MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
OF WORK GROUPS

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSIW

CHARLES A. DRAKE
19.70

 

THE 615

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
OF WORK GROUPS

presented by

Charles A. Drake

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

_Eh_._D__degree in Snr‘i ()1 ngy

//L/kj7‘ flfl [/9775 LC

Major professor

Date til/QQ/I/Z?

0-169

 
 
   

  
  

LIB R A R Y
Mich; : l Staie
Univ t- {sity

"/

_ ,_-._.-——-k-

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR
OF WORK GROUPS

By

Charles A. Drake

This dissertation examines the impact various vari-
ablfins associated with the technical structure of a work
setixing have on the potential relationship between super—
vdjnyry style and the attitudes and behavior of industrial
worflc‘groups. Continued emphasis on the social system at
the (Expense of the technical structure has encouraged and
coniiused.the advocates of a "one best method" of super—
visicni. This research explores the assumption that super-
visior1 is an integral part of an organization in operation
and wiuitever characteristics the organization may have will
influenace the appropriate style of supervision.

lflae hypotheses presented suggest that as work groups
employ'lfiighly skilled and educated personnel in non-
repetijyive task environments where work load and perfor-
mance-exre difficult to measure there will be a strong and
consistent positive association between "participative

managxnnent" systems and the dependent variables: job

Charles A. Drake

satisfaction, commitment to organization goals, group inte-
gration, and congruence between personal objectives and
gnpup goals. It is also argued that as the technical struc-
uMe of a work group gives rise to more repetitive task
pmocedures and measures of work load and performance become
nmre precise, the parameters for appropriate styles of super—
xdsion become much larger, reducing the occurrence of strong
mm.consistent positive associations between "participative
management" systems and the dependent variables mentioned.
Although a number of control variables introduced in
‘Hw research do seem to influence the strength of correla-
tions observed, the hypotheses in general were supported.
'nm research concludes that the variance in technical struc-
UHe within an industrial organization is sufficient to
hfiluence the appropriate style of supervision and its con—
:Mmuence on worker morale and commitment to the organiza-
‘Hpn. From the data presented it may be argued that the
Infinciples of participative management are positively asso—
Cflated with high morale and performance in work groups
<flmracterized by non—routine technical structures. However,
hiwork groups characterized by opposing technical struc-
tures such associations are less frequent and more likely

Um product of chance.

Alibi:

MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR

OF WORK GROUPS

By

Charles A1 Drake

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several people I would like to acknowledge;
Umugh they have contributed in different ways to the com-
;fletion of this work, I wish to express in some way my
gratitude.

To my advisor, Dr. Philip Marcus, I feel a great debt
M?gratitude. His continued support and encouragement of
nw work and this research provided an atmosphere conducive
to optimum learning.

Appreciation is also extended to the other members of
NW committee for serving and reading the draft of this
dissertation and offering their comments.

I would like to thank Miss Barbara McKnight, Miss
Mary Fitct, and Mrs. Jane Bayer for their individual contri-
butions to this research from its inception to completion.
Their work was done efficiently and with a personal commit-
ment that is truly appreciated.

Finally, I wish to express my love and gratitude to

Renee for her unending patience and constant support.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
IKMNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
IJST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter
I. ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND MANAGEMENT
BEHAVIOR. O 0 O O O O O O O I O O 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND DEVELOPMENT
OF HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Leadership Theory. . . . . . . . . 1A
Technology . . . . . . 29
Technology and Leadership Theory. . . . 33
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . US
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . N8
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION
OF CONCEPTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 56
The Research Design . . . . . . . . 57
The Sample . . . . . . . . . 6A
The Measurement of Variables . . . . . 66
Character of Technology. . . . . . 66
Style of Supervision. . . . . . . 70
The Dependent Variables. . . . . . 75
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
IV. MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND THE WORK GROUP. . 86
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 86
Preliminary Analysis. . . . . . . . 86
Testing the Hypothesis . . . . . . . 102
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 122

iii

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . 127
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 127
Technology . . . . . . . . . . . 127
SUDGI‘VISIOI’I. o o o o o o o o o o 133
Organization Theory . . . . . . . . 138

ENTERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A8

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Characteristics of three models of
bureaucracy. . . . . . . . . .

Occupational distribution for the labor
force of the community in which
organization resides. . . .

Number of individual respondents in each
industrial function . .

Selected demographic characteristics (sex,
age, marital status, education, income)

Rank order correlations between items
included in measuring the nature of
decision making . . . . . . . . .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring nature
of communication . . . . . .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring the
interaction influence process. . . .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring character
of motivation . . . . . .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring job
satisfaction . .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring
commitment to organization goals. .

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring the
congruence of organizational goals with

personal goals. . . . . . . . . .

Page

NO

58

65

67

73

7A

76

77

8O

81

82

Table

3:11.

Rank order correlations between items
included in the index measuring
integration of the work group.

Intercorrelations (s) of indexes used to
define "style of supervision". . . .

Intercorrelations (rs) of indexes used to
measure dependent variables . . . .

Sex distribution by functional area. . .

Marital status distribution by functional
area . . . . . . . . . . .

Length of time with company distribution
by functional area . . . . . . .

Education distribution by functional area.
Age distribution by functional area. . .
Income distribution by functional area. .

"H" values for indexes used to measure

dimensions of supervision: communication,

decision—making, interaction influence,
and motivation; and the dependent
variables: Job satisfaction, commitment
to organizational goals, consistency be-
tween individual and group goals and
group integration. . . . . . . .

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the research function

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the B. I. S. function .

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the TS&D function . . . . . .

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the manufacturing function . . .

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the patent function. . . . . .

vi

Page

83

87

88
90

91

92
93
9A
95

100

105

107

109

110

111

Table

A:15.

Page

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the accounting function . . . . . 112

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the division accounting . . . . . 115

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the corporation controllers . . . . 116

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the random sample of research groups . 119

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the random sample of research groups . 120

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the legal and research. . . . . . 123

Rank order correlations between "style of
supervision" and character of work groups
for the random selection of B. I. S.,
accounting and patent groups . . . . . 12A

vii

CHAPTER I

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOR

In recent years there has been an increasing interest
in the technological structure of work organizations. Such
an interest has its roots in the work of Marx, Weber, and
other early social theorists, but has remained dormant
through the "industrial relations revolution." Marx recog-
nized that certain forms of cooperation are dependent on
the development of distinct combinations of technical inno-
vations.1 In "Capitol" he comments:

. . . technology discloses man's mode of dealing

with nature, the process of production by which he

sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the

mode of formation of his relations, and of the men-

tal conceptions that flow from them.
ibwever, what may have been obvious to Marx has long been
neglected by the industrial sociologist in his effort to
better understand the consequence variable patterns of social
relations are having on the work organization. Therefore,
Hus research was undertaken with the expressed goal to
tmtter understand the effect technology, or the technical

qucture of the work environment, is having on super-

axmrdinate relations in a given industrial work group.

S

The development of this concern with the technical
structure of a work group, in contrast to the behavioral pat—
terns of a work group, has a precedent in the study of orga—
nization theory. That is, the early models of formal orga-
nization were primarily concerned with structure and the'
rational consequence organization design was having and
would have on its functioning. Man was a tool to be placed
within such structure and provide the medium through which
it would function. Behavior, therefore, was pre—programmed
by the organizational design and a thorough knowledge of
this design was sufficient data to understand the function-
ing of formal organizational systems. Organizations were
viewed as power structures; rational values legitimated them,
trained experts ran them and the principle of hierarchy pre-
scribing a position relation between rank of a unit and its
power defined their shape.2

This perspective is first noticed in the work of
Saint-Simon who pointed to the fact that the organization
0f the future would no longer rest upon coercion and force
for compliance to organizational goals, and that the admin-
istrator's authority would no longer be based upon birth or
imredity. He maintained that the administrator's authority
wmfld.rest upon the possession of developed skills and
Mmsitive" (scientific) knowledge.3

However, it was not until Max Weber that Saint-Simon's

vhflcn received scholarly codification. Both men stressed

 

 

 

 

the importance of scientific knowledge and expertise for

the modern organization and they were both concerned with
the way in which modern organization affects the development
(\f society.

Weber approached the problem of bureaucracies by first
(iiscussing the more general concept, corporate group, which
iXe defined as "a social relationship which is either closed

m~limits the admission of outsiders by rules . . . and

its order is enforced by the action of specific individuals
whose regular function this is . . ."u Weber's character-
ization of bureaucracies is but an extension of his concept
Of a corporate group. He views bureaucracies as an "ideal
type" and delineates six characteristics of the modern
bureaucratic structure. First, the principle of "fixed and
Official jurisdictional areas," which are generally ordered
by rules; "by laws of administrative relations." Second,
the principle of "hierarchy" and of levels of "graded
authority." This leads to a firmly ordered system which is
Characterized by super-subordinate relations. Third, the
principle of "contractural agreement," which is preserved
in its original form. Fourth, the principle of "specialized

Office management," usually requiring a good deal of expert

‘training. Fifth, the principle of "official jurisdiction,"
Ibointing to the fact that an office within the bureaucratic
Structure, when fully developed, usually demands the full

mnking capacity of the person holding that office.

Finally, the principle of regulation, referring to the fact
that participants in a bureaucratic structure follow general
rules which are stable, exhaustive, and which can be learned.5

The rational or mechanistic model of organizations
associated with the work of Weber is also characteristic of
the "scientific" manager's approach to men in organizations.
ere the concern may have been different from Weber's, the
fimus was the same; an attempt to investigate the effective
159 of human beings in industrial organizations, and to
mwlyze the interaction between the characteristics of human,
social, and task environments created by the organization.6
The "scientific management group" described the character-
istics of the human organism in the organizational setting
as one might describe a machine for performing a compara-
tively simple task. In applying this model the organiza-
tion is viewed as an "instrument," rationally conceived for
the realization of expressly announced group goals. Its
Structures are deliberately established for the efficient
realization of these goals. Behavior within the organiza-
tion is seen as being consciously and rationally adminis-
tered, and changes in organizational patterns are viewed as
Iflanned devices to improve the level of efficiency.

The early work in organization theory represents only
mm level of analysis for the study of organizations, as
vms quickly pointed out by critics of the mechanistic ap-

7

proach. An alternative level of analysis is found when

the investigator is interested in explaining individual
behavior within the context of organizations. The organiza-
tion is viewed as the environment, and the investigator
explores the impact of social psychological variables or
processes as reflected in the behavior of individuals.8

Just as the more structural model of Weber, Marx, and others
can be traced to the work of Saint-Simon, the behavioral or
social psychological approach can be traced to the work of
Comte. That is, Comte chose to focus on spontaneous and

9

hnormal patterns of organizations. As Gouldner points
mm, this focus on the more spontaneous mechanisms common
to all groups made a most important contribution by facili-
tating the discovery of so-called informal organizations.lO
ikmever, where the behavioral scientist may have been aware
of the existence of informal systems and their impact on
organizational behavior, it was not until the work of Mayo,
that the pendulum of research began to swing in this direc-
tion.

With the well—known Hawthorne studies and the report
(M‘observations made in the bank-wiring room a distinction
wasnmde between the formal and informal organization of
Ixmitions and behavior in industry.11 Concessions were
mmkato the formal organization, grudgingly perhaps, in
remfidon to the extreme technical rationalism of the
indentific—management movement whose position was very much

'hlVOEue at the time of the Hawthorne experiments. Conces-

sunm made, the formal organization was almost completely

ignored. Researchers began giving close attention to the
unofficial conduct of workers, the aim being to interpret
the system of evaluation through which workers assessed>
each other's positions in the work group and to identify
how these evaluations became expressed in their day-to-day
relations. Their work demonstrated that the processes of
evaluation and interaction were tied to the particular task
of these men, however, the technical nature of the work was
ignored or treated as an incidental referent for rules of
conduct emerging from within the group. It may have been
that in focusing research on a single case investigators
could not recognize that the technical organization of pro-
chmtion might constitute a systemic constraint on the pos-
sibilities in the development of social groupings.l2
The study of work organizations from this perspective
suggested that once men are together at work for whatever
reason, they will develop patterns of interaction much in
excess of the requirements of the job imposed on them by
nmnagement. However, the system of relations that develops
is bounded by authority, that is, by the demands trans-
thted through foremen and inspectors for getting work done
efiiciently. Where the internal system may develop mutual
mfligations for recognition, help, and sociability, and
Unwe are to some extent incompatible with the demands of

Unaexternal system, the sanctions employed are intended to

prevent an excess of sociability that would produce inter-
ference from the supervisor.

With an increasing awareness of this informal system,
management theorists began to focus on techniques which
would make effective use of its influence. The crucial
link between the formal organizational design and the in—
formal grouping was the supervisor. Therefore, research
was undertaken to help isolate the supervisory techniques
that would be most effective in the management of work
gnoups. The assumption being made is that there exists a
'bne best method" of supervision and if properly employed
the probable conflict between the formal and informal sys-
tems could be minimized. However, the research which fol-
lowed was not supportive of this general assumption, and
despite the claims of the Human Relations school of thought,
research continued to demonstrate that where supervision
may be a crucial link in determining the social structure
of a work group, both formal and informal, there exist cer-
tain structural variables which must also be taken into
account.

One of the first attempts to deal with this problem

isreported in Leonard Sayles' work, Behavior of Industrial

 

H2fl<Groups, where he raises the question of why certain
Ixmterns of leadership are accepted without so much as a
mkmtion in one work group and cause a "flurry of excite-

mmnfl and tension in an adjacent group. He postulates that

the technology and structure of the organization are the
"architects" of the work group; constructing with the ma-
terials of human interaction a variety of types of groups.13
He also suggests that while changes in leadership ability
and supervision may effect changes in the behavior of work
groups, it may be that "characteristics" of the work group
restrict severely the supervisor's range of behavior. There-
fore, Sayles raises a crucial question about the structure
of the work group and the appropriate patterns of super-
vision to produce the desired results. His work, however,
is incomplete in that it does not identify what supervisory
techniques are most successful in different group struc-
tures. What Sayles does, after the development of a typol-
ogy of work groups based upon certain behavioral character—
istics, is to examine the structural characteristics of
different work groups, in an effort to determine what kinds
of structural characteristics are associated with what kinds
of behavioral characteristics. An example would be his
'xnwatic group" identified by the following behavioral
characteristicszlu

(l) Easily inflamed

(2) Poorly controlled pressure tactics, behavior is

inconsistent
(3) Quick conversion to good relationship with
management
(A) Highly centralized leadership
(5) Active in organization phase of Union

The above behavioral characteristics were found to be

enmociated with the following structural characteristics:

Middle or high status jobs

Worker control over job performance
Indispensable operations

High similarity of economic interests

(
(
(
(

3U) NH
vvvv

Sayles, upon reflection, points out that all the rele-
vant variables (structural) associated with the behavior
of work groups are related to the technological system de—
signed by the company to organize the work process. He

15

comments:

We are in the habit of attributing these (persistent

industrial relation problems) to individual worker

and manager characteristics and to the quality of

the work environment. . . . However, this study sug-

gests that the social system erected by the techno-

logical process is also a basic and continuing de-

terminent of work group attitudes and actions.

Sayles' contention that the behavior of work groups

is dependent upon the social system erected by the tech-
rmflogy of the organization and that this social system inter—
venes with the strict relationship between technology and
Ixnformance of work group behavior is not surprising. It
would appear that some authors have accepted the validity
(H‘this notion so completely that they have ignored the
tednfical system altogether. However, just as the social
system may intervene in the relationship between technology
amithe work group, so may technology intervene in the re—
lathnmhip between the social system and work group behavior.
Thnsemphasis on the social system at the expense of the
tednucal structure has encouraged and confused the advo-

caum of a "one best method" of supervision. Dubin suggests,

amiit is the intent of this research to explore further,

10

the alternative assumption that supervision is an inte-
gral part of an organization in operation and whatever
characteristics the organization may have will influence
the style of supervision that is appropriate.16
The problem becomes to investigate and understand
how technology influences the relationship between style
of supervision and behavior of work groups. More specifi-
cally, we are asking whether authoritarian managers are
more or less successful in the supervision of research
gnoups as opposed to business information groups or manu-
facturing groups. We are also concerned with those vari-
ables associated with the technology of a group which in-
fluence this relationship. It is believed that the answers

to these questions and their corollaries will amplify our

understanding of organizations and the development of

theory.

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER I

1. Robert Freedman, ed., Marxist Social Thought
(New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968), p. 137.

2. T. K. Hopkins, "Bureaucratic Authority: The
Convergence of Weber and Barnard," in Complex Organization,

ed. by Amitai Etzioni (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1964), p. 82.

3. Alvin W. Gouldner, "Organization Analysis," in
Sociology Today, ed. by Robert K. Merton, L. Broom and
L. S. Cottrell (New York: Harper and Row, 1959), p. 400.

4. R. Scott, "Theory of Organizations," in Handbook
of Modern Sociology, ed. by Robert Faris (Chicago: Rand
McNally and Co., 1964), p. 486.

5. Hans Gerth and C. W. Mills, From Max Weber (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1946), pp. 196L98.

 

6. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 11.

 

7. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc—
ture (Glencoe, N. Y.: Free Press, 1957), pp. 50-54;
Selznick, "Foundations of the Theory of Organizations,"
American Sociological Review, XIII (1948), 25-35.

 

8. Scott, op. cit., p. 489. Scott, in his discus-
sion of levels of analysis, identifies first the behavioral
level exemplified by the works of March and Simon; second,
the "structural" level as represented by the work of Udy
and Weber; finally, the "ecological" level represented by

‘Um work of Selznick and his study of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.

9. Gouldner, op. cit., p. 404.

10. Ibid., p. 407.

11. F. J. Roethlisberger and W. J. Dickson, Manage—
nmnt and the Worker (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1939), pp. 377—5u8.

ll

12
12. Martin Meissner, Technology and the Worker (San
Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1969), p. 4.

13. Leonard Sayles, The Behavior of Industrial Work
Groups (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 2.

14. Ibid., pp. 41—93.

15. Ibid., p. 93.

16. Robert Dubin, et. al., Leadership and Producti—
vity (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965), p. 4.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND

DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

A large portion of the literature in industrial soci-
(flogy has focused on the structure of influence within
organizations. This is not surprising, given the fact that
nmst theories in the area of formal organizations are ad—
chessed to the same range of problems; the determinants of
stable structures of compliant actions.l Various terms and
concepts, more or less well defined, are used by different
theorists in working in this area, e.g., "democratic leader-
ship," "general supervision," "theory Y management," "parti-
cipative management," etc. However, a common theme to much
of the theory and research on organizations is the question
(at the individual level of analysis); "What is the extent
miindividual can influence what he and other members do;
Umir performance and satisfaction?" Phrased at the organi—
mmional level of analysis, the question becomes: "What
eHEct does the structure of influence within organizations
imvecnithe attitudes and behavior of its members?" On the
bmfis of considerable research and even more theory and

spemflation, various authors have proposed rather definite

.13

14

answers to these questions. Likert, McGregor, and Argyris,
some of the more vocal and influential, if not articulate
authors, state rather conclusively that increased influence
by organizational members on decisions affecting their jobs
will result in higher productivity and satisfaction; and
they argue rather polemically that organizations ought to
be restructured to take this fact into account.2

Other authors, Dubin, Woodward, Sayles, Perrow, Litwak
and Meissner, less polemic in tone, argue that the relation-
ship between the influence structure and the behavior of
industrial work groups is not at all clear and that other
variables, particularly those related to the technology of
the group must be taken into account.3 This chapter will
review and critically examine the research and theory con-

cerned with the above debate and develop the hypotheses

being considered in this study.

Leadership Theory

The early Lippit and White studies were very influ—
mmial in giving direction to much of the subsequent re-
smnwh in the area of leadership theory.“ In their first
mmlication two experiments were described. In one, two
gnoups of five eleven—year-old children were led by the same
mnson playing a democratic role with one group and an auto-
cmfljc role with the other. In the second experiment there
mne four groups of five eleven—year-old boys and four dif-

finent leaders. Every six weeks each group received a

15

different leader employing a different leadership style.
4hr leadership styles employed were: "democratic"-—low
goal and means control, high stimulation of group proce-
dures; "autocratic"--high goal and means control, low stimu-
lation of group procedure; and "laissez-faire"--low every-
thing. The results indicated that democratic leaders were
efficient, with high motivation and a good deal of origi-
nality. Autocratic leaders had morale problems and their
group demonstrated considerable hostility. Finally, groups
with laissez-faire leaders got less work done and it was of
a poor quality in comparison to the others.

In another classic experiment reported by Lewin, he
tries to demonstrate that group decisions are more effective
than lectures in bringing about desired behavior patterns.5
In this study six groups of Red Cross nursing volunteers
served as subjects. Three groups received lectures linking
the use of certain foods to the war effort and describing
their nutritional value. The other three groups were led
by Alex Bavales in a discussion concerning the same mate-
rial. A follow—up revealed that three percent of the women
Mm>heard the lecture, versus thirty—two percent of those
mnticipating in the discussion, reported serving one of
lemeals during the weeks following the experimental
treatments.

These early studies by Lewin, Lippit and White sug-

Emfied the importance of style of leadership in influencing

16

the morale and performance of social groups. Much of the
research that followed was concerned with testing the valid—
ity of this hypothesis and determining what variables may
have an influence on such a relationship.

