SQME PERSONAUTY FACTORS EN ATTITUDE TOWARD TECHNOLGGECAL CHANGE {N A MEDIUM SEZED EH$URANCE COMFANY Thasis {er fhe Degree 9% Ph. D.. Mifiiififitfi STATE UNIVERSITY Gimréa Cheek Kamenske 1965 THESIS I LI] mu MIMI)!!! MI MN ”I I m; 11;; n This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOME PERSONALITY FACTORS IN ATTITUDE TOWARD TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A MEDIUM SIZED INSURANCE COMPANY presented by Gloria Cheek Kamenske has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree ll] Psychology Major professor Datefiw /‘€’/) /4£5’ <7 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan Stew University ABSTRACT SOME PERSONALITY FACTORS IN ATTITUDE TOWARD TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A MEDIUM SIZED INSURANCE COMPANY 9/ Q by GloriayCheek Kamenske This study was designed to investigate the relationship of dogmatism and anxiety to attitude toward change both before and after technological change was introduced into an insurance company in the form of an IBM 650 computer, and to investigate the relationship of dogmatism and anxiety to five possible measures of reaction to change after introduction of the computer. Since the study was exploratory, other variables were measured and examined. Data were collected via questionnaire administration a few weeks before and six months after the computer (with its resulting major changes in jobs, work flow and operational procedures) was introduced into the Home Office (N=I70) and the Branch Office (N=7A) of an insurance company. Dogmatism was measured by eleven previously tested and scaled items taken,from the Rokeach ho-item Dogmatism Scale. Attitude toward change was measured by nine items developed, tested, and scaled at the Michigan State University Labor and Industrial Relations Center. Anxiety was measured by two pretested items containing high face validity. Correlations were computed using Tetrachoric r and Phi coefficients where appropriate. Gloria Cheek Kamenske Attitude toward change remained constant after introduction of the computer. High dogmatism, high anxiety, and high dogmatism and anxiety in combination were found to be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change both before and after computer introduction. Concerning reaction to change, high dogmatism, high anxiety, and high dogmatism and anxiety in combination were found to be related to feeling that the computer was disrupting, taking a long time to get used to the computer, and not liking very much the fact that the computer had been installed. In addition, high anxiety was found to be related to being less satisfied with the job after introduction of the computer. Dogmatism and anxiety were related to each other, and each was related to essentially the same attitudes toward and reactions to change. Relationships found between variables in the home office were used to predict relationships in the branch office and comparisons of obtained with predicted relationships in the branch office did not support home office findings on reactions to change. However, relationships found between variables in the branch office were used to predict relationships in the home office and comparisons of obtained with predicted relationships in the home office, supported all of the branch office findings. Exploring the relationship between several variables for all employees (N=244) showed high education related to low dogmatism, being male, being older, having a positive attitude toward change, and being less satisfied with the job. Male supervisors were more pleased than female supervisors about installation of the computer, but nonsupervisory Gloria Cheek Kamenske males were 1g§§_pleased than females about installation of the computer. Women were found to be more anxious than men. Findings of theoretical interest are that both dogmatic and anxious employees not only have a negative attitude about the concept of change, but show some negative reactions to technological change when it is introduced in their work environment. Practical suggestions for company personnel officers are that the most preparation for technological change should be given to high dogmatic, nonsupervisory, anxious, young women with l2 years of edu- cation or less. Also, attention should be given to nonsupervisory males, who welcomed change but were not as pleased as other employees about the computer being installed after it was in. In addition, some attention should be paid to finding means to increase job satisfaction of male employees with higher education. These employees are likely to be valuable and in critical positions and their job satisfaction, although not directly related to technological change, should be of some concern to their company. Copyright by GLORIA LEE CHEEK KAMENSKE (MRS. BERNARD H. KAMENSKE) I965 SOME PERSONALITY FACTORS IN ATTITUDE TOWARD TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IN A MEDIUM SIZED INSURANCE COMPANY By Gloria Cheek Kamenske A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology I965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is designed, in a limited way, to study the psycho- logical, social and economic effects of technological change. It is part of a program of research in the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Michigan State University. I am particularly indebted to the School of Labor and Industrial Relations and its staff for providing the resources to make this study possible. When this study was undertaken, Dr. Jack Stieber was the Director of Research of the School of Labor and Industrial Relations and the study was directly supervised by Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson of the Department of Psychology and Dr. Einar Hardin of the Economics Department. These three people provided much valuable assistance in carrying out the study. I wish to express thanks for the help offered by other members of the research team at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations who were associated with this particular project: Dr. William A. Faunce, Dr. John E. Nangle and Dr. Don A. Trumbo. Special appreciation is expressed for the suggestions, support, guidance and encouragement given by Dr. James S. Karslake, chairman of the doctoral guidance committee and director of the thesis research. Thanks are also extended to the other members of the guidance committee, Dr. Carl Frost, Dr. G. Marian Kinget, Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson, Dr. Henry Smith and Dr. Milton Rokeach. Gratitude is expressed to the officials and employees of the insurance company in which the data for this study was collected. Their interest and cooperation are very much appreciated. I am also very grateful to Mr. John M. Kert, Jr., who helped in the data processing and to Miss Antonette Simplicio, who typed this thesis and offered both useful suggestions and encouragement. Deep appreciation goes to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. George W. Cheek for their faith, love and encouragement over the years. This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Bernard, whose suggestions, moral support, encouragement and love provided the critical incentive for me to complete this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMEN-rs . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i i LIST OF TABLES. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O 0 Vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I l I O PRIOR RESEARCH. O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O h I I I 0 THE HYPOTHESES. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 9 IV. METHODOLOGY . O O O O O O C C O O O O O C O O O C O C O I I The Setting The Population Procedure and Questionnaires V. PERSONALITY O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2] Dogmatism Anxiety VI. ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 VII. REACTION TO CHANGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 VI I I . RESULTS 0 O O 0 O C C O I C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 29 Testing the Major Hypotheses Exploring Other Relationships between Variables IX. SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . 55 x. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 B IBL'OGRAPHY. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX B. . C C . O C O O O O C O C C O O O C O O C C O O O O 0 7A Pretest Employee Questionnaire Pretest Supervisory Questionnaire Posttest APPENDIX C. o o e e o e o o e o o o o o e o o o o o e o o o o o 0 ‘5] APPENDIX D. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 203 Table 10. ll. LIST OF TABLES Employee Population Involved in Research . Some Characteristics of the Survey P0pulation. Summary of Correlations between Dogmatism and Both Attitude Toward Change and Reaction to Change in the Home Office. Summary of Correlations between Anxiety and Both Attitude Toward Change and Reaction to Change in the Home Office. . . . . . . . Summary of Correlations between Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination and Both Attitude Toward Change and Reaction to Change in the Home Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Home Office Correlations and Branch Office Predictions for the Relationship between Dogmatism, Anxiety, Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination, and Both Attitude Toward Change and Reaction to Change . . . . . . Summary of Significant Relationships Found in Exploratory Data Using Both Home and Branch Office Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Dogmatism with Pre Change Attitude Toward Change . Correlation of Dogmatism with Post Change Attitude Toward Change . Correlation of Dogmatism with Change in Job Satisfaction after Introduction of Computer. Correlation of Dogmatism with Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlation of Dogmatism with Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Changeover to Computer. vi Page IA 34 38 1+6 5h 15“ 151+ 155 155 l56 Table 13. IA. I6. I8. 19. 20. 2|. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlation of Dogmatism with Feeling about Change Which Did or Did Not Take Place on Job. Correlation of Dogmatism with Feeling about Installation of Computer . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Changeover to Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism . . . . . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism. . Correlation of Anxiety with Pre Change Attitude Toward Change . . . . . . Correlation of Anxiety with Post Change Attitude Toward Change . . . Correlation of Anxiety with Change in Job Satisfaction after Introduction of Computer. Correlation of Anxiety with Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. . . Correlation of Anxiety with Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Changeover to Computer. Correlation of Anxiety with Feeling about Change Which Did or Did Not Take Place on Job . . Correlation of Anxiety with Feeling about Installation of Computer . vii Page 156 157 157 158 158 159 159 I60 I60 I6I I6] I62 I62 I63 LIST OF TABLES--Continued Table Page 27. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . I63 28. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16A 29. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Change in Job Satisfaction after Introduction of the Computer as Predicted by Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6h 30. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . I65 3]. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer as Predicted by Anxiety . . . . . . . . I65 32. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Anxiety. . . . . . . . . . . I66 33. Correlation of Anxiety with Dogmatism in the Home Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I66 3h. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Anxiety and Dogmatism in the Branch Office as Predicted by Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . I67 35. Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Pre Change Attitude Toward Change . . . . . . . . . I67 36. Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Post Change Attitude Toward Change. . . . . . . . . I68 37. Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Change in Job Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . I68 38. Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting . . . . . . . I69 39. Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I69 viii Table #0. 4|. #2. 43. 45. #6. ‘+7. #8. 1+9. 50. SI. 52. 53. 54. 55. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined with Feeling about Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on Job . Correlation of Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined ' with Feeling about Installation of Computer. . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination. . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination. . . . Correlation of Pre Change and Post Change Attitude Toward Change. . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Pre Change and Post Change Attitude Toward Change Means. . The Relation of Dogmatism Scores to Change in Attitude Toward Change Scores between Pre Change and Post Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Dogmatism and Sex . Correlations between Dogmatism and Age . Correlations between Dogmatism and Education . Correlations between Dogmatism and Pre Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Dogmatism and Post Change Job Satisfaction . . . . Correlations between Anxiety and Sex . ix Page I70 I70 I7I I7I I72 I72 I73 I73 17h I75 I76 I76 I77 I77 I78 I78 Table 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 7]. 72. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlations between Anxiety and Age . Correlations between Anxiety and Education . Correlations between Anxiety and Pre Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Anxiety and Post Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Sex. Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Age. Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Education. Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Pre Change Job Satisfaction. Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Post Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Change in Job Satisfaction after Computer Introduction . Correlations betwen Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer . Correlations betwen Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Feeling about Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Pre Change Attitude Toward Change and Feeling about Installation of Computer . Correlations between Age and Sex . Correlations between Age and Education . Correlations between Age and Pre Change Job Satisfaction . Page I79 I79 I80 I80 l8] I8I I82 I82 I83 I83 I84 I84 185 185 186 186 I87 Table 73. 7h. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 8I. 82. 83. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlations between Age and Job Satisfaction . . . Post Change Correlations between Age and Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Age and Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer. Correlations between Age and Which Had or Had Not Taken Correlations between Age and Installation of Computer . Correlations between Sex and Correlations between Sex and Correlations between Sex and Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Sex and to Get Used to Computer. Correlations between Sex and Which Had or Had Not Taken Correlations between Sex and Installation of Computer . Feeling about Changes Place on Job. Feeling about Education . Post Change Job Satisfaction. Extent Computer Length of Time Taken Feeling about Changes Place on Job. Feeling about Correlations between Education and Pre Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Education and Post Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Education and Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Education and Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer. Correlations between Education and Feeling about Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on Job. Correlations between Education and Feeling about Installation of Computer . xi Page l87 188 I88 189 I89 I90 I90 19] I9I I92 I92 I93 I93 I9h 19h I95 I95 Table 90. 9]. 92. 93. 9h. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. I00. IOI. I02. ‘03. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Sex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Post Change Job Satisfaction . Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Change in Job Satisfaction after Installation of Computer. Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer . Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Feelfng about Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Pre Change Job Satisfaction and Feeling about Installation of Computer . Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction after Installation of Computer and Age . Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Sex. Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Education. Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting. Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer . Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Feeling about Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between Change in Job Satisfaction and Feeling about Installation of Computer . xii Page I96 I96 I97 I97 I98 I98 I99 I99 200 200 ZOI 20l 202 202 Table I04. l05. I06. I07. I08. I09. llO. III. II2. Il3. Ilh. LIST OF TABLES-~Continued Summary of Tetrachoric Correlations Found between High Dogmatism, Anxiety, Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination, and Positive Attitude and Reaction to Change . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Changeover to Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Anxiety . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Anxiety . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Change in Job Satisfaction after Introduction of the Computer as Predicted by Anxiety . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Anxiety . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer as Predicted by Anxiety. xiii Page 205 206 206 207 207 208 208 209 209 2IO 2I0 Table II5. II6. II7. II8. ll9. I20. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Anxiety. Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Pre Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Post Change Attitude Toward Change as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Extent Computer Felt to be Disrupting as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Length of Time Taken to Get Used to Computer as Predicted by Dogmatiam and Anxiety in Combination . Correlation between Predicted and Observed Relationships for Feeling about Installation of Computer as Predicted by Dogmatism and Anxiety in Combination . Page 2ll 2ll 2I2 2I2 213 2I3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Technological change today is an issue of major importance to this nation and to the world. Although more efficient means of pro- duction in many kinds of work have been found for many years now by replacing hand work with machine work, the introduction and increasing use of automatic data processing equipment in the past decade has led to an enormous increase in mechanization of hand-tasks. With the increasing use of automatic data processing equipment, the term ”auto- mation” has gained a prominent place in the national vocabulary and has become a major issue of concern to the government, to employers, and to the working man. As technological change has gained impetus, it has also gained national attention. This country has watched major strikes take place in shipping, automobile production and steel manufacturing over issues and grievances concerned with technological change. Unemployment has become a national problem and the increased proportion of the unemployed over the years has been blamed on either machines replacing men or the new technology changing skill requirements to a point where many members of the labor force no longer possess the skills necessary to hold jobs. With the problem of unemployment and its corollary social prob- lems in welfare and education, the government, social scientists and educators have begun to see the necessity to take action to ease the I 2 impact of automation on the economy. The concern of the Federal Government with the manpower problems associated with automation and other technological changes is reflected in the Manpower Development and Training Act of I962, in which Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to “evaluate the impact of, and benefits and problems created by automation, technological progress, and other changes in the structure of production and demand on the use of the Nation's resources, establish techniques and methods for detecting in advance the potential impact of such developments; develop solutions to these problems, and publish findings pertaining thereto” (69). The National Education Association has published two volumes of collected papers by leading educators and social scientists on the problems of education brought about by technological change, and is encouraging research in this area (I6, 75). Where social issues arise and particularly where social conse- quences of the phenomena which cause technological change are harsh, applied social science has a clear duty to study and report behavior that may be expected to result from the phenomena, to identify corre- lates and modifiers of such behavior to the extent possible, and to suggest means of easing the impact of the phenomena on society and the individual. As we shall see in the next chapter, although there has been widespread concern and publication in the past few years on the problems of technological change, to date there have been very few instances in which empirical research has been conducted to study the effects of technological change in a scientific manner. 3 The purpose of this study is to show how some personality factors are related to attitude toward technological change and reaction to technological change in the setting of an insurance company where major technological change was in the process of being introduced. The study is necessarily exploratory in nature, but to the extent that variables can be identified that affect attitude toward and reaction to technolog- ical change, an attempt will be made to suggest means by which these variables may be used to aid in understanding and perhaps easing the impact of automation. CHAPTER II PRIOR RESEARCH The literature available to date on technological change is profuse and diverse. Articles on technological change have appeared in popular magazines, professional and technical journals, trade pub- lications, books, and newspapers. Reports on the impact of automation range from the anecdotal to the statistical. The periods of time covered by reports vary from one-time studies done a few weeks after introduction of technological change, to longitudinal studies covering a span of many months both before and after automation has been estab- lished in the study setting. In addition, the type of place where technological change occurs varies widely from one report to another, and the stage of automation or mechanization already present in the study site differ markedly from one report to another. In spite of the difficulties encountered in comparing publi- cations, however, it is possible to find a certain order in the topics which they cover and a certain comparability in generalizations which they show on the basis of research or experience. The prior research cited in this paper has been rather strictly limited to literature containing reports of empirical research or descriptions of issues directly related to the effects of technological change in an office setting. 5 The articles listed in the bibliography of this thesis were found to be the most useful in supplying background, theoretical, or statistical information which were used in the research design of this study. For a more detailed listing of the literature concerning technological change in the office or in any setting, the reader is referred to an annotated bibliography by Cheek (8), the author of this thesis, and to two other highly informative annotated bibliographies by Hardin, Eddy and Deutsch (28), and the U. S. Department of Labor (74). The effects of office automation on various aspects of employee attitudes and behavior have been reported by a number of authors (I, 3, 5, 6, IO, ll, I2, I7, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 4I, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, SI, 54, 56, 6I, 62, 68, 70, 7I). These studies have generally been of a descriptive nature. They have shown that the introduction of technological change in an office can cause changes in job satisfac- tion, in attitudes toward management, and in productivity. Employment levels within the office may change. (Generally, any unemployment effects of office automation are not immediately apparent since new machines are usually introduced in offices with an expanding business, the change to new machines may involve duplicate work during the transition, and employment effects are more likely to show up in failure to hire new personnel in the usual numbers over time.) In addition to the changes already mentioned, general studies of office automation have shown changes in skill requirements for employees and, in some cases, changes in the techniques of management. The effects of office automation in insurance companies in particular have been reported by a few researchers (7, 25, 73). On the whole, these studies are like those dealing with office automation in 6 other forms of industry. That is, they describe the general methods of introduction of technological change in the insurance companies, the reaction of employees to these changes, and changes in job and skill requirements resulting from the introduction of office automation. They have shown that generally employment levels are maintained in the insur- ance companies, that the employees are aware of the change and hold differing attitudes toward it, that some jobs are eliminated, some jobs are changed to a considerable extent and some jobs are generally unchanged when automation is introduced, and that skill requirements for many jobs are changed . . . in some cases enough so that the employee who wishes to retain his own job must take part in a training program. For a report of studies conducted by the Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State University in the series of investi- gations on the impact of automation in insurance companies, see: Faunce (l9); Hardin (26, 27); Jacobson, Trumbo, Cheek and Nangle (38); Nangle (53); Stieber (64) and Trumbo (66, 67). Specific findings from these latter studies will be cited as necessary in later discussions in this thesis. In general, the studies of the impact of technological change on office workers have shown that attitudes toward change can be quantified and that they vary among individuals; that job changes brought about by office automation can affect attitudes toward the job and can affect productivity; and that systematic differences in employee attitudes toward changes on the job can be related to certain variables such as age, sex and job satisfaction. The traditional approach to the study of attitude change in the past has been by planned manipulation of communications. Nangle (53, 7 pp. l8-2l) reviews the literature on this kind of research on attitude change. In this study, we are interested not in planned manipulation of communication, but in attitude change resulting from technological change in the work environment. Bennis (4), Coch and French (9), Craig (ll), Faunce (l8), Habbe (25), Hardin (26, 27), Hoos (34), Jacobson, Trumbo, Cheek and Nangle (38), Kahn and Morse (40), Krugman (43), Mann (46), Mann and Hoffman (47), Mann and Williams (48, 49), Megginson (SI), Morse (52), Nangle (53), Passine (55), Rogers (58), Stewart (63), Stieber (64), and Trumbo (66, 67) have been concerned with this problem. Although the studies cited above found changes in atti- tude toward communication, supervision, fellow workers, and changes in job satisfaction, and related some of these changes not only to the introduction of automation, but to other variables such as age, sex, marital status, and education. Only two of the above authors, Rogers (58) and Trumbo (66), were concerned with personality as a variable affecting attitudes toward technological change. Trumbo found, in a study conducted after change had been introduced in an-insurance company, that dogmatism tended to be inversely related to readiness for change. He also found that employees with high scores on a ques- tion about whether they were ”jumpy or nervous” on the job, had lower readiness for change scores than other employees. Rogers, in an inter- view of 23 farmers in which he used interview questions to measure rigidity and orientation toward technological innovations, found no significant relationship between dogmatism and two measures of knowl- edge about farm technological innovations. Herzberg, §£_gl. (32), in his extensive review of studies on job attitudes, found little evidence of any relationship between personality dimensions and job attitudes. The studies cited which deal at all with personality factors generally deal with personality as associated with job satisfaction. The personality factors studied have been inferiority by Quale (57), antagonism to parents and siblings by Friend and Haggard (20), and general maladjustment, extroversion and introversion, emotional instability, and nervous symptoms by Herzberg (32). It may be concluded on the basis of a review of prior research literature that employee attitudes may be affected by situational fac- tors, background factors, and the individual needs of employees. Anxiety is a state of inner tension. It may be a motive for setting up an ego defense. It may be free floating, manifesting itself as a "readiness for anxiety" as it does in anxiety neurosis, or it may be connected to a particular situation which represents the neurotic conflict as it does in anxiety hysteria. Anxiety is operationally defined in this paper as being what the two items used in the questionnaire measure. These items ask whether things at work make the employee feel “jumpy" or "nervous", and ask whether things at work affect the employee's feelings much one way or the other. These items have been used and validated on severa1.previous occasions(h0)(52) and, although admitedly are a very small measure of anxiety, have proven themselves well enough in the past to be acceptable for use in this study. The items used are similar to (but not the same as) items used by Rokeach taken from the MMPI. 8-a Rokeach (60) describes dogmatism as being a closed belief-disbelief system which represents a cognitive network of defenses against anxiety. He tested the relationship of dogmatism.to anxiety using his hO item Dogmatism.Sca1e and a 30 item.anxiety scale from the MMPI, on college students in New York, Michigan and England, and on industrial workers in England. All correlations between dogmatism and anxiety were positive and significant. The correlations ranged from .36 to .6b, with the lowest correlation being for English industrial workers. In studies by Rokeach (60) in New York and.Michigan, dogmatism and anxiety were clearly shown to be parts of a single psychological factor, (which also included self-rejection and paranoid tendencies). Rokeach and Bonier (60) found that, for subjects given the T.A.T. and the Dogmatism Scale, judges' ratings from the T.A.T. revealed more anxiety in stories told by the group higher on dogmatism. Content analysis further revealed a greater existence of threat themes and a greater need for closure in stories of subjects higher on dogmatism. Rokeach speaks of dogmatism in its relationship to resistance to ghgggg 'which he shows to be true in part because resistance to change allays anxiety. He describes dogmatic thinking as referring to the resis- tance to change of systems of beliefs. In this study, we have inferred the possibility that resistance to change may be manifested as an attitude toward change and that resistance to a system of beliefs may be similar to resistance to a technological innovation which should represent a need to change not only actions but beliefs . CHAPTER III THE HYPOTHESES Since prior research has shown practically no attempts to correlate personality variables with reactions to technological change, this study will be exploratory in nature. However, an effort will be made to test the following hypotheses: I. High dogmatism will be inversely related to a positive ,attitggg toward change before technological change is introduced into the work situation. 