A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ATTITUDE SCORES OF MANAGERS TOWARD EMPLOYEES AN!) E‘OU’AEB SELECTED IEAUERSHIP FOUCIES IN GROUPS OF FIRMS WHICH HAVE EITHER DISCONTINUE) OE RE'EAIIIEI) COST REDUCTION SEARIIIG PLANS Thesis Io» I'Im Deg?“ of DII. D. MICBIOM STATE UREI’ERSITY Rage? 2.; Waiiace €971 .J 2‘ LIBRAR y Michigan State University I I mu; will In II III 121: TIMI! I II This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ATTITUDE SCORES OF MANAGERS TOWARD EMPLOYEES AND TOWARD SELECTED LEADERSHIP POLICIES IN GROUPS OF FIRMS WHICH HAVE EITHER DISCONTINUED 0R RETAINED COST REDUCTION SHARING PLANS presented by Roger L. NaIIace has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. 4193mm. Management /A / - W V v/VMM/ulgrgrof'euor . Date “/6 /’,7I 0-7639 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ATTITUDE SCORES 0F MANAGERS TOWARD EMPLOYEES AND TOWARD SELECTED LEADERSHIP POLICIES IN GROUPS OF FIRMS WHICH HAVE EITHER DISCONTINUED OR RETAINED COST REDUCTION SHARING PLANS By Roger L. Wallace Based on questions raised by a series of prior studies, it was hypothesized that managers in organizations which had installed formal participative management systems might view superiors and subordinates differently, and might indicate different beliefs about the usefulness of participative leadership policies, depending on whether that plan was successful or had been abandoned. A study was conducted using questionnaire responses from 205 managers at all hierarchical levels in each of eighteen firms where Scanlon Plans or similar Cost Reduction Sharing type plans had been installed with the assistance of the same group of consultants. Formal participation plans had been in operation in ten of these organizations for one or more years with apparent success. In the remaining eight firms such plans had been installed under seemingly similar circumstances, had continued for varying periods of time, and had subsequently teen discontinued. A questionnaire developed by R. E. Miles.l designed to measure the relative degree of managerial commitment to a Human Relations model or Roger L. Wallace to a Human Resources model of subordinates was used as an instrumental measure. Instrumental response scores of managers were obtained on items relating to their own abilities and traits compared with those of rank—and-file employees, and of superiors. Instrumental measures of perceived usefulness of selected, normative, policies of participative leadership involving rank-and-file participation in decision-making, goal setting, and job modification were also determined. Means of both measures were found to differ (p =s;.05), between response means of managers in the group of firms where participation plans had been continued when compared with response means of managers in the group of firms where such plans had been discontinued using the t-test as the evaluating statistic. Managers in the firms with continuing participation plans were found to more nearly approximate in their responses the Human Resources 2 model of Miles while managers of the firms which had discontinued such plans came closer in their responses to the Human Relations model. The smallest perceived trait differences indicated between respon- dents' views of themselves and of rank-and-file employees, and the highest scores for perceived usefulness of participative leadership policies, were reported by upper level managers in the group of Continuing Scanlon Plan firms. The greatest reported trait and ability differences between themselves and rank-and-file employees, and the lowest scores for perceived usefulness of participative leadership policies were reported by first-line supervisors in those firms which had discontinued formal participation plans. Roger L. Wallace Instrumental measures of perceived trait and ability differences between respondents and their own immediate subordinates, and between themselves and persons at the level of their own superiors were not found to be different (at p = 5;.05) between the two respondent groups. The findings suggest that longitudinal studies should be under- taken to establish if pre-existing differences in assumptions exist among managers which might mediate the potential for effectiveness of pr0posed formal plans involving rank-and-file participation in decision making, job-modification, or goal setting. IMiles, R. E., "Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideologies," Industrial Relations, October, l964, pp 77-9l. 2Miles, R. E., "Human Relations or Human Resources?" Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1965, pp l48-l6l. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ATTITUDE SCORES OF MANAGERS TOWARD EMPLOYEES AND TOWARD SELECTED LEADERSHIP POLICIES IN GROUPS OF FIRMS WHICH HAVE EITHER DISCONTINUED OR RETAINED COST REDUCTION SHARING PLANS By Roger E. Wallace A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Any expression would be inadequate to acknowledge all those who aided this endeavor. The managers who gave their time during the data collection phase, my colleagues at Western Michigan University who offered advice, Mrs. Doralee DeRyke whose many hours of expert typing made this presentable, and especially Dr. J. Michael Keenan, my Department Chairman, without whose unstinting support, endless encouragement, and occasional KITA, this never would have been completed -- each of these must share any plaudits (but none of the blame) which may attach to the result. To the members of my Committee, Dr. Carl F. Frost, Dr. Dalton E. McFarland, and especially Dr. R. Winston Oberg, Chairman, my gratitude for excellent advice, valuable suggestions, and generous expenditure of time in leading me through the maze. Finally, most important of all, without the unfailing patience, encouragement, and support through all adversity given by my wife, Alice, this could never have even