Misuimi conducted research in Japan to determine the
influence cultural variables might be having on the results
reported by Lippit and White.6 His research compared two
groups of ten and eleven-year—old Tokyo school boys under
democratic and autocratic leadership. The results were very
similar to those of Lippit and White. The "morale," "friend-
liness" and "satisfaction" were reported to be highest in
the democratic group. In regards to the quantity and quality
of work, the results were somewhat different. In terms of
quality of work, the autocratic group was rated highest with
the democratic group rated next and the laissez-faire group
was last.

Day and Hamblin attempted to study the effects of

closeness of supervision in a laboratory simulation of an

7

assembly line. The subjects were freshman and sophomore
female college students, and they maniuplated closeness of
supervision by varying the detail in the instructions given
the subjects by their "supervisor." Highly significant
results in the predicted direction were obtained. Produc—
tivity was twenty—five percent lower under close supervision.

bladdition, aggressive feelings, measured by post—

€xperimenta1 questionnaires, toward both co—workers and the

l7

supervisor were higher under close supervision. The authors
interpreted the results as representing frustration of ego-
needs produced by close supervision. They give credit to
Gouldner for this interpretation; however, the influence

of Lewin is also apparent.

Shaw attempts to reduce the confusion in findings in
leadership theory by introducing the concepts of indepen-
dence and saturation.8 Independence refers to the degree
of freedom with which a member may operate and saturation
refers to the communication requirements imposed on a group
member. In this study, male undergraduates were divided
into four—man groups in different communication nets under
authoritarian and democratic leadership. As predicted,
problems were solved faster with fewer errors under author-
itarian leadership, but satisfaction was higher under demo—
cratic leadership. Shaw argues that independence will
correlate positively with efficiency and morale, but after
a certain optional point saturation tends to counteract
these favorable effects. In addition, morale is influenced
more by independence than saturation, while performance is
influenced more by saturation than independence.

The concepts are related to leadership style in that
authoritarian leadership tends to decrease independence and
thus decrease morale, while increasing saturation and thus
increasing performance. Non—authoritarian leadership should
increase independence and thus increase morale, while de-

creasing saturation and thus decreasing performance.

18

The research discussed has obviously produced mixed
results, and certainly no clear relationship between super-
vision and performance has been established. However, even
if the results were all consistent, there are several
methodological problems common to these studies which would
make interpretation of the results obtained extremely dif-
ficult. First, with the exception of Lewin, Lippit and
White, the groups investigated were actually ad hoc aggre-
gates of individuals, rather than stable groups, with past
histories and future expectations. Second, the populations
of subjects employed has been extremely limited and extrap-
olation is tenuous. All members of organizations are not
children, housewives, or college students. Finally, the
possibility of contamination through "experimenter effects,"
'Hemand characteristics," and/or "evaluation apprehension,"
seems particularly pronounced in laboratory studies of
influence processes.

Several authors have attempted to overcome the prob—
lems mentioned above by replicating earlier laboratory
studies in organizations. Coch and French in an article,
"Overcoming Resistance to Change," report a study which was
conducted at the main plant of the Harwood Manufacturing

Company.9

The plant, located in Virginia, employed men and
mmmn at a ratio of about one to five, with a total employ-
"mnt of around six hundred. A problem facing the management

atIMrwood had been the "resistance" of employees to various

19

changes in methods and jobs. This resistance had been ex-
prvunnd in grievances about new rates, high turnover,'low
efficiency, restriction of output and aggression against
management.

An experiment was designed to test the effectiveness
of "participation" in overcoming such resistance. The de-
sign included four groups of seven to eighteen employees.
In the "no participation group," change was implemented as
usual. The employees were simply informed of the changes
to take place. In the "participation through representa—
tion" group a meeting was held and the need for change was
presented as dramatically as possible. After agreement was
reached that change was necessary and possible, this group
then chose several operators to help determine the new
nethods and piece rates and help in the training of other
cmerators in the new methods. The procedure was the same
for the two "total participation" groups, except that all
Operators helped to determine the new methods and rates.

Immediately after the change, all four groups dis—
played the usual decline in productivity. However, within
afew days the representative and total participation groups
'showed an unusually good relearning curve,” with the parti-
Cipative group returning to standard production within two
(bys after the change was implemented.

The study is a classic and is often referred to by

Emmnsors of the human relations school. However, there are

 

 

20

a number of problems that are often overlooked. First, the
subjects were mostly young rural women. Second, only in
the two "participation" conditions was the dramatic demon—
stration of the need for change employed and the total par-
ticipation groups were also the smallest. It would seem
that the results obtained could be explained simply in terms
of these variables. Finally, however, the data from the
second change for the original "no participation group" is
Iaard to interpret since the most "resistant" employees are
\Jery likely the ones who left after the original experiment.
A later study by French, ep_al. (1960) was designed
to replicate the original Coch and French study in a dif-
ferent culture, using more careful methods and a more pre-

10 They defined participation

Cise theory of participation.
(one of the few places a definition was found) as "inter-
lDersonal influence in mutual decision-making when the deci-
ESions involved have future effects on the participants."
'Phey also made a distinction between "psychological parti-
<lipation," or perceived influence, and "objective partici—
IDation," or actual influence. The general hypothesis pre—
clicted positive relationships between participation and
I)roductivity, management relationships and job satisfaction.
TWie effects of several conditioning variables were also
(liscussed. Briefly, the authors hypothesized that the above

Icelationships would vary with the legitimacy of participa-

tion, the resistance to the participation process, the

 

 

21

importance of the area of participation and the relevance
of the decisions to the dependent variables.

The authors argue that increases in participation
should increase productivity because the decisions involved
would be of better quality and because workers would be
more motivated to implement them. Participation should
be related positively to management-worker relations be-
cause the mutual influence involved will lead to "promo—
tively interdependence" goals and communality of goals, be-
cause the exchange of information involved will lead to
greater understanding between the parties and because the
implication that the workers are intelligent, competent
and worthy should increase their perception of being valued.
Finally, participation should be positively related to job
satisfaction because worker's jobs should be improved in
ways that are relevant to worker's needs and because par-
ticipation directly satisfies various "ego-needs," such as
the need to be valued and appreciated by others.11

The study took place in a shoe factory located in
Norway. Nine groups of four workers each were employed in
the experiment which involved variations in the participa-
ifion allowed to the group in decisions concerning seasonal
changes in production. Two of the experimental groups
vmre allowed "moderate participation," which consisted of
Imrticipation in decisions about allocation of articles,

length of training, division of labor and job assignment.

22

The other three experimental groups were given "weak parti-

cipation," which involved making decisions about the allo—
cation of articles only. The four control groups did not
participate in any of these decisions.

The results revealed no significant differences be-
tween the experimental and control groups in productivity.
The authors attribute this to the unimportance of the deci-
sions, the low relevance of the decisions to productivity
and to strong group norms restricting group productivity.
Slight and generally non-significant differences in the
predicted direction were obtained for the measures of labor-
management relations and job satisfaction and some support
was obtained for the postulated conditioning effects of
legitimacy and resistance. Especially when the effects of
the conditioning variables are considered, the authors in-
terpret their results as being generally consistent with
those of the Coch and French study. However, the theoreti-
cal treatment of these conditioning variables is far from
adequate. All of the concepts are rather vague; legitimacy
and resistance, the only two systematically assessed in the
study, are especially vague. Legitimacy was defined as "the
extent to which the parties involved consider it right and
proper to engage in the decision-making process." Opera—
tionally, however, only the workers who thought they had

too little participation were considered to perceive the

[necess as illegitimate. It would also seem, to have any

23

predictive utility, the concept would have to be conceptually
related to other concepts which would specify which classes
of people would consider which types of participation legi-
timate in which situations. Resistance to change was
handled less adequately. The concept was defined as "in-
duced forces opposed to doing the new jobs that are not
intrinsic to the new situation but are originated by manage-
ment actions and depend on the manner of inducing the
change." The relationship of this concept to legitimacy

is unclear and, as in the case of legitimacy, an adequate
theory would have to specify who would "resist" what parti-
cipation under which conditions.

While there are other studies which have made use of
the laboratory techniques in organizations,12 most of the
work in this area could best be classified as survey re-
search. This technique offers the advantage of investi-
gating the operation of many variables involved in any
phenomenon of interest as they naturally occur. Since the
1940's, massive amounts of data concerning leadership pro—
cesses in organizations have been gathered employing this
technique. However, this review will only consider that

research which has had the greatest influence in this area.

24

The study by Katz and Maccoby, and Morse (1950) was
the first project carried out in the human relations pro-
gram at the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.13
The objectives were to discover: (1) employee attitudes
related to productivity, (2) supervisory beliefs and prac-
tices related to productivity and (3) the interrelationships
of the various dimensions of morale and their determinants.
Only data bearing on the first two objectives was reported.
The study was carried out at the home office of the Pruden-
tial Insurance Company; twelve section pairs which handled
the same type of work with the same work organization but
differed in their productivity were compared. All of the
419 non-supervisory and 73 supervisory employees were in-
terviewed.

The supervisors of the high—producing sections re-
ported spending more time in supervision per se--overseeing
and planning the work of their staff—-than the low-
producing supervisors. The high-producing supervisors
also were coded as less "production-oriented" and more
"employee-oriented," and as employing less "close" and
more "general" supervision than the low—producing super-
visors. No theory was presented to explain or predict
these results. The authors viewed this as an exploratory
study, designed to identify possible hypotheses to be more
Duly explored in subsequent research. The main problem
wflnithe study is the heavy reliance placed on self-

I‘eports to measure supervisory practices.

25

As a result of some of the problems associated with
survey research,lLl several large-scale field experiments
have been conducted. Although such studies are all but
impossible to conduct with much scientific rigor, the
amount of data collected and its implication for organiza-
tional behavior cannot be ignored.

Morse and Reiner's study was the first attempt to
test the hypothesized positive relationship between parti-
cipation and productivity and satisfaction through a large—

15

scale field experiment. The theory stated that increased
participation should increase satisfaction because the
decisions reached will be more in line with rank and file
needs and because participation is intrinsically satisfying.
Increases in participation should increase performance be—
cause employees will be more motivated to implement deci-
sions which they have influenced.

The experiment took place within a large department
of an industrial organization engaged in routine clerical
work. The "rank and file" decisions making power were
increased in two divisions and decreased in two others.
The experiment lasted for a year and a half. A "before"
Questionnaire was administered; a half year was spent in
training supervisors; the experimental conditions were in
effect for a year, and then an "after" questionnaire was
mhdnistered. The results supported the hypothesis con—

Cmaung satisfaction rather strongly. However, the

26

hypothesis concerning productivity was not confirmed. Morse
and Reiner suggest that this may be due to the weak measures
of productivity. Likert supports this idea by suggesting
that the differential attitude changes would have resulted
in the eventual superiority of the autonomy program had the
experiment lasted for a longer period of time.16
Another field experiment was conducted by Seashore
and Bowers. It also was concerned with the development of
a comprehensive theory of leadership, organization, and
interpersonal relations as they relate to the effective

17

performance of organizations. The study was conducted
during the period from 1958 to 1961, although the design of
the experiment changed considerably during this time. The
research site was a factory in Michigan employing some
eight hundred individuals. The total factory participated
hithe experiment, with the initial design being that of
the controlled experiment.

A pretest was taken in 1958, after which programs
were initiated in the experimental groups to bring about
the desired change. A post test was taken in July of 1958.
Ab significant difference in performance could be attri-
buted to the results of the experiment, and Seashore and
Bowers argue, as does Likert for Morse and Reiner, that the
reason for this was the length of time between measurement.

After this initial experiment, the study seemed to

mme apart. The company experienced considerable economic

27

difficulty and the research project was under pressure to
produce. This had the effect of initiating the change pro—
grams into any and all departments throughout the company
willing to participate in the experiment. Eventually the
experiment was terminated in 1960. However, in December
of 1961, one final measure was taken by the researchers
at the request of the company. This was in a period of
economic prosperity and no significant results in produc—
tion could be attributed to the experiment. Seashore and
Bowers do argue, however, that what differences were ob-
served resulted from the research and feel that the results
are supportive of their theory.18

The literature reviewed above is often more confusing
than helpful. Setting aside the obvious lack of consis—
tency in research findings and trying to identify the
phenomenon under investigation is a very onerous task.
While it is evident that the research reviewed pertains to
the influence exerted by members of different organiza-
tional levels, the precise relationship between "democratic
leadership," "participation," "general supervision," is not
at all clear. Very few authors address themselves to these
Problems. Control, defined as "any process in which a per-
son determines, that is, intentionally affects, the behavior
Of another person, group, or organization," is obviously
ifie broadest term.19 Also, it would seem that participa-
thnn defined as "influence exerted in joint decision-

mmnng when the decisions have future effects on those

28

making them,"20 is a very narrow concept. The problem is

that these terms are often used as if they referred to more
or less unidimensional, well understood phenomena, when, in
fact, as the Bennett and Pennington studies demonstrate,
"group decision," a specific type of participation, actu-
ally involves several rather poorly understood variables.21
Recognition of this problem has led Likert to talk about
"management systems," characterized by certain modes of
behavior along different dimensions. He identifies six
such dimensions, each with numerous modes of manifestation.22
In attempting to conceptualize supervision for purposes of
this research, four of the six dimensions developed by
Likert seem appropriate. They are: (l) the character of
motivation employed in the supervision of subordinates.

This is defined as the manner in which motives are used,
ranging from fear and threats of punishment to reward sys-
tems of employee compensation developed through group par—
ticipation. (2) The character of communication employed in

a work group. This is defined as the amount and directional
flow of communication within the work group. (3) The char-
zmter of decision-making employed in a work group. This
refers to the level within a work group at which decisions
zne formally made. (4) The character of interaction and
hnluence processes. This refers to the amount of coopera-
tive teamwork and extent to which subordinates may influence

meUmfls and activities of their work group.23 The remaining

29

two characteristics identified by Likert, goal setting and
control process, although influenced by the behavior of the
supervisor, are more often determined by general company
policy and procedure and therefore have been excluded from
this conception of supervision. In an attempt to avoid the
problems of conceptualization regarding the nature of man—
agement systems, attention is given to variables which

directly influence the character of the control structure.

Technology

 

The review of the literature up to this point sugm
gests that there may be a number of variables which are
influencing the possible relationship between the manage—
ment structure and the attitudes and behavior of work
groups. One such variable which is always present, but not
often taken into account in the research discussed, is the
technology of the work situation. Part of the reason is
found in the way the concept has been used in research.
Therefore, how it has been defined and its relationship to
leadership theory must be considered before it can be con—
ceptualized for purposes of research.

The difficulty in coming to a consistent conceptual-
imfiflon of technology is better understood if we look at the
sane of the concept as it has been defined by others. In
Elhflfls Technological Society, it is clear that he views
tednflque and technology as interchangeable concepts. He

mfiines these concepts in such broad terms as to encompass

 

 

30

all of human behavior and values.2u Buckingham narrows the
concept somewhat when he defines technology as analogous to
the concept science, but both men have used the concept to
refer to such a wide range of phenomena that it is difficult
to make use of it for empirical research.25 However, tech—
nology is most often defined as the processes employed by
a work group to achieve its major objectives.26
In the work of Blauner and Meissner, the concept, tech-
nology, has been more carefully defined.27 Blauner refers
to technology as the physical objects and technical opera—
tions employed by an industry in turning out goods and ser—
vices produced. Where his concern is primarily with the
manual and machine operations, he also includes the techni—
cal "know—how" and mechanical skills involved in production.
The problem in Blauner's research is to identify the
consequences different ”technologies" have on a worker's
feelings of alienation. His research suggests that differ-
ent operations employed in the production of goods and ser-
vices influences the occurrence of alienation among workers.
re identifies how the "technologies" of textile and auto
industries are more conducive to feelings of alienation
than are the "technologies" of the printing and chemical
imhmtries. His work clearly demonstrates the importance
Oftechnology in influencing the attitudes and behavior of

mnkers in different industrial environments. However,

Blmner suggests that even within the same industry there

 

 

31

may be different technological processes and it would be
reasonable to assume that just as technology must be con-
sidered to understand differences in workers' attitudes and
behavior between industries, it must also be considered to
understand differences among workers within any particular
industry.2

Meissner, in his work Technolggy and the Worker, calls
the "technical conditions" of work, technology. Technology,
therefore, consists of tools, machines, parts, and materials;
the equipment used to move these parts and materials from
place to place as well as the buildings which house these
things and the people working with them. Technology also
includes the manifestation of the ideas of those who planned
a process and the means of facilitating it, whether implicit
in the design or expressed in instructions, which make
known the requirements for making the design work in at—
taining planned ends.29 He identifies the general questions
with which his research is concerned; first, "What is the
reture of industrial technology and the demands it makes on
Hmeperformance of its immediate users?" and second, "Where
(mes the social behavior of workers adapt to the constraints
MTtechnology and its demands?" The problem, however, is
formulated from empirical generalizations inferred from
wasting data of published reports. The data was analyzed

hnmpendently of the expectations and conclusions of the

PGWHWing authors. Meissner's discussion concerning the

 

32

production process and the management structure is particu—
larly relevant to this research. Like Blauner, he identi—
fies four levels of over—all technical conditions and then
points to the fact that such differences in the technical
structure greatly influence the social organization of the
30

behavior of workers. This influence was reported at

both the "tool level" and "control level" of the technical
31

structure. Meissner argues that successively greater

demands on management are related to the requirements of
integrating increasingly more differentiated and inter-
dependent production units.32 The importance differentia-
tion has on the nature of the influence structure will be
considered again in more detail.

Where the work of Buckingham, Ellul, Blauner and
Meissner has all been concerned with the impact technology
is having on an industrial environment, the work of Blauner
and Meissner is most relevant for this research. Their
work provides a conceptualization of technology which is
telpful in two ways. First, the concept is given a refer-
rent--tools, machinery, as well as the "know—how" which
encompanies such equipment——therefore allowing any work
sfltuation to be described in terms of its "technology."
Ehcond, their work suggests the notion that the technology
Oferwork place is a determining factor with regards to
Wniables used to describe the process of work. Therefore,

anGS' contention that such variables as the precision

 

33

with which work load and performance can be measured, simi—
larity of jobs within a work group, and the degree to which
work is indispensible in the functioning of the plant, are
determined by the technolog of the work group, is consis-
tent with Blauner and Meissner's conception of technology.33
It is obvious from our discussion that the impact
technology per se has on the influence structure is not at
all clear. However, there have been a number of studies
identifying variables associated with the technical struc—
ture of a work group which seem to be having an effect on
the potential relationship between management systems and
attitudes and behavior of work groups. A review of such
research will provide us with the technological variables

to be considered in this research.

Technolpgy and Leadership Theory

In 1951 Katz, Maccoby, Gurin and Floor attempted to
replicate the findings of their earlier work (1950) in a
markedly different situation.3u The work groups studied
were railroad maintenance crews of the C & 0 Railroad Co.
'Ne workers were all men from small towns or farms, with
anedian education level from fifth to eighth grade. Thirty-
six pairs of work groups, judged comparably on technical
wnk conditions but different on performance, were chosen
fin1study. Interviews were conducted with all of the 298
Wnkers and 72 foremen involved in the study. As in the

heurance study, the high-producing foremen were "better

 

an

able to differentiate their role as leader" and were de—
scribed by their subordinates as more "employee—oriented”
than the low-producing foremen. The insurance study's re-
sults concerning closeness of supervision, however, were

not replicated. There was no relationship between produc-
tivity and closeness of supervision in this study. The
authors attempt to explain this inconsistency in terms of
the different technologies involved. Methods were suffi-
ciently standardized in the insurance company, they argue,
and close supervision could not provide much technical help
and represented only a threat and annoyance to the clerks.
Since the work of the railroad crews was less routinized,
however, close supervision could contribute to the techni—
cal proficiency of the crew and this contribution apparently
"cancelled out" any detrimental effects of close super-
vision on worker motivation. This negative finding is often

overlooked in summaries of the early survey research

35

studies and the authors' hypothesis concerning the effects

of technology has not been investigated in more recent
research nor included in the theory resulting from their

36

research.
A later study which also gives emphasis to technology

amiits influence in the behavior of workers is reported

AW Sayles (1958).37 In this study the author requested

fmmrmanagement and the union examples of work groups that

hmlbeen consistent in their behavior over relatively long

‘— ” {——

, _. Pr-

 

35

periods of time, even through changes in supervision as well
as management policies. As the data was accumulated and
reviewed Sayles was able to describe not one, but a variety
of work groups. The groups differed from each other parti—
cularly in the way they dealt with any problem they might
have had to face. Four such groups were identified; i.e.,
apathetic, erratic, strategic and conservative. Sayles re-
ports that a group's behavior in a plant is a product of
its "inherent ability to function in a certain way."38 Its
behavior over time is seen as predictable because the range
of alternative means of reacting is severely limited. In
identifying these determining characteristics, the following
variables are mentioned: (1) the precision with which
management can measure work load and pace for the group;
UN similarity of jobs within the group; (3) the relative
sflze and importance of the group; and (4) the degree to
mech their work is indispensable in the functioning of the
plant.

In commenting on these variables, Sayles contends
ifiet they are all related to the technological system de-
sflgned by the company to organize the work process. The
Cbgree of independence or dependence among workers in the
flow of work, the number and similarity of jobs concen—
trated in any one location, the indispensability of any part
Mithe whole, the extent to which work loads and output

Emandards can be accurately defined, and even the promotional

 

 

36

ladders and status relationships are determined to a large
extent by the kinds and quantity of equipment skills and
plant layout utilized. Therefore, the work of Sayles
clearly suggests the importance of technology in trying

to understand the attitudes and behavior of industrial

work groups.