2. High dogmatism will be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change a£t§;_technological change is introduced into the work situation. 3. High dggmatism will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change after technological change is introduced into the work situation. 4. High anxiety will be inversely related to a positive atti- tude toward change before technological change is introduced into the work situation. 5. High anxiety will be inversely related to a positive attitude to change giggg technological change is introduced into the work situation. 6. High anxiety will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change afitg: technological change is introduced into the work situation. l0 7. Dogmatism and anxiety will have a positive relationship. 8. Dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change before technological change is introduced into the work situation. 9. Dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change after technological change is introduced into the work situation. IO. Dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change gigs: technological change is introduced into the work situation. .. Relationships will be explored between a number of Speci- fically selected variables and attitude and reaction to change in order to add to information concerning such relationships and indicate promising areas for further research. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY The Settigg A medium sized insurance company in the midwest was chosen for this study. It offered a unique opportunity to collect data both before and after introduction of electronic data processing equipment which was expected to cause a major change in the operation of the company. An insurance company was considered a good choice for a study of the effects of technological change in an office setting, since insurance companies and banks have been leaders in the use of electronic data processing equipment for office procedures. The insurance company chosen has a home office in a small town in a rural area and has a branch office in a large industrial metro- politan area in the same state. The company has been in business since I915 and started as a mutual automobile insurance company. It operates wholly within the state where it is located, although it is licensed to operate in one other state as well. The home office employs about 275 persons, the branch office about l20 persons, and about 35 employees are located in claims adjustment offices throughout the state. The company is governed by a board of directors, an executive committee, and an Operating committee. The president, executive vice- president, secretary, legal advisor, and treasurer of the company are on all three of the above-mentioned committees. ll l2 The branch office of the company is managed by four officers, with each of the four officers serving a year in turn as chairman of the branch office operating committee. Early in I957, the company management decided to install an I for elec- International Business Machines (IBM) 650 digital computer tronic data processing. The business had been expanding, and the company management wanted to use the most up-to-date and efficient methods at their disposal for handling their work. In April of I957, several employees were sent to IBM school to study the use of the computer, and during the Summer of I957, building alterations were made in the home office to make room for the computer. Although the company had been making some use of automatic data processing equipment (such as sorters, punchers, and printing machines), the introduction of the computer was an addition of some magnitude and cost and was expected to alter some jobs within the com- pany to a great extent. When the computer was installed in December of I957, about two weeks were Spent in equipment testing and program check-out. The com- puter was used for such tasks as checking premium computations performed by agents, computing premiums and assembling policy-declaration data for policies written in the home office. It was also used for compiling statistical and accounting reports. IThe IBM 650 consists of three components: the Power Unit, the Read-Punch Unit, and the Console. Information is stored on a magnetic drum memory, and input-output is achieved by use of punch cards. 13 By the beginning of May, I958, the checking of agents' compu- tations and the processing of policies written in the home office were completely automated.2 The Population The plan for this study called for using the total population of the insurance company except for members of top management, part- time employees, and employees who spent more than half of their working time outside of the company offices such as claims adjusters and agents. This was a longitudinal study, involving a pretest and posttest, and as might be expected, some employees terminated employment and some employees were hired between testings. All those persons newly hired between pretest and posttest were excluded from this study. When com- parisons between pretest and posttest data were made, those employees terminating employment between pretest and posttest were dropped from the population. Table I shows the number of employees tested in the pretest and posttest and the number of employees who terminated employment between pre and post tests. The number of employees hired between pretest and posttest (but not included in this study) was 49. Over-all employment, at least, did not drop immediately in this insurance company as a result of the introduction of technological change in work procedures. 2For a discussion of the impact of the computer on procedures and work requirementsiridifferent departments of the company, see Hardin (26, 27). I4 TABLE I EMPLOYEE POPULATION INVOLVED IN RESEARCH Employee . Status Pretest Terminals Posttest Home Office Supervisory 35 2 33 Nonsupervisory I57 I9 I38 Branch Office Supervisory IS I I4 Nonsupervisory 76 IS 6l Total Number 283 37 ' 246 As would be expected, the supervisory personnel of the insurance company were older than the nonsupervisory personnel. Table 2 shows that the greatest portion of nonsupervisory employees were under 29 years old,z?enale, andghigh school graduates. This is typical of insur- ance company personnel. It is interesting to note that the branch office employees were younger than the home office employees and that the branch office employed more people who did not finish high school than did the home office. In the home office, most of the men were married, and the men in the branch office were about evenly divided between married and unmarried. In the home office, the females were about evenly divided between married and unmarried, with slightly more being married than not. In the branch office, on the other hand, only one-third of the females were married. (Age is probably a relevant factor here. Since branch employees tend to be younger than home office employees, they probably had not reached the usual age for marriage, on the average.) l5 TABLE 2 SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURVEY POPULATION (in percentages) Home Office Branch Office Characteristics . . . . Supervnsors NonsuperVIsors SuperVISors Nonsuperv1sors (N=35) (N=IS7) (N=IS) (N=76) Age Under 29 20.0 60.2 33.3 82.9 30 or over 80.0 39.8 66.7 I7.I Total I00.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 Sex Male 60.0 l6.0 46.65 II.85 Female 40.0 84.0 53.35 88.l5 Total IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.00 IO0.00 Marital Status Male, married 57.I I3.4 33.30 6.60 Male, othera 2.9 2.6 I3.35 5.25 Female, married 25.7 45.9 33.30 22.40 Female, othera l4.3 38.I 20.05 65.75 Total IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.00 IO0.00 Education Less than l2 yrs. . . 7.0 6.7 I7.I 12 yrs. (high sch.) h2.9 77.7 46.7 65.8 Some col. or more 57.I I5.3 46.6 I7.I Total 100.0 100 0 100.0 100.0 Years with Company Less than I yr. . . l9.l 6.6 36.8 I to 6 years 28.6 62.4 60.0 63.2 More than 6 yrs. 7l.4 I8.5 33.4 . Total IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 Residential Background Farm l4.3 42.7 . . 2.6 Small town 54.3 38.2 6.7 l3.2 City 28.6 17.2 93.3 84.2 N.A. 2.8 I.9 . . Total IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 IO0.0 a"Other" includes ”single,” ”separated,” ”divorced,” and ”widowed.” 16 As might be expected, supervisory personnel had been with the company more years than nonsupervisory personnel in both the home office and the branch office. In the home office, l9.I per cent of the non- supervisory employees had been with the company for less than I year at the time of the survey, but almost twice as many (36.8%) of the non- supervisory employees in the branch office had been with the company for less than a year at the time of the survey. It may be that the branch office, which was much newer than the home office, had been expanding business more rapidly in the last year than the home office and thus had hired more employees during that time period. This, coupled with the probability that turnover is higher in an office with more unmarried, young females, could account for the higher percentage of new employees in the branch office. More than two-thirds of the employees of the home office were either from a farm or small town background, whereas nearly all of the branch office employees were from a city background. This is under- standable, since the home office is located in a farm area in a small town and the branch office is located in a large city. Apparently most of the employees come from the areas surrounding their offices. ProcedggeLgnd_gg§§tionnaires The experimental design called for a pretest questionnaire to be administered before installation of the IBM 650 computer in December of I957 and a posttest questionnaire to be administered after installa- tion of the computer. It was decided to administer the pretest on November l9, I957 (three weeks prior to installation of the computer), and to administer the posttest 6 months after the pretest on I7 May 20, I958 (five-and-one-half months after installation of the computer.) The questionnaire was developed by a research team consisting of the author of this thesis and others at the School of Labor and Industrial Relations (then known as Labor and Industrial Relations Center . . . LIRC). Because different members of the team were inter- ested in testing different hypotheses, the questionnaire contains many questions not needed to test the hypotheses put forth in this thesis. In general, the questionnaire covers employee perception of change, expectations about change, attitudes toward change, reports of super- visory practices, communication practices, personality, job satisfac- tion, group cohesiveness, and demographic and job related background data. (The questionnaires appear in the Appendix of this thesis.) Questionnaires were pretested in the tabulating section of the administrative offices of Michigan State University, and interviews were held with employees to make certain that poor questions could be changed or eliminated. The questionnaires (supervisory and nonsuper- visory forms) were then administered by the LIRC research team at another insurance company and this administration is reported by Trumbo (66). With some slight further modification based on these pretests of the questionnaire, the present forms of the questionnaire were developed. There are three forms: pretest, supervisory and non- supervisory, and posttest. In April of I957 all supervisory personnel were told by the company that the IBM 650 computer would be installed. In July of I957, the employees began to receive information through formal channels (company newspaper, supervisory conference, etc.) that the computer I8 would be installed. Prior to the November administration of the ques- tionnaire, a general notice was given in the company newspaper that research would be conducted in the company by a Michigan State University research team, and a letter was given to all employees from the company president explaining the survey in general terms and asking for employee cooperation (see Appendix A). On the front of the supervisor and nonsupervisor forms of the questionnaire was a letter from the research team which explained the purpose of the study in general terms and asked for frank responses. Assurance was given of respondent anonymity. At the bottom of the cover letter was a strip of paper (called the “name ballot”) which contained a space for the respondent's name and a prestamped code number which agreed with a prestamped code number on the questionnaire. Employees were asked to put their names on the name ballots, and to detach the name ballot from the questionnaire when the questionnaire was completed and to deposit the name ballot in a special box (clearly marked I'Labor and Industrial Relations Center, Michigan State University”) and their questionnaires in another box (also clearly labeled). Pre- cautions were taken to let the employees see the boxes being taken away by the research team so no question would arise about whether or not company officials could identify answers with individuals. The research team intended (and successfully carried out) a dramatic assurance that no one could identify a person with his answers except Michigan State research people. The pretest questionnaires were 37 pages long and the posttest questionnaire was l7 pages long. It was necessary to use as little of the company time as possible for collecting data, and so only essential I9 items were asked in the posttest and items which did not absolutely have to be repeated (such as personality items, some attitude items and most demographic data) were left out of the posttest questionnaire. In the home office of the insurance company, the administration of the questionnaires was carried out in two separate sessions on the same day in the basement lunch room. Four persons sat at each table. Supervisors were separated from employees by an obvious distance to allow employees to feel more comfortable about answering questions about their supervisors and job satisfaction. When all employees were assembled, the questionnaires and pencils were distributed. Instructions were then read aloud over a public address system. These instructions were: I am of the Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State University, and these are , and from the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. I suppose that all of you received a letter from us recently explaining the purpose of this survey and a little bit about what we hope you can do for us today. As you know, the Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State is carrying on a broad program of research having to do with people working together effec- tively in industrial organizations. Much of this research consists of getting the ideas and opinions of people about their jobs. We are asking you to fill out a questionnaire for us as a part of the series of studies dealing with insur- ance company employees in the Midwest. Your answers, along with those from people in other organizations that we have already surveyed and will survey in the future, will be' analyzed to help us discover what things are most important in making the working situation better for the people in it. We would like to emphasize the third and fourth paragraphs of the cover letter that you have on your questionnaire. The conclusions that we draw about your attitude and opinions will be of value only to the extent that they reflect your really frank opinions and attitudes. As you can see on the bottom of the face sheet, we are asking you for your name. This is essential to us in order to properly analyze the questionnaire, but your name and number will be re-coded immediately after the survey and positively no one other than 20 the research workers at the Labor and Industrial Relations Center will ever be able in any way to identify you in con- nection with your answers. We absolutely guarantee that no one connected in any way with will ever at any time be aware of how you answered the questionnaire. We will be available to answer questions that you may have once you have started answering the questionnaire. Be sure to answer every question. When you have finished, tear off the bottom half of the face sheet and place your name in the ballot box and your questionnaire in the large box at the door as you leave. You may begin. Two hours were allowed for completion of the questionnaire by each group. Most employees were finished within an hour. After the administration the ”name ballots“ were collected from their deposit box and the names of respondents were checked off by a member of the research team against a revised, up-to-date company payroll list so absentees could be identified. On the same day (November l9, I957), several members of the research team administered the questionnaire to branch office personnel. Because of space limitations at that location, employees took the ques- tionnaire at their desks. Consequently, only one session was required. The same administrative procedures were followed with branch office personnel as with the home office. On the following day research team members visited both the home and branch offices and administered the questionnaires to those who had been absent on the previous day or who could not take the ques- tionnaire conveniently at the regularly scheduled time. Essentially the same administrative procedures were followed on the posttest, which took place May 20, I958. CHAPTER V PERSONALITY Dogmatism The personality measure used in this study to measure the vari- able of dogmatism is an abbreviated form of the Dogmatism Scale devel- oped by Rokeach (60). Rokeach formally defines dogmatism as ”(a) a relatively closed cognitive organization of betiefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around a central set of beliefs about abso- lute authority which, in turn, (c) provide a frameégrk for patterns of intolerance and qualified tolerance toward others” (60, p. 3). It is hypothesized that the closed nature of the belief system in a dogmatic person, and his intolerance in general, might well lead to a negative attitude toward change in his accepted work system. Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale consists of 40 items with Likert-type multiple choice responses. On the Dogmatism Scale, subjects show whether they agree or disagree with the statements presented by checking the number which best expresses their opinion. Numbers and response choices are: +3 agree very much, +2 agree on the whole, +l agree a little, -I disagree a little, -2 disagree on the whole, -3 disagree very much. Item scores of from I to 7 are obtained by adding a constant of 4 to each code number. Dogmatism scores are sums of the 40 item scores . 2I 22 Because of the limited time allotted to testing the insurance company employees and the fact that many variables had to be measured in the questionnaire administered, it was impossible to include the whole 40 item Dogmatism Scale in the questionnaire. Since Rokeach had reported detailed item analysis data on the dogmatism items in his Dogmatism Scale, it was possible to choose those items which were the most reliable and discriminating. Three criteria were used in selection of the dogmatism items to be included in the questionnaire: l. to choose items in nearly equal numbers from the three basic aspects of dogmatism as conceived by Rokeach (the cognitive structure of dogmatism, the formal cognitive content of dogmatism and the function of dogmatism); 2. to choose items which item analysis had shown to be most reliable and discriminating; and 3. to choose items that had face validity for the questionnaire. (That is, in a questionnaire which is asking questions about feelings about the job and self, such a question from the Dogmatism Scale as, ”The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common,” would have probably aroused either suspicion or anxiety in the insurance company employees about the purpose of the questionnaire so such items were not used.) On the basis of the above three criteria, eleven items were selected to measure dogmatism on the questionnaire. The items were coded for IBM cards by assigning the numbers ”6” (agree very much) to ”I“ (disagree very much) to the six alternatives. The code numbers were accepted as item scores to facilitate scoring. As a result, the 23 item scores range from one to six rather than from one to seven as in the full Dogmatism Scale. Trumbo (66), using the II item dogmatism scale with another insurance company, analyzed the items for internal consistency by using upper and lower 27 per cent groups from the distribution of summated scores, obtaining mean item scores for the upper and lower groups and testing the difference between means by a t test. Every t value was found to be significant beyond the .Ol level. Trumbo concluded that the item scores were consistently and highly related to the total scores for the II items and that the high internal consistency of the items allows the assumption that the items can be combined into a scale of the Likert variety by summating item scores. The ll items measuring dogmatism jn the questionnaire included in this survey may be found in Appendix B (items VI-4O through VI-SO). Anxiety Feelings of anxiety are hypothesized in this thesis as being related to both attitude toward and reaction to technological change. Two items to measure employee anxiety were given on the pretest (items III-52, 54, Appendix B), and one item to measure anxiety was given on the posttest (item III-IS, Appendix B). On the pretest, the items were, “Do things here at work ever make you feel 'jumpy' or nervous?” (and six Likert alternatives ranged from “Never” to ”Very Often”), and ”Frankly, most things that happen to me don't affect my feelings much one way or the other,” (with six 24 Likert alternatives ranging from ”I agree very muchII to I'I disagree very much”). On the posttest, the first item on the pretest above was repeated. It is not known whether these items are valid measures of anxiety or not. Face validity is depended on in this instance. On the pretest, the anxiety score is the simple sum of the responses on the two items, with a high score indicating high anxiety. CHAPTER VI ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Nine items were chosen to measure attitude toward change. These items were written by members of the Labor and Industrial Relations Center research team which included the author of this thesis. Likert alternatives were given to each of nine statements in the atti- tude toward change scale. Choices on each item ranged from ”I” (indicating resistance to change) to ”5” (indicating readiness to accept change). The items are shown in Appendix B and appear as items I-56 and IV-4O through IV-47 on the supervisory and employee pretest forms and as items III-I6 and I-39 through I-46 on the posttest form. Each of the nine items required responses of agreement or disagreement with statements expressing either positive statements about changes in the work situation or negative statements about such changes. The sum of the item scores was taken as the scale score. Using a different insurance company, Trumbo (66) used the nine items and found that they formed a scale which he called the "Readiness for Change Scale.” Nangle (53) used the same nine items as a "Readiness for Change Scale” on the same insurance company used in this study and did item analyses which showed that the items held up as a scale when used on a different group of employees. 25 26 The assumption is made here that ample proof has been submitted that the nine items chosen to measure attitude toward change in this study form a scale with high internal consistency. Perhaps it is only a whim, but this author prefers to refer to the scale as an “Attitude toward Change Scale” rather than a ”Readiness for Change Scale.‘I It seems to better describe the feelings expressed in answering the scale items, and avoids difficult semantic problems when talking about scores on the posttest scale (after change has been introduced in the employment situation). In order to test several hypotheses (see Chapter III), dogmatism, anxiety, and dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be compared with both pretest and posttest scores on attitude toward change. CHAPTER VII REACTION TO CHANGE In his communication study in the same insurance company used in this study, Nangle (53) used the difference between pre and post test scores on the ”Readiness for Change Scale” as his measure of reaction to change. This measure is not chosen in this study, because it seems such a change would only be a change in attitude toward change and although such a change could be considered one type of reaction to change, it is hypothesized that this measure is rather stable and will not be affected greatly by specific job changes. That is, it is con- sidered an expression of personality by this author and would be expected to remain quite stable whether change external to the indi- vidual takes place or not. It must be noted, also, that although Nangle (53) found a significant difference between pre and post test scores on the ”Readiness for Change Scale,” the difference in means was small. It is difficult to choose any one measure of reaction to change. Therefore, in this thesis, several reactions to change will be explored. Five possible reactions to change used in this study are as follows: I. Change in job satisfaction. Question ll-37 on the posttest (see Appendix B) asks, ”Considering everything, would you say you are now more satisfied or less satisfied with your job than you were six months ago?” Five Likert type answers are allowed, ranging from “Much 27 28 more satisfied now'l to “Much less satisfied now.”' It is possible that reaction to change might be shown by change in job satisfaction as found in the answers to this question. 2. Another possible reaction to change is attitude toward the general effect of the changeover to the computer. Item Il-39 on the posttest (see Appendix B) measures this. Employees give their answers in terms of how ”disrupting” the effect of the changeover to the com- puter was and their answers could be one index of reaction to change. 3. The length of time it takes employees to get used to the changeover to the computer may be a measure of another reaction to change. This is measured on the posttest by item II-4O (see Appendix B). 4. Employee statements about changes which have taken place on their jobs could be another reaction to change. Items lI-43, 44 on the posttest (see Appendix B) measure reported job changes and employee attitudes about these changes. 5. A final possibility for a measure of reaction to change is employee feelings about installation of the computer. Item II-38 on the posttest (see Appendix B) gives employees five alternatives from I'Like very much“ to ”Dislike very much.” In order to test hypotheses 3, 6 and IO in this study (see Chapter III), dogmatism and anxiety scores will be compared to all five of the above suggested measures of reaction to change. CHAPTER VIII RESULTS Testingfithe Major Hypotheses Appendix C gives the detailed procedure used for computations given in this chapter, and presents tables showing just how employees are divided on the variables being tested. In this chapter, employees in the ”High Oogmatic Group” are those whose total scores on the dogma- tism items (items VI-4O through Vl-50, Appendix B) are above the median dogmatism score for their reference group. Employees in the ”High Anxiety Group“ are those whose total scores on the anxiety items (items Il-52, 54, Appendix B) are above the median anxiety score for their reference group. Employees in the llHigh Dogmatism and Anxiety Combined Group“ are those employees whose total dogmatism and total anxiety scores combined by simple addition are above the median dogmatism-anxiety score for their reference group. For home office employees (N=I7O)3 the median dogmatism score was 42 (range l8 to 66), the median anxiety score was 8 (range 3 to l2), and the median dogmatism plus anxiety score was 49 (range 26 to 77). For branch office employees (N=74)h the median dogmatism score was 42 (range 22 to 59), the median anxiety score was 8 (range 4 to l2), and the median dogmatism plus anxiety score was 50 (range 30 to 7I). 3One home office employee with an incomplete questionnaire was dropped for the purpose of this analysis. One branch office employee with an incomplete questionnaire was dropped for the purpose of this analysis. 29 30 I. To test the first hypothesis, computation was made of the correlation between dogmatism and pre change attitude toward change as measured by total scores on pretest items (items I-56 and IV-4O through lV-47, Appendix B). Since the mean of pre change attitude toward change scores was 26.35 (standard deviation 5.94, range l3 to 4I), high pre change attitude toward change consisted of employees with scores of 26 or above. Tetrachoric r = -.37 (significant at the I% level). Thus, the first hypothesis is supported. Hiqh dogmatism is inversely related to positive pre change attitude toward chang_. 2. To test the second hypothesis, computation was made of the correlation between dogmatism and post change attitude toward change as measured by total scores on posttest items (III-l6 and I-39 through I-46, Appendix B). Since the mean of post change attitude toward change scores was 26.86 (standard deviation 6.l2, range l2 to 43), high post change attitude toward change consisted of employees with scores of 27 or above. Tetrachoric r = -.47 (significant at the I% level). The second hypothesis is also supported. Hiqh dogmatism is inversely related to positive post chagge attitgde toward change. 3. Testing the third hypothesis that ”high dogmatism will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change after technological change is introduced into the work situation,” involves comparing dogma- tism scores with the five possible measures of reaction to change (a through e below) described in Chapter VII. a. Change in job satisfaction.