and unstructured effort to obtain specific information, and 4)
fOrmal search: the deliberate effort, usually following a pre-established plan, to
secure specific information.

Aguilar suggested that the use of a particular mode is associated with specific
information requirements, and stated that, due to the scarcity of resources
available for continual scanning activities, the primordial rule for mode
assignment is scanning efficiency. A second rule is that change in scanning
mode occurs when previous modes are ineffective or inefficient.

Based upon interviews with 137 managers from 41 business and service
organizations, Aguilar found that managers tended to collect information on five
major content areas which he identified as market tidings, technical tidings, broad
Issues, acquisition leads and other tidings (suppliers, available resources,

miscellaneous). The importance of each content area was found to be

10
dependent upon the functional specialty of the executive (e.g., marketing,
general, technical), somewhat on organizational size, and only slightly on the
manager's level of responsibility.

Information sources were classified as outside versus inside, and personal
versus impersonal. Results showed that personal greatly exceeded impersonal
sources In importance (non-members and customers were important personal
sources), intra-organizational subordinates were the greatest Single source of
information, and use of both outside and inside sources varied with the functional
specialty and level of responsibility of the executive.

The final question on how external information is acquired was defined in
terms of the degree to which information was solicited or unsolicited by the
executive. Results showed that information from outside sources was highly
unsolicited while information from inside sources was largely solicited. In
addition, large companies solicited more information from outsiders and tended
to rely less on routinely transmitted information from insiders.

Following Aguilar's lead, several other studies have sought to describe the
scanning practices of individual executives in different types of organizations. A
study which examined the characteristics of Information sources was conducted
by Hambrick (1981). In a sample of 195 first- through third- level executives from
20 organizations in three industries, it was found that neither hierarchical level
nor functional area of upper level managers were systematically related to either
the focus or overall amount of scanning activity. Further analysis showed,
however, that links between hierarchical level, functional specialty and scanning

were significant in some cases, but only when the functional role was clearly

1 1
defined and associated with a particular environmental sector. A considerable
amount of cross- functional scanning (i.e., scanning outside an executive's
primary functional orientation) was also found to occur in the organizations
studied.

Results indicated that environmental scanning was an ”unassigned activity”
(Hambrick, 1981, p. 316) and chief executive attitudes toward scanning were
characterized as informal. Hambrick concluded that a rationalizing or articulation
of scanning responsibility could result in more effective environmental scanning
within an organization.

An additional study of the characteristic sources of external information was
conducted by Culnan (1983). This field study investigated the extent to which the
frequency of use of nine information sources was determined by perceived
accessibility of source and task complexity. Completed questionaires were
obtained from 362 professionals employed at the corporate headquarters of two
large commercial organizations. The nine sources loaded on three factors:
internal personal, internal impersonal, and external sources. Task complexity
was measured by the extent to which eleven environmental elements were
relevant to the conduct of each professional's job. These elements included the
firms' customers, competitors, suppliers and labor supply; government regulation,
public opinion, technology; and economic, political and social issues. Results
supported the predicted positive correlation between source accessibility and
source usage. Complexity was found largely unrelated to accessiblity of external
sources, and for internal sources, the complexity-usage relationship was

significant only when sources were perceived as less accessible.

1 2

A study conducted by Jain (1984), examined the scanning practices of 186
executives in Fortune 500 organizations across the US. Questionnaires were
mailed to the Chief executive officers to determine the pattern and characteristics
of scanning activities in these firms. Results suggested that scanning may be
characterized by four progressive phases. In phase 1 (primitive), the
environment is assumed to be inevitable and random, information is rarely
related to strategic decision making, and management assumes no direct
reponsibility for scanning efforts. Phase 2 (ad hoc) is characterized by a
definition by management of general areas to be monitored, but no formal system
for scanning exists and scanning is not initiated by management. Managers in
phase 3 (reactive) recognize the importance of scanning the environment, but
activities are unplanned and unstructured. Scanning initiative occurs as a
reaction to what major competitors are doing, and managers avoid active testing
or risk taking in interactions with the external environment. Finally, managers in
the fourth and most developed phase (proactive) employ scanning as a
structured and deliberate effort to predict environmental states and establish a
competitive advantage.

Phase of scanning was shown to be related to company sales volume. Only
companies with annual sales of $1 -5 billion or over were found to be in phases 3
and four, while the vast majority of those under $1 billion were characterized as
phase 1. Phase of scanning was also related to the length of time the scanning
system had been in place, suggesting that highly systematic scanning activity
develops over a period of about five years, and only then given the instrumental

support of top management.

13
Source of environmental information was also examined in Jain's study.
Respondents were provided a list of 11 documentary information sources and
were asked to rank the five most important sources. Daily newspapers were
considered most important, followed by business periodicals, well-known
consultant reports, and government publications.

In addition to the study of the characteristics of individual scanning practices,
several researchers have sought to characterize the scanning practices of
Organizations. Keegan (1974) collected data on the scanning practices of 13
international corporations. Personal interviews with 50 executives focused on
the source of external information received. Results revealed that human
sources were much more important than documentary data or physical
phenomena as sources for external information, and that external sources such
as service organizations, competitors, and government agencies were much
more widely used than previously recognized. Little systematization of scanning
programs was found, however, in the industries studied. Keegan pointed to the
need for additional studies of the influence of the few systematic scanning
programs that have been developed and induced in other companies .

Fahey and King (1977) studied the level of environmental scanning
undertaken in 12 large business organizations. Using Aguilar's (1967) definition
of scanning, a survey was developed to identify scanning processes and to
assess the relationship of scanning activities to corporate planning. Three
scanning "models” were proposed: 1) irregular: unanticipated crisis-induced
scanning for short run ends, 2) regular: decision or issue-oriented regular review

of the environment, and 3) continuous: the persistent monitoring of various

14
environmental systems.

A structured interview was developed to measure the scanning model used in
each organization, the relative perceived importance of various environmental
subsystems to the firm, and the degree of integration of scanning and planning
processes.

Results showed that environmental scanning in the vast majority (9/12) of
firms was irregular, ad hoc, and externally initiated. Priority for the most important
environmental system was found to vary by type of firm, and all of the surveyed
firms reported poor integration of scanning and planning processes. Fahey and
King (1977) concluded that ”there is a significant gap between the conventional
assumptions concerning environmental scanning and its implementation in large
corporations" (p. 71).

A similar study by Thomas (1980) reviewed the presence, process, and
content of scanning practices in nine leading corporate organizations. Data was
gathered from published reports on large corporations, and results were based
on a qualitative analysis of reported data.

Results suggested that the important dimensions of the scanning process in
these corporate giants were permanence (continuity over time), periodicity
(cyclicity), and pervasiveness (multi-level, multi-unit activity). Content dimensions
included scope, range and futurity. The multiple phases of the scanning process
were described as monitoring, abstraction, analysis, synthesis, and
communication of environmental Information.

Thomas (1980) concluded that the corporate giant does typically scan social,

political, economic and technological conditions on a continuous, pre-planned

15
basis within a future-oriented perspective. He further stated that the composite
picture of "sophisticated wide angle scanning gained in this study leads to the
anticipation that scanning for corporate planning is on the threshold of rapid
diffusion in the corporate world "(p.20). Results of Jain's (1984) study, however,
would suggest that Thomas' prediction may hold true for only a subset of the
corporate world--corporate giants who are typically large and have had
systematic scanning programs already in place for several years.

Mum, the literature on environmental scanning has focused largely on the
nature and pervasiveness of scanning activity In large organizations. Little
consensus has been reached on an appropriate Classification of types or phases
of environmental scanning. Although several models do Show considerable
overlap, the dimensions used to define scanning modes vary from study to study.
In general, three to four modes of scanning have been identified. Table 1
presents of summary of the principle classifications of scanning modes and the
dimensions underlying each of the suggested schema.

Descriptions of the nature and pervasiveness of environmental scanning
processes in diverse organizations have not been consistent across different
studies, due largely to a lack of convergence on the conceptualization and
operationalization of the scanning construct. In addition, the methodologies used
(e.g., interviews versus archival review), and specific sample characteristics have
varied widely. Studies of scanning at the organizational level of analysis have
focused largely on corporate giants and Fortune 500 organizations, and have

ignored the role of environmental scanning in other types of organizations.

Author

Aguilar
(1967)

Fahey &
King )
(1977

Jain
(1985)

16

Table 1

Summary of Modes of Environmental Scanning

undirected
viewing

irregular

primitive

W
2 3
conditioned informal
viewing search
regular continuous
ad hoc reactive

formal
search

proactive

D’ .

intentionality
formality
of search

orientation
(crisis vs. issue),
continuity

degree of
managerial
initiation,
formalization,
purpose

17

A major contribution of the environmental scanning literature to the
understanding of the processes of executive scanning has been the description
of the content and most frequently used sources of external information, and the
determination of the influence of functional specialty on scanning processes. An
additional perspective on the information acquisition processes is provided by
studies of the role of boundary spanning activities, which are reviewed next.
Waning

The transactions which occur across the peripheries or boundaries of
organizations have been found to be of vital importance for organizational
functioning and maintained viability. (Allen 8 Cohen, 1969; Organ 8 Greene,
1972; Pruden, 1969; Pruden 8 Reese, 1972; Wren, 1967). These ”boundary
spanning activities” which link the focal organization with other organizations or
social systems are considered to be critical elements of the effective monitoring of
the environment and to the transfer of technology and information (Aiken 8 Hage,
1972).

Adams (1976) identified five general types of boundary spanning activity
(BSA): 1) transacting, which involves the acquisition of inputs and disposal of
outputs, 2) filtering inputs and outputs, 3)Searching for and collecting information
and intelligence, 4) representing the organization externally, and 5) protecting
and buffering the organization from external threat. Environmental scanning may
be subsumed under activity 3 (data search and acquisition). The research on the
information processing activities of the boundary spanner are of particular

relevance to the current study.

18

From the information processing perspective, boundary spanning activity
(BSA) has been defined as ”the interpersonal transfer of information across the
organization's boundaries” (Keller et al., 1976, p. 700). Aldrich 8 Herker (1977)
suggested that an organization's ability to adapt to environmental contingencies
depends in part on the expertise of boundary role incumbents in selecting,
transmitting, and interpreting information originating in the environment. These
boundary spanners are exposed to large amounts of potentially important
information on the external environment, and function to defend the organization
against information overload by acting as both filters and facilitators in
determining what information enters, is processed through, and acted upon in the
organization.

Leifer and Delbecq (1978) argued that boundary spanners attend selectively
to aspects of the external environment as a function of what they are told to pay
attention to, their own needs, wants and personalities, past experience, the
potential utility of information, and information redundancy cues. They proposed
a typology of boundary spanning activity which specifies the relationship
between the initiation (regulated, non-regulated) and process (routine, non-
routine) of boundary Spanning as a function of the regularity of information need
and perceived environmental uncertainty.

Leifer and Delbecq suggested that BSA will be more likely to be non-routine
when: 1) exchange with sectors of the environment is not predictable, 2) sources
of information are diverse and changing, 3) people with whom the boundary
spanner interacts are changing, and 4) environmental sources of information are

non-cooperative. The implicit assumption is that routinization of boundary

19
spanning activities is highly dependent on environmental characteristics.

In addition, they maintained that boundary spanning activities will be initiated
when: 1) members of the organization detect a discrepancy between
organizational goals and organizational performance relative to the environment
(e.g., poor sales performance), 2) organizational members are unable to make
decisions based on available information, 3) the environment is perceived by
organizational scanners as unstable or complex, 4) technology is non- routine
and 5) the organization has a multiple goal structure.

Leifer and Delbecq described the most common type of boundary spanning
activity in practice as regulated and routine, based on an anticipated Information
need in conditions of low perceived uncertainty. This type of BSA is exemplified
by routine interactions between supplier and customer. The greatest
disadvantage of this approach to BSA is the relative insensitivity to new or
unexpected sources of external information.

Little research has been encountered to provide specific evidence of the
validity of the propositions of the Leifer and Delbecq model, and the boundary
spanning literature in general has not attempted to settle the issue of the most
common types of boundary spanning activities. Other researchers have studied
additional characteristics of the information transfer role of boundary spanners.

Tushman and Scanlan (1 981 a) studied the internal communication
characteristics of the boundary spanner, the degree of specification of external
communication to particular domains, and the degree of multiple-boundary
spanning in a large R 8 D facility. Results showed that the characteristics and

external orientation of high Internal communicators were significantly different by

20
task area. Professional orientation and organizational experience were found to
be higher for boundary spanners who spanned multiple boundaries, and
spanners of organization-environment boundaries were typically linked very
strongly to multiple (both internal and external) information areas associated with
project task.

A more detailed analysis of the role of boundary spanners in information
transfer was provided in a second article by Tushman and Scanlan (1981b).
Informational boundary spanning was defined as a two-part process:

1) obtaining information from external areas and 2) disseminating that
information to internal users. The definition of boundary spanner used in their
study thus discriminated between internal communication stars (high only in
infra-department communications), and external communication stars, to test the
hypothesis that only individuals high in both intra and extra- organizational
communication can effectively span organizational boundaries.

Employees from four R 8 D departments were interviewed to identify
information transfer linkages, the perceived value of each type of linkage as a
source of external information, and the perceived technical competence of the
source. Results showed that boundary spanners (i.e., both internal and external
communicators) were most frequently perceived as important sources of new and
valuable ideas, and were perceived as more technically competent than the other
two groups.

Dollinger (1984) proposed a study of the effects of boundary spanning and
information processing on organizational performance. The study focused on the

boundary Spanning activities of small business entrepreneurs. The BSA'S of the

21
entrepreneurs were presumed to have important implications for strategic
management, sensitivity to external constituencies and organizational
performance. A three-variable model was proposed which related individual
information processing capability (integrative complexity and intolerance of
ambiguity), boundary spanning activity (intensity and extensity) and
organizational (financial) performance.

Data were collected from surveys received from 82 entrepreneurs, with
organizational variables (type of business, age, number of employees and
estimated total number of employee hours in BSA) also recorded. Results
confirmed a positive relationship between information processing capability and
both intensity and extensity (or range) of BSA, and found a positive relationship
between BSA and financial performance.

Schwab, Ungson, and Brown (1985) examined the relationship between
boundary spanning, organizational structure ( influence, function, and
hierarchical level) and external environment (importance, predictability and
control). Questionnaires were obtained from 379 executive 0136 companies in
the high-technology and wood products industries. Results showed that
boundary spanning was significantly related to perceived importance of the
environment, perceived influence and functional area in both industries, but was
unrelated to hierarchical level in either industry. In the wood products firms,
boundary spanning activity appeared to increase with the ability to predict the
actions of task environmental sectors, but the relationship was weak and this was
not true for high technology firms. Schwab et al. concluded that composite

measures of the environment (including factors such as importance, predictability

22
and control) were necessary to test the relationship betweeen boundary
spanning activity and environment.

W, research on the information processing role of organizational
boundary spanners has suggested that boundary spanning is a two stage
process of information acquisition and internal communication of information.
This process is delimited by characteristics of the individual boundary spanner
(professional orientation, personality, needs, previous experience, function,
internal and external connectedness), organizational characteristics (information
need, regulation of BSA, and goals), and perceived importance, predictability,
complexity, and uncertainty of the external environment.

The one study which found a direct relationship between BSA and a limited
measure of organizational performance is encouraging. Additional research is
necessary, however, to incorporate other characteristics of the information
acquisition and transfer processes which may affect this relationship. In
particular, the boundary spanning literature has not considered the process
through which data on the external environment is translated prior to its
communication to other organizational members. To further comprehend this
process, a more in-depth study is needed of the ways in which individuals select
which cues to attend to and how they go about making sense of equivocal data.
Suggestions on the characteristics of the interpretation process may be obtained
from the information processing literature , which will be reviewed in the next

section.

23
INEQBMAIIQNEBQQESSINQ

The cognitive aspects of managerial information processing for problem-
sensing, decision-making and strategy formulation have been the topic of several
recent studies (Egelhoff, 1982; Kiesler 8 Sproull, 1982; Ungson et al., 1981).
Information is defined as stimuli (or cues ) capable of altering an individual‘s
expectations and evaluation in problem-solving or decision-making. The specific
cognitive processes through which information is selected, combined, weighted
and altered are referred to as information processing strategies (Ungson et al.,
1981). These strategies may take the form of explicit decision rules (e.g.,
Aguilar's,1967, efficiency rule) or as more implicit or tacit cognitive activities
(causal maps, cognitive scripts). Theories of decision-making styles focus on
how individuals and groups develop characteristic patterns of responding to
information input.

Impetus for research in decision-making theory was provided by the works of
Driver and his associates (e.g., Driver 8 Mock, 1975; Driver 8 Streufert, 1969;
Schroder, Driver 8 Streufert, 1967) on the development of a human information
processing systems (HIPS) model. The basic assumption for this model states
that individuals and groups, as systems, develop different tendencies in the way
in which they process information. These tendencies are presumed to be due
primarily to learning based on previous experience.

Driver 8 Streufert (1969) postulated that there are at least two subsystems in
an information processing system. The first is a perceptual subsystem which is
concerned with data search (parallel to previous definitions of scanning

behaviors), and intake, which is defined as that set of processes which code,

24
interrelate, evaluate and store input. This aspect of the subsystem is associated
with the currently accepted notion of interpretation processes. Second, the
executive subsystem translates input into action decisions and strategies.

Subsequent research led to the development of a more elaborate model of
information processing described as Decision Style Theory (Driver 8 Mock,
1975). Decision Style Theory proposes that each person or system has one (or
two) dominant styles which are learned over time. Research (reported in Driver 8
Mock, 1975) suggested that the style of individual and group decision-making is
related to level of management, area of business specialization, and use of
information search and screening. In addition, conceptual structure, degree of
environmental complexity, and personality variables have been found to place
important constraints on decision-making styles.

Additional research on the relevance of the information processing
approaches for the development of models of managerial information systems
has produced several conclusions. First, it has been suggested that, since
problem settings in organizations are typically ill-structured, approaches which
build decision-making aides based on the study of well-structured problems
(often used in laboratory studies) may not be applicable (Connally, 1977).
Braunstein (1976) suggested that, rather than maintaining a focus on prescribed
analytical rational decision-making styles, it may be that more successful
managers are those who have more flexible decision making styles that enable
them to rapidly build and use models that fit their organization's immediate

needs.

25

Secondly, research has shown that the role of the manager as an active filer
and ”pigeonholer" of information may be impeded or facilitated by characteristics
of organizational structure such as favored communication channels, specialized
vocabularies, communication checkpoints and standard operating procedures
(Perrow, 1979). Ungson et al. (1981) proposed that attention to the ways in
which individuals react to demands imposed by organizational structure will
provide a context for explaining how individuals use information inputs.

A second line of research from the cognitive processing literature describes
the characteristics of managerial problem-solving, which is defined as the
cognitive processes of noticing and constructing meaning about environmental
change so that organizations can take action (Kiesler 8 Sproull, 1982). Problem
sensing, the first stage of problem-solving, Is composed of three cognitive
processes: noticing, interpreting, and incorporating stimuli.

In noticing stimuli, managers must distinguish potentially problematic stimuli
from the multiple cues available to them. By this definition, noticing is the
important element of the environmental scanning process involved in the choice
of a relevant subset of external stimuli (Keegan, 1974).

When interpreting stimuli, managers construct or assign meaning to the
stimuli, and this process is influenced by organizational goals, policies, and
strategies (Kaufman, 1963) and response repetoires (March 8 Simon, 1958).
The incorporation of stimuli involves remembering and retaining the interpreted
stimuli and associating them with other relevant cognitions. Organizational
variables such as size, age and institutionalization of control structure influence

the difficulty or ease of information storage and organizational memory.

26

Research based on problem sensing models suggests that decision makers
most likely incorporate information that is discrepant enough with existing
cognitive schema to capture attention but not so discrepant as to seem irrelevant
(Kiesler 8 Sproull, 1982). In sum, this research suggests that the noticing,
interpretation, and incorporation of stimuli is highly biased toward consistency
with existing cognitive schema built from the manager's past experience and
constrained by organizationalcharacteristics. True information --that which alters
conceptions, tests attitudes or changes how data are used-- seems to require
both some measure of inconsistency or incongruency and good concordance
with existing expectations and cognitive organization (Kiesler 8 Sproull, 1982, p.
559)

The basic three-stage model of information processing described above is
consistent (although specific terms and definitions vary somewhat) with previous
literature on environmental scanning and boundary spanning. A major
contribution of the cognitive processing literature to the understanding of
executive scanning and interpretation modes is the attempt to delineate the
tendencies or styles of individual information processing (which includes both
scanning and interpretation), and the individual, organizational and
environmental constraints which are predicted to have greatest impact on
scanning and interpretation.

Although researchers have suggested the utility and applicability of the
information processing models for groups as well as individuals, the focus of
study in the information processing literature has been on the individual decision

maker. A model which views the Charateristics of scanning and interpretation as

27
an organizational phenomena will be reviewed next to complement the micro
approaches of previous models.
r ' i r i

In proposing a model of organizations, Weick 8 Daft (1983) suggest that,
consistent with higher levels of system complexity (of. Boulding, 1956; Pondy 8
Mitroff, 1979), organizations should be conceptualized as complex social
systems which develop specialized information receptors that interact with and
seek information about the environment in which they operate. Basic
responsibility for interpretation of this information is assigned to strategic-level
management, and as these authors stated, "it is the job of management to
interpret" (Weick 8 Daft, 1983, p. 90-91).

Two additional assumptions serve as the basis for the organization
interpretation systems model. It is assumed that organizations differ
systematically in the modes or processes used to interpret the environment (e.g.,
an organization is characterized by a single interpretation style). These
processes of interpretation are supposed to occur according to systematic
variations resulting from organizational and environmental Characteristics. This
assumption is consistent with previous research on cognitive processing In
individuals versus groups (e.g., Driver 8 Streufert, 1969).

The second assumption relates to the distinction between organizational and
individual interpretation processes, and proposes that the organizational process
is somewhat more than what occurs in the individual members of the
organization. While it is recognized that individual organization members carry

out the functions of interpreting for the organization, Weick and Daft argued that a

28
distinctive feature of organizational interpretation is the development of a shared
cognitive map among managers who constitute the interpretation system. As the
authors stated: ”the thread of coherence among managers is what characterizes
organizational interpretations” (Daft 8 Weick, 1984).

Daft 8 Weick suggested that three stages constitute the process through
which an organization goes about knowing its environment: scanning,
interpretation and learning. Similar to previous definitions, (e.g., Aguilar, 1967;
Fahey 8 King, 1977) scanning is defined as the process of monitoring and
collecting data about events and relationships in an organization's environment.
Interpretation occurs at a second stage when the collected data are given
meaning, and is defined as the process of translating events and developing
shared understanding and conceptual schemes among members of upper
management.

Learning is distinguished from interpretation by the concept of action, and
involves a new response (e.g., decision-making, strategy formulation, sthcturaI
modifications) based on the interpretation. Finally, feedback from the results of
organizational actions may provide new data for subsequent scanning and
interpretation processes. This general model is illustrated in Figure 1.

I Based on these assumptions, Daft 8 Weick (1984) proposed a model of
organizational interpretation which seeks to describe the major differences in the
ways in which organizations go about interpreting their environments. Two major
dimensions were used to categorize organizations according to four modes of
interpretation behavior. These dimensions, and the resulting modes, are

described below.

29
Figure l

Relationship among Organizational Scanning, Interpretation and Learning.