Chinoy's work on the Automobile Workers and the
Imerican Dream also points to the importance of the tech—

rncal nature of the work in the development of leadership

skills.39 The study was an attempt to explore how auto-

nmbile workers "live out their version of the American
Ikeam" in a world in which there is a palpable disparity
tetween their experience and the prevalent myth. However,
msa result of his discussion regarding a worker's concern
vflth the physical and psychological demands of jobs in the
factory, attention is directed to the influence the tech-
rncal structure of a work setting may have on the relation—

Mdp between a supervisor's behavior and the attitudes of

Ins workers. Chinoy comments:

While men recognized that a considerate and under-
standing foreman could turn up anywhere, even in
final assembly, and that a nagging crotchety author—
itarian foreman might be found in the department
with the best jobs, there was a wide—spread feeling
that off-production jobs were more likely to be
blessed with good supervision than were those in
production divisions. This feeling came not from
any apparent superiority in the quality of foremen
in off-production departments, but from differences
in the character of work assignments and the resulting
differences in the responsibilities of supervision.
In production departments foremen are chiefly con—
cerned with seeing that workers maintain standards

 

_____ .#

 

37

which are set on the basis of systematic job analy-
sis. The line foreman can see whether work is
coming through that meets inspection standards.
Quality is determined by the speed of the line.

The supervisor of machine operations has a constant
record of the volume of output from each machine
with which to appraise workers' efforts and effi-
ciency. Failure to meet job standards will quickly
invite criticism and possibly threats or sanctions
from the foreman. But in off—production jobs, as
we have seen, the foreman does not usually have
such sharply defined standards against which to
check performance. He assigns the work to be done,
and as long as it is completed adequately in what
seems to be a reasonable time workers need not
fear supervisory criticism."u6

This discussion by Chinoy would suggest that the pre-
cision with which management can measure work load and
performance on the job has a consequence for the range of
supervisory behavior that will influence both workers'
attitudes and their performance on the job. This finding
is also supported by the work of Walker and Guest in their
study of men on the assembly line.“1

Other work which suggests that technology may influ-
ence the relationship between style of supervision and be—
havior of work groups is found in the research conducted

by the Tavistock group in England; especially in the work

of Joan Woodward.l42 In her monograph, Management and

 

Technology, Woodward was concerned with the effect different
kinds of technology have on the relationship between manage—
ment and organization. Research conducted on over 91 per—
cent of the manufacturing firms with more than 100 employees
hiSouth Essex indicated that technical methods were the

nmst important factors in determining organizational

 

38

structure and for setting the tone of human relations in—
side the firm. Woodward concludes that whether leadership
must be directive, participative, or laissez-faire, depends

on conditions determined by the technological structure

which exists within the company.

Woodward also pointed out that management theorists

have tried to develop a ”science" of administration relevant

to all types of production.

One result is that new techniques, such as operations
research and the various tools of automation have
been regarded as aids to management and to industrial
efficiency rather than as develOpments which may
change the very nature of management.

This point was also made by Dubin when he comments:
The growing body of evidence speaks loudly for the
idea that in the supervision of industrial and com-
mercial work, highly varied practices prove success
ful in given work settings. Nevertheless, students
of industrial administration still seek a 'one best
method' of supervision much as the originators of

scientific management and work rationalization were

captivated by the hope that individual work task
could be standardized in a 'one best method' . . .44

The alternative assumption is that supervision is an
integral part of an organization in operation. Whatever
characteristics the organization may have will influence the
styles of supervision that are appropriate. Supervision is
seen by Dubin as an integral part of a functioning organi—
zation and inevitably reflects the features that make types

45

of organizations unique.
Woodward and Dubin are not alone in their contention
that technology may be an intervening variable in the rela-

thnehip between supervision and behavior of work groups.

 

39

The work of Pelz, Litwak, Thompson, Bates, Harvey, Burack,
Wilson and Perrow offers support for this contention.“6

Pelz, in a study of a large industrial concern whose
parts were classified into several groups; those dealing
with non—uniform events (scientists and engineers) and those
working with relatively uniform events (central staff and
manufacturing), found that among those in occupations
dealing with non—uniform tasks, there was a higher corre-
lation,between their motivation to work and productivity
when they were free to make their own decisions.“7 In con-
trast, however, among those working on uniform tasks, there
was a higher correlation between motivation and producti-
vity when they were restricted in making decisions. The
study once again points to the nature of the task as a
determining variable in the style of supervision that may
be appropriate.

Litwak, in an article on bureaucratic models, main—
tains that there are differential efficiencies in organiza-
tional structure depending on whether the task is uniform
or not.“8 That is, whether the Weberian model of bureau-
cracies, or the human relations approach is appropriate in
the study of organizations, depends on the nature of the
task and the character of technology employed. This results
in Litwak's suggesting a third model to study organizations
characterized by non-uniform task environments. A summary

of the three models is presented in Table 2:1.149

40

 

 

HmEHcHz pnmm oco
o>fincopxm phmm oco Hmeficfiz m>Hmeopxm coapmmflawfiooam .w
meowmcoefia o>oo< an
HmEHcHz Beam oco ooHMfiooam p0: mQOHpmHom
o>wmcmpxm puma oco Hmeflcflz o>fimcopxm eho>oo Op moasm Hmpocow .m
mcoflmfiooa
Hmeflcfiz pend oco o>fipmnpchHEe< one
o>flmcopxm used oco Hweflsaz o>flmeopxm Sufiaom mo coepmnmaom .:
Hmeflcfiz peed oco mpfihocpz< now go
o>Hmcopxm when oco HmEHQHz o>anopxm coflpmoflmfiooam LOflhm < .m
o>flmcopxm m>Hmcopxm o>chopxm uflpoz so escapefloaa< .m
Hmeflcfiz ppmm oco
o>Hmcopxm Beam oco Hmsflcflz o>Hmeopxm mcoflpmaom HmcomhooEH .H
m20fipmaom Hoeoz
Hoooz Hmcoflmmomonm cmssm w.hoom3 oflpmflnouomsmzo

 

.momnozmohzo Go mfioeoe mouse mo mofipmfihopomemcolu.aum mqm<e

 

 

 

 

41

Litwak's argument for the third model rests with the
notion that individuals faced with non-uniform events which
are not clearly covered by rules are insecure. In such
situations, an individual needs colleague support if he is
to perform efficiently. The third model allows for this
support.

Thompson and Bates, in a study of "Technology, Organi-
zation and Administration," explore some of the ways in
which technology, as a variable, may impinge on organiza—.
tion and on administration.50 They focus on four types of
organizations: the mining enterprise, the manufacturing
organization, the hospital and the university. These orga—
nizations are compared with respect to three broad functional
areas of administration: the setting of objectives or policy
formulation, the management of resources, and execution.

The authors found that in the mine and factory, which
rely heavily on mechanical aspects of the technology, author-
ity is allocated primarily as control over the mechanical
operation and takes the form of authority over people to
the extent that behavior is disciplined to the requirements
of the mechanical operation. However, in the hospital and
university, the heavy reliance on professional abilities
means that authority is exercised primarily with reference
to people lacking the mechanical referent to bolster au-
thoritative behavior; the university and hospital must de-
rend upon agreement or consensus backed by professional

Sundards and ethics. As a result of the differing

 

 

42

technologies of the four types of organizations identified,
the authors suggest that where the problems of management
may be similar, the emphasis placed on each varies consider-
ably.

Harvey's research attempts to demonstrate the fact
that the technological factor is one of the most important
to consider when formulating explanatory and/or predictive
propositions about variations in organizational structure.51
Data were gathered on 43 industrial organizations and the
findings reported clearly indicate the presence of a rela—
tionship between organizational technology and a number of
aspects of organizational structure. The findings also
lead Harvey to postulate that a socio-technical orientation
would be helpful in understanding what kinds of technical
and organizational conditions serve to enhance rationality
in some circumstances and to impede its operation in others.
That is, the technology variable, in connection with other
aspects of organizational structure, serves to establish a
rudimentary typology of socio—technical organization, and
the use of this typology may provide a useful analytic tool
for the investigation of a number of organizational pro—
cesses, including decision—making.

Elmer Burack, in a study of industrial management in
various production systems, discusses some of the implica-
tions of technological modifications and improvements on

industrial management in two types of advanced manufacturing

 

43

systems displaying flow characteristics and designated
"process and quasi—process” systems.52 He found that in
the "process" system, as exemplified by the producer of
prepared meats, the interplay of marketing and technologi-
cal forces resulted in increased organization complexity
associated with the growth in the scale of operation. In
the other companies studied, there was a flattening of
organizational structure and a simplification of super-
visory relationships. He concluded that technological
change influences the authority structure of organizations
and may go beyond that to influence the appropriate be—

havior of authorities in different organizational systems.

Wilson, in research reported in the American Journal

 

of Sociology, argues that the appropriate pattern of man—
agement is dependent on an individual's adaptation to or-
ganizational roles.53 His research tests the hypothesis
that "co-operative adaptations are associated with parti—
cipative management." Co-operative-—in which personal
goals pursued by the individual coincide with the goals
others expect him to pursue as part of his role, and "adap-
tations" should operate as an intervening variable between
patterns of management and subordinate's relations with
supervisors and peers.

The study, conducted on three housing units of a cor—3

rectional institution, reports findings consistent with pre—

\dous research in the tendencies for inmates to have better

 

44

relations with staff and closer relations with peers under
participative management than under "bureaucratic super-
vision." However, the research suggested that a major fac—
tor influencing subordinate's task performance is the
nature of the decisions for which they themselves are re—
sponsible. At one extreme, an individual's adaptation is
less influential in determining his role performance than
such factors as the rewards and punishments supervisors can
employ, the norms of his peer group, and his personal ex-
pectations about these matters, derived from past exper-
ience, since external conformity is, in a large part, suf-
ficient for adequate performance of routines. At the other
extreme, a subordinate may be called upon to exercise con-
tinuously a high degree of discretion in order for the
activities of the organization to be successful. In such

a case, the subordinate's type of adaptation can be very
important. Thus, the importance of patterns of management
in affecting subordinate's task performance should depend,
in large part, upon the kinds of decisions subordinates have
to make, and, consequently, no simple general relation be—
tween patterns of management and performance can be anti-

54

cipated. These considerations point to the importance

of differences among organizations in terms of structures
of decision—making, which, as Perrow has argued, are strongly

55

affected by the technologies of organizational activities.

 

45

There have been numerous other studies which have
taken into account the variable, technology, in the study
of organizational phenomena.56 However, the literature re—
viewed suggests a number of variables created by the "tech—
nology" of an organization which seems to influence any
potential relations between the management system and atti-
tudes and behavior of work groups. First, the precision
with which management can measure work load and performance
has been mentioned by Chinoy (1955), Sayles (1958), and
Burack (1967), as having an influence on the consequence
management behavior has on worker sentiment and behavior.
Second, the degree of skill required to perform a particu-
lar task has been identified by Woodward (1958), Sayles
(1958), Dubin (1965), and Thompson and Bates (1958), as
also influencing the management system and the nature of
its structure. Finally, the repetitive nature of the task
is also viewed as influencing the appropriate patterns of
management employed in a work group (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin,
and Floor, 1951; Pelz, 1960; Litwak, 1962; and Wilson, 1968).
These variables taken together, represent what, in this

study, will be called the character of technology.

Hypothesis

 

The literature reviewed is helpful in suggesting the
manner in which different dimensions of the technical struc—
ture may effect any potential relationship between the in-

fluence structure and the attitudes and behavior of social

 

 

 

 

46

groupings. However, before hypotheses are developed, the
variables dependent upon the influence structure need to
be identified. There are few instances in the literature
where any theoretical linkage between supervisory style and
attitudes of social groups has been developed. French, in
his research (1960) argues that supervisory style, concep-
tualized as it is in this research, influences job perfor-
mance, communality of super-subordinate goals, job satis-
faction, and overall commitment to the work situation.
Other literature reviewed would not support the supervisory
style and job performance relationship suggested by French,
but would support the notion that the other variables men-
tioned are directly influenced by supervisory behavior.
Therefore, the hypotheses which follow are concerned with
how the "character of technology" intervenes between super—
visory style and the variables suggested by French and
others.

The literature discussed in relation to technology
and leadership theory is helpful in identifying the manner
in which the different dimensions of technology, such as

' are associated with "concerted

"amount of differentiation,‘
activity" within a work group (Sayles, 1958). This notion
of differentiation suggests the first hypothesis. That is,
if differentiation is viewed as having at least two dimen-

57

sions; task differentiation-—the division of labor asso-

ciated with the completion of a particular task, and person

 

47

differentiation—-specia1ization, usually the product of
extended education and training, where individuals are em—
ployed for their technical expertise as it relates to the
accomplishments of certain organizational goals, it may be
argued that a proliferation of occupational specialties—-
person specialization——results in an undermining of hierar—
chial authority.58 Therefore, in making decisions, super—
visors must consult the job occupants of the appropriate
specialties, thus sharing decision—making with the special-
ists. This is not only necessary for the supervisor, but
is expected of the role occupant.59 This suggests the
' following hypothesis:
1. The greater the degree of skill required to perform
a particular task, the stronger the negative asso-

ciation between:

a. "aggressive authoritarian" style of super-
vision and organizational goal identification.

b. "aggressive authoritarian" style of super-
vision and job satisfaction.

0. "aggressive authoritarian" style of super—
vision and integration of the work group.

Although the above hypothesis allows the argument that
the greater the amount of "person specialization," the
greater the need for "group participative" styles of super-
vision, the literature reviewed does not justify the con—
verse. It appears, however, that as work groups become less

"person specialized,"

they become more "task specialized,"
characterized by precise measures of work load and perfor—

nence. This observation suggests the following hypotheses:

 

48

2. The more precisely work load and performance can
be measured within the work group, the less likely
we are to find an association between:

a. style of supervision and job satisfaction.

b. style of supervision and organizational goal
identification.
c. style of supervision and integration of the

work group.
3. The more repetitive the nature of the task of
individual members within the work group, the less
likely we are to find an association between:

a. style of supervision and job satisfaction.

b. style of supervision and organizational goal
identification.
0. style of supervision and integration of the

work group.

The hypotheses being considered suggest that a number
of structural variables determined by the technology em-
ployed in a work group are having an effect on the degree
of any potential relationship between supervisory style and

attitudes and subsequent performance of work groups.

Summary

The early work of leadership theorists suggests the
notion that democratic or participative styles of leader-
ship are more conducive to high morale and overall perfor—
mance than aggressive authoritatian styles of leadership.
This proposition was tested under all types of research con—
ditions; from the laboratory experiment (Lippit and White),
to the large field experiment (Seashore and Bowers). The

results, although generally in the predicted direction, have

 

49

been far from conclusive. This inconsistency in findings,
coupled with further research, suggests the notion that the
technological structure of a social grouping is an inter-
vening variable influencing any relationship between leader-
ship behavior and group morale and performance. Research
concerned with this problem suggests a number of variables
associated with the technology of a group which need to be
taken into account in postulating the impact of the influ—
ence structure on the behavior of social groups. The hypo-
theses being considered in this research attempt to accom-

plish this objective.

 

FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER II

1. Whether you begin with the mechanistic or rational
models of organizations identified in the work of Weber,
Urwick, Taylor, etc., or with the "natural system" approach
identified in the work of Barnard, Parsons, Gouldner, and
Merton, attention has been given to the problem of authority
viewed as a problem of compliance. Gerth and Mills, 0p. cit.,
pp. 196—240; March and Simon, 0 . cit., pp. 36—47; P. Blau
and R. Scott, Formal Organizations (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 27—59. Selected writings from the
above authors are found in A. Etzioni, ed., Complex Organi-
zations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), pp. 1—
99; C. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1938); R. Scott, "Theory of
Organizations," in Handbook of Modern Sociology ed. by
R. Faris (New York: Rand McNally, 1964), pp. 485—529.

 

 

 

 

2. R. Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1961); R. Likert, The Human Organization (New
York: McGraw Hill, 1967); Douglas McGregor, The Human Side
of Enterprise (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960); Chris Argyris,
Personality and Organizations (New York: Harper and Row
Publishers, 1964). Other authors: V. Vroom, "Some Per—
sonality Determinants of the Effects of Participation,"
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LIX (1959), 322-27;
are less polemic in tone and more reserved in their judg—
ments, but argue along the same lines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Joan Woodward, Management and Technology (London:
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1958); Dubin et al., pp;
SEE}; Charles Perrow, "A Framework for the Comparative
Analysis of Organizations," American Sociological Review,
XXXII (1967), 194-208.

 

 

 

4. R. K. White and R. L. Lippitt, Autocracy and
Democracy (New York: Harper Brothers, 1960). In addition
to its historical significance, two main points should be
emphasized concerning these studies. First, the possibili—
ties for observer bias were great. The coding procedures
employed did not focus exclusively on behavior, but rather
called for considerable inference concerning the mental
states of the subjects. Second, the findings concerning
"morale" and interpersonal relations were much more pro-
nounced and consistent than they were for group output.

 

 

50

 

 

 

- ‘u .*—_.

51

5. K. Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change,"
in Readings in Social Psychology, ed. by G. E. Swansan,
T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston), pp. 459-71. Other studies which attempted to
define the Lewin approach are: E. B. Bennett, "Discussion,
Decision, Commitment, and Consensus in Group Decisions,"
Human Relations, V11 (1955), 251-72; D. F. Pennington,
F. Haravey, and B. Bass, "Some Effects of Decision and Dis—
cussion in Coalescence, Change and Effectiveness," Journal
of Applied Psychology, XLII (1958), 404-05.

 

 

6. J. Misuimi, "Experimental Studies on Group
Dynamics in Japan," Psychologia, II (1959), 229—35.

 

7. R. C. Day and R. L. Hamblin, "Some Effects of
Close and Primitive Styles of Supervision," American Journal

 

of Sociology, LXIX (1964), 499—510.

 

8. M. E. Shaw, "A Comparison of Two Types of Leader—
ship in Various Communication Nets," Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, L (1955), 127—34.

 

 

9. L. Coch and J. R. R. French, "Overcoming Resis—
tance to Change," Human Relations, I (1948), 512—32.

 

10. J. R. R. French, "An Experiment on Participation
in a Norwegian Factory," Human Relations, XIII (1960), 3-19.

 

11. Ibid.

12. J. Levine and Butler, "Lecture Versus Group Deci-
sions in Changing Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology,
XXXVI, 29—33. In this study, Levine and Butler compared
the effectiveness of lecture and group decision in getting
supervisors in a large manufacturing plant to reduce the
"halo" in their subordinate evaluations. The results in-
dicated that supervisors participating in the group deci—
sion changed their ratings in the desired directions, while
those in the lecture and control group did not. L. 0.
Lawrence and P. C. Smith, "Group Decision and Employee
Participation," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXIX (1955),
334-37. This study attempts to investigate the effects of
the discussion and decision elements in "group decisions."
The results are inconclusive.

 

 

13. D. Katz, N. Maccoby, and N. C. Morse, "Producti—
vity, Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation,"
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1950.
(Unpublished.)

52

14. E. Yuchtman, "Control in an Insurance Company:
Cause or Effect," in Control in Organizations, ed. by A.
Tannenbaum (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), pp. 125—28.
Yuchtman, using data from a study reported by Bowers, as-
sessed the probable direction of causality involved in the
correlation between total control and organization effective—
ness. The paper demonstrated the usefulness of repeated
measurements in increasing the precision of interpretation
of survey data. Since the cause and effect relationship
may very well be reciprocal and circular, it may be de—
sirable to employ panel designs in which repeated measures
of both control and effectiveness are obtained.

 

15. N. C. Morse and E. Reiner, "The Experimental
Change of a Major Organizational Variable," Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, L11 (1956), 120-29.

 

 

16. Likert, The Human Opganization, pp. cit., pp.
78-79.

 

17. S. E. Seashore and D. G. Bowers, Changing the
Structure and Functioning of an Organization (Ann Arbor,
Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1963).

 

 

18. Ibid., p. 8.

19. A. S. Tannenbaum, Social Psychology of the Work
Organization (Los Angeles: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1966),
p. 84.

 

 

20. Vroom, "Some Personality Determinants . . .,"

Op. cit., 322—27.

21. Bennett, op. cit., 251—74; Pennington, Haravey
and Bass, op. cit., 404-05.

22. Likert, New Patterns of Management, op. cit.,
pp. 223-33.

23. Ibid., pp. 230—33.

 

24. Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (New
York: Random House, 1967), pp. 13-19.

 

25. Walter Buckingham, Automation (New York: New
American Library, 1961). Buckingham maintains that science
is knowledge, systematized and formulated to discover
general truths. Technology is science applied to the in—
dustrial arts. While science is concerned with under-
standing, technology is concerned with practical uses.
Technology includes the development of the tools that per-
mit the specialization of labor according to varying
abilities.

 

 

53

26. Freedman, op. cit., p. 137. Marx comments:
"Technology discloses man's mode of dealing with nature.
The process of production by which he sustains his life,
and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his
social relations, and of the mental concepts which flow
from them." Parsons defines the term in a similar manner
when he comments: "Three levels of the organization of
rational action in action systems may be distinguished.
The first of these, the most elementary, is that involving
the motivation of resources for the attainment of a single
given goal by an individual or a collectivity. This is
essentially what, in The Structure of Social Action, was
called technology.” T. Parsons, The Social System (New
York: The Free Press, 1951), p. 5&9; T. Parsons, The Struc-
ture of Social Action (New York: The Free Press, 1937).
Thompson also views technology as activities employed to
achieve a desired outcome. He comments, "To the extent
that the activities thus dictated by man's beliefs are
judged to produce the desired outcome, we can speak of
technology." James Thompson, Organizations in Action (New
York: McGraw Hill, 1967), p. 163.