--Question II-37 (posttest, Appendix B) which asks employees whether they are more satisfied at 3I the time of the posttest than they were 6 months ago, was used for the measure of change in job satisfaction. Employees answering the change in job satisfaction question were divided into two groups: (I) those who said they were much more or more satisfied now than 6 months ago, and (2) those who said they were the same, less or much less satisfied now than 6 months ago. The correlation between dogmatism and change in job satisfaction was computed. Tetrachoric r = 0 (not significant). If change in job satis- faction after introduction of technological change into the work situ- ation can be considered a measure of reaction to change, then the hypothesis thgt_high dogmatism will be inversely related togg_positive [ppgtion to change is not ppheld. b. _xtent comppter is felt to be disrupting,--This question (item II-39, posttest, Appendix 8) reads, ”Whatuwas the general effect of the changeover to the new computer'' and five alternatives range from ”It was not disrupting at all“ to “It was very disrupting.“ Employees were divided into a group which answered ”slightly, quite or very disrupting'I and a group which answered ”not disrupting at all or have no idea.” The correlation between dogmatism and the perceived dis- rupting effect of the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.3I (significant at tHe I% level). If not finding the changeover to the new computer disrupting can be considered a measure of positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis thgt high doqmggjsm will be inversely_related to a positive reaction to chgpge is supported. c. pength of time employees take to get psed to the changeover to the computer.--On item Il-4O (posttest, Appendix B) employees were 32 asked how long it took them to get used to the change brought on by the computer, and had six alternatives ranging from ”No more than one week” to ”Not really used to it yet.” Employees were divided into two groups, one which answered I'Up to one month, or not affected” and one group whose answers ranged from ”More than a month” up to ”Not used to it yet." The correlation between dogmatism and length of time employees take to get used to the changeover to the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.3l (significant at the I% level). Thus, if taking a long time to get used to change brought on by the computer can be considered a negative reaction to change, then the hypothesis thgp hiqh dogmatism will be inversely relpted to a positive reaction to change is supported. d. Feeling about changes which had or hpd not taken plpce on the iob.--Employees were asked (items II-43, 44 posttest, Appendix 8), whether they had been promoted or transferred and whether or not their jobs had undergone considerable, some, slight, or no change as a result of the introduction of a computer into the company. They were given a series of alternatives to show how they felt about the change (or lack of change) on their jobs. These alternatives ranged from ”Like very much” to “Dislike very much.” Employees were divided into two groups depending on whether they said they "Had experienced change and disliked it or had not experienced change and liked it" or said they ”Had experienced change and liked it or had not experienced change and dis- liked it.” The correlation between dogmatism and feelings about changes which had or had not taken place on the job was computed. Tetrachoric r = 0 (not significant). If experiencing change and liking it or not eXperiencing change and disliking it can be 33 considered a measure of positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high dogmgtism will be inversely related to a positive reaction to ppppge is not_§ppported on this measure. e. Feeling about installation of the comppter.--Employees were asked (item II-38, posttest, Appendix B), ”What is your general feeling about the fact that the company has installed a computer?” There were six possible alternatives ranging from ”I like it very much” to ”I dislike it very much.” Those employees who stated they "Liked it very much” were placed in one group, and employees choosing the other alternatives were place in another group. The correlation between dogmatism and feeling about installation of the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.30 (significant at the I% level). If liking the fact that the company installed a computer very much is a measure of a positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that higp,dogpgr tism will be inversely related to appositive reaction to change is supported. Table 3 summarizes home office results so far and shows that high dogmatism is inversely related to a positive attitude toward change both before and after technological change is introduced into the work situation and that three out of five suggested measures of reaction to change support the hypothesis that high dogmatism will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change after technological change is introduced into the work situation. 34 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND BOTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND REACTION TO CHANGE IN THE HOME OFFICE (N=I70) Positive Attitude ”‘9“ °°9matism and Reaction to Change r Significance Level Attitude Pre change -.37 l% Post change -.47 l% Reaction Change in job satisfaction 0 not significant Extent computer felt to be disrupting -.3l l% Length of time taken to get used to computer -.3I l% Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place 0 not significant Feeling about installation of computer -.30 I% In order to check results obtained in the home office on the relationship between dogmatism and both attitude toward and reaction to change, computations were made using relationships found between dogma- tism and attitude toward and reaction to change in the home office to predict scores on the variables for each individual in the branch office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for branch office employees. 35 Attitude Toward Change The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for pre change attitude toward change as predicted by dogmatism yielded a phi coefficient of +.40. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for post change attitude toward change as predicted by dogmatism yielded a phi coefficient of +.35. flgpgtion to Change Prediction was not made for change in job satisfaction or feeling about change which had or had not taken place on the job because no significant relationship was found between dogmatism and these variables in the home office. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the extent the computer is felt to be disrupting as predicted by dogmatism was a phi of +.O6. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the length of time taken to get used to the computer as predicted by dogmatism was a phi of +.04. The correlations between predicted and observed relationships for feeling about installation of the computer as predicted by dogma- tism was a phi of +.25. Thus, in the branch office, relationships between predicted and observed variables were iositive'and Sonatina. j greater than zero, which supports the hypotheses concerning the inverse relationships between dogmatism and mttitudeltoward*butf not reaction to change. (See Appendix D for a discussion of the above phi coefficients.) (Also See Appendix D for predictions from branch to home). 36 4. To test the fourth hypothesis, the correlation between anxiety and pre change attitude toward change was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level). jflxp hypgthesis that high anxiety,will be inversely related to a positive pttitude toward chgnge before technologicgl chgpge is introdgced into the work sippation is supported. 5. The correlation between anxiety and post change attitude toward change was computed to test the fifth hypothesis. Tetrachoric r = -.4l (significant at the l%ilevel). Ih§_ hypothesis thg£_high anxiepy will be inversely relgted to a ppsitive gttitpde toward change after technologjcglichgpge is introduced into the work situggion is supported. 6. The correlation between anxiety and each of the five suggested measures of reaction to change was computed to test the sixth hypothesis. a. Epgpge in iob satisfaction.--The correlation between anxiety and change in job satisfaction after introduction of the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.75 (Significant at the I% level). If being more satisfied after introduction of the computer than before can be considered a measure of a positive reaction to change, then EDS. hypothesis that high gpxiety will be inversely related to a positive reaction to chgpge after technological change is introduced into the work sigpption is Sppported. b. Extent comppter felt to be dis:ppting.--The correlation between anxiety and feelings about introduction of the computer into the work situation was computed. 37 Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level). If not finding the changeover to the new computer disrupting can be considered a positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis tho; high anxiety will be inversely relaged to a positive repction to chopge is sgpported. c. Length of time pgken to get poed to the copputer.--The correlation between anxiety and the length of time taken to get used to the computer after its introduction into the work situation was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.44 (significant at the I% level). If taking a long time to get used to change brought on by the computer can be considered a negative reaction to change, then the hypothesis thg£_ highoppéjety will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change is supported. d. Feeling about chapgos which hod or had not taken plpce on the job. The correlation between anxiety and feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.03 (not significant). If experiencing change and liking it or not experiencing change and disliking it can be con- sidered a measure of positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high anxietyowill be inversely related to agppsitive reaction to change is not supported. e. Feeling abogt_jnstallation of the computer. The correlation between anxiety and feeling about installation of the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.40 (significant at the I% level). If liking the fact that the company installed a computer is a measure of a positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high gnxiety will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change is supported. 38 Table 4 summarizes home office results showing that high anxiety is inversely related to a positive attitude toward change both before and after technological change is introduced into the work situation and that four out of five suggested measures of reaction to change support the hypothesis that high anxiety will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change after technological change is introduced into the work situation. TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND BOTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND REACTION TO CHANGE IN THE HOME OFFICE (N=I70) f a Positive Attitude H'gh Anx'ety and Reaction to Change r Significance Level Attitude Pre change -.27 2% Post change -.4l I% Reaction Change in job satisfaction -.75 I% Extent computer felt to be disrupting -.27 2% Length of time taken to get used to computer -.44 l% Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place -.03 not significant Feeling about installation of computer -.40 l% 39 In order to check results obtained in the home office on the relationship between anxiety and both attitude toward and reaction to change, computations were made using relationships found between anxiety and attitude toward and reaction to change in the home office to predict scores on the variables for each individual in the branch office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for branch office employees. Attitggevlpward Change The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for pre change attitude toward change as predicted by anxiety yielded a phi coefficient of +.20. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for post change attitude toward change as predicted by anxiety yielded a phi coefficient of +.24. Ropction to Chpnqe Prediction was not made for feeling about change which had or had not taken place on the job because no significant relationship was found between anxiety and this variable in the home office. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for change in job satisfaction as predicted by anxiety was a phi of +.ll. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the extent the computer is felt to be disrupting as predicted by anxiety was a phi of +.ll. 40 The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the length of time taken to get used to the computer as predicted by anxiety was a phi of +.l2. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for feeling about installation of the computer as predicted by anxiety was a phi of +.l2. Thus, in the branch office, relationships between predicted and observed variables were found to be positive amdgsometimes greater than zero, which supports the hypotheses concerning the inverse relation- ships between anxiety and Tattitude toward-but! (not reaction to change, (See Appendix D for a discussion of the above phi coefficients.) 7. In order to test the hypotheSis that dogmatism and anxiety will have a positive relationship, the correlation between dogmatism and anxiety was computed. Anxiety scores were used to Split employees into two groups at the median score of 8 and dogmatism scores were designated high dogmatism if they were 42 or above, and low dogmatism if they were 4l or below. In the home office, tetrachoric r = +.49 (significant at the I% level). Thus, the hypothesis that dogmatism and anxiety will hox§_ oppositive relationship to one another was supported. In order to check the relationship found in the home office between dogmatism and anxiety, computations were made using relation- ships between dogmatism and anxiety in the home office to predict scores on the variables for each individual in the branch office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for branch office employees. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for anxiety as predicted by dogmatism yielded 4l a phi coefficient of +.I3. Since this coefficient was positive and greater than zero, it was concluded that branch office data support the hypothesis that dogmatism and anxiety are related. 8. In order to test the hypothesis that dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change before technological change is introduced into the work situ- ation, the correlation between dogmatism and anxiety combined and pre change attitude toward change was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 5% level). [ho hypothesis that high dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive attitpge toward chppge before technological chopge is introdgood into the work situation is §ppported. 9. To test the hypothesis that dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive attitude toward change after technological change is introduced into the work situ- ation, the correlation between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and post change attitude toward change was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.38 (significant at the I% level). Ih§_ hypothesis that high dogpgtism and anxiety in compination will be inversely relgted to a positive_§ttitude toward change after technolog;f pploohppge is introduced into the work sitgation is supported. IO. The correlations between dogmatism and anxiety in combi- nation and the five suggested measures of reaction to change were computed. a. Chopge in job satisfaction.--The correlation between dogma- tism and anxiety in combination and change in job satisfaction after introduction of the computer was computed. 42 Tetrachoric r = +.l5 (not significant). If being more satis- fied after introduction of the computer than before can be considered a measure of a positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high onxiety will be inversely roloted to a positive repetion to change ofter technologicol chonge is introdpged into the work situation is not supported. b. Extent comppter felt to be dis:gpting.--The correlation between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and feelings about introduction of the computer into the work situation was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level). If not finding the changeover to the new computer disrupting can be considered a positive reaction to change, then theohypothesis that high dogmatism ongfignxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive pggction to chgpge is supported. c. Lepgth of time taken to get psed to the compppor.--The correlation between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and the length of time taken to get used to the computer after its introduction into the work situation was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.35 (Significant at the I% level). If taking a long time to get used to change brought on by the computer can be considered a negative reaction to change, then the hypothesis th§$_ high dogmatisgpgpd anxiety in combingtion will be inversely related to a positive reaction to chppge is sgpported. d. Feelipgoabogt chppges which had or had not taken place on the iob.--The correlation between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job was computed. 43 Tetrachoric r = +.O9 (not significant). If experiencing change and liking it or not experiencing change and disliking it can be con- sidered a measure of positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high dogmotism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change is not supported. e. Feelipg about installation of the computer.--The correlation between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and feeling about instal- lation of the computer was computed. Tetrachoric r = -.3l (significant at the I% level). If liking the fact that the company installed a computer very much is a measure of a positive reaction to change, then the hypothesis that high anxiety will be lnversely related to a positive reaction to change is supported. Table 5 summarizes home office results showing that high dogma- tism and anxiety in combination are inversely related to a positive attitude toward change both before and after technological change is introduced into the work situation and that three out of five suggested measures of reaction to change support the hypothesis that high dogmatism and anxiety in combination will be inversely related to a positive reaction to change after technological change is introduced into the work situation. 44 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION AND BOTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND REACTION TO CHANGE IN THE HOME OFFICE (N=I70) M POSitive Attitude H1gh Dogmatism and Anx1ety and Reaction to Change r Significance Level Attitude Pre change -.27 5% Post change -.38 l% Reaction Change in job satisfaction +.l5 not significant Extent computer felt to be disrupting -.27 2% Length of time taken to get used to computer -.35 I% Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place +.O9 not significant Feeling about Installation of computer -.3I l% In order to check results obtained in the home office on the relationship between dogmatism and anxiety combined with both attitude toward and reaction to change, computations were made using relation- ships found between dogmatlsm and attitude toward and reaction to change in the home office to predict scores on the variables for each Individual in the branch office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for branch office employees. 45 Attitude Toward Change The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for pre change attitude toward change as predicted by dogmatism and anxiety in combination was a phi of +.35. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for post change attitude toward change as predicted by dogmatism and anxiety in combination was a phi of +.29. Rgpctign tp Change Prediction was not made for change in job satisfaction or feeling about change which had or had not taken place on the job because no significant relationship was found between dogmatism and anxiety in combination and these variables in the home office. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the extent the computer is felt to be disrupting as predicted by dogmatism and anxiety in combination was a phi of +.O6. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for the length of time taken to get used to the computer as predicted ' by dogmatism and anxiety in combination was a phi of +.O4. The correlation between predicted and observed relationships for feeling about installation of the computer as predicted by dogma- tism and anxiety in combination was a phi of +.25. Thus, In the branch office, relationships between predicted and observed variables were found to be positive and sometimes_fgreater.than zero, which supports the hypotheses concerning the inverse relation- ships between dogmatism and anxiety in combination andidttitude toward buta'f'noiireaction to change. (See Appendix D for a discussion of the above phi coefficients.) 46 Table 6 gives a visual summary of the results of testing the first ten hypotheses in both the home and branch offices. TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF HOME OFFICE CORRELATIONS AND BRANCH OFFICE PREDICTIONS FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOGMATISM (D), ANXIETY (A), DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION (USA), AND BOTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND REACTION TO CHANGE Home Office (N=I70) Branch Office (N=74) Positive Attitude and Reaction to Change Correlations Predictionsa D A 08A 0 A DsA Attitude Pre change -.37** -.27* -.27* B B B Post change -.47** _ 4Ii¢ -.38*% B B B Reaction Change in job .ku satisfaction 0 -.75"" +.l5 . . a Extent computer felt J_ * ¢ to be disrupting -.3l"' -.27 -.27" a a 8 Length of time taken to get used to .5” ‘RL _ku computer -.3l”" -.44m -.35"" a a 3 Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on job 0 - 03 +.O9 Feeling about instal- *¢ .5” Jd‘ Iation of computer -.30 “ -.40"" -.3I"" B 5 B = significant at the I% level or higher. * = significant at the 5% level or higher. = hypothesis upheld in branch office. . - prediction not made for branch office. a(See Appendix D for a discussion of predictions made in the branch office.) 47 Eéplorinquther Relotionships Between Vpriables II. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to exploration of the relationships between a number of Specifically selected variables in order to add to information concerning such relationships and perhaps indicate promising areas for further research. Appendix C gives descriptions of statistical procedures used and shows tables of data relating to the variables described on the following pages. For the remaining analyses in this chapter, home office and branch office data were combined, making the total number of employees used 244. Of the 244 employees, 46 were supervisors and I98 were nonsupervisory employees. On each variable considered, data were examined separately for supervisors, nonsupervisors, and the total group of employees. On the whole, however, attention was paid to the whole group of employees and data will be mentioned for supervisory personnel only where it seems appropriate and meaningful to do so. Unless otherwise indicated, correlations given will be for the total group of employees. a. Testing the relationship between severgl_variables and dogmatism.-- Dogmatism and sexflwerefound to be related. Phi = .17, Chi Square = 7.05 (significant at the I% level). A significantly greater proportion of women were found to be high dogmatics than men. Dogmatism and age were found to be related. Tetrachoric r = .30 (significant at the l%.level). Younger employees tended to be higher on dogmatism than older employees. 48 Dogmatism and education were found to be related. Tetrachoric r = .46 for supervisors and .25 for the total group (significant at the 5% level for both correlations). Employees with less education were found to be higher on dogmatism. No significant relationship was found between dogmatism and either pre change job satisfaction or post change job satisfaction. b. Testing the relptionship between severgjfiyariables and anxiety.-- Anxiety and sex were found to be related. Phi = .28, Chi Square = l9.52 (significant at the I% level). Women were more anxious than men. Anxiety was not found to be related to either age or education. Relationships between anxiety and both pre change and post change job satisfaction were found to be Significant for supervisors, nonsupervisors and the total group of employees. For the total group, tetrachoric r = .64 (significant at the l%.level) on pre change job satisfaction, and tetrachoric r = .43 (significant at the I% level) on post change job satisfaction. Those who were less satisfied with their jobs were more anxious than those who were more satisfied with their jobs. c. Testing the roipgionship between seveggl variables and pre Chonge attitude toward chonqe.5 Pre change attitude toward change and sex were found to be related. Phi = .I8, Chi Square = 7.90 (significant at the I% level). As shown in Appendix C, pre and post change attitude toward change were positively correlated and no significant difference was found in their means. Thus, only pre change attitude toward change is used with the exploratory data. 49 A greater proportion of men than women had a high pre change attitude toward change. Although pre change attitude toward change and age were not found to be related for the nonsupervisory or total group of employees, they were found to be related in the supervisory group. Tetrachoric r = .57 (Significant at the I% level). Among supervisors, older supervisors had a higher pre change attitude toward change than younger supervisors. Pre change attitude toward change was found to be significantly related to education. Tetrachoric r = .40 (significant at the I% level). A greater proportion of employees who had some college or more also had a higher pre change attitude toward change than employees with l2 years of school or less. Pre change attitude toward change was also found to be signifi- cantly related to change in job satisfaction after introduction of the computer. Tetrachoric r = .22 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of those with a high pre change attitude toward change said they were more satisfied after introduction of the computer than did other employees. No significant relationships were found between pre change attitude toward change and pre or post change job satisfaction, extent computer was felt to be disrupting, or length of time taken to get used to the computer. ' A significant relationship was found between feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job and pre change attitude toward change for the supervisory group, but not for the nonsupervisory or total group of employees. Among supervisors, a 50 greater prOportion of those who declared after installation of the computer that they had experienced change and disliked it or not experienced change and liked it had had a higher pre change attitude toward change than other supervisors. Tetrachoric r = .4l (significant at the 5% level). A significant relationship was also found between pre change attitude toward change and feeling about installation of the computer. Tetrachoric r = .49 (significant at the I% level). A greater proportion of those who said they liked very much the fact that the computer had been installed also had a higher pre change attitude toward change than did those who did not like the installation of the computer so much. d. Testing the relationship between several variables and age.-- A significant relationship was found between age and sex. Phi = .27, Chi Square = 22.l9 (significant at the l%.level). A greater proportion of men were older than women were. Age and education were found to be related. Tetrachoric r = .45 (significant at the l%.level). A greater proportion of older employees had higher education than did younger employees. Age was also found to be related to the length of time taken to get used to the computer for nonsupervisory employees only. Tetrachoric r = .69 (significant at the I% level). A greater proportion of younger nonsupervisory employees said they took less time to get used to the computer than did the older employees. No significant relationship was found between age and pre or post change job satisfaction, extent computer was felt to be disrupting, 5I feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job, or feeling about installation of the computer. e. Testing the relationship between several variables and A significant relationship was found between sex and education for supervisors, nonsupervisors and the total employee group. For the total group, phi = .39. Chi Square = 37.Il (significant at the I% level). A greater proportion of the males had some college or more than did females. No Significant relationship was found between sex and post change job satisfaction, the length of time taken to get used to the computer, or feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job. A significant relationship was found between sex and the extent the computer was felt to be disrupting. Phi = .I4, Chi Square = 4.78 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of women felt the computer was more disrupting than did men. Sex was found to be related to feeling about installation of the computer. For the supervisors, phi = .32, Chi Square = 4.7l (significant at the 5% level). Among supervisors, a greater proportion of men said they liked the fact that the computer had been installed than did women. However, for nonsupervisory personnel and for the total group of employees, the relationship was reversed. For non- supervisory personnel, phi = .l5, Chi Square = 4.46 (significant at the 5%.Ievel) and a greater proportion of women said they liked the fact that the computer had been installed than did men. 52 f. Testing the relgtionship between several variables and education.-- A significant relationship was found between education and both pre change and post change job satisfaction. For pre change job satis- faction, tetrachoric r = .34 (significant at the I% level) and for post change job satisfaction, tetrachoric r = .I9 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of those with higher education said they were less satisfied with their jobs than did those with less education. No significant relationship was found between education and the extent the computer was felt to be disrupting, the length of time taken to get used to the computer, or feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job. A Significant relationship was found between education and feeling about installation of the computer. For supervisors, tetrachoric r = .58 (significant at the 5% level) and a greater proportion of super- visors with high education said they liked the fact that the computer had been installed very much. However, the relationship was reversed for nonsupervisory personnel. Tetrachoric r = .35 (significant at the 5% level) and a greater proportion of employees with I2 years of school or less said they liked very much the fact that the computer had been installed. 9. Testing_the relationship between several variables and pre change job satisfaction.-- A significant relationship was found between pre change job satisfaction and sex. Phi = .I3, Chi Square = 4.l2 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of males were less satisfied with their jobs than females. 