. ”r1 ”7‘7""1? WI" ff. .. 1111111 1111 1.1111111.111111III1III 11 I11I1I1I III 1111 1 1.1II11II1II11.,,.. .1‘1 ,1 ,fi . >II 11111111.;1I111111111111II‘I IIII .IIIII f, I I"; I’ .III ,I.I 'IIII,.I IIIIIII..‘I1 * " I'IIIII' III I II I IIIIIII‘II I'1I1I1I1 III 1.1 II11I'III1' I ‘I‘ "I l III1IIIIII I1IIIIIIIIIII IIIII I II IIIII'II I111II III”. IIII1II111HII I‘III IIIIII II III1III‘I 1I111II1 1111111" .I1I1111II‘I1I1I1I;I1IlI“\:I11III‘;1‘“‘b~IA11"!IllH I II I IIIIIIIII II I'IIIIIII1 III' IIIIII III III; III "I II\ IIIIIIIIII‘ I I; III III II'II'III II IIIIIIII III‘I IIIII IIII . I f‘-‘_——'_ .» M Fe“ #3." __H-’_’ ,_ #4:,— :fim— ._.... -— _- .k b" (1 LS1; III1 £64? FIJI I‘I I"; . 3 II’III‘IJIL 13 I _1 I ’ ' @133 ‘f": \ I”..'__._”—-o ‘.—... ‘0 vt‘ Host? V. ..l " - .- —4 v aA.. M. M I IIIII'II1II11 I III I I1..11.1 III I' III I W III U1III1III11 III I Iii ‘.I 1_11I1111111I III III.II.III I'II'IIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIII II’II II III I I IIIIIII 1 . II II' IIIIII 11HII1IJIIIII11IIIIII1II‘I’I‘I. IIIIIII I; ' . II, IIEIIIEIII’IIII‘EI%II€“ 1 ”HI“ ‘ IIIII III II IIIII11I‘I1IIIIIII1I1111 IIIIHIIIII I Ia;$'HI.‘I.II’-:.thh XIIEII'JI . IIIIIIIIIII1IIIII'II1I III111III III I III 1 I «IIIIIIIIIIIII'II’IIIEIIIIIIII'IIIIII2.. ~ I II‘ I 'I III III '1.III-IIIIIIII'III'IIIEJE'II‘ .i III III III III I IIIIII1IIII1III III III III ‘ , -'-IIII1IIIIIIIIIIII ' III I , III . . ' “ III III:- I. 111.11”! I11 1I1I1II'I1 IIIIIIIIII1I IINWIII 1: 1§IIII Ii I§IIII1IIII1IIIIII1 1 I I “III: III " I;Ii 1:11 I II iIIIII I I I 1 II11III1 IIIIII ‘III I ‘11” II 1“ 1111 III IIII I 1 III II III IM11 1I|111I 1II111I I I .II I I III IIIII III}! I. I IIIII .III III IIIII IIIII1I1I III III IM IIIIIII [IIIII III: ‘2': IIII11II II IIIIIII 1 1 1:111I11III.IIIII1III||II1IHI1II I1 If I'IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII [IIIIII III‘III, 'IIII1II '1I1II‘I1I11311IIII II III IIIIII II1I1I I1I1II>II III1IIIIII1II1II 111 II IIII'II1I1 I11I1I11I11II111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII III'II II I , . 11111.1111111111I11111 IIIII I1IIIIIIII I'I I I ,IIIIIIIII IIIIII II" IIIIIIIII II _ 4-" III III. 11111 ------.::‘:E5 “—- ._-——_ .—-r. n.‘ W ~u--_--:$————— ';W‘_ '_.=-'.———-— _._.~——-~ ..—.- ,___——:h~n—;_—.— __‘_.__ M- :- ~— M :fi in III iz I331” III: I II I {I IIIIII II‘ I II III IIIgIII11II1IIII1 III III IIII IIIIIIII I I I11IIIIII‘IIHIIIIIIIII'II III 1I1I' 1111111111111 ‘ I1IIII‘II :III 1 IIII I111 I . I. II II IIII‘ .1, III 1:;I1I.I ..-1.1.111 I 111111 11IIIII III 11‘11IIIIIIIII II ‘1 II' 1II11I11l11‘1I1'II‘ I IIIIII III I“ IIIIIIIII'I IIIIIIII I1I|I1II I1I1III~1I I IIIIW 1 IIIIII III III IIIII':III1I1I1 . 1 IIII1IIIII1II 1II1 IIIIIII1111‘1II1II11 11’ IIIIIIIII 11 I I II III .1111111 1111111II.II "III'I ifI‘II.I.II I I" IIII'I’IIIIIIIIIIIII I l\\ \\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ :!\\\\\\1\293 10000 5259 LISHZHLQ. L [BR fidr‘hnfian.SC303 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Contingency Theory of Organization: An Examination of the Relationships of Climate and Personality with Firm and Individual Performance in a Dynamic Environment presented by L. Delf Dodge has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Management Date Jan. 23, 1978 \ O~7639 a a, 1 £350 3’ 31999 reason (mt 3933 y- Y "5 “JP "*3! © 1978 L. DELF DODGE ALL RI GHTS RESERVED THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF ORGANIZATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF CLIMATE AND PERSONALITY WITH FIRM AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT By L. Delf Dodge A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1978 ABSTRACT THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF ORGANIZATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF CLIMATE AND PERSONALITY WITH FIRM AND INDIVIDUAL pERFORMANCE IN A DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENT By L. Delf Dodge An individual's personality constitutes the pat- terns of attitudes and needs developed through their experi- ences, and which influences their behavior. In a similar fashion, an organization's structure evolves as a firm attempts to deal with the uncertainties of its external environmental demands. The objectives of this research were to (l) explore the relationship between organizational structure and indi- vidual behavior and processes and (2) to provide empirical support for the contingency theories of organization struc- ture by testing the validity of organizational attributes generally associated with the dynamic form of organization structure. The non-destructive testing industry was chosen for study on the basis of the technological and market vola- ‘tility reported by a series of experts in the field. Two L. Delf Dodge high and one low performing firm were selected for closer examination. Results indicate that firms which had successfully adapted to the dynamic environment studied produced climates significantly less constraining to individual performance than did competitors who had not structured themselves in a manner consistent with the demands of the market and technological environments. Perceptions of role conflict and tolerance of role conflict were associated strongly with individual perfor- mance. Individuals in highly boundary relevant positions reported higher levels of role conflict than individuals in positions low in boundary relevance. Highly boundary relevant positions in the firms studied measured low in role ambiguity, while the positions located within the structure away from organizational boun— daries measured high in ambiguity. Reports of role ambi- guity were significantly correlated with level of organiza- tional performance. Tolerance of role ambiguity results were non-significant in tests analyzing the variance between high and low performing organizations and high and low performing individuals. The research introduced empirical data from dynamic organizations to the research extent on contingency theories of organizational structure. It was also an attempt to L. Delf Dodge begin establishing the validity of theoretical connections between organizational structure and individual behavior and processes, forming the next logical link in a poten- tial chain of contingency based relationships. To Daddy with love from his little girl \\ 17A: iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Committee: Lawrence W. Foster Henry L. Tosi James M. Tolliver Richard F. Gonzalez Richard L. Featherstone Donald Delf and Phyllis Marsh Dodge Craig Charles and Nancy Palauch Dodge Karen Dodge and Daniel Marvin Frampton and, To To To To Henry for pointing the way Larry for maps and sunshine Dick for a sense of perspective and tolerance Jim for wiping away the tears of joy and frustration To my family for a lifetime of confidence, encouragement, and gentle guidance along all the roads I have chosen to take. My thanks. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . 1 An Introduction to Contingency Theories of Organizational Structure . . . . . . 1 Environment and Organization Structure . 6 Organizational Subsystems . . . . . . . 9 The Mechanistic, Hierarchical Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Production Subsystems . . . . . . . . . 12 Boundary-Spanning Subsystems . . . . . . 13 Adaptive Subsystems . . . . . . . . . . 14 Maintenance Subsystems . . . . . . . . . l4 Managerial Subsystems . . . . . . . . 15 The Organic, Dynamic Organization. . . . 15 Production Subsystems . . . . . . . . . 15 Boundary-Spanning Subsystems . . . . . . 16 Adaptive Subsystems . . . . . . . . . 16 Maintenance Subsystems . . . . . . . . . l7 Managerial Subsystems . . . . . . . . . 18 Discussion . . . . . . . 19 ”The Individual in the Organization . . . . 20 -*Organizational Conformity and Clarity . . 33 Need for Independence . . . . . . . . . . 35 Reason for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 I I Q METHODOIJOGY O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 41 Selection of Industry, Firm, and'SubJects . 41 Instrument Construction . . . . . . . . . 44 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Role Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Chapter III. IV. Tolerance of Role Ambiguity and Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Independence . . . . . . . Data-Collection Procedure . . . . . Statistical Design . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Sample by Organizational Subgroup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responses to Environmental Demands Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subscale Response Patterns and Reliabilities . . . . . Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Organizational Conformity Scale . . . Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Organizational Clarity Scale . . Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Role Conflict Scale . . . . Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Role Ambiguity Scale . . . . . . Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Need for Independence Scale . . . Scale Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . Ratings on Individual Performance . . Standardized Splits in Individual Performance Ratings . . . . . . Results Related to Hypothesis One . . Results Related to Hypothesis Two . . Results Related to Hypothesis Three . . Results Related to Hypothesis Four . . . Results Related to Hypothesis Five . . DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS TO ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE . . . 3,,The Relationship Between Organizational Conformity, Firm and Individual Per- formance in a Dynamic Environment Relationship Between Organizational Clarity, Firm and Individual Per- formance in a Dynamic Environment Relationship Between Measures of Role Conflict, Firm and Individual Per- formance in a Dynamic Environment . . The Tolerance for Role Conflict, Firm and Individual Performance Relationship. vi Page 47 48 48 49 52 52 56 64 64 66 67 7O 70 7O 74 79 81 81 84 84 87 93 94 99 104 109 Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND SUGGESTIONS APPENDICES A. MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS B. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT REFERENCES The Role Conflict, Boundary Relevance Relationship . . Relationships Between Measures of Role Ambiguity, Firm and Individual Per- formance in a Dynamic Environment . The Role Ambiguity, Boundary Relevance Relationship . . The Tolerance of Role Ambiguity, Firm and Individual Performance Relation- ships . . . The Need for Independence, Performance Relationship . FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary . Objectives Results . Conclusions Limitations . IndiVidual Suggestions for Further Research . vii Page 111 112 116 121 122 123 123 123 124 129 130 131 133 140 163 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. General Subsystem Functions . . . . . . . . . 10 2. Subsystem Structure and Characteristics Within the Structure-Environment Model's Four Organizational Types . . . . . . . . . 21 3. Organization Specifications . . . . . . . . . 45 4. Questionnaire Distribution: Return Rates . . . 53 5. Comparison of Sample Subgroups on Personal Data . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 6. Comparison of Sample Subgroups by Percentage of Workforce by Functional Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7. Item Response Levels, Means, and Standard Deviations for Organizational Clarity and Organzational Conformity Subscales . . . . . 65 8. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Organizational Conformity Scale. . . . . . . 66 9. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Organizational Clarity Scale . . . . . . . . 67 10. Item Response Levels, Means, and Standard Deviations for Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Subscales . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 ll. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Role Conflict Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 12. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Role Ambiguity Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 13. Item Response Levels, Means, and Standard Deviations for Need for Independence Subscale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 viii Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Inter-Item Correlation Matrix for Need for Independence Scale . . . . . Inter-Scale Correlations Scale Reliabilities . . . Standardized Split of Individual Performance Ratings . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis One: Analysis of Variance Table for Perceived Organizational Conformity Hypothesis Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Perceived Organizational Clarity . Hypothesis Three: Analysis of Variance Table for Perceived Role Conflict . . . . . . Hypothesis Three: Analysis of Variance Table for Perceived Role Ambiguity . . . . . . . Hypothesis Four: Analysis of Variance Table for Role Conflict-Boundary Relevance Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Four: Analysis of Variance Table for Role Ambiguity-Boundary Relevance Relationship . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Five A: Analysis of Variance Table for Tolerance of Role Conflict Hypothesis Five B: Analysis of Variance Table for Tolerance of Role Ambiguity Hypothesis Five C: Analysis of Variance Table for Need for Independence . . . Analysis of Variance: Cell Means of Organi- zational Conformity Among High and Low Performing Individuals in High and Low Performing Firms in a Dynamic Environment Organizational Conformity: T-Test of Difference Between Response Means . . . . ix Page 72 73 74 80 82 83 85 86 88 89 9O 91 92 96 96 Table 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Page Discriminant Analysis: Organizational Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Discriminant Analysis: Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Analysis of Variance: Cell Means of Organi- zational Clarity Among High and Low Performing Individuals in High and Low Performing Firms in a Dynamic Environment . lOO Organizational Clarity: T-Test of Difference Between Response Means ... . . . . . . . . . 101 Analysis of Variance: Cell Means of Role Conflict Measures Among High and Low Performing Firms and Individuals in a Dynamic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Tolerance of Role Conflict: A T-Test of Difference Between Means . . . . . . . . . . 110 Analysis of Variance: Role Ambiguity and Organizational Performance . . . . . . . . . 115 Figure 10. 11. LIST OF FIGURES Page The Mechanistic-Organic Continuum of Organization Structure . . . . . . ._. . . 4 The Contingency Theory of Organization StruCture O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 8 Organizational-Environmental Interaction . . ll Schema of Research Design Testing Perfor- mance Effects on Dependent Variables Organizational Conformity and Organiza- tional Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Schema of Research Design Testing the Effects of Role Conflict and Ambiguity on Firm Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Analysis of Variance: Predicting Levels of Individual Performance Within Organiza- tional Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of Variance: Predicting Levels of Organizational Performance Within Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . 77 Analysis of Variance: Collapsing a 2 x 5 Factorial Design to a 2 x 3 Design . . . . 78 Analysis of Variance: Predicted Interaction Effects in Cells One and Four Using a Tripartite Split on Individual Performance. 80 One-Way Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . 106 Two-Way Analysis of Variance: Source of Data used in T-TeSt o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 106 xi Figure Page 12. Ambiguity in the Boundary-Spanning Posi- tions of Unsuccessful Firms in a Dynamic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 13. Ambiguity in the Boundary-Spanning Posi- tions of Successful Firms in a Dynamic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 xii CHAPTER I WHERE DOES IT HURT? INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND An Introduction to Contingency Theories of Organizational Structure Contingency theories of organizational structure developed from a body of studies written nithe late 1950's and early 1960's. Basic to these theories is the concept of the organization as an open system, in which the beha— viors of individuals and groups within the organization are interdependent with the environments in which they exist. An organization is thus viewed as being in a con- tinuous state of interaction with its environments; moni- toring, assessing, and internalizing the significant changes which occur, and adapting its structure to the new conditions relevant to its efficient operation. The envi- ronment contains many potential sources of pressure for organizational change, but among these sources the organi- zation need only be sensitive to the select few which have direct bearing on its operations. Those institutions, groups, individuals, and other organizations which exist beyond the boundaries of a focal organization, directly providing input, consuming output, or exerting significant pressure on the decisions the organization makes are con- sidered part of the firm's relevant environment. Sup- pliers, customers, investors, creditors, labor unions, public pressure groups, and government agencies are likely to be integral parts of most organizations' relevant envi- ronments, although the specific set which defines these environments may vary considerably from industry to indus- try, from organization to organization. At any given point in time, there will be some external forces closer than others to an organization, and which thereby are capable of exerting more influence. For several decades, organizational research cen— tered its efforts on the search for optimal managerial methods; principles which could serve a manager well in all situations. Such prescriptive guides to action were, indeed, developed by the Classical and Administrative schools of thought, but failed to survive the test of effi- cacy in application in the workplace. No single method of organization or administration has yet to prove optimal across a variety of situations, although there appear to be strategies which work better in particular situations. This situational, or contingency approach to organization reconciles a good portion of conflict found in the pre- vious research in the Classical and Human Relations schools. The classical, or mechanistic approach, appears to work well in organizations existing in relatively stable environments, while the less structured, human relations approach appears to work better under conditions of rela- tive uncertainty, or dynamic environments. After analyzing the results of interviews conducted in twenty Scottish and English firms, Burns and Stalker (1961) developed a conceptual framework which character- ized organization structures on a continuum. The extremes of the continuum were defined, at one end, by mechanistic structure, and, at the other, by organic structure. (See Figure l.) Mechanistic, or bureaucratic systems are character- ized by hierarchic patterns of control, authority, and com- munication. Patterns of formal interaction are precisely laid out and strictly observed. Production methods are highly standardized and slow to change. Tasks are spe- cifically and narrowly defined, resulting in a sense of abstractness in each individual task; the part loses iden- tity from the whole (Tosi & Carroll, 1976). Decision- making responsibility is centralized. Hierarchical firms demand loaylty from their employees, placing emphasis on knowledge of internal operations rather than on more gen- eral skills, knowledge, and experience (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Conversely, the organic, or dynamic organization structure deveIOps in response to volatile environmental conditions. The firm must be ready to handle unpredictable Mechanistic Organic Structure Factor Structure slow; predictable environmenta1.______ rapid; change unpredictable centralized.___—_—— control/authority/-———— decentralized responsibility formalized interaction-——————— nonformal patterns standardized production —— vary withproject techniques high/narrowly task -———————- low/changing, defined tasks structure broadly defined tasks low general skill-——————. high level of employees internal knowledge cosmopolitan Figure l.--The mechanistic-organic continuum of organization structure. demands for action. Tasks in such dynamic organizations are subject to continual redefinition, and require high levels of skill and versatility. As projects change, authority and responsibility relationships are adjusted to meet the new requirements (Tosi & Carroll, 1976). Control and communication are decentralized through the organiza- tion network. Emphasis is placed on cosmopolitan knowledge and technical abilities rather than organizationally deter- mined power. Woodward's research (1965) provided considerable support for Burns and Stalker's theory. After ten years of study in one hundred British firms employing one hun- dred to eight hundred people, Woodward discovered a strong positive relationship between success and organizational structure when she classified firms according to their levels of technological complexity (unit and small-batch production, mass production, and continuous-process pro- duction). Successful unit production firms had common organizational characteristics, as did the mass and continuous-process production subgroups. The successful large-batch firms tended to be organized along mechanistic (bureaucratic) lines. Duties and responsibilities were clearly defined. The successful continuous-process and unit production firms, however, were less tightly organized, had more permissive management, greater delegation of authority, and tended to place less emphasis on written definitions of duties and responsibilities. Woodward's case studies provided confirmation not only for the pro— posed link between technology and the appropriateness of organization structure, but also, according to Filley, House and Kerr (1976), demonstration that the link is causal, not coincidental. The environment may be conceptualized as a com- bination of several types of sectors; external sectors may be simple or complex, static or dynamic (Jurkovich, 1974). When they are simple and certain, a mechanistic organization will be an appropriate form of adaptation and when the external sectors are dynamic, the organiza- tion form should be organic (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Both organic and mechanistic organizations are composed of generic types of subsystems (Katz & Kahn, 1966), but the specific form these subsystems take varies from industry to industry. For example, the production subsystem, the technical core, may be highly routine and repetitive or it may be an "intensive" technology (Thompson, 1967). Inno- vative subsystems also differ (according to Lynton, 1969), depending on whether the environment is placid or turbulent. Environment and Organization Structure Levels of certainty in an organization's environ- ment may be thought of as ranging from stability at one extreme to volatility at the other (the analytical structure that follows is more fully developed in Tosi and Carroll, 1976). This does not mean to imply that no changes ever occur in "stable" environments; it means rather that changes are relatively minor, infrequent, and predictable. Conversely, under highly volatile environmental conditions, changes are rapid, of great magnitude, and unpredictable. Although the complete environment contains a large number of elements of which the organization must be aware, it has been argued that the market a firm serves and the type and source of technology account for the greatest amount of variance observed in organizational structure (Burns & Stalker, 1966). The combination of environmental sectors (market and technological), and volatility condi- tions (stability-volatility), when placed on two axes, creates four distinct organizational types. (See Figure 2.) These dichotomies are a matter of theoretical convenience, useful for purposes of analysis but in no way represent the full Spectrum of variation found between the two anchors of the continuum. Burns and Stalker (1961) describe, in general terms, the characteristics of firms dealing strictly with volatile environments or stable environments (cells I and IV of Figure 2). Firms in cells II and III, however, operate with organizational subsystems that interact with a combination of stable and volatile elements. The firm in cell II faced with a stable market and a volatile tech- nology, will be most sensitive to changes in the techno- logical environment. This type of firm is called "technology-dominated mixed." An organization existing under conditions of a stable technology and a volatile market (cell III) may be called a "market-dominated mixed," since it must be ready to adapt to changes in its market environment, while the relevant technological environment, by virtue of its stability, would make few demands for change (Tosi & Carroll, 1976). Technology stable volatile mechanistic technology- stable or hierarchic dominated mixed I II Market III IV . market- organic or volatile dominated mixed dynamic Figure 2.