 

 

 

 

 

27. Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1963); Meissner, op. cit.,

Woodward, op. cit.

 

28. Blauner, op. cit., pp. 6—7.
29. Meissner, o . cit., p. 13.
30. Ibid., pp. 238—46.

31. Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization Theory
and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).

 

 

32. Meissner, op. cit., p. 2H5.

33. Ibid., pp. 238—U6.

3“. D. Katz, N. Maccoby, G. Gutin, and L. G. Floor,
"Productivity, Supervision, and Morale Among Railroad

Workers," Survey Research Center, University of Michigan,
1951. (Unpublished.); D. Katz, Maccoby, and Morse, op. cit.

35. Likert, New Patterns of Managpment, o . cit.

 

36. D. Katz and R. Kahn, The Social Ppychology of
Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966).

 

 

37. Sayles, op. cit.

38. Ibid., pp. 9U—118.

 

5U

39. Eli Chinoy, Automobile Workers and the American
Dream (New York: Random House, 1955).

 

no. Ibid., p. 73.

N1. Charles Walker and Robert H. Guest, The Man on
the Assembly Line (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1952).

 

 

42. Woodward, Management and Technology, op. cit.
p. 10.

3

 

U3. Ibid.
UH. Dubin, op. cit., p. U.
U5. Ibid.

U6. D. C. Pelz, "Conditional Effects in Relationship
of Autonomy and Motivation to Performance," August, 1960
(unpublished manuscript); Eugene Litwak, "Models of Bureau—
cracy Which Permit Conflict," American Journal of Sociology,
LXVII (1962), 177—8“; James D. Thompson and Fred L. Bates,
"Technology, Organization, and Administration,” Administra—
tive Science Quarterly, II (1957—58), 325-“3; Edward Harvey,
"Technology and the Structure of Organizations," American
Sociological Review (April, 1968), 2u7—59; Elmer H. Burack,
"Industrial Management in Advanced Production Systems:
Some Theoretical Concepts and Preliminary Findings,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, XII (1967-68), 479—500;
Thomas P. Wilson, "Patterns of Management and Adaptations
to Organization Roles: A Study of Prison Inmates,"
American Journal of Sociology, LXXIV (1968), 146—57; Perrow,

op. cit., 194-208.
N7. Pelz, op. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

U8. Litwak, op. cit.

A9. gp;g., p. 182.

50. Thompson and Bates, op. cit., 330—“3.
51. Harvey, op. cit., 2H9—50.

52. Burack, o . cit., U82—98.

53. Wilson, op. cit., 1&6—50.

5n. lplg., p. 153.

55. Perrow, op. cit., l9M—208.

 

55

56. Eric L. Trist and E. K. Bamforth, "Some Social
and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of
Goal—Getting," Human Relations, IV (1951), 3—38; Arthur N.
Turner and Paul R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965); Charles
Perrow, "Hospitals: Technology Structure and Goals,: in
Handbook of Organizations, ed. by James March (Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1965), Ch. 22; Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker,
The Management of Innovation (London: Tavistock Publica—
tions, 1961); Rose L. Coser, "Authority and Decision—Making

in a Hospital," American Sociological Review, XXIII (1958),
56—6“.

57. V. A. Thompson, Modern Organization (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), pp. 83—100.

58. Ibid., pp. 83—90.

59. Jerald Hage, "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations,"
Administrative Science Quarterly (December, 1965), 299.

 

-v--. -WHv—._ -w—- --

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION

OF CONCEPTS

Introduction

 

In this chapter the design of the research and the
selection of a sample will be discussed. We will also
operationalize the variables identified in the last chapter
and discuss the construction of indexes to measure the
style of supervision and the dependent variables.

This research is concerned with the impact of techni-
cal structure on the relationship between supervisory style
and the attitudes and subsequent behavior of industrial
work groups. To accomplish the numerous objectives associ—
ated with organizational development and growth, work spe—
cialization and differentiation have become a necessary
part of any industrial organization. As a result, the manu—

facturing and support functions of any industry are organized

’for the accomplishment of complimentary goals which determine

an organization's success and the probability of its survi-
val. Such diversity in objectives and goals among the dif-
ferent functions within a large industrial corporation pro—

vides sufficient variation in the technological structure

56

 

57

to test the hypotheses introduced in the preceding chapter.
That is, the hypotheses being considered require a sample
of industrial work groups representing sufficient variation
in technical structure to identify what consequence it may
be having, if any, on the relationship between supervisory

style and the attitudes and morale of work groups.

The Research Design

 

The site for this research was selected because of
its availability and rather isolated condition with regard
to other industry. Although most of the research concerned
with the impact of technology on industrial work groups has
been comparative in nature1 this study's concern is with
the variations in technology within an industrial organiza-
tion and not between industrial organizations. Therefore
the somewhat isolated conditions observed are considered
consistent with the research objectives and insignificant
with regard to the findings of the research.

The industrial organization being studied was founded
in 1897 and has grown to become one of the top five chemical
companies in the country. Its main plant, where the re—
search was conducted, is located in a small midwest commu—
nity of about 30,000 inhabitants. It is the major employer
and has dominated the economy of the community almost from
its inception. However, while the organization may reside

in a small community, it represents probably the biggest

58

chemical operation in the United States in terms of employees
(about 10,000) and turns out upward of H00 products.

Changes in the production technology because of in-
creased technological innovation have been fairly continuous
during the history of the organization with the direction
of change being toward increasingly automatic operations.
This has created a unique labor force in comparison to
other small cities. There exists a high proportion of pro—
fessionals and a sharp decline in the use of Operatives and
laborers. Table 3:1 presents the occupational distribution
for the labor force of the community in which the organiza-

tion is located.2

TABLE 3:l.—-Occupational distribution for the labor force of
the community in which organization resides.

 

 

Labor Force 19U0 1960
(Percent) (Percent)

Professional and Technical 19.2 28.7
Managers, Proprietors and

Officials 9.0 IO.“

Clerical and Sales 17.6 21.9

Craftsmen 1“.” 13.8

Operatives 20. 12.0

3

Private Household Workers 5.9

Service Workers 7.9 7.0
7

Laborers 5.

 

 

 

' I

I“

'Y‘

a“

.v’

 

59

Proceeding on the assumption that wide variations in
the character of technology can be identified within an
industrial organization, top management personnel were inter-
viewed to help select a sample of work groups which would
provide such variation. It was noted that the technology
of a work group is often a product of the task under con-
sideration and that work groups organized for the accom-
plishment of complimentary yet very different objectives
do provide a significant variation in the character of
technology employed. The specific hypotheses in this re—
search call for variations in technology along dimensions
of (l) the precision with which work load and performance
can be measured; (2) the degree of skill and training re-
quired to perform a particular task; and (3) the repetitive
nature of the task.

Although some variation along each of these dimen—
sions may be observed between any two work groups, it was
evident that significant differences along these dimensions
of technology do exist between corporate or organizational
functions. That is, the technology of the Research and
Development function is considerably different than the
technology of an Accounting or Business service function.

'To better understand how the industrial functions in-
cluded in this research represent different technology in
terms of the dimensions being considered, a brief discussion

of the work process for each functional area is presented.

 

 

 

 

 

o
.p.
,.
q .
.. .

~.‘~.

._.‘

 

 

60

The work of the research and technical service and
development groups is best understood if it is viewed in
conjunction with the development process of a new product.
That is, a product that will eventually be placed on the mar—
ket is developed in stages with the role of the research
groups being most important at the early stage and the work
of a technical service and development group being most im-
portant in the later stages.

The first stage generally consists of exploratory re—
search undertaken with the expressed goal of developing a
compound or potential product substance with some commercial
value. The work itself is performed by professional scien—
tists conducting experiments in a research laboratory simi-
lar to what may be found in any university setting. The
personnel making up the research groups in this study are
all involved in such work.

The second stage in the process of product development
consists of exploring the utility and market potential of
any new compound that is developed. This involves a series
of tests to determine the properties of the new substance
in terms of its present competitors. Also, consideration
is given to whether the product can be produced at a price
that will allow it to compete in the current market. These
activities are performed by the research groups where the
product was originally developed.

The third stage involves the technical service and

development groups and consists of a series of tests under

 

 

 

 

 

...y..

kn.-

 

 

 

In“

H.
v

 

61

simulated field conditions to determine how the product will
act once placed on the market. These groups usually consist
of chemists or technical personnel who are capable of sup—
plying the techniques of their science to assess the value
and utility of any product.

The fourth stage also involves the technical service
and development groups and is primarily a marketing activity
involving pricing the product and identifying potential cus-
tomers. This often involves demonstrations of the product
under various conditions in an effort to highlight its value
for the user.

The final stage constitutes the commercial aspects of
product development. That is, placing the product on the
market and providing technical service or assistance to
customers making use of the product.

The first two stages primarily involve the research
groups and the work of highly trained professional scien-
tists. The next three stages involve the technical service
and development groups made up of technical personnel with
business and marketing interest. Both the research and the
technical service and development groups may be considered
"product development groups" but there consist very dif-
ferent requirements for group membership and there is con-
siderable variance in the activities performed.

The business service groups are made up of accounting,

industrial relations, legal, patent and business information

 

62

service groups. These groups represent considerable variance
along the dimensions of technology being considered in the
study. Beginning with the latter, business information ser-
vice groups, their personnel provide essentially two ser-
vices for the company. One involves the Operation and main-
tenance of the computer systems as they exist throughout

the company; the other the development of more efficient
hfibrmation systems and programming work. This includes
solving problems that relate to information systems employed
as well as recommending and instituting change wherever ad-
visable. The technology for these groups, at least at the
Operations level, is similar to any man—machine technical
system such as the textile industry described by Blauner.

Of the remaining business service groups, the tech-
nology in controller's groups is the farthest removed from
what is found in the product development groups. Within the
controller groups a distinction can be made between the
groups servicing the manufacturing division and the corpo-
rate enterprise. The former are all cost accounting groups
involved almost as much in chemistry as accounting. Their
work consists of pricing chemical products and the mainte-
rmnce of records that indicate the direction of such prices,
rmt only for the present company but for the industry in
general. In the corporate accounting groups there is a much
broader range of activities represented. Concern is with
the financial activities of the company in general and the

Cmvelopment of more efficient accounting systems.

 
 

... ._. . u v . .11 ... .~ ~ . . s ,. _.
, . . . v ., . .. .l . .
P, v . c . . . . . ... . a ‘.. _ q ., ... w. . .
,.. . .c ... . ... . . ._ ,. .

 

63

The patent groups are involved in providing the com-
pany with three general services: (1) Patent attentions
work where they prepare and process patent applications; (2)
Patent opinions and reports where agents study patents to
determine their validity and where the company's behavior
will infringe on the rights of others; and (3) Licensing,
where the company takes license from someone else instead
of doing its own research. These agents are highly trained;
however, their work is often very routine in nature.

The legal department represents the most autonomous
of business service groups. Its membership is highly trained
and often works as much with the company as for the company.
Its staff represents specialists in different areas of law
and the supervision and direction of work is left to the
individual lawyers.

The manufacturing groups represent one product area
for the company. In this instance it is agricultural prod—
uct production. The groups consist of all supervisory per—
sonnel from the shift foreman to the plant superintendent.

A plant superintendent will usually have an assistant super—
intendent, a technical engineer and five to seven foremen
Who report directly to him. This structure constitutes a
"work group" for the manufacturing functions. Seven such
groupings were included in the research. Where the nature
of the work in these groups is primarily supervisory, we do

have the climate of the production system influencing any

 

—-—v-. ~u.---—.--.. . /-.. ..

—\. -..._.

6A

potential relationship between supervisory style and the

"character" of the groups considered.

The Sample

 

Once the functional areas had been decided upon, it
was necessary to secure a sufficient number of groups to
ensure a perceived variation in style of supervision. The
sample was selected through consultation with management
and attention was given in selecting groups that were repre-
sentative of other groups providing the same service to the
company. The groups, therefore, were not randomly chosen
but were selected because of their technology and willing—
ness to participate in the research. The sample consists
of sixty—six groups representing various task and techno—
logical systems throughout the company. The distribution

is as follows:

 

Function Number of Groups
Research (T. S. & D. + Research) 2M
Legal 2
Patent 5
Manufacturing 7
Industrial Relations 2
Controllers (Corp. & Div.) 15
Business Information Services 11

The research and legal groups represent highly dif—

ferentiated, non-repetitive task environments, whereas the

65

controllers and business information groups represent less
differentiated more repetitive task environments. The re—
maining groups fall somewhere on a continuum between the two
extremes.

The sample included 533 individual respondents repre-
senting the 7 functions under investigation. A distribu-
tion is presented in Table 3:2.

TABLE 3.2.——Number of individual respondents in each indus-
trial function.

 

 

wm___flw _

 

Individual Function Respondents
Corporate Accounting 75 (14.07%)
Division Accounting 3” ( 6.38%)
Business Information Services 123 (23.08%)
Research 155 (29.08%)
Industrial Relations 20 ( 3.75%)
Manufacturing 77 (iu.u5%)
Legal 16 ( 3.00%)
Patent 33 ( 6.19%)

Total (100.00%) 533

 

Included in the sample were a total of U62 males and

‘71 females. Eighty-five per cent of the sample were married

with only approximately two per cent being divorced or sepa-
rated. More than 70 per cent of the sample have two or
more children with the average number of children being
3.06. The mean age of the sample is 32 years; however the

distribution is bimodal with A“ per cent of the sample under

 

66

30 years of age and 29 per cent of the sample over U0 years
of age. The average income for the sample is $11,000 per
year with over 90 per cent of the respondents making over
$8,000 per year. The high income is partly understood by
the fact two-thirds of the sample have graduated from col-
lege. The mean response with regard to length of time with
the company was a little over u years; however once again
the distribution was bimodal with MU per cent of the sample
having worked for the organization less than 5 years and

29 per cent having worked for more than 10 years. Over a
third of the sample had been employed by the organization
directly out of school. In summary, we have a well—educated,
predominantly male sample representing the major industrial
functions of a large chemical company. Demographic and
other characteristics of the sample are summarized in

Table 3:3.

The Measurement of Variables

 

Character of Technology

 

' attention

To operationalize "character of technology,’
was given to the variables being considered as a product of
the technological structure mentioned in Chapter II. Where
technology is being defined as the physical objects and
technical operations employed by an industrial work group
in turning out the goods and services produced, the vari-

ables ”precision with which work load and performance can

be measured," ”degree of skill required to perform a

67

TABLE 323.-—Se1ected demographic characteristics (sex, age,

marital status, education, income).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Male Female Total
N A61 72 533
% 86.5 13.5 100.00
Age
20 or 21-30 3l-A0 A1—50 51—60 61 & N.R. Total
under over
N 25 212 1A3 98 A9 5 1 533
% u.7 39.8 26.8 18.u 9.2 .9 .2 100.00
Marital Status
Married Never Married Divorced or No Res. Total
Separated
N ABA 70 8 1 533
% 85.2 13.1 1.5 .2 100.00
Education
Some H.S. Some Col. M.A. Ph.D. N.R. Total
H.S. Grad Col. Grad
N 6 66 106 196 78 79 2 533
% 1.1 12.A 19.9 36.8 14.6 1U.8 .A 100.00
Income
Under 8,000 to 12,000 to 16,000 No Res. Total
8.000 11,999 15,999 & up
N 69 206 152 99 7 533
% 12.9 38.6 28.5 18.5 1.3 100.00

 

- wmm—«fi—_

— .-——-.___-.._-...... .. ,

68

' and "the repetitive nature of the activi-

3

particular task,‘

ties,"

also need to be defined and operationalized.
Precision with which work load and performance can be
measured refers to the exactness with which management can
measure the amount and quality of work being done. Inter—
views with management personnel provided the major source

of information regarding how precise work load and perfor-
mance could be measured. It was reported that in certain
research groups there are very few measures as to how much
work is being done and the quality of work is often deter-
mined by reference to instances where new products have

been developed and proven successful in terms of profits.
This same difficulty in measurement of work load and per—
formance exists within the legal department and is somewhat
evident in manufacturing groups where respondents occupied
positions above the rank of foreman. However, in accounting
and business service groups more exact measures of work

load and performance are available. The "man—machine" type
technology which characterized much of the work routine for
the accountant at the entry level position provides precise
measures of work load and performance that are easily devel—
oped and assessed. This same condition also exists in the
Business Information Service groups where the primary func—
tion is the maintenance of computer systems developed to
improve the operations of various departments throughout

the company. The other functions included within the sample

 

69

would vary along this dimension and fall somewhere between
these two extremes.

Degree of skill required to perform a particular task
refers to the amount of education and training necessary for
admittance into the work group. The study concerned itself
primarily with white collar employees, and therefore the
education level required usually included some college ex—
perience or training beyond high school. The research
groups required the greatest amount of education with 39 per
cent of the respondents having received the Ph. D. degree.
Membership in the legal department in most instances re—
quired a law degree. However, in the business service and
accounting groups less formal training is required. In the
B. I. S. groups better than 66.7 per cent had not graduated
from college and in the accounting groups 59.2 per cent had
not. Of the corporate accountants 56 per cent had not grad-
uated from college whereas in division accounting 82.A per
cent had received a college degree. It should also be
noted that accountants coming into industry right out of
school do not qualify for a C. P. A. This suggests that
the industrial accountant has somewhat different career
objectives than the professional accountant who chooses the
alternative career of working with a public accounting firm.

The repetitive nature of the task refers to whether
a job requires the employee to perform a similar task
hourly, daily, etc.; or whether the job requires a variety

of behavior determined by circumstance. Again management

70

interviews were very helpful in identifying the kinds of
activities characteristic of different jobs. Also the re-
searcher had occasion to interview a number of employees
with regard to their particular task and these interviews
supported descriptions provided by management. That is,
the work described by the accounting and business group
was more repetitive in nature than the kinds of activities
required of the other functions being considered.

.In summary, the independent variable "character of
technology" is identifiable for any work group focusing on
the dimensions of work load and performance, repetitive
nature of the task, and the amount of skill and training
required for membership. In this research variations in
these variables are provided by including in the sample a
wide variety of groups organized around different tasks
and employing different technolOgies. The groups included
were recommended by management personnel judged best quali—
fied to differentiate work groups along the dimensions being
considered. These recommendations were verified by inter-
views with employees from groups similar to those included

in the sample.

Style of Sppervision

 

Supervision is a generally defined process where an
individual is responsible to oversee or direct the actions
of others. In this research "style of supervision" includes

certain behavioral characteristics associated with this

71

process. The characteristics being considered are: (1)
the nature of the decision—making process; (2) the nature
of communication between superior and subordinate; (3) the
nature of interaction and influence between superiors and
subordinates; and (A) the motivational forces employed.
Likert argues that the principle of supportive rela-
tionships, which underlines his whole theory of management
systems, specifies conditions that lead to a full and ef—
ficient flow of all relevant information in all directions
throughout the group. It also calls for an exercise of
influence comparable with the flow of information. This
efficient flow of communication and exercise of influence
throughout the organization has important consequences for
decision making. Ideally, under such a system, all the
relevant information and technical knowledge in the organi—
zation on a particular problem flow to the points where
decisions are to be made. Likert argues that this condition
uses fully and in an additive manner all motivational forces
which are accompanied by favorable attitudes. It is there-
fore argued that an organization should be outstanding in
its performance if it has competent personnel; if it has
leadership which develops highly effective groups and
achieves within such groups effective communication and
influence; if it has decentralized and coordinated decision
making; and if it has high performance goals coupled with
high motivation. These variables: decision making, commu—

nication, the interaction influence process and motivation

72

are those being considered in this research“ and appear to
be a product of the "style of supervision" which character-
izes any work group.

The nature of decision making process is defined as
the level in the work group at which decisions are formally
made. This variable is measured by questionnaire items
designed to identify the amount of freedom in decision
making as opposed to having all decisions cleared with
supervision. Items included also indicate the extent to
which supervisors are willing to make use of subordinate
expertise in the solution of problems relevant to the work
group. The items included in the index employed in analy—
sis and the extent to which they intercorrelate are pre-
sented in Table 3:A.

The nature of the communication process is defined
as the amount and directional flow of communication within
the work group. Respondents were asked a number of questions
designed to indicate the extent of communication within a
work group and whether it is perceived as sufficient for
the accomplishment of group goals. The items included in
the index employed in analysis, and extent to which they
intercorrelate, are presented in Table 3:5.

The interaction influence process is defined as the
amount of cooperative teamwork and extent to which subor—
dinates may influence methods and activities of their work

group. This variable is also measured by questionnaire

73

TABLE 3:A.—-Rank order correlations between items included
in measuring the nature of decision making.

 

 

Items 2—23 2—2“ 2-25 2—39
2-23 100

2-2“ *.61 100

2-25 *.59 *.69 100

2-39 *.33 *.HO *.56 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.

N:

6

6.

2—23 How are objectives set in your department?

2-39

l.

2.

3.

Objectives are announced with little oppor-
tunity to raise questions or comment.
Objectives are announced and explained and
an opportunity is given to ask questions.
Objectives are drawn up, but are discussed
with subordinates and sometimes modified
before being used.

Specific alternative objectives are drawn
up by supervisors and subordinates are asked
to discuss them and indicate which they
think best.