been begun. ii TABLES OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ------------------------------------------------- v LIST OF APPENDICES --------------------------------------------- vii CHAPTER I - NEED FOR STUDY ----------------------------------- 1 Purpose --------------------------------------------------- 8 General Statement of Hypotheses --------------------------- 9 Limitation on Sample Size --------------------------------- ll Limits on Data -------------------------------------------- 12 Research Design ------------------------------------------- l3 CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ------------------------ 16 Traditional Views ----------------------------------------- 23 The Contributions of Miles -------------------------------- 30 Summary --------------------------------------------------- 41 CHAPTER III - RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ---------------- 48 P0pulation and Sample ------------------------------------- 48 Initial Contact Procedure --------------------------------- 50 Individual Respondent Identification ---------------------- 54 Questionnaire Distribution -------------------------------- 54 Instrumentation ------------------------------------------- 55 Assumptions ----------------------------------------------- 57 Respondent Limits ----------------------------------------- 58 Definitions ----------------------------------------------- 58 Operational Definitions of Hypotheses --------------------- 62 Analytic Procedures --------------------------------------- 63 Tests of Hypotheses --------------------------------------- 65 Limitations ----------------------------------------------- 65 Summary --------------------------------------------------- 66 CHAPTER IV - FINDINGS ---------------------------------------- 69 Null Hypothesis —- ----------------------------------------- 69 Alternative Hypotheses ------------------------------------ 70 Part I Findings ------------------------------------------- 73 Item Ranking ---------------------------------------------- 74 Note on Firm S-ll ----------------------------------------- 74 Part II Data ---------------------------------------------- 77 Part II Findings ------------------------------------------ 81 Summary --------------------------------------------------- 87 m iv Table of Contents (continued) page CHAPTER V - ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BY HIERARCHICAL SEPARATION --- 9O Findings -------------------------------------------------- 95 Upper and Lower Separated by Scanlon Plan Status ---------- 99 Summary -------------------------------------------------- — lOZ CHAPTER VI - INCIDENTAL FINDINGS AND PRESCRIPTIONS FOR RESEARCH ---------------------------------------- lO7 Leadership Policies --------------------------------------- llO Suggestions for Further Research -------------------------- lll BIBLIOGRAPHY --------------------------------------------------- 120 APPENDICES TABLE 10 II 12 LIST OF TABLES Differences Between Participants' Perceptions of Their own Capabilities and Those of Their Superiors and Subordinates ............................................. Acceptance and Attitudes Toward Usefulness of Leadership Policies at Various Organization Levels ------------------ Participants Attitudes Toward Leadership Policies -------- Number and Percentage of Responses from Various Hierarchi- cal Levels in Continuing, "S", Firms ..................... Number and Percentage of Responses from Various Hierarchi- cal Levels in Discontinued, "D", Firms ................... Mean Difference Values for Continuing versus Discontinued Plan Managers on Ten Trait Characteristics --------------- Difference in Means Reported for "Emp" and for "Boss," (Based on means reported by all Respondents in each group) --------------------------------------------------- Ranked Characteristics Where Greatest Differences in Perceived Values Occurred Between Two Groups of Respondents ---------------------------------------------- Mean Difference Values for Continuing Versus Discontinued Plan Managers on Ten Trait Characteristics with Firm S-ll Excluded from the Continuing Group of Respondents -------- Means and Differences Between Groups of Managers in Continuing and in Discontinued Scanlon Plan Firms, on Measures of Approval of Leadership Policy I -------------- Means and Differences Between Groups of Managers in Continuing and in Discontinued Plans, on Leadership Policy II ------------------------------------------------ Means and Differences Between Groups of Managers in Continuing and Discontinued Plans on Leadership Policy III ----------------------------------------------- page 35 35 36 52 53 72 75 76 78 82 83 84 List of Tables (Continued) DOLE we 13 Combined Values for Leadership Policies 1, II, and III --- 85 14 Responding Managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan Firms ----- 92 15 Responding Managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan Firms --- 93 16 Mean Difference Values for Upper Versus Lower Hierarchi- cal Level Managers on Ten Trait Characteristics Between Employee and Own Level ----------------------------------- 96 17 "Relative Amounts of Ten Traits Possessed by": Mean Values Indicated for Employees; Subordinates; Own; and Boss ----------------------------------------------------- 97 18 Difference Values Between Various Hierarchical Levels as Reported by Upper and Lower Hierarchical Members --------- 98 I9 Combined Values Reported for Participative Leadership Policies I, II, and III by Upper and Lower Level Managers- 100 20 Means of Difference Values Reported Between "Own" and Rank-and-File "Employee" for Upper and Lower Level Managers in Continuing and Discontinued Scanlon Plans ---- 103 21 Means of Response Values for Managers at Upper and at Lower Hierarchical Levels on Statements Relating to Use- fulness of Three Policies of Participative Leadership