-—The contingency theory of organization structure. These four distinct theoretical organization types, each peculiar to its particular market and technological states, are made up of the same five generic subsystems-— production, boundary spanning, adaptive, maintenance, and managerial--within their organizational boundaries (Katz & tt Ge Kahn, 1966). The general characteristics of these sub- systems, however, and the relationships among them will vary greatly from organizational type to type. Organizational Subsystems Organizations are composed of five basic subsys- tems (Katz & Kahn, 1966; refer to Table l and Figure 3 for a graphic representation of the subsystems, their functions and interrelationships). The production subsystem incor- porates those activities involving the transformation of materials input to final output. Boundary spanning sub— systems are responsible for the procurement of input for the production subsystem, and distribution of the output generated by the production activities. The adaptive subsystem is responsible for monitoring changes in the relevant external environment, and relaying the informa- tion to the managerial subsystem for use in planning, coordination, direction, and control activities aimed at the total system. The maintenance subsystem attempts to smooth the interaction of all the subsystems, developing performance standards and implementing the decisions made by the managerial subsystem. In the paragraphs following, an integrative model is developed outlining the form and inter-relationships of the various subsystems as they appear in organizations dealing with different degrees of environmental turbulence. Table l.--General 10 subsystem functions. Production - Boundary - Spanning Adaptive - Maintenance - Managerial - Produces the product, service, or idea which is bought/consumed by the public "Technical Core" of organization (Thompson, 1967) Connects organization with external points of contact Secures raw materials and human input Distributes finished goods output Monitors the activities of the firm's relevant environment Monitors performance and efficiency levels to insure profitability and sufficient capital for future investment Seeks to smooth the activities and problems of other subsystems responsible for morale, reward systems, socializa- tion, discipline, training, performance appraisal, etc. Sets performance standards Controls, coordinates, and directs the activities of the firm's subsystems responsible for adjustments of the total system to external environments Determines general policy and strategies of interacting with the environment Resolves internal conflict between units 11 .coaposnoanw Havaosaonfi>uouasnowaduwaamuOIl.m onawfih Hum onadNHZISS—o HEB—yam 233mm ZOHAZNstS—o 12 The Mechanistic, Hierarchical Organization Production Subsystems The production subsystem of the mechanistic organi- zation is characterized by a high degree of repetitiveness. Methods are well and narrowly defined, standardized, and highly repetitive. Members are often assigned only a few tasks, with a very short work cycle. Operatives have lit- tle control over the tasks performed, or the method used to complete them. Such extreme division of labor abstracts individuals' tasks to such a degree that workers may feel they are making little contribution to the creation of a complete product. Individual tasks lose their identity in the numerous tasks which combine along an impersonal assembly process to form the stable organization's product. Work activities, standardized and segmented into very small units, require only very low levels of skill. Since workers are easily replaceable, given an adequate labor force, they will be dependent upon the organization, but not vice versa. This lack of security in the hier- archical firm's production subsystem gives rise to a need for an effective method of protection against potential arbitrary action of managers. Labor unions perform this function. 13 Boundary-SpanninggSubsystems Because the hierarchical organization's market is relatively static, the channels of distribution for their products or services will be fairly well defined and standardized. As methods of distribution become ineffec- tive, new channels will arise, but this will likely be a slow process. The hierarchical organization's distribu- tion subsystem will exercise a great deal of influence over other segments of the distribution channel. Products or services of firms in stable industries will usually be quite similar in function and form. Prod— ucts of competing firms can thus be substituted for one another. Product differentiation in such industries is created largely through advertising as each firm attempts to create its own market segment. Price competition may be prevalent in mature product markets. In the stable environment, sources of raw mate- rials will be well developed and clearly defined. Captive suppliers are common and, as with the distribution sector, sources of materials input to the firm will probably not change until suppliers prove to be inefficient, or uncom- petitive from a cost standpoint. Repetitive production systems function most effectively when they proceed at a constant rate. Maintaining raw materials and finished goods inventories buffers the production subsystem so that 14 it need not be disrupted as seasonal influences alter product demand levels. Adaptive Subsystems Under stable environmental conditions, adaptive subsystems will have a fairly simple structure. Informa- tion is plentiful, and easily gathered. As the organiza- tion gains experience, it learns which portions of the environment to monitor, and will likely develop standard methods of adapting to changes. This high degree of envi- ronmental stability offers the hierarchical firm the opportunity to make long-range plans and capital commit— ments. Low risk levels enhance its ability to use exter- nal sources of capital. Technological changes in the firm's product (output) may occur from within the organi- zation as researchers and engineers concentrate their efforts on product improvement and increasing production efficiency. Maintenance Subsystems The focus of the hierarchical organization's main- tenance subsystem will be on performance measurement and evaluation. The evaluation criteria will be developed from data combined in records of past performance. The purpose of the maintenance subsystem is to increase internal effectiveness. Internal effectiveness is more critical to the survival of the mechanistic firm than to 15 the other organization types, since increasing returns are realized internally. Thus, this subsystem will have a great deal of organizational influence in stable environ- ments. Managerial Subsystems There will be centralized control in the hier- archical organization. An individual's organizational power will be based upon position, flowing from the author- ity, responsibility, and communication will be relatively clearly defined by the managerial subsystem, as will be each job's content. There should be a small number of managers (relative to the operators) in mechanistic organi- zations, leading one to expect great homogeneity of atti— tude among the high-level executives; promotions will be awarded not only for proven abilities, but also for the consistency of one's point of view with current management. The Organic,Dynamic Organization Production Subsystems Production subsystems in organic organizations will be composed primarily of general-purpose equipment, since the application and sequencing of operations will vary from project to project. Routine, repetitive produc- tion procedures will not work well here. The "intensive" technology of the dynamic firm's production subsystem is a custom one; the selection, combination, and ordering 16 of technological application is determined through an evaluation of the particular project at hand. As envi- ronments and projects change, so will the technologies used. Boundary-Spanning Subsystems Dynamic organizations will not have multi-link distribution channels, since the fluctuation of the envi- ronment does not allow the routinization of the distribu- tive function and its transfer to outside jobbers. Channels of distribution will be unstructured, changing with envi- ronmental demands. Highly skilled individuals will be needed in the marketing areas to read the changing demand structure. Those involved in procuring raw materials must be skilled in locating new sources of input, as both the level and type of raw material needed will be in a state of flux. Keeping in close contact with a variety of sup— pliers is essential to the smooth operation of the pro- curement function. Adaptive Subsygtems The activities of the adaptive subsystem are vital to an organization's existence and, in the dynamic firm, they take on added significance. The unpredictability of the timing, magnitude, and direction of environmental Changes makes personal skill in environmental monitoring 17 and interpretation a necessary attribute for members of adaptive subsystems. Market research and data inter- pretation activities will be extensive. Research and development concentrates on pure, rather than applied research. Although members will be highly trained, they will be required to update their skills, or to leave the organization, as relevant aspects of the environment change. Since the skills required may change as the envi- ronments change, the organization may use a strategy of hiring new personnel rather than retraining current members. Maintenance Subsystems Historical data will have little utility under volatile environmental conditions, leading to subjective control and evaluation standards. Evaluation will focus on the procedures followed to complete a task; in evalua- tion, process will be more important than the actual results (Tosi & Carroll, 1976). It is assumed that a logical sequence of steps can be determined and that if one proceeds according to these steps, results will be satisfactory. Personnel in the dynamic firm will probably have only short-range commitments to the organization; their focus will tend to be on their own profession rather than on the organization in which they operate (Tosi & Carroll, 18 1976). When the firm no longer needs the abilities an individual has to offer, the employee will either be relieved or move on voluntarily. Professionals working in dynamic industries are willing to exercise their skills in most any organization so long as they are able to prac- tice in their profession. Control in the organic firm will reside in the individual with the greatest expertise, or the greatest financial interest. If expertise is the power base, the organization's pattern of influence will change as the nature of the firm's projects changes. If influence derives from financial interest, the organization will be an extension of the owner's intersts; decisions will reflect the owner's desires. Managerial Subsystems Due to extensive environmental fluctuation, managerial subsystems in dynamic organizations will not be characterized by set, well-defined procedures. Since guidelines will change frequently to meet new environ- mental requirements, managerial subsystems in dynamic firms will be relatively less structured than they are in other organizational types. As needs for particular skills arise, individuals .move from project to project. Over time, an employee may be exposed to several different superiors and authority 19 structures. He may also experience stress from the role ambiguity and uncertainty fostered by this rather contin- uous change in patterns of authority, communication, and interaction. To decrease the levels of environmental uncer- tainty, the managerial subsystems may tend to push the organization toward more stable market or technological sectors of the environment. Such a shift would facilitate planning, control, and the firm's ability to make long- term commitments to its members and creditors, but simul- taneously diminish its ability to adapt to environmental change. New firms enter the field to take the place of those dynamic firms making the transition to more stable environments. Because of the flexibility demanded by volatile environments, dynamic firms will tend to be smaller than hierarchical firms. Discussion There is, of course, no such thing as "pure" organizational type. Variations in actual structural characteristics make each organization different in its details from every other organization. The classifica- tions given here are intended to order thoughts about organizational structure into coherent patterns. This interactive model of organization structure assumes that organizational types and methods of subsystems' en in Th co wi wi wi ca tu tr ex 1: ti 20 environmental interaction will vary directly with changes in the relevant market and technological environments. There are, however, other factors which must be taken into consideration. Multidivisional organizations may have a wide variety of substructures within them, some dealing with very stable markets and technologies, others dealing with volatile environments. Such firms must take great care to avoid imposing inappropriate organizational struc- tures on any of their subunits. The mechanistic struc— ture appropriate to the production system of a firm, for example, would create havoc if forced upon one of its internal research units. The autonomy a research scien- tist demands is violated at the expense of diminishing his value to the firm. Each segment of a conglomerate must be allowed to respond to the demands of the environ- ments with which it must deal, changing its structure and processes in efforts to remain consistent with and survive in its environmental context. Only through appropriate adaptation will the continued well-being of the firm or subunit be insured in the long run. The Individual in the Orggnization In an organizational context, an individual's roles are defined by the behavior sequences exhibited in interaction with others, both within and across organiza- tional boundaries. Specifics of role behavior vary with .muivasflfl HCCOVfiwaNflEQMwLAU .NZAO.‘ m... HOUSE; “CDECCHfiKI-hmvlerflndQUR-hum Oahu? :Fn&0.fi.3 mnvfiuvvtfionguod~o~=-nu U:4~ Envoh-§uv~dofidwlu ~=AUUsuva>.IQ~.-mll.w muvfladdwrfit 21 8685 2 8382 p332: 858:8 ASHE E36 Humans. madam 389 his: 28 RE RE. 33335.5 8238 3 was AsfiaflxzdfigflduHMRREEOHH:M.:H 33me SEE 8. «was 28.82. magafivmeRxxza wamfimmnznuaOfifiafibsdwnB.mgv mooa>hom :ofipwwfisvos madanmema sahmnonhflsan_xnbfixzfimfifi. .fifieafifi.dfinweqfi we no 8%”. 3 EB. 33332: contains ImusHOAEEOQSfiCUPHBOPREBSI mgQflznmgo mafitszgQu.m§flzsmgw$ARZT BOODHR_OQHKMBO§H:59H mmfidgrmgqnfinmgomuvaHQBMMT HERR336OMMORBKH .QEOQRLmo_x569:x.>dfihanygu sfiifipflpa $05 .5... 8388A 68 Genoa: no 8 H33 manages. 3&298 pgaxzdv"Mafisaxudmans.maxa 2.3 83338 a a m 68 wfinmmfimamu Qfi:MMRRa sage 8. 33 a2 pgowfi SEER? RRHRRusfiw 5E, 38% .8...” 9:96 a; mod: pom: WREHQBRWmSHfififi. DZQmeummanfiflsaamfitda.mwflasm mishaps: 33 85mg can anHBOYHUs. sfiR!_mqmflbHQAaiawxznp usooo Haas aoHesfiucouommHu nofieoscoymu mOQEJHqfiMafihuwhhflrm2§azde 8“ $55on 833 A96 :2 53288 HoMEOOHSH.nflflafisxafiw_xa:92YAHm¥. mafiaawdwfi.MWRVHOMHEQRHHOQHKHHOHH _ nm>o Hopscoo OHpuHH m>da madsufi>ficnfi dense—OH: 38580 £929» ..nufifipoom Ooh. BOH .oanaoosanmn magnum muoxaos .HHme 2%.: 3368 93338 85338 .333 .8536 3388: 338% mama. an #82 Eggs—Sm 83o? OBESEd ~8ng .3338: RE. 83 A5886 8% .monmu HaaOausNfiammno Anon m.Houoa pumaaoua>:OIou:uo:Hpm on» canvas moapmfinouOdusno was manponupm BoummMQBMII.N manna 22 pagans uoohouml flatmokfififium cheap :0.“ ”555.30 DRE Op 395ng Own—«no meow no.5 ma tum 32893 EH $83me mowmooea OOEEOU 6% $563..» 8:8 3mm. 32> no p58 980 .8 3338388 68 3:3,. 8:85 egg: Ame: pfifio 8. 9322C whom—Ann: no .8935 3.8m. 3m: ”Edam: 8536.22, 8 SE 207 86:8 8. 3E siflfimaogmfikfinfipa no sfifinmflu gunman 3&3 8.695 as mnoflfiwdo 6580 was mfinofiaosu MESH noflfimog p.93 .538 one can aofifimon Ooh—possum 3803: no woman on 3.5 H9580 3%... 320.39»: 86950 SE» soaps.” $80.3 no 350% .895.”me omega.“ Hawogm no 33.898 ”53.8% 5H3 33> :35 5 canoe H33 3.580.. 8533 H.303 gm O5 .855on pg Pad: :3 899695 3 38.5288 owadhluhonw 3.5 so.“ ago? no 953 song 3.1 >30 Boa 3 33a: Hosanna: no“ 3366 and yam—5.5m 9.300“. Isms confinowhmn no on ._HHB mam—fig: loam 8 8 .393 2d 83 DEER 5.5 1.3186 cons—EOE?” a 3.580- Inoo 8883.9 a 683966 EHROHHOEEI 8583.32 . RE. 83 3.595 Egg OHM—magnum: $55qu 8% .umaafipaooun.m wands . UCJCfiHCAUMVII .N mv Hfififflh 23 nuagymwn”maz:§_m>wmawaxmu a a m 333.: wamsaonw>um pmMHu8.waHuamn mwosu_aoum macaw Ifiomu zwmpahum_cqa aufiaon Henna: .uwummmndm gamma 3 8:828 9:35. mag ”Eng fig mpfiposfl S.“ wmonsom Una mama: mflwfinmpms_gamT 8332me .8 £855. awfimmc nonv0991wuawqmgol sfinwpano pmoo m>fip lownno an cmnsmame_woadenonumm1 €8.80 8 SE aofiaauanofinsv meansumm gen BOJT maumawnaszn HHwa Baa: honOGnowp 8382 egg oflmflmfimu .waahmwnfimqw muodeo -393 85 838 a a m 8 £395: pamsaopa>qm Havamoaoanowp wdfluawn mmoap_aphw muonHomU mmmpwuuw was moaaon hangar gofipfiumm .88 8E 3 88:8 3&5 sum. mmonsom _cqa mcoon mflwwnmpds_sah wndwqunUI qofipsnanpmfin Ho mamnqmgo magnum zanfimmw €88qu "Edam >237 Apomnong Ho mazzamavn5.mdfiufiooofi coafimud pnmeanuo 9: p33 wadqqgnw undunnom manuum .uofiuosuonn.cmauwuwwbw. mmonnsn Hammamwv mmoaoqnomu m>Hmamanl aofiuozuopm 5E Eggpoxg is Spafigbnunome .mflfiwuom ”5. “MW; .umsnfipaoouu.m manna 24 8.5 ..B 32: 0236 Ba 2035 aomfimn 288 33mg 838““ H3 papa. whouowm 9: ”:52me can mfipmxag fl 333593 32293 293E. £88m HSHEoB 3 «J83 68% 32293 gEoEmEu fins 953m :98 3 wfiumxnmzn E: 93 mo 32: 0% c5 28% 8&8 288 mfi>m28 838a 3388? .8908 30330503 5 £5036 32898 H833“. Rig fin: £53m :9: m“ 8.388: 3% 58 mp2: mfipmxng .83 2% 33.832 @288 8 3338.. A32“ 338." 38 ”58 Ba 8580. min: 32: gaming 5 gm: H9580 asawoaoqsoop 5 .33 pmoo 98 8.5985 033m fidfifim 8 933:3. H828 «Baum smfinfimm 3 “52:8. mququ .. RE. 83 52 Bug 8%.“: is 8:388. .3538 8% .umsnfiaqoonu.m mflnaa the and int r0] sys sex COI to GM ma1 1e1 for ca.- wO‘ wo r0 of re so di f0 in 3.8 25 the incumbent's personality, their perceived expectations and rewards, and the demands of the role set. Frequently, individuals are confronted with a situation in which their roles demand behavior which conflicts with their own value system (inter-person role conflict), with information sent to them by others in the role set (inter-sender role conflict), or with the demands other roles place on them (inter-role conflict). When an individual is subjected to sets of behavioral demands which are inconsistent with one another, he is said to experience role conflict. It may also happen that an individual lacks sufficient infor- mation regarding expected role behavior, performance levels, means of fulfilling known expectations,cnrrewards for successful completion of a desired task. In such cases, role ambiguity is said to exist. The presence of role ambiguity or conflict, then, would logically increase the probability that an individual would experience some degree of dissatisfaction with the role(s), in that he must spend time seeking clarification of behavioral expectations (reduce role ambiguity) or resolving the conflict he perceives to exist between two sources of role information (reduce role conflict). The dissatisfaction experienced may manifest itself in the form of physical or psychological stress, decreased Job interest or involvement, or decreased innovative behavior, as affected individuals begin to seek sources of 26 clarification and satisfaction (Miles, 1975; House & Rizzo, 1972; Ivancevich &Donne11y, 1972; Lyons, 1971; Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970; Kahn & Wolfe, 1964). The salience of role conflict and ambiguity, then, lies in their poten- tial to decrease individual performance through deleterious effects on the individual's attitudes, behavior, psycho- logical and physical well-being. The organization is in turn affected indirectly through resultant impacts on turnover, absenteeism, performance levels, anxiety, loyalty, trust, satisfaction, etc. The specific causes of the types of effects role ambiguity and conflict have on individuals' ability to adequately perform their var- ious roles have not been fully clarified by the research available to date, as the definitions of the ambiguity and conflict constructs, and the sites, subjects, and method- ologies have varied greatly (Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1976; Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970). The most extensive investigation of the dimensions of the role ambiguity and conflict constructs was con- ducted by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoeck and Rosenthal in 1964, in which the authors collected fifty-three indepen- dent measures from role senders, role incumbents, and organization environments in six firms, and followed up with a national survey which utilized self-report measures of perceived conflict and ambiguity, sent conflict and ambiguity and the organizational context of 725 individuals. 27 Kahn et al. reported that role conflict was associated with Job-related tension and dissatisfaction, and a variety of interpersonal outcomes, including lower levels of trust, liking, and respect for role senders. Incidents of role conflict were also found to be greater among those individuals whose roles involved contacts across organiza- tional boundaries, or a large number of contacts across departmental boundaries. An inverse relationship between closeness of supervision, and role conflict, and the stringency of rules governing behavior and role conflict was also observed. Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) found significantly negative correlations between three measures of job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and role conflict, and a positive relationship between per- ceived role conflict and experiences of tension and anxiety among 105 school superintendents and 508 school board mem- bers. In 1970, Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman used factor analysis to develop scales to measure the concepts of role ambiguity and conflict, then attempted to correlate the constructs with other variables. They found the scales tended to correlate negatively with measures of need ful- fillment and positively to anxiety and propensity to leave the organization. On an organizational level, goal con- flict and inconsistency, delay in decisions, distortion and suppression of information, and violation of chain of 28 command were closely associated with high degrees of role conflict and ambiguity. Low degrees of role conflict and ambiguity were in evidence where organizations emphasized formalization, planning, horizontal communication, adapta— bility to change, adequacy of authority, and personal pro- fessional development. These patterns tend to fit with what one would predict from role theory and previously discussed research. Tosi (1971) found role conflict to be directly related to Job threat and anxiety, and inversely related to job satisfaction. No significant relationship was found between these constructs and effectiveness. Repli— cation of the study by Hamner and Tosi (1974) used a dif- ferent sample, and produced much the same results, although the effectiveness measure was excluded. In addition, role conflict was found to be negatively related to amount of reported influence, and role ambiguity joined the rank with role conflict in a positive relationship with job threat and anxiety, and a negative relationship to job satisfac- tion and influence. Lyons (1971) investigated the moderating effects of need for clarity (the obverse of ambiguity) on the rela- tionships between role clarity and prOpensity to leave the organization, voluntary turnover, Job tension, and Job satisfaction of some 156 nurses in several community hos— pitals. Significantly stronger relationships existed 29 between role clarity and turnover for individuals classi- fied as high in need for clarity than for those classified as low on the same measure. Both Lyons (1971) and Ivan- cevich and Donnelly(l974) have shown that an individual's need for role clarity may moderate the relationships between role ambiguity and personal outcomes. House and Rizzo (1972) treated role conflict and ambiguity as intervening variables between potential sources of conflict and ambiguity and various personal outcomes. Their results provided weak support for the hypothesis that role conflict operates as an intervening variable between formal organizational practices and organizational effectiveness, respondent satisfaction, and propensity to leave. Role ambiguity did, however, inter- vene as expected. Both role ambiguity and role conflict appear to be important intervening variables which mediate the effects of various organizational practices on both personal and organizational outcomes. It is also evident that differ- ent types of people respond differently to role conflict and ambiguity. In an attempt to generate information on groups other than members of the relatively stable organi- zations used in prior research, Miles (1975) began to look at the effects of role ambiguity and conflict on 202 research and development engineers employed by government missile research laboratories. The results indicate that 30 the consequences of role conflict and ambiguity for R & D professionals are increased job-related tension and decreased job satisfaction. The constructs also contribute to a decrease of respect for and distrust of role senders. Role ambiguity accounted for decreases in participants' liking of the role sender and was significantly related to levels of perceived personal effectiveness as well. Role conflict was not significantly related to these two measures of personal outcomes. As the market and technological environments of an organization become more volatile, the need for adap— tive structures within the organization and the skill necessary for monitoring the significant external changes increases. Integrative, adaptive, and boundary-spanning activities to coordinate the total organizational effort become more influential in response. As the external environment becomes increasingly unpredictable, it would be reasonable to expect employees to experience more role ambiguity and conflict, especially those individuals who must deal directly with the uncertainties of the environ- ment beyond organizational boundaries. Given the definition of role conflict as incon- gruity or incompatibility of expectations regarding an individual's role enactment, and role ambiguity as a dis- crepancy between the role information available to an individual and the information deemed necessary for 31 successful performance in a role, what happens when we extend these concepts to an extra-organizational context? Individuals whose roles include a significant amount of interaction with members of the organization's external environment in addition to the contacts within the struc— ture have added potential sources of variance to their set of role expectations (Kahn et al., 1964). It is con- ceivable that the variety of demands placed upon an indi- vidual from within his own organization which produce conflict have common organizational objectives as their base. But when demands emanate from points external to the structure, it is much more likely that the intent of those behavioral requests is less than consistent with demands originating from within the organization itself (Manton, 1975). It is thus feasible that role conflict which is based on the inter vs. intra—organizational expectations cannot be significantly reduced (Walker, Churchill & Ford, 1975). Indeed, it may serve well to define the function of boundary-spanning activities (Katzsn Kahn, 1966) in terms of the role player's need to resolve the inherent conflict of environmental demands and resources availability with organizational needs and capacities. A study by Walker, Churchill and Ford (1975) found that perceived role conflict was significantly higher among field salesmen in ten companies, representing seven differ- ent industries, than their managerial counterparts, but 32 that the level decreased over time. This suggests that the amount and nature of an individual's training in the boundary-spanning functions may serve the organization well by indirectly increasing performance effectiveness through the training-generated decrease in levels of per- ceived ambiguity and conflict. In 1975, Manton collected data to support this notion in a study of the effects of boundary relevance on perceived ambiguity and conflict among the management force of an aerospace firm. Role conflict was positively and significantly correlated with boundary relevance (the degree to which one interfaces with the external environ- ment); role ambiguity was not. In his research, Manton included measures of the degree of contact respondents had with the external environment, the importance of the contacts, and the structure of the role set in terms of internal and external contacts, and found that as each of the factors measured increased, so did perceived role con- flict. Length in position was not checked as a potential moderator. Kahn et al. (1964) regard boundary-spanning posi- tions as being predisposed to role conflict, in that the person in the role must interact in a context in which he has no formal authority. In the analysis of a national sample, Kahn found that persons reporting high frequencies of inter-organizational boundary-spanning contacts 33 experienced significantly higher levels of conflict and job tension than persons reporting relatively little work-required extra-organizational contact. The same effects were observable among individuals reporting high levels of inter-organizational and interdepartmental contact. Boundary spanners are also identified as highly vulnerable to role conflict by Adams (1972), who concep- tualizes their position as a target of influence attempts from both within and beyond the organization's boundaries. Role conflict could easily result for those holding such "target" positions. Qgganizational Conformity and Clarity Several studies have found that organizational environments characterized by high levels of hierarchical control, highly specialized, narrowly defined task struc- tures, or strict rules orientation, tend to elicit low achievement motivation (McClelland, 1961), a high degree of conflict (Argyris, 1957), and low receptivity to change (Korman, 1971). By definition, then, an organization which must cope with rapidly changing external environments would be low on measures of organizational conformity, if, indeed, it was dealing successfully with its environmental demands. Receptivity to and ability to change are criti- cal to the survival of the organic organization (Tosi, 34 1976; Burns & Stalker, 1971; Perrow, 1970). Although veiled by considerable controversy, the flatness or tall- ness of an organization's structure may well serve to pro- duce the same kinds of dysfunctional behavior noted with hierarchical control (Porter & Lawler, 1974; Carpenter, 1971; Carzo & Yanousas, 1969; Porter & Siegel, 1965; Worthy, 1950; Richardson & Walker, 1948). While making a projection that tall organizations by nature may be char- acterized by high degrees of hierarchical control may be seriously questioned, research tends to support such pro— jections (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975; Ghiselli & Siegel, 1972; Jones, 1969; Porter & Siegel, 1965; Worthy, 1950). In a study of the relationship of organizational struc- ture to anxiety-stress, job satisfaction, and performance (Ivancevich & Donnelly, 1975), flat structure and a rela- tive absence of strictly enforced procedures (organiza- tional clarity for the individuals in the sample) corre- lated significantly with satisfaction and performance. Members of the taller, more bureaucratically inclined structure commonly complained of oversupervision by their superiors, describing this feature of their job as "restric- tive," "stifling," "constraining," and indicative of "lack of trust" (organizational conformity). These individuals also reported significantly greater amounts of anxiety, stress, and lower levels of both performance and satisfac- tion. Although it would be erroneous to conclude that 35 flatter organization structures are unequivocally superior to their medium and tall counterparts, we may project from such results as these that there are some distinct dif- ferences in the way people react to specific types of organization structure. Need for Independence In conjunction with the Kahn et al. (1964) and Lyons (1971) studies, the results reported by Johnson and Stinson (1975) indicate that the concepts of role ambiguity and role conflict should not be viewed as necessarily aversive states. It is possible that some individuals tolerate role conflict and ambiguity in such a fashion that their existence is either (1) not perceived as sig- nificant or (2) tolerated in such a manner that it does not interfere with the individual's reported levels of satis- faction or affect his performance on the job. In their extensive 1967 study of organizational structure, Lawrence and Lorsch speculated that managers in the high performing firms in both dynamic and stable environments had personality needs somewhat different from their less successful counterparts. Managers in the dynamic firm seemed to prefer greater levels of indepen- dence, and had considerably more tolerance for ambiguity than managers of firms operating in stable environments. Lawrence and Lorsch made no attempt to confirm these 36 observations, but reaffirmed the importance of the organi- zation's fitting not only the demands of the relevant environment, but also the needs of its members. Contin- gency theory thus suggests that there are individual characteristics which lend themselves to a superior per- formance which is systematically related to the state of the environmental situational variables (Tosi, 1976; Storey, 1974; Lyons, 1971; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Trow, 1957). Reason for the Study There is, as yet, little published research which tests contingency theory, although numerous studies have used it as a theoretical base. In spite of the methodo- logical questions which have been raised on the reported research, the concept of a contingency approach to the study of organizations seems inevitable, and its further examination and subsequent refinement warranted. This research is, in part, designed to examine the relation- ships between organizational structure and administration and individual and firm performance in a dynamic organi- zational environment. In connecting contingency theories of organiza— tional structure with theories of socialization and work orientation (Tosi, 1976; Presthus, 1965), interesting questions arise. An individual's early socialization 37 experiences are generally thought to provide a basis for the values, attitudes, aspirations, and expectations people bring with them to the workplace. Although the specific needs employment fills for individuals may vary widely, we may categorize general orientations to work as "profes— sional," "external," and "organizational" (Tosi, 1976; Presthus, 1965). Although this taxonomy suffers the limi— tations of any classification scheme, in using it as a theoretical base for discussion it might well be proposed that the proportion and location of individuals in dynamic organizations with particular orientations toward work will differ from what would be found in mechanistic organi- zations. If particular patterns of organization struc- ture and managerial style are more effective in eliciting high individual and organizational performance under dif- fering environmental circumstances, then are there char- acteristics of individuals which likewise correspond with high performance in a particular environmental setting? Are some people better suited to work in organic systems than in bureaucratic, and vice versa? A second purpose of this study is to examine the relationship of certain personality characteristics which may be related to higher levels of performance in dynamic organizations. An exploration of the "fit" between organi- zations, their environments and climates, and an indi- vidual's orientation to the working environment will 38 contribute to the understanding of the complex inter- relationships, and hopefully be of value to those attempt- ing to construct compensation systems, train managers, build organization structures and communication patterns, design jobs and performance feedback systems, and the like. What is needed at this point in time is research designed to determine personal characteristics most sig- nificantly related to performance in various combinations of organization and task structures (Morse & Lorsch, 1970). The purpose of this research, then, is to explore the relationship between selected personality character— istics and organizational climate, with individual and firm performance in dynamic organizations, and, secondly, to partially replicate the work of Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) in order to accumulate additional evidence of the relationship between organization structure and firm per- formance in volatile organizational environments. Research Objectives The specific objectives of this research are, then, to (1) test the validity of the dynamic cell of the structure-environment model as it relates to individual characteristics and their performance and (2) provide empirical validation for the relationship between organi- zational environment and appropriateness of organizational structure. 39 Hypotheses 0n the basis of current research literature, the following hypotheses were developed for empirical testing in an attempt to answer some of the basic questions theories of organizational structure raise. H1: The degree of organizational conformity perceived by high performing individuals in high performing firms in dynamic environments will be less than in low performing individuals in low performing organizations in the same environment. The degree of perceived organizational clarity among high performing individuals in high performing firms in dynamic environments will be greater than among low performing individuals in low performing firms in that environment. In dynamic environments, the perceived opportunity for incidents of role conflict and ambiguity will be higher in high performing firms than in low performing firms. Role conflict and ambiguity will be perceived as being higher in sections of the organization dealing most directly with the external environ- ment. High performing individuals in successful dynamic firms will a. be more tolerant of role conflict 40 be more tolerant of role ambiguity have a greater need for independence than will low performing individuals in unsuccess- ful firms in the same environment. CHAPTER II INSERT TAB "A" INTO SLOT "B" WHILE TWISTING "X" WITH LATERAL FORCE OF INDEX FINGER AND . . . METHODOLOGY Selection of Industry, Firm, and Subjects In order to assess the volatility of organizational/ industrial environments, we begin by looking at the char- acteristics of such environments identified by the researchers who developed contingency theories of organi- zational structure. The relevant environment of any given organiza- tion is composed of those groups, individuals, and other organizations existing beyond the boundaries of the organi- zation, which directly provide input, consume output, or exert significant pressure on the decisions and, thereby, on the functioning of that organization. The market and technological environments within which an organization exists are posited to explain the largest amount of vari- ance observed in organizational structure (Tosi & Carroll, 1976). Market environments may vary along several dimen- sions, including the timing, source, location, duration, 41 42 and intensity of demand for specific product or service physical and performance characteristics. The structure of an organization's technologi- cal environment will dictate the tools and techniques available for the organization's use in its production subsystem processes. Technology includes not only the specific technological instruments or machines used, but also their method of application in the production pro- cesses as well. The timing and magnitude of change taking place in these environments is important in determining the appropriateness of a particular organizational structure (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) in a volatile environment, change is rapid, intense, and relatively unpredictable. The type of customer, or the demand structure of a consumer group, may change significantly in a short time period. Levels of demand may vary widely. When technology is volatile, new techniques and applications are rapidly generated and affect the methods of production and the basic character of the product itself. An a priori estimate of the environmental vola— tility of a series of industries was made, from which the non-destructive testing equipment (NDT) industry was chosen for study. Non-destructive testing is a major method of materials evaluation which includes ultrasonic, Eddy current, magnetic particle, X-ray and gamma 43 radiography, and penetrant testing. Industries using NDT methods include nuclear power, chemical, petroleum, aero- space, and automotive. The materials evaluation field has experienced phenomenal growth in the past decade, developing from an infant industry to a $200,000,000 per year business, of which NDT is a large part. In order to validate the a priori volatility assumption, an expert panel of five active participants in the non-destructive testing field was assembled and portions of the Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) environmental characteristics questionnaire (Appendix A) were adminis- tered to the panel. Responses reinforced the validity of the initial a priori estimate by coinciding with the char- acteristics noted in the Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) research and similar studies, as indicative of environ- mental volatility. The panel then was asked to generate a list of non-destructive testing equipment design and manufacturing firms and to evaluate the performance of each firm. No evaluative criteria were outlined; the panel was to gener- ate its own. Each member of the panel had been working in the NDT field a minimum of ten years, and was in no way affiliated with any of the firms chosen for partici- pation in the study. Panelists were members of firms that used NDT equipment, and most had run comparison tests of the performance of various manufacturers' equipment. 44 Members were all in positions to make final purchase decisions about the NDT equipment their firm used. The panel evaluated firms primarily on the basis of product performance in use. Product dependability, workmanship, and quality of local representation were secondary criteria in the decision process. Firms unani- mously elected as "successful" (3) and "unsuccessful" (l) were selected from the panel's list and were asked to participate in the study. The cooperation of three firms was achieved. Orion and Tiresius were both classified as highly "successful," and Mercutio was deemed "unsuccessful" in the panel's judgment. Table 3 provides a brief comparison of the char- acteristics of each of the three firms. Instrument Construction Climate The climate dimension included measures of organi- zational conformity (constraining aspects of organizational structure) and organizational clarity (positive aspects of structure). The items used to measure these constructs were drawn from Litwin and Meyer (1968). Scale reliabili- ties were not reported in the original study. The four-item scale used to measure organizational conformity (a = .51) included the statements: 45 Table 3.—-0rganization specifications. Smxflfnxuflon 0rflx1 Tinxfius Mamnmio Rathg: :amneafihl smuxssfifl. InEMbaamflul Sta; 43 21 104 loandon nudmxn nudmfim ewm:cmu¢ Chmmmship privately held privately held publicly held lhdor aflHyo ovum oma bmH a s o $H.mm mmmuw>m mm. mmH sea soH $m.®m OH ow on VOH OfiHflOHOS $0.00H N mH HN HN wflfimmhwfi $m.mm m on «v av qofiuo a auspmm Haas aa> mean no mufim no H8909 connspom a nounspom u copsnfiupwfin h mufim Sham sham .mmudn canyon "sofipsnfiuumflv onfidsqofipmoaell.w wands 54 more professional seminars each year, while 40% held at least a bachelor's degree. The high performing firms had three structural levels in their organizations, devoting 26.3% of their manpower to applied research and 38.6% of their total manpower to manufacturing operations. The lower performing firm's employees averaged 40.46 years in age and had been with the organization 8.35 years. The average individual had been in the non- destructive testing field 12.13 years, and had spent 5.6 years in his current position. Eighty-five percent of the firm's employees earned under $20,000 per year, and some 73% experienced salary increases of less than 10% per year over the past five years. Fifty-six percent of the low performing firm's members were male (n = 52). Ninety-three percent attended three or fewer professional development activities per year, and some 83.3% of the sample did not complete an undergradu— ate college education. The low performing firm was reported to have three to six structural levels (the variance of response to this item was high), devoted 5.4% of its manpower to applied research, and 55.9% of its human resources to manufactur- ing functions. Summaries (If these comparative data may be found in Tables 5 and 6. 55 63:83 H88 E m 3. m Hum m Ham H92 H8033 ... I . .. . 6888.3 83338 ... H H 3 H s H H H H 338de I . . HHEEHEJH>HQGHW ... H H ms H oIH H .8 m H.555 326% .. mIH EoHvVH HEH 8H 96?: 8H H92 EH3 I . I . gQfiZMGQ 3H H mm 3H a 3m 63285339... mmIH H. mH.mH 8H m and 335 H: was» ... 8H m 8.8 mHIH H 3. .8880 55 was» ... 81H 3:8 3.3 HNIH 91: 6H2 8m 8.2 8 3.8. 2.12 3 8.9 mac .. mafia 80: M 3:3 98: M 33 33 82336 QBHEEDVHXHHQEBSENUBHEO .audp Hanomnmq no mnsoawnsw manadm mo comHHwQEOOII.m wands 56 Table 6.--Comparison of sample subgroups by percentage of workforce by functional areas. Organizational Performance Functional Area High Low Purchasing 5.3% 6.5% Marketing 5.3% 5.4% * Applied Research 26.3% 5.4% Exploratory Research 1.8% 2.2% * Manufacturing 38.6% 55.9% Clerical 12.3% 11.8% Administrative 5.3% 6.5% Responses to Environmental Demands Instrument The president and the subordinates he identified as critical to the operation of the firm were asked to complete the "Measures of Environmental Demands" question- naire. (See Appendix A.) Responses were compared to each other and to the remarks made by the panel of non- destructive testing experts to see whether respondents' perceptions were consistent with one another. Following is a summary of pooled results. Where significant depar- tures from predominant opinions occurred, they are noted. On what basis does a customer evaluate and choose between competing suppliers in the NDT industry? The ability to solve customer problems through meeting specific test requirements was the most frequently 57 cited basis for consumer purchase decisions. Other items included were reliability and flexibility of product, quality, service, and the reputation a firm had estab- lished via consumers' experience with the product line. What, in order of criticalness and difficulty of achieving effective resolution, are the major problems an organization encounters when compet- ing in the NDT industry? Maintaining corporate technical capacity, low volume production, keeping up with change without "over- reacting," keeping track of customer needs and demands, finding and keeping technically competent personnel, edu- cating consumers in product use and applications, procure- ment scheduling, inventory control, keeping in contact with customer needs at the critical time, and meeting the competition were all included in responses to this item. The most pressing problems were perceived to be maintaining the technical capacity of the firm and keeping up with changes in consumer demands. How important is each functional area in deter- mining final product characteristics? Firms all agreed that the standards set by the market had to be integrated into the manufacture of an NDT product, and it was up to the engineering/design people to operationalize the needs communicated to them by the sales force. "Consumer needs affect . . . [product design] almost 100%." 