Problems are presented to those persons who
are involved and the objectives felt to be
the best are then set by the subordinates
and the supervisor jointly, by group parti-
cipation and discussion.

People at all levels usually have "know how"
that could be useful to decision-makers. To
what extent is information widely shared in

your department so that those who make decisions
have access to all available "know how?"

(Five point extent scale)

When decisions are being made, to what extent
are the persons affected asked for their ideas?
(Five point extent scale)

When your supervisor has problems related to

the work, to what extent does he use group meet-
ings to talk things over with subordinates and
get their ideas? (Five point extent scale)

7A

 

 

TABLE 3:5.——Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring nature of communication.

Items 1-52 1-53 2-16

1-52 100

1-53 *.69 100

2-16 *.38 *.33 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.

N:

1-52

1—53

66.

To what extent are you given the information
necessary to do your job in the best possible
way? (Five point extent scale)

To what extent is the information you get about
what is going on in other departments adequate
or sufficient for your needs? (Five point
extent scale)

To what extent do persons in your work group
keep each other informed about important events
and situations related to your work? (Five
point extent scale)

‘ mF—m—v

 

w...— F-.

75

items which identify the amount of emphasis placed on a
"team" approach to problem solving and the extent to which
members of the same work group are willing to exchange
Opinions and ideas. The items included in the index em-
ployed in analysis, and the extent to which they inter-
correlate, are presented in Table 3:6.

Motivational forces employed in the supervision of
subordinates are defined as the manner of motives used,
ranging from fear and threats of punishment to reward sys-
tems of employee compensation developed through group par-
ticipation to secure employee performance and compliance
with regard to organizational goals. TO measure this dimen-
sion of supervisory behavior employees were asked to re-
spond to questionnaire items which have proven successful
in other research at measuring this same dimension.5 How-
ever, before the items were included in the indexes employed
in analysis, rank order correlations were computed on item
rankings to determine the extent of inter—correlation.

These are presented in Table 3:7.

The Dependent Variables

 

There are four dependent variables being considered
in this research. Taken together they comprise what is being
called "character of work groups." In our review of the
literature in the area of leadership theory and personnel
management it appeared that these variables have continually

been related to style of supervision and the task and

76

TABLE 3:6.——Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring the interaction influence process.

 

 

Items 2—17 2-26 2-27 . 2-A0
2-17 100

2-26 .66 100

2-27 *.63 *.55 100

2-UO *.5U *.35 *.36 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.

N:

2-40

66.

How much do persons in your work group encourage
each other to work as a team? (Five point ex-
tent scale)

How much do persons in your work group emphasize
a team goal? (Five point extent scale)

To what extent do persons in your work group
exchange opinions and ideas? (Five point ex—
tent scale)

Which Of the following best describes the manner
in which most problems between departments are
generally resolved?

1. Little is done about these problems--they
continue to exist.

2. Little is done about these problems--they
work themselves out in time.

3. The problems are appealed to a higher level
in the organization--but Often still are
not resolved. .

A. The problems are appealed to a higher level
in the organization and are usually re-
solved there.

5. The problems are worked out at the level
where they appear through mutual effort and
understanding.

77

TABLE 3:7.—~Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring character of motivation.

 

 

Items 1—2u 1-25 1-5u 2-21 2-22
1-2u 100

1-25 *.59 100

1—5u *.50 *.36 100

2-21 *.uu *.3u *.28 100

2—22 *.A2 *.38 *.25 *.64 100

 

*Indicates P <
66.

N:

.05.

To what extent do you enjoy performing the actual
day-to-day activities that make up your job?
(Five point extent scale)

To what extent are there things about working
here (people, policies, or conditions) that
encourage you to work hard? (Five point ex—
tent scale)

TO what extent do you feel your pay is related
to how much you help this company be successful?
(Five point extent scale)

In your department to what extent do people work
hard to find satisfaction in a job well done?
(Five point extent scale)

In your department to what extentck> people work
hard to meet the expectations of others? (Five
point extent scale)

78

and technology of an organization.6 The prevailing assump-
tion is that such variables influence the overall perfor—
mance Of a work group and thus influence the production of

7

an organization. The variables being considered are:

(1) job satisfaction, (2) commitment to organizational
goals, (3) congruence of organizational goals with per-
sonal goals, and (A) integration of the work group. There
are few instances in the literature where the theoretical
ties between the above variables and the independent vari-
ables being considered have been articulated; however, in
the French (1960) study, it is argued that increases in
"participation" should increase productivity because the
decisions will be better and because employees will be more
motivated to implement them. (Participation as defined by
French includes the independent variables making up style
of supervision in this research.) Participation should re—
late positively to management worker relations because the
mutual influence involved will lead to "promotively inter-
dependent" goals and communality of goals; because the ex-
change of information involved will lead to greater under-
standing between the parties; and because the implication
that the workers are intelligent; competent and worthy
should increase their perception of being valued. Finally,
participation should be positively related to job satis-
faction because worker's jobs should be improved in ways

that are relevant to worker's needs and because participation

79

directly satisfies various "ego-needs" such as the need to
be valued and appreciated by others.8 The argument put

forth by French represents the rationale for the relation—
ship between the independent variables being considered in
this study.9

The variable job satisfaction is defined as acceptance
or agreement with the structure and functioning of the work
environment. It is measured by questionnaire items designed
to indicate the extent of satisfaction with different as-
pects of the work environment. The items included in the
index employed in analysis, and the extent to which they
intercorrelate are presented in Table 3:8.

Commitment to organizational goals is defined as the
extent to which workers identify the achievement of organi—
zational goals as being important. This variable was mea-
sured by employee response to questionnaire items devel-
oped to identify the importance respondents place on the
achievement of organizational Objectives. The items in-
cluded in the index employed in analysis, and the extent to
which they intercorrelate, are presented in Table 3:9.

"Congruence of organizational goals with personal
goals" is defined as the extent to which workers identify
the achievement of organizational goals as consistent with
the achievement of personal goals. The measurement of this
variable was also dependent on employee response to ques-

tionnaire items developed to identify employee's perception

80

TABLE 3:8.-~Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring job satisfaction.

 

Items 1-26 1-33 1-3u 1-35 1-36 1-37 1-38 1-39 l-Hl.l-51

 

1-26 100
1-33 *.u5 100
1—3u *.uo *.37 100

1-35 '*.67 *.NO *.52 100

1-36 *.N5 *.u2 *.A1 *.53 100

1-37 “.52 *.46 *.39 ".N6 *.68 100

1-38 *.H6 *.AB *.20 *.38 *.63 *.66 100

1-39 *.39 *.A7 *.62 *.HH *.67 *.63 *.51 100

l-Nl *.5U *.32 *.53 *.59 *.65 *.5u *.AU ”.51 100

1-51 *.59 ”.A6 “.59 *.75 *.56 *.N9 *.N3 *.5h ”.60 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.
N = 66.

1-26 How much do you look forward to coming to work
each day? (Five point scale)

1-33? How satisfied are you with the company? (Five
‘ point scale)

l-3U How satisfied are you with the group you work
with? (Five point scale)

1-35 How satisfied are you with the kind of work you
do? (Five point scale)

l-36 How satisfied are you with the recognition you
recieve for your work? (Five point scale)

1-37 How satisfied are you with your chances for
promotion? (Five point scale)

1—38 How satisfied are you with your pay? (Five
point scale):

1—39‘ How satisfied are you with the supervision you
receive? (Five point scale)

1-Al How much does your job give you an opportunity
to do the things for which you are best
trained? (Five point scale)

1-51 To what extent do you find your work satisfying
and interesting? (Five point scale)

81

TABLE 3:9.--Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring commitment to organization goals.

 

 

Items 1-27 1-28 1-56
1-27 100

1-28 “.50 100

1-56 *.55 *.51 100

*Indicates P < .05.
N = 66.

1-27 To what extent do you feel a responsibility
for the success of the company? (Five point
extent scale)

1-28 TO what extent do you have a feeling of loyalty
toward this company? (Five point extent scale)

1-56 To what extent is this company successful in
getting you to contribute to its effectiveness?
(Five point extent scale)

82

of the consistency between personal and organizational ob-
jectives. The items included in the index employed in
analysis, and the extent to which they intercorrelate, are
presented in Table 3:10.

TABLE 3.lO.--Rank order correlations between items included

in the index measuring the congruence of organizational goals
with personal goals.

 

 

Items 1—29 1-55 2-28
1-29 100

1-55 *.53 100

2-28 *.53 *.39 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.
N = 66.

1-29 To what extent is your present job consistent
with your career goals and objectives? (Five
point extent scale)

1-55 To what extent does this company do a good job
of meeting your needs and goals as an individ-
ual? (Five point extent scale)

2-28 TO what extent are your goals as an individual
compatible with the Objectives of your work
group? (Five point extent scale)

The final dependent variable being considered is the
amount of integration of the work group. This is defined
as a worker's perception of work group behavior and how
comfortable he is in working close with his fellow workers

in the solution Of common problems. The measurement Of this

variable is dependent on response to questionnaire items

83

developed to indicate the degree to which respondents
identify with their work group and perceive other members
working together. The items included in the index employed
in analysis, and the extent to which they intercorrelate,
are presented in Table 3:11.

TABLE 3:11.--Rank order correlations between items included
in the index measuring integration of the work group.

 

 

Items 2-29 2-30
2-29 100
2-30 *.A5 "_ . 100

 

*Indicates P < .05.
N = 66.

2-29 When you have a problem on your job, how free
do you feel to call on others in your work group
to help you with it? (Five point scale)

2-30 How much do you really feel a part of your work
group? (Five point scale)

Summary
This research is concerned with studying the impact

.Of technology on the relationship between supervisory style
and the attitudes and behavior of industrial work groups.
To accomplish this a large corporation in the midwest was
contacted and its management agreed to participate in the
study by providing a sufficient number Of work groups,
representing various technological structures, to test the

hypotheses outlined in the previous chapter.

8A

The sample selected included sixty-seven groups rep-
resenting seven industrial functions. Respondents were all
"salary" workers employed in white collar positions. It is
still argued, however, that because Of vast differences in
the nature and process of work between groups included in
the sample, the necessary variance in the "character Of
technology" is present. The groups selected, therefore,
provided a suitable sample to test for the relationships
under investigation.

The independent variable "character Of technology"
was operationalized and measured by interviews with manage-
ment personnel, whereas the independent variable "style of
supervision" was operationalized and measured by question-
naire items. The indexes used in analysis were constructed
previous to the research and restructured based upon the
intercorrelation of items after the questionnaire had been

completed.

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER III

1. Perrow, op. cit., 194-208; Litwak, op. cit., 177-
18A; Blauner, Op. cit., entire book; Woodward, Industrial
Organization ._. ., op. cit.

 

2. W. A. Faunce and Donald A. Clelland, "Profession-
alization and Stratification Patterns in an Industrial
Community," American Journal of Sociology, LXXII (1967),
343. The study by Faunce and Clelland described in this
article focuses on the community in which the industrial
organization for the present research is found. Table 3:1
in this research is, therefore, an adaptation Of a similar
table found in their research on the page indicated.

3. W. J. Goode and P. R. Hatt, Methods in Social
Research (New York: McGraw Hill, 1952), pp. 237L338}
These authors discuss the legitimate use Of experts in
establishing scale measurements in a given area in which
the scale applies. This is the method employed in this
research to differentiate groups along the variables being
considered in the "character of technology."

 

A. Likert, New Patterns of Management, op. cit.
Chs. 8 and 13.

5. The items used in the questionnaire to measure
the dimensions of supervision being considered were either
taken from questionnaires previously used by the survey
research center at the University of Michigan to measure
these same variables, or were constructed from the descrip-
tion of the variables as they are developed in Chapter 1A
of Likert's New Patterns of Management.

6. A. Zaleznik, C. R. Christensen, and S. J.
Roethlisberger, The Motivation, Productivity, and Satis-
faction of Workers (Boston: The Plimpton Press, 1958);
Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1964).

 

7. French, op. cit., 3-19; Likert, New Patterns of
Management, Op. cit; Vroom, Work and Motivation, Op. cit.

 

 

 

8. French, op. cit., 17-19.

9. This argument is also developed by Likert, New
Patterns of Management, op. cit. ,Tannenbaum, Control in
Organizations, 9p. cit.; Vroom, Work and Motivation, op. cit.

 

 

85

CHAPTER IV

MANAGEMENT, TECHNOLOGY AND THE WORK GROUP

Introduction

 

In the last chapter the variables under investigation
were operationalized and the sampling procedure and design
of the research was discussed. In this chapter the hypo-
theses will be tested and the findings discussed. However,
before discussing the data as it relates to the hypotheses
being tested, some of the preliminary analysis undertaken

and its significance for the research will be made clear.

Preliminary Analysis

-It may be argued from the data presented in Chapter III
that the questionnaire items used in construction of the
different indexes, measuring the dimensions of supervision
being considered, do intercorrelate sufficiently to justify
their use. However, this tells us nothing about the extent
of intercorrelation between the indexes used to measure the.
dimensions of supervision under investigation. Therefore,
Spearman's rank order correlations were computed on the
supervisory indexes from the total sample of sixty-six

groups. The data are presented in Table A:l. The results

86

87

suggest that the variables being considered do intercorre-
late sufficiently to be considered dimensions of inter-
dependent, if not similar phenomena. This suggests that
employees who perceive their supervisors as motivating

them in a manner consistent with the principles of parti-
cipative management are also likely to perceive the
decision-making processes, the communication processes,

and the interaction-influence processes of their work group
as being consistent with the principles of participative

management.

TABLE A:l.——Intercorrelations (s) of indexes used to define
"style of supervision."

 

 

c
O x
.H (D C!
c +2 'U 0
o w : e+m
°H O CH PO
.9 +1 0 c>C
m c ri&) cum
>>< s>< an: hzsx
- vim m ~4e1 brim
«P'U EU 0.3: Pct—ITS
CDC 0:: a>m cszc
SH OH OE: HHH
Motivation Index 100
Communication Index *.A8 100
Decision Making Index *.A5 *.64 100
InteractiOn Influence Index *.59 *.70 *.63 100

 

*P < .05.
N = 6A.

88

Similar correlations were computed for the dependent
variables to judge the extent to which workers indicating
high job satisfaction were also committed to the organiza-
tional Objectives and perceived these as consistent with
their own Objectives. The final dependent variable in-
cluded is the amount of group integration. The results

are presented in Table 4:2.

TABLE 4:2.-—Intercorrelations (rs) of indexes used to measure
dependent variables.

 

 

: x
x O m
o O U c
c o 3x3: 0
o c: PGH +1.
.,4 H mm +3
p o a: :4 m
o ¢>c 2:6 :4
m O mc>o w
(H 43H Oct-{(5 (D
U) C43 $349 +3
H was (DCUH c:
4: EN .chu H
cu .p-r-I raw-1C
aux e1: r+c<3 six
0 gen Inqu :sc
.op d) amp 00
C): can otqm L.c
hH 00 com wH
Job Satisfaction Index 100
Commitment to Organization
Goal Index *.77 100
Consistency Between Organi-
zation and Personal Goal
Index *.72 *.61 100
Group Integration Index *.48 *.50 *.41 100

 

*P < .05.
N = 64.

89

The results indicate that the above variables are
highly correlated with the weakest correlations being ob-
served between the group integration index and the other
dependent variables.

The data presented in Tables 4:1 and 4:2 are what
might have been expected, i.e., different dimensions of the
same phenomenon would intercorrelate to some extent. It
is reasonable to expect that supervisors who successfully
create a work climate where subordinates enjoy performing
the actual day-to-day activities that make up their job
and work hard to meet the expectations of others would also
encourage workers to keep each other informed about impor-
tant events and situations related to their work, etc.
Also, it would seem consistent for workers reporting high
job satisfaction to perceive the Objectives and goals of
their work group to be consistent with their own and there-
fore have some commitment to the achievement of these Ob-
jectives. .

The preliminary analysis also included analysis Of‘
the sample to determine the distribution Of selected demo-
graphic characteristics while controlling for the different
industrial functions considered. ’There are six variables
controlled: sex, marital status, length of time with the
company, education, age, and income.1 The data are pre-

sented in Tables 4:3 through 4:8.

mmm u c

 

90

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH R

om we as mu m: mmH :m ms mHmpOB

m w.m H.: m.mm m.m N: R

H N O O m mm m Hm mHmEmm

mm 3.50 OOH OOH m.mm m.ms H.3m mm H

OH :5 on up n: OO mm a: mHmz
pcmpmm .uoo< .poo<

.m.H O a we scammmmm mcHLSOOOOSCOZ a Hmwoq .m.H.m QOHmH>HO mumpoqgoo

 

.mopm HmCOHpocsm an coHuSOprmHO xmmll.mu: mqm<e

mmm u c

 

91

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH w
ON me me we on mmH 2m ms Hmpoe
m.H a
O O H O O O O O mmcoammm 02
O O O O O O O O COBOUHB
m.H m.H m.H m.m 0.: R
O H H O O m H m Ocpmnmqmm

cHO U®OHO>HQ

 

m.e m.m m.» H.O O.mm m.HH s.mm . a
o O m O . m mm 2 AH mfimcwm
OOH m.om H.Hm m.mm m.mm m.:e m.mm m.me a
om me me He on mm mm mm usages:
pcmpmm .pooe .pooa

.m.H O a me zommmmmm wcHLSpommscwz w Hmwmq .m.H.m COHmH>HO mpmgoapoo

 

A

.mmpm HOQOHpocsm Hp COHuOOanmHO mapmum HmpHnmsnu.: : mqm<s

mmm u c

 

92

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH u
Om OO OO OO O: mmH Hm OO Hmpoe
m.H H
O O O O O O O H mmeoammm oz
OO O.Om O.O: 0.00 m.mO 0.0m 0.0H m.mm H
OH Om Om Om Om HO O Om .sO OH
swap Opoz
Om m.Om O.HH H.O m.mH m.mH 0.0 m.mH O
H OH O O O OH O OH .OO OHIO
Om H.OH m.OH O.Om m.mH O.Om O.mm Om H
O OH OH OH O om HH OH .pO O u O
O 0.0H H.Om N.OH O.mm m.mm O.mm m.Om O
H OH OH OH HH H: HH OH .LO m u .oe O
m.H O.m m.H :.m 0.0 0.0 H
O H m H O m O O .65 O
swap mmmq
OOOOOO .pooe .pooO
.m.H O a me nopmmmmm wcHLSpowmscwz O Hmwwq .m.H.m COHmH>HQ mummoahoo

 

A}

.mmpw HchHpocsm an COHpanppmHO HQOOEOO szz OEHp no apwccqll.muz mHm¢e

93

mmm n c

 

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH O
ON OO OO HO OH mmH Om OO Hmsoe
O.H m H
O O H O H O O O mmcoammm oz
OH H.OH 0.0m O.HO O.H O
O OH HO O Om N O O .O .OO
O: O.OH OH O.OH O.Om O.OH O.OH O.H O
O OH OH OH OH OH O H mmtmmo O.OOOmOz
om H.O: 0.0m O.OH O.OH H.Hm H.OO O.OH O
O OO Om OO O ON mm mm .OOHO mmeHOO
OH H.OH H.O 0.0H m 0.0m O.m 0.0m O
m OH O OH H O: H mm mmmHHOO mEom
O O.H O.H O.HH 0.0m 0.0m O
H H H O O OO O OH .OOOO Hoosom OmHm
0.0 . O
O O O O O O O O Hooeom emHm mEom
OOOOOO .Oooa .pooa
.m.H O a we nopmmmmm wch3pommscmz a Hammq .m.H.m cOHmH>HQ mpmgoahoo

 

.mmhm HOQOHpocsm

711177777

Op coHpsaHspmHO cgnzmofismir'O”O games

94

mmm n c

 

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH O
ON OO OO ON OO ONH OO OO Hmpoe
O.H O
O O H O O O O O mmcoammm oz
O O.H H.O O.H O
H O O H N O O H wm>O Ocm HO
O 0.0 H.OH 0.0H O.ON 0.0 O O
H O O OH NH O O O OO . HO
OO 0.0H O.HN O.OH O.ON O.OH 0.0 ON O
O OH OH NH NH OH N OH OO . HO
ON O.OO N.ON ON O.ON O.ON O.ON 0.0H O
O HO ON ON OH OO O OH OO u HO
OO N.OO O.OO O.OO O.ON OO 0.00 0.00 O
N ON OO ON OH OO ON ON OO I HN
O.H O.H O.O O.OH O
O H O H O NH O HH Omen: Ocm ON
OOOOOO .OOOO .pooO
.m.H O O OH OCHpsuomOSCOS O Hmwmq .m.H.m COHOH>HO OpOHOQHOO

copmmmmm

 

.mmpm HOCOHuocsm Op coHpanmeHp Ow<ln.OuO mqmde

95

mmm u c

 

 

OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH O

ON ON ON NN OO ONH OO ON Hmpoe

O 0.0 O.H N.N O

H O O H O O O N omzoamom oz

OO N.ON H.ON OH N.NO O.O N.O O

N OH ON OH ON O O O zo>O Ocm OOO.OHO

OO O.OO O.OO O.OO N.OO N.NH O.NO 0.0H O

O ON OO ON OH OH HH OH OOO.OHO op OOO.NHO

OO N.OO O.NN H.OO H.O 0.00 N.OO OO O

O ON OH NO N NO NN OO OOO.HHO op OOO.OO
O.H O.H O.OO O.N O.NO O

O H O H O OO H ON OOO.NO OOOOO

oOOOOO .pooO .oooO
.m.H O O we nopmmmmm wch3pommszmz O Hmmmq .m.H.m COHOH>HO Opmgoapoo

 

.OOLO HOCOHuocsm an COHOSOHHOOHO OEoocHnu.OnO mHm<E

96

Included in the total sample were 71 females and 462

males. However, the great majority of the females were in
two functional areas: corporate accounting and business
information services. In the corporate accounting groups

the female respondents constitute 42 per cent of the sample
and in the B. I. S. groups they constitute 22 per cent Of
the sample. TO determine if the response reported by males
was sufficiently different from the response of females,
chi squares (X2) were computed on each of the indexes while
controlling for sex.' The results suggest that females are
more likely to see the decision-making and motivation pro-
cesses as consistent with the canons of participative man-
agement than males. They are also more likely to be com-
mitted to organizational goals and perceive their personal
goals as consistent with those of the organization. How-
ever, in terms Of the communication process, interaction
influence process, job satisfaction, and group integration
there was no significant difference in response for males
or females. The differences in response patterns for males
and females are consistent throughout the indexes being
considered and therefore not very likely to influence the
extent to which the independent variable "style of super-
vision" intercorrelates with the dependent variables.