if Used at Different Levels within the Organization ------ 104 22 Comparison of Average Rating Reported for Various Organi- zational Hierarchies by Respondents in Various Kinds of Organizations Including Respondents in the Present Study - 108 23 Perceptions of Managers in Various Organizations of Their Own Capabilities as Compared with Superiors and Subordi- nates ---------------------------------------------------- 109 24 Participative Leadership Policies Ranked by Means -------- l12 25 Responding Firms Ranked from Highest to Lowest on a "Participative Index" Derived from Individual Firm Data -- 117 vi Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix C; X LIST OF APPENDICES page Research Instrument Used ----------------------- A-l Instructions for use of T-Test Tables ---------- B-l T-Test Results for the Continued Versus Discontinued Group of Respondents -------------- C-l T-Test Results for the Upper Versus Lower Group of Respondents --------------------------- D-l T-Test Results for Upper Continued Versus Upper Discontinued Group of Respondents -------- E—l T-Test Results for the Lower Continued Versus Lower Discontinued Group of Respondents -------- F-l T-Test Results for the Upper Continued Versus Lower Continued Group of Respondents ----------- G-l T-Test Results for the Upper Discontinued Versus Lower Discontinued Group of Respondents -------- H-l T-Test Results for the Upper Continued Versus Lower Discontinued Group of Respondents -------- I-l T-Test Results for the Lower Continued Versus Upper Discontinued Group of Respondents -------- J-l T-Test Results for all Categories with Data From Company S-ll Excluded --------------------- K-l VVI CHAPTER I NEED FOR STUDY The concept of participative management has intrigued managers and scholars for over three decades as one possible solution to the problem posed by restriction of productivity by workers. Since Frederick W. Taylor's recognition and denunciation of the practice of "soldiering", Operating managers and management theorists have sought systematic ways to involve employees in the goals of the organization in the hope that by so doing, workers would be motivated to produce at their highest levels of ability. Industrial psychologists have studied job attitudes, primarily of non-management line workers in the hope of finding keys to greater productivity. The complex area referred to as job satisfaction has consumed the reflective energies of a host of researchers and allied commentators without producing a major and uni- versally applicable solution to the productivity question. There have been relatively few major experiments in the applica- tion of participative management with the combined goals of increasing productivity and simultaneously promoting favorable job attitudes and improved levels of job satisfaction. One such approach has been the Scanlon Plan. This is a concept of management named for the late Joseph N. Scanlon who was one of its developers. It is based on cost savings which resulted from employees' suggestions or from their increased efforts, being shared on an equit- able basis by all members of the organization. Since the beginnings of this plan in the 1940's there have been at least two fairly concentrated geographic areas where such plans have 1 2 been installed in groups of organizations. One such area centered around The Massachusetts Institute of Technology which served as a base of operations for the late Professor Douglas McGregor. McGregor, together with his students and colleagues at M.I.T. actively promoted the plan during its early years. The other area is centered in Western Michigan and has resulted largely from the influence of Dr. Carl Frost of Michigan State University. Frost was formerly a colleague of McGregor's at M.I.T. In each of these two areas as well as in other areas where it has been tried, the plan has met with varying degrees of success. Some installations have succeeded while other seemingly similar installa- tions have failed. Little systematic research has been conducted with the goal of identifying factors which correlate with success or failure of Scanlon Plans in either of these geographic areas of concentration. In effect the Scanlon Plan is designed to involve employees directly in the goals and rewards of the firm. As a result, the plan may be regarded as a useful vehicle by means of which the actual effects of participation of non-managerial employees in management activities might be measured since it represents a broadly applicable device whereby participative management principles have been applied over time. The above mentioned areas of geographic concentration, in fact, constitute potential laboratories in which participative systems in action may be studied. The fact that such plans have met with success in some firms as evidenced by those firms' financial success and retention of the Plan, while apparently similarly conceived and implemented plans were being 3 abandoned in other firms poses a question which prior research has seemingly failed to adequately address. This is a question which the present study was conceived to partially investigate. If the concept of participative cost savings sharing is a practical and effective management device given the necessary conditions for success, then research is needed to help define what those conditions for success are. If there are structural or generic weaknesses in the plan's con- cept, or if rare or unique conditions are necessary for its successful retention and growth, examination of not only past successes but of past failures of the Plan appear necessary to identify its environmental requirements. A One charge which has been levied by critics is that while Scanlon Plan successes have been documented and publicized by its proponents, the failures associated with it have been largely ignored in published materials concerning the plan.1 The