58 Have there been any significant changes in the market or technological conditions of the NDT industry in the past ten years? Interestingly, there was a resounding affirmative response to this question by all respondents, except a single, but very high level official of Mercutio (the low performing firm), who perceived the environments to be "slowly but steadily growing." All others cited continuous changes in both the market and technological environments of their firm. Rapid advancements in technology, both in terms of the tools of the trade (acoustic emission, gamma radiography, lasers, etc.), and the techniques of applica- tion were noted as well as "continuous changes in markets and levels of customer sophistication." To what extent have there been major modifications in the following activities in your firm over the past ten years? Product line: Both Tiresius and Orion (the high performing firms) indicated complete changeover in their product lines, with the continuous addition of newly developed instruments. Mercutio, on the other hand, quite consistently responded that changes in their product line had only been minimal--"a couple" new designs had emerged, but there had really been "little change." Marketing techniques: Consistent responses among the Orion and Tiresius respondents reflected significant changes involving "major revamps" in the operation of their marketing forces. Similar changes were indicated 59 in a majority of the responses from Mercutio, but, here again, the same high level manager of the firm indicated that "no change" had taken place in the marketing tech- niques of the firm. Manufacturing facilities: Again, both Tiresius and Orion noted "vast improvements" and "greatly increased sophistication" in their manufacturing facilities, while Mercutio registered a resounding "not much" to inquiries about recent changes in their manufacturing facilities. Within all three firms, opinions were unanimous. Amount and direction of research effort: Orion and Tiresius noted that research had been given considerable attention in their firm from the corporation's birth, and their investments in these efforts continued to grow with the firm. Orion indicated that research efforts had doubled in the past four years. Mercutio again provided contrast in their indication of the increased accountabil- ity and "return on investment orientation" of their research expenditures. All respondents agreed that research efforts at Mercutio had "reduced considerably in recent years." Personnel: Orion and Tiresius reported "greatly increased" standards for their personnel from a level which was "high . . . to begin with." The technical skills of the firms were noted as "advancing" and "continually being up-graded," while Mercutio registered mixed responses to an inquiry of changes in the background, training, and 60 technical skills of their personnel. Responses varied from "no major changes" to "upgrading of personnel is one of our key objectives." The following series of questions attempted to assess the impact of environmental volatility on various functional areas of the organizations. Being that responses were coded numerically on a one-seven scale, the mean response will be presented for each firm's response set. How clearly stated are the job requirements in each of the following functional areas? (1 = very clear, 7 = not at all clear): Orion Tiresius Mercutio Research 5.20 3.50 2.65 Manufacturing 3.00 3.61 3.50 Marketing 2.40 2.89 2.25 How difficult is it for each functional area to complete its assigned tasks, given the limitations of the technical and economic resources which are available to it? (1 = little difficulty, 7 = extremely difficult): Orion Tiresius Mercutio X X X Product Development 3.80 4.00 5.25 Manufacturing 3.60 3.50 4.50 Selling 3.60 3.50 4.596 Which time frame most nearly describes the typical length of time involved before feedback is avail- able to each functional area concerning the success of its job performance? 61 Onkx1 Tinxfius Memnudo i Mode 3? Mode 3? Mode Research 5 RI). X 4.5 HD. 1 Yr. 11 III). 6 mo. Mmmdhchnfing l.mo. )( £3vms. 1 mo. 2J5wks. l.mo. Maflmndng Sawks. 1.WK. 5IKL l.mo. 6*MKL X The following questions were related to organiza- tional structure. Again, responses will be pooled unless significant deviation from the norm is in evidence. What is the average span of control for managers? This question was misinterpreted by a great major- ity of the respondents; therefore, no results are reported. How much time elapses between reviews of depart- mental performance? Responses ranged from "weekly" to "yearly," with no real consensus being reached within any single firm, although it appears that all used monthly reviews in some departments, and annual reviews in others, accounting for the apparent diversity of opinion both across and within individual respondents. How specific are departmental performance reviews? Tiresius consistently reported general oral reviews for its employees, while Orion used both general oral and general written reviews. Mercutio recorded an equal number of references to general oral reviews and detailed statis- tical reviews. 62 How important are the department's formal rules? Tiresius and Orion both indicated that rules existed only on minor, routine procedures. The modal response in Mercutio described the organization as main- taining comprehensive rules on its routine procedures. How are performance evaluations conducted? Tiresius reported that no formal evaluation took place in its operations, while Orion reflected some degree of discrepancy regarding the conduct of performance evalua— tions. The same lack of consensus was indicative of Mercutio's responses to this item. How many structural levels are there in this organization? The presidents and critical subordinates of all firms indicated the existence of some two to six struc- tural levels in their organizations. Tiresius indicated three, Orion, on the average, indicated four, and Mercutio, from a range of three to six, had a modal response of four. How long has this firm been in operation? Orion -— ten years Tiresius -- twenty years Mercutio -- fifty years What was the average pay raise received by profes- sional personnel employed at this firm last year, in dollars? 63 The mean reSponse made by Mercutio's reSpondents was $1200. Orion recorded a $950 increase in professional salaries, and Tiresius averaged a response of $1370. How many employees left the firm last year? Tiresius lost three employees in one year (total employment = twenty-one), Orion lost approximately seven workers (from a total staff of forty-two), and Mercutio's reports averaged to a total turnover of ten individuals, although an unusual amount of discrepancy existed in each person's estimate. The range of responses was from a mini— mum of one to a maximum of twenty-one from a total manpower level of 128. What are the dominant competitive issues facing this firm? The general theme of keeping abreast of market and technological changes dominated response to this inquiry, including concerns of increased domestic and the potential entrance of new foreign competition. Mercutio expressed a concern for capturing a larger market share so the "effi- ciencies of greater volume" could accrue1x>the firm. The overall performance of this organization should be rated as % of ideal. Orion estimated their overall performance to be 85% of its potential, Tiresius ranked at 76%, and Mercutio esti- mated their performance at 79% of ideal. The trend of organizational performance over the last six years indicated a near doubling on all measures 64 (sales, before-tax profits, return on investment before tax) in Orion and Tiresius. Mercutio, as expected, indi- cated some serious difficulties on these fronts, reporting all measures substantially below the 1970 base rate (per— formance indicators ranged from 5 to 75% of the 1970 base). SubscalglResponse Patterns and Reliabilities Response levels for each of the constructs used as dependent variables are reported in addition to scale reliabilities. Two reliability coefficients were computed: Cronbach's alpha (a) and a standardized item alpha (as). The standardized item alpha is closely related to alpha. Standardized item alpha standardizes the observa— tions on each item by dividing item observations by the items' standard deviation. The computational formula is (”£33 _ l + (k-l)r , where E is the average correlation between items. For two-item scales, standardized item alpha is equivalent to the standard Spearman-Brown split-half coefficient. Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Organi- zational Conformity Scale The lowest response level on the four-item organi- zational conformity scale was 140 of a total sample of 150. The average number of respondents was 141.5 per item. On 65 a listwise deletion option, the total number of responses used in the calculation of the scale reliabilities was 130. The alpha level was reported at .507; standardized item alpha was .511. Scale standard deviation was calcu- lated at 3.730. Means and standard deviations for item responses are listed in Table 7, item intercorrelations appear in Table 8, and the correlations of the organiza- tional conformity measure with other scales used in the research are combined in Table 15. Table 7.--Item response levels, means, and standard devia- tions for organizational clarity and organizational con- formity subscales. Item N (of 150) 'X a orgafiiiiii§nal 1 140 4.843 1.395 2 143 4.161 1.613 3 143 4.427 1.705 4 141 3.809 1.800 5 131 4.404 1.656 ‘2 = 141.60 orgggigigigsal 1 142 5.169 1.429 2 142 4.282 1.527 3 142 4.592 1.581 4 149 4.479 1.611 ‘E = 141.50 66 Table 8.--Inter-item correlation matrix for organizational conformity scale. Organizational Organizational Conformity Item Conformity Item 1 2 3 4 1 __ 2 .28453 -- 3 .26146 .02855 —- 4 .18718 .38739 .09577 —- Response Patterns and Relia- bilities for Organizational Clarity Scale The mean response rate for the five-item organiza- tional clarity scale was 141.6, with no item response level lower than 140 nor higher than 143. Listwise deletion brought the total number of cases to 130 for computation of the scale reliability. Cronbach's alpha registered .705, and the standardized item alpha registered a relia- bility of .706. Item means, standard deviations, and response levels are reported in Table 7, item intercorre- lations in Table 9, and correlations between the organiza- tional clarity measure and other scales used in the research appear in Table 15. Total scale standard deviation equaled 5.485. 67 Table 9.—-Inter-item correlation matrix for organizational clarity scale. Organizational Organizational Clarity Item Clarity Item 1 2 3 4 5 1 -_ 2 .48599 -- 3 .18277 .23767 -- 4 .13865 .14455 .51693 -- 5 .37518 .39255 .44994 .32569 -- Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Role Conflict Scale A minimum of 135 subjects responded to the sixteen- item role conflict scale, with a mean response rate of 143.25 per item. Listwise deletion for non-response to an item reduced the total number of subject inclusions to seventy-two for computation of scale reliabilities. The reliability coefficient alpha was .725, and the standard- ized item alpha equaled .722. Item means, standard devia- tions, and response levels appear in Table 10, item inter- correlations in Table 11, and the Pearson r—score of the conflict scale with other scales used in the research may be found in Table 15. Totaled across the scale, the stan- dard deviation equaled 12.203. Table 10.—-Item response levels, means, and standard 68 deviations for role conflict and role ambiguity subscales. Item N (of 150) X' 0 Conflict l 146 3.171 1.637 5 147 3.007 1.964 9 147 2.469 1.473 13 147 4.361 2.251 17 146 3.377 1.816 21 147 4.313 1.940 25 147 3.565 2.014 27 147 2.463 1.623 i = 143.25 Conflict Tolerance 2 135 3.363 1.637 6 140 3.093 1.892 10 140 3.150 1.787 14 140 4.214 1.918 18 141 3.014 1.769 22 140 3.207 1.580 26 141 2.986 1.805 28 141 2.716 1.917 31' = 139.75 Ambiguity 3 147 4.912 1.919 7 147 4.585 1.912 11 146 5.096 1.515 15 147 6.048 1.316 19 147 5.510 1.559 23 147 4.993 1.698 X = 143.66. Ambiguity Tolerance 4 142 4.655 1.979 8 140 4.671 1.969 12 140 5.050 1.629 16 141 5.709 1.709 20 140 5.364 1.760 24 140 4.979 1.879 f = 140.50 69 I 281. «88. 88H: 888. 868. 28¢. 88... 888. 8:6. 8H8. £88.- 83.. 986. 888. 62.8. . 8 I 982.. SSH. «$8.- 88H. 888.- 82. 868. 28H. 88.. 28H. «H86... 8H3. ENS. 8.8m. R I 85.- H88. H88: 88». 89H... 82.“. 886.- H88. 688.- 82.... H88. 888. $68.- 8 I 88H: 988. 8th.- 258. «82.. 88m. 988. 888. 88H: 88». 88H; «88. 8 I 88o 88v g 88m 88.. 88m. 886 838 58 83» >88 8 I 8H8. 88¢. H88. H83. 82H. 83. 8.8.- 688. 888. £88. Ha I 88H... 82m. 688. :89- 8H2: g. 82.6. 888. H88. 2 . | 28°. 886. 38.. 88c. «88. 3.2. «2.8.- 88H. 8H I 88¢ 88» 8:6 688. 886 868 «82 «H I 288 H88 8.8. H88 683 «88 «H I «88f H89. 8H8. «H81 «3.8. 2 I 288 88a. .88 88a 6 I 8.8. 8H8 98H m I 88H 86:. m. I ovHHo. « I H 8 R 8 8 8 Hu 3 2 «H «H I S a o ... a H .258 ... 83 8:38 8:38 .oHuon uownunoo oHou nan saunas nodaduouuoo aovHIuounHII.HH Ounce 70 Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Role Ambiguity Scale Between 140 and 147 subjects responded to items in the role ambiguity scale. Again, listwise deletion of a case when a single item was left blank by respondents brought the number of cases included in the reliability calculations down to seventy-two. Alpha was reported at the .835 level, and the standardized item alpha was .841. The mean level of response was 143.66 of the 150 subjects in the study. More detailed item statistics appear in Tables 10, 12, and 15. The total scale standard deviation on a twelve-item base was 12.072. Response Patterns and Reliabilities for Need for Independence Scale Response rates ranged from 144 to 148 on the need for independence subscale. The standard deviation of the total scale was 2.597 on the three items. Cronbach's alpha registered at .392, and a standardized item alpha of .388 was calculated. A summary of item and scale statistics may be found in Tables 13, 14, and 16. Scale Statistics Summaries of scale statistics appear in Tables 15 and 16. Response levels on items were generally high, and reliabilities, except in the case of the need for independence scale, were deemed acceptable. Unless 71 I 88m. 88m. 8H8. mums. 38H. «88. H82. H53. 888. 38¢. «88. «a I 688. H58. H88. «88. $88. n88. 89m. H85. 3H8. 6.88. an I 63.8. in. 883. 688. 82m. 588. was. $8»... 868. on I 88."... 2.86. 38H. «.88. 3H8. 88m. H88. H82. mH I 88.... 388. .688. 2.86. .888. 688. 3&8. 6H I 83H. «85. 6H8“. 88m. 888. 88». B I 8H3. 888. 88H. 88.. 88H. «H I 88H. n88. E8. 488. HH I 886. «83. 880. m I mHHmm. 8H8. H. I 988. H. I m 3 mm 8 2 6H mH NH HH m H. H. m 458; .4 89: 3835.5 5939.8 .oHaom thsmHnsd oHou new xwuuda aoHaaHoAnoo anHIumpnnII.NH oHnaB 72 Table 13.--Item response levels, means, and standard deviations for need for independence subscale. Neggnggrligge en- N (of 150) X’ a 1 144 4.038 1.271 2 148 3.750 1.329 3 145 4.579 1.540 §'= 145.66 Table l4.--Inter-item correlation matrix for need for independence scale. Need for Indepen- Need for Independence Item # dence Item # 1 2 3 1 __ 2 .04549 -- 3 .17822 .30027 -- 73 .mpHHdHo no aoHHmcoo mo 0H0>0H ann 0pdoHouH 00Hoom ana .ma0wH mpHndHo Hanodeuaswmno cud poaawsoo 0Hon 05¢ no 0HHnB .thstnSd 30H m0deHosH 080pH hpfismHDEd 0Hon no 09000 ann d ..0.H M0>prw0s haasspow 0H uoHp I0H0Hnoo 0gp .mE0pH thstnad 0Hos 0:» yo wsfionos 0:» mo 0nzpas 0s» 09 05¢ a .0osdonHsmHm m.soHudH0HHoo 0:9 «0 phon0u s was po0H0Hum0oo sodeH0uHoo nomna0m a m0osHonH 0Hnsp 0:» :H hauo0 nodm .00000 omH mo MHmdn 0gp no 00955800 0903 mpc0Honw0oo sodeH0HHoo HH¢8 .Hoo. w 9* . . . . Qzfifisflfiaam II QQXVI I I I abuHmmz II . . . haunzaafiu *owmm *mva mmcH HHaNH m II . . hfifiafio .fwnmm Hsmo stfiemwuamgo II QQQX% mfiflmfiafiw II abdnflsc 883885 355880 3936 .Hom 0002 38385530 HdooH was 53383 8903.200 0 Qdfiw .msoHusH0nnoo 0H800In0puHII.mH 0Hnae 74 Table 16.--Sca1e reliabilities. Scale 03 ash N Items N Casesc Organizational Conformity .50718 .51152 4 130 Organizational Clarity .70572 .70652 5 130 Role Conflict .72533 .72232 16 72 Role Ambiguity .83592 .84121 12 72 Need for Independence .39293 .38833 3 72 aCronbach's alpha. bStandardized item alpha. cListwise deletion. otherwise indicated, scales used in subsequent analyses included all items listed in the scale data presented in the preceding tables. No items were dropped for purposes of increasing scale reliabilities; all were manipulated in units similar to those proposed by the originators of the various measures. Ratingson Individual Performance During interviews with each firm's president, lists of corporate employees were coded with ratings of individuals' performance. Each president was informed that employees were to be rated on a scale from one to 75 five, one being indicative of superior performance, three indicating average performance, and five being well below average or unacceptable performance levels. Mercutio's ratings resulted in ten individuals with superior ratings, twenty-four people were above average, twenty-three were cited as average performers, twenty-two were classified as below average, and fourteen individuals received unacceptable performance ratings, from a total sample of ninety-three. The ratings approximate a normal distribu- tion with a decidedly negative kurtosis. No specific parameters were set for those making the performance assessments. Any portion of the scale could be used, and each ranking could be used an unlimited number of times. Although given the same instructions, Tiresius and Orion's performance ratings followed a much different pattern. In the two firms combined, nineteen individuals were ranked superior (nearly quadruple the number so ranked by Mercutio on a per capita basis), twenty-eight were noted as above average, and ten were cited as average per- formers. No employees of either Tiresius or Orion were ranked below average or unacceptable. The distribution resulting from their rankings approximates a normal dis— tribution on a kurtosis criterion, but failed when evalua- ted in terms of mean, standard deviation, and skewness on the five-point scale basis. 76 The distinct inconsistency between the individual performance rankings submitted by the two subgroups of the sample posed difficult problems in terms of the analytical design originally proposed. Analysis of variance attempts to account for levels of a dependent variable across cate- gories of an independent variable. In this particular instance, the analysis was designed to locate variance in values of organizational clarity, conformity, and role con- flict and ambiguity across levels of individual performance within an organizational performance subgroup (as depicted in Figure 6), and across levels of organizational perfor- mance within the confines of a particular level of indi- vidual performance (as pictured in Figure 7). This is the basic function of analysis of variance, and it operates quite smoothly over a variety of circumstances, including designs in which an unequal number of cases fall in each cell of the matrix. Factorial designs with unequal cell frequencies are quite common in behavioral research. Distinct problems arise, however, when one or more cells in the matrix are void. Analysis of variance is a technique which attempts to account for variation in measures of a dependent variable. Regardless 0f the amount of variance accounted for by the dependent variable to that point, empty cells cause this explained variance to be considered unexplained. This results in high levels of error variance in the analysis, and a paucity of 77 Individual Performance l 2 3 4 5 1 ------ I --------- h ------- I ---------- 9 Organizational cell 1 2 3 4 cell 5 Performance L 2 ----------------------- q --------- I--> cell 6 7 8 9 cell 10 Figure 6.--Analysis of variance: predicting levels of individual performance within organizational performance. Individual Performance 1 2 3 4 5 1 I I I I I grganizational cellIl b I3 :4 cell 5 erformance : I I I I 2 v \V V’ VI ‘V cell 6 7 8 9 cell 10 Figure 7.--Analysis of variance: predicting levels of organizational performance within individual performance. 78 variance then appears to be explained by the dependent variable. Collapsing the two by five design to the two by three design dictated by the research hypotheses offered no respite from the dilemma. Combining individual per- formance levels into "above average," "average," and "below average" categories still left a cell unoccupied by any measure of the various dependent variables. (See Figure 8.) If, indeed, data did fall into the empty cell, the analy- sis may well have resulted in tests with acceptable levels of significance. Individual Performance 1,2 3 4,5 9’ Organizational 1 cell 1 2 ;;<;//4: Performance 1259565? 2 cell 4 5 cell 6 Figure 8.--Analysis of variance: collapsing a 2 x 5 factorial design to a 2 x 3 design. 79 Standardized Splits in Individual PerformanCe Ratings In order to combat the problems posed by the occur- rence of two empty cells on the independent variable com- binations which formed the analysis of variance matrix, individual performance scores were standardized within firms. Mean scores for each firm's scale were set equal to fifty, scores one standard deviation above the mean were assigned a value of sixty, and scores one standard deviation below the mean assigned a value of forty. This resulted in the split by organizational subgroups noted in Table 17. A somewhat more normal distribution was thus imposed on the individual performance ratings of Orion and Tiresius in order to render an analysis of variance design operable. The solution, then, put in terms of the research hypotheses, resulted in a tripartite split on individual performance scores, with interaction effects of the two independent variables, organizational and individual per- formance, predicted on the various dependent variables, organizational conformity and clarity, role conflict and ambiguity, and need for independence.~ (See Figure 9.) 80 Table l7.--Standardized split of individual performance ratings. Individual Performance Above Below Average Average Average High performing = firms 19 28 10 N 57 Low performing = firm 34 23 36 N 93 Individual Performance (High) (LOW) Orion Tiresius } 1 2 3 Mercutio } 1:2 3 4;5 Organizational (High) 1 cell 1 cell 2 Performance (Low) 2 cell 3 cell 4 Figure 9.--Analysis of variance: predicted interaction effects in cells one and four using a tri- partite split on individual performance. 81 Results Related to Hypothesis One Evidence relevant to the examination of Hypothesis One was provided by a two by two factorial analysis of variance, treating organizational conformity as the depen- dent variable, and individual and organizational perfor- mance as the independent variables. Two levels of firm and individual performance were examined in a fixed effects model. Hypothesis One proposed a significant interaction effect on the extremes of both performance measures; 1.9., the degree of perceived organizational conformity among high performing individuals in high per- forming firms would be less than the amount perceived by low performing individuals in low performing firms in dynamic environments. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 18. The F-statistic for the interaction effect of the two independent variables was .003, at a .959 level of significance. Organizational performance had a main effect at F = 3.197 and a corresponding .077 significance level. Individual performance contributed little to the amount of explained variance. Results Related to Hypothesis Two The second research question investigated in this study hypothesized an interaction effect of individual and organizational performance on the dependent variable, organizational clarity. As the results listed in Table 19 82 mmH.N vm H®N.Nom Hasonom po.H omm.m m o¢0.HH uostHaxm . . . moacanomnma stuH>HuoH moo moo H moo x HwaodeNHadmno woo. woo. H moo. ooHpodnouaH mwaloae wHH.H mmm.m H wmm.m moacEHOHHmQ HdsoH>HooH *bmH.m mum.