There are 454 married and 70 single persons included
in the sample, however, two—thirds of the single respondents

are found in the two functional areas: corporate accounting

97

and business information services. To determine if marital
status is associated with different patterns of response to
the index being employed, a chi square was computed on each
index while controlling for marital status. No significant

difference in response was found.

The majority of the sample have worked for the company

for less than ten years. The accounting and business in-
formation service groups have a higher percentage of their
membership in this situation than any of the other func-
tional areas considered. Chi squares were computed to de—
termine if length of time with the company is associated
with variations in response to the indexes used to measure
supervision and the dependent variables.

The results suggest that respondents who have been
with the company for less than six months or more than ten
years are less likely to see supervision along any of the
dimensions considered as being participative in style; and
are also more likely to rank low on the job satisfaction
index, commitment to organizational goal index, and the
congruence between personal and organizational goal index.
It may be argued, however, that where length of time with
the company had an influence on the pattern of response for
an index, this pattern was consistent across indexes and
is therefore not likely to influence the strength of the
rank order correlations between the supervisory variables

and the dependent variables.

98

The sample distributes itself along the variable age
and length of time with the company in a similar manner
(Tables 4:7 and 4:5). The greatest proportion of respon-
dents under thirty are found in the accounting and business
information service functions. The largest proportion of
the sample over fifty are found in the legal (29 per cent),
manufacturing (21 per cent), and research (10 per cent)
functions. To determine if differences in age are influ-
encing the response to the indexes being considered, a chi
square was computed for the eight indexes while controlling
for age. The results were much the same as those observed
for length of time with the company and are interpreted in
the same manner.

The mean income for the sample is approximately
$11,200 annually. The distribution of income in Table 4:8
corresponds very closely with the distribution of education
in Table 4:6. That is, the functional areas with the largest
prOportion of workers making under $7,999 annually is found
in the corporate accounting and business information ser—
vice groups. These areas also have the highest percentage
of workers who have received no more than a high school edu—
cation. The legal and patent groups have the highest per-
centage of workers making over $16,000 annually (57 per cent),
with the research groups having one Of the next highest (29
per cent). The personnel in these two areas also were the

most likely to have received a graduate degree.

99

To determine if differences in income and education
are associated with different patterns of response to the
index items being considered, a chi square was computed for
the eight indexes while controlling for income and educa-
tion. The results suggest that there is a significant asso-
ciation between these variables. It appears that low income
and education are more likely to see managers as non-
participative and are also more likely to fall at the lower
end of the continuum with regard to the dependent variables.
This suggests that while these variables are having an in-
fluence on response patterns, it is in the same direction
for all the indexes considered.

The final control considered in the preliminary analy-
sis involved a Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance
(H) to test the null hypothesis that there was no differ-
ence in the distribution of supervisory traits throughout
the different industrial functions included in the study.

If the null hypothesis is supported it can be argued that
we are as likely to find a participative management style
in a research group as we are in a business group. Such

a condition existing throughout the sample lends greater
support to the contention that the variance in correlationv
between "style of supervision" and "character of work
groups" is, in fact, influenced by the "character of tech-
nology" as it has been defined in this research. If this

Variance in supervisory traits does not exist throughout

100

the sample it may be argued that the industrial areas repre—
sented are not comparable on the dimensions under investi-
gation, and therefore any variance in the strength of corre-
lations may be attributed to the unique distribution of
supervisory behavior and therefore not necessarily influ-
enced by the technical structure. This analysis was com-
pleted and the "H" values Observed are reported in Table 4:9.
TABLE 4:9.--"H" values for indexes used to measure dimensions
of supervision: communication, decision-making, interaction
influence, and motivation; and the dependent variables: job

satisfaction, commitment to organizational goals, consistency
between individual and group goals and group integration.

 

H Value Sign. Level

 

Supervisory Indexes

 

Communication 9.8046 .20
Decision-making 10.0111 .20
Interaction Influence 8.3132 .30
Motivation 5.3987 .70

Dependent Variables

 

Job Satisfaction 7.2917 .50
Commitment to Organization Goals 7.6675 .50
Consistency Between Individual and

Group Goals 1.8056 .98
Group Interaction 5.6997 .70

E

Significant at .05 level H 2.14.07.
N = 66.

101

The data presented in Table 4:9 support the null hypo-
thesis of no difference in the distribution of supervisory
traits while controlling for industrial function. The
highest significance level observed was .20, and this only
occurred for two indexes: communication and decision-
making.

In summary we have Observed that the supervisory in-
dexes intercorrelate sufficiently to consider them dimen-
sions of the same phenomenon-~style of supervision. The
analysis further suggests that the dependent variables inter-
correlated sufficiently to argue that workers in groups
reporting high satisfaction are committed to organizational
goals and find them consistent with their personal Objec-
tives. The analysis also revealed that selected demographic
characteristics are not evenly distributed throughout the
industrial functions represented in the research. Therefore,
chi squares were computed on all the variables considered:
sex, marital status, education, income, length of time with
the company, and age, while controlling for the variance
along the four supervisory and four dependent variable
indexes. The results suggest that age, length of time with
the company, sex, income, and education are significantly
associated with different patterns of response to the in-
dexes employed in the research. However, in most instances
these variables are associated with similar patterns of

response across all the indexes considered and are more

102

likely to contribute to positive rank order correlations
between the indexes than to reduce the amount Of correla-
tion observed. Therefore, what bias is introduced by these
variables should make it more difficult to find support for
the hypothesis under investigation rather than negate any
support that may be observed.

Finally, a Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance
was computed to determine the distribution of supervisory
traits throughout the different industrial functions being
considered. The results suggest that the range of super-
visory behavior is perceived as being similar throughout

the industrial functions being considered.

Testing the Hypothesis

 

The first hypothesis developed in Chapter 11 suggests
that as work groups employ highly skilled and educated per-
sonnel in non-repetitive task environments where work load
and performance are difficult to measure there will be a
strong and consistent positive association between "parti-
cipative management" systems and the dependent variables:
job satisfaction, commitment to organization goals, group
integration, and congruence between personal Objectives
and group goals. It is also argued in the second and third
hypothesis that as the technical structure of a work group
gives rise to more repetitive task procedures and measures
Of work load and performance become more precise, the para—

meters for appropriate styles Of supervision become much

103

larger and we, therefore, are less likely to find a strong
and consistent positive association between "participative
management" systems and the dependent variables being con-
sidered.

To test the hypotheses attention is given to the
strength Of correlations between the dimensions of super—
vision being considered in this research and the dependent
variables; while the "character of technology," as it is
represented by industrial function, varies from repetitive,
easily measured tasks to non-repetitive tasks with weak
measures of work load and performance. It is argued that
the variance between the industrial functions along the
dimensions Of technology being considered, is sufficient
to isolate the effects of these structural variables on the
hypothesis, and that the variance in supervisory behavior
within the industrial functions considered is sufficient
to identify the extent to which "participative management"
styles Of supervision correlate with the dependent variables
in work groups characterized by different technical struc-
tures.

The technology of the research groups included in the
research is representative of non-repetitive, highly skilled
tasks with weak measures of work load and performance re-
quiring highly trained and specialized personnel. Using
rank order correlations, the indexes used to measure the

different dimensions of supervision were intercorrelated

104

with the indexes used to measure the dependent variables.

The results are presented in Table 4:10. They are supportive
Of the first hypothesis, with fourteen of the sixteen corre-
lations being significant at the .05 level. This suggests
that participative management systems in technical structures
similar to those represented by the research groups studied
tend to have high positive correlations with attitudes and
perceptions of workers as measured by the dependent vari-
ables.

The technology of the Business Information Service
groups is intended to represent a repetitive work situation
where precise measures Of work load and performance are
available and requirements for group membership are less
harsh than what is observed in most of the other industrial
functions considered. That such differences do exist be-
tween the two functional areas is supportive by the Observa-
tion that only 6.4 per cent of the research personnel inter—
viewed in the study have not graduated from college; whereas
66.7 per cent of the Business Information Service personnel
interviewed in the study have not received a college degree.
At the other end of the continuum, 39.2 per cent of the re-
search personnel have received a Ph. D. degree and only 1.6
per cent of those working in the Business Information Ser-
vice groups have received this degree.

The rank order correlations between the dimensions of

supervision and the dependent variables for the Business

105

HH u z

 

 

OOO. A we Ho>OH OO. pm OcOoHOHeOHO

OO. NO. ON. ON. :OHpmgmmch QSOAO
HO. OO. mN. HN. mHOOO OSOLO
Ocm HOSOH>HOCH

mo mocmzhwcoo
ON. NN. OO. NN. :oHOoOOmHOOO ooO
mO. OO. NO. ON. OHOOO
HOQOHpmNHcmeO

Op psmEuHEEOO

xmch OOUCH
mcmez mocmszcH OOOCH OOOCH

COHOHOOO COHpompmch OOHOOOHQSEEOO COHOO>Hpoz OSOLO xgo3

 

COHOH>LOOSO mo OHmpm

mo pmuomgmgo

 

.COHpoczm zogmmmwp Onp pom masomw xpoz
Oo pmpompmno Ocm :coHOH>LOO:m O0 OHmum: cmmzpmn mcoHpmHOLgoo LOOLO xcwmlu.OHuO mqm<e

106

Information Service groups are presented in Table 4:11.

The results reported are supportive Of hypotheses two and
three. That is, in general, the correlations Observed are
weak with only four of the sixteen correlations significant
at the .05 level. The Only dimension Of supervision that
consistently intercorrelates well with the dependent vari-
ables is the motivation index. It may also be Observed
that this index continually correlates well with the depen-
dent variables independent Of industrial functions. The
reasons for this are not clear; however, the implication
this may have on the research will be discussed in the final
chapter.

A comparison of the findings for the research and
Business Information Service groups supports the argument
that the technical structure Of a work group is a deter—
mining variable in the success of any pattern of supervision
and its impact on the overall morale and perceptions of a
work group. The differences in the strength of the corre-
lations observed between the dimensions of supervision and
the dependent variables for the research and Business Infor-
mation Service groups can best be explained by reference to
the differences in the repetitive nature of the tasks per-
formed and the extent to which management can assess work
load and performance. These variables coupled with the
differences in education and training are supportive of the

argument that technological structure is an intervening

107

HH u z

 

 

.OOO. A we Ho>oH OO. pm pemoHOHcOHO
NO. HH. Nm. Hm. coHpmthch QSOOO
OO. mm. ON. OO. mHmow OSOAO
UGO HOSOH>HOQH
No O02O3pwcoo
OO. OO. OO. OO. eoHOoOOmHOOO ooO
OO. NN. ON. OO. OHOOO
HOQOHQONHCONLO
Op uzOEpHEEOO
xOOcH OOOCH
wcmez mocdemcH xOOcH OOOQH
conHOOO coHpompmch cOHOOOHCSEEOO coHpm>Hpoz Oson Opoz

 

QOHOH>HOQSO mo OHOpm

mo prompmno

 

.COHuoszm .m .H .m man now mmsomm xpoz
mo pmpomgwno Ocm :conH>HOQ:m Oo OHzpmz cmmzpmb mcoHpmHOLpoo LOOHO xcmmnI.HHHO mamOB

108

variable influencing the appropriate patterns Of super-
vision in work groups. V

Similar correlations as those computed for the re-
search and Business Information Service groups were calcu-
lated for all the remaining functions discussed with the
exception of the legal and industrial relations depart-
ments. The small number of groups in each of these areas
did not allow them to be considered independent of the
other areas. The results are presented in Tables 4:12
through 4:15. It is evident from the data that no other
area outside of research has consistently high correla-
tions between supervisory style and the dependent variables.

The technical service and development groups, Table
4:12, have very erratic correlations between the variables
considered, and only four of the sixteen correlations are
significant at the .05 level. However, the discussion of
the technical service and development groups in Chapter III
indicated that their major activities occur at the third,
fourth and fifth stages in product development, and at this
stage of product development the character Of technology
has moved away from exploratory research activities charac-
teristic of stages one and two, to the more repetitive
kinds of tasks associated with preparing a product for mar-
ket distribution and consumption.

The manufacturing groups, Table 4:13, also have a

wide range of variance between the correlations observed.

109

mH u 2

.OOO. A mp Ho>oH OO. pm pamoHOHOOHO

 

 

OO. ON. mO. om. COHpmnwmucH Q3090
ON. mO. ON. OO. mHmOO msono
Ocm HOSOH>HOQH
mo mocOSpmcoo
NO.- OO. OO. ON. :oHpomOmemO ooO
OH. mm. HO. OO. OHOOO
HOQOHNONHCOOOO
Op OQOEOHEEOO
xOUcH xOOcH

mcmez mocwsHmcH meCH mecH

COHOHOOQ COHpomHmch COHOOOHCSEEOO COHpm>Hpoz Osopo Opoz

 

COHOH>NOOSO mo OHzpm

mo pmpompmgo

 

.COHuocsm O O we Onp pom Ogsopw x903
no pmuompmno Ocm :COHOH>LOQSO mo OHOpmz cmmzpmn mQOHpmHmppoo LOOLO

xcmmll.mHHO mamOB

110

N u z

.OHN. A Oh Hm>oH OO. pm pcOoHOHeOHO

 

OO. OO. OH. OH.| COHpmprch Ozopo

NH.| NN. Om. OO. OHOOO OSOHO
cum HOSOH>HOCH
no mocosmwcoo

OO. HO. NO. OO. :oHpomOmeOO.ooO
Om. OO. NO. NO. mHOOO
HmsOHpmNHcmwho

Op pCOEpHEEOO

 

xOOcH xmocH
NCHOOS mocmsHMCH xOOcH NOUQH
COHOHOOO COHpompmch COHOOOHQSEEOO :OHpm>Huoz Osomo xuoz

mo pmpompmno

 

COHOH>pmasm mo mHmum

 

.coHuoczm wchzpommscme Ocp mom masogw Ono:
mo mmpomhwno Ocm :COHmH>LOQ:m mo OHmpmz cmmzpmn OQOHpmHOphoo LOOLO xcmmll.MHuO mqm<e

111

.OO. A mm HO>OH mo.

m n 2

pm pcOoHOHcOHO

 

 

ON.- OO.- OH.- OO. coHpmNOoch OoowO
NO. OO. MN. ON. OHOOO QOOHO
cum HmscH>HOsH
mo mocospwcoo
OO. OO. . HO. OO. coHpomOmHOOO ooO
OO.: OO. ON.| HN. OHOOO
HOQOHOONHCONOO
Op pamEpHEEoo
xOOcH xmccH
wcmez moccsHmcH xOOcH xmocH
COHOHOOQ OOHpompOucH COHOOOHcsEEOO COpr>Huoz OSOLO xgoz

 

COHmH>LmQ3m mo OHmpm

mo pmpompmco

 

mo pmpompmso

.COHOOCSO pumpma as» how masomw Ono:

Ocm :COHOH>HOQSO MO OHzpmz Cmmzpmn wCOHpmHOHLOO LOOHO xcwmI|.OHnO mqm<e

112

.OOO. A mp HO>OH OO.

OH n 2
pm ugOoHOHcOHO

 

 

Nm. Om. MO. NH. COHpmmwOch QSONO
mm. OO. Om. OO. mHOOO OOOHO
Ocm HOSOH>HOCH
mo mocmsmwcoo
HO. OO. OO. NN. eoHpomOmeOO OoO
OO. OO. ON. ON. mHmom
HOCOHpmNHcmwhO
Op unmEpHEEOO
xOOCH mecH
wcmez mocOsHmcH OOOCH NOOOH
COHOHOOQ COHpommmch COHOOOH::EEOO . :OHum>Hpoz OsomO xhoz

 

COHOH>AOQSO mo OHOpm

mo pmuompmso

 

.COHuocsm mchcsooom Onp pom masonw x903

mo Hmpowpmso ch =COHOH>HOQSO mo mHzpmz cmwzpmn OCOHumHOLLOO HOOLO xcmm||.mHuO mHOOB

113

One variable which may account for this is the different
supervisory levels represented in the manufacturing groups.
In almost all of the other functions included in the study
the respondents consisted of non—supervisory personnel;
however, in the manufacturing area all Of the respondents
have some supervisory responsibility. The groups were made
up Of personnel taken from the middle-management level con-
sisting of shift foreman, assistant superintendent, tech-
nical engineer and plant superintendent, for a total of
eight to ten individuals. Where it may be argued that the
technology and work structure of the shift foreman is repeti-
tive and easily measured, this would hardly be the case for
the technical engineer or the assistant superintendent.
Therefore, the results for the manufacturing area hardly
support or negate the hypothesis being considered.

The patent groups have the weakest correlations be-
tween the variables being considered. Only one of the six-
teen correlations presented is significant at the .05 level.
The work in this area is Often repetitive in nature, with
precise measures of work load and performance available;
however, it does require well trained and highly qualified
personnel. It may have been argued that the strong posi-
tive correlations between variables in the research groups
resulted from the well-educated technical staff that makes
up these groups. However, the findings for the patent

groups who have a higher proportion of their personnel at

114

the upper end of the educational continuum would not sup-
port this conclusion. This Observation lends support to
the alternative conclusion that the technical variables
associated with the work task are responsible for the dif-
ferences in the correlations Observed for these two functions.
Finally, the data presented in Table 4:15 for the
accounting groups would suggest that the principles Of par-
ticipative management as measured by the four supervisory
variables are well correlated with the dependent variables
being considered. Since the accounting area should repre-
sent a technical structure considerably different than that
observed in the research area, these findings would seem to
negate the arguments presented earlier in support Of the
hypothesis. However, there are two radically different
accounting activities represented in the data. One is the
traditional record keeping or bookkeeping activities Of the
division cost accounting groups and the other is the manage-
ment and accounting activities for the corporate structure.
Therefore, before concluding that the correlations reported
for the accounting groups in general are not supportive Of
the hypothesis being considered, control must be maintained
for the differences in technical structure introduced by
the different activities Of the division and corporate ac-
counting groups. The correlations observed after controlling
for the differences in the division and corporate accounting

groups are presented in Table 4:16 and 4:17.

115

N u z

 

 

.HON. A mp Ho>oH OO. pm OsmoHOHcOHO
OO. OO. . mm. OH.| COHpmmmmch QSOLO
HO. HO. OH. NO. mHmoO OzonO
Ocm HmscH>HOcH
no mo:m:pwcoo
HN. HN. Om. mm. coHpommmemm now
OO. OO. ON. OO. mHmoO
HmcoHumNHcmwpo
Op pzmspHEEoo
xOOcH mecH
wcwaz mocOSHmcH xmccH xOOcH
:OHOHOOQ QOHOOONOOQH OOHOOOHQSEEOO COpr>Hpoz OsopO x903

 

COHOH>Lszm mo mHmpm

mo mmpomhmno

 

.mchcsooom COHOH>HO On» mom masopw Ono:
mo mmpompmco Ocm zconH>LOO5m mo Oqumz Cmmzumn OCOHOOHOHOOO LOOHO xcwmnl.OHuO mHOOB

116

.mOO. A my HO>OH OO.

O u 2

pm OsmoHOHeOHO.

 

 

NN. OO. Om. ON. :oHumpmmch asopo
OO. HN. OO. OO. mHOoO OsopO
Ocm HOSOH>HOQH
no wocmsnmcoo
OO. NO. OO. mN. COHpommmemm OOO
HO. OO. ON. NO. 28o
HOCOHOONHCOOAO
Op OCOEOHEEOO
xmccH xmucH
Ocmez mocOSHmcH xOOcH xOOcH
COHmHOOO QSONO x903

COHpoprucH COHpOOHQSEEOO EOHpm>HpOz

 

COHOH>MOQ5O mo OHmpm

mo nmpomgmco

 

.OLOHHOHOQOO COHpmpoanoo Oz» mom masopw x903

mo pmuompmco Ocm =QOHOH>LOQOO mo OHmpm: COOBOOO OCOHOOHOOLOO LOOLO xcmmuI.NHnO mqm<e

117

The differences in correlations presented suggest that
we are more likely to find participative management prac-
tices significantly correlated with the dependent variables
in the corporate accounting groups than in the division
accounting groups.