 

 

 

Scanning i Interpretation Learning

Data collection Data given meaning ‘ Action taken

1 * i ‘ i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From “Toward a model of organizations as Interpretation systems“ by R. L. Daft
and K E Weick (l984), Academy of Management Journal, 9, p. 286.

30

Environmental analyzability, the first dimension, is based upon the
organization's assumptions about the analyzability of its environment. It is
suggested that the way in which an organization enacts or reacts to its
environment will depend to a great extent on whether the organization assumes
that the environment is analyzable, concrete and subject to discernible,
predictable changes, or Is unanalyzable, subjective and unpredictable. It is
hypothesized that differences in organizational beliefs about the environment are
based on perceived characteristics of the environment and the previous
interpretation experience of the managerial group.

Organizational intrusiveness, the second dimension of the model, is defined
as the extent to which organizations actively intrude into the environment. Levels
of organizational intrusiveness may be classified according to the degree of
organization-initiated search and manipulation of their environments. Passive
organizations characteristically accept whatever information the environment
gives to them, develop interpretations which are informal and unsystematic, and
search actively only in response to a crisis. At the opposite extreme, active
organizations search the environment on a continuous basis, test and manipulate
critical factors In the environment (Pfeffer, 1976), and may attempt to coerce a
favorable interpretation from the environment.

The two dimensions of analyzability of environment and organizational
intrusiveness permit the categorization of organizations into four modes of ~
interpretation behavior: enacting, discovering, conditioned viewing, and
undirected viewing. Enacting organizations are characterized by both an active,

intrusive strategy and the assumption that the environment is unanalyzable.

31
These organizations "leap before they look" (Weick, 1979), and in other ways
take initiative to create and construct their environments.

The discovering mode of organizational interpretation is Characterized by
organizational intrusiveness into the environment in search of a "correct” answer,
and assumes analyzability of the environment. Organizational interpretations are
based on formal data about environmental characteristics and expectations, and
search procedures are likely to be through formal procedures such as
questionaires and surveys.

Consistent with Aguilar's (1967) conceptualization, the conditioned viewing
mode assumes an unintrusive approach to an analyzable environment.
Interpretations are based on review of limited documents, reports, and traditional
information systems. Data collection will tend to be routinized and based on past
experience, and few resources are assigned to the process of external scanning.

Organizations which use an undirected viewing mode of interpretation are
Characterized by the lack of formal scanning structure, irregular scanning
sequences, and little use of formal management information systems. Sources of
environmental information are most frequently informal and search procedures
rely on informal information channels, personal contacts, and available
subjective cues. Daft 8 Weick suggested that interpretation consensus is
achieved in these organizations through extensive infra-organizational
discussion to reduce information equivocality.

An example serves to illustrate the organizational strategies for acquiring and
interpreting information on the external environment. An organization in an

enacting mode, in defining the needs and demands of relevant shareholders,

32
might anticipate these needs by initiating periodic reports to shareholders aimed
at shaping their attitudes in a light which favors the organization. A discovering
organization might conduct a survey of shareholder attitudes, while in the
conditioned viewing mode, an organization would obtain relevant information
through routine but systematic transactions with shareholders (e.g., dividend
checks, voting). Finally, in the undirected viewing mode, an organization could
gain information on shareholder perceptions through informal, personal contacts
and chance encounters with shareholders.

Due to the recency with which it has been proposed, no empirical research
reported substantiates the descriptive relationships suggested In the
interpretation systems model. A major difficulty anticipated in the
operationalization of the model, however, would be the large sample size
required for the organization- level analysis of interpretation mode. Simple
aggregation of managerial interpretations (as used In previous research on
environmental scanning) would provide only partial evidence of organization
mode. An examination of the process of developing a shared cognitive map for
interpretations would have to be included to fit the conceptual definition of the
Daft and Weick model.

A Similar difficulty arises in the testing of the proposed relationships between
the scanning, interpretation, and strategy or action processes. The Implicit
assumption of the Daft and Weick model is that scanning, interpretation, and
decision-making strategies will be consistent within a given mode. Several of the
examples given to Illustrate a particular interpretation mode Involve a major

element of search procedure, which has formerly been described and defined as

33

part of the scanning process (Aguilar, 1967). Thus, to determine the proposed
consistency of scanning and Interpretation modes, it would be necessary to
remove all references to scanning from the definition of interpretation mode.

The model of Interpretation systems adds a level of Integration to the literature
relevant to scanning, interpretation and decision- making processes by
suggesting the variables at the organization level of analysis which provide the
major determinants and context for these processes. Although the four
interpretation modes are quite similar to the scanning modes proposed by
Aguilar (1967) and to some extent, Fahey 8 King (1977), the development and
description of the characteristics of each mode is much more elaborate in the
Interpretation systems model. In addition, the insistence on the need to look at
the process through which a consensual definition of reality is sought is
consistent with a more phenomenological approach ignored In previous models
(Seaton, 1985). Finally, the descriptions of interpretation processes at the macro
level may be used to compliment insights gained from the micro perspective of
cognitive processes.
W

The literature from four major areas of research has been reviewed for
relevant assumptions, definitions, conceptual models, and empirical research
pertinent to the understanding of the process and impact of executive scanning
and interpretation of the external environment. Although there has been
considerable overlap In the processes described, each has made a unique
contribution to the understanding of the scanning and interpretation activities

which occur within organizations. A notable limitation of previous research has

34
been the lack of breadth and variety in the types of organizations upon which
descriptive results are based. In particular, the majority of previous studies have
focused on large, private profit-making organizations.

Taken as a whole, the literature reviewed appears to substantiate the
importance of environmental scanning and interpretation activities as a critical
precondition to organizational adaptation and effectiveness. Although no overall
consensus exists on the most critical antecedents to effective scanning and
Interpretation, research and theory broadly suggest that important contextual
factors for these processes include characteristics of the environment, the
organization, and the individual scanner-interpreter. In light of the findings and
limitations of the reviewed literature, the following general questions are
proposed for the current research:

1. How do executives In non-profit organizations (e.g.,universities,
service organizations) scan and/or Interpret their institution's external
environment?

2. What effects do differences in individual, organizational and perceived
environmental characteristics have on the ways in which executives
scan and/or interpret their external environment?

3. What impact does the scanning and/or interpretation strategies used
by executives have on the effectiveness of their organizations?

To comprehend the nature of specific executive activities relevant to the

acquistion and interpretation of information on the external environment, a model
Is needed to Integrate the insights gained from previous research. The following

chapter suggests a preliminary model of executive scanning and Interpretation.

CHAPTER III
A MODEL OF SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION

The previous review of the theory on scanning and interpretation revealed a
lack of a consensual and coherent model to explain the antecedents and
organizational consequences of scanning and interpretation activities. In
addition, the lack of compelling empirical evidence suggests the need for a
conceptual framework which specifies the nature and relationship of additional
variables which are likely to lead to an improved understanding of an executive's
environmental scanning and interpretation activities.

The present research seeks to develop a descriptive model of executive
scanning and interpretation which can be used as a heuristic for research
development. In the following sections, the assumptions of the model are given,
a general description of the principle relationships is offered, and each of the
major variables is defined. Subsequently, an inventory of specific propositions to
be tested in this study Is presented.

Assumptinns

Consistent with previous conceptual schemes (Aguilar, 1967; Daft 8 Weick,
1984; Driver 8 Moch, 1975), the current model assumes that scanning and
interpretation processes are key antecedents to organizational action, and are
important determinants of organizational effectiveness (Dollinger, 1984; Pickle 8
Friedlander, 1967; Schneider, 1983; Weick 8 Daft, 1983). In addition, it is

assumed that both micro (i.e., individual) as well as macro (i.e., system-relevant)

35

36
characteristics provide the context for scanning and interpretation processes
(Thomas, 1980).

The current model takes an Individual level of analysis for understanding the
context and consequences of executive scanning and interpretation. Executives
are Chosen as the focus of study due to their critical role as boundary spanners,
environmental scanners and interpreters of external information. Furthermore,
since organizations, as social creations, have no ability to act except through
human agents (Zammuto, 1982), the direct focus on the scanning and
interpretation activities of executives avoids a potential problem of reification of
the organization (Cf. Silverman, 1971).

The Information processing approach maintains that the process of scanning
requires a conscious or unconscious Choice on the part of the executive among
multiple cues emanating from the external environment which demand his/her
attention. The choices made by the executive are delimited by, and reflect those
factors in the environment which are perceived as relevant to the executive's task
(Weick, 1969).

Characteristics of the organizational system provide an important context for
the processes and activities of individual members (Nadler, Hackman, 8 Lawler,
1979). Particularly for top-level executives who are held accountable for the
actions and outcomes of the organization, the formal policies, strategies and
“typical ways of doing things” In their specific organization will have a great
impact on their selected strategies of scanning and Interpretation (Kaufman,
1963; Ungson et al., 1981). Even at lower executive levels, organizational

characteristics like policy and structure have been seen to place a significant

37
constraint on individual Initiative (Kerr 8 Jermier, 1978).

Finally, previous research has suggested that executive role characteristics
provide an important determinant of the amount and focus of environmental
scanning and boundary spanning activity (Aguilar, 1967; Dollinger, 1984;
Kefalas 8 Schoderbek, 1973; Schwab, et. al, 1985). The current model suggests
that executive role characteristics will also impact executive strategies of
interpretation of environmental data.

Qxemiew

The proposed model is illustrated in Figure 2. This model suggests that the
scanning and Interpretation strategies developed by a given executive are
bounded by three types of antecedent variables: 1) characteristics of the
perceived external environment, 2) organizational characteristics, and 3) the
Individual role characteristics of the executive. The strategies of executive
scanning, in turn, are presumed to have important consequences for
organizational effectiveness and subunit performance. Characteristics of the
organization are proposed moderators of the relationship between scanning and
performance.

The dotted line which connects scanning and Interpretation characteristics
indicates the potential linkage between these variables. It is suggested that the
scanning and Interpretation processes are connected both logically and
sequentially; that is, It is the data which is acquired through scanning strategies
that form the subsequent content for Interpretation. As previously noted,
however, no empirical research to date has explicitly studied the relationship

between scanning and interpretation. The conceptual model which proposed a

.ucoEco..:>cw —mcgouxm may no co—HMuogagmuS can ocEcmofl m>3=umxw 50 $002 Baunoocou < N 0.5m;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oucmEotoa 2:225 82:
8588.. 323333
mmm2u>fiumtm zofi<rmmammhz 3:28.33 38:82:.
._<zo:<~_z<wao / 382888.:
__ m 852096
_
o _ v mquEP—HZE‘IO
oucnom
n
mz_zz<um
A<FZM§OG_>ZM N mmmcm>_m=.:c_
— mLDuUDgum
> a mu_._.m.mm._.u<a<1u
:6. EB 22925530
3:382»?

 

 

 

 

._.2m720a_>2m 4<ZKMFXm
Om> _ mumma

 

 

 

39
general consistency of scanning and interpretation modes ( Daft 8 Weick, 1984)
failed to successfully maintain a Clear and consistent differentiation of the data
acquisition versus sense-making characteristic of these processes. The
confounding of the essential distinction between these variables does not, as a
result, allow predictions concerning the nature of the relationship between
scanning and Interpretation. Because the focus of the current model is on the
characteristics of scanning strategies and interpretation modes (rather than on
general characteristics of the scanning and interpretation processes), no a priori
rationale exists to justify predictions about linkages between scanning and
interpretation. Therefore, although the conceptual model recognizes the
potential relationship between scanning and interpretation, this linkage will not
be directly addressed in the current study.

The arrows in Figure 2 represent the best a priori model of the antecedents
and consequences of scanning and Interpretation. Lines have been drawn to
represent the major relationships between sets of variables. More complex
relationships among these variables may exist. For example, two potential
moderator effects are noted below. The remainder of this chapter presents a
rationale for the causal relationships suggested by the directionality of these
arrows, and elaborates on additional factors which may effect of some of the
suggested linkages. While It is recognized that correlational data of the type
presented in this study do not "prove” causality, the absence of hypothesized ‘
correlations would provide substantial evidence for rejection of causal

hypotheses.

40

The model presented in Figure 2 suggests a general framework for
understanding executive scanning and interpretation. Before presenting and
defending the various linkages, definitions for each of the major variables will be
provided.

11 i ' ' l i hi

W The distinction between scanning
and Interpretation activities has frequently been difficult to maintain for, as Aguilar
(1967) suggests, "we are dealing with two interacting halves of the same loop”
(p.17). In the current model, however, a distinction will be drawn by focusing
scanning on the activities of Information search and acquisition, and by defining
interpretation as the translating and sense-making process. The specific
conceptual definitions of these variables are described in detail below.

Welles, Scanning Is defined as the activity of searching
for and acquiring data about events and relationships in an organization's
external environment. Scanning source and scanning initiation are two
particularly relevant aspects of scanning revealed by a review of the scanning
literature.

Source of information is a characteristic of scanning that defines the point of
origin from which data on the external environment is acquired. Sources have
been classified as personal-impersonal and as internal-external to the
organization (Aguilar, 1967; Culnan, 1983; Hambrick, 1979). Internal sources
Include subordinates, superiors, other organizational members, organizational
documents and data banks; external sources include both objective documents

and members of the external environment. Personal sources (also described as

41
”human" by Keegan, 1974) refer to data acquired through communication with
other Individuals (subordinates, peers, clients). Examples of impersonal sources
include written documents, reports, and journals.

A second dimension along which scanning activities may be defined is the
degree of scanning initiation, or the degree of active search which leads to data
acquisition. AS a dimension of scanning strategy, scanning Initiation may be
defined as the extent to which data search requires a direct request or action on
the part of the executive. The principle component of this dimension reflects the
extent to which an executive actively initiates the search for relevant data on the
external environment when routinely acquired data proves inadequate. Thus,
Similar to the solicited versus unsolicited dimension used by Aguilar (1967),
scanning initiation focuses on the strategies used by the executive for data
search. Examples of high Initiation include developing surveys to test the
external environment, setting up committees to obtain Information, and directly
contacting members of the external environment to request information. Low
Initiation might Include the review of routinely published reports, or, at an
extreme, the total failure to search for information.

Wigs, Interpretation is defined as the process by
which acquired data on the external environment is translated into information
useful to the executive and his/her organization for decision making and action.
The current research focuses on the strategies used by the executive to process
and make sense of data acquired through the scanning process.

A major component of the interpretation process has been identified as

equivocality reduction (Daft 8 Weick, 1974). Equivocality of data acquired

42
through scanning procedures Is experienced to the extent that data about the
environment are subject to multiple Interpretations. As a contextual factor, the
amount of equivocality, or extent to which equivocality is perceived to exist In the
acquired data, is predicted to set limits on the equivocation reduction strategies
which an executive uses.

Strategies for reducing equivocality are aimed at achieving a single
interpretation of the data. Little previous research exists to describe the specific
modes used by executives for Interpretation of strategic Information, but an
attempt will be made to suggest a tentative schema for modes of Interpretation.

Borrowing from the notion of autocratic versus consultative decision-making
styles described by Vroom 8 Yetton (1973), the current model suggests that an
executive engaged In Interpretation may exhibit a preference for individual
versus consultative sense making strategies. An ”autocratic" mode might Involve
a preference or general tendency toward infra-executive analyses (i.e., those in
which the executive-scanner reaches an acceptable Interpretation without help
from anyone else). In contrast, an executive may exhibit a preference for
equivocality reduction through a ”consultative” mode, which involves discussion
with other executives or subordinates to reach a common interpretation. Given
that previous research does not exist to suggest the conditions under which one
style of interpretation will be preferred over another, a tentative hypothesis Is
derived from the conceptual models proposed in the information processing and
Interpretation systems literature.

33W Traditional definitions of the construct of external

environment have relied heavily on a limited set of critical characteristics of the

43
environment which are perceived by organizational members. Perceived
environmental uncertainty has been the most frequently studied characteristic of
external environment In past research (Duncan, 1972; Lawrence 8 Lorsch, 1967;
Neghandi 8 Reiman, 1972). Other dimensions of perceived environment
included in previous research are turbulence, complexity, instability and
heterogeneity (Dill, 1958; Emery 8 Trist, 1965; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings 8 Turner,
1969; Terrebeny, 1968; Thompson, 1967). Ratherthan relying solely on
previous research, however, the dimensions of external environment used in the
current study were selected for consistency with the information processing
assumptions of the proposed model.

From an information processing perspective, the organization's external
environment represents a collection of highly Complex and equivocal stimuli that
emanate from multiple constituent groups that interact with and constrain the
organization (Weick, 1979). Each constituency sends equivocal cues to the
organization on the nature of its demands and preferences for organizational
performance, and Is biased in its assessment of the organization's activities
based on the degree of satisfaction of these demands (Connally, Conlon, 8
Deutsch, 1980).

Due to Information processing limitations, individuals in organizations are
only able to attend to a small subset of the total number of cues available In the
external environment. A major dimension which may affect the degree to which
an executive will search for and/or be receptive to given environmental cues

Involves the level of perceived analyzability of the environment.

44

Daft and Weick (1984) suggested that assumptions about the analyzability of
the environment are derived from the perceived characteristics of the
environment combined with management's previous interpretation experience.
Characteristics of the environment which help to shape these assumptions
Include the degree and rate of change and predictability of external constituent
demands, difficulty or ease of penetration, and accessiblity of external sources of
information. No empirical research exists to date that suggests the extent to
which these constitute separate (i.e., independent) dimensions or equivalent
measures of the construct of analyzability. Daft and Weick's discussion
emphasizes the need to investigate the contribution of each characteristic to our
understanding of perceived analyzability. The current research attempts to
operationalize and Incorporate the notion of analyzability as an important
component of perceived environment. This component has been omitted from
prior research on scanning and interpretation.

Previous research on organization-environment interaction has shown that
when the environment is subjective, difficult to penetrate or Changing (Duncan,
1972), managers will see it as less analyzable (Perrow, 1967; Tung, 1979). A
highly analyzable environment Is seen as rationalized, that is, subject to
discernible, predictable uniformitles in relationships among significant objects.
Major differences have been found in the extent to which environments were
seen as analyzable versus unanalyzable (Aguilar, 1967; Wilensky, 1967).

Complexity is a second dimension of the external environment which is
relevant to managerial scanning and Interpretation strategies. As environments

become more complex or heterogeneous, requirements for Information about the

45
environment increase (Gifford, Bobbitt, 8 Slocum, 1979; Tushman 8 Nadler,
1978). Leifer and Delbecq (1978) suggested that increased Information need is
a key antecedent to increased boundary Spanning activity. It has also been
suggested that managers pay greater attention to cues which are relevant to their
specific tasks and that environmental complexity affects Individual decision
making and information processing (Driver 8 Streufert, 1969).

Environmental complexity is defined by the nature and number of external
constituencies which are relevant to a given executive's task. At the executive
level, this may include both the number of different constituency groups (e.g., the
number of different types of Industries) a given executive is responsible for
monitoring, as well as the number of members within each constituent group
(e.g., one versus multiple organizations within each industry). A third component
of the construct of complexity focuses on the nature of interactions with the
external environment (similar to Culnan's, 1983, notion of task complexity). This
component can be defined in terms of the number of different types of modes of
interaction (e.g., types of services or products provided to the external
environment) required by the executive's task.

An overall measure of perceived environmental complexity is defined as the
number of constituent groups and nature of interactions relevant to the
executive's task. As an example, a highly complex environment for a university
might be typified as involving the provision of multiple services (e.g., teaching,
research, extension services) to many members of multiple constituent groups
(undergraduate students, research funding Institutions, community service

agencies).

46

It is suggested that complexity is a characteristics of perceived environment
distinguishable from analyzability. For example, a university executive may
provide a basic service for one constituent group (e.g., an alumni director solicits
funds from alumni). The environment will be perceived as highly analyzable if
the executive is able to comprehend and anticipate the dynamics of the
interactions with this constituent. On the other hand, an executive's task may
require a very specific and direct relationships with only one constituent (e.g.,
automotive parts suppliers-«General Motors) yet the executive may find It
Impossible to predict changes in the demands of the constituent. Thus, the
current model suggests that complexity and analyzability are separate
dimensions of perceived external environment.

r i i n I ri i

In addition to the perceived characteristics of the external environment,
characteristics of the organization as a system provide a context for the
development of Individual behavior and strategy (Katz 8 Kahn, 1978).
Organizational characteristics are defined as the distinguishing properties of the
formal structure and policy on the acquisition and interpretation of data on the
external environment. Traditional measures of organizational context include
size, age and line (or type) of business (James 8 Jones, 1978). In the scanning
and boundary spanning literature, Size, industry and formalization are
Characteristics included in previous research (Aguilar, 1967; Hambrick, 1981;-
Keegan, 1974; Schwab et al., 1985).

Consistent with the Information processing perspective, It is assumed that

structural characteristics provide a particularly Important context for executive

47
scanning and interpretation. Two frequently measured characteristics of
organizational structure are formalization and inflexibility (Keegan, 1974; Kerr 8
Jermier, 1978; Thomas, 1980). Organizational formalization has been
Characterized by the existence of written work goals, guidelines and ground
rules. lnflexibllity has been defined in terms of the rigidity of organizational rules
and operating procedures. The lack of decision-making autonomy associated
with a more formalized, Inilexible organizational structure is predicted to affect
the extent to which executive scanning and Interpretation strategies deviate from
established organizational policy. Similarly, formalization and inflexibility are
expected to Influence the extent to which an executive's practices will have an
Impact on the performance of his/her subunit.

A second organizational characteristic predicted to affect executive scanning
and Interpretation is organizational policy regarding data acquisition and
Interpretation strategies. The essence of this characteristic Is captured In the
notion of ”organizational intrusiveness" discussed in Daft and Weick (1984).
Intrusiveness is defined as the extent to which organizational policy supports the
active monitoring, search and/or manipulation of the external environment.
Structural Indicators of organizational Intrusiveness Include the presence of
planning, forecasting, and/or research departments, the relevance or impact of
these types of activities to the overall objective and strategy of the organization,
the formality and routinization of planning structure, and the allocation of
resources to search activities (Daft and Weick, 1984). Additionally, the attitudes
of key executive officers on the importance and appropriate procedures for

scanning and interpretation may be important indicators of organizational

48
intrusiveness.

Beyond the direct effects of assumptions about the external environment and
organizational instrusiveness on executive scanning strategies, the current
model suggests that these variables may jointly affect executive interpretation,
i.e., equivocality reduction. Specific propositions on this relationship are
developed based on Interpretation systems theory.

I l' . I | El | . |'

Little Is known about the individual attributes associated with the motivation
to attend to the organization's larger environment or the ability to accurately
comprehend It (Schneider, 1983). A few studies have suggested that personality
characteristics, such as locus of control, affect strategy and Innovation
(Brockhous, 1975; Driver 8 Streufer, 1969; Miller et al., 1982), but empirical
evidence relative to executive scanning behavior has been Inconclusive.

More persistent In the literature on boundary spanning and environmental
scanning has been the study of the characteristics associated with the
executive's role. Executive role characteristics are defined as attributes of the
executive which are associated with the performance of the executive's principle
tasks. Consistent with past research, the current model suggests that use of
Information sources will be in part determined by the functional specialty, level of
hierarchy, and previous experience of the executive (Aguilar, 1967; Hambrick,
1982; Kiesler and Sproull, 1982). Functional specialty IS defined as the area of
specialization to which the executive's role responsibilities and major tasks
adhere. Examples of functional specialty In universities include business,

medicine, and agriculture. Hierarchical level is defined by the position the

49
executive holds In the organizational chain of command, and Is usally delimited
in the organizational chart. Previous experience is defined as the number of
years/ months of formal occupancy of the executive role. The current model
suggests that these characteristics, found to be Important in studies of
profit-making organizations, will also be relevant for the study of universities.