53 There was a significant relationship between pre change and post change job satisfaction. Tetrachoric r = .44 (significant at the I% level). Those who had high job satisfaction before installation of the computer also tended to have high job satisfaction after installation of the computer. There was also a significant relationship between pre change job satisfaction and change in job satisfaction after installation of the computer. Tetrachoric r = .27 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of those who had high job satisfaction before installation of the computer said they were more satisfied after insta- lation of the computer than they had been before. No significant relationships were found between pre change job satisfaction and extent computer was felt to be disrupting, length of time taken to get used to computer, feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job, or feeling about installation of the computer. h. Testing the relogionshjp between seveggl vgriables and ghppgo in job sgpisfgction after instgllation of the comppter.-- A significant relationsnip was found between change in job satisfaction after installation of the computer and the extent the computer was felt to be disrupting. Tetrachoric r = .24 (significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of those who said they were less satisfied now then they were 6 months ago also said they found the installation of the computer to be more disrupting than did other employees. A significant relationship was also found between change in job satisfaction and feeling about changes which had or had not taken 54 place on the job. Tetrachoric r = .32 (Significant at the 5% level). A greater proportion of those who said they were more satisfied now than they were 6 months ago also said they had either experienced change and liked it or had not experienced change and disliked it. No significant relationship was found between change in job satisfaction and age, sex, education, length of time taken to get used to the computer, or feeling about installation of the computer. Table 7 gives a summary sketch of relationships found in the exploratory section of this chapter. TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIPS FOUND IN EXPLORATORY DATA USING BOTH HOME AND BRANCH OFFICE EMPLOYEES (N=244) Variables 3 31.5 '85. ._,H on) 0'3 0 Variables = 5 gig o 8 2’4! .5. ”'3 '4: 5 2: g .4: 2-2 m .9 ‘0 CD 0+4 «1 to U «H mu E ._ u.c o m c m C) X em U 3 8, '3 em 2 m 8 <‘E O. U) < LL] 0. U Sex 5 S S S S S Age 5 n (S) S . . S n Education S n S S S S n Pre change job satisfaction n S n S n S . . S Post change job satisfaction n S n n n S S Change in job satisfaction . . . . S n n n S Extent computer felt to be disrupting . . . . n S n n n S Length of time taken to get used to computer . . . . n n (S) n n n Feelin about changes whic had or had not taken place on job . . . . (S) n n n n S Feeling about instal- lation of computer . . . . S (S) n (S) n n = significant relationship. n = not a significant relationship. = change in significance depending on occupational breakdown. CHAPTER IX SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Although Rokeach (60), in discussing his theory of dogmatism, does not say that a more dogmatic individual Should be less willing to accept change than a less dogmatic individual, this is implied when he describes dogmatism as containing closed cognitive systems, general authoritarianism, and general intolerance. It is his intention that dogmatism will be considered broader than general authoritarianism and will apply to areas beyond ethnic prejudice, politics and religion. It seems clear that a highly dogmatic person, with his tightly bound beliefs and general intolerance of ideas outside his own belief system, would be reluctant to welcome either the idea of change or change itself when it is presented to him in any form. Thus, it was hypothesized in this thesis that individuals high in dogmatism would not show a positive attitude toward the concept of change in general and would not welcome change when it surrounds them on their jobs. The results of this study show that the hypothesis that indi- viduals high in dogmatism will not have a positive attitude toward the concept of change (as measured by the Attitude Toward Change Scale) is upheld. There was a significant inverse relationship between high dogmatism and a positive attitude toward change both before and after technological change was introduced into the work situation. 55 56 Trumbo (66), using the same measure of dogmatism on a different population of insurance company employees and using a different statis- tical treatment of the data, also found an inverse relationship between dogmatism and readiness to accept change. The hypothesis that high dogmatism is inversely related to a positive attitude toward change seems to be very firmly supported. The hypothesized relationship between high dogmatism and negative reaction to change seems to be rather complex. It was hypothe- sized that high dogmatic individuals would show a negative reaction to change when it occurred because of their closed cognitive systems and Intolerance. Using five possible measures of reaction to change I (Change in job satisfaction after introduction of the computer, Extent computer was felt to be disrupting, Length of time taken to get used to‘ computer, Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job, and Feeling about installation of the computer), it was found that high dogmatism was inversely related to a positive reaction to change as measured by three of the five variables (Extent computer was felt to be disrupting, Length of time taken to get used to the computer, and Feeling about Installation of the computer). (A150 568 Appendix D.) It makes sense that high dogmatic individuals would find the computer disrupting, would take longer than low dogmatic individuals to get used to the changeoverto the computer and would be less likely to say that they liked the fact that the computer had been installed very much. The computer involved change or at least represented change to the high dogmatic Individuals whether their jobs were affected by the change or not. This fact should make the computer not so accept- able in the eyes of the high dogmatic employees, because they would be expected to be intolerant of change around them. 57 Perhaps the reason why no significant relationship was found between high dogmatism and change in job satisfaction is that high dogmatic individuals are reluctant to admit to change in their feelings, whether their feelings have actually changed or not. To stretch the point a bit, perhaps high dogmatic individuals feel that admission of less job satisfaction would imply that they should consider changing jobs, and changing jobs is a pgjp£_change, whereas the computer may not have affected the high dogmatic employee's job in a way that he could not at least gradually assimilate into his belief system. The finding that high dogmatism was not related to feelings about change which took place on the job is harder to explain. One would expect that high dogmatic individuals would either not like changes that were introduced into their jobs, or would like the fact that change had not been introduced on their jobs. Since this was not consistently found to be true, one must Speculate on the reasons. A possible reason why high dogmatic individuals might find that they liked change on their jobs would be if the change did not disrupt their belief system. That is, if they had a job on which they eXpected to have promotion or increased reSponsibilitieS accompanied by increases in pay from time to time, then such a change on the job (whether brought on by the computer or not) would not invoke diSpleasure in the high dogmatic individual. If the high dogmatic individual would see lack of promotion or lack of change in responsibility (and the failure of a pay increase that would accompany such changes) as a poor thing, then he should feel displeasure if such changes did not occur in his job, regardless of whether or not such changes were brought on by technolog- ical change. 58 It was hypothesized that anxiety would be related to attitude toward and reaction to change because it makes sense to assume that a person who is highly anxious would not be as willing to risk anything that might change his status quo and thus would be less willing to accept either the concept or the fact of change. An inverse relation- ship was found in this study between high anxiety and a positive attitude toward change both before and after introduction of the computer into the work situation. Trumbo (66), using a one item measure of anxiety instead of a two item measure as used in this study, and testing the relationship between anxiety and attitude toward change after a computer had been introduced into another insurance company, also found an inverse relationship between high anxiety and a positive attitude toward change. In this study, it was hypothesized that highly anxious indi- viduals would show a negative reaction to change when it occurred because they would find change required them to make new adjustments to situations they might see as threatening to their probably highly structured systems of ego-defense. Using the five suggested measures of reaction to change, It was found that anxiety was related to all but Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job. In all but the latter measure, high anxiety was inversely related to a positive reaction to change. It is interesting to note that the highest relatlonshlp found (tetrachoric r = -.75) was between high anxiety and Change In job satisfaction after installation of the computer. Appar- ently those who are willing to admit that they are anxious also will admit that they are less satisfied since installation of the computer than they were before. (Also see Appendix D.) 58-a The high correlation found between anxiety and change in job satisfaction (tetrachoric r of -.75) is hard to explain. One reason has been suggested on the previous page......(that is, that perhaps those willing to 29532 they are anxious also will.pppgp they are less satisfied with their Jobs after installation of the computer). It also fits in with the findings in the exploratory data that, although dogmatism is not related to 30b satisfaction before or after the compu- ter installation, or to change in job satisfaction after the computer installation, anxiety is. On theoretical grounds, one might Speculate that the high dogmatic, with his closed cognitive system, would not admit a change in his feelings, especially about something so important as his job satisfaction, whereas the anxious employee would.perhaps feel.more affected (or perhaps more threatened) by any change on his job and would also be ready to blame any dissatisfaction he may feel onto his 30b. It is characteristic of anxious persons to need to attribute their anxiety to something concrete whenever possible, whereas highly dogmatic persons would set up tight defenses against even the manifestation of the anxiety itself. Deepite all of the above eXplanations of why the relationship was found between anxiety and Change in Job Satisfaction, the size of the relationship is still.high enough.to be surprising, and it is suggested that, if further eXperimentation replicates this finding, then research should be designed to lead to greater understanding of the relationship between anxiety and job satisfaction and anxiety and changes in job satisfaction. 59 The lack of relationship found between anxiety and feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on the job may possibly be due to the fact that some of the changes that took place may have been less anxiety producing than others, or some of the high anxious employees may have been dissatisfied with their present jobs, and, although not welcoming the idea of change, may have been disappointed to see good changes such as promotions taking place which they do not themselves receive. It was hypothesized that dogmatism and employee anxiety would be related, and they were found to be so in this study. Rokeach (60) has described the high dogmatic as being a highly anxious individual who is constantly defending himself against anxiety. It was hypothesized that dogmatism and anxiety in combination would be related to both attitude toward and reaction to change. It was found that the tombination of high dogmatism and anxiety were inversely related to both pre change and post change positive atti- tudes toward change, and that three out of five of the suggested positive measures of reaction to change were inversely related to high dogmatism and anxiety in combination. Since a simple summation of dogmatism and anxiety scores was used to achieve the combination score and since this meant combining eleven items of dogmatism with two items of anxiety, the combination had to be weighted more highly with dogmatism than anxiety. Therefore, it is not surprising that the combination was related to the same measures of reaction to change as dogmatism (Extent computer felt to be disrupting, Length of time taken to get used to computer, and Feeling about installation of computer). The same explanations for these relationships should apply as applied for both dogmatism and anxiety. (Also see Appendix D.) S9-a Three of the five suggested measures of reaction to change (Extent Computer felt to be Disrupting, Length of Time Taken to Get Used to the Computer, and Feeling about Installation of the Computer) ‘were consis- tently related to dogmatism, anXiety, and.dogmatism.and anxiety in combination. It is notable that all three of these reactions to change are concerned Specifically with reactions to the co uter, whereas the other two proposed measures of reaction to change (Change in Job Satis- faction and Feeling About Changes Which Had or Had Not Taken Place on the Job) are 222 specifically dealing with reactions to the computer. It may be (and the results of this study suggest) that three of the five items are measuring one kind of reaction to change and two are measuring another. This possibility could be followed up with further research. It would be a good idea in future research similar to the research carried out in this study, to make sure some behavioral measures of reaction to change are designed into the study. (Perhaps measures such as change in rate of turnover in employment fer the company, changes in rate of absenteeism, etc., could.be used). Such measures, although admitedly complex in most companies, and not necessarily easy to obtain, ‘would be worthwhile to act as criteria for scaling attitudinal measures of reaction to change. They could also be used in making more compari- sons possible between personality, attitudes, and other variables with behavioral manifestations of reaction to change. 60 The exploratory data seem most illuminating when summarized. High education was found to be related to low dogmatism, being male, being older, having a positive attitude toward change, and being less satisfied with the job, both before and after introduction of the computer. Concerning age, relationships were found between being older and being male, being less dogmatic, and having a positive attitude toward change. Older supervisors had the most positive attitude toward change among supervisors, but on a nonsupervisory level, younger employees took less time to get used to the computer. It was also found that those who had a positive attitude toward change as super- visors were less pleased than other supervisors when they had experi- enced change or else were more pleased than other supervisors when no change occurred on their jobs. A relationship was found between being male and being a low dogmatic, low on anxiety, older, having a higher education, having a more positive attitude toward change, finding the computer less dis- rupting and being less satisfied with the job both before and after introduction of the computer into the work situation. It was also found that male supervisors liked the fact that the computer had been installed better than female supervisors, but male nonsupervisory employees did not like the fact that the computer had been installed as well as female nonsupervisory employees did. This last finding probably indicates that male nonsupervisory employees found their jobs most threatened or most seriously changed with the introduction of the computer. Nonsupervisory males would probably be in nonclerical posi- tions such as accountant or claims adjustor . . . and these positions 6I would be perceived to be (and probablggietually) most threatened by introduction of the computer. Further research is necessary to show whether education, age or sex are the primary determinants or primary correlates of dogmatism, anxiety, attitude toward change and reaction to change. At this point, it is hypothesized that education is the primary factor. Research to date on the authoritarian-type personality would lead to the belief that individuals with higher education are more Open to the consideration of new ideas, and more willing to take part in new events. It makes more sense theoretically to postulate that education would be a deter- minant of lower dogmatism and higher attitude toward change rather than sex or age. In the insurance company used in this study, it happened that higher educated employees were also older males. Other groups should be studied which do not have such a small group of employees with such similar characteristics so the differential effects of higher education, sex and age could be more easily studied. It is interesting to note that Trumbo (66), in his study using a different insurance company, also found males in higher, more respon- sible positions most favoring change and that they were least anxious, most critical, least dogmatic and best educated. His findings with a different group of people in similar jobs lend support to the findings of this study on these particular variables. One may Speculate on the reason why the high educated male employee was not so satisfied with his job. Since job satisfaction was not found to be related to reactions to the computer, it seems likely that the lack of satisfaction stems from the nature of the jobs held by the high educated males, aside from the relationship of the 62 jobs to the computer. Perhaps these jobs do not fully utilize the skills and capacities of the high educated males or perhaps these males (whom Trumbo (66) found to be more involved in their jobs than females, in another insurance company) are not satisfied.with the career poten- tial of their present positions. Because of the nature of the relationships found between a variety of variables in this study, a multivariate analysis in a group of larger size is suggested in future experimentation. Although cross validation of the relationships between personality variables and reaction to change did not turn out well when predicting from branch to home office, it was considered likely that this happened at least in part'because of the small number of employees in the branch office. As shown in Appendix D, when the branch office was used to predict home office results, the validation was accomplished. Since validation was successful when predicting in one direction but not in the other, validation of relationships found between personality variables and reaction to change is not as satisfying as it might be. It is suggested that in similar future experiments, a cross vali- dation group of larger size be used. CHAPTER X CONCLUSIONS The major findings of this study are that high dogmatism and high anxiety, separately and in combination, are inversely related to a positive attitude toward change; that high dogmatism and anxiety, separately and in combination, are inversely related to a positive reaction to change as measured by the extent the change-producing computer is felt to be disrupting, the length of time taken to get used to the computer, and feeling about installation of the computer. In addition, high anxiety is inversely related to having less satis- faction with the job after introduction of the computer. Dogmatism and anxiety were found to be related to each other, and each is related to essentially the same attitudes and reactions to change. Exploring the relationship between several variables led to a picture of high education being related to low dogmatism, being male, being older, having a positive attitude toward change, and being less satisfied with the job. It was also found that male supervisors were more pleased about installation of the computer than female supervisors, but among nonsupervisory personnel, males were less pleased than females about installation of the computer. These findings add information about employee attitudes toward their jobs, toward technological change, and reaction to technological 63 64 change in a work situation. Further research should be undertaken in other work settings to see whether these results hold for workers other than white-collar workers in medium-sized insurance companies. The findings of major theoretical interest are that individuals with closed cognitive belief systems not only have a negative attitude toward the concept of change, but show negative reactions to change in a work setting, and that the same holds true for highly anxious indi- viduals. The practical suggestions resulting from the findings of this study are that company personnel involved in planning for change should give the most preparation for change to individuals who are high dogmatics, nonsupervisory, anxious, young women with l2 years of education or less. Education and sex data are available to the personnel people on personnel records, and the eleven item dogmatism scale and two item anxiety scale are easily administered and not easy to ”fake.” It appears that attention should be paid to finding means to increase job satisfaction for male employees with higher education. These employees are very likely to be valuable employees and in crit- ical positions, and their job satisfaction should be of some concern to the company. Not only should particular attention be given to easing the impact of technological change on high dogmatic, nonsupervisory, anxious, young women with I2 years of education or less, but particular attention should also be paid to males in nonsupervisory positions, since this group, although having a positive attitude toward change, were not as pleased as other employees about the fact that the computer 65 had been installed. Particularly if these nonsupervisory males are going to be most affected by introduction of the computer, this group should be the object of a carefully planned information and discussion program which will give the most realistic picture possible about what technological change will do to their jobs and what action they might take to make the experience of change more satisfying. IO. ll. BIBLIOGRAPHY Astin, A. V. ”How Will Automation Affect the White-Collar Worker?” DailyoLabor Report, No. 242, December I3, I956. pp. 8-I2. Baumgartel, H. ”An Analysis of the Validity of Perceived Change Measures,“ American Psychologist, I954, 9, p. 328. Becker, E. R. and Murphy, E. F. The Office in Transitiop; Meetipg the Problems of Automation. New York: Harper and Brothers, i957. Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D. and Chin, R. The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l96l. Brayfield, A. H. and Crockett, W. H. “Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance,“ Psychological Review, I949, 52, pp. 396-424. Brown, R. H. Office Automation. New York: Automation Consultants, 1955. Carter, S. “Installation of Automatic Office Equipment in an Insurance Company.‘I Man and Automation. Report of the Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the Society for Applied Anthropology at Yale University, December 27, 28, I955. New Haven, Conn: The Technology Project, Yale University, I956. Cheek, G. Economic and Social Implications of Automation: A Bibliographic Review. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Labor and Industrial Relations Center, I958. Coch, L., and French, J.R.P. ”Overcoming Resistance to Change,” Human Relations, I948, pp. 5l2-32. Cooley, E. F. ”Computer Methods and Application: A Case Study,‘I The Impact of Computers on Office Manggement. Office Management Series No. l36. New York: American Management Association, I954. pp. 4I-6. Craig, H. F. Administering a Conversion to Electronic Accounting. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, I955. 66 I2. l3. l4. i5. l6. i7. 20. 2i. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 67 Diebold, J. ”False Starts in Office Automation and How to Avoid Them,” The Manogement Review. July I957. pp. 8l-8. Edwards, A. L. Statistical Analysis for Students in Psychology and Education. New York: Rinehart and Co., I946. . Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Rinehart and Co., I950. . Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Co., I954. Evans, L. H., Arnstein, G. E. (Eds.) Automation and the Challenge to Education. Washington: The National Education Association. January I962. Fairbanks, R. W. Successful Office Automation. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, I956. Faunce, W. A. I'Automation and the Automobile Worker,‘I Social Problems, I958, 6, pp. 68-77. . ”Social Stratification and Attitude toward Change in Job Content,” Social Forces, I960, 39, pp. l40-l48. Friend, J. G., and Haggard, E. A. “Work Adjustment in Relation to Family Background.“ Psychological Monographs,l948, l6. Ginzberg, E. and Reilley, E. W. Effecting Change in Lapge Organizations. New York: Columbia University Press, I957. Green, B. F. ”Attitude Measurement.” In G. Lindsey (Ed.), Handbook of SocigloPsychology. Cambridge, Mass: Addison- Wesley, I954. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, I950. . Psychometric Methods. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw- Hill, I954. ‘ Habbe, S. ”Job Attitudes of Life Insurance Agents," Journal of Applied Psychologv. I947, 3l, pp. lll-l28. Hardin, E. ”Computer Automation, Work Environment, and Employee Satisfaction,” Industrial and Lghor Relations Review, 1960. i3. 559-567. . "The Reactions of Employees to Office Automation.“ Monthly Labor Review, I960, 83, pp. 925-932. 28. 29. 30. 3|. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 68 Hardin, E., Eddy, W. B., and Deutsch, S.D.E. Economic and Social Implications of Automation: An Annotated Bibliogrgphy, Vol. ngLiterature I957-I960. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Labor and Industrial Relations Center, I96l. Hattery, L. H. ”Electronic Computers and Personnel Administration,” Personnel Administration, l9(2), March-April, I956. pp. 7-i3. Haythorn, W., Haefner, D., Langham, P., Couch, A., and Carter, L. ”The Effects of Varying Combinations of Authoritarian and Equalitarian Leaders and Followers.’I Journal of Abnorpgl and Social Psychology, I956, 53, pp. 2IO-2l9. Helson, H., Blake, R., Moulton, J. and Olmstead, J. ”Attitudes as Adjustment to Stimulus, Background, and Residual Factors,‘| Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, I956, 52, pp. 3l4-322. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R., and Capwell, D. Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburg, Pa.: Psychological Services of Pittsburg, I957. Hoffer, C. R. and Strangland, D. ”Farmers' Attitudes and Values in Relation to Adoption of Approved Practices in Corn Growing,” Rural Sociology, I958, 23, pp. lI2-l20. Hoos, I. R. Automation in the Office. Washington: Public Affairs Press, l96l. The Impact of Computers on Office Management. Office Management Series, Number l36. New York: American Management Association, I954. International Labour Office. Effects of Mechanigation and Automation on Salaried Employees and Professional Workers. Geneva: ILO, I959. Jacobson, E. H. I'The Effects of Changing Industrial Methods and Automation on Personnel.” .Symposium on Preventive and Social Psychiatry, Proceedings of April I952. Washington, D. C.: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I959. Jacobson, E. H., Trumbo, D. A., Cheek, G., and Nangle, J. I'Employee Attitudes Toward Technological Change in a Medium Sized Insurance Company,” Journal of Applied Psycholoqv, I959. 43. PP- 359'355- Johnson, W. H. ”Installation of Automatic Office Equipment and the Manufacturer.“ Man and Automation, Report of the Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by the Society for Applied Anthropology at Yale University, December 27, 28, I955. New Haven, Conn: The Technology Project, Yale University, I956. pp. I7-22. 40. 4I. 42. 43. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. SI. 52. 53. 69 Kahn, R. L., and Morse, N. C. ”Morale and Productivity,” Journal of Social Issues, l95l, 7 (3), pp. 8-l7. Karsh, B. |'The Meaning of Work in an Age of Automation,“ Current Economic Comment, I957, l9 (3), pp. 3-l3. Katona, G. ”Attitude Change: Instability of Response and Acquisition of Experience,“ Psychological Monographs, 1958. 72 (lo). Krugman, H. E. ”The Initial Impact of Automation: An Attitude Survey,” Personnel, I958, 34 (5), p. 59. Legin, H. 5. Office Work and Automation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I955. Likert, R. ”A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psycholoqy, I932, No. I40. Mann, F. C. I'The Impact of Electronic Accounting Equipment on the White-Collar Worker in a Public Utility Company.” Man and Automation, Report of the Proceedings of a Conference sponsored by the Society for Applied Anthropology at Yale University, December 27, 28, I955. New Haven, Conn: The Technology Project, Yale University, I956. pp. 32-9. Mann, F. C. and Hoffman, L. R. Automation and the Worker: A Study of Social Chapge in Power Plants. New York: Henry Holt, I960. Mann, F. C. and Williams, L. K. ”Observations on the Dynamics of a Change to Electronic Data Processing Equipment,” Administrative Science Quarterly, I960, 5 (2), pp. 2l7-256. ”Organizational Impact of White-Collar Automation.” Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association. Chicago, December I958. Publication No. 22, I959, pp. 59469. McNemar, Q. ”Opinion-Attitude Methodology,” Psychological Bulletin, l946, 43, pp. 298-374. Megginson, L. C. ”The Human Consequences of Office Automation,“ Personnel, I960, 37 (5), pp. I8-26. Morse, N. C. and Weiss, R. S. ”The Function and Meaning of Work and the Job,” American Sociological Review, April, I955, 20, (2). Reprint. Nangle, J. E. ”The Effectiveness of Communications in Preparation for Change in an Insurance Company.‘I Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, l96l. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 6I. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 70 Neuloh, 0. ”Paving the Way for Technological Change,” Personnel, I958. 34 (5). PP- 21-25- Passine, R. L. ”Attitude Toward Change in an Industrial Situation.” Unpublished masters' thesis, Michigan State University, I958. Pratt, F. ”The Human Relations of Computers and Automation,” Computers and Automation. December I954, 3, pp.6-7. Quale, M. S. A Study of Some ASpects of Satisfaction in the Vocation of Stenography. New York: Columbia University Teachers| College, I935. Teachers' College Contr. Educ., No. 659. Rogers, E. M. "Personality Corelates of the Adoption of Technological Practices,“ Rural Sociology, I957, 22, pp. 267-268. Rokeach, M. ”The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,” Psychological Review, I954, 6l, pp. l94-204. “Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Alternative to The Authoritarian Personality,” Psychological Monographs, 1956. 70 (425). Slater, R. E. ”Thinking Ahead: How Near is the Automated Office?II Harvard Business Review, I958, 36 (2), pp. 27-36. Smith, G. M. Office Automation and White-Collar Employment. New Jersey: Rutgers, The State University. Institute of Management and Labor Relations, I959. Stewart, M. ”Resistance to Technological Change in Industry,” Human Organization, I957, l6 (3), pp. 36-39, Stieber, J. ”Automation and the White-Collar Worker,’I Personnel, 34 (3). November-December I957. pp. 8-l7. Thorndike, R. L. Personnel Selection. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I949. Trumbo, D. A. ”An Analysis of Attitudes Toward Change among the Employees of an Insurance Company.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, I958. I'Individual and Group Correlates of Attitudes Toward Work-Related Change,” Journal of Applied Psychology, l96l, 45, PP. 338-3kh0 68. 69. 700 7]. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 7] U. 5. Congress. Instrumentation and Automation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization of the Joint Economic Committee. 84th Congress. December l2-I4, I956. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, I957. . Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Public Law 87-4l5, 87th Congress. March I5, I962. (Reprint). U. 5. Congress, House. Office Automation and Employee Job Security. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Census and Government Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. House of Representatives, 86th Congress, March 2 and 4, I960. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, I960. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ”Adjust- Watson, ments to Automation in Two Firms.” Impact of Automation. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Bull. No. I287, I960. pp. 8l-83. . Automatic Technology and Its Implications: A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Bulletin No. ll98, August, I956. “The Introduction of an Electronic Computer in a Large Insurance Company,” Studies of Automatic Technology, Number 2. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, October, I955. . Selected Bibliography on Automation. Washington: Division of Productivity and Technological Developments, l96l. G. (Ed.) No Room at the Bottom . . . Automation and the Reluctant Learner. Washington: The National Education Association. I963. ' World Health Organization. Mental Health Problems of Automation: A Report of A Study Group. Technical Report Series No. l83. Geneva: World Health Organization, I959. APPENDIX A To: All Home Office and Branch Office Personnel The Labor and Industrial Relations Center of Michigan State University have been authorized by the Michigan Legislature to conduct a research program with the peOple employed in industrial organizations and in the larger offices of various types of companies. They have requested, and we have given, permission for them to make a research study of the ideas and the opinions that our employees may have of their positions with the Company. On Tuesday, November l9, I957, you will be asked by the men from the Labor and Industrial Relations Center of the University, who are doing this study, to fill out a questionnaire. This questionnaire will be seen only by these research men. No one in the Company will see the ques- tionnaire nor be told what any individual employee has answered. You may, therefore, feel absolutely free to fill out the questionnaire with complete sincerity and we would appreciate it if you would do so. The Company would like to be of as much help and assistance as we can in this research, as the findings of these research men are intended to promote a better understanding of the problems of people employed in large offices. Would you, therefore, freely express your individual views and opinions to these research men from the University. President P. 5. Office - l:OO and 3:00 in the afternoon Place - Lunch Room Office - l:l5 P.M. Place - Desk Any further information can be given by your supervisor. 73 APPENDIX B Pretest Employee Questionnaire Pretest Supervisory Questionnaire Posttest PRETEST EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE 76 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTER 0’ '(‘ 1“ Project OE 112-34. ‘4 .. " November 1957 To: unplayees of - Automobile Insurance Company The Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State University is carrying on a broad program of research having to do with people working together effectively in industrial organizations. Much of the research consists of getting the ideas and opinions of people about their jobs. You are being asked to fill out a questionnaire as a part of this series of studies. Your answers, along with those from people in other organizations, will be analyzed to help discover what things are most important in making the working situation better for the people in it. The value of this study depends upon the sincerity and care with which you answer the questions. It is important to get your real feelings. We are looking for frank statements about our attitudes, feelings, ppinions and judggnts afiut certain agpects of your 10 . The answers that you give will be made available only to the research team in the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. No one connected in an w with your organization will see or use gpy of the individua uestionnaire Tor be able in an it to find out what Find of answers on have given. Your information will: be held in the sirictest con see and the results of the study will be tabulated on a group basis only. Reports on the general findings from the study will be prepared for you, the company and the general public. Einar Hardin Research Associate Labor and Industrial Relations Center Michigan State University ----- ’---”~”P ----'Q----------- ------- --------------------.-----.--------"---C--- Please print your name below. When you have finished the questionnaire, tear this part off and place" it in the "ballot box" by the door. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO HELP US ANALYZE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IT WILL NOTBEAVAIMBIETOANYONEINTHECOMPANY. Name .4 ,n. "a . f. ‘3‘”) (L: e . It I \ . . . . J .. . e A. v e ‘l . u ~ \ - u a . . ‘4. . .. . , . . . e .\ . . \ . . s \ .5 . . v . . . o I a . .r .l e I . . 0e . v .e e .. . O . . o‘ . . o I I I . . I I . .0 . . . . .t. . u . . 6. . e e . n v . . I o n O ‘ i 0 art -I . J p . . I . . u . 4 . e . . e e. . . . . . is t... ; 3 x i I. e e . ,‘ I q I cl be a \ ' . .1. . t. a n . . I .I l . ‘ ) u v t . A. s ’ o r\ . (I. r. . at Q 1 v . w . . o . .e . s e . . . . \ I. a . I t- . Le a . e e I n 00 D o 0. .1. . . , .. .i v n \ I . n I I n. . . .l . a I w .w " ‘ ' I l . t ‘. (I . .1 e y 5 ‘M e I h I '4 . e s- Q . a. e ‘ ‘ ' s .0 I . x v I . \i . u C . . n‘v e o n .n _ .e n . . . s t u . . , . t )r . . Idle 0 . A A l e . t! e n C v p ' e 1 _ o . a . u . .n; :0 . . e .(p . . 2.. I u p u .5 e n O C I 0‘ a ‘ O e O»- - he . 1 I - Q o' I e I- . . . . \ . e a . .. a ~ I _ . O r . I e. l C . Q a . . n. e . ‘ O ‘ . I e . . \ O Q 1 . fl 0. e. . en . o . \u . . c. . a o ‘O O n e \n. u I C o o as a . v . . .A . .. . .o . g e 1 . , v . . . o . . e ”e! t a u . . ,. . .1 . r e . a .- 0 . .. v I . I I. . l n I e . A I V I . . . . . a v e . . I I .5 It! I 3 u .e to I‘.I \ , . . . e e e . L ‘ I . a . . cl . l, . . u . o O . . e . . . .. . . I .. . . v . v . a. . a e e . ' e .9 v v‘\ ll . s U ' .0 l I I ) . e e e . e A . e O u e r e 4 ‘ . . . .‘ . . a . . w e . e - A ‘ ‘- e . I . n u . . . . I . o. . a . . . . . o. .u . \. '- . 0 1 c C .e .l\ e n‘! e 4 .u o . I. A w . . A . V ll \ . . e u . r .e . em» . . c . . .O . e . ... a . . . . . . r f. . . . e I 4 a .. o . .. . . r . v e O a e e? . I. n z I . Cl I a . .- 0 . o I. I , .. . . . I. .t I . A! J... n I o . e . _.0 . co Moves THESE QUESTIONS QU 101m. CLOSEST TO THE WAY THAT YOU FEEL. IN FRONT OF YOUR CHOICE. 1290 .7: "I" I I-‘y’o’i .12473 77 CHOOSE THE ONE AN THAT COMES PLACE A CHECK MARK ( IN THE SPACE PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION. Check the one statement that best describes the rate at which changes are taking place in the world today. much more rapidly than before. Somewhat more rapidly than before. At about the same rate as before. Somewhat less rapidly than before. Much less rapidly than before. Don' t know 0 How do you feel about this? 1. O I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. In general, new developments in machines and processes for handling work: At what methods 1. Benefit all of the people. Benefit most of the people. Benefit some of the people. Benefit only a few people. Benefit only a very few people. Don't know. rate do you feel new developments in machines and for doing work are taking place? Much less rapidly than is desirable. Somewhat less rapidly than is desirable. At about the ideal rate. Somewhat more rapidly than is desirable. Much more rapidly than is desirable. Don't know. 78 2. I - *7/7/ Have new machines changed the tasks performed on your kind of Job in the past year? 1. lLJll 9. Yes, to a very large extent. Yes, to a rather large extent. Yes, to a moderate extent. Yes, to a slight extent. No, not at all. Don't know. I, - 75 How do you feel about this? 1. JH ““si I like it very much. I like its It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. ,2: ~94 Have machines caused employees in insurance companies to transfer to different Jobs within the company in the past year? 1. 3. h. 5. 9. Yes, to a very large extent. Yes, to a large extent. Yes, to a moderate extent. Yes, to a slight extent. NO, 110*: at 8110 Don't know. .22—77 How do you feel about this? 1. 3. LJ I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. I—J/i/ Have machines caused employees to lose their jobs in insurance companies in the past year? 9. e Yes, to a very large extent. Yes, to a large extent. Yes, to a moderate extent. Yes, to a slight extent. No, not at all. Don't knOWe I --/7 How do you feel about this? 1. Lle I I like it very much. I like its It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. 79 3. I. :50 Are the chances that a machine will cause you to do different work on your Job greater or less than for most Jobs in this I-«fi/ company? 1. lLJll 9. Much greater than for most jobs. Somewhat greater than for most jobs. Greater than some, less than others. Somewhat less than for most jobs. Much less than for most Jobs. Don’t know. How do you feel about this? 1. LUJ l “1:- 54 In your machines in the past year? 1. 9. LU I I I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. company, have employees lost their jobs because of Yes, to a very large extent. Yes, to a large extent. Yes, to a moderate extent. Yes, to a slight extent. No, not at all. Don't know. 1:55 How do you feel about this? 5. h. 3. 2. 1. I dislike it very much. I dislike it. It makes no difference to me. I like its I like it very much. Icy What will happen to the total number of people doing your kind of job in insurance companies in the next five years? 1. 2. 9. Lle Greatly increase. Slightly increase. Remain about the same. Slightly decrease. Greatly decrease. Don't know. 3‘. «‘N‘How do you feel about this? HILJ I dislike it very much. I dislike it. It makes no difference to me. I like it. I like it very much. .jfvrlv 80 h. The Job that you would consider ideal for you would be one where the way you do your work: 1. Is always the same. ‘ Changes very little. Changes somewhat. Changes quite a bit. Changes a great deal. On the job that you have now, how much of your present work involves the use of office machines? 1. Almost all of it. A large part of it. Some of it. A small part of it. Almost none of it. Don't know. On the Job that would be ideal for you, how much of your work would involve the use of office machines? Almost all of it. A large part of it. Some of it. A small part of it. Almcst none of it. Don't know. Do you feel that your kind of job will require more or less use of machines by 1960? 1. Much more use of machines. Somewhat more use of machines. A little more use of machines. No more use of machines than now. A little less use of machines. Don‘t know. 8] S. I’Zu’. In general, how much change takes place from time to time in the way you are expected to do your present Job? 1. Much more change then for most Jobs. 2. Somewhat more change than for most jobs. 3. About the same amount of change as for most Jobs. Somewhat less change than for most jobs. 5. A lot less change then for most Jobs. I *0/ How do you feel about this? 5. I dislike it very much. he I dialike its 3. It makes no difference to me. 2. I like it. I like it very much. 1. 82 On the next page you will find a list of statements about aspects of your Job. You are asked to answer two questions about each aspect of your Job. "Has this aspect of your job changed in the past six months?" (Question "A"), and "How do you feel about the change (or lack of change) in this- aspect of your Job?" (Question "B") 1. If jou had the same job title here at six months ago, compare the way your Job is now with the way it was six months ago on each of the job aspects. 2. If you had a different 10b here at six months ago, compare your present job with the Job you had six months ago on each of the Job aspects. 3. If you have not been with for at least six months, indicate any changes which have occurred in the aspects of your job since you came to -. Example: Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work. If you are working more hours now ("A") and don't like it ("B"), you would check the spaces like this: QUESTION "A" QUESTION "B" How has this aspect of your How do you feel about this job changed in the past six change (or lack of change) months}; in your Job? dis- dis- like " much 3 | émuch / dike more more ino gless ‘less / a don't now like .3 a lot now Echange [now !now lot like care The hours I work on / this job.... __ V” 7. 83 anmmmuu .xunu .nnuun .uuuu .ummm a an aged memo an a pa oxaamae -mae p.eoe mesa mafia so: 33” so: omfifio so: none 33 on ones 6.0..” he so new H awn Ho £526 one loos-cocooooooocoeeoopOfl .HQPPUD w op 5.3.0593 sow moocmgo an: lessees-000000000000.snow bra GO doom H hpwnsoom no #583 loose.accuses-ocomnflgmmvflmpgwfi m.“ x903 be £0.33 3 nonwoc Ills-00000000000090” E CO mma 3 023 H passwoan Ho #528 Ioooooooooeoooeopon kg GO 8 3 obs: H mannequin Ho 9528 lllloocooooooocch—w bk hp Ugggv hpnwnfimsommoh mo goose oesooooscecocoa-0000000090“ P so cocoon HHEm Ho 25er IllleooooocooooooooocnOfi kg “0 #0” H 83.—Summon Ho 956:3 oesooooooooooeoooocggoo 05 .89 non be No 35.395. 0....OOOOOOOOQOIOOOOOOOOOOng 9.5 08H. 09H 93. mpg 3E. man. may he no 00mm 23 926 H0550 h: Ill-coco.coo-00000000000090” E hp ideas .mds H .NHQ....H ASSN .OHR.-M. .mexnu‘ .m 3H éiwfi .0 with. .m gene .4 3H .m i H .N 3H. .H SH. @3583 announced Ho commons m5. .IllooooooccooocooocooooopOfi LE CO ooh—Hue.“ 3.83 no #588 one Ill-coco.cocosuccess-cocooooooxvfloz b: as.” humans» no 955:3 one zoo macs some madam Emma. .mo mug mg am: 924 «pow Mach cw Homage Ho x03” gov omqwno man» goons How.“ 90% ow 30m =m= ZOHBmmSO «mnpzos chum pmmnH on» cum calmness non .90» Ho pecans 9.93 mm: 30m :4: ZOHBWHDO .2... WZOHBmMDO Ema 8. The following questions are concerned with the contacts you have with other people in your work, and.with how you feel about the information you receive regarding changes in your Job. 11- w 17::9/ .LC ’/.L “DC“AJ .ZZi-A/A/ During a regular workday I generally exchange information connected with my work with the following number of peOple: 1. None 01"2 o 3 ' S h 6 - 10 S . More than 10 my Job requires me to give infermation to.my supervisor: 1. Very frequently 2. Often 0 Sometimes o Seldom . Very infrequently When there is some gossip or information in the "grape-vine": l. I am always the first one to hear about it. 2. I am usually one of the first to hear about it. 3. I hear about it at about the same time as everyone else does. h. I am usually one of the last to hear about it. 5. I never hear about it. How satisfied are you with the information you.receive con- cerning changes in the company and.in your Job? 1. Completely satisfied 2. Very'satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied . Not satisfied How satisfied.are you with the number of opportunities you have to discuss things about your job with your fellow employees? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied . Not satisfied LU l I Kc» 85 9. 1f— L/j How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you have to discuss things about your Job with your supervisor? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied 3. Quits satisfied )4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Not satisfied 124/4 How much information has the company given the employees this fall? 1. Much more than usual. . More than usual. 3. About the same as usual. he L688 than usual. ' 5. Much less than usual. In the right-hand column next to each item place a check mark under the statement which best describes your satis- faction with information received from the company. 3 Sati faction i ASPECTS OF _1_ s . INFORMATION Completely Very Quite Somewhat Not gatisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied 1 satisfied, IL-“W 1. Amount of information. o o o o o o o m-w 2. Accuracy of information. o o o o e o o H ‘i 3. Understandability of information. o o o o o o o LIZ-+50 h. Getting information soon enough. . .. .. . I I l... i!{ii§l.iliy\ 86 10. As you may know, your company is planning to install an IBM "650" Computer in December. We are interested in how you think this machine may affect your Job here at — . The following questions ask for your Opinions as to what the effects may be. \m - 5/ Which statement best describes the effect you expect the computer to have on you in the next six months? 1. ‘0 o I expect to be promoted. I expect to be transferred to a different Job. I expect to keep the same Job, but with the work greatly changed. I expect to keep the same Job, but with the work noticeably changed. I expect to keep the same Job with the work only slightly changed. I expect to keep the same Job with no change at all. I don't expect to be affected for I plan to quit working soon. Other (describe) I have no idea. l: ‘5 LL How do you feel about this? 1. 2. 3. h. L I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to me. I dislike it. I dislike it very much. 12; 133 Do you think that the computer will influence your job 33 the next gear or two? 1. 2. 3. 1.. LL It is very likely. It is quite likely. It is possible, but not very likely. It is not very likely. It is not at all likely. I have no idea. 11: 1517/ How do you feel about this? 1. LU I l I like it very much. I like it. It makes no difference to me . I dislike it. I dislike it very much. «9' .II .22: 87 — 5 ’ What is your general feeling about the fact that the h \1 company has decided to install the computer? 1. I like it very much. . I like it. 3. It makes no difference to me. e I dislike it. . I dislike it very much. JJ -5 Q Why do you feel this way? ll. 88 12. Now you are asked to indicate in what way you expect the computer to influence each aspect of your present job within the next six months. Place a check mark in one of the spaces under Question "C" for each statement about your job. QUESTION "C" IN WHAT WAX DO YOU EXPECT THE COMPUTER T0 INFLUENCE THIS ASPECT OF YOUR JOB WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS? I think there will be ... more less I muoh.more than no than much less have no than now now change now than now idea IZL’S77 l. The amount of variety in my Work.............. “LE“:YS 2. The amount of work required on my job...... _n::457 3. The degree of accuracy demanded by NW jObeooeeo 411140 h. My control over the pace of’my work......... ,GC"&/ 5. The importance of my job for the company..... ZZf’n'QL 6. The amount of super- vision I get on my job.. 111,673 7. The amount of skill needed on my Job........ LC-&’% 8. The amount of responsi- bility demanded'by my job ___ zz-~éu5 9. The amount of planning I have to do on my job.... E'ézr 10. The amount of judgment I have to use on my job. 22:—6»7 11. The degree to which my work is interesting..... lIZ-éi? 12. The amount of security I feel on my jObosoooeoO jfliaéa7 13. My chances for promotion to abetter jObeeeeeeooo .fl:~tfi9 lb. The amount of pay I get on NW JObeeooeoooooo 89 13. The following items deal with company information about the IBM "650": jflZI‘LAQ I can recall first hearing that the company was installing an IBM "650" computer: 1. """"2. 3. h. S. 6. More than a year ago Between six months and.one year ago Several months ago A few weeks ago A few days ago I didn't know until today that a computer was to be installed. .ZEL‘*// Of the information distributed.about the IBM "650" computer prior to its installation I think I have received: 1. LUII All of it Most of it Some of it Only a little of it None of it jCDC-AAQ I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others: 1. LU l l Very'often Often Sometimes Not often Never 9o 11:. The company has made various statements and.announcements in connection with the preparations for the computer. Some have been made in _, some have been made in special bulletins, and some may have been made in information meetings or by your direct supervisor. ‘We are interested in finding out how well the information has reached.you. In the table be- low there is a series of statements. For each of the statements indicate, to the best of your knowledge, whether the company'has: (A) made any statement with that meaning, (B) made any statement with the opposite meaning, or (0) not said.anything about the subject. The company has: f T“ "D STATEMENT Said so Said the Said nothing opposite about the subject .llZM/Al The computer will not make any mistakes Of its Owneeeoeoooocoee .IUJ' ‘/ 5 The computer cannot correct errors that exist in the data it receivesoeeeeeeeeoeceases-coo l/ 0 The( IBM 650 programmer will spend a lot of time preparing coded instructions for the machine......................... 11 MoZt of the time the computer will be operated by the m4 650 programmer......................, 112::L #7 One of the immediate tasks of the 134 650 programner is to develop a procedure for figur- ing payroll on the computer... .. III-‘99 The IBM 650 computer can be operated properly only by people who know some electrical lazyengineering..................... .___ ~62? It has become necessary to write a detailed procedural manual for preparation of data to be used in the computer.................... LEE '5/ The computer will change the . work methods in all parts of the company......................... ZZZ; 9| 15 . (Continuation of table on page 11:) r O ‘ ; The company has: 9 a f .9 smmmrr g ' ' Said so Said the Said nothing opposite about the gquJQct L‘ygL Representatives of the IBM Corporation say that - is doing quite well in prepar- ing for the computer............ ‘53 The computer will be handled by the automobile underwriting department”.................... -5”V There will be a lot more people needed in the IBM accounting department as a result of the computer...".................... ‘ 50' The company will be able to is- sue polio use more quickly thanks to the COKPUUCI‘Jeeco000000000000 - 0% A The computer will soon be used for deoi ding which applications the comp any should accept and WhiCh It 81101le reject. e o o o s e e e o - 57 The corputer will first be used for figuring loss ratios for each Of the agents”................. t ‘ 5 E The computer will figure out how +he company should settle claims from 8 DOIiC'J'hOldere o e s e e o e e o e o o ..kx) L7 The computer will not endanger anybody ' 3 employment at — new a [11-63 .m-44 121- 65 LII-'56» EL 92 16. Now we would like to know what you personally think will happen as a result of the computer. Below are several questions. Mark your answer in one of the columns "Yes", I'Poseibly", and "No", depending on your opinion. Your answer In your Opinion: Yes Possibly No 663 Will the computer make mis- takes or its m7............. Will the computer change the work methods in all parts of the COMPW?eeceeoceeeoeeoooeo ewéLL 'Will the company be able to issue policies more quickly thanks to the Oomuter?eoeooco Will the computer soon be used for deciding which appli- cations the company should accept and which it should reJQCt?ceeoeseeeeeocoeoeeeeoee ‘Will the computer endanger andey' 8 employment at —?OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Will the computer make Jobs too difficult to understand for a lot of people?.......... Will a lot of people be able to use more of their skills as a result of the instal- Llation of the computer?....... :- {r ’/ Will the computer actually help increase employment at _ 93 17. The following items deal with preferences about changes in your job: 11.7 —- 4/0 If I could do as I pleased, I would change the kind of work I do every few months. 5. I strongly agree I agree a little I neither agree nor disagree 2. I disagree a little . I strongly disagree LZ’V/ One can never feel at ease on a job where the ways of doing things are always being changed. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little 3. I neither agree nor disagree . I disagree a little 5. I strongly disagree 1131/1 The trouble with most jobs is that you Just get used to doing things in one way and then they want you to do them differently. l. I strongly agree . I agree a little . I neither agree nor disagree . I disagree a little 5. I strongly disagree JU .Z'if-L/Li I would prefer to stay with a Job I know I can handle than to change to one where most things would be new to me. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little 3. I neither agree nor disagree 1:. I disagree 9. little . I strongly disagree EPA/A7 The trouble with many people is that when they find a Job they can do well they don't stick with it. 1. I strongly agree 0 I agree a little . I neither agree nor disagree . I disagree a little . I strongly disagree LU l l 18. 1114/5 I like a job where I know that I will be doing my work about the same way from one week to the next. 1. 2. 3. h. L I strongly agree I agree a little I neither agree nor disagree I disagree a little I strongly disagree _ZZ;~¢4‘When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing to have to change to a new method. 1. LLLU I strongly agree I agree a little I neither agree nor disagree I disagree a little I strongly disagree jflZ-yv'lt would take a sizable raise in pay to get me to accept a different job here. 1. LLLU 1. ,UI 7. 1. LLU | S. '57'GV7 This company is slow in adopting more efficient methods of work. I strongly agree I agree a little I neither agree nor disagree I disagree a little I strongly disagree 'UZVJ/y There are many unnecessary tasks performed in this company. I strongly agree I agree I neither agree nor disagree I disagree I strongly disagree I strongly agree I agree I neither agree nor disagree I disagree I strongly disagree 95 19. :DZJx5L> It is hard to gain acceptance of proposals for changes that would.lead to increased.efficiency. 1. 3. S. J I strongly agree I agree I neither agree nor disagree I disagree I strongly disagree Mhny persons in this company are so used to doing things in the present way that they cannot see the advantages of new methods or work 0 1. LU l I strongly agree I agree I neither agree nor disagree I disagree I strongly disagree LIZTIIZ““13 511-qu l. I am always the first one to hear about it. I am usually one of the first to hear about it. I hear about it at about the same time as everyone else does. I am.always one of the last to hear about it. I never hear about it. How satisfied are you with the information you receive con- cerning changes in the company and in your Job? Completely satisfied Very satisfied Quite satisfied Somewhat satisfied Net satisfied Completely satisfied very satisfied Quite satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied ll9 S9. 5:: H3 How satisfied are you with the opportimity you have to dis- cuss things with your immediate supervisor regarding your Job? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied 3. Quite satisfied L. Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied sm‘J" (( this fall? 1. 2. 3. h. 5. Much more than usual Mere than usual About the same as usual Less than usual Much less than usual How'mmch information has the company given the employees In the right-hand.column next to each item, place a check mark under the statement which.best describes your satisfaction with.the information received from the company. ASPECTS OF Satisfaction INFORMATION Completely’ Very satisfied Quite satisfied Somewhat gatisfied Not :gatisfied Patti sf ied 1. Amount of infomtioneeeeeee (ll WH t) IL-Hi' 2. Accuracy of information. e e e e e e ra_u:-y<} 3. Understandability of information... IIT'SC) Lb. Getting information ' soon enough....... (A 120 313. The following items deal with company information about the IBM "650": 6 ID: NO I can recall first hearing that the company was installing an IBM "650" computer: 1. More than a year ago . Between six months and one year ago . Several months ago 11. A few weeks ago 5. A few days ago 6. I didn't know until today that a computer was to be installed. 5111“ Hi 0f the information distributed about the IBM "650" computer prior to its installation I think I have received: Is All or it 2. Most of it . Some of it . Only a little of it . None of it Sill-'42. I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others: 1. Very often . Often 3. Sometimes h. Not often 5. Never {:5 JIL’LI ;5 Of the information I have received about the IBM "650" computer ‘ prior to its installation I felt it was necessary to pass along: 1. All of it 2. M0813 or it ____3. Some parts of it :h. Only a little of 11-. . None of it Ul 12] $20. The purpose of the following questions is to get your idea about the practical value of different supervisory practices for this organization. We are not asking you which method would be ideal nor which method is now actually being followed in your department. Instead-:- we are asking you to tell us which method yo_u uconsider the most effective supervisory method in this organization. Directions: Check the o__n___e answer which you feel would be the :_n___ost effec- tiv____e_ supervisory method"- for each situation. Sometimes you may not see much difference between two or more of the choices or may not like any of them. Always make a choice even if you are forced to ggss . alkaline real function of staff specialists is to 1. provide factual material that the supervisor can use in building up the technical efficiency of his own department. . provide the supervisor with new ideas that he can use to stimulate his men and keep them interested in improving their efficiency. . develop reliable methods and programs that the super- visor can use and depend on. . provide qualified peOple that the smervisor can call on when his department needs help in solving problems. SELL! 3 When usual methods fail to get action on an important departmental problem, the supervisor's best bet for getting results is l. the advice and backing of his immediate superior. Z. the employees, who can informally back his request for action. 3. his own organized and forceful presentation of the facts. . a his informal personal contacts with key people in the plant. 631%} Li To understand how the employees really feel about things, the supervisor should I. maintain a frank, informal, give-and-taks relationship With them. 3. keep objective records of things that reflect their feelings - like production, absenteeism, suggestions, and complaints. 3. arrange for informal private interviews with each employee. 4. notice their reactions to the work, to him, and to his orders. 122 321 . S 1‘45 When a supervisor gets an order that doesn't seem Justified and that the l. 2. 3. 