® H mbw.m moodahoHuma HaooHpaNHnamno *vmm.m me.m N mmo.HH mpoommo :Has ondsdm souooam monasum m saw: no mwmuwmn no 85m :odeHnd> no monsom .apHEHOHQOU HaaodeNHadwno Uo>HoOHmQ How mHnda mondHnd> no mHmdend “moo memnponzmll.wH mHnde 83 wwH.m vm mwm.Hom HssuHmom emu. mom. m mom.H noaHaanm . . . wondahompon HdsoH>HunH «so mmH H mmH x HanoHpauHaamno «so. mmH. H mmH. :oHHoanmpaH saauose sHo. mam.H H mum.H monasnomumd HasoH>Hu=H Hoo. Hoo. H Hoo. moodEhownwa HanodeNHadwho mHm. sso. m «mm.H mgommmm aHas muwsv 30 con woudsu h macaw mo mwmumma mo Bum :ondHnw> Ho monsom .mpHudHo quoHucNanmno om>Hmouog HOH mHndp mondHud> Ho memHmss ”039 mHmonHOQAMII.mH mHndB 84 indicate, the F-value for this effect was .072 at a sig- nificance level of .789. The main effects of organiza- tional performance and individual performance on organizational clarity resulted in F-ratios of .001 and .617, respectively, at .982 and .434 levels of signifi- cance . Results Related to Hypothesis Three A one-way analysis of variance to test the effects of firm performance on perceptions of role con- flict and role ambiguity rendered no significant differ- ences in levels of felt role conflict across levels of firm performance, but did uncover differences in felt role ambiguity significant at the .038 level. A Scheffé test for homogeneity of subgroups within the sample tested produced a mean of 4.8894 for individuals in high performing firms, and a mean of 5.2421 for individuals in low performing firms (Tables 20 and 21). Results Related to Hypothesis Four The predicted effects of boundary relevance on levels of perceived role ambiguity and perceived role conflict were marginally supported. An F-value of 2.145 at a .145 significance level tended toward support for the role conflict portion of the hypothesis, although we can certainly not be definitive in treatment of this hypothesis as substantially supported by the empirical 85 mmms.m n saws N asouo mosm.m u some H macaw H pmmnsm vm.m n Hm>mH OH. HO“ momndm mummnsm mo thoswwoaon no“ umop wmmonom . moms. wwH mmmm.ms mason» aanHs Hmv. ssv. mwmm. H menu. masonw smokpmm m no ondsvm Eocmmnm mondsum monaonHomHm m use: Ho momuwon no 85m :odeHnd> Ho monsom .poHHmaoo oHon oo>Hmouon now oHnap mosdHHd> Ho mHthmnw “mouse mHmmnponmm|l.ow mHnsB 86 HNVN.m u some @5090 vmww.¢ u some macaw N pomnsm H ummnsm vm.N u Ho>0H 0H. mom mowadm mpomnsm no thoqmmoson non pump wmmmnom msoo.H wvH NmmH.mvH masonm :HspHB mmo. Hom.v Hamm.¢ H Humm.v museum nmmabmm h no mnasdm Soooonm monasum moadonHsmHm m mam: mo momnwoa Ho 85m :OprHnw> Ho mousom .thstnEd oHou um>Hmoth .Hom mHnda mondHnd> mo mHmqunm “moans meonpon>MIl.HN oHQdB 87 evidence. For the role ambiguity-boundary relevance relationship, an F-ratio of 2.593 produced a significance level of .110 (Tables 22 and 23). Results Related to Hypothesis Five The hypothesized relationships between individual performance, tolerance of role ambiguity, and tolerance of role conflict produced F-values of .209 and .132 in the data analysis. Significance levels were .649 and .717, respectively (Tables 24 and 25). A one-way analysis of variance on the need for independence measure across indi- vidual performance levels produced an F-ratio of 2.756, significant at the .100 level (Table 26). 88 mmmm.m u some N macaw Nwwo.m u name H @5090 H pmmnam wm.N u Hm>mH oH. Hon mmmncm mpomnsm no apHoaomoaon now wmop wmmonom mHv¢. NNH momm. museum :anHB mvH. mvH.N Hsvm. H Hsvm. mason» amospom m mo muwsum aoummhm mmndsum moacoHHHame m saw: no moonwon no 85m nodeHHw> mo monsom .QHsmsodeHoh mosd>onn unaoq509190HHmooo cHou you oHndp ooquna> no mHmszaa mason mHmmnHOQNMII.NN oanB 89 mmmv.m u mama N @5090 mwmo.m u some H macho H Homnsm vm.N u Ho>oH oH. 90m mowadm muomnsm Ho thmnomoson How pmmp mammaom mmm0.H NNH ¢mwN.svH masonm anpHB oHH. mam.N msvs.m H msss.m mdsoam ammapmm m mo onusvm Eocmmnm moncsum wondOHHHame m use: no mooummn no 85m :onana> mo condom .anmaodeHmh mosd>mHmh znwuszonlmpstHnEw mHon How mHde mostnc> no mHmmead ”anon mHmmnponhMIl.mN mHndB 90 mmHm.m n name N macaw Ova.m u some H macaw H pmmnsm mm.N n Hm>cH OH. Hon mmwaam mummnsm mo mpHmaomoson How pmmp Wmuwnom mmmO.H mm mmvw.mm museum aanHB 5H5. NmH. mme. H mmmH. mnsoum noospom m Ho oudsum aooooum mmudsum wonwOHHHanm m saw: no moonwon no saw :odeHHd> Ho monsom .poHHmnoo mHOH Ho moadeHOH pom oHndp mosdHHd> no MHmszcd ”4 w>Hm mHmmnpon>MIl.vN mHndB 91 CNNo.m u some N macaw Hwom.¢ u name H macaw H pmmnam mm.N u Hm>oH OH. new mowndm mpomnsm mo mpHmnmmoaon now ummp wwmonom mNHm.H mm mHHN.mvH mason» :anHB mom. NON. mmHm. H mmHm. mason» ammspmm m mo mnasuw soomoum monssum ooaaonHsmHm m use: no moonwoa no sum aoprHnd> Ho oonsom .spstHaE¢ mHoH mo monaumHou How oHadu wondHnd> Ho mHthaud um m>Hm mHmmnpommmul.mN oHnaB 92 mNmN.v u some N macaw ovmm.m u name H nacho H ummnam mm.N n Ho>oH OH. 90m mowaam mpmmnsm mo Nmenmwosoa How pmmv wmmmaom smmH.H om nsmo.moH museum aHasz ooH. mms.N HomH.m H HomH.m mgsouw newswom m mo mndsum Eocomuh mondsum mononmHawHw m saw: no wmwnmmn Ho sum aoHpaHnd> no monsom .oouocqmamosH How 6mm: How oHnap moaand> mo mHmdesa ”U o>Hm mHmoauonhm|l.mN mHnaB CHAPTER IV SO WHAT? DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS TO ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE In the following pages, an effort to draw together the findings reported in Chapter III is made, and implica- tions and applications of the results to organizational theory and practice are assessed. The initial two-way analyses of variance examining the relationships between organizational performance, indi— vidual performance and organizational performance, indi- vidual performance and organizational conformity displayed non-significant interactions (Tables 18 and 19). The divergence from long-standing theories of organizational behavior warranted additional investigation into the characteristics of the data, and how its pecu- liarities produced the unexpected results. In an effort to clarify these points, supplemental analyses were run, including simple t-tests of differences between cell means and discriminant analyses. Where data from these analyses provide significant information for the interpretation of results, they are reported. 93 94 The Relationshipf Between Organizational Conformity, Firm and Individual Performance in a Dynamic Environment Receptivity to significant changes occurring in the relevant environment of the firm is critical to the survival of the organization existing within the context of rapidly changing market and technological environments. If a firm is to remain viable in its operations, it must monitor changes in its relevant environment, assess the potential impact of these changes on its operations, and make appropriate adjustments in its structure or processes to cope with the changes deemed significant. As markets and technologies become increasingly stable, and thereby more highly predictable as well, the importance of envi- ronmental monitoring decreases, and keeping abreast of change is less an issue for the firm's survival. When organizations must face unpredictable fluc- tuations in demand structures and technological tools and techniques, monitoring and assessing external variations and adjusting internal operations to fit the new environ- mental requirements become critical issues in survival efforts. Organizational conformity constitutes the con- straining aspects of structure generally associated with bureaucratic organizations, e.g., hierarchical control, specialized, narrowly defined task structures, and strict rules orientation (Litwin & Meyer, 1968). An organization 95 which depends upon the accuracy and celerity of its responses to change for survival in its external environ— ment would necessarily register lower levels of perceived organizational conformity than firms functioning under conditions of relative environmental certainty. It also follows, then, that successful firms in dynamic environ- ments would report lower levels of organizational confor- mity than their less successful counterparts. Table 27 records the cell means obtained when the relationship between organizational conformity and high and low performing firms and individuals in a dynamic envi- ronment was tested, producing a main effect of organiza- tional performance (p = .077), a non-significant individual performance main effect, and a non-significant interaction effect. However, on a post priori basis, it appeared that high performing individuals in high performing firms did, indeed, perceive lower levels of organizational conformity than low performing individuals in the low performing firm. In order to test this, a t-test was run, comparing the means of the groups in cells one and four, which confirmed the post priori estimate. The results of this test are reported in Table 28. The organizational conformity construct also con- tributed significantly to the differentiation of subgroup members on the basis of both organizational performance and individual performance. (See Tables 29 and 30). 96 Table 27.--Analysis of variance: cell means of organiza- tional conformity among high and low performing individuals in high and low performing firms in a dynamic environment. Individual Performancea High Low Organizational High 5.08 4.68 Performance ' I II III IV Low 4.42 4.01 aThe wording of items in this scale is such that a high score indicates low levels of perceived organizational conformity, and a low score is indicative of high levels of perceived organizational conformity. Table 28.—-Organizational conformity: T-test of difference between response means. . SUmthd Eng. Variable ia a Error F—Value of F Omnmtafldomfl. Cbnflnmfity Ifighlxnfonmns in fulf° 4L99 1.033 .238 .233 .032 LDWPEE“”“ET31D 4.01 1H592 .425 ummxmessfifl.thms aA slight difference between the means used for the analysis of variance reported in Table 27 and the means reported here is due to the method of data deletion on the SPSS programs, version 6.5. In the analysis of variance, deletion of missing data was performed in a listwise fashion, while in the t-test results above, deletion was on a pairwise basis. 97 Table 29.--Discriminant analysis: organizational performance. Variable F W1 ilk“ '15 Rao's v 033%: ‘1,“ Ambiguity 4.361 .971* 4.361 4.361* Organizational conformity 6.005 .933** 10.585 6.224* Ambiguity tolerance 5.987 .896*** 17.088 6.503** NGed for independence .354 .894*** 17.491 .403 Organizational clarity .308 .892*** 17.845 .354 OOnflict tolerance .301 .891** 18.194 .349 Conflict 1.595 .881** 20.061 1.866 *p S .050. **p S .010. ***p S .001. Table 30.--Discriminant analysis: individual performance. Variable F “I ilk, '15 Rao's v figs: ‘1,“ Conflict 3.205 .968 3.205 3.205 Conflict tolerance 8.302 .890*** 11.875 8.670*** Organizational conformity 4.150 .852*** 16.638 4.763* Ambiguity tolerance 2.016 .834*** 19.080 2.442 Need for independence 1.481 .821*** 20.932 1.852 Mbiguity 1.230 .810*** 22.512 1.580 Organizational clarity .621 .804*** 23.330 .817 *p S .050. **p S .010. ***p S .001. 98 Discriminant analyses attempt to statistically distinguish between two groups of cases through the mathematical com- bination of discriminating variables into linear functions which maximize the separation of the groups. Once a set of variables is found which provides satisfactory discrimi- nation for cases with known group membership, a set of classification functions may be derived which will permit the classification of new cases with unknown memberships. In differentiating high performing and low perform- ing firms, responses to the organizational conformity measure showed the second largest increase in Rao's V of all variables in the study. The significance cf the differ- ence between high and low performing firms on the basis of organizational conformity was .011. The discriminating power of the construct as measured by Wilk's lambda was also significant (.006). The study found, then, that in addition to a sig- nificant main effect of organization performance on organi- zational conformity that levels of perceived organizational conformity among high performing individuals in high per- forming firms were significantly lower than perceived by low performing individuals in low performing firms in a dynamic environment. For high performers in successful firms the internal organizational environment was felt to be less constraining to individual performance efforts, and across organizations studied, successful firms provide 99 climates for their employees which were reported to be significantly less constraining than the climate in unsuc— cessful firms. Relationship Hetween Organizational Clarity, Firm andlndividuglPerformance in a Dynamic Environment Organizational clarity, the obverse of organiza- tional conformity, produced results similar to those found with organizational conformity as the dependent variable. The cell means for the analyses of variance performed on the organizational clarity data are recorded in Table 31. In this instance, however, no significant main or inter- action effects occurred. Differentiation between high and low performing individuals or high and low performing firms was not possible on the basis of responses to the organizational clarity measure, although on a post priori basis, it appeared that the combination of the extremes of performance as suggested in the second hypothesis (i.e., high performing individuals in high performing firms and low performing individuals in low performing firms) did, indeed, result in significantly different responses on the organizational clarity measure. A t-test was performed on cells I and IV of the organizational clarity data to verify the apparent diver- gence between the levels of perceived organizational clarity among high performers in successful organizations 100 and low performers in unsuccessful organizations. The results of this test affirmed the hypothesized relation- ship. High performing individuals in high performing firms perceived significantly greater levels (p = .013) of organizational clarity than low performing individuals in low performing firms. Table 31.--Analysis of variance: cell means of organiza- tional clarity among high and low performing individuals in high and low performing firms inzidynamic environment. Individual Performance High Low High 4.26 4.02 Organizational 1 11 Performance III IV Low 4.22 3.98 In a discriminant analysis, measures of ambiguity, ambiguity tolerance, organizational conformity, and role conflict explained greater amounts of variation between high and low performing firms than did organizational clarity, although, as indicated by the value of Wilk's lambda, the construct did explain a significant amount of the difference between successful and unsuccessful firms after these four variables were taken into account. The 101 absolute contribution of the organizational clarity con— struct to the ability of the discriminant function to dif- ferentiate high from low performing firms was negligible (Table 30). Table 32.-—Organizational clarity: T-test of difference between response means. Samxmmd . Variable )‘(a 5 Error F—Value Slg. of F (hgamflmmflxml Chuity (kfll I 4L26 .9fl5 .2r7 3.59 .013 Cbll IV 4.04 1.790 .478 aCell means reported here vary slightly from those recorded in the analysis of variance table on the same dependent variable (Table 31), because of the method of case deletion on version 6.5 of SPSS. The analysis of variance routine deletes cases listwise, while the t-test program deletes cases pairwise. Case inclusion is thus slightly different in the two analyses. Responses to the organizational clarity and organi- zational conformity measures indicated that high performing individuals in successful firms felt significantly less stifled by the structure of their organization than did low performers in unsuccessful firms. The data suggest that the climate conditions in the low performing firm in the non-destructive testing field have resulted in their attracting or maintaining 102 fewer high performing individuals than their successful competitors. High performers may have been, at one point, members of the low performing firm, then either left the organization (as the turnover figures indicate may well be the case) or released their creative efforts somewhere other than in the work portion of their life sphere. When the organization is seen as inhibiting an individual's work process through rules and procedural requirements which are perceived to be inappropriate or excessive, the firm is inadvertently depriving itself of the abilities which are requisites of survival in dynamic environments. For a firm to make relatively accurate assessments of its relevant environment and adjust its internal operations to meet the new and changing demands, the barriers to change must be kept at a minimum. Firms which choose to establish and enforce procedures are attempting to build stability into an organizational structure which exists in a quickly and unpredictably changing external environ- ment. By building rigidity into its internal structure, the organization is making inappropriate adaptations to the environment within which it exists. Perhaps the level of stability built into the organizational system causes high performing individuals to leave the system or to rechannel their creative efforts into non-work areas, thereby decreasing their relative effectiveness in the 103 organization and, in turn, reducing the effectiveness of the total organization. The low performing firm had apparently adapted improperly to the demands of its external environment. The non-destructive testing industry requires participat- ing firms to maintain enough flexibility to incorporate new techniques and technologies as they arise, and to adjust to changing market demands if they are to survive. In this study, the firm reporting the highest level of organizational conformity and the lowest level of organi- zational clarity was also the firm unanimously classified by a panel of experts in the field as "unsuccessful." Firms experiencing success in non-destructive test— ing reported low organizational conformity and high clarity. Members of these firms apparently feel relatively unin- hibited by the structure of their organization, and are free to channel their creative and innovative efforts through the organization, which, in turn, contributes to the success and long-run survival of the firm. Figures representing the amount of manpower devoted to research, both pure and applied, in the successful and unsuccessful firms (Table 6) support these projections. 104 RelationshipBgtween Measures of Role Conflict, Firm and Individual Performance in a Dynamic Environment Extant theory on the nature of role conflict led to the development of a series of hypotheses in which the construct was used as a dependent variable. It was pre- sumed that the perceived opportunity for incidents of role conflict would be greater among high performing firms because of their theoretically more sensitive interaction with and reaction to the state of their external environ- ments. Theory also supports the notion that, the more interaction an individual has with points external to the formal bounds of the organization, the probability that the individual will experience role conflict is signifi- cantly increased. Those whose jobs are designed in such a fashion that their work efforts are directed toward the internal structure and process of the organization would, then, experience less role conflict than would persons for whom functioning across the organizational boundaries was a more relevant, integral portion of their job. Finally, organizational behavior theory leads one to believe that individuals more capable (n: willing to tolerate incidents of role conflict would perform well in dynamic environ- ments. The rapidity and irregularity of change in dynamic environments provide prime conditions for situations which generate role conflict. Thus, one might expect that 105 individuals who have learned to succeed in this type of environment are better able to tolerate role conflict than poorer performers in the same environment and individuals working in stable organizations as well. A one-way analysis of variance testing the impact of role conflict on high and low performing firms in the non-destructive testing industry produced an F-value of .477 at a .491 level of significance. Given the distinct divergence this presented from well-established theories on the construct, a t-test was run on the mean responses of high performing individuals in high performing firms versus the responses of low performing individuals in low performing firms. The test produced an F-value of 3.32 and a corresponding probability of .020. The results of the two tests are inconsistent. The one-way analysis of variance initially per- formed compared organizations on the basis of pooled indi- vidual responses to role conflict measures, irrespective of their rating on the individual performance scale, as diagrammed in Figure 10. If the values of Rh and Hi pro- duced a large F-value, the means would be classified as significantly different. When the individual performance measure is added to the diagram, a two-way analysis results (Figure 11), and four distinct cells of data become identifiable. The t-test looked at the difference between mean responses on 106 Individual Performance Organizational High -------------------- a x Performance Low --------------------- 9 ‘il Figure lO.--One-way analysis of variance. Individual Performance High Low Organizational ngh I 11 Performance III IV Low Figure ll.--Two-way analysis of variance: source of data used in t-test. role conflict items for individuals falling in cell I, versus those in cell IV, that is, high performing indi- viduals in successful firms versus low performing indi- viduals in unsuccessful firms in the same environment. Noting, now, the differences in subject groups tested in the two analyses, an explanation for the apparent 107 divergence in results emerges. The mean responses of indi- viduals in cells I and IV were significantly different. 'When their complements are added, the difference between mean responses on the role conflict scale becomes non—significant. The MANOVA results are solely a statistical artifact. The standard deviation of responses in cells I and III is such that it overrides the impact of the differences between cells I and IV. Individual performance, then, not organi- zational performance, is a moderator of role conflict. To verify this conclusion, a two-way analysis of variance was performed, from which cell means were drawn and reported in Table 33, and a discriminant analysis of the study's dependent variables' impact on the independent variables, organizational and individual performance (Tables 30 and 31). Both analyses supported the assumption that individual performance is significantly correlated with role conflict. Irrespective of the relative success of a given firm, high performing individuals in the dynamic environment studied feel the opportunities to experience role conflict in the course of their work is very great. Low performing indi- viduals in the same environment do not perceive the oppor- tunities for or existence of role conflict to be as extensive as do high performers (Table 33). Generalization is difficult, in that the perception of opportunities for conflicting situations tells us little about the individual's level of tolerance for conflict or 108 Hob. 8 SH .se 8558 3H8 sHH. bHod oHo.H m 89m 8§H§> 89393 SH. oboe. mmmH H mmmH 83.588 3686.: x 8833388 “BHHHBEGBHH857035 one. How . m boo. H H b8. H 83.82% 88385 8o. SH. sso. H sso. 83.828 HaeoH ”3598.5 8H. 88H new. a sooH moooto 58: ...wam ..H omMMNm Hoemoooammmawm u nwmamwm 8323, Ho 88oz os.m oo.m soH moonsh0mnmm oo.m bo.m emHm HeaoHoeuHcomao soH emHm ooodSHOHHmm HdscH>HoaH .pcoauonH>nc oHEdnzc 6 BH chsUH>HU=H and mEHHm wcH8H0mucn BoH and ann macaw mohsmdoa poHHHcoo oHon mo momma HHmc "ccccHHd> no mHm>H8n m chdfiadpm M. mHndHHd> .mcdce noosucn mocmummuHU Ho pmopup a ”HOHHHaoo mHon Ho conducHoell.