The construct of organizational effectiveness has been frequently used in
previous research as an "ultimate dependent variable” (Campbell, 1977),
bottom-line measure of performance (Nord, 1983), and major criterion for
organizational assessment (Pfeffer, 1977). Given the recent criticisms leveled by
several authors of the lack of theory-guided research on organizational
effectiveness, and the failure of researchers to specify the rationale for choice of
effectiveness criteria (Cameron 8 Whetton, 1983; Seaton, 1985), the current
research sought to define the effectiveness construct consistent with the
perspective of organizations taken in the proposed conceptual model.

The information processing model emphasizes the role of scanning and
interpretation processing in Increasing the ability of the organization to respond
to or enact the external environment. The ultimate criteria for effectiveness is
seen as organizational survival, which is heavily dependent on appropriate
organizational adaptation to the external environment.

An important Indicator of appropriate adaptation is the organization's
success In securing critical resources (Pfefier 8 Salancik, 1978). Organizational
effectiveness has been defined as the ability of the organization to exploit its

environment In the acquisition of scarce and valued resources (Yuchtman 8

50
Seashore, 1967). Consistent with the Information processing model described in
the current chapter, this definition of organizational effectiveness emphasizes the
importance of organization-environment exchange processes, and the function of
the environment as receiver of outputs and source of inputs required for
organizational survival.

A second indicator of organizational effectiveness consistent with the
multiple-constituent definition of the environment is the extent to which the
organization satisfies the demands of a subset of critical constituents. The
conceptual model developed in this Chapter suggests that a comprehensive
consideration of the effectiveness of a given organization involves, foremost, the
determination of the subset of constituents which are perceived by organizational
members as most critical to organizational survival (Zammuto, 1982). Once this
subset is determined, effectiveness can be measured as the extent to which the
varying and perhaps conflicting needs of each member of this critical subset are
met. Such an exhaustive consideration, while conceptually relevant, is beyond
the scope of the current research. In the present study, an intermediate
approach is used which focuses directly on the satisfaction of the needs of a
single environmental constituent whose relevance to organizational survival has
been suggested by previous research.

Given the complex and often political nature of modern social organizations,
the contributions of individual behavior to overall effectiveness are frequently
weighted by a multitude of intervening considerations (e.g., the interdependence
of subunits, subunit power, organizational structure). As a result, the strategies

and actions of an executive are likely to have the most detectable impact on the

51

performance of the executive's subunit. Therefore, in the current research, It is
suggested that, while executive scanning strategies may ultimately Impact the
overall effectiveness of the organization, the most immediate effect will be on the
performance of the executive's subunit. Thus, the dependent variable measured
in the current research was subunit performance, as defined in terms of resource
acquisition and satisfaction of constituent demands.

Even at the subunit level, characteristics of the organization may have an
impact on the relationship between individual behavior and subunit outcomes.
The current model suggests that the characteristics of organizational structure

constrain the impact of executive scanning strategies on subunit performance.

Summit;

Based on the above definitions and general relationships among the
variables in the scanning and Interpretation model, the present study seeks to
further refine the research questions presented in Chapter II. These questions,
and their relationships to the linkages in the model (Figure 2) are summarized
below.

1. How do executives scan and/or interpret their external
environment?

1.1 How do they get information on a relevant constituent in
the external environment? Are they proactive In searching
for information, or does it most frequently come to them,
unsolicited, through routine procedures?

1.2 What sources are most frequently used?

 

 

52

1.3 How do they make sense of equivocal information? Do
they, for example, base interpretations on their own
knowledge, past experience, opinions of subordinates or
peers?

What effects do differences in executive role, organizational

and perceived environmental Characteristics have on the

ways in which executives scan and/or Interpret their external

environments?

2.1 Is there a consistent relationship between the assumptions the
executive makes about the external environment and the ways in
which he/she approaches the tasks of scanning and/or
interpretation? (Links 1,3).

2.2 Do organizational structure and policy significantly
Impact scanning and/or Interpretation strategies? (Links
2,3 ).

2.3 Do scanning and/or interpretation strategies vary as a
function of the executive's amount of previous experience,
hierarchical position, or functional specialty? (Links 4,5).

Is there a significant relationship between the scanning

strategies used by executives and the effectiveness of their

subunhs?

3.1 Do organizational characteristics act as moderators of
the relationship between scanning strategies and subunit

effectiveness? (Link 6).

53

Hypotheses

In an attempt to further specify the expected direction of the relationships
suggested by the general model, a list of tentative propositions has been derived
from the limited empirical evidence available. In the absence of Specific empirical
evidence, certain hypotheses have also been added based on previously
proposed conceptual descriptions of the variables in the model.

WWW Some SUPPOFI exists for
the relationship between analyzability of the environment and scanning activities.
Keegan (1974), In a study of 13 International corporations, found that managers
In less analyzable environments relied more heavily on information obtained
from colleagues in the environment (i.e., external personal sources). Daft and
Weick (1984) suggested that the less analyzable the perceived external
environment, the greater the tendency for managers to acquire data from
personal contact with other managers. When the environment is assumed
analyzable, a larger portion of data will be acquired through formal, impersonal

sources. This suggests the following hypothesis:

H1: The use of personal versus Impersonal sources is

correlated with the level of perceived analyzability of the
environment.

H1 a: Executives will use personal sources more frequently

than Impersonal sources when the environment Is
unanalyzable.

54

Research on the relationship between environmental complexity and source
usage has been scarce, and no studies have been found in the scanning
literature which approach the constmct of complexity from a multiple constituent
or an Information processing perspective. Only one study directly measured the
relationship between task complexity and source usage. Culnan (1983) found
that the frequency of use of information sources was positively related to the
perceived complexity of the task environment. An attempt is made in the current

research to test the generalizability of this result, thus suggesting:
H2: There is a positive relationship between environmental

complexity and the frequency of scanning source usage.

Waning. Although the effect of
organizational intrusiveness on executive scanning strategy has not been
studied, the literature reviewed suggests that executives, as key agents of
organizational action, would be Influenced by organizational policy on
intrusiveness into the external environment. To actively scan the external
environment, executives depend on appropriate resources (e.g., funds for travel)
which are frequently allocated from the overall organizational budget. In
addition, executives require the approval of and support from upper
management to include scanning as a part of their role and function.
Organizations which actively Intrude Into the environment, according to Daft and
Weick (1984), allocate resources to search activities, build planning, forecasting
or special research departments, and may send agents Into the field to gather

intelligence data. It Is expected, then, that executives in intrusive organizations

55
will be encouraged by organizational policy to more actively scan their
environments. Therefore, a positive relationship is predicted between
organizational Intrusiveness and frequency of executive initation of search for
external data.

Results of research by Kerr and Jerrnier (1978) suggest some caution
relevant to this prediction. In that Study, It was found that organizational
formalization and organizational inflexibility were two structural characteristics
which to some extent moderated the impact of leadership mode on subordinate
performance. Translated to the above proposition, this finding suggests that, In
the transition from organizational policy to individual action (executive scanning),
the degree to which the organization Is characterized by written work goals,
guidelines and rigid rules and operation procedures may be a relevant
consideration. This relationship is Illustrated In Figure 3 and a rationale for the
expected linkage ls discussed below.

It may be reasoned that, in highly formalized and inflexible organizations,
Consistency with organizational policy is demanded. Hence, if organizational
policy supports and rewards active intrusivness into the environment, executives
will more frequently initiate search for external data. In organizations
characterized by less formalization and greater flexibility in the range of
acceptable ways of interacting with the environment, there will be a weaker
relationship between organizational policy and executive scanning. Consistent
with this view, Egelhoff (1982) found that both the type and level of individual

Information processing varied according to organizational structure.

56

 

INTRUSI VENESS

 

 

 

--_.

 

STRUC i'URE

 

F-
l_

 

 

4

 

INITIATION

 

 

 

Figure 3 Relationship Between Strdcture, Intrusiveness and Scanning initiatmn.

57

Thus, it is proposed that:

H3: The degree of relationship between policies of

C
I A

organizational intrusiveness and executive initiation of

search will vary with the Characteristics of organizational structure.
H33: When organizational structure is highly formalized,

organizational intrusiveness and Initiation of search will

be correlated positively.
H3b: When organizational structure Is low (not formalized),
organizational intrusiveness and initiation of search will not

be correlated.

= ° ‘0. I turn, -.I. O o-.|_-.lo -. era”. in

Interpretation, In general, It has been suggested that, when the environment Is

perceived as hostile or threatening, more resources will be allocated to

information acquisition activities (I.e., intrusiveness will increase) (Wilensky,

1967). Hedberg, (1981) also suggested that when the environment Is perceived

as benevolent, organizations have weaker Incentives to be intrusive. Thus, one

might expect a naturally occuring negative relationship between perceived

analyzability of the external environment and organizational intrusiveness, so

that the greater the degree of analyzability of the environment, the less emphasis

the organization will place on supporting the environmental scanning activities of

the executive.

58

Daft and Weick (1984), however, suggested a more complex interaction
between analyzability and organizational intrusiveness as it relates to
subsequent interpretations of data on the external environment. They proposed
that equivocality reduction will be greatest In organizations Characterized as
undirected viewing (unanalyzable environment, low organizational
Intrusiveness). Because data acquisition in undirected viewing organizations is
irregular and acquired through personal contacts, the acquired external data will
be subject to multiple Interpretations. Under these conditions, it is assumed that
executives will reduce equivocality through extensive discussion with other
executives to achieve a common interpretation (Weick, 1979). In conditioned
viewing and discovering organizations (analyzable environment), equivocality
will be reduced primarily through routinization and systematic analyses of data,
and less discussion is needed to Interpret environmental cues.

The proposed relationships between organizational Intnrsiveness, perceived
analyzability of the environment, and interpretation have not been systematically
investigated; Hence, based on the conceptual propositions established by Daft

and Weick (1984), the current model proposes that:
H4: Both perceived analyzability of the environment and

organizational intrusiveness will signficantly effect

equivocality reduction mode.
H48: When the perceived environment is unanalyzable and

organizational intrusiveness is low, equivocality

reduction will most frequently be achieved through the

59

consultation mode.
H46: When the environment Is assumed analyzable and

organizational Intrusiveness is high, perceived equivocality
will be low and consultation will be less frequently used.
mafimflmmamsngsfigaamag. Several researchers have
investigated the impact of executive role on scanning amount and initiation.
Aguilar (1967) found that experienced managers received significantly more
solicited (I.e., manager-Initiated) Information than did less experienced
managers. It is predicted that this relationship will be stable across different

types of organizations, thus suggesting:
H5: More experienced executives will actively initiate search

procedures more often than less experienced executives.
The relationship between functional specialty, and hierarchical level and
frequency of scanning source usage has been suggested in previous research,
but support has not been consistent across studies. Thus, these relationships will

be considered in the current study, which proposes that:
H6: The frequency of use of specific Information sources is

related to the functional specialty and hierarchical level of

the executive.

Winn, Several authors have suggestedthat

experience is a major determinant of interpretation (Daft 8 Weick, 1984; Driver 8
Mock, 1975; Schroder et al., 1967). No predictions were found, however, on the

nature or direction of this relationship. In general the literature on organizational

60
behavior suggests that individuals with less experience in their roles may depend
more on others within the organization for assistance in interpreting task-relevant
data. Based on this general rationale, the current model seeks to explore the
relationship between executive experience and equivocality reduction mode, and

suggests the following tentative hypothesis:
H7: Less experienced executives will use consultative modes

for equivocality reduction more often than more experienced

execufives.
MW While not Ignoring the role

of many Intervening organizational process variables, the current model seeks to
explore the relationships between characteristics of executive scanning activities
and subunit performance. Initial support for the existence of the scanning/
performance relationship was provided by Dollinger (1984) who found a positive
relationship between the Intensity and extensity of boundary spanning activities
and an organization's financial performance.

Research by Kerr and Jerrnier (1978) suggests, however, that the extent to
which executive practices will affect organizational outcomes will be in part
dependent upon organizational formalization and Inflexibility of rules and policy.
Therefore, it is suggested that:

H8: The relationship between executive scanning strategies and

subunit performance will be dependent upon the level of

organizational stmcture

61
H8a3 When organizational stnIcture is low, scanning and
performance will be positively correlated.
“85‘ When organizational structure is high, scanning and

performance will not be correlated.
Table 2 summarizes the predicted relationships between the variables
described by the conceptual model developed in the current study. The next
chapter provides a description of the method and procedures used to test the

suggested hypotheses.

62
Table 2

Conceptual Links and Hypotheses

LtoklzlxnotIJesis

1

H12

H22

The use of personal versus impersonal sources“ is
correlated wrth the level of percerved analyzabIIIty of the
envrronment.

H1a:. Executives will use personal sources more frequently
than Impersonal sources when the envrronment Is
unanalyzable.

There is a positive relationship between environmental
complexity and the frequency of scanning source usage.

H3: The degree of relationship between organizational

H52

intrusiveness and executive initiation of search will vary
with the level of organIzatIonal structure.

H3a: When organizational structure is highly formalized,
organizatronal Intrusiveness and InitiatIon of search
will be correlated positively.

H3b: When organizational structure is low (not
formalized), or anizational intrusiveness and initiation of
search will not 9 correlated.

Both perceived analyzability of the environment and
organizational intrusiveness will signficantly effect
equivocality reduction mode.

H43: When the perceived environment is unanalyzable and
organizational Intrusiveness Is low, equivocality
reduction will most frequently be achieved through
the consultation mode.

H4b3 When the environment Is assumed analyzable and
organizational intrusiveness is high, perceived
equivocality will be low and consultation will be less
frequently used.

More experienced executives will Initiate active search
procedures more often than less expenenced executives.

H6: The frequency of use of specific information sources Is

H72

related to the functional specialty and hierarchical level
of the executive.

Less experienced executives will use consultative modes
for equivocality reduction more often than more
experienced executives.

H8:

63

Table 2 (cont'd)

The relationship between executive scanning strategies

and subunit performance will be dependent upon the level
of organizational structure

H8a3 When organizational structure is low, scanning and
performance will be correlated.

H8b: When organizational structure is low, scanning and
performance will not be correlated.

CHAPTER IV
METHOD

Semis

One of the questions of Interest in the current research concerned the
extent to which descriptive findings on scanning practices of profit-making
business firms were relevant to the scanning and interpretation activities of other
types of organizations. To answer this question, public universities were selected
as the population for the current research. Universities were considered a
relevant target of study for several reasons. First , data on their activities, budgets
and policies iS accessible to the public. Secondly, recent changes in the
economic structure surrounding public universities suggested an appropriate
context for the study of strategies of data acquisition and Interpretation of
information on the external environment.

The current environment of American Universities has been characterized
as one of tightening finances, declining enrollments and rapid change (Keller,
1983). One approach taken by public universities to combat declining levels of
funding from state and federal governments (traditionally, the most powerful
environmental constituents and suppliers of resources) has been to develop and
explore ties to organizations In the private business sector. Prior to the
development of the current study, a study was conducted to determine the status
and nature of linkages between universities and business firms in the given

geographical region. The current research was designed In conjunction with that

64

65

study to provide specific indications of the scanning and Interpretation strategies
of executives of the participating universities.

Sunsets. Participants In this study were executives from four midwestern
research universities. The total sample Included 142 executives in four major
administrative positions: deans and assistant deans (16%), directors and
assistant directors (25%), department chairs (50%), and coordinators and
supervisors (8%). Average previous experience In the executive position was
10.6 years.

ELQGQQULQ

The presidents of four large public Midwestern research universities were
contacted and agreed to participate in a project designed to study the levels of
Interaction between public Institutions of higher education and business firms. A
preliminary study was conducted at each of the four participating institutions to
determine the existence and extent of university-industry linkage, and to Identify
university subunits with an established history of contact with private business
firms. Since it may be argued that not all functional units within a given university
would consider the business environment an appropriate constituent, it was
important to determine the extent to which specific subunits defined the private
business firm as a relevant environmental constituent (i.e., having some impact
on the unit as a source of resources, receiver of services or output, etc.)

Telephone interviews with unit heads (e.g., deans, program directors) were
used to determine the general nature and extent of contact with the business
environment. The results of the preliminary study provided a list of 9 functional

units which, across the four universities, had definable levels of contact with the

66

business environment. These units were included In the current study:
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Business, Computer Services, Education,
Engineering, Liberal Arts , Lifelong Learning, Medicine, and Natural Science.

A questionnaire and cover sheet explaining the purpose of the present
study were mailed to 142 executives in the identified subunits at each university.
Included with the questionnaire was an addressed stamped envelope for
returning the questionnaire directly to the researcher, thus assuring the
confidentiality of the responses. A follow-up letter was mailed to all subjects two
weeks later to encourage them to complete and return the questionnaire.

In addition, 23 personal Interviews were scheduled with higher ranking
university officials (Vice Presidents, Deans) to gain qualitative data on
organizational context variables and data on the official's scanning and
interpretation activities. For these executives, the same items covered in the
mailed questionnaire were used in an individual interview protocol, and
responses were recorded by a team of two Interviewers. Interview and
questionnaire data were examined for evidence of systematic differences in
response. No differences were found, and Interview and questionnaire data
were therefore combined for the purpose of data analysis.
Beseamlunstrumems.

Given the descriptive nature of the majority of research on environmental
scanning, most of the instruments used to measure these processes have been
designed by the researcher for the specific organizations/Industries Included in
the sample (e.g., Hambrick, 1979). As a result, no standardized instrumentation

was available to measure scanning, and Instruments which would be appropriate

67
for measurement of the analyzability and intrusiveness constructs, in particular,
have not been developed to date. The first task of the current study, therefore,
was to construct an instrument to measure the variables described In the
conceptual model.

A questionnaire was developed to measure the dimensions of perceived
environment, executive role characteristics, organizational characteristics and
scanning and interpretation activities described in the conceptual model.
Indicators for each of these variables are listed in Appendix A, and a sample
questionnaire Is provided in Appendix B.

Content validity of survey items was assessed through the use of academic
experts and practicing administrators in the four universities. In a pilot study, the
questionnaire was administered in a structured interview format to 30 university
administrators and 10 organizational researchers. In addition to giving specific
responses to questionnaire items, participants were asked to make editorial
suggestions to Improve the clarity and relevance of each item. The final scales
are described below.

WI The major dimensions of scanning are scanning
source and scanning initiation. Sgamjagsgum was assessed by asking
subjects to indicate the frequency (on a seven point scale ranging from ”not at all"
to ”daily or more often") with which they routinely received information about
business firms from each of ten different sources. The list of sources was
narrowed from lists used by previous researchers and through pilot interviews
with executives In the four universities. Sources were distinguished as personal

(e.g., those requiring face-to-face or verbal contact) and impersonal

68
(e.g.,documents, data bases, periodicals). Respondents' estimates of their use of
each type of source were summed to obtain an overall score which represented
the total frequency with which they regularly received external information from
all sources. In addition, a separate score was calculated for the total frequency of
use of personal and impersonal sources.

Sgaaaiagjajtjatjga was measured on a seven point scale which asked
respondents to indicate how often they used any of 12 different approaches to
actively ssarga for Information (i.e, go beyond that which they routinely receive)
about business firms. Examples of approaches ranged from ”review routinely
published reports" to "call someone in the relevant business firm", ”send surveys
to business firms" (A complete list of Items for this dimension appears In
Appendix C ).

Wings, The major dimension of executive interpretation
considered In this study was equivocality reduction mode. The degree of
equivocality was also considered to provide the context for understanding
equivocality reduction mode. For degree of equivocality, respondents were
asked to Indicate on a five point scale the frequency ("never’ to “almost always”)
with which they receive unclear data on business firms. The single equivocality
reduction mode item asked respondents to describe the approaches taken to
reduce ambiguity. Responses were independently coded by two raters to
represent autocratic versus consultative modes. Intercoder reliability was .93.

WW. Two dimensions of perceived
environment considered in this study were environmental complexity and

analyzability. Qamplsxitywas measured in three ways: 1) Frequency of

69
participation in each of 10 different cooperative activities with business firms
(interaction modes); 2) total number of Industries with which the unit had
cooperated (e.g., provided courses, research or training programs) in the
previous two year period, and 3) total number of firms with which the unit had
cooperated In the last two years. A total complexity scale was formed by
combining the three indicators of complexity.

A four item scale was designed to measure the construct of analyzaajljty as
defined by Daft 8 Weick (1984). Two items referred to the existence or frequency
of change In business firm's requests for services from the unit, while the other
two items asked respondents: To what extent were changes in business firm's
requests predictable? ( "Not at all" to ”extremely predictable”); and, How easy Is It
to get information about the needs which business firms have for services from
your unit? The three Indicators of analyzability were labeled change,
predictability, and accessibility, respectively.

Qrgaajzatiaaalgaagagteasjjgs. Two major organizational variables
predicted to impact executive scanning and interpretation were structure and
Intmsiveness. W was measured using four Items adapted
from Kerr 8 Jermier‘s (1978) scale of formalization and inflexibility (see Appendix
C). These items tapped the extent to which formal guidelines, written goals and
objectives, and formal and consistent policies exist to govern cooperation
between the university and Industry.

A scale was constructed to measure the constmct of gmgaizatigaal
rataJsivsagss, drawing from the conceptual descriptions of Daft and Weick

(1984). Accordingly, three components Included in the construct were resource

7O

allocations for scanning activities, organizational policies which encourage or
discourage active involvement with industry, and the existence and relevance of
formal planning units within the university which take into account trends in the
business sector. These components were labeled resource allocation, policy
and planning, respectively. As a supportive indicator of formalization, copies of
existing written policies relevant to extramural activity were solicited from each of
the participating universities.

W193 was measured by the percent of the unit's total
discretionary budget allocated to support scanning activities. Baligy was
assessed as the extent to which each of 8 university policies encouraged or
discouraged active participation in industry-university Interactions (on a five point
scale which ranged from "strongly discourages” through "strongly encourages”).
Examples of policies included consulting for pay, overhead, proprietary research,
and copyright. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate whether the
university had, to their knowledge, a unit for long-range, fgaaaLglaaajag, and to
Indicate the extent ("not at all” to ”to a very great extent") to which formal planning
took Into account trends and events In the business environment.

WW To assess the relationships described by
the conceptual model, three executive role characteristics were measured In the
current study. IjstaLQaigaLleygl was measured by asking the respondents to
identify their current positions from a list which included dean, assistant!
associate dean, director, assistant/associate director, chair, coordinator and
supervisor. Similarly, jgagtjgaaLsmgjaflanas determined by the unit for which

the administrator was directly responsible (e.g., business, computer science), as

71

reported on the survey and verified by the mailing list. Finally, sxpgasags was
assessed based on the respondent's answer to two questions: ”How many years
have you held this position at this university? How many years have you held an
administrative position (at any university) prior to taking your current position?”.
Total administrative experience was computed (in whole years) as the sum of the
two experience items.

Wags. Respondents were contacted two months after
completing the questionnaire to gather data on subunit performance relevant to
cooperative Interaction with business firms. Performance criteria were chosen
based on a previous study of most frequent university-business firm Interaction
modes in the same sample of universities (Pelz, 1985). Results of Pelz's study
suggested that two consequences of university-industry interaction which are
valued by both university and business are research grants and contracts
obtained by subunits from business firms, and courses provided by the subunit to
Industry.