4. employees dislike, he should study the order 3 then either change it so that he can personally Justify its enforcement or send it back up the line with his objections. realize that everyone makes mistakes, and save his superiors unnecessary trouble by explaining the order in such a way that the employee will accept it. realize that there probably is a good reason for the order, and that if future orders are to be respected, this one must be carried out. explain to the employees that as supervisor he must see that the order is carried out, but that he'll help them organize their criticisms of it for presentation up the line. 512;«L/(¢,If official policies are really to be followed, they should be 1. Z. 3. 4. 637,; L: ‘2 The best 1 . 2. —-'343 61-le The best from .1. 2. 3. 4. clearly presented in the supervisor's handbook, with the names of the authorities to consult when any ques- tions come up. presented as general guides for the employees, who should be able to get unpopular policies reconsidered. laid out as general rules that the supervisor is authorized to interpret and apply in his department. set up as general guides that the supervisor can change slightly to fit individual cases and problems. way to get steady and dependable production is praising employees when they deserve it, and appealing to their desires for self-improvement. careful direction and disciplining of employees. to establish a pay schedule based on a Job evaluation. through the employees' desire to be part of a satisfying work team. level of coordination between departments comes mostly training supervisors to handle minor problems between departments diplomatically, to avoid unnecessary conflicts. selecting supervisors who really know their work and take pride in competing with each other to get out first-class work. having a clear-cut delegation of authority for each depart- ment so that there is absolutely no overlapping of respon- sibility between supervisors. developing supervisory planning sessions in which the supervisors work out solutions to conflicts between departments. 3:2.- as 123 $22. The average supervisor needs development most in l. 2. 3. 4. the prOper use of official channels and forms for making reports, filing complaints, handling transfers, requisi- tioning, etc. how to understand the employees' ideas, problems, and standards 0 the basic technical knowledge he'll need in the depart- ment he's supervising. the ways to deal with individuals efficiently without causing friction. SE'Q’O If several employees are led informally by a very uncOOperative individual, the supervisor should 1. Z. 3. 4. ask the personnel department to have the leader trans- ferred. call them all in and talk the problem through with them. discredit this rival leader by showing the group how and where he is wrong. interest the leader in something else, and give the men more individual attention. SDI-5 I When hiring a new employee, the supervisor should select a man who is 1. ...—2° 3. 4. intelligent and has a good deal of drive. a hard worker and who doesn't need much supervision. open-minded and willing to share responsibilities. agreeable and willing to follow the regulations. 3135; When a major reorganization of the employees' work is necessary in his department, the supervisor should 1e 2e ask the personnel department to reassign the employees impartially. call the employees together and get their suggestions about the reorganization. use this opportunity to shift employees to jobs where each of them.will feel happiest and thus work best. use his own Judgment and assign each employee to the kind.cf work the supervisor knows he does best. supervisor should avoid use of authority, and respect the employees' opinions and attitudes while helping them to work out common stan- dards and methods of efficiency. avoid making snap Judgments, and distribute both duties and privileges impartially. avoid "passing the buck" and make prompt, firm, clear decisions that his employees will respect and follow. avoid unnecessary conflicts, and use praise and personal attention to help each individual deveIOp his abilities. 124 $23 . 51-51; Employees will turn out the highest production if the supervisor 1. 2. helps them work out departmental standards and teamwork that fit current needs. sees that the work is carried out according to the specific instructions given by higher management. uses psychology to aid each individual in developing himself to his highest potential. uses his practical knowledge, initiative, and organizing ability to run his department at maximum efficiency. 61-55 To maintain departmental discipline, the supervisor should 1. 2. help the employees work out a common standard of action based on the rules. treat all employees alike and according to the estab- lished rules. see to it that each employee learns company rules and can therefore be responsible for his own conduct. take direct personal action on anyone who commits a serious violation of company rules. gyflfio, A smooth-running department depends mostly on 1. 2. 3. 1:. how well the supervisor helps each employee to realize and use his abilities. how well the supervisor plans and directs the work. the understanding, responsibility, and teamwork developed by the work force. the systematic breakdown of the work load into separate and clearly described Job duties for each employee. 3 1:57The rating or promotion of an employee should be based primarily on 1. 2. I? Ibo the ambition and ability to learn that he has shown. his technical knowledge and ability, and his depart- mental experience. objective records showing the amount of experience he's had, his length of employment, and his Job skills. the recommendations of a supervisor-employee merit- rating committee. isl‘SS’If an employee keeps coming in with an unreasonable complaint, the supervisor should 1. 2. 3. l4. help him to become interested in something more constructive. politely but firmly show him Just why the complaint is not justified. talk the problem over with him, trying to understand how he feels about it. send him up the line to the proper authority for an official and final answer that the employee will have to accept. 125 821;. EbILriSfi' Informal persona1.relationships between supervisor and employees should.be 1. accepted the same way as any other friendship in which there is mutual respect of one another's opinions and individuality. 2. avoided, because a supervisor who mingles with his employees loses their respect of him as a fair and impartial Judge of their merits. 3. generally avoided, except when the employee has been out- standingly responsible in his work and would make a good assistant in the department. h. encouraged, so that the supervisor can get to know each man's interests and.atimulate him to develop his abilities. ‘8131'047 An employee's suggestion for an improvement in the department should be 1. passed up through the supervisor, whose knowledge of the technical needs of the department may enable him to imp prove the suggestion. 2. encouraged.by the supervisor, so that the employee's initiative is developed.and supported. 3. passed around among others in the department for their comments and suggestions before it's sent up. u. sent directly to the Operating Committee. E512;«ol A.supervisor should train a new employee by 1. showing himirepeatedly how to do the Job, until the super- visor sees that he's developed efficient work habits in it. 2. making the Job interesting to him by praising him when he does it well and correcting him tactfully when he shows his weak points. 3. giving him a complete written set of instructions to study, so that he can learn the right methods from the start. . explaining what the Job requires, than allowing him to develop his own methods from the supervisor's suggestions and his own experience and knowledge. [fl SEX-hi When a new program begins, the supervisor should get . enough information and freedom in carrying it out so that he can meet the personal needs of individual employees. 2. firsthand information about his duties, and personal authority to carry them out in the way he thinks best. 3. advance infermation about the program, so that he can get his employees' ideas about it and.then help deve10p it. h. a clear description of his duties in the program, and a statement that he'll have the official backing needed to carry them.out. l26 S2ha. $11.3 The supervisor can give out new orders and information most effectively by S l ’(rl'i all: "’ (n /r L- 2. discussing them with the employees and getting their questions and comments. sending written notices to every employee concerned. explaining the orders or information to each employee concerned. telling each employee about them informally at the appropriate time and place. A group leader would be most helpful to his supervisor if he L O L l L? 0 evaluated each employee's complaints and passed on only those which were legitimate grievances under the regulations. helped the employees to organize and present their ideas about departmental problems. disciplined employees who took unfair advantages of regu- lations to Justify loafing on the Job. tried to help er advise individual employees who went to him to discuss their personal problems and complaints. When a man is recommended for promotion to supervisor, the most important thing to consider is his [0-4 O E'IU 'N ability to use practical psychology in getting things done. technical ability, initiative, creativity, and ex- perience in the department. understanding of, and respect for, official policies and programs. standing among the employees as a leader. A new employee will get along all right if he L 3. IN 0 works with the other men in his department in turning out the day's production. follows the rules and regulations and is reliable. really tries to take advantage of opportunities to improve himself. follows the supervisor's instructions and develops the right work habits. 127 329. The following questions are about the group of people you supervise. SSE-(0’7 About how new people are there in the group that you supervise directly? 1. 2 . 3 - S Q 6 - 10 h. 11 - 15 5. More than 15 Sl-(efi Do you feel that you are really a part of the work group you supervise? 1. I'm really a part of this group. 2. I'm included in most ways. . I'm included in some ways, but not in others. 1:. I don't feel I really belong. 83%. q If you had a chance to be a supervisor for the same pay in another work group, how would you feel about moving? 1. I would want very much to move. 2. I would rather move than stay where I am. It would make no difference to me. I would rather stay where I am than move. 5. I would want very much to stay where I am. 3. 1:. How does the work group you supervise compare with other work groups in this company on each of the following points? $32; r)(jl‘he way members get 1.____Better than 2.____About the 3. Not as well along together most same as most as most gly—m'i‘he way members stick 1.___Better than 2.__About the 3.__Not as well together most same as most as most 31:7.1The way members help l.___Better than 2.__About the 3.__Mct as well each other on the Job most same as most as most 5 12.” '71., - I feel closer to the people I supervise than to the peeple who supervise me. 1. I agree very'much. . I agree somewhat. . I agree a little. . I disagree a little. . I disagree somewhat. . I disagree very much. LLU ll l28 329a. ' ~TECJY5 All things considered, how easy would it be for'IIIIIIIII to find someone else to do the Job you are now doing? 1. Very difficult . Fairly difficult . A little bit difficult . Fairly easy . very easy e Don't. know LLU I I 129 $311 . How easy would it be for you to get a Job as good as the one you now have at some other company? 1. 2. 3. h. 6: L Very easy Fairly easy A little bit difficult Fairly difficult Very difficult I don't know How many supervisors in the company think that your Job is more desirable than their own Jobs? 1. JH “51 .:Whatdo 2. J I “I “*6: “’7. """""'8. 9. O. Almost all Many Some Few Almost none you expect to be doing five years from now? Working at the same Job in this company Working at a better Job in this company Being a supervisor in some other company Working at a nonsupervisory Job elsewhere Running own business Being a housewife Retired Other Don't know $51-70 Are you now taking any special training? No, and I don't really plan to No, and I don't know whether I will or not No, but I plan to within 5 years Yes, training to help me on the Job I'm on now Yes, training for a different Job in this company Yes, training for a Job elsewhere Yes, training to help me enter a profession or start my own business What do you think the possibilities are of your getting a promotion in the next year? Very likely Fairly likely Likely in some ways, not in others Unlikely Very unlikely 130 $36. X4; .When were you hired by —? Year Month X“ H. H What is your present Job title? (example: department head) ‘ ) x ~I3 When did you start on your present Job? Year Month ><~L1,:r,What is your section and department? X— H Within the past 6 months have you tried to transfer from your present Job to another Job or department within the company? Yes No x - I 5 Within the past 6 months have you registered with any employment agency or applied for a Job with any other organization? Yes No X .. p 3, Are you the glly wage earner in your household? Yes 3 No x - Q L1 Are you the main wage earner in your household? Yes No >025 Could your household live adequately if you were _r_1_c_>_t_ working? Yes No X-sz Is your household living adequately 5123? Yes No >047 What is your present salary before taxes and other deductions? dollars Check whether this is per month , week , or 2 weeks . X“ 7 Date of birth: Month Day Year X -(p Sex: Male Female X~ 7 Marital status: Single Married Divorced Separated Widowed x- 37 How many years of school have you completed? Circle highest grade completed. Some Graduate 7 8 9 10 ll 12 College College Work POSTTEST I32 004$”) K‘s; .51) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY )3 p \r. Labor and Industrial Relations Center May 1958 To: Employees of — Automobile Insurance Company The Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State University is carrying on a broad program of research having to do with maple working together effectively in industrial organizations. Much of the research con- sists of getting the ideas and opinions of people about their Jobs. Last November you were asked to fill out a questionnaire as a part of this series of studies. We are grateful for the very substantial help you gave us at that time and are finding the information we received very help- ful in our research. It is important to our research to know whether the conclusions we ob- tain at one time will remain true at a later date. We are therefore asking you to participate in this second questionnaire stucv. As you go through this questionnaire, those of you who participated in the November study will recognize questions that we also asked in November. We have included them because we need to know how you look on your Job and the company at this time. Those of you who were not present to participate in the November study will have an opportunity to eapress how you feel about a variety of aspects of your Job and your working situation. The value of this study depends on the sincerity and cars with which you answer the questions. It is important to get your real feelings. We are looking for frank statements about your attitudes, feelings, opinions and Judgments about your Job. The answers that you give will be made available only to the research team in the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. No one connected in any way with your organization will see or use any of the individual question- naires or be able in any way to find out what kind of answers you have given. Your information will be held in the strictest confidence and the results of the study will be tabulated on a group basis only. A report on the findings of this study and of the November study will be made to you before the end of 1958. finer Hardin Research Associate Labor and Inflstrial Relations Center Michigan State University Please print your name below. When you have finished the questionnaire, tear this part off and place it in the "ballot box" by the door. THIS DIFDBMATION WILL BE USED TO HELP US ANALYZE THE QUESTIONNAEE. IT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE IN THE COMPANY. 7:": ‘( (19:55.3 Name l33 First is a check list that gives you an Opportunity to express how you feel about certain aspects of your Job. Consider the first aspect listed in the column to the left. Place a check mark under the statement which best describes how satisfied you are with this aspect of your Job. Job Aspect Completely Very Quite Somewhat Not satisfied gatisfied gatigfled ggtigfied gatisfied 1 ‘1 The amount of variety in my workeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee In The amount Of work required on W JObeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo 1' u The degree of accuracy de- manded by m JObeeeeeeeeee I ...My control over the pace of mwork................... 1' .3The importance of my Job for the company............... f ,4 The amount of supervision I get on my JObeeeeeeeeeeeee I ..' The amount of skill needed on W JObeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo 3 ,, The amount of responsibili- ty demanded by W JObOOOOO ; .7 The amount of planning I have to do on 11y Job...... 1,5The amount of Judgment I have to use on my Job..... a. 1 w, The degree to which my work 18 interesting....... 1- ”The amount of security I feel on W JObeeeeeeeeeeee 1 “W chances for promotion to a better JObeeeeeeeeeeeeeo 1 .‘2. The amount of pay I get on W JOboeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee . .— m- ~ ...—M- ...—-.. v<~e.o..-.— Ne——r—c—_— 4— ....... (1) (2) J (3) (u) (5) ' . g .'I . I - A . . AC \ ‘ r . i l . -. . O I .. , . . ’ . v 0 ' - o. , ... . .-. -.l . _- __ . I . .. -..-~.. . .. ..- - ~ - , .G , .. 00‘ ...~ . . ... - .. ‘0. C , g ,, r . Cu. . .. - -- .. . -- O... .l ... . .. .. .... .__,_, III-r. As. H ‘I'. . ‘ . cool .~,4 .- q. u .—... , . V ‘.,el -. -. . . .efi’ ...... . .--... ,. .0 w..... _ . — . . e0! -- . .»---, .. -- . - .1 , -.., ..- -- - o. . . ..h\lr I I .0 v . o a." ..- I . ID. . . t . "l N ‘1' 2L4 H A U '4 26 IllL7 H N (K) 7' EL? UJJ l 13h 2. How do you feel about the relationship between you and.your supervisor? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied . Not satisfied LJJ I How satisfied are you with the way changes are handled around here? 1. Completely satisfied 2. Very satisfied 3 . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied 5. Net satisfied J flew satisfied are you with the kind of work you do? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied 5. Net satisfied JH How satisfied.are you with the company you work for? 1. Completely satisfied . Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied . Net satisfied Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you with your Job? 1. Completely satisfied 2. Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied 5. Not satisfied I WI What are the things you like best about working at ‘-? What are the things you like least about working at _?____ -.,~ 'oL‘_ _V‘_ ‘-o -.-.. 135 3. The following questions concern your imediate supervisor and the company you work for: ‘Léo I3! H H I34 H 32 35‘ My swervisor does his best to keep me informed about changes that will affect me. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree 0 I disagree . I strongly disagree VJ Often our supervisor's decisions are pretty arbitrary. 5. I strongly agree . I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree 1. I strongly disagree My supervisor is quite willing to stand up for my rights in the company. 1. I strongly agree . I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree 5. I strongly disagree J»! I There is not much my supervisor can do to protect my interests in the company. S. I strongly agree 1;. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree ...LU The company keeps the welfare of its employees in mind whenever it makes an important decision. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree The company goes out of its way to help employees who run into difficulties. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree U wI In ‘3: 37' ii '33 136 h. The company is much.mere concerned with cost of operation than with employee welfare. 5. I strongly agree h. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree 2. I disagree 1. I strongly disagree 'Whatever the company decides will be for the benefit of most employees. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree h. I disagree 5. I strongly disagree This company seems to be run.more competently than are most other companies I know about. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree h. I disagree I strongly disagree The following questions dea1.with.preferences about changes in your Job: :E 339 \4 9H? \4 'V/ If I could.do as I pleased, I would change the kind of work I do every'few'months. 5. I strongly agree . I agree a little . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little I strongly disagree 1. One can never feel at ease on a Job where the ways of doing things are always being changed. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little 3. I neither agree, nor disagree h. I disagree a little 5. I strongly disagree The trouble with most Jobs is that'you just get used.to doing things in one way and then they want you to do them differently. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little 3. I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little . I strongly disagree Ll I37 5. ‘T :41 I would prefer to stay with a Job I know I can handle than to change I IV} I v4 H 45 “I ’-/6 47 I48 to one where most things would be new to me. 1. I strongly agree . I agree a little . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little . I strongly disagree UJJ l The trouble with nary people is that when they find a job they can do well they don't stick with it. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little . I strongly disagree LU I Ilike aJob whereI knowthathillbe doingmywork about the same way from one week to the next. 1. I strongly agree 2. I 381'“ a. little . I neither agree, nor disagree h. I disagree a little . I strongly disagree V'l When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing to have to change to a new method. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree a little . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little . I strongly disagree 1. I strongly agree . 2. I agree a little . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree a little 5. I strongly disagree J There are many unnecessary tasks performed in this company. 1. I strongly agree _______2. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree 5. I strongly disagree This compamr is slow in adapting more efficient methods of work. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree v ...... . < . T 0-. no . . n . 0.. b. t . v n A -.- a . . o a. O . \ . . v ‘04 . n o I O . . Q . a I I . . . . - I . . a I, la . . . . . . t o . . .. . ~ . . . . . , . . h . fl 2 . v — . . . . , e . . . . . ,. . . . a . . a .. . . .. . . v . a U. o I v . I. . . 4 - . _ . . . . . . . I . . r t , cl 0 ... . a a 1‘ I A ‘ . I . o . V . r _ . . . A . f i . i r ‘ w I. . . r V ‘v . t . . . .. . . . O n , o I . o 1 O a . a s b I II I . . , l r I . l a a c . . l . A as ..-s 149 ‘4 u‘ H \fl H 18 3 6. It is hard to gain acceptance of proposals for changes that would lead to increased efficiency. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree 0 I disagree . I strongly disagree LU l Many persons in this company are so used to doing things in the present way that they cannot see the advantages of new methods of work. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree 0 I disagree . I strongly disagree UH Personal interests are too often allowed to stand in the way of improved efficiency in this company. 1. I strongly agree 2. I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree 0 I disagree . I strongly disagree LU I The following questions are concerned with the contacts you have with other people in your work, and with how you feel about the information you receive regarding changes in your job. '52. o More than 10 l‘v Job requires me to give information to my supervisor: 1 . Very frequently 2 e Often 3 e Sometime 8 e 331“!“ 5. Very infrequently How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you have to discuss things about your Job with your supervisor? 1. Completely satisfied ______2. Very satisfied 3. Quite satisfied ’4. Somewhat satisfied 5. Not satisfied I39 7. I 53- How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you have to talk with the people you supervise? l. Oanplstely satisfied 2. Very satisfied 3. Quite satisfied h. Somewhat satisfied Ll . Not satisfied I 56 How satisfied are you with the information you receive concerning changes in the compam' and in your Job? 1. Completely satisfied LUII . Very satisfied . Quite satisfied . Somewhat satisfied . Not satisfied In the right-hand column next to each item place a check mark under the statement which best describes your satisfaction with information received from the company. ASPECTS OF INFORMATION I g; Amount of I ’ 160 information. o e e e e e 5 3, Accuracy of U\ MWtioneeeo so. ’1 Understandability of infomuone e e e e s 0 Getting information soon enough....... Satisfaction Mia tely Wary Quite Somewhat Not gatisfi ed satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied ~-—.-. a « ..w. a ...“- .. v a I a .o I ‘\, . - - _ n ,. . .. , .I‘ . , ‘ .o » _ 7 . 4 . ... ., ‘ .- . .7 ' . I ._‘ _ .,-. ,..» - , .e. -n... ‘-- . . .J, ~ . .. o, ' \ 1.. '1 ,‘ V e i I v, y 1“ -' r, o A.‘ g 7., . ' ‘). A 3 . .. . .~-~‘." . . . .. n . \‘v o .‘ . . . Q -.~- - . I 0' I , A . . -_ ~ . ¢_. _ A . -- - .--. ' I O , ,. . - I. . _ ‘ ‘. o . ‘,_. A, ’ ~ ......— A “ : r - .7 . , .A . O . .a A a - ‘ . - . .. . .. l. a A b a 4 “ _ A_ » a I ¢ < ~ I . - , - . . ‘ ‘ — l. , . \. . ‘ . ,_ . I , 7' > ‘ l . .' o - \ V - ---o o q .' , . f ‘ o . v \- ‘ . ‘ p .- ...--.. . - l , V . < . I . 4 _ ' . ., g. g -h- ‘ . . Q --.... . . t , I . o '. ' I z , ' ., I IV. . .- . , - , . . . , t _ ‘ . . 4‘ - > \' ., - . . ' s n . a - ., - . w" A—..~-... .. .. .. .-. . ..-. Q4¢—~O" a - , .~ - ~ | . . ....r , n.-.. - .— - , I t o A l 5 ~ l" b - ,u-oh . -.. ... .7. . v . . ‘ . . ....9’» . . ‘ew..- ‘. ., i.» ‘ '._ . r a I I PU. It . ...... . --‘.—._u»~ . . I. . . F - . . "‘ o .000... 'A \ '-- p. a 0" WV-.“ . . . ‘ ‘,y .~ u ' '. ‘ . ‘ . ‘- a r".‘ s. .. ..' 00¢ a , . - . ..:. .-.o..-- . ., -i .. . . .... .-.... .. , ,... - .. _ .7 7 v-y..., .. The hours I work on ll+0 On the next page you will find a list of statements about aspects of your job. about each aspect of your Job. changed in the past six months?" do you feel about the change (or lack of change) in this aspect of your job?" 1. If you had the flame job title here at You are asked to answer the questions "Has this aspect of your job (Question "A"), and "How (Question "3") months ago, compare the way your job is now with the way it was six months ago on each of the Job aspects. 2. If you had a different job here at six months ago, compare your present Job with the Job you had six months ago on each of the job aspects. 3 . six months, If you have not been with for at least ‘ ndicate any changes which have occurred in the aspects of your Job since you came to -. Exmle : Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work. If you are working more hours now (“A") and don't like it ("B"), you would check the spaces like this: QUESTION ”A" How has this aspect of your Job changed in the past six QUETION "B" six 8. How do you feel about this change (or lack of change) months? in 1933; Jo_b? much much like dis- more more no Is as less / a don' t dis- like ‘ now now chan e now now lot like cars like a lot , this 30b. 0 e / \‘\\ \\\\ >\\ “. w, «no use 5” 0 case Ho enema you efi 83 28 ea use manna. ..nno face 93 as: omega m3» gone How.“ do» on 30m :9. 203950 ......l .....I. II... III ..IlnofihacoeomHhsdmopfiosssfi 2H, 1| III-II IIIII. eeeeaeeeeeeeeeeoeeeepOfi 933.09 a 3 53283 .39 message 5: as H Illll I III! III I'll. assesses-00000000000030”EGO \! Hoom H .3238 mo £528 one 0.... b. Ill-II. lulll IIIII! Illll. III Geese-eeseesoeeewfiflmmhflflfi m.“ . . 3.83 be :03: 3 oonwou 05. E H. II III-ll all-II IIIIII IIIIII. CocooovoeeOOOOQOfi E :0 mg on. obs: H "Hangman H0 #523 one ‘u‘ \w. 2 III. I.IIII .Illll .Illl. IIIII. oveeeeeeeeeeeeopOfi he GO 8 On... In! 26: H mega Ho 9588 05. \c ... III III.- III III: III eeeeeeeeeoeepcfi ghfi. COVENEOU hudfinwmcommon Ho 9558.» one we all IIIIII- III III. III] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0090” E do @0609“ HHHMm Ho 955:3 03H. s..-‘ . eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeOQOfi bk GO 9mm H noHnEoAan Ho 9555 one ...... II. III II III III cocoooeeoeoeeeeeooeggog no.“ no... be Ho megaphone—w o5. T ......O.........C...‘.....~83 be He some 93 Ago Honpmoe g ... u III III I III I'll-II OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOW EB counmsmc hedges Ho seamen one t III... III! III! lull. .llll oo...........oo..ooecn~0nbane fiend—50h 3.83 M0 9:588 one all Illl I ll II OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHO; b: F". hpoahsur 90 p565 o5. up \‘fl N 2;:\ H \ ~‘ ‘ i a m: a ¥=\ So: so: 33 30: omega :0: 0.38 m§4am mmmme some 30H on eyes some .3 mug 5H ..m: 944 E n: E E 3 as. mzoaammpo Ezmza «nuance Nam pmmqonp 5n volwqwno new .39» Ho pecans mg was 30m :5. 2033.90 099 . ‘ ‘Is ...I I. .0 O In- .111 l, ...-.0.‘ ..r ... .9. I... I -0 . rill. II o . ... o .9 .. . . .1 .-. I‘ c... . fl .- I It. ‘ l-.. 0 0| .4 la ... . . It If--. ll .. . L I .. . < I. .I It . |i tad .. I I. .7 . . . . .. [all I .0 at A . -.. - ‘- . ‘J ' .. . .0. .1; u I. .{JD‘ 9...‘ 142 9. 21" 37' Considering everything, would you say you are now more satisfied I or less satisfied with your Job than you were six months ago? 1. Much more satisfied now . More satisfied now . No more, no less satisfied now . Less satisfied now . Much less satisfied now LUJ I As you may know, the company installed an m 650 computer in December last year. The following questions deal with the role of this computer as you see it and with your feelings about it. 772's}? H i M Ill What is your general feeling about the fact that the company has installed a computer? 10 I like it Very much . I like it . It makes no difference to me . I dislike it . I dislike it very much I have never given it a thought LLLI l 9. What was the general effect of the changeover to the new computer? 1;. It was very disrupting . It was quite disrupting . It was slightly disrupting . It was not disrupting at all 9. I have no idea How long would you say it took you to get used to the change? 1. No more than one week . 1 week to 1 month . 1 month to 3 months . More than 3 months . Not really used to it yet 9. I was not affected at all ILLH Considering everything, do you think the computer has been a good thing or a bad thing for the auployees in—? l. A very good thing . A good thing . Neither a good thing, nor a bad thing . A bad thing . A very bad thing . I have no idea L LUI E42 44 \=\ 144 ”‘3 10. In your opinion, would it be a good idea to use the conputer more widely or less widely in this company tlnn is now the case? Much more widely than now . More widely than now 3. About the same as now Less widely than now . Much less widely than now 80 I don't care 0 I don't know What has happened to your Job since last November? 1. I have been promoted 2. I have been transferred to a different Job I have kept my Job, but the work has been greatly changed I have kept my Job, but the work has been noticeably changed . I have kept my Job, and the work has been changed only slightly 6. I have kept w Job, and the work ins not changed 9. I was not employed here last November How do you feel about the change (or lack of change) since last November? 