literature concerning such plans in fact does appear to concentrate on successes and often seems to ignore the possibility of failure. This study measures certain managerial assumptions in selected firms which have installed Scanlon type sharing plans under the aegis of Dr. Carl Frost and his associates at MSU during the approximately 20 years that group has been in operation. It investigates manager responses both in firms with continuing plans, and in firms where such plans have been discontinued. The need for such a study appears self- evident since significant environmental or physical differences between firms with continuing and discontinued plans are not readily apparent. While, as noted earlier, few published studies concerning Scanlon type plan failures appear in the literature, some possible mediating 4 variables have been suggested. Schultz2 has noted comparisons between successful and unsuccessful Scanlon Plans in terms of such environmental factors as pgmp§§_pf_employees, prior economic condition of the firm before installing the plan, labor costs as a proportion of total costs to the firm, job conditions, skill levels required, ggx_of operative 3 employees, and prior state of labor relations. McGregor has also suggested firm size, degree of automation, and economic conditions as possible variables affecting the success of such plans. Katz and Kahn4 have noted that the effect of such variables as company size and company success, the element of charisma present in the initiation of the plan, and the effects of automation and cybernation on the appeal of the plan to management, have not been objectively studied and may influence the success of the plan. These authors have also presented evidence that no single factor cited, by itself, appeared to be vital. Instances of success and failure might be found near both extremes of each such environmental condition. In terms of the present study, McGregor and others have often cited the need for tap level managerial commitment to the principles of participation, as well as a willingness on the part of management at all levels to accept suggestions and criticisms from operative employees as being of significant value in helping to achieve the goals of the firm. Paul R. Lawrence has noted that, "Participation will never work so long as it is treated as a device to get somebody else to do what you want him to. Real participation is based on respect."5 This condition of acceptance by management and respect for the worth of subordinate's ideas, has been considered in the literature as a necessary, if not a sufficient, condition for success of such participative plans. There appears to have been a limited amount of research addressed directly to the validity of this assumption. If managerial acceptance is indeed a necessary condition for the success of participation plans, then it would seem that differences in instrumental measures of managerial assumptions or beliefs might be found if responses of managers in firms where such plans were success- ful were compared with similar measures for managers in firms where such plans had failed to be retained. McGregor, who perhaps did more to publicize the possible benefits of the Scanlon Plan than did any other writer, also proposed the dichotomous concepts of Theory X and Theory Y as value sets, or models held by managers regarding operative employees.6 According to McGregor, a manager holding a Theory X model of subordinates might be expected to be directive, authoritarian, and largely unreceptive to the kinds of subordinate involvement in decision making which constitutes a basic foundation of the Scanlon Plan. On the other hand where Theory Y assumptions prevail, as defined by McGregor, management might be expected to welcome and implement employee suggestions with little hesitation thereby providing a more favorable environment for the kinds of involvement which the Scanlon Plan implies. These models (Theories X and Y) have been regarded as fundamentally monolithic concepts by management scholars during most of the decade of the 1960's. Managers were assumed to either be Theory Y or Theory X oriented with little middle ground. 6 Professor R. E. Miles7 later pr0posed a dichotomous approach to McGregor's Theory Y. Miles suggested that practicing managers who consider themselves in agreement with the concepts of Theory Y, in fact may hold two quite different sets of beliefs about subordinate abilities under Theory Y. These two sets he designated as a Human Relations model and a Human Resources model. The Human Relations model of Miles states that people want to feel useful and important; that they want to belong and to be recognized as individuals. These needs are viewed as more effective motivators than money. Under this model the manager's task is seen as finding ways to make each worker feel useful and important, to keep them informed of management's decisions and plans, and to listen to their objections to them. Furthermore, Human Relations oriented managers are expected to let subordinates exercise self-control and self-direction in routine matters. By acting in such ways and involving employees in routine decisions, they assume they can satisfy the basic needs of subordinates to belong and to feel important thereby improving morale and reducing resistance that otherwise might develOp to formal authority. The Human Relations model is clearly more employee-centered than the traditional Theory X model. On the other hand, the Human Resources model assumes that pe0ple need also to contribute to meaningful goals which they have helped to establish, and that most people are capable of much more self-control, self-direction, creativity, and responsibility than their present organizational roles allow. Under this model, the manager's primary job is seen as creating an environment wherein all members can contri- bute at their highest potential through full participation and 7 involvement in making important decisions, can continually increase their self-direction and control, and thereby can effectively use their previously untapped resources in helping achieve the goals of the organization. Such practices are expected, by Human Resources oriented managers, to lead directly to improvements in operating efficiency, and, as a by-product, to enhance the work-satisfaction of people whose commitment is no longer superficial. Miles developed a research instrument in the form of a two-section questionnaire with which he demonstrated what appear to be discrete sets of assumptions correSponding to the two models of Human Relations and Human Resources among business managers, union officials, public health officials, and others. 