¢m manB 111 persons will, in effect, hinder their own ability to com- plete a task by not clarifying conflicting demand situa- tions. The Role Conflict, Boundary Relevance Relationship As Table 22 indicated, the relationship between role conflict and boundary relevance, although non- significant in the sample tested in this study, was clearly (p = .145) in the direction expected. Individuals in boundary-spanning positions in the organizations responded at a mean level of 3.94 on items related to role conflict, while individuals whose primary duties were within the con- fines of the formal boundaries of the organization had a mean response of 3.68 on the same items. These results tend to support the theories which contend that individuals whose work activities frequently take them to people and places external to the organization are more likely to experience role conflict than are their internally oriented co-workers. Managers in a position to hire or maintain person— nel in boundary-spanning positions would thus be well advised to make what contributions they can to keep role conflict for these individuals at a minimum in order to keep barriers to effective performance as low as possible. Given that boundary-spanning positions are predisposed to role conflict (Katz & Kahn, 1966), however, the task of 112 its minimization will be continuous, and largely beyond the control of the manager within the firm. The level of significance of the boundary relevance-role conflict relationship may have been moder- ated somewhat by the size of the firms involved in the study. Although an individual's duties in an organization are defined as predominantly internally directed func- tions, when firms are small it is quite possible that all employees' activities will, at some point, be directed toward the firm's external environment. Relationships Between Measures of Role AmbiglLity, Firm and Individual Performance in a Dynamic Environment Role ambiguity is said to occur when an individual is not given sufficient information from members of the role set for the appropriate enactment of a role. In the context of a rapidly changing external environment, the demands made upon the behavior of firms and individuals are in a continuous state of flux, thereby rendering the use of historical data as a guide to present or future activity useless, and creating conditions optimal for inci- dents of role ambiguity. The environment, not allowing firms the luxury of projecting future events from past, forces them into an active search for the information necessary to task accomplishment. 113 It follows, then, that organizations which deal more actively with their external environments do so in an attempt to reduce the amount of ambiguity perceived to a workable level. Organizations, dependent upon the members of their external environments for survival, require infor- mation from market members about the specific needs the firm and its products can fill, and possibly the methods by which these needs can most effectively be attended. In the instance of highly complex technologies, the spe- cific means of satisfying consumers' needs are likely to be left up to the producing firm as the level of consumer knowledge in fields such as non-destructive testing is frequently quite minimal. The desired ends, however, may be described in detail, and Specifications of equipment derived from the performance needs expressed by those using the test instruments. Ambiguity about consumer needs and product performance requirements would, thus, be reduced, allowing a firm to begin directing its efforts toward the accomplishment of the task goal set by the market's needs and the capacity of the technicians and the technologies available. From this, theory would conclude that organizations dealing successfully with a dynamic environment would experience higher levels of role ambiguity than would less successful firms in the same environment., 114 Analyses performed on the data from the non- destructive testing industry to examine the relationship between role ambiguity and organizational performance affirmed the validity of the theoretical relationship between the two variables. The means of the subgroups identified in the Scheffé test (Table 35) indicate that the high performing organizations perceived significantly more role ambiguity than did the low performing organizations. In this sample, organizational performance could be largely determined through knowledge of role ambiguity measure responses. Individual performance did not explain significant amounts of variance in perceived ambiguity levels, while organizational performance emerged as a major contributor in both a one-way analysis of variance (Table 35) and a discriminant analysis (Table 29). It becomes apparent from these data that feelings of ambiguity regarding appropriate behavior for enactment of a role stem not from within the individual, but from the environment within the organization itself, or, indirectly, from the external environment. The organization may exhibit internally the amount of ambiguity it feels exists in the external environment which it monitors and to which the firm responds. A brief examination of organizations' responses to the Environmental Demands Questionnaire lends substance to this notion, but given the small number of respondents to the instrument, such connections can merely 115 .dmno> ccH> use .mpHsmHnEm Ho mHm>cH 30H mo 0>H980HvaH 0H6 cusmdos mpHsmHnad oHon onu so monoom anmc NOOH. NNsm. HNvN.m mm EuHm Hammmcoosmcb mmmH. ovmo.H vmww.v so mEnHH Hammmooosm Hogan .Upm o .N z macho codeNHcmwno wcHEhoHnon Bogulqsonu .HN¢N.N.:.ccmS II N pomnsm mnoHudNHaawho mcHEnoman anmllnsono .emmw.v.:.sdms II H pmmnsm .mNHm page no pownsm a How mason pudonHanm pmcwnonm one can“ once an Hmmch wasp mance can QOHnB mo HHaQ on .mgdonm Ho mumwnsm ¢N.N II Hc>oH OH. on» new mmmcdm mammnsm no mpHccmmoson no nude wmmoncm mvmm.mmH Hdpoa msoo.H NmoH.mvH mmsouw :anHB wmo. Hmm.¢ vmmm.¢ vmmm.v mgsouw smosumm m mo .me oHaamlm wondsdm docs mcudsum no sum coasom 8.00:88ulooa HccoHchHccwno can thsmHnsd cHon ”coccan> Ho mHmmHac¢ul.mm oHnda 116 suggest affirmation; they cannot lead to any decisive con- clusions in the matter. The Role Ambiguity, Boundary Relevance Relationship The results of the one-way analysis of variance testing the effects of boundary relevance on perceived role ambiguity appearing in Table 23, although not definitively significant (p = .110), are quite clearly in a direction opposite to that which was expected. It was thought that as an individual's contact with the external environment increased, the amount of ambiguity the individual experi- enced in attempts to enact his roles would increase as well since the variables encountered would include not only those internal to the firm, but those relevant to the firm in the external environment as well. This is not supported by these data. Initially the findings associated with role ambi- guity and boundary relevance appear to be at odds with the results indicating that role ambiguity is significantly higher in successful firms in dynamic environments than in unsuccessful firms. When analyzed from an information- processing point of View, the pieces begin to fit. An organization operating in an environment which changes unpredictably will be required to learn to deal with the ambiguity inherent in such environmental situa— tions if it is to succeed. Less successful firms may feel 117 that greater amounts of certainty prevail in the environ- ment, and thereby are less compelled to place emphasis on boundary-Spanning and adaptive activities than successful firms. Attempts will be made to routinize the boundary- spanning and adaptive subsystem functions, in accordance with the perceived stability in critical external variables. The individuals in low performing firms operating across organizational boundaries in the execution of purchasing, marketing, and environmental monitoring, then, are some- what misinformed by their organization. The unsuccessful firm's members in highly boundary relevant positions are sent into the external environment expecting degrees of predictability which are in excess of reality. High levels of ambiguity are found in the environment which were not expected. Information sought is not available, technolo- gies are in a state of flux, sound data appear tenuous. Instead of reducing the ambiguity level of the firm, the boundary spanner is attempting to bring ambiguity in. The amount of conflict the individual experiences, then, would be expected to be high as well (Table 33), since the demands the organization makes on the boundary spanner's performance are inconsistent with what has been found in the external environment. Figure 12 attempts to clarify the relationships among this combination of events. Boundary spanners in high performing firms face the demands of the external environment with more accurate 118 Dwumfic Ehvtnxnent Boundary Spanner unsuccessful -HnfilAmb’ 'ty Ongmiznjon -Hn;1Ambm;uty -Low .tnbiguity Figure 12.--Ambiguity in the boundary-spanning positions of unsuccessful firms in a dynamic environment. 119 information about its character. Expecting instability in the market and technological areas, the spanner is better equipped to perform the ambiguity-reduction function for his firm. As the data indicate, high performing firms in dynamic environments perceive high levels of ambiguity in their external environments and internal environments as well. The boundary spanners Unsuccessful organizations such as these are met with environments consistent with the atmosphere communicated within their firm, and perform the task of information transfer without absorbing the uncertainty on either end of the transaction. Information is taken, as is, from relevant external sources, and relayed to the internal structure of the firm. Thus, the level of ambiguity perceived by individuals in highly boundary relevant positions in successful firms is low. (See Figure 13.) Ambiguity is conveyed from its source to the firm's information-processing units without the messenger absorbing, altering, or necessarily interpreting the data. It is also possible that the low level of ambiguity perceived by boundary spanners in high performing firms is a function of the expectations the individuals initially held. If the organization sends accurate assessments of the external environment to those in boundary relevant positions, the spanners approach the environment expecting to experience high levels of ambiguity and would, thereby, 120 Dmmmuc Ehvinxment Emmdaanpmmer HhmwAmbugfity -High Ambiguity Successful Onamiznjon -High Ambiguity Figure l3.--Ambiguity in the boundary-spanning positions of successful firms in a dynamic environment. 121 report less ambiguity than those who had been led to believe the environment was stable, when, indeed, it was not. High performing firms could be said, then, to have prepared boundary spanners for the level of ambiguity extant in their external environment, while low performing firms did not adequately prepare their employees in boun- dary relevant positions. The Tolerance of Role Ambiguity, Firm and Individual Performance Relationships The one-way analysis of variance used to test the hypothesized relationship between individual performance and tolerance of role ambiguity produced non-significant results (p = .649). The effect of organizational perfor- mance on perceived ambiguity reported earlier in this chapter accounted for the majority of variance observed in the construct. Combined, perceived ambiguity and toler— ance of role ambiguity accounted for over half (10.864 of 20.060 units measured by Rao's V; see Table 29) of the dis— tance created by the discriminant function between the response centroids of high and low performing firms. Ambiguity tolerance was considerably less critical in the discriminant function developed on individual per- formance than in the organizational performance function. Although the construct made a significant contribution (p = .118) to the function's ability to discriminate high 122 from low individual performers, the value of Rao's V which it generated (2.442) was not nearly as valuable in the individual performance function as it was in the organiza- tional performance function, where the change in Rao's V attributed to the ambiguity tolerance measure was 6.503. From these data, it appears that ambiguity toler- ance is more a function of the organization's level of performance than of individual performance levels although when subjected to a two-way analysis of variance, neither the main effect of organization performance nor individual performance is significant. The Negd for Independence, Individual Performance Relationship On the basis of extant research on the need for independence, and its relationship to theories of work socialization, it was hypothesized that individuals per- forming well in dynamic environments would report a higher need for independence than would low performers. Unfor- tunately, the scale used to measure needs for independence produced a reliability coefficient alpha of .393. Data on the variable are, thus, of little empirical value and will be withheld from further discussion. CHAPTER V AT LAST! CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary Objectives The objectives of this research were (1) to explore the relationship between organizational structure and indi- vidual behavior and processes and (2) to provide empirical support for the contingency theories of organization structure by testing the validity of organizational attri- butes generally associated with the dynamic or organic form of organization structure. The non—destructive testing industry was chosen for study on the basis of the technological and market volatility reported by a series of experts in the field. Two high and one low performing firm in the industry were selected for closer examination. Performance was measured on the basis of product performance in use, quality of workmanship, and personal service by a series of experts who had worked in the non-destructive testing field a minimum of ten years and were not directly involved with the operation of any of the firms chosen for study. 123 124 Financial data (e.g., sales, return on investment, cost of sales) were collected in each firm, which verified the accuracy of the experts' opinions. Questionnaires (see Appendix A) were distributed on site to all employees at the three firms. Interviews were conducted with each firm's president and his criti- cal subordinates, and each was also asked to respond to questions regarding the demands of his organization's external environments. (See Appendix B.) Questionnaires were left on site with self-addressed return envelopes for employees absent from work the day of data collection. All questionnaires were pre-coded with individual perfor- mance ratings supplied by firm presidents. Of the 162 distributed, 150 questionnaires were returned and usable. Return rates by firm were 93%, 100%, and 87%. One- and two-way analyses of variance were used to test for significance in the relationships hypothesized. Results The relationship between organizational conformity, paganizational clarity, firm and individual performance.-- The review of literature in Chapter I discussed the grow- ing body of research supporting the validity of the various contingency approaches to organizational design and adminis- tration. While numerous contingency variables have been proposed, most have in common the element of certainty or 125 predictability of events in the organization's external environments; the certainty of outcomes. Varying degrees of uncertainty call for different organization structures and administrative approaches. Firms in dynamic environments rely on individual expertise, interpersonal interaction, and informal commu- nication for definition of tasks and processes, while firms in stable environments tend to use position power, formalized communciation structures, procedural rules and regulations for structure. The firms in the study, being relatively organic, or dynamic in nature, were expected, then, to report lower levels of organizational conformity (the constraining ele- ments of structure) and higher levels of organizational clarity (the obverse of conformity) than firms in stable environments. Extending this notion to test appropriate- ness in organizational structural adaptation, it was hypothesized that successful firms in the dynamic environ- ment studied would report lower levels of organizational conformity and higher levels of organizational clarity than less successful firms in the same industry. The relationship anticipated between organizational performance and organizational clarity was supported at a significance level of .077 (Table 27). In addition, high performing individuals in high performing firms perceived significantly less organizational conformity than did low 126 performing individuals in low performing firms (p = .092, Table 28). Tests performed on the organizational clarity data revealed no significant main effects in a two-way analysis of variance, but when cells I and IV (high performing per- sons in successful firms vs. low performing persons in unsuccessful firms) were compared, differences in means were found to be significant at the .013 level. High per- formers in successful firms reported higher levels of organizational clarity than did low performers in the unsuccessful firm. From these findings it was concluded that firms which had adapted appropriately to the dynamic environment studied produced climates significantly less constraining to individual performance than did competitors who had not structured themselves in a manner consistent with the demands of the external environment. The relationships between role conflicty_role ambi- guity, firm and individual performance.—-In conjunction with the speculations of Kahn et a1. (1964), it was hypothesized that levels of perceived role conflict and ambiguity would be higher in successful than in unsuccess- ful firms, and higher among individuals operating at the boundaries of the organizations tested than among indi- viduals whose work activities dealt primarily with the 127 firm's internal structure. Tolerance of role ambiguity and role conflict was expected to be greater among high performing individuals than among low performers. Results indicated that role conflict and tolerance of role conflict are more highly associated with indi- vidual performance than with firm performance (Table 33). When tested across levels of organizational performance, the differences between response groups to measures of conflict and conflict tolerance were consistently non- significant. The boundary relevance issue also brought non-significant results (p = .145), although the trend of the means produced was quite clearly in the direction expected. Individuals in highly boundary relevant posi- tions reported higher levels of role conflict than indi- viduals in positions low in boundary relevance. High performing individuals reported significantly greater levels of perceived role conflict than their low performing co-workers, and significantly greater ability or willingness to tolerate role conflict (p = .002; Table 34). The role ambiguity relationships with firm and individual performance produced unexpected, yet signifi— cant results. Levels of perceived role ambiguity were sig- nificantly different in one-way analyses of variance with organizational performance (p = .038), but not by indi- vidual performance. The highly boundary relevant positions 128 in the firms studied measured low in role ambiguity while the positions located within the structure away from organizational boundaries measured high in role ambiguity (p = .110, Table 23). The tolerance of role ambiguity results were non-significant in tests analyzing the vari— ance between high and low performing organizations and high and low performing individuals, although the construct did contribute significantly to discriminant function's ability to differentiate between groups on the organiza- tional performance dimension (Table 29). The apparent inconsistency in the results on the perceived ambiguity and boundary relevance measures was explained in terms of the boundary spanners' absorption of uncertainty in its transfer from external to internal environments. It was thought that those~who expected high levels of uncertainty in the firm's external environment were better able to communicate an assessment of the spe- cific characteristics of the environment to their firm, without feeling frustration or the need to become a buf- fering unit between the internal and external environments of the firm as the individuals spanning boundaries in the low performing organization did. The relationship between need for independence and individual performance.--Analysis of the relationship between need for independence and individual performance 129 was deleted due to an unacceptably low reliability in the measuring instrument (.393). Conclusions From the trends found in the data collected in the non-destructive testing industry, it appears that researchers in the field of organizational behavior have rightly been theorizing differences between successful and unsuccessful firms within particular organizational envi- ronments. Previous studies have voiced support for con- tingency theories of organizational structure both on theoretical and empirical grounds; however, measures were taken predominantly from stable organizational structures which, being apparently more numerous in the total popula- tion of organizations, and historically more cooperative, is understandable. This research has attempted to introduce empirical data from dynamic organizations to the research extant on contingency theories of structure. It is also indicative of an attempt to begin establishing the validity of theo- retical connections between organizational structure and individual behavior and processes, forming the next logi- cal link in the chain of contingency-based relationships, i.e., from the environment to the organization and from the organization to the individuals who comprise it. 130 Limitations As is the case with any empirical research, cer- tain events, resources, or extraneous variables enter in to the formula and dampen the enthusiasm initially felt for the results generated. This study was no exception. Hazards arise when one attempts to generalize the results of measures taken from three firms in an industry to all other members of the industry or beyond to all industries existing in similarly defined environments. The number of potential confounding variables is great. However, such a limitation by no means warrants totally discounting the results obtained. Like results reported on any empirical research, these findings should be entered into the volumes of extant research and literature, in full awareness of1flu3tenuousness of generalization inherent in any such study of organizations. The size of the firms observed in this study also presents problems in data interpretation. The successful firms both numbered under fifty employees, while the unsuc- cessful firm employed somewhat over one hundred people. Attempts were made to balance the sample in terms of the number of respondents, but it was literally impossible to match firms on a size variable. Additional limitations to be considered are the potential inconsistencies within and across raters on the 131 individual performance measure. Raters used a continuous scale (one to five), but there was no way to tell whether the criteria used for rating employees were consistently applied, or if the scales used in any single firm in any way approximated the criteria used in the other firms. Again, the limitations apparent in this study are not peculiar to it, organizational behavior, or any other subgroup of research areas; they belong simply to empiri- cal research in general, although the specific types and degrees of limitation vary. If science discarded all research which could be criticized in some fashion for the potential confounding of extraneous variables, inapprop- riateness of measures, or non-representativeness of samples investigated, the world's textbooks would, indeed, be thin. §gggestions for Further Research The relationship suggested by the results in this study between role conflict and organizational structure bring questions of the relationship between organizational level of the respondent and perceived role conflict to mind. It would also be interesting to see if the role conflict-individual performance relationship was consistent across organization types. The same type of question needs to be asked and empirically answered regarding ambiguity and organizational performance. Is ambiguity, indeed, more highly correlated with organizational performance across 132 organization types? Does the relationship reverse in stable environments? Does ambiguity correlate highly with individual performance in other environments while it does not in dynamic environments? Also, how do these con- structs relate to an individual's satisfaction with various facets of his job in the organization? The relationships among the variables used in this study need to be verified in other dynamic industries and compared to data collected for firms in stable environ- ments. When such information is available to the field of organizational behavior, maybe then we can begin to make definitive links not only between appropriate organiza- tional structure and organizational environments, but also between individual attributes and organizational character- istics as well. FLAGS, STARS, GARTERS AND ASSORTED DANCING GIRLS EMERGE IN BRIEF COSTUMES OF SPANGLING GOLD, FORMING KICK LINES NEATLY BEHIND WHITE PICKET FENCES AND CARRYING APPLE PIES AND SMILING PICTURES OF THEIR MOTHERS. APPEND I CES APPENDIX A MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS .APTWHHJIX AL MEASURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL DEMANDS 1. As a place to start, on what basis does a customer evaluate and choose between competing suppliers in this industry? (price, quality, delivery, service, etc.) 2. would you list for me the major kinds of problems an organization encounters when competing in this industry? 