1. I like it very much 2. I like it ' . It makes no difference to me e I dislike 1t . I dislike it very much I was not employed here last November LLU 9. Did the computer play am' part in the change in your Job since last November? ' 1. Yes, it was the main factor in the change ~ 2. Yes, but it was a minor factor in the change 3. No, it was not a factor in the change . No, for there was no change . I was not anployed here last November I have no idea Do you think that the computer will influence your Job in the next year or two? 1. It 18 very likely 20 It 18 quite likely . It is possible, but not very likely . It is not very likely It is not at all likely I have no idea J 5. 9. How doyou feel about this? 1. I like it very much 2. I like it . Itamakes no difference to me e I 6.1811158 it . I dislike it very much U wll ”+4 11. Now you are asked to indicate in what way the cmuter influenced each aspect of your job within the last six months. Place a check mark in one of the spaces for each statement about your Job. If you really can- not tell whether the computer influenced some aspect of your job, check "I have no idea what the computer may have done." 1154‘! For this aspect of my job the computer caused ... (1) (2) (3) (h) (S) (9) I have no idea a great some no some a great what the computer increase increase change decrease decrease may have done The amount of variety innwwork........... The amount of work required on my Job... __ __ __ __ _.__ _.__. The degree of accu- racy demanded by my JObeeeeoeeeeeeoeeeee. My control over the pace of my work...... The importance of my :job for the company.. . __ __ _— The amount of super- vision I get on my Job.. The amount of skill needed on aw Job"... The amount of responsi- bility demanded by w Job The amount of planning Hi? I have to do onmy Job” The amount of Judgment I have to use onmy Job. The degree to which w work is interesting... The amount of security I feel on W JObeeeee II 49 My chances for promotion I“ to a better JObeeeeee The amount of pay I get onmy JObeeeeeeee -.a~.¢ V... - _. ' b V o . 4 ‘ . . e . . ‘ f V . ‘7 u ‘ ’ . v ' V. . -- _ . _ ,n , - . . '_ .3 ,- . _ 4 .- . . . , . . ' 1 ..‘t .. . ‘ P . .. . . .. § . ... .i . . , , .- . . a. i . . . . . .. -- _ -. . . . . . . . I- a O _ . . A ..- . _‘ . - .‘ -..... - .. . ’e \ O ,. . ... . - - - a _n- . -.—...l. -— e .. .. .. .- .. i -— ... a . g u... ..4 ._- ......... . . . a . 'l . O L . .. . A-.. . V o. .. --. ‘ ..., g _ .— ..- A _... . . ‘. ‘ - . , 0‘ ..- . - , . 5.... “+5 12. Now we would like to know what you think will happen as a result of the computer. Below are several questions. For each question mark your answer in one of the columns "Yes", "Possibly", and "No", depending on your opinion. Yes Possibly No 1*: (.2 Will the computer change the work methods in all parts of the company? 7} (“3 wm the company be able to issue policies more ' quickly thanks to the computer? 3: 6*! Will the computer soon be used for deciding which applications the company should accept and which it should reject? g’ L.,S’ will the computer endanger anybody' s employment at —? H a Will a lot of people be able to use more of their skills as a result of the installation of the computer? E ¢ '7 Will the computer actually help increase employ- ment at —? ”IE ’1 0f the information distributed about the IBM "650" computer I think I have received: 10 All or it . Most of it 3. Some of it he Only a little Of it . None of it 111’ W. or the information I have received about the IBM "650" computer / prior to its installation I felt it was necessary to pass along: 1. All Of it e Moat or it 3. Some parts of it _ h. Only a little of it 0 None Of it 7.7," II I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others: __1. Very often __ e Often . Sometimes 1:. Not often Se Never . _ \ . n o t. . . .n ' . v -.,~ 0-- -.-. . . I . .. .1 ' .~ , . . .‘\ . ‘_. . a . , . ' A. , 1 e . .. . . ' c -.. . , -. ~—< e .-- . I . . P ‘ i.. 7 _.rl'. . . ...- . .1 .i , \ . a ' ‘ ~v U I y ‘ I l“ , s . l > , O G. . s t ' “ ‘ If V o _ , g u ‘. A . 4 _ .r""' 1.. . .' ' *‘,-._-_.,, e ‘ " ' ‘- "“‘ - . - -.... . - 7 . .‘.- _,.. ‘— _ . . , - . \l ' ‘ K . , , p ' 7 ' ~ . . ' t l . ~‘ v .7 - e . Il- — v . ' ‘ .‘ » ‘- .r h -‘ i l ' , ,i . . . ,' , 6‘ ‘ ’ V n . ‘ 1 .' V V . - ‘ . ‘ 4 ' ‘ -' ' Q... .1 ' t , ' .. 0. V n I " ‘ o , - ., . . . . ‘ .. . . , A -. . . ‘ - A ' * L a . - - " ’ v , I , c c u \’ n . b: .- p - . . .‘ ' . _ . - . . , . ".....- ...i. ..4- , ..- . , . i . . . - . . , .. ‘. ’ ’ ,- , - . _. ‘ . ‘ . e I ,‘b n - l a a , . O ..‘ «W4 . . ' a- o . D . J < l y . . l . . .- ‘ a . I . . .. . I - ‘. ‘. , . .‘ ' l - . ' i ' ‘ . u . I A ' . . . . u a ...—.7..-. . . . A . in“ . .. . _-- 1 . g' ‘ v: ' . .....- . I .. 7.4'4 ,. . , i ' ‘ IV' ’ l ‘ ‘1- " V‘ ... c -’ r . , . .Vn... 211 .4 :rzr / "T/é “+6 13. To what extent has the information you received from the company about the IBM "650" computer agreed with what actually took place? 1. It agreed very well . It agreed fairly well . It agreed in someways and not in others . It disagreed somewhat . It disagreed very much JJII 0n the Job that you have now, how much of your present work involves the use of office machines? 1. Almost all of it . A large part of it 0 SOME Of'it i. A mall part of it . Almost none of it 9. Don't know On the Job that would be ideal for you, how much of your work would involve the use of office machines? 1. Almost all of it . A large part of it . Some of it . A small part of it . Almost none of it 0 Don't know I UJJ I 8’ things here at work ever make you feel "Jumpy" or nervous? 1. Never 0 verY’aeldOm e Seldom 0 Sometimes e Quite Often 0 Very Often .LUJ l The job that you would consider ideal for you would be one where the way you do your work: 1. Is always the same . Changes very little 3. Changes somewhat 1:. Changes quite a bit ___5. Changes a great deal that are the things you like most about the way changes are handled 5 this compaw? . ' ‘_ ' . j A ‘ . i J. I» n ,' 9 .' ,. ‘ ‘ .' . . . . ‘ . . . 0 r q ’ ..-... . - . .. w .. - . -_ i ."' d ' V - .0 .I. ' { l . . ‘ - l l a f‘ ,r , x d ‘ . s"; u . 5 . D. ’ A . .. . .- ‘ .-.- ..- .. a... at. \a . . --.. ,. ,. ‘\ I .u . ' " 7‘ , . . ‘ b'. .. . V o ’\ ' ~... , ,J . .—-. . .. --- . - . .... . n I . . . .a n 4. -,.-A. .‘eoo ‘ .— ~o . c c 0 . (‘7 ,. . ' , . o . , ., - n. ‘ - A ,. '. . .-- _ . I . - s l - I ,.. i p | . . . f“ ' r '1 ‘ . - A r . . - .. w.‘ ~: . eem 0‘- _a ' V ," . ‘ ~ -. , . . . U . . .a ' . x . \ ' ' , . . a O . . , . . _ - .- - I . . . . . -, e s - . ‘ ' . . ‘ .._ . . . . _ .1 . _" ' I I - .i . - f" \ .. , . r. ' . -. ' ., u . (- . i ,. ' . .i . A k, . . ~ ’ . .. . e ‘,v" r. ‘g‘ l ' I . . ; - ‘ . . .' U . i- . , . 0 ' . . . - - .— ,. - . ~ -I o. u o ‘ ... ‘ . .... , . A . ,., ‘ : . .. , ‘ . . "- . .. u . . ' ' ‘ ,. . , .no . -.l\ - . ... .- , " . ‘. - ‘ g .. ‘ . . . ...-‘- -v ‘Q < . v - . . . t - -....- , .. - V I r . , - ‘ . . i .. 7.. -. 9 ,-.- , o. - » t - -7. -- o ' ' ...-.... ... .. < 'r . , . ‘ - .- .- . v i D -‘a ‘fl \. o _ ~ I . . -..- ..4 y .' , - ' \ z‘ .. ...... ' r . , - > r . , . . r 0‘! -- v (t _ l .‘ ‘, I z .‘ '_ ‘ .5 ‘ . » -... ~ » 7.. ,. ..- . ‘ O I . . - .. . . d.~ a u . - - o ,. - ... .- . ‘ O . _. -n... , . ~ . ..., , ~ , - . a on , ‘ . .7, ‘ a - .. I . , , e . . ,4‘. o. . —<-. .‘ .....-‘--' -.- --......,_ . .. . . ..v ... . . .. --.¢.V.n fir .. - . r r- . - . ‘ flu? arm ’T‘TZZ 147 What are the things you like least about the way changes are handled in this company? l The main reason I work at my present Job is to make money. 1. I strongly agree a I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree U f I received an inheritance so large that I did not have to work, would still work at my present job. E. I strongly agree . I agree ___3 HH . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree 1. I strongly agree . I agree E. I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree It is more important to me that I do well at my work here than at anything else I do. E. I strongly agree . I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree 2. I disagree . I strongly disagree I care more about what the people I work with think of me than I do about what most others think. . I strongly agree . I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree LLUi _-.. -9 _sw-em .-. — . a. o - P'- w -- ...-0.. o... ..._i r . O . , . O I k . . I . . I . e v o e t I -. . i _ 0 4. . e 7- a v 7‘. I .... -.--.. e . . ..- ix. \1 M8 15. I cannotwreally'be happy unless I do very well at my job. 5. I strongly agree 0 I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree 0 I disagree 1. I strongly disagree IILJ The general field of work I am in now is the kind I would.prefer to stay in until I retire. . I strongly agree . I agree . I neither agree, nor disagree . I disagree . I strongly disagree HILL uld.feel like a loafer if I did not have a Job. 5 5. I strongly agree h. I agree 3. I neither agree, nor disagree 2. I disagree . I strongly disagree All things considered, how easy would it be for Citizens' to find someone else to db the job you.are now doing? 1. Very difficult 2. Fairly difficult a. A little bit difficult . Fairly easy _.5- very’easy 0 Don't know 5. Almost none ‘ -l v -. i u , ‘ "u . ,7 t A--. I. u ' ‘ ' . - ,, . . . ' ,"‘ p‘ ‘ I l ‘ .' .c~ 0. .4 ' ‘ . - ., . I ~ ’ I . n . . ‘ . ) L' ‘ ’ . . . . . , . ‘1 y' “ g u . - . e . . . A r . , . — . ‘ . I V" I , ‘ . u ‘. 'l - \,V A ' , (s 0/ .’ _, I . u. ‘ .‘_ . ‘_ I. ‘7 '-¢L.. . .r I . ' V ) ‘ . ' r, ,V .A . ‘ .. . c. . . \a ' f. . t ' - . €, » - .4 - I ...- ' 1 I ’ ' \ , A». . _ u '1 I " l " A ' 'u \ - 3 u . o ' _ . , z ' ‘ . n . II . ..' ‘_ , A '.. l - - O ' ‘/ v . o u v 4 - . 0 . ' o l v , ' - ' ‘ ‘ £4 ° I . . . '. I ' ' . . "’vJ o I Hu‘ . I a - ‘~v I l . A ‘ -\ - V «V: 4 s I u ,‘ - . . | .. v . . . '1 I ; .. ._,~ . c- . .- o o. a . --‘. ... l . . . - - .l .- . .- ‘ l . . V .-.. .,.,,_ . ¢ .. .— -.. .-4 “ . n O 0- ...... l 0 --~.- ~... \ - , l O O . _.- . . . - , ‘ l .a A... . , - a l I J -.-. A. e 8 . a- . .. .... \A. N 1735 1K sax- ”+9 16. As far as you can tell, what do your supervisors think about your work performance here at _7 1. They like it very much. . They like it. 3. They like most things about it, but there are some exceptions. b. There are several things about my work performance that they don't like. 5. There are many things about 17y work performance that they don't like. 90 mn't know. 1. Very easy . Fairly easy 3. A little bit difficult 0 Very diffiClfl-t 90 I don't know How qualified do you feel you are to handle different Jobs in this compamr? 1. Much more than most employees. . More than most employees. 3. About the same as most employees. )4. Less than most employees. 5. Much less than most employees. Are you now taking aw special training? 1. No, and I don't really plan to . No, and I don't know whether I will or not 3. No, but I plan to within 5 years 1;. Yes, training to help me on the job I'm on now 5. Yes, training for a different Job in this company 6. Yes, training for a Job elsewhere 7. Yes, training to help me enter a profession or start my own business When were you hired by “7 Year Month What is your present Job title? (example: key-punch operator) When did you start on your present job? Year Month What is your section and department? . I . a . .- ‘0 a .- Q ~ o > ..-- - _— - Ah... - .-.... @5340 211 «HM/z fl 71 “V" 71.7 42" 73 150 17. What is your supervisor's name? How many people ch you supervise directly here at work? people Within the past 6 months have you tried to transfer from your present job to another Job or department within the company? Yes No Within the past 6 months have you registered with any employment agency or applied for a Job with any other organization? Yes No Are you the 2H wage earner in your household? Yes No Are you the main wage earner in your household? Yes No Could your household live adequately if you were not working? Yes No Is your household living adequately m? Yes No Date of birth: Month Day Year Sex: Male Female Marital status: Single Married Other How many years of school have you completed? Circle highest grade completed. Some Graduate 7 8 9 10 11 12 College College Work Thank you for your cooperation. Now tear off the ballot at the bottom of the cover page of the questionnaire. Place the ballot in the "Ballot Box" and place the questionnaire in the box marked "Questionnaires". .15- -... i av >‘ f. .. ’.— . . ~» ‘ n l _¢ _, .- ...- . 0' . I . . . i, v . - A- w o- ' 'I l o --.. 0' ~~ . ll --‘ . u L 1 ' ‘ . O , - APPENDIX C APPENDIX C This appendix contains a brief description of statistics used in Chapter VIII and then shows tables illustrating results in the order discussed in Chapter VIII. When groups were dichotomized, an attempt was made to do so at or near the median wherever possible. Otherwise the most sensible break was made (as between male and female, college versus high school education, etc.). Tetrachoric r was computed using the Cosine-pi approximation formula: 180° \fb-c— \F;; + be rtet = COS To test the significance of tetrachoric r, the following computation was made: When r was 2.58 or more times larger than the result obtained in the above formula, r was considered significant at the l% level. When r was 1.96 times larger, it was considered significant at the 5% level. 152 153 The following formula was used for computing the phi coefficient: (ad - bc) ‘[ (a + me + c)(b + d>(c + d) Phi = In order to test the significance of phi, Chi Square was used. Chi Square = N(Phi)2 Significance levels were determined by entering a Chi Square table with one degree of freedom and checking the obtained Chi Square against the one required at the l% and 5% levels of significance. ISA The following tables use Home Office Data (N=l70). TABLE 8 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM WITH PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Dogmatism Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=94) 37 57 Low (N=76) “8 28 r = -,37 (significant at the I% level) tet TABLE 9 CORRELATION 0F DOGMATISM WITH POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Dogmatism Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low High (N=87) 3° 57 Low (N=83) 55 28 r -.A7 (significant at the l% level) tet l55 TABLE l0 CORRELATION 0F DOGMATISM WITH CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INTRODUCTION OF COMPUTER Dogmatism Change in Job Satisfaction High Low (N=85) (N=85) More satisfied now (N=57) 3| 26 No change or less satisfied now (N=ll3) 54 59 Tetrachoric r = 0 (not significant) TABLE ll CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM WITH EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Dogmatism Extent Felt to be Disrupting High Low (N=85) (N=85) Not disrupting at all or have no idea (N=83) 33 50 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=87) 52 35 Tetrachoric r = -.31 (significant at the I% level) 156 TABLE l2 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM WITH LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO CHANGEOVER TO COMPUTER =3: Dogmatism Length of Time High Low (N=85) (N=85) Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=120) 53 67 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=SO) 32 18 Tetrachoric r = -.3l (significant at the I% level) TABLE I3 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM WITH FEELING ABOUT CHANGE WHICH DID OR DID NOT TAKE PLACE ON JOB M m Dogmatism Feeling about Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N=I 37) 69 68 Change and disliked, No change and liked (N=33) l6 l7 Tetrachoric r = 0 (not significant) 157 TABLE I“ CORRELATION 0F DOGMATISM WITH FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION or COMPUTER W .‘--“—..~—w DOgmati:m Feeling about Computer T‘— H lgh Low (N=85) (N=85) Liked very much (N=21) 7 IA Liked less or Disliked (N=Iu9) 78 7| Tetrachoric r = -.30 (significant at the I? level) The following tables were computed by using relationships IOuud (if any) between dogmatism and attitude and reaction to change in the Home Office to predict scores on these variables for each individual in the Branch Office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for Branch Office employees (N=7A). TABLE I5 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Predicted Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=39) (N=3s) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 27 IO Low (N=37) l2 25 logo—_- ... -—-.- Phi = +.h0 Chi Square = 11.84 (significant at the I% level) l58 TABLE I6 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED REIATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM -.-- ...- . . .... —---.~—~ -..—.-v-- .— <-. -.. . ~ Obsc‘: rved Predicted Post Change Attitude Toward Lhunqt Iiiijil [(31: (N=37) (Nt37) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 25 l2 ----... .9..- ... .4..- .--.. , Phi = +.35 Chi Square = 8.32 (significant at the I% level) TABLE I7 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting Predicted Not disrupting Slightly, quilt, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=48) (N=26) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=37) 25 12 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=37) 23 lh Phi = +.06 Chi Square = .27 (not significant) IS9 TABLE l8 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHEPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO CHANGEOVER TO COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed ' Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=6S) (N=9) Length of Time Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=37) 33 n More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=37) 32 5 pm = +.oz+ Chi Square = .12 (not significant) TABLE 19 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Predicted Feeling about Computer Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=18) (N=56) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=37) 13 2h Liked less or Disliked (N-37) 5 32 Phi = +.25 Chi Square 2 h.62 (significant at the 5% level) 160 The following tables use data from the Home Office (N=l70). TABLE 20 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Anxiety Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=94) 35 59 Low (N=76) 50 26 Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level) TABLE 21 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Anxiety Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=87) 32 55‘ Low (N=83) 53 30 Tetrachoric r = -.hl (significant at the l% level) l6] TABLE 22 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPUTER Anxiety Change in Job Satisfaction High Low (N=35) (N=85) More satisfied now (N=57) 9 #8 No change or less satisfied now (N=113) 76 37 Tetrachoric r =‘175 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 23 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Anxiety Extent Felt to be Disrupting High LOW (N=85) (N=85) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=83) 3h #9 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=87) 51 36 Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level) I62 TABLE 24 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO CHANGEOVER TO COMPUTER Anxiety Length of Time High Low (N=85) (N=85) Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=120) 50 70 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=50) 35 15 Tetrachoric r = -.hh (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 25 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH FEELING ABOUT CHANGE WHICH DID OR DID NOT TAKE PLACE ON THE JOB m Anxiety Feeling about Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N=I 37) 68 69 Change and disliked, No change and liked (N=33) 17 16 Tetrachoric r = -.03 (not significant) 163 TABLE 26 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Anxiety Feeling about Computer , High LOH (N=85) (N=85) Liked very much (N=2l) 6 15 Liked less or Disliked (N=149) 79 70 Tetrachoric r = -.HO (significant at the I7.IeVel) The following tables were computed by USing relationships found (if any) between anxiety and attitude and reaction to change in the Hume Office to predict scores on these variables for each individual in the Branch Office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for Branch Office employees (N=7A). TABLE 27 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY 1 Observed Predicted Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=39) (N=35) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 23 in Low (N=37) 16 21 Phi = +.20 Chi Square = 2.96 (significant at the IOAIevei) 16h TABLE 28 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Predicted Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=37) (N=37) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 23 in Low (N=37) 14 23 Phi = +.24 Chi Square = 4.26 (significant at the 5% level) TABLE 29 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Change in Job Satisfaction Predicted More satisfied No change or less now satisfied now (N=36) (N=38) Change in Job Satisfaction More satisfied now (N=37) 20 17 No change or less satisfied now (N-37) 16 21 Phi = +.11 Chi Square = .90 (not significant) 165 TABLE 30 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting Predicted Not disrupting Slightly, quite, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=A8) (N=26) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=37) 26 II Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=37) 22 15 Phi = +.Il Chi Square = .90 (not significant) TABLE 3i CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=65) (N=9) Length of Time IUp to one month or not affected by computer (N=37) 3h 3 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=37) , 31 6 Phi = +.I2 Chi Square = 1.06 (not significant) 166 TABLE 32 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Feeling about Computer Predicted . Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=18) (N=56) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=37) ll 26 Liked less or Disliked (N=37) 7 3o Phi = +.l2 Chi Square = 1.06 (not significant) TABLE 33 CORRELATION OF ANXIETY WITH DOGMATISM IN THE HOME OFFICE (N=I70) Anxiety Dogmatism High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=86) 57 29 Low (II-84) 28 56 Tetrachoric r - +.h9 (significant at the 1% level) 167 TABLE 3% CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR ANXIETY AND DOGMAT AS PRED ISM IN THE BRANCH OFFICE (N=7A) ICTED BY DOGMATISM W Predicted Observed Anxiety Low (N=37) High (N=37) Anxiety High (N=37) LOW (N=37) 21 l6 l6 2] Chi Square The following tables u CORRELATION OF DO WITH PRE CHANG Phi +.I3 1.h8 (not significant) se data from the Home Office (N=l70). TABLE 35 GMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED E ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Dogmatism and Anxiety Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=9h) #0 54 Low (N=76) H5 3' Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 5% level) 168 TABLE 36 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Dogmatism and Anxiety Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=87) 33 5“ Low (N=83) 52 3] Tetrachoric r = -.38 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 37 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION ‘——— ’ Dogmatism and Anxiety Change in Job Satisfaction High Low (N=85) (N=85) More satisfied now (N=57) 32 25 No change or less satisfied now (N=113) 53 6O Tetrachoric r - +.15 (not significant) 169 TABLE 38 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Dogmatism and Anxiety Extent Felt to be Disrupting High Low (N=85) (N=85) Not disrupting at all or have no idea (N=83) 34 49 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=87) 51 36 Tetrachoric r = -.27 (significant at the 2% level) TABLE 39 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER =— m Dogmatism and Anxiety Length of Time High Low (N=85) (N=85) Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=120) 52 68 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=SO) 33 17 Tetrachoric r = -,35 (significant at the 1% level) 170 TABLE 40 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD OR HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE Dogmatism and Anxiety Feeling about Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N=137) 70 67 Change and disliked, No change and liked (N=33) 15 18 Tetrachoric r = +.O9 (not significant) TABLE 41 CORRELATION OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY COMBINED WITH FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Dogmatism and Anxiety Feeling about Computer High . Low (N=85) (N=85) Liked very much (N=21) 9 12 Liked less or Disliked (N=I49) 76 73 Tetrachoric r = -.31 (significant at the 1% level) 171 The following tables were computed by using relationships found (if any) between dogmatism and anxiety combined and attitude and reaction to change in the Home Office to predict scores on these variables for each individual in the Branch Office and then showing the relationship between predicted and observed scores for Branch Office employees (N=74). TABLE 42 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Pre Change Attitude Toward Change PI‘EdiCted High LOW (N=39) (N=35) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 26 11 Low (N=37) 13 24 Phi = +.35 Chi Square = 9.06 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 43 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION W Observed Post Change Attitude Toward Change Predicted High Low (N=37) (N=37) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=37) 24 13 Low (N=37) 13 2“ Phi = +.29 Chi Square = 6.22 (significant at the 1% level) 172 TABLE 44 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting ' d Pred'Cte Not disrupting Slightly, quite, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=48) (N=26) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=37) 25 12 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=37) 23 14 Phi = +.06 Chi Square = .27 (not significant) TABLE HS CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=65) (N=9) Length of Time Up to one month or not affected by computer (N-37) 33 a More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=37) 32 5 Phi = +.04 Chi Square 2 .12 (not significant) 173 TABLE 46 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Feeling about Computer Predicted Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=18) (N=56) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=37) 13 24 Liked less or Disliked (N=37) 5 32 Phi = +.25 Chi Square = 4.62 (significant at the 5% level) The following tables use Home Office data (N=l70). TABLE 47 CORRELATION 0F PRE CHANGE AND POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE W Pre Change Attitude Toward Change Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=85) (N=85) High (N=87) 58 29 Low (N=83) 27 56 Tetrachoric r = .51 (significant at the 1% level) 174 The correlation coefficients between dogmatism and pre change attitude toward change (-.37) and dogmatism and post change attitude toward change ('.47) were compared using a'g' transformation. The £1 for -.37 was .39. Theigé for -.47 was .51. The difference between 5; and £5 was .12. The standard error of the difference was .1095. The 5 = 1.09. Such a 5 covers an area on the normal curve of .8621. Thus, the correlation between dogmatism and pre change attitude toward change and the correlation between dogmatism and post change attitude toward change are not significantly different. Table 48 shows that pre change and post change attitude toward change means were not significantly different from one another. TABLE 48 A COMPARISON OF PRE CHANGE AND POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE MEANS Attitude Toward Change Population Parameters Pre Change Post Change (N=l70) (N=l70) Mean 26.35 26.86 Variance 35.22 37.48 Difference between means = -.51 t = -.79 (not significant) Despite the lack of difference shown in Table 48, an attempt was made to compare high and low dogmatism scores with increase or decrease in score between pre change and post change in attitude toward change. To do this, the number of employees in the upper 50 per cent 175 group on dogmatism were categorized into |'down" (meaning their scores on attitude toward change were lower on the post change than the pre change) and I'up" groups (meaning their scores on attitude toward change were higher on the post change than on the pre change). This was done also for those employees in the lower 50 per cent group on dogmatism. Table 49 shows that dogmatism is not related to change in atti- tude toward change between pre change and post change, no matter whether the ”no change” scores are added to the “up” or the ”down“ group. TABLE 49 THE RELATION 0F DOGMATISM SCORES TO CHANGE IN ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE SCORES BETWEEN PRE CHANGE AND POST CHANGE Dogmatism Change in Attitude Toward Change Scores High Low (N=85) (N=85) Up 42 43 Down 39 40 No Change 4 2 (or) Up 42 43 Down and No Change 43 42 Phi = 0 Chi Square = 0 (not significant) 176 The following tables all use data from Home and Branch Offices combined (N=244 ). TABLE 50 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND SEX Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Sex Dogmatism High Low High Low High Low (N=l3) (N=33) (N=103) (N=95) (N=116) (N=123) Male (N, Total = 52) 5 20 11 16 16 36 Female (N, Total = 192) 8 I3 92 79 1 100 92 Phi = .20 Phi = .08 Phi = .17 Chi Square = 1.84 Chi Square = 1.27 Chi Square = 7.05 (not significant) (not significant) (significant at 1% level) TABLE 51 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND AGE Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Age Dogmatism High Low High Low Hi h Lo (N=13) (N=33) 1 (N=103) (N=95) ( (N=Igl6) (ti-9213) 31 and older (N. Total = 78) 13 22 3A 29 27 51 30 and younger (N, Total = 166) 11 69 66 89 77 rtet = 0 Lrtet = ~05 rtet = .30 (not significant) (not significant) (significant at 1% level) 177 TABLE 52 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND EDUCATION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Education Dogmatism High Low High Low High Low (N=l3) (N=33) (N=103) (N=95) (N=116) (N=128) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 4 20 15 15 19 35 High school or less (N, Total=190) 9 13 88 80 97 93 rtet = .46 rtet = .04 rtet = .25 (significant at (not significant) (significant at 1% level) 1% level) TABLE 53 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Pre Change 1 Dogmatism Job Satisfaction 1 High Low High Low High Low (N=13) (N=33) (N=103) (N=95) (N=116) (N=128) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 118) 7 16 43 52 50 68 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 126) 6 17 6O 43 66 60 rtet = .08 rt t = .20 rt t = .16 1(not significant (ngt significant) (nBt significant) 178 TABLE 54 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Post Change Dogmatism Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=I3) (N=33) (N=103) (N=95) (N=II6) (N=IZ8) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total =136) 9 18 59 50 68 68 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 4 15 44 45 48 60 (not significant) 1(not significant) (not significant) TABLE 55 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND SEX m . Supervisors Nonsupervisors i Total Group Sex 1 Anxiety High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=99) (N=99) (N=122) (N=122) Male (N, Total = 52) 10 15 2 25 12 40 Female (N, Total = 192) 13 8 97 74 110 82 1Phi = .20 IPhi = .34 lPhi = .28 Chi Square = 1.84 Chi Square = 22.89 Chi Square = 19.52 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 1% level) 1% level) 179 TABLE 56 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND AGE Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Age Anxiety 1 High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=99) (N=99) 