8 also demonstrated, using the same Miles and his colleagues research instrument, that managers tend to vary in terms of their beliefs about subordinates as a function of their hierarchical location in the organization structure. Managers in the upper administrative levels of the organizations studied tended to hold views more nearly in accordance with the Human Resources model than did their subordinates. Managers at lower administrative levels tended to more nearly approach the Human Relations model than did their superiors in the hierarchical structure. Miles' reported studies have not involved formal participative management systems such as the Scanlon Plan. The Human Relations versus the Human Resources dichotomy proposed by Miles appeared to offer a rationale for a study which would examine manager beliefs in participative organizations and shed more light on their possible impact on those organizations. 8 The questionnaire developed by Miles to measure the relative degree of Human Relations or Human Resources commitment by managers, offered an instrumental measure for such a study. The existence of a group of firms which could be dichotomized on the basis of retention or rejection of a Scanlon or Cost—Reduction- Sharing Plan, offered a locale for the study. Responses were obtained from managers at all hierarchical levels in 18 firms. Scanlon or CRS plans had been in operation in ten of these organizations for one or more years with apparent success. In the remaining eight firms, Scanlon or similar CRS plans had been intro— duced under seemingly similar circumstances, had continued for varying periods of time, and had subsequently been discontinued. While no cause or effect relationships were intended, or are implied, it was felt that one or more consistent factors might be isolated which would distinguish between firms where participation plans were retained and firms where they had not been retained. If found, such a factor or factors could constitute an opening wedge for further research which might ultimately provide a predictive instrument to evaluate the potential for success of a participative management system in similar organizations. PURPOSE It is the purpose of this study to empirically test whether or not differences will be found between response measures of managers in firms where Scanlon Plans have remained in effect, when compared with response measures of managers in firms where Scanlon Plans have been discontinued using response scores on: relative amounts of traits 9 possessed by other organizational members; and perceived usefulness of Selected leadership policies as measured by the Miles instrument. If consistent differences in such response measures exist between these groups of managers, that fact alone is considered to be of importance in designing future research studies on participation. GENERAL STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES After reviewing the literature concerning prior research in the field, it was hypothesized that instrumental measures of managerial assumptions about subordinates might be found to differ between the two groups of firms. It was hypothesized that managers in firms which continued to retain participation plans would indicate beliefs generally consonant with the Human Resources model of Miles, while responses of managers in firms where such plans had been discontinued would be found to more nearly reflect the Human Relations model of beliefs about co-workers and about participative leadership styles. In general the smaller the distance between respondents scores for Employee and Own level on items relating to traits and abilities, the higher the level of trust and confidence management is presumed to have in subordinate members of the organization. This suggested that to the extent managerial perceptions of subordinates' qualities and abilities might correlate with retention or rejection of participation plans, those perceptions themselves might in some way effect that plans' status. To the degree that managers' perceptions of participative leadership policies might coincide with success of participation plans, a similar effect might be similarly instrumental. 10 It was further hypothesized that managers in firms which had con- tinuing Scanlon Plans would indicate smaller trait differences between themselves and rank-and-file workers (indicating higher trust and confidence) and greater agreement with participative leadership policies, than would managers in firms where such plans had been terminated. An additional hypothesis predicted that managers in continued plans would differ from managers in discontinued plans in their respon- ses on selected trait comparisons between themselves and rank-and-file employees. This was based on findings of Miles who reported (in 19649 and again in 196610) finding unique patterns in the reported perceptions of managers regarding differences between themselves and other organi- zation members. He noted that the classical stereotype of the ideal subordinate, and of the ideal blue collar worker in particular, associates certain