Data were obtained from archival records (when available) on the total
dollars for research grants and contracts received by each subunit from industry
for the 1982-83, and 1983-84 academic years. A second measure of subunit
performance was the total number of courses (including training programs,
in-house courses, and those offered at the university where 50% or more of the
participants were sponsored by Industry) offered by the subunit for industry ,
during the same two academic years. When no written data were found for these
variables, respondents were contacted by telephone, and asked to provide a

reasonable estimate of these values. Since there was no a priori rationale for

72

assumed dependence of research grant dollars and course offerings, these
measures were used as independent indicators of subunit performance. Total
dollars In grants were combined for the two year period, and total number of
courses for the same time period was used as the second criterion of subunit
performance.

mammals.

The psychometic properties of the scales measured by the questionnaire
were examined. Coefficient alphas were computed to determine the internal
consistency reliability of each of the scales, and the intercorrelations among the
scales were examined. Table 3 summarizes the data analysis techniques used
to test the suggested research questions, corresponding linkages and
hypotheses.

QggstjgaJ; Description of executive scanning and Interpretation of the
external environment. Descriptive analyses (means, percentages, frequencies)
were used to determine the relative frequency ofroutine versus active search,
the most commonly used sources for routine and active search, level of
formalization of scanning activity and the most frequently used Interpretation
modes.

gamma Effects of individual, organizational and perceived
environmental Charateristics on scanning and interpretation. Data analysis for

Hypotheses 1 and 2 required a test of the significance of zero order correlations

between analyzability and frequency of source usage (H1) and complexity and

source usage (H2). Hypothesis 3 suggested the moderator effect of structure on

the relationship between organizational intrusiveness and scanning initiation,

73

Table 3

Summary of Relationships For Hypothesis Testing and Data Analysis

1 (H1)

1(H2)

2 (H3)

3 (H4)

4 (H5)
(H6a)
- (H6b)
5 (H7)

6 (H3)

Analyzability

Complexity

Structure (moderator)
Org. intrusiveness

Analyzability

org. intmsiveness

Expenence

Functional specialty

Hierarchical level

Expenence

Structure (moderator)
scanning initiation

frequency: source usage
ratio personal/
impersonal

frequency of source
usage

scanning initiation
Reduction mode

Scanning initiation
scanning source

scanning source

reduction mode

subunit performance

Data

Anabel:
(Statistic)

zero-order
correlation
(Pearson)

zero-order

correlation
(Pearson)

Subgroup
Analysis

Multiple
Regression

Pearson corr

ANOVA
ANOVA

CHI
SQUARE

Subgroup
Analysis

74

and was assessed by examining the significance of the difference of the
correlations between intmsiveness and initiation for high versus low structure
subgroups. The median value for the combined structure items was used to
dichotomize the continuous scale. Hypothesis 4 addressed the joint effects of
analyzability and organizational intrusiveness on reduction mode, and was
assessed using multiple regression of the three measures of analyzability, and
organizational instrusiveness on reduction mode.

The relationship assumed in Hypothesis 5 was tested by the significance of
the zero-order Pearson correlation between experience and scanning Initiation.
Anaysis of variance was used to examine Hypothesis 6 (source usage by
functional specialty and hierarchical level) , and a chi square test was used to
determine differences in equivocality reduction determined by experience
(Hypothesis 7 ). Subgroup analysis was used to test Hypothesis 8 which
suggested that structure moderated the relationship between organizational
performance and scanning initiation. The stmcture scale was dichotomized at
the median, and a test of the significance of difference in correlation betweem
performance and initiation for each structure subgroup was applied.
3959520513819.

Of the 142 questionnaires mailed to executives at the four universities, 108
were returned in usable form, for a 76% response rate. Twenty-three of the
twenty-four scheduled personal Interviews were completed, yielding a total .
sample size of 131 respondents, and an overall response rate of 79%. No
systematic difference was detected in the response rates of subsamples of

executives by university.

75
E I | . E I' I II S S l

Before testing the hypotheses suggested by the model of scanning and
interpretation, the psychometric properties of the each of the scales assessed by
the questionnaire were examined. Inter-item correlations and Cronbach Alpha
reliability coeficients were calculated for each of the multiple-item scales.

fisfiapijjty. Table 4 contains the coefficient alphas for each of the multiple-
Item scales measured in the questionnaire. With the exception of the
analyzability and structure scales, coefficient alphas ranged from .79 to .85, well
above the .50 to .60 level suggested by Nunnally (1967) as satisfactory for
exploratory research of this type.

W A closer analysis of the properties of the
analyzability and structure scales suggested the need for revision and/or
refinement of these scales. For the three items which presumably measured
analyzability (predictability, rate of change, and accessibility of information),
inter-item correlations were -.41 (change-predictability), .00, (predictability-
accessibility), and -.12 (change-accessibility). The average inter-item correlation
for the scale was -.08. A closer examination of each of the three items revealed
that this result could not be explained as a coding error, since the directionality of
each response set was scaled consistent with conceptual definitions of the
analyzability construct. Thus, it may be concluded that, although conceptual
descriptions of the construct of analyzability (Daft 8 Weick, 1984) propose these
variables as equivalent measures of the construct, they may In fact measure
quite different aspects of the perceived external environment. Therefore, for the

purpose of further analysis of the hypotheses related to the constmct of

76
TABLE 4

COEFFICIENT ALPHAS FOR SURVEY SCALES

Scale NLQLIIQms QQeIflszientAlnna
Scanning Source 10 .83
Scanning Initiation 12 .85
Complexity 1 2 .79
Analyzability 3 - .30
Intrusiveness 1 6 .80

Structure 4 .23

77

analyzability, these items were treated as separate and independent indices of
perceived external environment.

In an effort to improve the reliability of the structure scale, items with low or
negative correlations with other items in the scale were removed. As a result, the
two items which presumably measured organization Inflexibility were eliminated
from further analysis. The revised scale consisted of two Items which tapped the
specific characteristics of organizational formalization and correlated .43.

W. The lack of standardized and valid Instrumentation
to measure the constmcts suggested by the theoretical model necessitated
several novel operationalizations of constructs in the current study. To provide
an overview of relationships between variables included in the model, Table 5
presents the Inter-scale correlation matrix for the eight scales measured in the
survey. In general, the inter-correlations among variables in the model are
relatively low, suggesting some discriminant validity. The high correlation
between scanning source and scanning initiation (r (75): .79, p < .05), however,
demonstrates a lack of discriminant validity. A post hoc explanation for this
finding is that the source and Initiation questions were placed sequentially on the
survey, and although repondents were asked to respond to ”routinely" acquired
information versus active search ("when routine information is Insufficient”), this
distinction may not always have been maintained by the respondent.

No significant correlation was found between complexity and any of the
three measures of analyzability (I.e., among measures of perceived environment
characteristics). Of the executive role characteristics, a significant correlation

was found, as would be expected, between hierarchical level and experience,

78

Z.

.3:
.00.

.00. .

or

.00.
.00.

.00.
.0 .0-

.00. .

.0...
00.0

.0...
.0.

.00.
00.

mm.

.0...
.00.

.0...
00.

.00.
0..

.00..
.00.

...

... <

.00..
0..

.00..
0..

.00.
00.

.00.

.00.
0.0.

0.0: 89. .008 0.8220.

.00.
.8 .0.

.00.
00 .0-

.0.
00.0-

.00.
0.0-

.00.
00 .0-

.3.
.30-

0 Saab

.000 0.00.00 23...... 02.0.2.8 008 3200 0.005022. 0. 0.00052

0.08 5.00000. 02.! 020.... 0. 60.30 0.0.. 0.0.000. .o.

.00.
0. .0-

.00.
00 .0

.00.
0..

:0.
.8.

.00.
0..

.00.
0..

.2...
00.0-

.00. .

.3.
0..

.00.
.0 .0-

.0.
«.0-

.00.

.00.

No.

.00.
00.-

.0..
00.-

.00.
CON . 0

60.80 .00.. 0.00.0 .2

0.2.02 03000.0 0000.00.

.00.
.0.

.00.
...

.0...
COF’ 0

..0.
I.

.00.
0..

.2.
0..

.00.
t.

.00.
.00.

.00.
2.0-

.00. .

.00 .va...

00.2.0.8 00 .00
.0030... a... 0020 0.3052

a v0 oVQOC

.mo 0

.00.
00 .0

.00.
0.0

.00.
0.0-

.00.
.00.

.00.
t.

.00.
00.

.00.
0..

.0:
0.0“” o

.8.
00 .0-
.0...

.oh -

.00..

£0.90...

Oocotoaxm

mam—0022:20—

c. 0.0 a. 6

350.0000“;

000000

30.00.2090

306.0 0.00

88‘
0030.20.20.
00:00.0.

00.08
00.0008

.202
v a.

.Fw

.h

.0

.00.

.v

0

N

.P

79

and there was no significant relationship between experience and function, nor
between hierarchical level and function. These findings are logically consistent
with previous conceptualizations of these variables, and with the fact that function
Is not measured in an ordinal fashion.

The closer examination of the interscale correlations indicated large
differences in the sample sizes for each of the computed correlations. This is to
a great extent accounted for by the structure of the questionnaire. Respondents
were given the option to answer "?" to items for which they did not know or could
not estimate an appropriate response. For purpose of analysis, these responses
were coded as missing data. Thus, although completed questionnaires were
received from 131 executives, the adjusted sample size for several Items in the
questionnaire is considerably smaller. For this reason, sample sizes will be

reported in subsequent analyses of each of the predicted relationships In this

study.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

l: oucf {I in (”TIMI-Ill.” 'I i ' . 0:

The first research question posed for the current study was: How do
university executives scan and/or interpret their Institution's external
environment? To answer this question, the data were analyzed to reveal the
nature of active versus routine information acquisition, frequency of source
usage, formalization of scanning activity, amount of perceived equivocality, and
favored equivocality reduction mode. The frequencies, means, and standard
deviations for these variables are shown in Tables 69

WW. Of the total sample, 85%
indicated that they routinely receive information on business firms (Table 6). In
addition, 73% Indicated they actively search for information. Average frequency
of active search (initiation) was 1.7, or approximately once or twice per year.
Average frequency of routine information acquisition was only slightly higher (M =
2.1). As previously noted, however, the similarity in mean frequency of routine
and active search may be more a function of the respondents' failure to perceive
a difference In the two scales than an accurate representation of equal frequency
of use of both modes of data acquisition.

Saunas; Table 7 presents the average frequency of use of ten data

acquisition sources. The most frequently used Sources for routine data

80

81

Table 6

Percentage and Frequencies of Active and Routine Search

39.1mm
No

Yes

Total

No

Yes

Total

EL
18

108

126

34

93

127

Adjusted
Emu-leper

14.6%

85.4%

 

1 00%

26.8%

73.2%

 

1 00%

82
Table 7

Mean Frequency of Use of Scanning Data Sources

Scum Mean: SD
Newspapers, journals 3.9 .9
Subordinates 3.3 1.8
Business Sector 3.0 1.7
Other administrators 2.2 1.7
Written reports (lntra—unit) 1.7 1.7
Other Universities 1.7 1.4
Written reports (extra-unit,

within university) 1.7 1.6
Data bases 1.5 1.8
External Consultants 1 .1 1.5
University Library .9 1.5

 

*Scale values: 0: not at all, 1: less than once a year, 2: once or twice a year,
3: three to four times a year, 4: once or twice a month, 5= once or twice a week,
6 = daily or more often

83
acquisition were newspapers (approximately once- twice per month) , internal
verbal reports from subordinates, and business firms ( 3-4 times per year). As
Table 7 suggests, least frequently used sources for routine data acquisition were
data bases, external consultants, and the library.

The most frequently used strategies for Initiating search for external data
were planned encounters with members of business firms, calls to business firms
and soliciting verbal reports from subordinates (Table 8). Each of these
strategies would be classified as active or "Intrusive” approaches to data
acquisition (Daft 8 Weick, 1984). Least used search strategies Included hiring an
external consultant, forming a committee to gather needed data, sending a
survey to business firms, and use of data bases, all of which were used less
than once a year. These results suggest that an Important and frequently used
strategy for acquiring data on business firms involved direct contact (by phone or
face-to-face) with members of the business environment as well as with internal
subordinates.

EamaljzatjgagLsgaaajaggmjyity, The majority of the respondents (71%)
indicate that scanning is not an assigned responsibility in their organizations.
When responsibility for scanning is assigned, It most often is assigned to a Dean
or Director (37%), or to non-administrative faculty (21%). Most often, (58%) it IS
assigned to one person, and at most four people within a unit are involved in
formal scanning responsibilities. When scanning Is assigned, it is most often
specified as part of a formal job description.

W The amount of equivocality experienced by an

executive provides the context for equivocality reduction mode. In the present

84
Table 8

Mean Frequency of Scanning Initiation Strategies

Strategic Meal" SD
Interact directly with members

of business firm 3.3 1.6
Contact business firm 2.6 1.5
Ask subordinates 2.6 2.0
Monitor published reports 2.3 2.0
Ask other administrators 1.8 1.7
Review Infra-unit reports 1.6 1.7
Review Intra-university reports 1.4 1.5

Contact members of other

universities 1 .5 1 .4
Obtain data bases .9 1.4
Send survey to business firm .8 1.3
Contract external consultants .7 1.3
Form a committee .7 1.2

 

*Scale values: 0: not at all, 1: less than once a year, 2: once or twice a year,
3= three to four times a year, 4: once or twice a month, 5= once or twice a week,
6 = daily or more often

85

sample, perceived equivocality of demands from external business firms was
very low. Sixty-one percent of respondents indicated that they never experience
equivocality In the data obtained on the external environment.

In the proportion of the sample who reported experienced equivocality
(n = 41, or 39%), the consultative mode was favored over the autocratic mode for
equivocality reduction. As Table 9 indicates, of those who used a consultative
mode, more than half (n = 10) consulted with industry personnel, while the
remainder (n = 7) consulted with personnel within their unit. Consistent with
these results, when asked how often they consulted with specific groups in the
process of Interpreting ambiguous data, executives Indicated that the most
frequently consulted groups were business firms ("often”) and faculty and other
administrators ("sometimes”).

Analyses of the total set of responses to the equivocality reduction item,
however, revealed an Important "other" mode of equivocality reduction. This
category referred to the decision to delegate the reponsibility for equivocality
reduction to someone else (n=15, or 36% of those who experienced
equivocality). Thus, it may be concluded that although many executives
frequently consult with other individuals in the process of equivocality reduction,
an almost equal number avoid the responsibility for interpretation of equivocal
data by assigning this responsibility to someone else.

I I i

In an attempt to increase understanding of the characteristics,

antecedents and consequences of executive scanning and interpretation of the

externalenvironment, a conceptual model was constructed based on a review of

86

 

Proportion of Sample Using Autocraili-gglngConsuItative Modes for Equivocality
Reduction

Made n We
Autocratic

Decide alone 5 12.2%
Consultative

Form committee 7 17.1%

Consult with industry 10 24.4%

(total) (17) (41 .5%)
Other

Delegate responsibility 15 36.6%

Miscellaneous 4 9.7%
Total 7 100%

87

the theoretical and empirical literature. The hypothesized relationships between
organizational, perceived environment, and executive role characteristics,
scanning, interpretation and subunit performance were summarized in Table 2.
Results pertinent to these hypotheses are described In detail below.

flyagtagsjslz The frequency of use of personal versus impersonal sources
was hypothesized to be negatively related to the perceived analyzability of the
environment . The ratio of the frequency of use of personal to impersonal source
was calculated, and this ratio was correlated with each of the three measures of
analyzability (predictability, change, accesssibility). The resulting zero-order
correlations were r (28) =.16 ,r (82) = -.06 , and r (81) = .02 , respectively. None
of the correlations were significant, thus failing to support the hypothesis.

Analyses of the simple correlations between each type of source usage
(personal, Impersonal) and each analyzability item were also performed. Table
10 shows a significant correlation between use of personal sources and
accessibility of Information ( r (95) = .23, p < .01 ), and a marginally significant
correlation for predictability (r (33) = .23, p < .07). There was no significant
relationship between any measure of analyzability and the use of impersonal
sources. It appears, on one hand, that there was Insufficient difference in the
relative use of personal versus impersonal sources to test the proposed
relationship to perceived environment characteristics. That is, executives used
both personal and Impersonal sources about equally to scan the external
environment. Additionally, executives used personal sources for scanning when
the environment is perceived as predictable and when data on the external

environment are easily accessible. This result was not predicted by Hypothesis

88

 

Table 10
Zero-Order Correlations between Source Usage and Change, Predictability, and
Accessibilitya
Scum
Personal .09 .25" .23‘“
x = 11.32 (97) (33) (96)

SD: 6.03

Impersonal .07 .04 .13
x .-. 9.75 (90) (31) (90)
SD = 5.5

Ratio:

Person/lmperson -.06 .16 .02
x = 1.24 (83) (29) (82)
SD: .64

"p < .10

*-"*p < .001

aNumbers In parenthesis beneath each correlation indicate sample size

89
1, and was In direct contradiction to the proposition than personal sources would
be used more frequently in conditions of perceived unanalyzability of the external
environment.

flypgtagsfiz; The second hypothesis predicted a positive relationship
betweeen environmental complexity and the frequency of use of multiple
sources to scan the environment. A significant correlation was found between
overall complexity and the summed frequency of usage of all sources (r (74) =
.39, p < .05). This result supports the hypothesis as stated, and suggests that
the more complex the perceived external environment, the more often the
executive will use multiple sources to obtain external information.

Wheels-’1. Hypothesis three suggested that the relationship between
intrusiveness and Initiation is moderated by the degree of organizational
structure. Analyses of the correlations between Intrusiveness and initiation for
two levels of stnicture showed that, given a high level of structure (formalization) ,
the correlation between intrusiveness and Initiation was positive( r (7) = .27, ns ).
This correlation was not significant, largely due to the restricted sample size (n=
8), caused by missing data on any one of the three variables. For low structure
(less formalized), the correlation between Intmsivenss and Initiation was .41, (n=
32, p < .05). The difference between these correlations was not significant
(2 = .34). Thus, the moderator effect of structure on the relationship between
intrusiveness and initiation was not confirmed. A positive correlation was found
for the total sample, however, between Initiation and Intmsiveness (r (42) = .41,
p < .05), suggesting that organizational Intrusiveness has a direct effect on

executive scanning initiation (as illustrated in Figure 2) which Is independent of

90

the characteristic of organizational structure.

flypgmssjsi Hypothesis four defines the relationship between
analyzability, intrusiveness and equivocality reduction. Specifically, It was
proposed that analyzability and Intrusiveness would jointly determine
interpretation mode. Data analysis called for the use of stepwise regression to
determine the order in which the separate dimensions of analyzability
(predictability, change, and accessibility) and intrusiveness were to be entered in
the regression equation. Analysis of the zero-order correlations between
predictability, change, accessibility, intrusiveness and mode (see Table 5),
however, showed that none of the predictors were significantly correlated with
Interpretation mode. The resulting multiple regression analysis, as a
consequence, did not yield significant results (R2 = .07, p > .05).

flypgmgsfi. Differences in the frequency of scanning initiation were
expected to be positively related to executive experience. Hypothesis 5
suggested that more experienced managers will initiate search more often than
less experienced managers. No signficant correlation was found between total
frequency of scanning initiation and years of administrative experience ( r (84) =
.11, ns ), thus failing to support the hypothesis. To further test the hypothesized
differences between frequency of active search for different levels of experience,
the total scale of scanning Initiation was divided into two subscales based on
prior conceptual definitions of active versus passive scanning strategies (Aguilar,
1967; Daft 8 Weick, 1984). Thus, for example, an ”active" subscale was
composed of strategies which, theoretically, involve a proactive or ”intrusive"

action on the part of the executive. Examples of active strategies included

91
forming a committee to gather needed information, calling, writing or Interacting
directly with members of the business firm. (A complete list of Items is provided In
Appendix C). ”Passive" strategies included review of routinely published reports,
monitoring data bases, review of infra-unit reports. Mean frequency of initiation
was then calculated for active versus passive subscales by three levels of
expenence.

Table 11 presents the means and standard deviations in the frequency of
initiation (active, passive search) for three levels of experience (high, medium,
low). A slightly higher mean frequency of active initiation was found for
executives with less experience, coupled with a higher score on passive
strategies for executives with greatest (i.e., more than 20 years) experience. This
finding is In the opposite direction of the predicted relationship. Thus, results
failed to show a systematic relationship between total years of administrative
experience and scanning initiation strategy. It may thus be concluded that
experience in the executive role is not a major determinant of scanning initiation
strategy.

1211091035115... The frequency of source usage was predicted to vary with
the functional specialty and hierarchical level of the executive. Two one way
analyses of variance were performed. As reported in Table 12, significant main
effects were found for function (F (7) = 1.55, p < .10) and hierarchy F (2) = 3.35,
p < .05). Given the large differences In sample sizes for different levels of
hierarchy and functional specialty, and the inherent problem of empty cells, no
attempt was made to determine the Interaction between function and hierarchy.

Thus hypothesis 6 was supported by the data, which suggest that systematic

92
Table 11

Average Frequency of Scanning Initiation by Level of Experiencea

_n_ Mean SD

Actixefieatch

Low experience 49 8.65 4.50

Moderate experience 28 8.53 4.30

High experience 14 4.22 4.22
Easelxefiearch

'Low experience 47 5.91 4.80

Moderate experience 31 5.52 5.02

High experience 14 8.71 5.20

 

aFor levels of experience, low = 0 - 9 years, moderate = 10 to 19 years, high = >
20 years. A complete list of items for active and passive Initiation is provided In

Appendix C.

93
Table 12

Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Function and Hierarchy on
Scanning Source Usage

 

EUNSZIIQN
Sum of
W M 12E E
Function
Main effects 1089.58 7 1.55*
Residual 7413.40 74
Total 8502.98 81
HIEBABQHX
Hierarchy
Main effects 631.64 2 3.35"
Residual 7264.31 77
Total 7895.95 79

 

'p < .10 "p < .05

94
differences exist in the frequency of use of scanning sources for different
functional specialties and hierarchical levels.

To further delineate the corresponding difference in function and hierarchy,
the mean frequency of usage of each of the ten scanning sources by hierarchy
and by function was examined. Results are shown in Tables 13 and 14.
Newman-Keuls tests of significance between pairs of means (p < .05) were
performed for the three largest hierarchical subgroups: chairs, directors, and
deans. Both directors and deans were found to differ significantly from
department chairs in the frequency of use of data acquired from subordinates,
Internal written reports, and other administrators.

Newman-Keuls tests for differences in source usage by functional specialty
showed that business firms were used as a source of external data significantly
more frequently by executives in Agriculture than by executives in Education and
Liberal Arts. In addition, executives in Agriculture showed the highest overall
frequency of scanning. Business School executives used the library significantly
more than executives in Computer Science, Education and Engineering.

A somewhat surprising finding was that executives in Business Schools, in
comparison with other functional groups, did not demonstrate the highest overall
frequency of source usage. In addition, executives from this functional area were
most frequent users only of the library (and second most frequent users of
newspapers and journals), I.e, documentary rather than personal sources.
Interviews with Deans of Business Schools indicated that contact with firms in the
business sector was considered a critical and integral part of the mission their

schools, yet results of this study Show that Business School executives do not

95

v- v
05 .1

CDNPOV
66050505

.0..

.0000 0.0.0 .0 2.00 am £003 0 00.3. .0 0000 um .5000.