These differences may result from some variance in
personal characteristics of the membership of these differ;
ent accounting areas. However, what differences are Ob-
served are not in the expected direction. That is, 42 per
cent of the employees in the corporate groups are female,
as Opposed to 6 per cent of the personnel in the division
accounting groups. Also 56 per cent of the membership of
the corporate accountants have not received a college degree;
whereas 97 per cent of the division accountants included in
the sample have graduated from college. This suggests at
least two interpretations; first, it may be as suggested
by the hypothesis that the repetitive nature Of the work in
the division accounting groups and the precision with which
work load and performance can be measured does widen the
parameters for successful styles of supervision. However,
it may also be the case that participative management prac—
tices are unlikely to bring about the desired effects in
well trained work groups performing repetitive kinds of
activities. Whichever explanation is Offered, the data re-
affirms the importance Of technology and work structure
variables in determining the appropriateness of any style

of supervision.

118

The data presented, although offering a general pic-
ture of what type of technical structure and work activity
is most responsive to participative management practices,
does not allow for careful comparisons between any of the
functional areas studied except research and the Business
Information Service groups. This problem in part arises
because of the differences in sample size drawn from each
of the functional areas represented in the study. There-
fore, one way it may be overcome is by drawing random
groups from the research area equal in number to those al-
ready existing for the corporate and division areas. This
would allow us to test the notion that higher positive
correlations should be Observed between the dimensions of
supervision and the dependent variables for the research
groups than for the accounting groups. A table of random
number was used to draw a sample Of eight and seven groups
from the research sample included in the study. The cor-
relations found are presented in Tables 4:18 and 4:19.
Keeping in mind the differences in division and corporate
accounting groups, a comparison of Tables 4:16, 4:17, 4:18
and 4:19 suggests that the research groups are most likely
to have strong positive correlations between the variables
considered. The division accounting groups are the least
likely to produce such correlations.

A comparison of eight research groups with eight cor-

porate accounting groups reveals that the research groups

119

N u 2

.ON. A mp Ho>OH OO. pm OsmoHOHcOHO

 

ON. ON. mO. OO. COHpmpmmusH QSOHO

Om. ON. Om. OO. mHmOO macho
ocm HOOOH>HOOH
mo mocmspwcoo

ON. NN. ON. OO. coHOoOOOHOOO ooO
ON. NO. NN. OO. mHmoO
HOCOHOONHCOOLO

Op pCOEpHEEOO

 

xOUCH xOUcH
OCHOOS mocmsHmcH mecH xOOcH
COHOHOOO coHuompOch OOHOOOHQOEEOO COHOO>HOOZ OOONO Ogoz

Oo meowpmco

 

conH>LOO3m mo OHOum

 

.szopO Copmmmmp mo OHQEOO Eoccmp Onp pom masopw Opoz
mo pmuompmzo Ocm :COHOH>LOOOO mo mHzpm: cmwzumn OCOHOOHOLAOO LOULO xcmmnl.OHnO OHOOB

120

O n z

 

 

.OO. A Oh Hm>mH mO. pm OCOOHNHQOHO
OO. mN. HO. HN. COHpmnwmch Ozopo
OO. OO. OO. OO. OHOoO OsowO
Ucm HOOUH>HUCH
mo mocmspwcoo
NO. NO. NO. OO. coHOoOOOHOOO OoO
Om. HO. Om. Hm. mHmoo
HOQOHpmNHcmpr
Op ucmEuHEEOO
mecH mecH

Ocmez mocmsHmcH meOH meCH

OOHOHOOQ COHuomnmch COHOOOHOSEEOO coHpm>Hpoz Osopu Ono:

mo pmpomamno

 

COHOH>AOQ3O mo OHOpO

 

mo pmpompmzo

.masopw zohmmmmh mo OHQemm EOUCOL Onp HOO masopw Ono:
Ucm =COHmH>HOQ5m mo OHmpw= cmmzumn chHpmHOLHoo AOULO xcmmll.OHuO mqm<e

121

are somewhat more likely to have significant correlations
between the dimensions of supervision and the dependent
variables: eight of the sixteen correlations for the re-
search group as opposed to five of the sixteen correlations
for the accounting groups. However, in the division ac-
counting groups only two of the sixteen correlations pre—
sented are significant at the .05 level as opposed to seven
of the sixteen correlations Observed for the seven research
groups considered. It is also Observed that 94 per cent Of
the correlations between the variables for the research
groups are higher than the correlations observed for the
division accounting groups. This supports the conclusion
that participative management styles of supervision are
more likely to be significant and highly correlated with
the dependent variables in work groups characterized by
non—repetitive tasks with only indirect measures of work
load and performance.

The hypotheses suggest that the character Of tech-
nology influences the appropriateness of management style
independent of industrial function. Therefore, industrial
functions representing independent non-repetitive work
situations in contrast to industrial functions representing
repetitive, non-independent work situations should produce
higher correlations between the dimensions of supervision
being considered and the dependent variables of this re-

search. TO test this conclusion groups representing the

122

research and legal departments Of the organization were
compared against groups representing the patent, accounting
and Business Information Service departments. The data are
presented in Tables 4:20 and 4:21.

In Table 4:20, representing the research and legal
departments, we find fifteen of the sixteen correlations
or 94 per cent are significant at the .05 level. In con-
trast, the data in Table 4:21, representing a random sample
of the patent, accounting and Business Information Service
groups, reveals that only 31 per cent of the correlations
are significant at the .05 level. This supports the notion
that the technology of a work group creates a structure
which influences the appropriateness of styles of super-
vision and their impact on the attitudes and perceptions

Of workers.

Summary

After an attempt to identify what consequence a num-
ber Of demographic variables have on the response patterns
recorded for the dimensions Of supervisory style and the
dependent variables, attention was given to testing the
major hypotheses. It is argued that as the "character of
technology" of an industrial function varies, the strength
of Is correlations between the dimensions Of supervision
being considered and the dependent variables will also vary.
Work groups whose technical structures call for repetitive

task situations with precise measures of work load and

123

om. A Oh HO>OH mO.

OH u 2

pm OcmoHOHcOHO

 

 

ON. OO. ON. OH. COHumHOmch OzopO
ON. ON. NN. OO. mHmOO QSOHO
USO HOSUHzHUcH
mo moQOSNOCOO
OO. OO. OO. OO. coHOoOOOHOOO ooO
Nm. Om. mO. NO. mHmOO
HOQOHpmNHcmOhO
Op OQOEOHEEOO
mecH xOUcH
Ocmez moCOSHOCH xOUcH xOUcH
COHOHOOO COHuowLOch COHOOOHCSEEOO COHumzHuoz OSOLO 3903

 

COHOH>LOO3O mo OHOpO

mo hmpomgmco

 

No pmpomhmso

.noummmmp Ucw HOOOH exp pom masopw Ono:
Ucm :COHOH>LOOSO mo mHmpm: cmmzumn OCOHOOHOLLOO HOULO xcmmul.ONuO OHOOB

124

‘II .

mH u z

 

 

.OO. A mp Ho>mH OO. pm pcOoHOHeOHO
ON. Nm. Om. Om. COHOOOOOOCH macho
Hm. OH. NH. OO. OHOOO QSOHO
Ucm HOSUH>HUQH
no mocmznwcoo
NO. ON. OO. HO. COHpommmHumm QOO
HN. HH. HO. OO. mHOOO
HOQOHumNHCOONO
Op OQOEOHEEOO
xOUcH mecH

Ocmez OoCOsHNcH xOUcH xOUcH

COHOHOOO :oHuompmucH COHOOOHQSEEOO COHpm>Hpoz OSOLO xg03

 

COHOH>OOO3O mo OHOpm

Oo pmpompmgo

 

.masohm ucmuma Ucm .poom A.O.H.m mo COHOOOHOO EOUcmp Os» HON masopm xmoz
mo Hmpomnmco Ucm :cOHwH>LOQ5m mo OHhum: Cmmzpmn mCOHumHmhpoo LOUHO xzmmll.~mnq mqm<&

125

performance are likely to be associated with weak or erratic
r.s correlations between style of supervision and the depen—
dent variables.

The data reported in this chapter are supportive of
this conclusion. It is observed that the weakest inter-
correlations occurring between the dimensions Of supervision
and the dependent variables are found in the Business In-
formation Service, patent, and division accounting groups.
The strongest correlations between the dimensions of super-
vision and the dependent variables are found in the re-
search and legal groups included in the study. It is argued
that the'variance in degree Of correlations Observed be-
tween these functional areas is in part a product Of the
technical structure represented by each. The implications
of this argument and plausibility are discussed in the final

chapter.

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER IV

1. Another variable which was taken into account but
not reported in the analysis was the variance of group size
across industrial function. Although there was considerable
variance in size between the manufacturing and division ac-
counting groups, there was very little variance between
the B. I. 8., research, legal, and patent groups. There-
fore, the variable was not believed to be influencing the
correlations reported in the analysis.

126

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

In this chapter the significance of the findings
from the research must be fitted into the larger body Of
evidence from which it emerged. Hopefully this involves
modifying as well as extending some of the prevailing as-
sumptions and ideas which dominate the area Of research
being considered. It is, therefore, the intent of this
chapter to review and interpret the findings of this re—
search as they have significance for the larger body of
evidence concerned with technology, management and organi-

zation theory.

Technology

 

There have been few general theoretical statements
regarding technology and structure. The two which have the
most relevance for the material discussed in this research
are Perrow's paper on "A Framework for the Comparative
Analysis Of Organizations" and Litwak's essay on "Models
of Organizations That Permit Conflict." Both authors dis-

cuss the impact Of "routine" and "non-routine" technologies

127

128

in determining the appropriate form of social structure for
productive formal organizational structures.1 The dimen-
sions of routine and non routine technical structures have
been included in this research. The attempt to identify
industrial functions where technical structure varies with
respect to the repetitive nature of the task and the extent
to which work load and performance can be measured, intro-
duces this dimension.

However, the work of Litwak and Perrow is concerned
with identifying the technical structure for an organiza-
tion in total and thus developing a comparative model from
which the impact of the technical structure can be studied.
This research is concerned with identifying differences in
the technical structure within an organization and the im-
pact this may be having On what has been called the social
or behavioral structure. It is argued that this notion Of
routine and non routine technical structures coupled with
the degree of education and training required for member—
ship into a work group will influence the success of cer-
tain behavior patterns supported by the human relations
movement.

To test this argument the research included different
industrial functions which were identified by management
personnel as being representative of different technical
structures. Work groups with non repetitive tasks, weak

measures of work load and performance, and requiring highly

129

educated and professional personnel, were represented by
the research and legal departments. Within such technical
structures it was Observed that "participative management

' measured by the four dimensions of supervisory be—

types,’
havior being considered, were very likely to be associated
with the most satisfied, integrated and committed work
groups. Work groups with repetitive task structures,
characterized by precise measures of work load and perfor-
mance, and allowing considerable variation in the educa-
tional and professional requirements for membership, were
represented by the Business Information Service and Ac—
counting departments. It was Observed, for the Business
Information Service groups, that the associations between
participative management styles of supervision and the
dependent variables were generally insignificant. While
the differences in correlations between the dimensions of
supervision and the dependent variables for the research
and Business Information Service work groups may be attri-
buted to some factor not taken into account by the research,
it is the position Of this research that much of this dif—
ference in findings is a result of the difference in the
technical structure of the work group. However, while the
findings for the research and Business Information Service
groups are in the predicted direction and may be Offered in
support of the hypotheses being tested, this is not as
clearly the case for the findings with regard to the other

industrial areas considered.

130

In the accounting area which was also to represent
the repetitive, precisely measured work environment, it
was Observed that the association between participative
management styles of supervision and the dependent variables,
although not as strong as research, were sufficiently in
that direction to Offer only weak support, if any for the
hypotheses. However, when the division and corporate ac—
counting groups were compared against each other and the
activities of the two areas differentiated along the dimen-
sions of technology being considered, the data reported,
in general, was more supportive of the hypotheses. That
is, the division accounting groups were reported by manage-
ment to be characterized by more repetitive task situations
and their work load and performance more easily measured
than was the case for the corporate accounting groups which
in some instances included top management personnel in the
accounting area.

It was observed, however, that the reported general
education level was higher in the division accounting .
groups than in the corporate area. This suggests that of
the three measures of technical structure taken into account,
precision with which work load and performance can be mea-
sured, and repetitive nature of the task may be sufficient
.to broaden the parameters of successful styles of supervision
and produce the differences in results observed between the

functional areas discussed thus far.

|

131

This notion finds further support in the results ob-
served for the patent department. The personnel included
in the study from the patent department have a high per-
centage of their membership who have received graduate
training (65 per cent), however, the nature of their work
is repetitive and subject to precise measurement of work
load and performance. While it may be argued that the
latter two variables support wide variations in acceptable
patterns of management, the education variable would hypo—
thetically narrow the range of acceptable management styles
to include the practices of participative management. The
results of the rank order correlations between the dimen-
sions of supervision and the dependent variables are not
supportive of the participative management position and re-
affirm the importance of the task structure variables in-
cluded in the "character Of technology."

The other functional areas included in the research
but not considered representative of the dimensions of tech-
nology being considered are the manufacturing and industrial
relations functions. In the manufacturing groups the re-
spondents are all supervisory personnel, as has been noted
in previous chapters, and therefore their response is likely
influenced by the level of management they represent. How-
ever, the results would not support the argument that parti-
cipative managers are any more successful in influencing
the extent of correlation between the dimensions Of super-

vision and the dependent variables than more aggressive

132

management styles. The industrial relations groups have not
been included in the research because the number Of groups
representing this area was too small for purposes of analy—
sis.

In summary it is argued that the results of this re-
search reaffirm the importance of variables associated
with the technical structure of a work group in influencing
the appropriateness of certain behavior patterns and their
impact on the morale of workers and their commitment to
organization objectives. Where previous research has
characterized the technology of a total industrial setting
and then argued the impact this has on individual behavior,
the link between these variables has never been very clear.
To argue that the routine technical structures of the auto
industry are more responsive to a "Weberian form of bureau-
cratic structure" does not deal with the problem of varia-
tions in technical structure within the auto industry.2

Where Perrow argues that "types of organizations—~in
terms of their function in society--will vary as much within
each type as between types; and therefore some schools, hos-
pitals, banks and steel companies may have more in common
because of their routine character than routine and non
routine schools, routine and non routine hospitals and so
forth," this research argues that within a given organiza-
tion the variation in technology is as great as between
Or’ganizations. Therefore, the need to be aware of differ-

ences’in technical structure between organizations in

133

determining the "socially optimum form of organizational
structure" is no greater than the need to be aware of dif—
ferences in technical structure within organizations to
determine the "socially optimum form Of organizational

structure."3

Supervision

 

TO move from a discussion Of the technical structure
to a discussion of the influence structure of organizations
is more reasonable than it may appear at first. There have
been a number of attempts to identify the appropriate pat-
terns of management, within a given technical structure,
associated with the most productive and profitable organi—
zation.” However, this research is concerned with the ap-
propriateness of the pattern Of management developed by the
"human relation school" and exemplified in the work of
Rensis Likert. The first approximations of the human rela-
tions school are summarized for us by Bennis in the following
5

non—independent factors.

1. Leadership and authority are seen as emergent
factors.

2. Organizations are seen as an organism rather than
a‘machine.

3. The group rather than the individual is the area
of focus. .

4. Unanticipated consequence rather than overdeter-
mined systems, which thus hampers prediction,
are considered.

5. Power stems from norms reinforced by the group
and is emerging overtime.

134
6. Similarity of interests between supervisors and
subordinates.

7. The doctrine of implied consent instead of ex-
ternal incentives.

8. The role of the leader is concerned with coordi-
nating and transacting relations among groups and
of being responsible for personal growth and
develOpment of his membership.

9. Social reality established by anchoring judgments
in some reference group.

These factors coupled with Likert's "general principle
of supportive relationships" constitute the elements of
management theory having the greatest impact on management
systems in organizations today.6 It is almost impossible
to find a middle or top manager in industry that has not
heard of "Theory Y" management or "participative management."
This universal awareness and concern for the appropriate
management style has perpetuated the myth of a "one best
method" of supervision. It is the validity of this myth
that this research has been concerned with in trying to
develop and support the alternative assumption that super-
vision is an integral part of an organization in operation
and whatever characteristics the organization may have will
influence the style of supervision that is appropriate.

That the sponsors of participative management are
aware of its relative nature is indicated by Likert's com-
ment, "supervision is . . . always a relative process. To
be effective and to communicate as intended, a leader must
always adapt his behavior to take into account the expecta-

tions, values, and interpersonal skills Of those with whom

135

he is interacting."7

However, the variables identified as
influencing the success and acceptability of different man-
agement practices are all associated with the perceptual
and personal qualities of individuals. That is, Likert
identifies the perception by the subordinate of the super—
visory act or interaction, the relationship between these
perceptions and the expectations, values and interpersonal
skills of the subordinate, and the personality of the super-
visor, as being variables likely to influence the appro-
priateness of supervisory behavior.8
The nature of these variables supports the Observation
that while those interested in human relations in organiza-
tions have continually toyed with technology as an indepen-
dent variable, they have done so with mixed feelings and
reluctance, since it appears to jeopardize some implicit
values of this school of thought.9 This research, however,
has been concerned with the impact "character Of technology"
may be having on the success of different management prac-
tices within a given industrial structure. Previous re—
search can be offered that supports the notion that whether
supervision should be authoritarian, democratic or laissez-
faire is dependent on the technology and task of the organi-
zation being supervised.lo
However, while this notion is Offered as conclusive
Or with considerable validity, it has not been made clear

under what technical conditions different patterns of super—

vision will be successful. It is difficult to argue that

136

employees will not respond positively to a more humane
treatment by their supervisors or that participation in
decisions that govern one's well being will not increase
commitment to those decisions. However, it would seem
reasonable to argue that under certain technical or struc-
tural conditions the expectations with regard to the be-
havior of supervisors are different and therefore the para-
meters of acceptable supervisory style are greater. This
argument is supported by Chinoy's observation that men
recognized a "considerate and understanding foreman could
turn up anywhere, even in final assembly; and that a nagging
crotchety authoritarian foreman might be found in the de—
partment with the best jobs." However, the feeling was
that off-production jobs were more likely to be blessed
with "good supervision." This came not from any apparent
superiority in the quality of foremen in off-production
departments, but from differences in the character of work
assignments and the resulting differences in the responsi-
bilities of supervision.11
Dubin, focusing upon the separation of supervisory
behavior from other influences that affect productivity,
suggests two general possibilities: (1) "On the assump-
tion that supervision accounts for a fixed and sizeable
prOportion of the variation in output, comparisons may be
made between different kinds of supervision to see which

has the highest positive correlation with productivity"

a 57...»! ”01:53

137

and (2) "You may ask 'under what circumstances does super-
vision make more or less difference than do other factors
affecting productivity?'"12 However, the Observations made
by Chinoy and the argument of this research suggest a

third question that may be asked: "Under what technical
and structural conditions are the expectations Of employees
inconsistent with the principles of participative management
and therefore supportive of other management systems?"

This question focuses attention not on the circumstances
where supervision may or may not make a difference on fac-
tors affecting productivity, but, assuming that supervision
does influence such factors, asks under what structural
conditions are the expectations of employees supportive of
different management systems.

Admittedly the data presented in this research are
not conclusive on this point. They do, however, suggest
that when the variables used to identify "character of tech-
nology" in this research, take the form of routine task
with precise measures of work load and performance, the
extent to which participative styles of supervision are
likely to be positively correlated with the dependent
variables, job satisfaction, commitment to organization ob-
jectives, congruence between individual and group goals,
and group integration, is greatly reduced. It fails, how-
ever, to identify what technical conditions are conducive

tO what management style, with the exception of participative

138

management practices, represented in the different dimen-
sions of supervision considered, being strongly correlated
with the dependent variables in work settings involving
non repetitive tasks, and characterized by weak measures
of work load and performance.

The research is, therefore, a contribution in manage-
ment theory in that it goes beyond the notion of a "one
best method" of supervision and attempts to identify, in
the dimensions of technology, work structure variables
that influence subordinate's expectations with regard to
management practices, and therefore have a determining
effect on the appropriate style of supervision to signifi-

cantly influence work group morale and productivity.

Organization Theory

 

It was pointed out in the first chapter that the
crucial link between the formal organizational design and
the informal social structure is the supervisor. The im-
portance of the supervisor as a medium to bring about con-
gruence between formal and informal structures helps us
understand the attention the role of supervision has re—
ceived by behavioral scientists concerned with the struc-
ture and functioning of organizations.

It is through such a concern that the relative appro-
priateness of different models of organizations has been

13

made Obvious. The work of Perrow, Pelz, and Litwak

clearly establishes the importance of the technical

139

structure and its influence on the appropriateness of dif-
ferent models for the study of organizations. These authors
argue that the nature of the work and the type of task to

be performed are variables determining the structure and
functioning of formal organizations. Therefore, if the
organization is to be studied as a rational impersonal sys-
tem with extensive specialization, or as a complex set of
social relations characterized by a minimum of impersonal
relations and specializations is dependent on the task and
technical structure.

This research suggests, however, that these differ-
ences in the technical structure used to differentiate
organizations are as great within any large scale industrial
organization. Therefore, rather than argue from the struc-
ture of the organization to the nature of predominant social
relations within an organization, it would be valuable to
identify these intrinsic differences within the organiza-
tion's technical structure and the impact they have on the
nature of social relations and subsequent behavior Of
organization members.

Hopefully, the research presented in this disserta-
tion helps provide a link between the structure and subse—
quent behavior of individuals within formal organizations.
The position taken in the research is that of a structur-
alist with the fundamental premise being that social struc-

ture conditions the concrete behavior of individuals and

140

groups. The research has attempted to move from an analysis
of social organization on its own level, structural, by
focusing on the "character of technology," to an analysis

of interpersonal relations, by considering the dimensions

of supervisory behavior, to an analysis of individual atti-
tudes and behavior as represented in the dependent variables
of the research.