virtues, which are also held by managers, with lower level employees. Among these attributes are such things as common-sense, dependability, and pride in performance. He suggested that smaller differences would be reported on these dimensions between rank-and-file employees and respondents in managerial positions. Obversely, typical stereotypes of managers regard certain characteris- tics as uniquely "managerial." Managers are expected to exercise judgment, responsibility, and initiative, to have long-range perspective, and to be flexible, whereas workers are often presumed to be relatively deficient in these areas. Larger differences between ratings of employees and respondents on those traits which are typically regarded as managerial ones would tend to indicate lower confidence in subordi- nate's abilities than would differences for traits which managers and 11 workers are presumed to share. It was hypothesized that respondent managers in firms with continuing plans would indicate smaller differences between themselves and employees on these managerial traits than would respondents in discontinued firms. It was also hypothesized, based on published findings of Miles and others, that managers at higher levels of the hierarchy of all firms would tend to respond more in accordance with the Human Resources model than would be true of managers at lower levels in the hierarchy. Lower level managers in continuing Scanlon Plan firms were expec- ted to more nearly resemble, in their responses, upper level managers in discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. In other words, a hypothetical continuum was set up for testing with first-line managers (supervisors) in discontinued Scanlon Plan firms nearest one scalar extreme (the Human Relations Model) and upper level managers in continuing Scanlon Plan firms nearest the other scalar extreme (the Human Resources Model). LIMITATION ON SAMPLE SIZE Since prior evaluation or development of an environment supportive of a formal participation plan seems to be a primary objective for the Change Agentn to undertake, this study was limited to geographically concentrated plans installed by a specific consultant who embodied a uniform philosophy concerning the plan itself. In assisting the establishment of Scanlon Plans, emphasis has been placed by Dr. Frost and his associates on careful evaluation of the underlying psychological climate present both in management and in the work force where such plans have been contemplated. 12 None of the plans installed by this group appear to have been implemented where overt or suspected manipulative or exploitative motives of any internal group toward any other were detected. Care was taken to establish a favorable psychological environment by Dr. Frost, who is a professionally qualified industrial psycholoqist. This fact is considered to be an important one in terms of the present study since it is assumed that prior professional evaluation of the psychological environment would preclude installation of the plan where clearly detectable Theory X or obvious Human Relations beliefs were present in the management structure. LIMITS ON DATA That there were variations in the degree of acceptance of the plan seems clear. Attempts to trace historical variations between firms, however, appear doomed to failure since retention of records concerning the Plan has been by no means uniform. Reconstruction of past history concerning the Plan in many firms is largely dependent on the personal and subjective recollections of firm members. The idea of reconstructing an historical economic pattern in each firm, as a possible means of finding common points of weakness or strength among those who had discontinued the plan, was abandoned owing to the apparent dearth of objective data concerning past performance of Scanlon Plan activities. This deficiency was revealed early in the present study through questioning of top executives in both continued and discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. 13 RESEARCH DESIGN The general methodology of this study used a questionnaire survey combined with personal visitations to the plant sites. Nineteen firms in all were identified wherein some form of Scanlon-type plan of C.R.S. (Cost Reduction Sharing) had been installed either directly by Dr. Frost or where his activities and philOSOphies appeared to have been instrumental in the installation or continuance of the plan. The research design called for a comparison of instrumental responses of managers at various hierarchical levels in firms with continuing Scanlon Plans, with those of managers in firms where such plans had been tried and later discontinued. Such a comparison was made between groups of firms so identified as well as between upper and lower hierarchical groupings of managers in those firms. The dimensions of organizational distance (i.e., the perceived scalar distance between rank-and-file employees and various levels of management) and of perceived usefulness of participative leadership policies if exercised at various levels were instrumentally examined for all firms. Coincidental to the general hypothesis which this study addresses is the inference that a relationship may exist between assumptions of managers about subordinates and continuance or abandonment of a manage- ment system based on participation. Such an inference in no way presumes predictive validity for the instrument here used. It does, however, suggest the possibility that future research, in part predi- cated on the findings of this and other studies, might eventually establish some level of predictive validity for this or a similar instrument. Only descriptive relationships are sought here. / 14 With the foregoing comments on the general foundations, purposes, and methodology of this study as a justification and a point of depar- ture, Chapter Two consists of a review of the pertinent research literature. In Chapter Three the research design is defined. Also included are the samples used, the instrumentation and method of scoring, the relevant assumptions, the hypotheses in testable form, and discussion of procedures actually used to gather the data. Chapter Four consists of an analysis of the major results of this study. In Chapter Five secondary findings relating to hierarchical level which are of interest, but which do not directly bear on the major question under investigation, are reported. Finally, in Chapter Six comparisons of present findings with those reported from earlier studies are reported, and recommendations for future research are made. 15 FOOTNOTES 1For example see: Beaumont, Richard A. (Ed.), Group Wage Incen- tives: Experience With the Scanlon Plan, New York: Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc., 1962. 