0 00.3. .0 0000 uv

000.. 0 00.0.. .00. 0. 00.... an .000» 0 00.3. .0 0000 am 000.. 0 0000 000. 000. n. .=0 .0 .00 no ”00:.0> 0.00m:

.00000un .00000 0.0.0000<>00.0.00<
0.0.00.5 0.0.0000<>00.0.00< uv 000.8 nm 00.00.0300 0.0.00... um 000.2005

«0 0.0.00.5 um
I. ”0.06. .00.00.0.0.I.

 

0.. 00.0 0.. 00.0 0.. 0..
00.0 0.. 0.0 00.0 0... 0..
0.. 0.. 0 0 0.. 0 0 0 0
0. 0. 0 0 0.. 00.0 0 0
0. 0. 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.
0.. 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.. 0.0
0.0 0.0 0... 0.. 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0... 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0... 0.0 0... 0.0
0.0 .10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0...
.0. .00. .0. .00. .0. .0.
0 0 0 0 0 .

.m._m>mi. .._<_Iom<mw_1 >m wmomDOw <...<o Oz.zz<om “.0 mm: “.0 >Ozm30wmm z<m§
9.. m..m<._.

>m<¢m3 >-_._mmm>_z:
m...z<._..5szo 4<zmmhxw
mmm<m <h<o
9.05522: 2.1.53 .223 -(mhxm.
wkmOmwm zmtE>>
mmFfimez: mehO
C02: -<m._.z_.
mPGOawm zmt..m>>
mmO...<¢...m.z_2o< mthO
mO-roww wmwzasm
mmh<ZEIOmDm
”22.030“. damn—(QWEZ

.eNOEDOm

96

.5505 I 022 .0 00cc

:0 .30. 0 000... .00. 0. 00.0. In

000» 0 00.3. .0 0000 IN

.0000 0.00. .0 2.00 .0 £00.... 0 00.3. .0 0000 :0.

000» 0 0000 00.... 000. I.

...0 .0 .00 n0 ”000.00. 00.000.

 

..0 .2 0.0 0..: 0.: 0.00 .0 0.00 0.0 00.0 0.: 0.0. 0.0. 00 .00 0.0. 0.00 0.0. 0.00
0 0 0 F 00. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 00. 0 0 00. 00. 0.0 0.. 00. 0...
0.. 0.. 0 p 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0... 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.. 0.0
0.. 0.. 0. 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.. 3 0.. 00. 00. 0.. f0 0.. 0.. 0.. 00
0.. 0.. 0.. I 0.0 0. 0.. 0 F 0.. 0.. 00. 00. 0.. f. 0.. 00. 0.. 00.
0.. 0.. 0. 0.. 0.. 0 0 0.. 00 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.0
0.. 0.0 0 F 0.0 00. 0.. 0.. 00 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.. f0
00. 00. 0.. 0 F 0.. 0.. 0.. 00 0. 0.. 00. 00. 0.. 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.0
0.. 00. 0.. 0 . 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0 F 0.. 0.. 0.. 00 0.0 .0 0.. .0 0.0
00. 00. 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.. 0.. .0. 0. 0.0 0.. 0.. 0.0 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.0
0.0 00 0. 0... 0.. 0.0 0.. 0... 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.0 0.. 00 0.. 0.0 .0 0.0
00 082 00 0|: 00 is. 00 082 00 5.2 00 082 00 08200 0...: 00 0......

.31. .02.... .0.... .SI. .00.... .0.... .0.... .021. .0....

0020.00 02.205... 02.... 0020.00

1000.02 02.0.00... 020.00: 2000: 02.00.02.020 20.20000 55.300 0002.000 000500.00...

$5.430wa 3%.. >0 $038 (.20 02:8 0.0 mm: .00 >OE§E a:

'0 3h

mag—.0..

>m<¢m_._ tameZD

mOhOww wmwz .me

mmFam—wzzn mum-:0

wh2<h43w200 .225th

w¢0h<mb92§o< mar—ho

wwh<zaCOme

.>h.mmm>_23 2.1:; .._._ZD.<mhxw.
95—0me Imp—£3

.020 0002.. 0000000 2000.02.

mmw<m (.20

w4<z¢30fi .mmwnammng

g

97

scan the environment as frequently as their colleagues in Agriculture, Computer
Science, Engineering and Liberal Arts.

11mm The seventh hypothesis proposed that use of autocratic
versus consultative modes for equivocality reduction would be related to the
degree of executive experience. A chi square analysis was performed, and was
not significant ( X2 (35) =.20, ns ). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported by
the data. It may be concluded that use of autocratic versus consultative mode
does not vary systematically with the level of experience in the executive position.
A potential explanation for this finding is the previously noted small sample size
for use of autocratic mode (n = 5) and consultative mode (n = 17), and the
correspondent lack of statistical power to test the proposed relationship.

fiypgthgsiia, A final hypothesis predicted that the relationship between
scanning initiation and subunit performance would be moderated by the level of
Organizational structure. Table 15 presents the correlations between scanning
initiation and each of the subunit performance criteria (grants, contracts) for two
levels of structure (high versus low formalization). None of the correlations
reached significance; further, the pattern of correlations is in the opposite
direction from that predicted. That is, the correlation between initiation and grants
was higher under conditions of high formalization (r (8)= .33,) than when
structure was less formalized (r (58) =.05 ). Similarly, the correlation between
initiation and number of courses offered to business firms was higher when .
structure was formalized (r (6) = .24) than when there was low structure (r (39) =
.14 ). Results do not confirm the predicted moderator effect of structure on the

scanning- performance relationship, and it must be concluded that structure did

98
not systematically effect the relationship between frequency of scanning initiation
and subunit performance.

A further examination of the zero-order correlations between scanning
initiation, and subunit performance (Table 16) showed that scanning initiation
was highly correlated with grants and contracts, and to a moderate degree with
courses. Small sample sizes limited the statistical power to test for significance of
these relationships however, so that no conclusion can be drawn on the direct

relationship between frequency of scanning and subunit performance.

Summary

Two of the eight hypotheses proposed in the current study were supported

by the data. Frequency of use of multiple scanning sources was found to be
significantly related to perceived environmental complexity, (H2), and frequency
of use of scanning sources was found to vary both by the function and
hierarchical level of the executive (H6)- in addition, a direct relationship was

found between organizational intrusiveness and executive initiation of search

which was independent of the level of organizational formalization, thus failing to
support H3.

No relationship was found between perceived analyzability and use of
personal versus impersonal sources (H1), nor was there support for the predicted
joint effects of analyzability and intrusiveness on equivocality reduction mode
(H4). Similarly, neither scanning initiation nor equivocality reduction mode were

significantly related to experience. Finally, no systematic impact of scanning

initiation on subunit performance was found for any level of organizational

99

structure. The next chapter presents an interpretation of the results of the study

and suggests directions for future research.

100
Table 15

Correlations Between Scanning Initiation and Subunit Performance
by Level of Structure

W
Performance
Grants (n) Courses (n)
Initiation .05 (58) .14 (39)
W
Performance
Grants (n) Courses (n)

Initiation .33 (9) .24 (6)

 

 

101
Table 16

Zero-Order Correlations Between Scanning Initiation and Subunit Performance

SCANNING
QM QQUBSES LJ_A_LQL‘1N Tl T
GRANTS (.94)
. (n=1 08)
COURSES .15 (.98)
(0:64) (0:69)
SCANNING
INITIATION 15 23 (.85)

(6:70) (n.=48) (n=1 1 1)

 

 

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS

To survive in a dynamic and changing environment, organizations must
develop strategies for acquiring intelligence on important trends, events and
changes in the external environment. Scanning is defined as the process by
which organizational members search for and acquire data on the external
environment. The raw data obtained through scanning must be translated,
through a process of interpretation, into information which permits stategic
responses to perceived environmental conditions. Previous research has
generated little knowledge of the strategies used by organizational members to
scan and interpret the external environment, and little conclusive evidence has
been presented to define the important antecedents and consequences of
scanning and interpretation.

The current study sought to contribute further understanding of the
characteristics, antecedents, and consequences of executive scanning and
interpretation. The lack of integration in the current literature on scanning and
interpretation suggested the need for a conceptual model to serve as a heuristic
for the development of an empirical study. Therefore, the specific objectives of
the current research were to: 1) develop a conceptual model of executive
scanning and interpretation, 2) design and conduct an empirical study which
investigated the linkages between the antecedents, consequences and

characteristics of scanning and interpretation, and 3) describe the impact of

102

103
scanning and/or interpretation on organizational effectiveness.

The major findings of the current study were summarized in Chapter Five.
Conclusions about the results of this research are discussed below. The general
outline of the chapter is as follows: 1) Consistency with prior scanning/
interpretation research; 2) Methodological limitations, 3 ) Conclusions about the
conceptual model; 4) Implications for future research, 5) Practical implications.

It is important to view the findings of this study in the context of what was
previously known about environmental scanning. The findings of the current
study , in many cases, were consistent with those of the earlier studies on
scanning. This section attempts to reconcile prior and present findings by
examining both the consistencies and inconsistencies. Two major areas which
will be addressed in this section include 1) descriptions of scanning activities in
different types of organizations (e.g., industrial organizations and universities),

2) antecedents and consequences of scanning and interpretation.

W A basic question that is useful in
interpreting the present findings in light of prior findings is, ”Did the patterns of
executive scanning activities observed in the present study generally resemble
the descriptions of scanning provided in previous studies?” Of particular interest
was the comparison the scanning practices of university executives with practices
observed in executives in business organizations (the primary target of previous
research). Considerations will focus on the comparability of scanning sources

and search strategies used across the different types of organizations.

104

W. Conflicting results have been found on the relative use
of personal versus impersonal sources for acquiring data on the external
environment. Aguilar (1967) found that personal sources greatly exceeded
impersonal sources, and that, overall, subordinates were the most important
source of external information. Hambrick (1979), however, found that executives
in the insurance industry, hospitals and colleges favored the use of impersonal
sources over the use of personal sources. In a bank and a manufacturing firm,
Culnan (1983) found that personal subscriptions to periodicals were most
frequently used, followed by internal personal sources (peers, subordinates,
superiors).

Results of the current study suggested that newspapers and journals,
subordinates and business firms are sources of external data most frequently
used by university executives. These results are consistent with the findings of
Culnan (1983) and Jain (1984) on the relatively greater frequency of use of
newspapers, with those of Culnan (1983) on the use of internal reports from
subordinates and other administrators, and with Keegan (1974) on the frequent
use of external sources of data. In general, then, it may be concluded that the
sources of external data used most frequently by university administrators are no
different from the sources most frequently used by executives in profit-making
organizations, and that both personal and impersonal sources are frequently
used by executives to scan the external environment.

W. Inferences about the levels of active search for external
information in organizations have generally been drawn at the organizational

level of analysis, and researchers have reached conclusions which vary greatly

105
depending on the sample studied and the methodology used. For example,
Aguilar (1967), Fahey and King (1977) and Hambrick (1979) found scanning to
be ad hoc, irregular, and to a great extent, externally initiated. Thomas (1980) '
concluded that corporate giants scan the external environment on a continuous,
pre-planned and future- oriented basis. Consistent with results reported by the
first set of researchers, the current study concludes that the responsibility for
scanning is not typically a formally assigned aspect of the executive's role.

Findings on the absolute frequency of active search are difficult to reconcile
with results of previous research due to the different units of measurement which
have been used across studies. Hambrick (1979), for example, measured
amount of scanning in hours per week, and concluded that executives typically
dedicate 8 to 10 hours per week to scanning activities. Culnan (1983) used a five
point scale similar to the one developed in the present study ("never' to ”once a
week or more”), but reported no overall frequency of scanning. A direct
comparison between results of the current and previous studies, would therefore
be misleading. In general, however, it can be concluded that university
executives, similar to business executives, do use multiple sources to acquire
information on the external environment.

The question on the extent to which executives are proactive in searching
for information on the external environment was only partially answered in the
current study. Although the most frequently used strategies for initiating search
(planned encounters with or calls to members of business firms, soliciting verbal
reports from subordinates) may be classified as proactive or ”intrusive”, no

systematic difference was found in the overall use of active versus passive

 

 

 

106

acquisition strategies. Thus, it seems that university executives do employ
several proactive strategies for scanning the external environment, but also rely
on data acquired through routine procedures.

W In the
following section, results of the current study are compared for consistency with
existing research on the extent to which perceived environment, organizational
characteristics, and executive role characteristics determine executive scanning
and interpretation. In general, findings of this study show only modest
consistency with previous research. Some reasons for these differences are
discussed below. Finally, the results of the current research on the impact of
scanning and interpretation on organizational effectiveness are summarized
relevant to existing research on the topic.

Wm, (Structure, Intrusiveness). Previous studies
of scanning and boundary spanning have not systematically investigated the
impact of organizational structure and policy on these processes. In general,
formalization has been considered very narrowly in terms of assignment of
scanning reponsibility, (Aguilar, 1967; Keegan, 1974; Hambrick, 1979). Results
of the present study support the conclusion that scanning in universities is
basically an informally assumed role of higher level executives. Intrusiveness, as
a construct, has not been measured in previous scanning research.

Went (Analyzability, Complexity). Contrary to trends
suggested in other investigations, (e.g., Keller, 1983; Hambrick, 1979), the
environment of universities in the current study was characterized by a high level

of predictability and low rates of change. This result was somewhat puzzling,

107
and inconsistent with results of a related study conducted in the same group of
universities (Pelz, 1985). Two potential explanations exist for these findings. On
the one hand, the results could represent a failure of executives to understand
the items which measured predictability, rate of change, and accessibility. Given
the direct language in which these were stated and results of the pilot study,
however, this seems unlikely.

An alternative interpretation suggests the possibility that trends, events and
changes in interaction with business firms are not perceived to be major
characteristics of the external environment for university executives. Almost
three-fourths of the sample report no major changes in the number and types of
requests for services made by business firms over a two year period. This
response could indicate either greater stability and predictablity of the perceived
environment or, alternately, a failure on the part of executives to actively pay
attention to (or care) what business firms need and want. Only half of the
executives who experienced any kind of change faced novel requests (i.e., those
which would require non-routine responses from the subunit) from business firms
as often as 3-4 times a year.

WW (Hierarchy, Function, Experience). Results
of the current study revealed a significant effect of both functional specialty and
hierarchical level on the total frequency of use of multiple sources for scanning.
These results were consistent with Aguilar(1967), and opposite from those found
by Hambrick (1979) and Schwab et. al, (1985). Unlike the other role
characteristics, however, experience was not found to be related to either

scanning initiation or equivocality reduction mode. This result could not be

108
explained by a lack of variance in reported experience. Thus, it was concluded
that experience was not a major determinant of scanning frequency.

Organizational Efiamiyanass (Subunit Performance). In the one study
encountered which measured the impact of boundary spanning activity on
organizational performance, Dollinger (1984) found a positive relationship
between intensity and range of boundary spanning and financial performance.
The current study provided little evidence to substantiate Dollinger‘s results,
since no significant relationship was found between scanning initiation and
subunit performance. Methodological issues which provide a context for
interpreting this finding are discussed below.

[III II . lli ill'

Lack of prior instrumentation to measure the context and characteristics of
scanning and interpretation necessitated the development of instrumentation to
test the relationships proposed in the conceptual mode. Although special
attention was paid to the content validation of the measures of organizational
characteristics, perceived environment, scanning and initiation, some evidence
emerged which indicated that the research fell short of generating fully valid and
reliable measures of these variables.

Wm A great degree of collinearity
was found between the scales used to measure scanning source and scanning
initiation. As previously noted, this result is partially explained by the sequential
placement of source and interpretation items and the relative similarity of
phrasing. Thus, a major difficulty was encountered in operationalizing the

difference between the issues of source (i.e., ”mane do you get information

109
from") and strategy ("ham or what do you an to get information) as well as the
difference between routine and exceptional search. This suggests that
executives tended to interpret the scales idiosyncratically, despite the scales'
behavioral anchors. That is, it was apparently difficult for executives to perceive
any difference in the questions which were constructed to measure essentially
different aspects of environmental scanning. This is an issue which must be
noted as a limitation of the current research and as an opportunity for future
investigation of appropriate operationalizations of scanning characteristics.

W. The current model suggested a tentative classification
of interpretation strategies based on previous research on individual decision-
making behavior in organizations. Specifically, it was proposed that the typical
styles of equivocality reduction could be described as autocratic and consultative
modes. Results of the current research suggest, however, that at least one other
mode should be included in the classification of interpretation styles. Executives
in the current study frequently chose not to assume direct responsiblity for
reducing equivocality in data acquired on the external environment, and rather
delegated the responsibility for sense-making and interpretation to others. Thus,
it may be concluded that the classification proposed in the current model did not
capture all the essential variations in interpretation mode.

A second issue relevant to the determination of interpretation mode was the
failure to generate data across the total sample on this variable. In hindsight, it is
apparent that a major reason for this failure was a ”successive cut-off“ approach
to items related to equivocality reduction. That is, respondents were first asked

the general question: "Do you ever experience equivocality in the data received

110
about the external environment”. If the answer was no, the subsequent items on
equivocality reduction were irrelevant, and the respondent skipped to the
following set of items.

This approach was also responsible for reduced sample sizes for
responses to WEI! and manna items. For example, executives were first
asked, " Have you experienced any changes over the last two years in business
firm's requests for services from your unit?” and if the answer was no, the next
item on predictability of these changes was left blank.

Missing data was also a major problem in the measurement of subunit
Manama. Several difficulties were experienced in obtaining data from
executives when no written record on the performance variables existed, and no
measure was available on the reliability of data obtained by executive
estimations of performance levels. Differences might be expected, for instance,
between statistics on performance obtained from objective public records (e.g.,
lists maintained by the research office or lifelong learning program coodinator)
and those which are 'guestimated" at the department level. Thus, since it is
impossible to correct for attenuation due to unreliability in the criterion variable,
obtained estimates of the true effect of executive scanning on subunit
performance may be highly biased.

m The scale which measured organizational stmcture in the current
study consistent of two items which tapped the characteristic of organizational
formalization. The structure items in this study, however, were worded to provide
an overall appearance of consistency with the rest of the research instrument

(i.e., to reflect an interest in linkages between universities and business firms).

 

 

1 1 1
As a result, respondents were specifically asked about the extent to which rules
and regulations existed on W. A broader measure of
Overall levels of organizational formalization and inflexibility of written rules and
guidelines might be more appropriate fortests of the hypothesized moderator
effect of structure on scanning characteristics and outcomes.

A final methodological issue that should be raised is that of the possible
restriction of range in the levels of organizational structure, intrusiveness and
perceived environmental analyzability. As results of this study indicated, there
was no demonstrable relationship betweeen analyzability and source usage or
interpretation mode, nor was structure found to impact scanning or interpretation.
One of the reasons for these findings may have been that the sample of
universities from which executives were drawn were too homogeneous to
capture the essence of polar positions on these environmental and
organizational characteristic variables. If the sample had included executives
from different types of universities, (e.g., private as well as public, small and
medium as well as large) or universities from diverse geographical areas, we
would potentially have witnessed much more variation on these variables. By
broadening the universe of organizations eligible for inclusion in the study, there
might have been greater observed difference in organizational intrusiveness,
including specific policies which encourage or discourage active search and
interpretation strategies.

The advantage in the present study of polling executives from a relatively
homogeneous group of organizations was the ability to hold constant potentially

intrusive variables. However, the lack of a larger and more diverse sample of

112
executives may have acted to suppress the relationships predicted in the
conceptual model.
WWW

One objective of the current study was to develop a conceptual model
which incorporated major antecedents, consequences and characteristics of
executive scanning and interpretation. In general, results of the study failed to
provide evidence for several of the relationships predicted by the model. These
results suggest that the proposed model may have only partially captured the
essential characteristics of the predicted linkages. Tentative explanations for the
experienced shortcomings of the conceptual model are offered below.

WW Characteristics of the perceived
environment were predicted to have a systematic impact on environmental
scanning and interpretation. Specifically, it was hypothesized that complexity of
task environment would be positively related to frequency of scanning initiation
(Link 1 in Figure 2). Results supported this hypothesis, and it may be concluded
that perceived environmental complexity is a relevant antecedent for scanning
initiation and overall frequency of data acquisition.

The attempt to operationalize the construct of analyzability, however, was
not fully successful, and provided little insight on the relationship between this
dimension of perceived external environment and aspects of scanning and
interpretation. The lack of internal consistency of the analyzability scale was
puzzling for several reasons. Aspects of the analyzability construct are not
foreign to the literature. Predictability, rate of change, and accessibility of

information sources have each been elements that previous authors have

113
conceptualized as components of perceived environmental uncertainty.

Thus, failure to find significant relationships in this study does not negate
the importance of the construct of analyzability, but rather points to the need to
better define and operationalize the construct. In particular, the lack of predicted
relationship between the three measures of analyzability suggests that these
items, rather than representing a single construct, may in fact index different and
conceptually distinct aspects of the external environment. A major conclusion of
the present study therefore suggests that current conceptual definitions of
analyzability, as described in the interpretation systems model proposed by Daft
and Weick, (1984) do not adequately delineate the essential characteristics of
this construct.

Several of the proposed conceptual linkages were not adequately
addressed in the current study due to problems wioth small sample sizes on a
few key variables. In particular, the failure to generate a sufficient reponse rate to
items measuring analyzability, formalization, equivocality reduction, and subunit
performance severely limited the statistical power necessary to test links 2, 5 and
6 of the proposed model.

An additional explanation for the overall lack of support for the conceptual
model developed in the current study focuses on the nature of the sample used to
test the proposed relationships. As previously noted, propositions forthe current
model were developed based on limited empirical evidence obtained from prior
research which was primarily performed in business and industrial (i.e.,
profit-making) organizations. Little agreement exists in the literature on the extent

to which the context and processes of institutions of higher education can be

1 14

appropriately described by the same models used for profit making firms.
Although some authors have argued that modern academic institutions should be
mn like business firms (Keller, 1983) or, at least, are basically similar to other
types of organizations (Gross, 1968), other authors have insisted on the use of
different models which incorporate the ”loosely coupled" nature of schools and
universities (Bidwell, 1965; Cameron, 1978; Cohen & March, 1974; Weick, 1976).
If one subscribes to the latter perspective, university executives do not provide
the most appropriate sample with which to test the conceptual model.
WED

This research suggests certain caveats and opportunities for researchers
interested in exploring the strategies, processes and contingencies of
environmental scanning and interpretation. Both methodological and theoretical
implications can be drawn from this research.

W The results of this study indicate the
need to develop more elaborate measures of executive interpretation strategies
or modes. Interpretation is a complex, multi-faceted activity which is difficult for
researchers, or executives themselves, to quantify or characterize. In particular,
the notion of experienced equivocality needs to be operationalized in a mannner
that permits a clearer, more relevant measure of the context for equivocality
reduction strategy. When possible, multiple measures of amount of equivocality
and equivocality reduction modes should be designed. In addition, a different
classification system is needed to capture the essential ways in which executives
in organizations make sense of or interpret their external environment. Given

that the process of interpretation may be unconscious or "pre-cognitive", attention

115

should be devoted to the development of process capturing mechanisms for
investigating the equivocality reduction process.

Wears: Implications of the
current research suggest the need for operationalizations of scanning strategy
which are both conceptually and "visibly" distinct (i.e., transparent to the
respondent) from indicators of scanning source. The emphasis placed in the
current research on the action of data acquisition (e.g., solicit, interact, monitor)
did not provide a sufficient distinction. Researchers interested in these
characteristics of scanning, therefore, must devise new scales which clearly
differentiate between the strategy (or 'how") and the source ("from whom”) of
data on the external environment.