1 (N=122) (N=122) 31 and older (N, Total = 98) 18 17 33 30 51 47 30 and younger (N, Total = 146) 5 6 66 69 71 75 1rtet = .09 rtet = .06 rtet = .05 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) =T=====Tm TABLE 57 Supervisors CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND EDUCATION Nonsupervisors i Total Group Education Anxiety High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=99) (N=99) (N=IZZ) (N=122) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 13 ll 17 13 30 24 High school or less (N, Total = I90) 10 12 82 86 92 98 rtet = '14 1'tet = -'3 rtet = '16 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 180 TABLE 58 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Pre Change Anxiety Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=99) (N=99) (N=122) (N=122) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 118) 6 17 26 69 32 86 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 126) 17 6 73 30 90 36 rtet = '68 rtet = 'h7 rtet = .64 (significant at (significant at (significant at 1% level) 1%llevel) 1% level) TABLE 59 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ANXIETY AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION 4 Supervisors Nonsupervisors ! Total Group Post Change Anxiety Job Satisfaction 1 High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=99) (N=99) (N=122) (N=122) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) ll 16 4O 69 51 85 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 12 7 59 30 71 37 1rtet = '35 rtet = -“5 1'tet = -“3 (significant at (significant at (significant at 5% level) 1% level) 1% level) 181 TABLE 60 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND SEX Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Sex Attitude Toward Change High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=IO) (N=98) (N=100) (N=I34) (N=IIO) Male (N, Total = 52) 21 4 I7 10 38 14 Female . (N, Total = 192) 15 6 81 90 96 96 Phi = .15 Phi = .10 Phi = .18 Chi Square = 1.04 Chi Square = 1.98 Chi Square = 7.90 (not significant) (not significant) (significant at 1% level TABLE 61 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND AGE m Supervisors i Nonsupervisors i Total Group Attitude Toward Change Age High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=10) (N=98) (N=100) (N=134) (N=IIO) 31 and older (N. Total = 98) 3o 5 29 3h 59 39 30 and younger (N, Total = 146) 6 5 69 66 75 71 rtet = '57 rtet = '08 Irtet = "5 (significant at (not significant) (not significant) 1% level) 182 TABLE 62 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND EDUCATION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Attitude Toward Change Education High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=lO) (N=98) (N=100) (N=l34) (N=llO) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 20 4 20 10 40 14 High school or less (N, Total = 190) 16 6 78 90 9h 96 r = .24 r = .32 r = .40 tet tet tet (not significant) 1(significant at (significant at 1% level) 1%1level) TABLE 63 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Pre Change Attitude Toward Change Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=10) (N998) (N=100) (N=l34) (N=110) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 118) 17 6 43 52 1 6O 58 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 126) 19 4 55 48 74 52 rtet = .20 rtet = .13 rtet = .12 (not significant) 1(not significant) ,(not significant) 183 TABLE 64 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION WE“ Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Post Change Attitude Toward Change Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N= 36) (N=10) 1 (N=98) (N=100) (N=134) (N=110) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) 21 6 56 53 77 59 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied 1 (N, Total = 108) 15 4 42 47 57 51 rtet = .03 rtet = .07 rtet = .06 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 65 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER COMPUTER INTRODUCTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Change in Attitude Toward Change Job Satisfaction High Low Hig Low High Low (N=36) (N=10) (N= 98) (N=100) (N=134) (N=110) More satisfied 1 now (N, Total = 93) 1 11 3 48 31 59 34 No change or less satisfied now (N, Total = 151) 25 7 50 69 75 76 rtet = .01 rtet = .29 rtet =' .22 (not significant) (siggifésgna (sigpoifésgnSat CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND Extent Felt 184 TABLE 66 EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Attitude Toward Change to be Disrupting . . High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N-lo) (N=98) (N=100) (N=134) (N=110) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N, Total = 128) 14 6 58 50 72 56 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N, Total = 116) 22 4 4O 50 62 54 rtet = .33 rtet = .15 rtet = .04 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 67 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Supervisors I Nonsupervisors =— Total Group Length of Time Attitude Toward Change High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=10) (N=98) (N=100) (N=134) (N=110) Up to one month V o r not af fecte d1 (N, Total = 186) 29 8 1 76 73 105 81 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N, Total = 58) 7 2 22 27 29 29 rtet = .01 rtet = .09 rtet = .10 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 185 TABLE 68 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD 0R HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE ON THE JOB 1 Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Feeling Attitude Toward Change about Change High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=10) (N=98) (N=100) (N=l34) (N=110) Change and liked No change and I disliked (N, Total = 201)1 27 9 83 82 110 91 Change and dis- liked, No 1 change and liked (N, Total = A3) 9 1 15 18 24 19 rtet = .41 rtet = .08 rtet = .02 (significant at (not significant) (not significant) 5% level) TABLE 69 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Attitude Toward Change about Computer High Low High Low High Low (N=36) (N=lO) (N=98) (N=100) (N=l34) (N=110) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) 1 ll 3 20 5 31 8 Liked less or Disliked (N, Total = 205) 25 7 78 95 103 102 rtet = .01 rtet = .56 rtet = .49 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 1% level) 1% level) 186 TABLE 70 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND SEX Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Sex Age High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=111 (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (Mane) Male (N, Total = 52) 21 4 l3 14 34 18 Female (N, Total = 192) 14 7 50 121 64 128 1 Phi = .04 Phi = .13 Phi = .27 Chi Square = 1.84 Chi Square = 3.35 Chi Square = 22.19 (not significant) (not significant) (significant at 1% level) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND EDUCATION TABLE 71 m? Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Education Age High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=11) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=l46) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 19 5 15 15 34 20 High school or less (N, Total = 190) 16 6 48 120 64 126 rtet = -'“ rtet = -35 rtet = -“5 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 1% level) 1% level) 187 TABLE 72 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Pre Change Age Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=ll) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=146) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 118) 23 29 66 52 66 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 126) 12 ll 34 69 46 8O rtet = 0 rtet = -05 rtet = ~12 (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 73 1(not significant) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION =a1====mja= Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Post Change Age Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=ll) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=146) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) 20 7 3o 79 50 86 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 15 4 33 56 48 6O rtet = .11 rtet = .17 rtet = .12 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 188 TABLE 74 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Extent Felt Age to be Disrupting High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=ll) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=l46) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N, Total = '28)1 l6 4 32 76 48 80 Slightly, quite,l or very disrupting (N, Total = 116) 19 7 31 59 50 66 rtet = .15 rtet = .09 rtet = .10 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 75 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Length of Time I Supervisors Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Age High (N=35) Low (N=11) 1 High (N=63) Low (N=135) High ‘ (N=98) Low (N=l46) Up to one month or not affected (N, Total = 186) More than one month up to not used to computer yet 1 (N, Total = 58) 26 45 104 18 31 71 115 27 31 1(not significant) rtet = 0 rtet = .69 (significant at 1% level) rtet = .14 1(not significant) 189 TABLE 76 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD 0R HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE ON THE JOB Supervisors I Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Feeling Age about Change High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=”) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=146) Change and liked, No change and .- disliked (N, Total = 201) 27 9 51 114 78 123 Change and dis- liked, No change and liked (N, Total = 43) 8 2 12 21 20 23 rtet = .13 rtet = .09 rtet = .16 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 77 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AGE AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Feeling Age about Computer High Low High Low High Low (N=35) (N=ll) (N=63) (N=135) (N=98) (N=146) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) 12 2 8 17 20 19 Liked less or Disliked (N, Total = 205) 23 9 55 118 78 127 rtet = .32 rtet = 0 rtet = .2] (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 190 TABLE 78 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND EDUCATION Supervisors i Nonsupervisors Total Group Education sex Male Female Male Female Male Female (N=25) (N=21) (N=27) (N=l71) (N=52) (N=192) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 17 7 ll 19 28 26 High school or less (N, Total = 190) 8 l4 16 152 24 166 Phi = .34 Phi = .28 Phi = .39 Chi Square = 5.32 Chi Square = 15.52 Chi Square = 37.11 (significant at 5% level) (significant at 1% level) TABLE 79 (significant at 1% level) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION .Supervisors l Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Post Change Sex Job Satisfaction Male Female 1 Male Female Male Female (N=25) (N=21) (N=27) (N=171) (N=52) (N=192) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) 12 15 12 97 24 112 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 13 6 15 74 28 8O Phi = .23 Phi = .08 Phi = .10 Chi Square = 2.43 Chi Square = 1.27 Chi Square = 2.44 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 191 TABLE 80 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Extent Felt Sex to be Disrupting Male Female Male Female Male Female (N=25) (N=21) (N=27) (N=171) (N=52) (N=192) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N, Total = 128)1 10 10 10 98 20 108 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N, Total - 116) 15 11 17 73 32 84 Phi = .07 Phi - .13 Phi 8 .14 Chi Square = .22 Chi Square = 3.35 Chi Square a 4.78 (not significant) (not significant) (significant at 5% level) TABLE 81 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Length of Time 53* Male Female Male Female Male Female (N'ZS) (N“ZI) (N=27) (N-171) (N=52) (N=192) Up to one month or not affected (N, Total - 186) 21 16 17 132 38 148 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N, Total I 58) 4 5 10 39 14 44 Phi - .09 Phi 8 .11 Phi = .03 Chi Square - .37 Chi Square = 2.40 Chi Square = .22 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 192 TABLE 82 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD OR HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE ON THE JOB Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Sex about Change Male Female Male Female Male Female (N=25) (N=21) (N=27) (N=171) (N=52) (N=192) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N, Total = 201) 20 16 23 142 43 158 Change and dis- liked, No change and liked (N, Total = A3) 5 5 4 29 9 34 Phi = .04 Phi = .01 Phi = 0 Chi Square = .07 Chi Square = .02 Chi Square = 0 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 83 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SEX AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Sex about Computer 1 Male Female Male Female Male Female (N=25) (N=21) (N=27) (N=I7I) (N=52) (N=192) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) 1 11 3 7 18 18 21 Liked less or 1 Disliked 1 (N, Total = 205) 14 18 20 153 34 171 Phi = .32 1Phi = .15 Phi = .26 Chi Square = 4.71 Chi Square = 4.46 Chi Square = 16.49 '(significant at (significant at i(significant at 5% level) 5% level) I 1% level) TABLE 193 as CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Pre Change Education Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=24) (N=22) (N=30) (N=168) (N=54) (N=190) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 118) 8 15 9 86 17 101 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 126) 16 7 21 82 37 89 rtet = .52 rtet a .34 Irtet - .34 (significant at (significant at (significant at 1% level 1% level) 1% level) TABLE 85 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Supervisors i Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group 1 Post Change Education Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=24) (N=22) (N=30) (N=168) (N=54) (N=l90) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) 12 15 I3 96 25 Ill Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 12 7 1 17 72 29 79 1 rtet = .29 rtet = .22 rtet = .19 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 5% level) 5% level) 194 TABLE 86 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING 1 Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group I . Extent Felt 1 Education ' to be Disrupting High Low High Low High Low 1 (N=24) (N=22) (N=30) (N=168) (N=54) (N=190) Not disrupting I at all, or have no idea (N, Total = 128) ll 9 13 95 24 104 Slightly, quite,I or very disrupting (N, Total = 116) 13 13 1 17 73 3O 86 rtet = .08 rtet = .21 rtet = .16 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 87 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Length of Time Education High Low I High Low High Low (N=24) (N=22) (N= 30) (N=168) (N= 54) (N=l90) Up to one month or not affected (N, Total = 186) 20 17 21 128 41 145 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N, Total = 58) A 5 9 40 13 45 rtet = .15 rtet = .12 rtet = .01 (not significant) (not significant) (notsignificant) 195 TABLE 88 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD 0R HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE ON THE JOB Ear—L Supervisors Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Feeling Education about Change High Low High Low High Low (N=24) (N=22) (N=30) (N=168) (N=54) (N=190) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N, Total = 201) 18 18 25 140 43 158 Change and dis- liked, No change and liked (N, Total = 43) 6 4 5 28 ll 32 rtet = .16 rtet = O rtet = .09 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 89 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Education about Computer 1 High Low High Low High Low (N=24) (N=22) (N=30) (N=168) (N=54) (N=190) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) ll 3 7 18 18 21 Liked less or Disliked (N, Total = 205) 13 19 23 150 36 169 rtet = '58 rtet = -35 rtet = -50 (significant at (significant at (significant at 1 5% level) 5% level) 1% level) 196 TABLE 90 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND SEX Job Satisfaction m Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group Sex High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=95) (N=103) (N=l 18) (N=126) Male 1 (N, Total = 52) 9 16 10 17 I9 33 Female (N, Total = 192) 14 7 85 86 99 93 Phi = .30 Phi = .09 Phi = .13 Chi Square = 4.14 Chi Square = 1.60 Chi Square = 4.12 (significant at (not significant) (significant at 5% level) 5% level) TABLE 91 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND POST CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION Post Change Job Satisfaction Supervisors Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=95) (N=103) (N=118) (N=126) Completely, very satisfied (N, Total = 136) 14 13 69 ho 83 53 Quite, somewhat, not satisfied (N, Total = 108) 9 10 26 63 35 73 rtet = .07 rtet = .51 rtet = .44 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 1% level) 1% level) 197 TABLE 92 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group F Change in Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=95) (N=103) (N‘IIB) (N=126) More satisfied now (N, Total = 93) 10 4 45 34 55 38 No change or I less satisfied now (N, Total = 151) 13 19 50 69 63 88 (significant at (significant at (significantat 5% level) 5%.level) 5% level) TABLE 93 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND Extent Felt to be Disrupting EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Job Satisfaction Total Group High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=95) (N=103) (N=ll8) (N=126) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N, Total = 128) 8 12 47 61 55 73 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N, Total = 116) 15 11 t 48 42 63 53 = I = =_] rtet rtet '15 rtet 3 1 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 198 TABLE 94 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group . Job Satisfaction Length of Time High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N‘ZB) 1 ("=95) (N=103) (N=118) (N=126) Up to one month 0 r not affected (N, Total = 186) l8 19 75 74 93 93 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N, Total = 58) 5 4 20 29 25 33 rtet = .11 rtet = .15 rtet = .11 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 95 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD 0R HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE 0N JOB mm 1 Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Job Satisfaction about Change High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=95) (N=103) (N=118) (N=126) Change and liked No change and 1 disliked (N, Total = 201) 17 19 79 86 96 105 Change and dis- liked, No change and liked (N, Total = 43) 6 4 16 ’ 17 22 21 rtet = .20 rtet = .01 rtet = .05 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 199 TABLE 96 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PRE CHANGE JOB SATISFACTION AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER _ _— Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Job Satisfaction about Computer High Low High Low High Low (N=23) (N=23) (N=9S) (N=103) (N=118) (N=126) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) 6 8 10 15 16 23 Liked less or Disliked (N, Total = 205) 17 15 85 88 102 103 Ftet = .16 Ftet = 0]“ rtet = .1“ (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 97 (not significant) CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AND AGE J=[ Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Age Change in Job Satisfaction Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=14) (N=32) 1 (N=79) (N=ll9) (N=93) (N=151) 31 and older (N, Total = 98) 14 21 23 4O 37 61 30 and younger (N, Total = 146) ll 56 79 56 90 r = 0 r = .08 r = .05 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 200 TABLE 98 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND SEX Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors 1 Total Group S Change in Job Satisfaction ex Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=14) (N=32) (N=79) (N=119) (N=93) (N=151) Male (N, Total = 52) 7 18 12 15 19 33 Female (N, Total = 192) 7 14 67 104 74 118 Phi = .05 Phi = .03 Phi = 0 Chi Square = .12 (not significant) Chi Square = .18 Chi Square = 0 (not significant) (not significant) TABLE 99 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND EDUCATION Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Change in Job Satisfaction Education Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N'IA) (N=32) ("'79) (N=119) (N=93) (N=lSl) Some college or more (N, Total = 54) 8 16 12 18 20 34 High school or less (N, Total = 190) 6 16 67 101 73 117 rtet = .11 rtet = O rtet = .02 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 201 TABLE 100 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND M Extent Felt to be Disrupting EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group f Change in Job Satisfaction Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=l’4) (N=32) (N=79) (N=ll9) (N=93) (N=151) Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N, Total = 128) 5 15 35 73 40 88 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N, Total = 116) 9 I7 44 46 53 63 rtet = .18 rtet = .27 rtet = .24 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 5% level) 5% level) TABLE 101 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN Length of Time TO GET USED TO COMPUTER Supervisors' Nonsupervisors Total Group Change in Job Satisfaction Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=14) (N=32) (N=79) (N=ll9) (N=93) (N=151) Up to one month or not affected (N, Total = 186) More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N, Total = 58) 11 26 63 86 74 112 3 6 16 33 19 39 rtet = .07 rtet = .16 rtet = .12 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) 202 TABLE 102 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND FEELING ABOUT CHANGES WHICH HAD 0R HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE 0N JOB Supervisors 1 Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Change in Job Satisfaction about Change Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=14) (N=32) (N=79) (N-ll9) (N=93) (N=151) Change and liked, No change and disliked (N, Total = 201) 10 26 73 92 83 118 Change and dis- liked, No change and liked (N, Total = 43) 4 6 6 27 10 33 1rtet g '2' rtet = -“7 rtet = '32 (not significant) (significant at (significant at 1% level) 5%.1evel) TABLE 103 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AND FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER Supervisors Nonsupervisors Total Group Feeling Change in Job Satisfaction about Computer Higher Lower Higher Lower Higher Lower (N=l4) (N=32) (N=79) (N=ll9) (N=93) (N=151) Liked very much (N, Total = 39) 6 8 13 12 19 20 Liked less or Disliked (N, Total = 205) 8 24 66 107 74 131 [rtet = .30 rtet = .22 rtet = .21 (not significant) (not significant) (not significant) APPENDIX D ADDENDUM DISCUSSION OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED ATTITUDES AND REACTIONS TO CHANGE If one insists that it is not enough to find a positive relationship between predicted and observed attitudes and reactions to change in the branch office, and that Chi Square should be given for each phi coeffi- cient, the null hypothesis is tenable for reactions to change except for feeling about installation of the computer. Thus, for reaction to change, cross validation from.home office to branch office is not well supported (probany because the number of employees in the branch office is so small...or perhaps because the computer was physically located in the home office and not in the branch office.) 1 As the following tables show, however, prediction from branch to home office tend to support the origina1.findings that an inverse rela- tionship exists between dogmatism, anxiety, dogmatism and anxiety in com- bination, and both attitudes toward and reactions to change. Since predic- tions in one direction are better than in the other, validation of the find- ings is less satisfying than it might be, although perhaps the different findings can be explained by difference in size of employee populations. 0n the following pages, predictions from‘branch office data'were made to home office data and the resulting relationships between predicted and observed relationships for both attitude and reaction to change were tested by Chi Square. In each case, Chi Square was significant. Thus, first branch office relationships between personality variables and attitudes and reactions to change were measured and 20h 205 each led to the same prediction for home office data made earlier in the home office when predicting for branch office data. Then tables were prepared which showed the number in the home office who achieved and did not achieve the scores predicted from branch office data. Phi coefficients and Chi Squares were then computed for the relationships between predicted and observed variables. The following tables show the branch office data and then the double cross validation for prediction from branch to home office. The results shown on the following tables lead this author to the conclusion that statements made in the main text of the thesis concern- ing the relationships between variables are upheld. TABLE 104 SUMMARY OF TETRACHORIC CORRELATIONS FOUND BETWEEN HIGH DOGMATISM, ANXIETY, DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION, AND POSITIVE ATTITUDE AND REACTION TO CHANGE = Correlations Positive Attitude and Reaction to Change . . Dogmatism Dogmatism Anx1ety 8 Anxiety Attitude Pre change -.50 -.34 -.42 Post change -.41 -.41 -.41 Reaction Change in job satisfaction . . -.l7 . . Extent computer felt to be disrupting -.22 -.42 -.23 Length of time taken to get used to computer -.30 -.51 -.30 Feeling about changes which had or had not taken place on job . . . . . . Feeling about installation of computer -.46 -.57 -.46 206 TABLE 105 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM m = r m Observed Predicted Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=94) (N=76) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) 37 48 Low (N=85) 57 28 Phi = +.23 Chi Square = 8.50 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 106 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Predicted Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=87) '(N=83) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) 30 55 Low (N=85) 57 28 Phi = +.3l Chi Square = 17.00 (significant at the 1% level) .207 TABLE 107 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting Predicted Not disrupting Slightly, quite, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=83) (N=87) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=85) 33 52 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=85) 50 35 Phi = +.l9 Chi Square = 6.80 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 108 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO CHANGEOVER T0 COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM Observed Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=120) (N=50) Length of Time Up to one month or not affected by computer 53 32 (N=85) More than one month up to not used to computer yet Phi = +.I8 Chi Square = 5.51 (significant at the 5% level) 208 TABLE 109 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM I = Observed Feeling about Computer Predicted Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=21) (N=149) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=85) 7 78 Liked less or Disliked (N=85) 14 71 Phi = +.l3 Chi Square = 3.40 (significant at the 5% level) TABLE 110 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Predicted Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High _Low (N=94) (N=76) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) ' 35 50 Low (N=85) 59 26 Phi = +.28 Chi Square = 13.60 (significant at the 1% level 209 TABLE 111 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Predicted Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=87) (N=83) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) 32 53 Low (N=85) 55 3o Phi = +.27 Chi Square = 11.90 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 112 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR CHANGE IN JOB SATISFACTION AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY W Observed Change in Job Satisfaction Predicted More satisfied No change or less now satisfied now (N=57) (N=Il3) Change in Job Satisfaction More satisfied now (N=85) 9 76 No change or less satisfied now (N=85) 48 37 Phi = +.48 Chi Square = 39.10 (significant at the 1% level) 210 TABLE 113 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY __=_ M Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting Predicted Not disrupting Slightly, quite, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=83) (N=87) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=85) 34 SI Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=85) #9 36 Phi = +.17 Chi Square = 5.10 (significant at the 5% level) TABLE 11“ CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY Observed Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=120) (N=50) Length of Time Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=85) 50 35 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=35) 70 15 Phi = +.25 Chi Square = 10.20 (significant at the 1% level) 211 TABLE 115 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY ANXIETY W Observed Feeling about Computer Predicted Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=21) (N=149) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=85) 6 79 Liked less or Disliked (N=85) 15 70 Phi = +.16 Chi Square = 5.10 (significant at the 5% level) TABLE 116 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR PRE CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Predicted Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=9h) (N=76) Pre Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) no #5 Low (N=85) 54 31 Phi = +.I6 Chi Square = 5.10 (significant at the 5% level) 212 TABLE 117 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR POST CHANGE ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY lN COMBINATION W Observed Predicted Post Change Attitude Toward Change High Low (N=87) (N=83) Post Change Attitude Toward Change High (N=85) 33 52 Low (N=85) 54 31 Phi = +.2LI Chi Square = 10.20 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 118 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR EXTENT COMPUTER FELT TO BE DISRUPTING AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Extent Felt to be Disrupting Predicted Not disrupting I Slightly, quite, at all, or or very have no idea disrupting (N=83) (N=87) Extent Felt to be Disrupting Not disrupting at all, or have no idea (N=85) 34 51 Slightly, quite, or very disrupting (N=85) 49 36 Phi = +.l7 Chi Square = 5.10 (significant at the 5% level) 213 TABLE 119 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR LENGTH OF TIME TAKEN TO GET USED TO COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Length of Time Predicted Up to one month More than one month or not affected up to not used to by computer computer yet (N=120) (N=50) Length of Time Up to one month or not affected by computer (N=85) 52 33 More than one month up to not used to computer yet (N=85) 68 I7 Phi = +.20 Chi Square = 6.80 (significant at the 1% level) TABLE 120 CORRELATION BETWEEN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED RELATIONSHIPS FOR FEELING ABOUT INSTALLATION OF COMPUTER AS PREDICTED BY DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY IN COMBINATION Observed Feeling about COmputer Predicted Liked very Liked less or much Disliked (N=2l) (N=Ih9) Feeling about Computer Liked very much (N=85) 9 76 Liked less or Disliked (N=85) 12 73 Phi = +.35 Chi Square = 20.h0 (significant at the 1% level)