2Shultz, George P., "Variations in Environment and the Scanlon Plan," in F. G. Lesieur (Ed.), The Scanlon Plan: A Frontier in Labor-Mana ement Cooperation, Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. PFEss, l959, pp loo-108. 3McGregor, Douglas, The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960, pp_T10-123. , 4Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L., The Social Psychology pf Organizations, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, p 386. 5Lawrence, Paul R., "How to Deal with Resistance to Change," in G. Dalton, P. Lawrence, and L. Greiner, Organizational Change and Development, Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1970, p T94. 6McGregor, D., op. cit. 7Miles, R. E., "Human Relations or Human Resources?" Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1965, pp 148-161. 8Note discussion of Mile's work in Chapter II, "Relevant Litera- ture." 9Miles, R. E., "Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideologies,“ Industrial Relations, Oct. 1964. DP 77-91. IOMiles, R. E., Porter, L. W., and Craft, J. A., "Leadership Attitudes Among Public Health Officials," American Journal gj_Public Health, Vol. 56, No. 12, Dec. 1966, pp 1990-2005. 11For additional discussion of the role of Change Agents, see: Bennis, Warren G., Chan in Qgganizations, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966 (especia y Chapter 7). CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The relevant literature consists of reported research studies which deal with the effect of beliefs of superiors, subordinates, or peers, about one another and about participative management as a method of operation. While only companies or firms which have used Cost Reduction Sharing (CR3), or Scanlon-type plans were included in the research, the issue of the present study is not the Scanlon Plan. It is rather the impact of member attitudes and beliefs as possible mediating variables affecting participation based plans of any kind. Since such plans formally combine participative decision making with Cost Reduc- tion Sharing (a form of profit sharing confined to that segment of total profits which is generated through participative cost reduction) firms employing such systems are seen as ready made laboratories where- in the relationship between managerial assumptions or beliefs and the success or failure of participative decision making may be studied. Based on questions raised by a series of prior studies (most notably those of Haire, Ghiselli and Porter], Haire and Grunesz, and Miles, et.al.3), it was hypothesized that different views of persons at other organizational levels might be held by managers in firms where formal systems of participative management had either been successful or had been abandoned. If, for example, operative employees at the lowest levels of the organizational hierarchy were viewed by management as being basically capable or incapable of effective partici— Dation in managerial activities, it was felt that those viewpoints 16 l7 alone might constitute a mediating factor in the success of formal participation plans involving rank-and-file workers. The theoretical bases for these hypotheses is set forth in the work of Lowin4. In 1968 Lowin offered a general model of participative versus hierarchical decision making in organizations. He argued that organizations tend to successfully incorporate participative decision pg}ipg_(PDM) only if a number of conditions are satisfied and that a natural tendency exists for organizations to drift in the direction of hierarchical control (HIER) if any one of these conditions is not met. Lowin defines PDM as, "A mode of organizational operations in which decisions as to activities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those decisions." This characteristic, it might be noted, is a key element in formally constituted Scanlon Plans. Lowin notes that: "No complex organization can ever operate on purely PDM principles but neither can it totally segregate decision functions from its other activities. As the ROM process shifts the locus of some decisions downwards, the contrast betweeg PDM and HIER becomes one of degree rather than of kind. In proposing a model wherein he views participative decision making as a form of social equilibrium, Lowin notes that, "The mgip_ variables in the model are.the POM-relevant attitudes (feelings, beliefs, predispositions) and behaviors of each of the two parties (e.g., superiors and subordinates)."6 The model serves to identify areas where data is clearly lacking relative to participative management. In describing an "ideal case" of hierarchical pattern maintenance Lowin notes that predispositions and beliefs of members of an 18 hierarchically oriented system tend to create screening devices which reduce the likelihood of participatively oriented members being hired in the first place. It would logically follow that in the event such a participation-oriented person does enter a hierarchically oriented organization, he