W The construct of complexity appears to be
an appropriate and relevant dimension for examining the impact of the perceived
external environment on executive scanning. Further research is need, however
to clarify and demonstrate the interrelatedness of proposed "dimensions" of
analyzability (predictability, rate of change, accessibility of information).

QqngamuaLMggal. Finally, future research on the model of scanning and
interpretation should be undertaken. Particular attention to the selection of
samples which vary on the dimensions of organizational structure, policy, and
perceived external environment is warranted. Selection of respondents based
on an a priori determination of levels of these variables will provide construct

validity for these critical organizational and environmental characteristics.

116
E I' l . l' I'

This research has important implications for executives responsible for
boundary spanning, environmental scanning and interpretation. Results of the
present study suggest that university administrators very often get information
about the external environment directly from members of the business firm
constituency. Although no attempt was made to determine the accuracy of
acquired data, this results suggests that much of the data which executives get is
acquired informally and through personal contacts with members of the external
environment. Additionally, routine sources such as newspapers and professional
jOurnals provide an important source of information on external events.

In general, the environmental scanning practices of university executives
may be characterized as Phase 3, or reactive (Jain, 1984). The majority of the
executives recognized the importance of environmental scanning, as evidenced
by interview and open-ended responses to the effect that ”we should be doing
more”. Most scanning activities, however, were found to be informally initiated
and unstructured. Little evidence was found for use of highly proactive or novel
strategies for testing and manipulating the external environment. An important
implication of these results for future scanning efforts suggests that executives
may find that greater attention to and systematization of environmental scanning
will allow them to make a more definitive and vital contribution to their
organization's ability to shape as well as respond to the external environment.
As a result, these executives will have a greater opportunity to impact upon the

increased viability, adaptability, and effectiveness of their organizations.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS AND INDICATORS FOR MAJOR VARIABLES
IN THE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION MODEL

. >00059x >
023.3030 030 30.03.20 .2 20.2 <030200 .3 .30 M02330 030 3.220.263 2000

 
 

  

 

 

 

  

K0000... 02600.00... 02.0.00...
03500 . :0 00.2.... 0. 0029.30 .2 030 080.30 0.3.00.8 :08 0.. 2. 00.000. 09... o. 2.0... .63 2.0.. 00.0 o3 =6 2.23. 02.6330... .0 080.50.
00.0 000:. 0<03.0 030 2203030200 .3 03 2003.~0..03.0 2.000.200 - 02003033020030. .3:3030 <0. 53.2. 00003020. 8230.0.
2003.3..030 23230. 03203303.. .0 0020: .2 030 0000.20 - 3.230. .20. 303020 0. 2002.0. <0. 2:2 30. .00020 0 00003020 020.00
00.0 000:. 30 02030. .30 200300.53.
03203303.. . . . . . 0203. .0 2:3: 00.0 0020: 2000.200
0 0:00. 00:02 2 02.03 03 .30 02. 2 .30 2.00220.
5...... 0.001.000 0.00000 0.. 5.3.0: 080.00 00.0 03 .30 20.00.00 0000 0.. . 2:03. .0 5:.0: 00.0 0000. .30
0.0230. 03203303. .0 20320.00 3.0 2.002200 .0 200000 030 03203303. 20 2.0.02 0. 002.00. .0 32.6.0 3.2222330.
3.23263 0008. .0 .30 2.00220 030 30:0 00:00 0. 000280 00.0 Egg. 220200 200000 .2
3.0.32 200332.03 .2 000.203 30.30 2000030 0002002.; 0.00.0. 3000. 00302.0..03H
030 02.03. 2...: 0.:2 20. 303020. 2 02022.0. 300003003. 0030030530
0060.000 00.2100. 02.00.33 0. 3.03:. 0030.2. 030 mac.<000. 0000 03 .:0 30000 90020000.? 022.. .0 .220: 000.300. 0000 003032.20 0.002220.
22:03:...5 03200000 2.30.. 53.0: 033038 030 0030300 0. 0 02.00. 200.2020 03:23:30 2 2.030500 02.230.
.83 32.6.0 0032803. 06000. 0032.803. 1.30 230.0
000.3000 000.2. 000.202.... 0203. .0 53.0: 0x002.<0.0 .00.. 2000.00 .30 303.8330 0.
3.0.... 2.203. 0032.803. 08000
. 30302 2 830.803. 2000 302.200
- 30302 0. 303020 .3 000: 0032.803. 200
. 30302 2 02203. 002.000 2 20000.0 202000 .0 0032.803. 03000
92.300.03.30 20003.00 0. 922:3. 00200 0. BEBE. 2:03. .0 03.0: 2303 000.0. 2030203020 0020.30
2003:2330. 280.20 030 02.2 .230..~0..03 030 .3..0...0....< 20000200 030 060308.00 0.30. .2 2003.~0..030. .020.
.2 0000.330 030 3220.30 00.0 .3 2003.~0..030. 8.00. . x. . . H 30.0.2 0. 20023330. 8.00 030 0020.30 20000200.
03 0.03.0 030 00303030 .3 .:0 02.0.00 030 0020.0: 30x30
2:230. 03203303.. 20000030.
ESE. . 2000200 2.002.030 .0 00033.30 00..<...00
2:03. .0 £20: .230. 030 . 020.0300 0. 6.0 0. 2033.30 280.20.
3.230. 2003.~0..030. 02.0.. . 02.0.. 03 302020303 0. 20230. 03203303..

00002.0 .30 00.20 0020: 0
3.22222. 0. .:0 20030.
03203303..

. m0... 2.00030; 0 .2 0 =0. 0. :030 .2 000: 0.303203

3V

 

2.30200 0. .:0 2.00220 53.0:
20 00000.0.00 2.... .:0 02.230300
0. .:0 2.000.200 2.30.0.0 .00r0.

 

BEE 23.3.0020: 0. .0830 .0 .:0 2003.~0..03
.. .< 3 .220: 003.3020 .0 200200.632
0000.0..03 030 00220.

. m00 >00030... o .2 0 =0. 0. ..030 .2 000: 0.32.0.0:

000030... > .0020.

 

0000.0..N0..03 .0 2:.0: .:0
2.000.200 3.0
.0000:0.0.....00 030 30.2
82.0 00:20.

 

_ _ < _. 002.6:
.:0 2.00220 :0.00 .3 .:0
2003.~0..030_ 0:0.3 0.
0033030. 00 02.300 .3 .:0
2003.~0..030_ 0:0...

E. 3:38.
0. <020-303.:0 2.230.

2.02.0300 .3 .:0 0x00:..<0
3.0.

00...... 0. .:0 2003.320: .0
00020 02.00. «0002000 .83.
030 02.0... .:0 0030300 0.
02.00. 032833020.
832.8020

0.3032030 0. 30.00.20 .

>03.3.0..0..<0 :3... 00:000. 00:00.. 00003303.

.:0. .0003. >0000. 0003.. 000030 6.80.2. >02.
0.80.0... .:20 60000303. 0:0... .02.: 58002.02.
0020.30.03

 

H 3030.. 2000200 .83 0.20 030
0.020 .83 000.3000 .230

952.803. 0020.02.03. 30302 0. 002000 205000
.2 000.3000 .230

APPENDIX B

EXECUHVE SCANNING AND INTERPRETATION SURVEY

SECTION I. We would like to begin by asking some questions about the
ways in which your unit (that is, your college, school, department)
relates to business and industrial firms. In this and all subsequent
sections, if you don't know or can't estimate the answer to any
question, please enter a "7" rather than leaving the item blank.

1. Listed below are different ways in which people in universities
can cooperate with business firms. In the last two_years, have you or
other members of your unit participated in cooperative efforts with
business firms?

[Yes NO ———4 SKIP TO SECTION II, p. 2

lease answer all parts of questions 2, 3 and A

 

 

 

2. For each type of cooperative effort listed, please estimate how
frequently you and other members of your unit have participated in
these activities. Using this scale, circle one number in_column g;

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once a week or more

 

L

 

 

 

A. Participation B. Frequency
-conduct research supported by business
firms (contract research) ..................... O 1 2 3 4
-collaborate in research projects
(joint, non-proprietary research).. ........... O 1 2 3 4
-engage in faculty consulting............ ...... O 1 2 3 4
-place graduates in industry.... .......... .....O l 2 3 4
-hold conferences and seminars for business
sector participants... .............. . ......... O 1 2 3 4
-conduct seminar/colloquia series in which
business people participate ................... O 1 2 3 4
-place student interns in business firms (e.g.,
coop ed, work study, formal internships) ...... O l 2 3 4
~permit faculty sabbatical or temporary
placement of faculty in business firms ........ O l 2 3 A
-hire part-time faculty from business firms....0 1 2 3 4
-provide technical service to industry ......... 0 1 2 3 4
-faculty or staff hold equity or membership
in business firms ............................. O 1 2 3 4
-other ' 0 1 2 3 4
O 1 2 3 4
O 1 2 3 4

 

119

UIU‘Ul

mm

mm

003

01“
015

016

017

3. Universities often establish cooperative linkages with
business firms in many different types of industries, such as
automotive, pharmaceutical, paper products.

'-—-A. In column A below, please list the types of industries
your unit has had contact with over the last two years. Do not
give specific names of businesses, but rather types of
industries, such as computer, banking, electronics, etc.

B. For each type of industry you listed, please estimate to the
nearest 5 the number of firms with which you or other members
of your unit have cooperated over the last two Years. If you

 

 

 

 

 

 

don't know or can't estimate, please enter "7" in column B.
LOA. Iype of Industry B. umber

of firms 023
018
019 Ozu
020 025
021 026
022 027

 

4. Of the total number of contacts between your unit and business
firms listed above, what percentage were started by direct
initiatives from you or someone in your unit? (Please estimate) 038

1) almost none

2) about one quarter

3) about one half

4) about three quarters
5) almost all

SECTION II. In addition to cooperative efforts which are initiated
by university units, business firms may seek specific services from
different units.

5. In the past two years, have business firms approached your
unit seeking some type of service or cooperative activity?

Yes No if no, SKIP TO SECTION III, p. 3 029

120

 

 

6. Have there been any major changes over the last year or so in the
types of requests business firms have made for service from your unit?

 

 

 

No r4 SKIP TO QUESTION 8 030

 

 

Yes Please describe: (If you need more space, use
the back of the page)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

031
032
a;
836
7. On the whole, to what extent were these changes in business
firms° requests predictable? 035
1) not at all predictable
2) slightly predictable
3) somewhat predictable
4) quite predictable
5) extremely predictable
8. How often, in the past two years, have business firms requested
novel services from your unit? By novel we mean services different
from those your unit has previously provided. 036
0) not at all {SKIP TO SECTION III, p.3
1) less than once a year
2) once or twice a year
3) three or four times a year
4) once or twice a month
5) once a week or more
9) Please give examples of the types of novel services which have
been requested. 037
038
039
SECTION III. To maintain existing links and to establish new links
with the business sector, universities require information about the
needs of private business firms. We would like to ask you about how
members of your unit go about "monitoring" or collecting data about
business firms.
10. Is the primary responsibility for monitoring the business sector
currently assigned to any individual or group of individuals in your
unit? .
Yes No --i{ SKIP TO QUESTION 13 0“°
11. To whom? 0“1
0H2

[If committee, how many members?]

121

12. How is this responsibility assigned? For example, it this
assigned as part of a formal job description, through an informal
agreement between individuals, or what? 043

 

 

 

13. Of all the information that you get routinely about

business firms, how often does this information come from each of
the following sources? Using the scale below, circle one number
for each source.

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once or twice a week

6) daily or more often

 

 

 

 

 

I don't routinely get information -
about business firms SKIP TO QUESTION 14 0““
SOURCES FREQUENCY

a) subscriptions to periodicals O 1 2 3 4 S 6 0“5

(newspapers, magazines,journals).
b) computerized data bases or monitoring

 

services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 °“6
c) written reports (memos, documents)
produced within your unit 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0“7
d) written reports produced by other
units within the university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 O“8
e) verbal reports or contacts with
subordinates 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0“9
f) verbal reports or contacts with
other administrators within the
university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 050
g) external consultants O 1 2 3 4 S 6 ”51
h) members of other universities O 1 2 3 4 S 6 052
1) members of the relevant business _
sector 0 1 2 3 4 S 6 055
j) the university library 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 05”
k) other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 055
0 1 2 3 a 5 6 055

 

122

14. Aside from information that comes routinely, administrators
often must actively search for additional information. There are
many different ways in which an administrator might search for
information on business firms. Please review the list below, and
indicate how often you actively use any of these approaches to get
nonroutine information on the business sector. Using the following
scale, circle one number for each approach:

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once or twice a week

6) daily or more often

I don't actively search for information on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

business firms 4,[ SKIP TO QUESTION 15
APPROACHES FREQUENCY
a) monitor and review routinely
published reports or data bases 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
b) obtain reports from computerized data
bases or monitoring services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
c) review written reports produced
within my unit 0 1 2 3 4 S 6
d) review written reports produced by
other units within the university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
e) ask for verbal reports from
subordinates O 1 2 3 4 5 6
f) solicit verbal reports or contacts
with other administrators within the
univerSity O 1 2 3 4 5 6
g) contract external consultants O 1 2 3 4 5 6
h) contact members of other universities O l 2 3 4 5 6
1) form a committe to acquire the needed
information 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
j) call or write someone in the
relevant business firm 0 l 2 3 4 S 6
k) interact directly with members of the
relevant business sector 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(planned encounters)
1) send questionnaires or surveys to
business firms 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
m) other 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
O 1 2 3 4 5 6
O l 2 3 4 5 6

 

123

057

058

059

060

O61

062

063

0611
O65

066

067

066

069

070

071

072

15. How easy is it for you to get information about the needs
that business firms have for services which your unit could

provide?

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

Circle one number:

difficult _______)a) What are the major

not very easy difficulties faced in getting
somewhat easy information?

very easy

 

extremely easy

 

 

16. Approximately what percent of your annual discretionary
budget is allocated to each of the following activities to obtain
information on the needs of private business firms? (Please
estimate to the nearest 1-22 or enter "?")

a)

b)

C)

d)

e)

f)

8)
h)

Z
faculty attendance at professional meetings
at which business contacts are likely

attendance at business-oriented conferences
and seminars

subscriptions for your unit to business-
oriented journals or trade magazines

industry—related data bases or monitoring
services

travel related to increasing/improving
contacts with business firms

entertaining members of business firms
bringing business people to your unit

other information-seeking activities:

 

 

 

 

17. In what other ways do you support information-seeking
activities like those listed above? For example, do you provide
faculty release time or internal incentives for participation in
‘these kinds of activities? (Please decribe).

124

074

O75

O76

077

078

079

080

081

082

083

081+

086

087
088

089

l8. Particularly when information received on business firms is
unusual or unexpected, this information can be unclear and lead to a
variety of different interpretations. As unit head, can you recall
instances when you've received information or requests from business
firms that were unclear or ambiguous? fl

 

 

Yes No-————%[SKIP TO SECTION IV, p. 8

19. How often, on the average, would you say that the information you
receive on business firms is unclear or ambiguous?

 

 

 

 

 

1) never %{ SKIP TO SECTION IV, p.8
2) rarely

3) sometimes

4) often

5) almost always

20. How often do you discuss unclear or ambiguous data with people
from the following groups in the process of trying to understand the
implications for your unit? Using this scale, circle one number on
each line:

1) never

 

 

2) rarely

3) sometimes

4) often

5) almost always

6) others at my same administrative level 1 2 3 4 5

b) higher level administrators 1 2 3 4 5

c) faculty 1 2 3 4 5

d) staff 1 2 3 4 S

e) professional colleagues outside this

university 1 2 3 4 5

f) members of the relevant business firm 1 2 3 4 5

g) members of other business firms 1 2 3 4 5

h) others(please specify) 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

 

21. What other approaches do you take to reduce ambiguity? For
example, do you frequently pass the information along to others

to let them determine its meaning? Do you assess the information
yourself, and determine what it means based on what you already know
about the firm? In your answer, please provide one or two examples of
approaches that you've used.

 

 

 

 

125

090

091

092

093
094
095

096
097
098
099
100

101

22. What criteria do you use to decide whom, if anyone, you will
discuss ambiguous information with? (For example, does it vary
with the type of information-—eg, technical versus financial? or
by the specific firm involved?).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106
107
108
SECTION IV. Next we ask some questions about the context of
industry-university cooperation. There are many ways in which
university—wide policies can influence relationships between
members of the university and the external business sector. We
would like to know how, if at all, the formal and informal
policies in this university affect relationships between your
unit and private sector business firms.
23. Please use the scale below to rate the extent to which
each of the following university policies discourages or.
encourages you £g_take §g_active role in industry-university
cooperation.
0) not aware of any poliicy on this issue
1) discourages considerably (interferes with taking active role)
2) discourages slightly
3) doesn't affect either way (neutral)
4) encourages slightly
5) encourages considerably (greatly facilitates active role)
Universitygpolicy on:
a) faculty-owned business firms 0 1 2 3 4 5 103
b) consulting for pay 0 1 2 3 4 5 110
c) use of university facilities to assist
business firms (e.g., when consulting
for pay, or faculty-owned firm) 0 1 2 3 4 S 111
d) overhead 0 1 2 3 4 S 113
e) tenure and promotion 0 1 2 3 4 5 113
f) university patent and copyright policies 0 1 2 3 4 5 11“
g) proprietary research 0 1 2 3 4 5 115
h) overload (supplementary compensation) O 1 2 3 4 5 116
i) other 0 1 2 3 4 5 117
O 1 2 3 4 S 118
O 1 2 3 4 5 119

 

126

 

24. Are there any additional policies (formal or informal)
withingyour unit which discourage or encourage faculty to take an
active role in industry-university cooperation? Please describe:

 

 

 

 

120
121
122
123
Listed below are other general characteristics of University
policy or structure that may affect university-industry
cooperation. Using the scale below, circle one number to
indicate the extent to which you believe each statement applies to
this university.
1) not at all
2) to a limited extent
3) to some extent
4) to a considerable extent
5) to a very great extent
25. There are few formal guidelines for
industry-university cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 124
26. Clear, written goals and objectives exist 125
for pursuing industry-university cooperation 1 2 3 4 5
27. Formal, written policy statements exist
on the importance of maintaining up-to—
date information on the relevant trends
and events in the business sector 1 2 3 4 S 126
28. People in this university consider the
rules for industry-unversity cooperation
as general guidelines, not as rigid and
unbending 1 2 3 4 5 127
29. There are many contradictions and
inconsistencies between written policy
statements and actual practices related
to industry-university cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 129
SECTION V. Here we ask you to describe formal planning activities
that go on in this university. Please indicate your response by
circling the appropriate answer below.
30. Many universities engage in the development of formal long-
range plans (e.g., academic, budget, goal setting) at the
institutional level. As far as you know, does this university have a
Structure (e.g., commission, division) for university—wide planning?
Yes No-——d Skip to QUESTION 33 129

 

 

 

 

 

127

31. To what extent will the long-term success of this
university depend on formal long-range planning? Circle one:

1) not at all

2) to a limited extent

3) to some extent

4) to a considerable extent
5) to a very great extent

32. To what extent do formal planning activities take into account

trends and events in the business sector?

1) not at all

2) to a limited extent

3) to some extent

4) to a considerable extent
5) to a very great extent

33. We'd like to ask your general opinion about industry-universi
cooperation. From your perspective as unit head, how important is
industry—university cooperation to the mission of this university?
Circle one:

1) not at all important
2) slightly important
3) somewhat important
4) very important

5) extremely important

34. Compared to cooperative activities with other groups outside
university (e.g, federal or local government, the public sector,

individual donors, alumni), how important is industry-university

cooperation to the success of your unit? Circle one:

1) not at all important
2) slightly important
3) somewhat important
4) very important

5) extremely important

35. What do you see as the major barriers to increased industry-
university cooperation?

 

 

 

128

tY

the

130

131

132

133

36. Can you suggest ways in which the University can make
changes which will facilitate more effective industry-university
cooperation?

 

 

 

SECTION VI. Finally, we'd like to ask some questions about your
experiences involving cooperation with industry and other
universities. Let's consider the four major research universities--
The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State
University and Michigan Technological University.

 

37. Do you work in a committee, program, or activity (such as
research) that also involves members from any of these other
universities PLUS someone from a business or industry firm?

YES NO —'——t[SKIP TO QUESTION 38

Please describe:

 

 

 

 

 

 

38. It has been suggested that one way to facilitate industry-
university cooperation is to increase the level of cooperation
BETWEEN THE FOUR RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES. In your opinion, is it a
good or bad idea to promote cooperation among the four universities?
Circle one number:

1 2 3 4 5
Very bad idea mixed excellent idea

39. What do you see as the major costs and benefits of increased
cooperation among the four research universities?

 

 

 

 

 

129

100

161

1’42

1‘43
144

1145

1'46

1'47

1168

SECTION VII. We are interested in the ways in which views of
industry-university cooperation may vary across different levels
of the university.

40. Please indicate your current position: 152

Dean, College of

 

Director of

 

 

Chair, Department of

Other (Please specify)

 

41. How many years have you held this position at this 153

university?
years

42. How many years have you held a university administrative 15“

position (including those held at other universities) prior to
taking your current position?

years

 

The space below has been provided for any further comments you wish to
make.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Please place the questionnaire in the self-addressed return envelope
provided.

130

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE DIMENSIONS AND ITEMS

APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE DIMENSIONS AND ITEMS

W

13. Of all the information that you get routinely about business firms, how
often does this inforamtion come from each of the following sources? Using the
scale below, circle one number for each source.

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once or twice a week

6) daily or more often

SQLLBQES EBEQIIENQX
lmnemual
a) subscriptions to periodicals

(newspapers, magazines, journals). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
b) computerized data bases or

monitoring services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0) written reports (memos, documents)

produced within your unit 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(1) written reports produced by other

units within the university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
e) the university library 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Became!
f) verbal reports or contacts with

subordinates 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
g) verbal reports or contacts with

other administrators within the

university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
h) external consultants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
i members of other universities 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
j) members of the relevant business

sector 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

131

132

W

14. Aside from information that comes routinely, administrators often must
actively search for additional information. There are many different ways in which
an administrator might search for information on business firms. Please review
the list below, and indicate how often you actively use any of these approaches to
get nonroutine information on the business sector. Using the following scale,
circle one number for each approach:

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once or twice a week

6) daily or more often

AEEBQAQHES EBEQLLENQX

a) monitor and review routinely

published reports ordata bases 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
b) obtain reports from computerized data

bases or monitoring services 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
c) review written reports produced

within myunit O 1 2 3 4 5 6
d) review written reports produced by

. other units within the university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9) ask for verbal reports from

subordinates 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
f) solicit verbal reports or contacts

with other administrators within the

university 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

MIME

9) contract external consultants O 1 2
h) contact members of other universities 0 1 2
i) form a committee to acquire the needed

information 0 1 2
j) call or write someone in the

relevant business firm 0 1 2
k) interact directly with members of the

relevant business sector 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
I) send questionnaires or surveys to

businessfirms 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

(JD OD (DOD
A

01 01 010'!
O)

133

WI!

18. Particularly when information received on business firms is unusual or
unexpected, this information can be unclear and lead to a variety of different
interpretations. As unit head, can you recall instances when you've received
information or requests from business firms that were unclear or ambiguous?