3. Would you rank these problem areas in terms of: a) their criticalness to the success of the organization; b) and the difficulty of achieving effective resolution? 2133 134 4. we have talked a little about the basis on which products of differ- ent companies in this industry tend to compete. I would like your impression of how important each functional area is in determining the final product characteristics? 5. Have there been any significant changes in the market or technical conditions in your industry in the past 10 years? 6. To what extent have there been major modifications in the following activities in your division over the past 10 years: a) in your product line? b) in your marketing techniques? c) in your manufacturing facilities? d) in the amount and direction of your research effort? e) in the background, training, and technical skills of your employees in sales, manufacturing, research, management? 135 Due to rapid change in an industry, or the state of development in the technology used by the industry, or vast differences in customer requirements, etc., company executives often have varying degrees of certainty concerning what their departmental job requirements are and the kinds of activities their departments must engage in to achieve these requirements. The following series of questions is an effort to obtain data concerning this aspect of your industry. Please answer each question for each functional area. 1. Please circle the point on the scale provided which most nearly describes the degree to which present job requirements in each functional department are clearly stated or known in your company for the: Research Department Job requirements Job requirements are very clear in l 2 3 4 5 6 7 are not at all clear most instances. in most instances. Manufacturing Department Job requirements Job requirements are not at all clear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 are very clear in in most instances. ~ most instances. Marketing Department Job requirements Job requirements are very clear in l 2 3 4 5 6 7 are not at all clear most instances. in most instances. 2. Please circle the point on the scale provided which most nearly describes the degree of difficulty each functional department has in accomplishing its assigned job, given the limitation of the technical and economic resources which are available to it. Degree of difficulty in: Developigg a product which can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 be manufactured and Little Extreme sold profitably difficulty difficulty Manufacturgg economically a l 2 3 4 5 6 7 product which can be Extremely Little designed and sold difficult difficulty Selling a product which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 can be developed Little Extremely and manufactured difficulty difficult economically 136 3. Please check the alternative which most nearly describes the typical length of time involved before feedback is available to each functional are concerning the success of its job performance. For example: the sales department manager may be able to determine at the end of each day how successful the selling effort was by examining the total sales reported by his salesmen for that day. In contrast, the production manager may not know whether production meets required specifications until the results of several performance tests are available, often a period of several days from the time his department completes its processing. Research Department one day one week one month six months one year three years or more Manufacturingypepartment one day one week one month six months one year three years or more Marketiagypepsrtment one day one week one month six months one year three years or more 137 Departmental Structure What is the average span of control for the supervisors in your unit? How much time elapses between reviews of departmental performance? How specific are the departmental performance reviews? (Check one.) General oral review General written review General statistics Detailed statistics How important are the department's formal rules? There are no rules Rules on minor routine procedures Comprehensive rules on routine procedures Comprehensive rules on all routine procedures and operations How are performance evaluations conducted? No formal evaluation Formal evaluation-- no fixed criteria Formal evaluation-- some fixed criteria Formal evaluation-- detailed criteria How many structural levels are there in this organization? 138 7. How long has this firm been in operation? 8. What would you say was the average pay raise received by professional personnel employed at this firm last year, in dollars? 9. How many employees left the firm last year from: the managerial staff the scientific staff the engineering staff the technical staff the manufacturing staff the clerical staff ? 10. What are the major responsibilities of this department? 11. What would you say are the dominant competitive issues facing the firm? 1139 12. we need to Obtain your subjective assessment of the performance of your entire organization as it relates to competitors in this industry. Equating 1002 to ideal performance, we would like you to indicate what percent of this ideal or Optimal performance you personally feel your organization is achieving in this industry. I personally feel that the overall performance of the organization of which I am an active member, should be rated as Z of ideal. 13. We are also interested in Obtaining a few empirical measures of the trend of your organization's performance over the past five years. In the table below, we would like you to indicate the percentage change on a year-to-year basis Of three performance indicators: sales, before tax profits, and return on investment before taxes. Considering the base year 1970 as 100, would you please indicate in the spaces provided, the level for each indicator for each year. Fbr example, if sales in 1971 were 52 above 1970, you would put 105 in the 1971 column. If sales were 5% below the 1970 level in 1972, you would put 95 in the 1972 column, and so forth. Index of: 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Sales 100 Before tax profits 100 Return on investment before tax 100 APPENDIX B RESEARCH INSTRUMENT APPENDIX B RESEARCH INSTRUMENT DISSERTATION RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE : confidential : When completed, this questionnaire becomes the property of L. Delf Dodge of the Department of Management, Michigan State university, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. Employees and management personnel of participating firms, and any individual other than the researcher and dissertation advisor are expressly prohibited from access to questionnaire data of individual respondents. 14() 141 Organizations differ in the way they are designed to accomplish their goals. I am interested in learning more about the structure of your organization, and about the individuals which make up the total organizational system. This questionnaire is divided into seven parts. The directions differ slightly in some of the sections, so please be sure to read them before completing each segment. Also, in order to use a questionnaire there must be a response for each question. Please be certain to answer every question. Proceed at an even pace, marking the response which first comes to mind, and contin- uing to the next question. In advance, may I thank you very much for your invaluable contribu— tion to this doctoral dissertation study. 142 The following questions ask you to describe the JOB ON WHICH YOU WORK. Please do not try to show how much you like or dislike your job; just try to be as accurate and factually correct as possible. First, read the descriptions at each end of the scale, under [1] and [7]. Then check one of these boxes - or one in between — that best describes what your job is like. 1. How much variety is there is your job? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Very little; I do Moderate variety Very much; I do many pretty much the things, using 3 var- same things over iety of equipment and over, using the and procedures same equipment and procedures almost all the time 2. How much does the work you do on your job make §_visible impact on a product or service? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] None at all; it is A moderate amount; A great amount; hard to tell what the impact of my my work is clearly impact my work job is visible along visible, it makes 3 makes on the pro- with that of others noticeable difference duct or service in the final product or service 3. How much freedom do you have on your job? That is, how much do you decide on your own what you do on your job? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Very little; there A moderate amount; Very much; there are few decisions I have responsibility are many decisions about my job which for deciding some of about my job which I can make by my- the things I do, but I can make by my- self not others self 4. How Often does your job require that you meet 23 check.with other people in this organization? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Not at all; I never I sometimes need Very often; I must have to meet or to meet or check constantly meet or check with others with others check with others 143 5. HOW’EMCh challenge is there on your job? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] There is very little Moderate challenge challenge on my job; I don't get a chance to use any special skills and abilities and I never have jobs which require all my abilities to complete them successfully [6] [7] There is a great deal of challenge on my job; I geta chance to use my special skills and abilities and often have jobs which require all my abilities to complete success- fully 6. As you do your job, can you tell how well your're performing? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Not at all; I could Mbderately; some- work on my job times by just doing indefinitely with- the job I can find out ever finding out how well I'm out how well I am performing, some- doing unless some- times I can't body tells me 7. How much uncertainty is there in your job? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Very little; I almost Mbderate uncertainty always know what to expect and am never surprised by some- thing happening unexpectedly on my job 8. How much control do you have in setting the pace of [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] Very little; pace Mbderate control is predetermined of work pace and I must work at a strict pace set by someone or something else [6] [6] [6] [7] A great deal; I can almost always tell how well I'm performing just by doing my job [7] A great deal; I almost never am sure what is going to happen, and unexpected things frequently happen your work? [7] A great deal; I determine my own work pace 144 9. How much do you have to cooperate directly with other people in this organization in order to do your job? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Very little; I can A.moderate amount; Very much; all my do almost all my some of my work work requires co- work by myself requires cooperating Operating with others with others 10. How much does your job involve your producing an entire product or an entire service? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] My job involves My job involves My job involves doing only a small doing a moderate producing the part of the entire sized 'chunk' of entire product or product or service; work; while others service from start it is also worked are involved as well, to finish, the final on by others or by my own contribution outcome of the automatic equipment is significant work is clearly the and I may not see or results of my work be aware of much of the work which is done on the product or service 11. How much say do you have over the things you do on your job? That is, to what degree can you influence decisions about what you do on your job? A [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Very little; I have Moderate influence; A great deal; I almost no influence I have influence in have a lot of in deciding what I do some decisions but influence in most not in others of the decisions about what I do 145 Here are some statements regarding how you might feel about yourself or your work. feel somewhat differently. disagree with the following statements. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Changes here always seem to create more problems than they solve. .......... In general, my life is pretty satisfy- ing. .00............OOOIOOOOOOOO ..... People in this organization will do things behind your back. ............. When changes are made in this organi- zation, the employees usually lose out in the end. . .................... All in all, I am pretty happy these days. .0.........OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO... It's really not possible to change things around here. ........... ..... People here feel you can't trust this organization. .................. If we made a few changes here, this could be a much better place to work. 0.00.00... ..... 000...... ...... I feel I can trust the people in this company. ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I think that changes in this organiza- tion tend to work well. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers; each person will Please indicate how much you agree or @ .90 979* da 6 6' 99¢ 090(9’09 0 g o 6 A9 959?? Y’é t3? 9? db $3 65 N5 $3 <56} gé' 4§p§g§ <§§' 6” 65b c" 9‘0 9‘3" 9" ‘2’ a? '6" [11 [21 [3] [41 [51 [a] [7i [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [61. [7] 146 TASK CHARACTERISTICS Following are statements which describe specific aspects of jobs. You are asked (a) to indicate the degree to which this statement describes your job by placing an "X" in the appropriate space on the scale ranging from "Very False" to "Very True." In addition, please (b) indicate how you feel about this character" istic of your job (if it is present now) or how you would feel about it if it were present, by placing an "X" in the appropriate space on the scale ranging from "Dislike Very Moch" to "Like Very Much." I. I have to do things that should be done differently. a. How true is this of your job? Very False:__; : z : : :Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : 2 : : 2 :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 2. I feel certain about how much authority I have. a. How true is this of your job? Very False:__: : : :Very True 1 2 3 :4 5 6 :7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 3. I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : : :Very True b. How dO/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 4. Goals and objectives for my job are clear and planned. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : : : :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job?, Very Much Very Much S. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 6. I know that I have divided my time properly. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : Very True 'T'W7"T'I’1F'6‘1V b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 147 I work with two or more goups which onerate quite differently. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:_:__:_: _ :_:__:_:Very True 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:__:_:___' ._:_:_ :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I know what my responsibilies are. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : : :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Huch Very Much I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I know exactly what is expected of me. , a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others a. ,How true is this in your job? Very False:__: : :Very True 1 2 3 4 :5 :6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much Explanation is clear of what has to be done. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:__: : -:Very True 1 2 3 :4 :5 :6 :7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much ‘ Very Much I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : ' :Very True b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I work on unnecessary things. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : :Very True b. How dolwould you feel about this Dislike : : : : : : : :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much ' Very Much 148 JOB FACETS: IMPORTANCE AND EQNTINGENCIES On this and the following page are listed several characterisitics or qualities connected with your own position in your firm. For each such characteristic, you are asked to give three ratings: a. figg_much of the characteristic is there 22! connected with your position: b. ggw_much of the characteristic do you feel should bg_connected with your position? c. How important is this characteristic £2 you? Each rating will be made on a seven-point scale, which will look like this: (minimum) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (naximum) Please put an "X" above the number on the scale that represents the amount of the characteristic being rated. Low numbers represent minimum amounts, and high numbers represent high or maximum amounts. For each scale, place an "X" above only one number. PLEASE DO NOT OMIT ANY SCALES. 1. The feelingiof self-esteem a person gets from being in my management position: a. flow'much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) - - l 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : .: : : 2. The authority connected with my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) l 2 3 4 S 6 7 as a. a a O b. How much should there be? : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : 3. 'The gpportunity for personal growth and development in my management position: ‘ a. How much is there now? (min) : : : ’ : : : : - : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : ' : c. Bow important is this to me? : : : : : : . : : 4. The prestige of my management position inside the company (that is. the regard received from others in the company): ' a. How much is there now? (min) : : : . : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : 5. The opportunity for independent thought and action in my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : ° : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : c. how important is this to me? : : : ' : : : : : 7. 10. ll. 149 The feeling of security in my management position: : (max) a. Bow much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : ‘ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : c. how important is this to me? : : : : : : : The feeling of self-fulfillment a person gets from being position (that is, the feeling of being able to use one's own unique capabilities, realizing one's potentialities): in my management a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The prestige of my management position outside the company (that is the regard received from others not in the company). a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in my management position: a. How much is there new? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The opportunity. in my management position, to give helpito other people: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. flow important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The gpportunity to develop close friendships in my management position: a. how much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. how much should there be? i : : : : : : : c. flow important is this to me? : : 15C) INFLUENCE smucrugs This section asks about how decisions are made in this organization. It is also concerned with how much influence you have over decisions that are made here. As in other parts, read the directions and answer the questions by checking the numbers which best represent your opinions. HERE IS A LIST OF DECISIONS WHICH GET MADE AT WORK. FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DECISION, PLEASE INDICATE: a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. & 9d 1. Decisions about HOW YOU DO YOUR OWN "é9’ e§>‘3 e59 WORK. 6%., 9 e 99:: Dog 3 dad 0:: 99*} o b a. How much say you actually have in ‘9 9d» k’ VS¢§> making these decisions. ...... [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 2. Decisions about SCHEDULING YOUR WORK ACTIVITIES. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 3. Decisions about HIRING PEOPLE. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 151 Decisions about PAY RAISES. 55 e a. How much say you actually have in ‘99 making these decisions. ...... [l] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] Decisions about CHANGING HOW YOU DO YOUR WORK. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. . ..... -[l] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] Decisions about WHAT YOU SHOULD DO WHEN SOMETHING UNEXPECTED HAPPENS. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [1] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] Decisions about HOW TO SETTLE DISAGREEMENTS. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... . [l] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] Decisions about FIRING PEOPLE. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ....... [l] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] Decisions about WHEN PEOPLE TAKE TIME OFF. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [l] [2] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] [2] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] h [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 152 Decisions about WHAT TO DO IF SOMEONE YOU DEFEND ON DOESN'T DO THEIR JOB. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [1] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] Decisions about PROMOTING PEOPLE. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [1] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] Decisions about HOW TO HANDLE PROBLEMS YOU FACE IN YOUR WORK. a. How much say you actually have in in making these decisions. ... [1] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] Decisions about HOW WORK WILL BE DIVIDED AMONG PEOPLE. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ....... [l] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] Decisions about WHAT TO DO IF YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU NEED TO DO YOUR WORK. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ...... [l] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [1] Decisions about WHAT YOU DO DAY TO DAY. a. How much say you actually have in making these decisions. ....... [1] b. How much say you feel you should have in making these decisions. [l] g? [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] V' [5] [6] [7] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] 153 Sometimes the location of formal authority for certain decisions is not at all clear. For example, one person may be responsible at one time, while another person may have this authority at another time. The following questions deal with this problem. o o {,0 o o°d§' ,5 a? ‘sv57 5? ’V b ‘59 $.49?) . (b w «I pg .7 .. a. «I ’~ 0 x? 0 e 4% é?‘° e 16. Do you have a clear idea of who makes the 39*? “a c7 ¢ :7 following decisions? :6" é” g? A 355w “we” 6°.” A“? ‘vo :3 a. Deciding how you coordinate your «3 47 67;? activities with others.......... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] b. Deciding whether you are promoted. [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] c. Deciding to spend anything more than small amounts of money..... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] o ‘e éb s? o o b o o 4 éf 43 A? Q o W 0 0 ‘9 C! x? x? 0 ‘lo ’~ s c, b 4; ‘v ((90 17. How much do you agree or disagree <3, ‘0 ,4), e g) ,3, with the following statements? 6°60 (0.590 60.; ~06} $9 0 go 4, a» x, g,“ :37 ‘7’ s° a. I have a lot of say over how ‘0“ Q 59» Q?" °’ V90 0:" decisions are made. ........... [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] b. I seldom have decisions forced on me. ........................ [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] c. I can modify decisions made by other people. ................. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 154 BELOW ARE SEVERAL PAIRS OF STATEMENTS RELATING TO EVENTS IN EVERY DAY LIFE. PLEASE MARK THE SPACE CORRESPONDING TO THE STATEMENT FROM EACH PAIR WITH WHICH YOU MORE STRONGLY AGREE. BE SURE TO CHOOSE ONE. STATEMENT FROM EACH PAIR. 18. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecog- nized no matter how hard he tries. 19. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 20. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work; luck has little to do with it. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 21. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flip- ping a coin. 22. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. , Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability; luck has little or nothing to do with it. 23. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world events. 24. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happening. There really is no such thing as "luck." 25. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. 155 Listed below are a number of statements representing commonly held Opinions. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by marking the appropriate space on the scale which follows each statement. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. It is important that you give your opinion on every statement. An expert who doesn't come up with a definite answer probably doesn't know too much. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree There is really no such thing as a problem that can't be solved. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree In the long run it is possible to get more done by tackling small problems rather than large and complicated ones. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar. strongly disagree [1] [2] '[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree A person who leads an even regular life in which few surprises or unexpected happenings arise, really has a lot to be grateful for. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree I like parties where I know most of the people more than ones where all or most of the people are complete strangers. strongly disagree [1] [2] ~[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree The sooner we all acquire similar values and ideals the better. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree I would like to live in a foreign country for a while. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree People who fit their lives to a schedule probably miss most of the joy of living. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree It is more fun to tackle a complicated problem than ix) solve a simple one. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Often the most interesting and stimulating people are those who don't mind being different and original. strongly disagree [I] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree People who insist upon a yes or no answer just don't know how complicated things really are. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 156 Many of our most important decisions are based upon insufficient information. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Supervisors who hand out vague assignments give a chance for one to show initiative and originality. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree A good supervisor is one who makes you wonder about your way of looking at things. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree How often do you find that you can carry out subordinates' sugges- tions without changing them any? never [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] always How much do you usually want the person who is in charge of a group you are in to tell you what to do? never [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] always To what extent do you feel you ought to clear things with your superior before deciding on a course of action? never [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] always 157 INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND OUTCOMES In this section of the questionnaire, we ask about the way you feel about yourself, and your feelings about life in general. Research has shown that the way people feel about such matters is related to their work experiences and how they respond to different characteristics of organizations. People differ in the way they feel about things so, of course, there are no "best" or "right" answers. What we want is a true reflec- tion of the way you feel, so please respond to each statement as accurately as possible. 1. BELOW ARE LISTED SOME WORDS AND PHRASES WHICH ASK YOU HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR PRESENT LIFE IN GENERAL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU THINK THAT YOUR LIFE IS VERY INTERESTING, PUT A MARK IN THE BOX RIGHT NEXT TO THE WORD "INTERESTING". IF YOU FEEL THAT YOUR LIFE IS VERY BORING, PUT A MARK IN THE BOX RIGHT NEXT TO THE WORD "BORING”. IF YOU FEEL SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, PUT A MARK WHERE YOU THINK IT BELONGS. PLEASE PUT A MARK IN ONE BOX ON EVERY LINE. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR PRESENT LIFE IN GENERAL? BORING [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] INTERESTING ENJOYABLE [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] MISERABLE EASY [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] HARD USELESS [l] [2] [3] [4] [S] [6] [7] WORTHWHILE FRIENDLY [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] LONELY FULL [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] EMPTY DISCOURAGING [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] HOPEFUL TIED DOWN [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] FREE DISAPPOINTING [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] REWARDING BRINGS OUT THE DOESN'T GIVE ME BEST IN ME [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 'MUCH OF A CHANCE 2. THIS SET OF QUESTIONS ASKS YOU HOW FEEL ABOUT YOURSELF. FOR EACH PAIR OF WORDS, CHECK THE NUMBER WHICH BEST DESCRIBES HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF‘AT'WORK. HOW DO YOU SEE YOURSELF AT WORK? SUCCESSFUL [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] NOT SUCCESSFUL CONSERVATIVE [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] LIBERAL IMPORTANT [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] NOT IMPORTANT OPEN [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] CLOSED SAD WORKING MY HARDEST RISKY DOING MY BEST FLEXIBLE DO NOT KNOW MY JOB WELL [1] [1] [l] [1] [1] [1] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] JOB DESCRIPTION INDEX [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] [3] 158 [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [4] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [5] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [6] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] HAPPY NOT WORKING HARD CAUTIOUS NOT DOING MY BEST RIGID KNOW MY JOB WELL Below are five scales, each regarding a different aspect Of your job. Put a "Y" beside an item if the item describes that segpent of your job. Put an "N" beside an item if the item does not describe your job, or, put a "?" if you are undecided. l. WOrk Fascinating Routine Satisfying Boring Good Creative Respected Hot Pleasant Useful Tiresome Healthful Challenging On your feet Frustrating Simple Endless Gives sense of accomplishment b Satisfactor Barely live on income Bad Income provides luxuries Insecure 2. Pay Income adequate for normal expenses Less than I deserve Highly paid Underpaid Asks m ard to please polite raises good work Tactful Influential U -to-date Doesn't su Quick- Supervision advice ows job well Bad ntelligent eaves me on my own Around when needed zy y profit sharing 0? pervise enough tempered Tells me where I stand noying Stubborn People Stimultaing Boring Slow Ambitious Stupid Responsible Fast Intelligent Easy to make enemies Talk too much Smart Lazy Unpleasant NO privacy Active Narrow interests Loyal Hard to meet Promotions Good opportunity for advance- ment portunity somewhat limited Promotion on ability Dead- Go Unfair -tion end job od chance for promotion promotion policy ___Infrequent promotions ___Regular promotions ___Fairly good chance for promo- 2159 SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR For each of the statements below, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by marking the appropriate space on the scale which follows each statement. 1. 10. 11. The assignments in the section are clearly defined. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Our management isn't so concerned about formal organization and authority, but concentrates instead on getting the right people together to do the job. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior does not place a high value on maintaining good relations and does not feel that the attitudes and feelings of people are important in their own right. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior places a high value on making decisions that stick, and stands up for his decisions and ideas, even if it means stepping on someone else's toes. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree The policies and organizational structure of this unit have been clearly explained. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Ordinarily we don't deviate from standard policies and procedures in this unit. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior tries to avoid disagreements, rejections, and conflict; whatever conflict does arise he tries to smooth over. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Things seem to be pretty disorganized around here. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior tries to suppress or cut off conflict when it arises; when he cannot do that he tries to force his own solution to settle the issue. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [S] [6] [7] strongly agree New and original ideas are not prevented from receiving considera- tion by excessive rules, administrative details and red tape. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior treats his people in a brotherly way, and his motto appears to be "nice guys don't fight." strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 160 Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack of organization and structure. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree If you don't conform to standard practices around here, you will be looked upon critically by your superior. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior treats his people like a stern father, and his motto appears to be "nice guys finish last." strongly disagree [l] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree Unnecessary procedures are kept to a minimum in this unit. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior does not use his hierarchical power in the authoritarian-Obedience sense to maintain his control. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree My immediate superior strives to keep his emotions low-key, and his humor aims at maintaining good interpersonal relations. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree There are a lot of rules, policies, procedures, and standard prac- tices one has to know to get along in this unit. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree I feel I am a member of a clearly and precisely structured team. strongly disagree [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] strongly agree O‘U'I-L‘WNl-I' 10. 161 PERSONAL DATA Age Sex: Male ____ Female Number of years with the company Number of years in present field Number of years in present position Present salary level: ____under $10,000 ____ $10,000 - 19,999 ____ $20,000 - 29,999 ____§30,000 - 39,999 __y__$40,000 — 49,999 _____over $50,000 What do you estimate your average annual salary increase to have been over the last five years? ___0 - 107;. __11 — 15% ___16 - 207.; _21 - 307. ____31 - 40% ____41 - 50% ____ over 50% How many times each year do you attend professional development activities (seminars, training programs, etc.)? 0 1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 9 10 - 12 13 - 15 more than 15 What level of education have you completed? less than high school high school some college bachelor's degree some graduate school master's degree doctorate The majority of my duties in the firm are in the field of: ____purchasing ____marketing ____applied research ____exploratory research ____manufacturing ____clerical administrative 162 11a. How many of these hierarchical levels exist in your firm? (Place an "X" by those which appear in your organization.) top (vice-presidential and above) middl first line management 11b. On the above scale, please indicate with an "0", the level at which your position is located. company code number REFERENCES REFERENCES Adams, J. Stacy. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Carolina, 1972. Administrative Science Center, ed. J. D. Thompson, P. B. Hammond, R. W. Hawkes, B. H. Junker, & A. Tuden. Comparative studies in administration. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1959. Argyris, Chris. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. . Personality and organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Baldridge, J. Victor, & Burnham, Robert A. Organizational innovation: Individual, organizational, and environ- mental impacts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 29, 165-176. Blau, Peter M., & Scott, W. Richard. Formal ogganizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Burns, Tom, & Stalker, G. M. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd., 1961. Carpenter, H. H. Formal organizational structural factors and perceived job satisfaction of classroom teachers. Administrative Sciencegguarterly, 1971, 16, 460-465. Carzo, Rocco, & Yanouzas, John N. Effects of flat and tall organization structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, ii» 178-191. Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1962. Child, John. Managerial and organizational factors asso- ciated with company performance. Parts I & II. Tngournpl of Management Stpgies, October 1974, 175-189; February 1975, 12-27. 163 164 Chowdry, Kamla. Organisation et administration des insti- tutions scientifiques. Management InternatiOnal Review, 1969, 2:6, 97-104. Cyert, Richard M., & March, James G. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Dodge, Delf, & Tosi, Henry L. The effects of environments on organization systems. In H. L. Tosi & C. W. Hamner (Eds.), Organizational behavior: A contingenoy approach. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1977. Downey, H. Kirk, Hellriegel, Don, & Slocum, John W., Jr. Congruence between individual needs, organizational climate, job satisfaction, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 1975, IS, 149-155. Duncan, Robert B. Characteristics of organizational envi- ronments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 11, 313—27. Fine, B. D. Comparison of work groups with stable and unstable membership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 170-174. Friedlander, Frank, & Margulies, Newton. Multiple impacts of organizational climate and individual value sys- tems upon job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 171-183. Ghiselli, E. E., & Siegel, J. P. Leadership and managerial success in tall and flat organization structures. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 617-624. Greene, Charles N. Relationships among role accuracy, compliance, performance evaluation, and satisfaction within managerial dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 1972, 15, 205-215. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., Gavin, James F., & Korman, Abrahamli. Organizational correlates of achievement, aggression, and acceptance of change. Proceegings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, 1971, 6(pt. I), 477-478. Hall, Douglas T., & Lawler, Edward E.,III. JOb character- istics and pressures and the organizational integra- tion of professionals. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 1970, 15, 271-281. 165 . Unused potential in research and development organizations. Research Management, 1969, l2» 339-354. Hall, Douglas T., Schneider, Benjamin, & Nygren, Harold T. Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 176-190. House, Robert H., Filley, Alan C., & Kerr, Steven. Rela- tion of leader consideration and initiating struc- ture to R and D subordinates' satisfaction. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 1971, 55, 19-30. Hummon, Norman P. Criticism of "Effects of flat and tall organization structure." Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 230-240. Ivancevich, John M., & Donnelly, James H., Jr. A study of role clarity and need for clarity for three occu- pational groups. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 11, 28-36. Relation of organizational structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 55, 272—280. Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. Role ambiguity, role conflict, and satisfaction: Moderating effects of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychol- pgy, 1975, 55:3, 329—333. Jones, Halsey R. A study of organizational performance for experimental structures of two, three and four levels. Academy of Mapgggment Journal, 1969, 55, 351-365. Jones, Kenneth vanLeer. Role conflict: Perception and experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1970. ' Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley8c Sons, Inc., 1964. Kaufman, Harold G. Work environment, personal character- istics and obsolescence of engineers. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1970. Korman, Abraham K. Environmental ambiguity and locus of control as interactive influences on satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 166 Lawler, Edward E. LII. JOb attitudes and employee moti- vation: Theory, research, and practice. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 55, 223-237. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 15, 1-47. . Organization and environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967. Lee, Sang M. Organizational identification of scientists. Academy of Management Journal, 1969, 55, 327-337. Levine, Edward L., & Katzell, Raymond A. Effects of varia— tions in control structure on group performance and satisfaction: A laboratory study. Proceedings Of the Annual Convgntion of the Amerigan Psychological Asso- ciation, 1971, Qfipt. 1), 475-476. Lynch, Beverly P. An empirical assessment of Perrow's technology construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 15, 338-356. Maher, John I., & Piersol, Darrell T. Perceived clarity of individual job objectives and of group mission as correlates of organizational morale. Journal of Communication, 1970, 25, 125-133. McClelland, D. C. The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961. Miles, Raymond E. Theories of management: Implications for organizational behavior and devglopment. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Miles, Robert H. How job conflicts and ambiguity affect R & D professionals. Research Management, 1975, 55, 32-37. Muchinsky, Paul M. An assessment of the Litwin and Stringer organization climate questionnaire: An empirical and theoretical extension of the Sims and LaFollette study. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 55, 371-392. Nebeker, Delbert M. Situational favorability and perceived environmental uncertainty: An integrative approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 55, 281-294. 167 Nie, Norman H., Hull, C. Hadlai, Jenkins, Jean 6., Steinbrenner, Karin, & Bent, Dale H. Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1975. Perrow, C. Complex organizations. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1970. . Organizationalanalysis: A sociological view. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1970. Pheysey, Diana C., Payne, Roy L., & Pugh, Derek S. Influence of structure at organizational and group levels. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 15, 61-73. Porter, L. W., 8: Lawler, E. E. III. The effects of tall vs. flat organization structures on managerial job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 1964, 11, 135-148. , & Hackman, J. Richard. Behavior in_9rganizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Porter, L. W., & Siegel, J. P. Relationships of tall and flat organizational structure to the satisfaction of foreign managers. Personnel Psycholggy, 1965, 55, 379-392. Rashid, Muhammad Abdur. Need achievement and academic and job success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1969. Reeser, Clayton. Some potential problems of the project form of management. Academy of Management Journal, 1969, gg, 459-467. Reilly, Anthony J. The effects of different leadership styles on group performance: A field experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State Uni- versity, 1968. Rice, A. K. The enterprise and its environment. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd., 1963. Rice, Robert K. The relationship between organizational climate and student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968. 168 Richardson, F. L. W., Jr., & Walker, C. R. Human relations in an expanding company. New Haven: Labor and Management Center, Yale University, 1948. Rizzo, John R., House, Robert J., & Lirtzman, Sidney I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, l5, 150-163. Robinson, John P., Athanasiou, Robert, & Head, Kendra B. Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1969. Schneider, Benjamin, Hall, Douglas T., & Nygren, Harold T. Self-image and job characteristics as correlates of changing organizational identification. Human Rela- tions, 1970, 54:2, 397-416. Slocum, John W., & Misshauk, Michael J. Operative employees' satisfaction with selected work factors. Personnel Journal, 1969, 45, 205-209. Smith, P., Kendall, I., & Hulin, C. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand- McNally, 1969. Steers, R. M. Task-goal attributes, need achievement, and supervisory performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1975, l5, 392-403. Stogdill, Ralph M. Manual forphe leader behavior descrip- tion questionnaire--Form XII. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State Univer- sity, 1963. , & Coons, Alvin E. (Eds.). Leader behaviour: Its description and measurgment. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. Storey, Ronald G. The contingency theory of organizations: An examination of the relationships of climate and personality with performance and satisfaction in a stable environment. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1974. Taylor, James C. Some effects of technology in organiza- tional change. Human relations, 1970, 54:2, 105-123. Thompson, James D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. 169 Tosi, Henry L. Effect of the interaction of leader beha- vior and subordinate authoritarianism. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psy- chological Association, 1971, 5(pt. I), 473-474. . Organization stress as a moderator of the relationship between influence and role response. Academy of Management Journal, 1971, l4, 7-20. , & Carroll, Stephen J. Management: Contingencies, structure and process. Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1976. Trow, D. B. Autonomy and job satisfaction in task oriented groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 204-209. Wofford, J. C. Managerial behavior, situational factors, and productivity and morale. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, l5, 10-17. Worthy, J. C. Organizational structure and employee morale. American Sociological Review, 1950, 54, 169-179.