The current tendency in the study of organizations is
for the sociologist to either lose his traditional concern
for social organization by making role and individual be-
havior the focus of attention or to focus on the structure
of organizations for comparative purposes and ignore the
differences in structure within the organization. This
research is focused at the more intermediate level; main-
taining the perspective of a structuralist, the attempt
is made to identify more clearly the link between social
structure, interpersonal relations and subsequent behavior.
Hopefully, a better understanding Of this relationship

will amplify our theory and suggest new avenues for research.

 

t» ,I-v' F7".
.

FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER V

1. Perrow, op. cit., 194-208; Litwak, op. cit.,
177-84.

2. Litwak, op. cit., 181.
3. Perrow, op. cit., 206.

 

4. Burns and Stalker, op. cit.; Woodward, Management
and Technology, op. cit.

 

5. W. G. Bennis, "Leadership Theory and Administra—
tive Behavior," Administrative Science Quarter;y_(June, 1959-
March, 1960), 359-401.

 

6. Likert, New Patterns of Management, op. cit., pp.
223—33.

7. Ibid., p. 95.

8. Ibid., Ch. 7.

 

9. Perrow, op. cit., 206.

10. Woodward, Management and Technology, op. cit., pp.
1-50; Dubin, op. cit., pp. 12-16.

11. Chinoy, op.cit., pp. 34—36. An interpretation
to Chinoy's Observation which may have relevance to this
research is found in the importance assigned to previous
eXperience in shaping workers expectations with regards to
appropriate styles of supervision.

l2. Dubin, op. cit., p. 6.

13. D. Granick, The Red Executive (New York: Doubleday
and Co., 1961); Etzioni, A., A Comparative Analysis of
ngplex Organizations (New York: The Free Press, 1961).

 

 

141

REFERENCES

142

u If- m )0 It!"-
1

 

REFERENCES

Argyris, Chris. Personality and Oyganizations. New York:
Harper and Row, 1964.

Barnard, C. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge:

 

 

Harvard University Press, 1948. IT?
Bennett, E. B. "Discussion, Decision, Commitment and Con- 1

sensus in Group Decisions." Human Relations, VII

(1955)) 251—7“.

 

Bennis, W. G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative
Behavior." Administrative Science Quarterly, (June,
1959 — March, 1960), 359-401.

 

 

Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: The
University Of Chicago Press, 1964.

Buckingham, Walter. Automation. New York: New American
Library, 1961.

 

Burack, Elmer H. "Industrial Management in Advanced
Production Systems: Some Theoretical Concepts and
Preliminary Findings." Administrative Science
Quarterly, XII (1967-68), 479—500.

 

 

Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. The Management of Innovation.
London: Tavistock Publications, 1961.

Chinoy, Eli. Automobile Workers and the American Dream.
New York: Random House, 1955.

Coch, L., and French, J. R. R. "Overcoming Resistance to
Change." Hyman Relations, I (1948), 512-32.

Coser, Rose L. "Authority and Decision Making in a Hos-
pital." American Sociological Review, XXIII (1958),
56-6“ 0

Day, R. C., and Hamblin, R. L. "Some Effects of Close and
Primitive Styles of Supervision." American Journal
Of Sociology, LXIX (1964), 499-510.

 

 

Dubin, Robert, et a1. Leadership and Productivipy, San
Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965.

 

143

144

Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York:
Random House, 1967.

Etzioni, Amitai. Complex Organizations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations.

 

New York: The Free Press, 1961.

Fards, R., ed. Handbook of Modern Sociology. New York:
Rand McNally, 1964.

Iflaunce, W. A., and Clelland. "Professionalization and
Stratification Patterns in an Industrial Community."
American Journal of Sociology, LXXII (January, 1967),
343.

Freedman, Robert, ed. Marxist Social Thought. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968.

Fknench, J. "An Experiment on Participation in a Norwegian
Factory." Human Relations, XIII (1960), 3—19.

 

Genrth, Hans, and Mills, 0. W. From Max Weber. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1946.

Gcmxie, W. J., and Hatt, P. R. Methods in Social Research.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1952.

GI‘anick, D. The Red Executive. New York: Doubleday and

 

 

 

Co., 1961.

Haége, Jerald. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations,"
Administration Science Quarterly (December, 1965),
299.

Afitrvey, Edward. "Technology and the Structure Of Organiza-
tions." American Sociological Review (April, 1968),
247-59-

Ifiltz, D., and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organiza-

 

tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.

Katz, D.; Maccoby, N.; Gutin, G.; and Floor, L. G.
"Productivity, Supervision, and Morale Among Railroad
Workers." Survey Research Center, University of
Michigan, 1951. Unpublished.

Katz, D.; Maccoby, N.; and Morse, N. C. "Productivity,
Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation."
Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1950.
Unpublished.

 

145

Lawrence, L. C., and Smith, P. C. "Group Decision and
Employee Participation." Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, XXXIX (1955), 334-37.

Levine, J., and Butler. "Lecture Versus Group Decision
in Changing Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology,
XXXVI, 29—33.

Ilikert, R. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw

 

 

 

 

 

Hill, 1961.
. The Human Organization. New York: McGraw i.»
Hill, 1967. E c
Igltwak, Eugene. "Models of Bureaucracy Which Permit ‘
Conflict." American Journal of Sociology, LXVII T
(1962), 177-84.
Phirch, James, ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: t
Rand McNally, 1965. j

 

thrch, James G., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

McChregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1960.

Meixssner, Martin. Technology and the Worker. San Fran-
cisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1969.

MEfiTton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, N. Y.: Free Press, 1957.

Misllimi, J. "Experimental Studies on Group Dynamics in
Japan.: Poychologia, II (1959), 229—35.

MOrwse, N. C., and Reiner. E. "The Experimental Change of
a Major Organizational Variable." Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, LII (1956), 120-29.

Palwsons, T. The Social System. New York: Free Press, 1951.

_ . The Structure of Social Action. New York:
Free Press, 1937.

Pelz, D. C. "Conditional Effects in Relationship of
Autonomy and Motivation to Performance." August,
1960. Unpublished Manuscript.

Pennington, D. F.; Haravey, F.; and Bass, B. "Some Effects
of Decision and Discussion in Coalescence, Change
and Effectiveness." Journal of Applied ngchology,
XLII (1958), non—05.

146

Perrow, Charles. "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis
Of Organizations." American Sociological Review,

xxx11 (1967), 194-206.

Roethlisberger, T. J., and Dickson, W. J. Management and
the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

1939.

Sayles, Leonard. The Behavior of Industrial Work Group_.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

:Selznick. "Foundations of the Theory of Organizations."
American Sociological Review, 1948.

EH1aw, M. E. "A Comparison Of Two Types of Leadership in
Various Communication Nets." Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, L (1955), 127-34.

Swanson, G. E.; Newcomb, T. M.; and Hartley, E. L., eds.
Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

lknunenbaum, A. Control in Organizations. New York:
McGraw Hill. 1968.

' Social Psychology of the Work Organization.
Los Angeles: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1966.

Thcnnpson, James. Organizations in Action. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1967.

Thompson, James; and Bates, Fred L. "Technology, Organiza—
tion and Administration." Administrative Science

Quarterly. 11 (1957-58) 325-43.

Thcnnpson, V. A. Modern Orggnization. New York: Alfred
A. KnOpf, 1961

TI‘Iist, Eric L., and Bamforth, E. K. "Some Social and
Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method
of Goal-Getting." Human Relations, IV (1951), 3—38.

Turner, Arthur N., and Lawrence, Paul R. Industrial Jobs
and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press, 1965.

 

VI'OOm, Victor. "Some Personality Determinants of the
Effects of Participation." Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, LIX (1959):7322-37.

. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1964.

fi- .1 I)" w

 

147

Charles, and Guest, Robert H. The Man on the

Walker,
Harvard University Press,

Assemblnyine. Cambridge:
1952.

White, R. K., and Lippitt, R. L.
New York: Harper Brothers, 1960.

Autocracy and Democracy.

‘Wilson, Thomas P. "Patterns of Management and Adaptations
to Organization Roles: A Study Of Prison Inmates."
American Journal Of Sociology, LXXIV (1968), 146-57.

Industrial Organization Theory and Prac-

Woodward , Joan .
Oxford University Press, 1965.

tice. London:

Management and Technology. London: Her

Majesty's Stationery Office, 1958.

 

Zaleznik, A.; Christensen, C. R.; and Roethlishberger, S. J.
The Motivation, Productivity and Satisfaction of
Workers. Boston: The Plimpton Press, 1958}

 

 

 

APPENDICES

148

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

Dear Employee:

We are making a study of the way peOple here feel about
their jobs. The purpose is to learn how different organiza-
tions accomplish their work and what makes a company a good

place to work.

What you say on this questionnaire is completely con-
fidential. DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME. All questionnaires will :
loe taken to Michigan State University, and no one in the -
company will ever see anyone's answers. We do not want to i
know who you are, but we do want to know how people in dif- 5
.ferent jobs and departments feel about things. For these E
:reasons we have included a few questions about your back-

ground.

 

 

The findings of the study will be presented collec-
tively and the results made available to your work group.

This is not a test. There are no right or wrong
eniswers. You can help best by just answering the way that
.fits you best.

1. Questions can, for the most part, be answered by putting
a check mark (/) by the answer that seems the best for

you.

2. Please answer the questions in order. DO not skip around.
3. If there is something you don't understand, please ask
about it.

Charles Drake
Department of Sociology
Michigan State University

149

150

ABOUT YOURSELF

 

1. What is your sex? CHECK ONE:

(1) Male
(2) Female

N
E:
:3”
S1)

c—r
1.4.
U)

your marital status? CHECK ONE:

Married

Single

Divorced or Separated
Widow or Widower

AAA/x
ELM MP
VVVV

 

3. How many children do you have? WRITE IN NUMBER:
Child (Children)

CHECK ONE:

1‘:
:1:
O
2
3
C.
O
:3"
(I)
O
23‘
O
O
H
[—1.
:3
09
23‘
£1)
<;
(D
‘<‘.
O
C
:3‘
Q)
Q.
0

Some high school
High school graduate
Some college

College graduate
Master's degree
Doctorate

Chm DUO [\J H
vvvvvv

 

5. How Old are you? CHECK ONE:

 

(l) 20 years or under
____(2) 21-25 years
____K3) 26-30 years
____(4) 31-35 years
____f5) 36-40 years
(6) 41-50 years
_____(7) 51—60 years
(8) 61 years or over
6- At what age do you think you will retire from this
company? WRITE IN NUMBER:
Years old
7° inr whom did you work before coming to this company?

VVRITE IN EMPLOYER:

l

 

lo.

11.

12.

How long have you worked for this company? CHECK ONE:

(1) Less than 6 months
(2) 6 months - 2 years
(3) 3 - 5 years

(4) 6 — 10 years

(5) More than 10 years

 

What is your annual income from this company? CHECK ONE:

Under $6,000
$6,000 to $7.999
$8,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $11,999
$12,000 to $13,999
$14,000 to $15,999
$16,000 to $17,999
$18,000 or more

ODN GNU"! cu) [\J H
VVVVVVVV

 

To what extent do you enjoy performing the actual day-
to—day activities that make up your job? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
2) A little extent

3) Some extent

4) A great extent

5) A very great extent

AAAA

 

To what extent are there things about working here
(peOple, policies, or conditions) that encourage you
to work hard? CHECK ONE:

(1
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

 

(1) Very much
(2) Much
(3) Somewhat
(4) Little
(5) Not at all

 

152

13. To what extent do you feel a responsibility for the
success of the company? CHECK ONE:

1) A very little extent
2) A little extent

3) Some extent

4) A great extent

5) A very great extent

 

14. To what extent do you have a feeling Of loyalty toward
this company? CHECK ONE: '

) A very great extent
A great extent

Some extent

A little extent

A very little extent

VVVV

15. To what extent is your present job consistent wiht your
career goals and objectives? CHECK ONE:

) A very great extent
A great extent

Some extent

A little extent

A very little extent

AAAAA
Kn KW N H
vvvv

LBO_UT YOUR JOB

16. What is your present job title?

 

JOB TITLE

17- How long have you been working at your present job?
CHECK ONE:

Two months or less
Three to five months
Six to eleven months
One to two years
Over two years

(
(
(
(
(

UT .D’LA) [\J i—J
vvvvv

{UH

 

153

How satisfied are you with the following? CHECK ONE IN
EACH LINE:

Somewhat

satisfied
Not at all
satisfied

(a) With the company

(b) With the group I
work with

(c) With the kind of
work I do

(d) With the recognition
I receive for my work

 

(e) With my chances for
promotion

DC] DC] DC]
DUDE DC]

(f) With my pay

(g) With the supervision
I receive

:1 E] D D a D Uzzasazztly
C] D E] [:1 [:1 [3 Diiiii‘fiiid

D C] D D D D D‘slztllsfied

[1 [I

Would you rather stay on your present job or change to
another job? CHECK ONE:

(1) Very much prefer to stay on present regular job
(2) Somewhat prefer to stay on present regular job
(3) No preference one way or the other

(4) Somewhat prefer to change to another job

(5) Very much prefer to change to another job

 

How much does your job give you an opportunity to do the
things for which you are best trained? CHECK ONE:

(1) NO chance at all

) Very little chance
) Some chance

) Fairly good chance
) Very good chance

21.

22.

23.

154

Different people want different things out of their

jobs.
you?

(a)
(b)

(C)

(d)
(e)

(f)

(g)

CHECK ONE ANSWER IN EACH LINE:

Having an easy job

Getting along with my
supervisor

Working with people
I like

Being secure in my job

Good chance to do
interesting work

Good benefits (vaca-
tions, sick pay,
retirement, etc.)

Good chance to use my
skill and ability

Very great
importance

[1 DEC] DC]

[3

Great
importance

Cl DUE] DD

El

importance

Some

[3 DEC] DD

[:1

How important are each of the following for

Slightly
important

[1 DEC! CID

Cl

Not important

at all

E] El DEL—J DE]

Identify which item in question 21 is most important
to you and which is least important.

To what extent do you find your work satisfying and

interesting? CHECK ONE:

(1
(2) A little extent
(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent
(5)

A very great extent

Most important

Least important

WRITE IN ITEM:

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

155

To what extent are you given the information necessary
to do your job in the best possible way? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

 

To what extent is the information you get about what
is going on in other departments adequate or suffi-
cient for your needs? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

 

To what extent do you feel your pay is related to how
much you help this company be successful? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

 

To what extent does this company do a good job of
meeting your needs and goals as an individual? CHECK
ONE:

(1) A very great extent
(2) A great extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A little extent

(5) A very little extent

To what extent is this company successful in getting
you to contribute to its effectiveness? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very great extent
_(2) A great extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A little extent

(5) A very little extent

Illll

156

ABOUT YOUR WORK GROUP

29. How long have you been working with most of the members
of your present work group at this company? CHECK ONE:

(1) Two months or less
(2) Three to five months
(3) Six to eleven months
(4) One to two years

(5) Over two years

 

30. To what extent do persons in your work group keep each
other informed about important events and situations
related to your work? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

31. How much do persons in your work group encourage each

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

32. In your department, to what extent do people work hard
for the following? CHECK ONE ANSWER IN EACH LINE:

(1)
H p
4.) (t5
4.) (D
H $4
H43 (D43 +3 4—3 how
CI HQ 5: 43C! CI
>30) 43(1) (1)0) (to) >30)
N4: -p4o E43 $43 n+3
(UK or-IN ON sex 0%
>0) N10) (00) (5(1) >0)

(a) To keep their jobs
(b) To make money
(c) To seek promotions

(d) To find satisfaction
in a job well done

(e) To meet expectations
of others

DECIDE]
DECIDE]
DECIDE]
DUDDCI
DECIDE

33.

34.

35.

36.

157

How are objectives set in your department? CHECK ONE:

(1) Objectives are announced with little oppor-
tunity to raise questions or comment

(2) Objectives are announced and explained and an
opportunity is then given to ask questions

(3) Objectives are drawn up, but are discussed with
subordinates and sometimes modified before
being used

(4) Specific alternative objectives are drawn up
by supervisors, and subordinates are asked
to discuss them and indicate which they think
best '

(5) Problems are presented to those persons who
are involved, and the objectives felt to be
the best are then set by the subordinates
and the supervisor jointly, by group parti-
cipation and discussion

PeOple at all levels usually have "know-how" that
could be useful to decision-makers. To what extent is
information widely shared in your department so that
those who make decisions have access to all available
"know-how?" CHECK ONE:

) A very little extent
) A little extent

) Some extent

) A great extent

) A very great extent

Ill!

(1
(2
(3
(4
(5

 

When decisions are being made, to what extent are the
persons affected asked for their ideas? CHECK ONE:

) A very little extent
A little extent

Some extent

A great extent

A very great extent

vvvv

 

(l) A very little extent
2) A little extent

3) Some extent

4) A great extent

5) A very great extent

AAAA

37-

38.

39.

40.

158

To what extent do persons in your work group exchange
Opinions and ideas? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

TO what extent are your goals as an individual com-
patible with the Objectives Of your work group?
CHECK ONE:

) A very great extent
A great extent

Some extent

A little extent

A very little extent

VVVV

 

When you have a problem on your job, how free do you
feel to call on others in your work group to help you
with it? CHECK ONE:

(1) I feel very free to call on them

(2) I feel quite free to call on them

(3) I feel fairly free to call on them

(4) I don't feel free to call on them

(5) 1 don't feel at all free to call on them

 

(1) I very much feel a part Of my work group
(2)
(3) I somewhat feel a part of my work group
(4)
(5)

I do not feel a part of my work group

41.

159

In general how much influence does each of the follow-

ing groups have on what goes on in your department?
CHECK ONE ANSWER IN EACH LINE:

O rim p
(D 430 (00 (U
H HC. (1):: (D
+>O O p<v TJO p O
430 O :3 13 00 0
HQ C. (Ur—l JJr-i ‘HC
rim O0) M Owe >500)
:5 H23 (DC (DC. La :3
Ora +JH pqa $4H Or4H
Lee +>m H tm >¢uO
(1)5: HQ SCH CH 0);:
:>ot-+ s—‘J-r-l GO <20 <13'U-H

(a) First line supervisors

(b) Top managers

A

c) Non—management
employees

(d) Your immediate
supervisor

SUEDE]
DDDDCJ
DODGE]
DDDDD
[JUDGE]

(e) Yourself

ABOUT YOUR SUPERVISOR

42.

43.

How long have you been working for your present super—
visor?

) Two months or less

) Three to five months
) Six to eleven months
)

)

U'lJ:UUl\JI—’

One to two years
Over two years

(
(
(
(
(

 

To what extent are those above you receptive to your
ideas and suggestions? CHECK ONE:

A very little extent
A little extent

Some extent

A great extent

A very great extent

vvvvv

(1
__.__<2
(3
._.(A
(5

44.

45.

46.

160

To what extent do people in your work group try to see
that their supervisor and his superiors get full and
accurate information about work problems? CHECK ONE:

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

 

When your supervisor has problems related to the work,
to what extent does he use group meetings to talk
things over with subordinates and get their ideas?

(1) A very little extent
(2) A little extent

(3) Some extent

(4) A great extent

(5) A very great extent

Which of the following best describes the manner in
which most problems between departments are generally
resolved? CHECK ONE:

(1) Little is done about these problems--they
continue to exist
(2) Little is done about these problems-—they work
themselves out in time
(3) The problems are appealed to a higher level in
the organization—-but are often still not
resolved
(4) The problems are appealed to a higher level in
the organization and are usually resolved
there
(5) The problems are worked out at the level where
they appear through mutual effort and under-
standing

47.

48.

How

(a)

(b)

(e)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(2;)

(10)

Thinking only about the people who report to your

161

well does your supervisor do the following:

.p

C

(D

E
(I) 0)
b0 >
(U (DO
S-c “US-4
‘9: 82‘
<13 Z-H

Planning and scheduling
of work

Indicating clearly when
work is to be done

Assigning the right job
to the right man

Inspecting and follow-
ing up on the work
that is done

Getting people to work
well together

Getting individuals to
do the best they can

Giving recognition for
good work done

Letting people know
where they stand [3 E] [j [j

C] C] D C] C] C] D Very well
D C] E Cl Cl Cl C] Well

1:] [3 Cl E] C] D C]

D D C] C] C] C] E]

Not well
at all

DUE] C] C] DUE]

supervisor, how much do they agree among themselves

in their Opinions about the company and the job?

CHECK ONE:

NO agreement

Little agreement

Some agreement

A good deal of agreement
Complete agreement

(
(
(
(
(

\fl EL») R.) H
VVVVV

49.

50.

162

If you were offered another job at this company doing
the same type of work but under a different immediate
supervisor, how would you feel about moving? CHECK
ONE:

would strongly prefer to stay where I am
would somewhat prefer to stay where I am
would have a hard time deciding

would somewhat prefer to accept the other job
would strongly prefer to accept the other job

ULEUJNFJ
VVVVV
HtahaHra

(
(
(
(
_(

 

How well does your supervisor know the technical side
of his job-—the operations and procedures for which
he is responsible? CHECK ONE:

(1) He knows the technical parts of his job
extremely well
(2) Very well
(3) Fairly well
(4) Some well and others not so well
(5) Does not know the technical parts of his job
at all well

llll

Am

 

S”
H
H
H