Yes No

 

 

19. How often, on the average, would you say that the information you receive on
business firms is unclear or ambiguous?

1 ) never

2) rarely

3) sometimes

4) oflen

5) almost always

20. How often do you discuss unclear or ambiguous data with people from the
following groups in the process of trying to understand the implications for your
unit? Using this scale, circle one number on each line:

1) never

2) rarely

3) sometimes

4) oflen

5) almost always
a) others at my same administrative level 1 2 3 4 5
6) higher level administrators 1 2 3 4 5
c) faculty 1 2 3 4 5
d) staff 1 2 3 4 5
9) professional colleagues outside this

university 1 2 3 4 5
f) members of the relevant business firm 1 2 3 4 5
9) members of other business firms 1 2 3 4 5

21. What other approaches do you take to reduce ambiguity? For example, do
you frequently pass the information along to others to let them determine its
meaning? Do you asses the information yourself, and determine what it means
based on what you already know about the firm? In your answer, please provide
one or two examples of approaches that you've used.

 

134

W

2. For each type of cooperative effort listed below, please estimate how
frequently you and other members of your unit have participated In these

activities Usingihis scale cimlemenumbeunmlumafl;

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three to four times a year

4) once or twice a month

5) once a week or more

A- Eadidnatien B. EEQQUQDS!
-conduct research supported by
business firms (contract research) ...................... 0 1 2 3 4 5
-collaborate in research projects
(joint, non-proprietary research) .......................... O 1 2 3 4 5
-engage in faculty consulting ................................ 0 1 2 3 4 5
-place graduates in industry .................................. 0 1 2 3 4 5
-hold conferences and seminars for business
sector participants ................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 5
-conduct seminar/colloquia series in which
business people participate ................................ O 1 2 3 4 5
-place student interns in business firms
(9.9. coop ed, workstudy, formal internships). 0 1 2 3 4 5
-permit faculty sabbatical or temporary
placement of faculty in business firms ............ 0 1 2 3 4 5
-hire part-time faculty from business firms.... 0 1 2 3 4 5
-provide technical service to industry .................. O 1 2 3 4 5
-faculty or staff hold equity or membership
in businessfirrns ..................................................... 0 1 2 3 4 5

A. In column A below, please list the types of industries your unit has had contact
with over the last two years. Do not give specific names of businesses, but rather
types of industries, such as computer, banking, electronics, etc.

B. For each type of industry you listed, please estimate to the nearest 5 the
number of firms with which you or other members of your unit have cooperated
over the last two years. If you don't know or can't estimate, please enter ”7" in
column B. '

135

ANALIZABILIH
Change

6. Have there been any major changes over the last year or so in the types of
requests business firms have made for service from your unit?

No

Yes Please describe:

E I' I III

7. On the whole, to what extent were these changes in business firms' requests
predictable?

1) not at all predictable
2) slightly predictable

3) somewhat predictable
4) quite predictable

5) extremely predictable

We

8. How often, in the past two years, have business firms requested novel
services from your unit? By novel we mean services different from those your unit
has previously provided.

0) not at all

1) less than once a year

2) once or twice a year

3) three or four times a year
4) once or twice a month

5) once a week or more

15. How easy is it for you to get information about the needs that business firms
have for services which your unit could provide? Circle one number:

1 ) difficult
2) not very easy
3) somewhat easy

4) very easy
5) extremely easy

136

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Listed below are other general characteristics of University policy or structure that
may affect university-industry cooperation. Using the scale below, circle one
number to indicate the extent to which you believe each statement applies to this
university.

1') not at all 4) to a considerable extent
2) to a limited extent 5) to a very great extent
3) to some extent w

5180911155
E I' I'

26. Clear, written goals and objectives exist

for pursuing industry-university cooperation 1 2 3 4 5
27. Formal, written policy statements exist on

the importance of maintaining up-to—date

information on the relevant trends and

events in the business sector 1 2 3 4 5

28. People in this university consider the
rules for industry-university cooperation
as general guidelines, not as rigid and
unbending 1 2 3 4 5

W
BescurceAlchatiQn
16. Approximately what percent of your annual discretionary budge is allocated

to each of the following activities to obtain information on the needs of private
business firms? (Please estimate to the nearest 1-2% or enter ”?")

a) faculty attendance at professional meetings
at which business contacts are likely

b) attendance at business-oriented conferences
and seminars

c) subscriptions for your unit to business-
oriented journals or trade magazines

d) industry-related data bases or monitoring
services

9) travel related to increasingfimproving
contacts with business firms

1) entertaining members of business firms

9) bringing business people to your unit

h) other information-seeking activities:

137

Eelicx
23. Please use the scale below to rate the extent to which each of the following

university policies W In
industry-university cooperation.

0) not aware of any policy on this issue

1) discourages considerably (interferes with taking active role)
2) discourages slightly

3) doesn't affect either way (neutral)

4) encourages slightly

5) encourages considerably (greatly facilitates active role)

Unjygrsijy pglicy 93;

a) faculty-owned business firms

b) consulting for pay

0) use of university facilities to assist
business firms (e.g., when consulting

OO
.1

NM
0000
h-b
0101

for pay, or faculty-owned firm) 0 1 2 3 4 5
d) overhead 0 1 2 3 4 5
e) tenure and promotion 0 1 2 3 4 5
f) university patent and copyright policies 0 1 2 3 4 5
g) proprietary research 0 1 2 3 4 5
h) overload (supplementary compensation) 0 1 2 3 4 5

EQLmaLElanning

31. To what extent will the long-term success of this university depend on formal
long-range planning? Circle one:

1) not at all 4) to a considerable extent
2) to a limited extent 5) to a very great extent
3) to some extent

32. To what extent do formal planning activities take into account trends and
events in the business sector?

1) not at all

2) to a limited extent

3) to some extent

4) to a considerable extent

5) to a very great extent

138

40. Please indicate your current position:
W

E

Dean, College of
Ass't or Assoc. Dean, College of
Director of

Ass't or Assoc. Director of
Chair, Department of
Coordinator of
Supervisor of

 

 

 

 

 

E

41. How many years have you held this position at this university?
years

42. How many years have you held a university administrative position
(including those held at other universities) prior to taking your current position?

Years

APPENDD( D

DATA MATRD( AND SURVEY CODEBOOK

APPENDIX D DATA MATRD(

14 24 404 09090999990999291 9999999965 7030030600000070000000000

0862155 4503501 0009905 06021704 88.888888888888881088888088808888150004 002
04003004 0099499904 0000000100000099999990888888888888888888323131333999
0884 408080909899919992919999999965 309000101413012 3583007008

084 21204 31131209999031721229901088888801099921288888088808889088888888

88 '888888888899905 0001 00000000009999899(68888888888888888835 32 2 2 239990

02 2 2 206090909999919993619999999965 213000009600004 9 41900100]

0972135 4 2 92000009990105999999004 004 99999999950088888088808888088888888
8888888888884 99901000000000100009999999818888888888888888894 4109099990
834 3302 09090989990999.309190979996801900007 7 2 75 0066‘ I2 0000000
0692131332 32005 0999031 301209988888888888888831 1 099‘ 1331 991 4 88114 2 214 203

24 2010033999399901010101010101999999599122332 2 2 1 9991 9991 093432 33339990
132 4 4 00090909199909994019999999961107210040034 0009976003003

1092101 4 90001020999010099999900700799999999921099994099908889100003030
0200102 209995 99988000000000000999999888088888888888888888834 32 1 01 19992
1213204010909199909993009999999939014 0000100000010000000000

0832132 4 30001130999041905210201200200300500211288888288808888100000000
0000004 4 0999899905010000010000999999999088888888888888888834 3331239999
1314 4 99999999999909995999999999965108000046207004 8670000000
0782129332320229999031709009902001000500599911088881219908888161110010
1001002 20999169900030001010000999999999088888888888888888802 2902 229990
14 2 4 5060909091999099941264999999623021500000000000000001001
0752132442342221999051705010024000500520003031129993419914882133021201
8888888888883099030505 05020305 9999990992 8888888888888888884 402 2 2 209992
132 5 3000909092199199941 199999999610000500060000000000000000

082 21213302-1103199903020406990070020020039993128888808880888814 3004000
00000005 199951 1 1 888888888888888888881991 3999995 3999 4 9994 99999999999990

14 4 53060909099999288830199999999640029900000000000000000000

0732144 343341251999050120151506501002500501531288888088812091142213113
121120340999359905020199010101999999]25088888888888888888834 2141129992
112550602030947791999291909999996160200013470402 5762 7003001

112 215454221204099902050199998888888888888882108888808881088]100015002
00002 03909999099020200000002029999994 99088888888888888888812 2122229990
2882 202000009999999999999999999931 50707003874 8004 7997000000
0702155444 4 48258999042115999907099999999999931129993419928882155555554
4544434429993699888888888888888888881 09133354 34 399934 991994541 22239998
1225406090909099909993999999999961205150075577007 7544000000

081 2 100000000090999999999999999999999999999990999999999908888088888888
8888888888883899000000000000009999999990888888888888888888032 020009990

1 4 33104 090909999909994 999999999934 0020000000000000000000000
1182153422511012999051320000001400600200200311088888088808888140012200
88888888888835090000010CKX10000999999999088888888888888888824 2132239998
12133020909099999099951999999999690080099999999999999999999
120212CW®W0009999999W99999999999999999999908888808880888m00m0000
oooom3399993699amomommoooocmoo999ossssmsssssssmomooomoooe
0884 2000909090999099958899999999240121299999999999999999999

139

140

0852100310150020999020602999901000500599999921088888088808888150103203
1310302209991509020000000201009999999990888888888888888888121111129990
12144030909099999099939999999999630010100112150043817001003
0762122445340143999020900999905004001099999931088888088808889144003202
0310002409994888050202069901999999990991233332499992999249040120009990
15344000909093999088839099999999621020000200000150000001001
0992142554451351999052000000041020010005004531088888319913011142106211
161112461999459915102015101015059999888133442142999199919934 2141129991
134 44069999991999099936199999999326010100750000000000003001
0912155.320220030999020]05999903001002099999931129995088808888150002103
8888888888881699030101000000000099999‘19088888888888888888815 4 2 2 2349990
08844000408090399099951179299999680120001920000197000032032

077 21002 40030002999999999999999999999999999990888888999908888151000000
8888888888883890000000000000000099999990888888888888888888131 1 23029990

1 22 2 204 090909999909993999999999962 201 0400000000000000000000
1062100303250000999050206052104902101300400841088888219911011100403200
0300004450004999020200001000009999999990888888888888888888340213339999
032 4 5999999999999199941 9999999993501 7000000000000000004 0034

1 1 1 21 02002 30000099903001 801 998888888888888885 0999999999908888088888888
8888888888881 199000000000000000099990990888888888888888888041 232249999

1 994 2999999999999099939999999999390200400000000000000000000
0982133453251149999062000180013502004002503051199999219911012140316401
041010441999499925 20050025 200099059950008888888888888888883421 031 39990
088550609090909990999419999999993260800002 20400043921006006
095211223003102099904182107048888888888888883108888308880888816001 1 100
888888888 88888880 1 00000000000099999999901 88888888888888888999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999662050000000000000000000000
10021000050000009590502090609030010010005005110888882199110]1130401 100
0000005529993999999901990199019999999990888888888888888888033333339998
9885 509090909999909995 99999999993200303000000000000001001 00
0742132443400039999041818181804000500502500541119993319910881160304200
2300000409994888150505000600109999999991333412319993499004451129119999
1435 4010009091 08909993009999999961 4070700998660082 468002002
2222100522320220999050204150701501088800588821088888088808888160014042
0000001 3099936990201 0200000100999999999088888888888888888803002 0009999
1434 4000909093099099921 909999999699010199999999999999999999
0872152552351251999050206000788888888888888851129992319900888123515240
222112551999350920020100050202999999]091333442429991999299152111119992
1534 401 02090909992 9993749999999965 402020055465 0031 000003002
08821304421002309990402211121020005005005005 21999999999908888088888888
8888888888884 99999999999999999999999999888888888888888888804412 1 1 29999
08855030909091999199949999999999655010700400000038500001000
08921433321010309990305070199015012001002999211199932199088881400032 93
340000039999399902010199028888999999]990888888888888888888443593543999
08855090909091999009941099999999690060701713730556799001002
1022100110001000999021606999900200100199999910888888999900888088888888
8888888888889899000000000000000099999990888888888888888888342332339990
1321 1000004090999089901 l 99999999340040000000(100000000000000
113211013223113099904091202000220050100040033108888808881302]132323232
24111112199948889999999999999999999999908888888888888888883532444 44999

15 35 504090909099909995 0100090909362050600000000000210003004
07221544333411439990500010117045010010015005 31088888819008888888888888

141

4241223419992209205005002000059999991291434344539999999299055244419999
13445040009090999199938899999999340040100035990000000022014
1934100150030012499040922002100900200400388811288888088808888142015312
2320104209992099070001000101009999993090881888888888888888355434119990
14455000909090999099944169999999350011499999999999999000000
1844130552001200999040602170700500100200100141088888088812011100000000
0000000409995 888000001 0001 00000099998992888888888888888888033045 419990
1545409090909999909993999999999965305000105 4880207814001001
190412134233002099902112299990100050059999992112999308880888814344 5402
4540203309994 999200501 990399999999999990888888888888888888555 1 2234 9998

1 43550309090949990999519490999996560601 0085 4660033376000000
1964100050250000999050704021702000500500300431288888088811011152114332
1331423419993999100201011501019999999991334 234 492999999249033230009999
15 455060809099999099949999999999300051299999999999999999999
1944155402000020999042111020701000200200500151119994319928888100304100
0410105509993399100202003000000099998991323352219994 399199021132199990
1344304 09090989991 99931 19999999935009001 1638531 990691001 001
1884144332231130999031102 219900800300300299951999999999908888120234 492
133921 44099999991 50201 001 001 029999999991 3234 3231 99949999995 44923229993
1334403040909999999999119999999965 4050004437180477535000000
2014144453343240999061805110705401001501001051088888219908888154414521
3341104 409994888000001010505059901998990888888888888888888533333219990

1 4 45509090909099919995 1 99999999930005 01 99999999999999999999

185 4144323121020999031818119901500500500599941088888088813018141113321
2332213429993099030201990200019999993090888888888888888888112243319992

14 34 4000909091 1990999510.599999997000102034 58390232 217000001
183412045124111299905000809110400150100050055108888808881403111012 2 201
12200144 29991099120201000200009999999990888888888888888888332212229990
1223300090909199909995019999999965 2050003023330391 05 6000001
1984088888888888888999999999999999999999999991 088888088808888088888888
203030201499219988888800000000999999899088888888888888888844429991 1999
1885 2000309091499099946979999999540020099999999999999022014
1874110240231019999030206099900700100500199951288888088811048150043000
8888888888882399030000000000009999991 9908888888888888888882 40222929999
1434499999999999909995 9999999999665010199999999999999000000
2180155530422220999030602199900700200200399951088888088808888120004000
8888888888889999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
2210154543432249999050221060003800500388803031988888088808888088888888
88888888888826091000050005000099999919904245 2 3529991499899441353449998
0885 4060409098999099931199999999699040499999999999999999999
2170122554251351999030206129901801200200499911088888119908888100000000
88888888888837990000000000000000000099913334135 49994 99909935421 1 159992
1 495 4999999999999099930999999999600030499999999999999999999
2200111324400131999060621099996040006050099921088888219908888163315301
1431335649994109888888888888888888880991332333339990299209132331119991

1 31 5 5000009090099099930899999999099060699999999999999999999
00311545553323419990906030900067010012016020311299945199110211606465 25
4559064545992099159900010000000199991091311443334993299999223412211991
15254090909099999099938899999999120010000140680003726999999
1513132431031121999030204179‘K1200050100059992108888808880888812202 4101
888888888888369902 01010002 02 029‘P99999990888888888888888888555232209999

142

1673133311300320999010599999904004099999999921088888088808888140114291
8888888888882999999999999999999999999991332333339995 99988885 8932289999
932330809090999990999295 9999999969002020079444005 8840999999
1533155452342358599050203171000600200200]88841088888219912013140223302
0330203409992099089999999902999999998880888888888888888888055231219990
08855080909098999099937599999999654080514000001100000005005
1543155553554555999030706]6990500200200109993]088888088808888144444424
34404 2240999488805050500050505999999009088888888888888888855531 4119999
1334463999999999909994889999999965 310100621382] 202886000000
1353155555434359999051306080250001002001001051112994 319908888156232413
4431 4 04 40999209988888888888888889999999134 44234 499920991991 41 131 119999
155 34000003099999099951 90909999905 0020000000000000000000000
15631345 322112329990306220099030020005005999410888880888088881122 4 2 2 22
88888888888899990501010]020100999999999088888888888888888844 234 3239998
1535 309090909999909999999999999965201 0001 5902801 4 2637002002

143312234 4 432231 999060206091 002100500201 00032] 08888831 99088881 64 023202
00002 0333999200000000000000099009999999088888888888888888834 4113339992
15333060909090099099941 199999999630020999999999999999999999

16031 434534 3335 399904 1 905020788888888888888831 0888880888088881 5 202331 2
88888888888899990200000000000099999939908888888888888888881 332 21 1 4 9998
1533301040909299928883029999999926003000335 05 601 69086999999
152315554344133299905021121210190030060050052112999331990888815 2004403
0010101 1 0999359902000] 0101 0] 00999999399] 323323329994999099543305 209990
1444403000000000909994000090999965501040012000004 7000001001
140318885555885899906210906071000400200100105108888831991588215 4 346602
465 0303409994 888888888888888888888881 291 3555535 4 9999999999835 888889999
1334 5 0909090999990999499999999992 20061 301 5000001 50000000000
13831113321 1 100099901099999990050059999999991 1088888] 19908888] 40000000
8888888888888899109905990599999999990390888888888888888888000000000009
08835 04 090909999909992999999999932 1 02 0401 000000075 000000000
1333199914999999999040216091200900300300200150088888088808888]60060000
8888888888881 199888888888888889999998880888888888888888888999999999999
1999999090909999909995999999999902011 1 100000000000000000000
1703132342211030999041911081704501501000500521088888219908888112100012
1010113309992509020000000002009999998990888888888888888888022 213019992
14332 0009090999990999388999999996900802011000001 10000000000

13931425 5553543499905020719098888888888888884111299421 99088881 30235 303
2400004 4 29993099888888888888888888883101332422429990999109229011009999
13155060004091099099939190999999330020301500000150000000000

14431324 342323234990409061 7008888888888888882] 0888880888088881 5 2020020
00000035 29994 88805020500010] 02 999999888088888888888888888824 1 1 40009991

1 4444040909090999099941999999999623090299999999999999999999
1994102003130050599031111]1991850300051509995111300431111408813542525]
36451155 2 4 99488802040100080000]099999991222222424992999000011333309990
15555000909092999288858324999999556020099999999999999000000
1894155441231025999050221111104401001500800621]29993088808888] 4231431]
8888888888889999100201000202029999999992988888888888888888354 35 5 5 29999
1444508090909099919994119999999965508020948]68092435 5000000
186415332303102099902050699990150100059999994]288888088808888088888888
888888888888 2 9991 0050000990000009999999088888888888888888834 4 2 2 2 2 19990
143440609090909990999509999999996500109018237102197] 7000000
1974100124 400020999020206999900500100499999931088888219908888141314 411

143

155450300000005991999545597999995 70080000092210003918999999
0151155004400050400030212229905000601403099951088883319908882164444432
3654445616991199100308990101999999999991432943421111499109033333339990
08855070409092007099932009999999430001800000000000000999999
014110000000003094202080099990080060029999991 108888808880888216044655 4
9000099909394 999999999999999999999998881 3422423299919991 39393399999990
15555050609098999099949399999999430090500000000000000999999
2024132441232220999040619160805502500500502021288888211910012151444433
44 43304 409995 8883000000001000199999999913333332 29999999999131111119999
121 4 49999999999992888599999999998001 20099999999999999999999

013215 35213500104 59070210091721900220001300231088888088811011164226314
0599905000005 99903020308080] 089999999991 31 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 9999999033333900000
0889406090909999919995 199999999910005 0600000000000000999999

012110342 2221221999021299999910010099999999950088888888808882140045313
354332332 99934991 86005076004 049999991 991 34 35 34439991 9999994434 1 3342992
14 4 4 20504 0009609909995 8099999999] 800800001 29840000000999999
0101152432220022299031321029901701500100199951088888319908888100222122
00000044099912000101010101010101010199915523135]9994999299333222232990
15453000409090099099941099999999180041102596850387974999999
0091100004 200400000030200099901000300100699951088888219908889140204100
8888888888885 8880001 01 0001 00009999996990888888888888888888030404030001
1884 400000909999909994 10909999992 7002 33000922 1 00039 1 8999999
0081100003300400999021600009988800299999999951088888088818991 130023302
2332 202209992099000201 000000029999996991 234 23342999499920934 3434429998
14344060099998999099941 1490999991 70011 100092210003918999999

149310235 21011019190402 2 2080788888888888888831288888088808888162312102
0200002 20999-199910051005020000999999999088888888888888888802102 3039999
15355040909090999099931 99999999962007020050000005 0000020020
16431443211201209990309]22299135045 04504 5999519999999999180321113432 33
3330402009991 199000000000000009999998991522221119991099419110122219990
14243030609091 09909999999999999966201 0200000000000000999999
1683105110000000999010099999900200299999999958999999999908888150020000
0000000000099999000000000000000099998990888888888888888888351112139999
1482204090909899909995120099999969003000023000002 3000000000
13031534412313] 0999021305999901501200399999931119991099908888150215000
05000004 0999488888888801 8888889999999990888888888888888888333333333990
08844999999999999099939999999999180100099999999999999999999
1503134421220120999051702090402901500500800141129994088808888120000032
0000000409993099050500000501019999991051411313423991499199322312319991
14233030909094 1 99099938199999999620010099999999999999999999
14231000302 40000999089999999988899999999999931999994088808888088888888
00000004 09993099020299999999999999999990888888888888888888000000000009
0882 2090909099999] 9995 999999999962 20204 99999999999999999999

1633182492 328029999010699999900300399999999941999999999908888088888888
888888888888 1 6990000000000000000999999908888888888888888880 402 1 31 09999
84832090909099999099939999999999662010000000000000000999999
137313022090314 099918219999998888889999999991108888808881501310404 2402
4030002 409993999018801020188888899“)009(188888888888888888805 4504 449999
153420709090919990999399999999993201 1] 101500000150000000000
132310030440005 09 4 202000599990350300059999993108888421990888315244 54 23
2554303409992 69905010100010101999999999123333342999129919933333333.3330
1534 30000090900‘ ’91 9995 88999999990000 40300000000000000000000

144

002232 463999309920050301 050101 99999909908888888888839990991 43102209990
14255000909093999099931999999999613010602955690323423001001

0962102 32] 2000109990] 1 399999900200299999999951088888088808888160044424
2220202209993099050101000000009999991390188888888888888499342332229990
14342060009094099090951199999999680042500393000065935000000
064212040552215999910012000999981809989989995111299231991022]155666513
4540234439993999121301992504999999991590888888888888888888450114349992

1 335 409090909999999999090909090931 0021 9042596005 90258099099

050] 155500000059999020210999900600100599999911 199991119908888088888888
888888888888888801000000000000009999199131 1 1 11 119994 999888233341 139992
08832 030409099999099959999‘ 2999996800200008884 501 49593999999
0391088888888888888999999999999999999999999990999998999908888088888888
8888888888884888000000000000000099999990888888888888888888050240009999

1 44 3109090909999909993999999999936401 01 00000000000000999999

05 31088888888888888999999999999999999999999910988888888808888088888888
8888888888881699000000000000000000009990188888888888888888122220019990
0884 4080609098099099950199999999680110800163260049416999999

04 5 1 088888888888888999999999999999999999999990999999999908888155534 21 1
041001 1 109991899080501080808089999998088888888888888888888231 131139999

1 4 345080808088888099951 999999999730000600000000000000999999
219110245224132299905122200020630100]002000321088888088808888160106022
060020562999399900010000000000990299199088888888888888888800881 1 1 19998
1535 4090909091999099949999999999699050099999999999999999999

0321 1224 42308149999030513029901801000500399941088888088808882088888888
84000034 1 999299900000000000000999999999088888888888888888834 2332239999
0423304 0909094 9990999 4 889999999969002 00008795 50080828999999
0561122303200028999030202 219901100500100599941088888219908888140204020
2301 112209992699010000000500009999990990888888888888888888050113229998

1 34 4401 090909099909995 1 9999999996801 01 1 00000000000000999999
0431133323320000999030221229988888888888899981088881219908888088888888
88888888888899999999999999999999999999999999999999999999991 12319929990
08833090909099999099930099999999662040400000000000000999999
0351112332241228999040000211604088888888888851888888119911021199993299
00000033099918880000000001010199999919912992 22 299931999888000000000008
04233060909098999099948899999999661020200000000000000999999
1764103230300120999011899999900400499999999941119991119914043111314312
1431123411993999551005002010999999999990888888888888888888354535519999
14455000909091999199940099999999]14999922064962520287999999
1954133332231131999010099999901001099999999921088888088808888144444444
4444444444444888080505000000000099999990888888888888888888143423319999
1 4 4 5 4060909099999199930899999999300060099999999999999999999
108213255246324299904020507060230050050030104]109993319911011153134313
233020440999369905050502100205999999639]33434 2329999999099452221139991
14 32 40300090909991 999200999999994502005 99999999999999000000

0071 1 000444302005 99040402120999999999999999931 08888821991101 1 1602 46444
051040440000499999999999999999999999999131 1 11 1 419999999888030033009190
0994 4060409099999199931399999999362070700000000000000999999
00611404300300002 99030215219900400200100199921199991119914011130332102
2.3000102033939990]01000001000099999939908888888888888888884555251494 90
15 4 4304060000730919995 2611999999162040500000000000000999999
018110030432040944504021217216520010500016003111200431990888216300544 4
2034345449993099029901000101009999991091325433439393999199335394329118

145

15335000109090999199951909999999150171201445720175654093061
0622154534553141999130300210016200501005009031112994319913011165546544
44403036359948889999999999999999999909912 23322492994 9990991 21 1231 39991
13255040099992099099949999999999120110401148 3702155032 22289
0612144554434359499102105012016005002501501541112994419911021164555204
5540434345955999100101000201029999991691222553529991399199554235409999
15555030400002999199951999999999110092514916441294919w8010
0662155532423259545100519010620005005005002521088888419911012160105501
03300014099941990505010005010199999999912112215119999999995 5332 5 393990
12343080400090999199940199999999190230406912681045 793050050

0682132 42 433132139903180100990150020030109995]11999889991301115 4 331200

02 200011399913692525100005000199999910908888888888888888885 512 34 419991

124 44060000096399099941 199999999162 10100000000000000001 2016
0311132331132122999021305090901100900299999941099999319908888111314142
121430240999209925000300050202090909999132 2423529999999<)99333232 329999
1534 30909090999991 9995 1 9999999996901001 001 17070002886999999

060110095 44 50000999888888888888888888888888841088888419908888934 4 4 5535
8888888888883999999999999999999999999990888888888888888888 333333339999
09999090909099999199939999999999370090900000000000000999999

04 7199999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999909994302022 2
002121110999399900000100000000999999199999999999999999999935 554 4 449999
15 45 40809090909991999561999999996801 60000000000000000999999
0201114421251238999051712162201600101000100341088888219914882950224202
24202013199925700000000000000099999959913234 334 29990999099333123339990
1333204 0909090999099988899999‘799062 0204000(10000000000995.1999
037112023223031599904021501200190020150010015109988821‘2108888888888888
8888888888882 799030101010000019999998880888888888888888888 4 4 3334 119992

144 440609090919990999419999999996600400000587 70018351999999
0511104120000030999010099999900100399999999911088888219908888099999999
999999999999299900000000000000999999999088888888888888888894 9904499999
0884 40909090999990999499999999993902 2 0000000000000000999999
0281100330000500299031702219901000100300699921099988088808888950023303
2030303309994888000000000000009999999990888888888888888888004 321020192
1424406060909099909993999999999935 004090001388004 4368999999
03311012000000009990300020699003001 001 0019992099999999990888894 2000000
00000000099925 99000001 000000000909099990888888888888888888038833389990
08843060909094999099956999999999630010300135530007313999999
0581088888888888888999999999999999999999099990999999999908888130103902
0000320000991 100000000000000000000099990088888888888888888332 21 2319990
12332000909099999199938899999999680161 100000000000000999999
054112141000000099903131902990050030010019993108888800880888810001 1000
1000901 2009926990200000000000000999915908888888888888888880332 23109999
0884400080009000909993000909999968002 0200000000000000999999
02610888888888888889999999999999999999999999909999999999088881 5 2 333323
233330130999399910050505050000999999599088888888888888888805. 494 4 039998
1434334999999009909994190199999965 20202 00008030024270999999
04111323133210399990517071909016003008002!‘02410888880888110301502 2 4220
2032004 4! 1999: 9990000000005 0003999995“ ’9‘ M =. '83 88888888888888.14 5 333339999
132430909090111.29990999291 9999999966 2 03f.v3(10000000000000999999

01911001 40.15039059905000000000270050100050054108888808880885.81 40345501
5540204429994 509000005 00030001 9999991 99 1 <2 2 41 1 329994999- 49031032 209999
1884 406090‘ 1098999099988899999999399111 05’ ><1999999999999<199w)9

146

0571120010000000999010099999900500599999999950888888888808888100000003
88888888 8888 1 099000000000000000009099990888888888888888888333334 399999
14342000909098888199939999999999690030900139020010786999999
0271155551255535999040207060000800300300100151088888119908888158004112
0211102209992299100000000001010909099990888888888888888888342324239991
1444 503010909100909995091909790965303010079003005 9702999999
0481122432 210335999050522020000900100500100131119994219908888140002031
02031023099995992515109999104099999989"0888888888888888888445443449991
1535 40509090939990999219999999995 80090900000000000000999999

001114 4 442232355999060203052205201001500601041112993319908883164004422
088888888255388810]5019901010]0199994991533383584991999219033423181991
13455999999999999199999999999999] 501502025 22910770003999999
01611000020000000390113999999015015999999999500888880888088881 40003003
0000002009995888888888888888888888888880888888888882999888003381009990

1 2 4 4 4 04 0909094 999099951999999999380081 700000000000000999999

005113142 4411430949031313]29902501000201099941029998219908883155416140
3410402509999199109910999902999999999991322822222992999199055444339590
1325 3000909090999199939099999999] 801 1 1000000000000000999999
0041152303500059499070222061640099999999999951112991399911011150404202
24 2004 4009994999252500010201 99999999599131 22445 29991 9991 99350304139190
088 4 5 000801 05104 9099999999999999330020300000000000000999999
0171155531400018999061321200003902000500101231088888219908888166004300
066000 .1 409993699150100000099019999991991 4 41 32 2 319991999199002193039992
O18130-10909093809199929999999999380050002 59685038 797 .1 999999
1774152320000029999031805179901900501000499941088888088814881153023201
14 30104 309993399050102000800999999996991343293429993999099343324589991
13345010909091699099948899999999357010004792400630333001002
1784133330830000000051116070200600200100100141199992199908888840222301
3110111000002099059901000500020099991391433422210009999999233323329999
132430000000999990999919999999991601015033] 6880444464000000
0672152512101331999051202130105803000700601541112993319908883160334343
0499994 404494999050501000001 999999991 301322444539999999999343231339990
12444000000010999199941199999999]80070304730230268987018010

063215 5 44 2 243441999040221050403600301500801031088888319908882164036522
35 50203403992399020101019900009999990991344443429993999199443131119990

147

APPENDIX D: SURVEY CODEBOOK

MW

1 RESPONDENT NUMBER
2 UNIVERSITY CODE: (1 THRU 4)
W211]!
3-17 Frequency of activities with industry (singlets)
18 Total Number of industries (up to 98) 2 digit
19-22 Type of Industry codes

00 Other

01 Agricultural

02 Automotive

03 Auto suppliers

04 Aerospace, transportation

05 Chemical

06 Computer

07 Electronic

08 Engineering

09 Financial (Banks, insurance, accounting)

10 Law firms

1 1 Metal/Mining

12 Healthcare (Hospitals, nursing homes, HMO's)

13 Pharmaceutical

14 Research firms

15 Retail chains

16 Telecommunications

17 Utilities

18 Wood Product Manufacturers

19 Petroleum, oil

20 Food Processors

21 Misc. manufacturing

22 Consulting firms
23 total number of firms (3 digit)
24-27 number of firms: (3 digit numerical code)
28-29 Misc descriptive, (Singlets)

MAB

30
31-34.

35-36
37-39.

148

QESQBIELLQN

ANALYZABILITY (Singlet)
Types of changes: (Singlet)
O. Other

1. Changes in content

2. Changes in volume

3. Shift in program emphasis

4. More requests for consultative services
predictability, change (Singlets)
Types of novel services: (singlets)
1. See survey for specific answer
8. Don't know, not relevant

9. Blank

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE:

40
41.

Monitoring responsibility (singlet)

Position to which scanning assigned (singlet)
0. Other

1. Director or Dean (incl. Ass't and Assoc.)

2. Dept. chair

3. Coordinator, manager

4. Non-administrative faculty

5. Staff >

42. Number of people (2 digit)
43. How is responsibility assigned (singlet)

0. Other

1. Formal job description

2. Informal agreement between individual and unit head
3. Individual initiative to take on responsibility

44-56 SCANNING SOURCE (Singlets)

57-72 SCANNING INITIATION (Singlets)

73

ANALYZABILITY (Singlet)

74-76. Major difficulties in getting information (Singlet)

Other

Communication problems

Business doesn't know/ can't tell us what it wants
Lack of experience with talking to business firms
Low prestige of university with business

Time involved

Info not available/sources unknown

Not enough personnel

NPWPSh’Nr‘P

149

ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY

MABQESLZBIEDQN

77-86 Resource allocation (2 digit)
87-89 " " (Singlet)
Other support of information-seeking activities:
Other
Faculty release time
internal incentives
Travel funds
Sabbatical support
Informal encouragement
Recognized/expected part of personnel function

ewswwep

INTERPRETATION

90 Abiguity: existence (Singlet, O, 1)
91 frequency (Singlet)
92-101 Interpretation mode (Singlets)
102-5. Approaches to reduce ambiguity (Singlet)
Other
Pass on to others (delegate responsibility for reduction)
Assess based on own knowledge
Form a committee, do jointly with personnel
Analyze or discuss with industry personnel
. Ignore it
106-8. Crit ria for discussion decision (singlet)
O. Other
1. Expertise or interest of individual relative to information
2. Type of information
3. Complexity of data
4. Specific firm involved

wéwwrp

ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY

109-119 Specific policy affects initiation (Singlets)
120-23. Policies within unit (Singlets)
1. Yes. There are policies which encourage
2. Yes. There are policies which discourage
O. No.
124-28 Formalization (singlets) [RECODE:reverse score]
129-131 Formal planning
132-133 Opinion Industry-University Cooperation (I-U-C)
(Singlets)

MAB

150

QESSZBIEIIQN

134-37. Major barriers to I-U cooperation (2 digit)

138-41.

1 42-45

146

147-5].

Other

Lack of communication between business and industry
Overhead policies

Internal (University) policy or leadership
Conflict of interests/values, missions

Low status of University with Industry
Insufficient resources/support for faculty

Lack of interest from faculty

Insufficient information on business needs

No response

Suggested changes (Singlets)

Other

Change policies

More leadership from the top

More outreach to business

Change hiring policies

Increase exchange of information between business and U's
Change image of U

Decrease administrative barriers

Create central unit for coordinating information
No response

PPNP’WPWNT‘P

SPPNP’QPSDNT‘P

lnteruniversity cooperation: 9 [see survey for specific

responses]

lnteruniversity cooperation (Singlet)

Benefits and costs of increased l-U-C: (2 digits)
First digit = Benefits of increased l-U-C:
More optimum use of university resources
Better service to industry
More successful outreach to industry
Shared information

Greater visibility for research
Greater distribution of industry resources
Easier for industry to contact/communicate with
university units

Se cond digit- .. Costs of increased l- U- C:

1. Loss of time in coordination efforts

2. Greater constraints on individual initiatives

3. Difficulty In legislating coordination

4

5.

51929199919?

Costly
Loss to individual universities

151

EXECUTIVE ROLE

MABQESQBIELIQN

152. Current Position (1 digit)
Hierarchical
1 = Dean
. Ass‘t or Associate Dean
Director
Ass't or Associate Director
Coordinator
Department chair (including Acting)
Supervisor
. Other

owwweww

153.Functlonal Area (2 digits)
10. Agriculture
11. Ag Econ
12. Ag Engineering
13. Crop & Soil Science

14. Forestry
15. Other
20. Business

21. Accounting
22. Economics
23. Finance
25. Management
26. Other
30. Computer Services
40. Education
50. Engineering
51. Chemical
52. Civil
53. Electrical
54. Mechanical
55. Metallurgical
56. Mining
57. Other
60. Liberal Arts (Literature, Arts, Social Sciences,
Humanities)
61. Arts 8 Letters
62. Social Sciences
63. Humanities
64. Other
70. Lifelong Learning
80. Medicine
90. Natural Science
00. Other

152

EXPERIENCE

MABQESSZBHIQN

154 Current position (2 digit)
155 Years previous experience (2 digit)

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational
boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), W
W, (pp. 1175-1199). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Aguilar, F. (1967). Women}. New York: McMillan.
Aiken, M., & Haige, J. (1972). Organizationalpermeability, boundary spanners

and organizational structure. Unpublished paper, Department of Sociology,
University of Wisconsin, 1972.

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organizational
structure. W1, 217-230.

Allen, T. H., & Cohen, J. F. (1969). Information flow in research and development
laboratories. MW, 14, 12—19.

Boulding, K.E. (1953). W. New York: Harper & Row.

Brockhaus, R. S. (1975). l-E Locus of control scores as predictors of

entrepreneurial intentions. WW.
433-435.

Bums,T., & Stalker, G. M. (1979). MW. London:

Tavistock.
Cameron, KS. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness of institutions in

higher education. W 23. 604-628.

153

154

Cameron, K.S. & Whetton, DA. (1983) (Eds.), W
W. New York: Academic Press.

Campbell, JP. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P.S.
Goodman and J.M. Pennings (eds.)NmE_eL§pgmi1Qs_g_n_Qm_amzaflgnal
Eflegflyeness (pp. 13-55), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: the
role of strategic choice. Sociology, 5, 1-22.

Connally, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness:
A multiple-constituency approach. Wm.
Culnan, M. J. (1983). Environmental scanning: the effects of task complexity and

source assessibility on informaton gathering behavior. W,
JA, 194-206.
Daft, R. L. & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as

interpretation systems. WW, 9, 284-295.

Dill, W. R. (1958). Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy.
WW 2. 409-443.

Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information
processing effects on organizational performance. Academygj

Managemenuoumal. 22. 351-368.
Downey, H. K., Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Environmental uncertainty:

The construct and its application. WWII! 29.
613-629.
Driver, M. J. & Streufert, S. (1969). Integrative complexity: An approach to

individuals and groups as information processing systems. Administratme

155

W. 1.4.. 272-285.

Driver, M. J. & Mock, T. (1975). Human information processing, decision style
theory, and accounting information systems. WW, 5;),
490-508.

Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and
perceived environmental uncertainty. MW, 21,
435-458.

Egelhoff, W. G. (1982). Strategy and structure in multinational corporations: An
information processing approach. WM, 21,
435-458.

Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational
environments. W, 16, 21-31.

Fahey, L. & King, W. R. (1977). Environmental scanning for corporate planning.
MW 29.. 6171-

Gross, E. (1968). Universities as organizations: A research approach. American

Hambrick, D. D. (1979). Environmental scanning, organizational strategy, and
executive roles: A study in three industries. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Pennsyvania State University.

Hambrick, D. D. (1981). Specialization of environmental scanning activities
among upper level executives. WM, 16,
199-215.

Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom and W.

Starbuck (Ede). WWW New

1 56
York: Oxford University Press, (pp. 1-27).

Jain, SC. (1984). Environmental scanning in US. corpOrations. Lgngfiangg
Blaming. 11, 117-128.

James, L R., & Jones, AP. (1976). Organizational stmcture: A review of
structural dimensions and their conceptual relationships with attitudes and
behavior Wm. 16. 74413.

Katz, D., a. Kahn, R. L. (1978). W. New
York: Wiley.

Kaufman, J. (1963). MW. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
Press.

Keegan, W. J. (1974). Multinational scanning: A study of information sources
utilized by headquarter executives in multinational companies.
AdministIatim sgigngg Quarterly, 12, 411-421.

Kefalas, A.G., and Schoderbek, PP. (1973). Scanning the business
environment: Some empirical results. W A, 63-74.

Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1975). Boundary-spanning roles in a research and
development organization: An empirical investigation. mm
W. 18. 388-393.

Keller, R. T., Szilagyi, A. D., & Holland, W. E. (1976). Boundary-spanning activity
and employee reactions: An empirical study. W, 29,
699-710. %

Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and

measurement. W 22.
375-403.

157

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments.

Perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Agm'lniggmixg

W. 21. 548-570.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). WWW.

Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Leifer, R., 8. Delbecq, A. (1978). Organizational / Environmental interchange: A

model of boundary spanning activity. WW. 3.

40-50.
Miles, R. H. (1976). Boundary relevance: Dimensionality as a basis for

discrepant research findings. W
W. Kansas City. August.

Miller, D., Kets de Vries, M. F., Toulouse, J. M. (1982). Top executive locus of

control and its relationship to strategy making, structure and environment.

W15. 237-253.
Nadler, D. A., Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E. (1979). W31

W. Boston: Little, Brown 8. Company.
Neghandi, A., & Reimann, B. C. (1972). A contingency theory of organizations

re-examined in the context of a deveIOping country. Academia

Managemenmmal. 1.5. 137-146.

Nord, W.R. (1983). A political-economic perspective on organizational
effectiveness. In K.S. Cameron and DA. Whetton (Eds.) Qmanjzatjgnal

W. New York: Academic

Press.

Nunnally,J.C. (1967). W. New York: McGraw-Hill.

158
Organ, D. W. (1971). Linking pins between organizations and environment.
W. 1.4.. 73-80.

Organ, D. W., & Green, C. N. (1972). The boundary relevance of the project

manager'Siob. W8. 7-11.
Osborn, R. N., 8. Hunt, J. G. (1974). Environment and organizational

effectiveness. MW, 19, 231-246.

Pelz,D. (1985). Some preliminary results on the business study. Working paper,
CRUSK/lnstitute for Social Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Pennings, J. M. (1975). The relevance of the structural contingency model for
organizational effectiveness. WW, 2;),
393-410.

Perrow, C. A. (1967). A framework for the comparable analysis of organizations.

AmadcamciolooicaLBeflew 32. 194-208.

Perrow, C. (1979). Department power and perspectives in industrial firms. In M.
N. Zald (Ed.), W. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1976) Beyond Management and the worker: the institutional function

of management. WW. 1 (2). 36-46.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). Power and resource allocation in organizations. In B. Staw

and G. Salancik, (Eds). W

Chicago: St. Clair Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). W
W. New York: Harper & Row.

159
Pickle, H., & Friedlander (1967). Seven societal criteria of organizational

success. W. 29. 265-278.
Pondy, L.R., & Mitroff, LL (1979). Beyond open systems models of organization.

In B.M. Staw (ed.) WWW, Vol. 1, B-39,
Greenwich, CN.: JAI Press.

Pruden, H. O., (1969). lnterorganizational conflict, linkage and exchange: A study
of industrial salesmen. AoadornuLManagomantJonrnal,12, 339-350.

Pruden, H. O., & Reese, R. M. (1972). lnterorganizational role-set relations and
the performance and satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Administratiyo
W. 1.2, 600-609.

Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. (1969). The context of
organizational structures. WWW. J_4_, 91-114.

Schneider, B. (1983). An interactionist perspective on organization effectiveness.
In K. 8. Cameron and D. A. Whetton (Eds.), W

W. New York: Academic Press.
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967). flamintormation

Erooasoino. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Schwab, R.C., Ungson, G.R., & Brown, W.B. (1985). Redefining the boundary
spanning-environment relationship. Wm, 11, 75-86.
Seashore, S. E. (1983). A framework for an integrated model of organizational
effectiveness. In K. S. Cameron and D. A. Whetton (Eds.) Organizational

W New York: Academic

Press.

160
Seaton, F. W. (1985). A comparative analysis of current models of organizational
effectiveness within the context of organization theory. Brocoaoingsoitno
zlAll -. °l33l 3' [3 U'h‘ A 203“ 0 Mel-.03ll3l
Carbondale, IL.

Silverman, D. (1971). InotnoonLoLQrganjzationo. New York: Basic Books.
Snow, C. C., & Hrebiniak, L. G. (1980). Strategy, distinctive competence and

organizational performance. Administratnrofiaionooguartarly, 25,
317-336.

Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Organizations and their environments. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed). WWW (pp.
1069-1124). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Starbuck, W., Greve, A., & Hedberg, B. (1978). Responding to crises. Journaioi
BusinessAdmimstIation 2. 11-137.

Terreberry, S. (1968). The evolution of organizational environments.

WWII! 12. 590-613.

Thomas, T. S. (1980). Environmental scanning - the state ofthe art. Longjanoa
Eiannino, 13, 20-28.

Thompson, J. D. (1967). Qrganjzatjonsinormon New York: McGraw Hill.

Tung, R. L. (1979). Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory
study of their impact on organizational stmcture. AoagomyoLManaoamont
M031. 2. 672-693.

Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). lnforrnation processing as an integrated

concept in organization design. WW. 3.
613-624.

1 61
Tushman, M. L. 8. Scanlan, T. J. (1981a). Characteristics and external
orientations of boundary spanning individuals. W
M3131. 2.4.. 83-98.
Tushman, M. L. and Scanlan, T. J. (1981b). Boundary spanning individuals: their
role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acagornyot

W13. 289-305.
Ungson, G. R., Braunstein, D. N., & Hall, P. D. (1981). Managerial information

processing: A research review. MW. 26.
116-131.

Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Laaoomnioondoaoiaiomnaking.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wall, J. A. & Adams, J. S. (1974). Some variables affecting a constituent's
evaluations of and behavior toward a boundary role occupant.
W 1.1.. 390-408-

Weick, K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems.
W 21. 1-19.

Weick, K. (1979). InoaooiaLoamnoiogLQLorganizino. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K., & Daft, BL (1983). The effectiveness of interpretation systems. In K.S.

Cameron and DA. Whetton (Eds.) WWW—A
W. New York: Academic Press.

Wilensky, H. L. (1967). QrganizationaLintoilioonoe. New York: Basic Books.
Wren, D. A. (1967). Interface and interorganizational coordination. Agaoarnooi

W. 1.0. 69-81.

162
Yuchtman, E. & Seashore, SE. (1967). A system resource approach to
organizational effectiveness. W, 32, 891 -903.
Zamrnuto. Ft. I. (1982). WWW
adaotatjonjnootrataox. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.