will be required by circumstances, rules, indoctrina- tion procedures, and methods of operation to either: (a) compromise his participative values since they are incongruent with the milieu in which he finds himself, (b) change the organization in the direction of greater participation so that it more nearly conforms to his own values, or (c) leave the organization. The built-in pattern maintenance devices of a traditional hier- archically oriented system of organization actively and effectively militate against the success of most participative types of activities. For example, a suggestion offered by a subordinate member of the organization relating to some aspect of internal operations could be expected to meet with resistance from a series of such hierarchical pattern maintenance devices. Since suggestions by subordinates are the very lifeblood of a Scanlon Plan, Lowin's observations concerning them are quoted: "The absence of unencumbered institutional channels for communicating such an alternative to the persons who are charged with making decisions reduces the likelihood that the suggestion will ever reach its intended destina- tion. "A suggestion which does arrive may be underestimated because of the low status of its source. "If the suggestion is a promising one, its author- ship is vulnerable and may be usurped ... and, even if a suggestion made by a subOrdinate is finally accepted, the subordinate's contribution may not be adequately acknowledged. Although he may receive informal praise, formal recognition may be lacking. 19 "Finally, because contributions by a subordinate to decision making are not institutionalized, the sub- ordinate is not privy to the technical, economic, and political evaluation of the various alternatives, nor is he likely to receive impartial feedback from those evaluations. By eliminating these modes of feedback the system structurally exclgdes the possibilities of learning and reinforcement. According to Lowin, subordinate members of a hierarchically oriented organization are deliberately and effectively excluded from any meaningful part in organizational decision making. By not allowing them to participate in such activities the organization assures their continued low levels of sephistication in such matters and subordinates are given positive reinforcement to restrict their own creativity and to perform assigned tasks in prescribed manners only. Such subordinate exclusion might be expected to become a significant part of the mana- gerial culture in such an organization. Since fulfillment of the minimal demands of the system elicits the most favorable response for the subordinate, and since this pattern tends in turn to reinforce the managerial assumptions which created the system, a stable equilibrium exists. In such an ideal case both sub- ordinate and manager attitudes constitute major forces of inertia Opposing change in the direction of greater participation. Lowin notes that the concept of a zero-sum game is deeply rooted in traditional hierarchical management systems since both manager and subordinate tend to see any gain for the other as a loss for himself. In terms of the present study it might be suggested that many nanagers, due to training, inclination, or prior successful experience in a hierarchically oriented organization, internalize assumptions conso- nant with such a system. If such a manager were to become a member of 20 a Scanlon Plan organization at any level, his prior convictions might be expected to have a destabilizing effect on such a participative decision making system, and could be expected to exert pressure in the direction of hierarchical control. If a Scanlon Plan were installed where such assumptions predominated, its expectation of success might be limited. At the opposite extreme, Lowin sketches an ideal state of parti— cipative pattern maintenance which might serve to involve both superiors and subordinates more and more closely in interactions focused on mutual problem solutions. A central point in Lowin's hypothesis is that the needs of both subordinates and managers may be effectively met by either of these (hierarchical or participative) modes of organizing and managing, depending on the situation. The literature dealing with contingency theory supports the argument that different situations call for differing forms of organi- zation. Burns and Stalker8 discuss Mechanistic (or hierarchical) Systems as most appropriate to stable conditions and Organic (partici- pative) systems as more appropriate where conditions are subject to frequent change. Woodward9 has suggested that participative forms of Organization might have limited value where large-batch and mass— Production technologies predominate. Lawrence and Lorsch10 have r'eiilorted finding that the highest performing organizations where IOWer-level involvement also predominated were those subject to Pressures for rapid change. Since it is not the purpose of the Present study to evaluate environmental conditions favorable or unfav- °r3ble to acceptance of the Scanlon Plan, the above references are 21 cited as examples of an extensive body of literature which does address the issue of relationship of management system or style to environmental needs. An additional substantial body of literature exists concerning the whole question of job performance as a function of attitudes or beliefs held by job occupants. LawlerII, Brayfield and Crockett‘z, and especially Porter and Lawler13, as well as a host of others, have made significant contributions in this area. Turner and Lawrence's study of subcultural prediSpositionsi4, which looks at several variables (ethnic- cultural, town-country) as correlating with task attributes to influ- ence job satisfaction, is only one example of a large body of literature dealing with causal factors which might influence why respondents answer as they do. The purpose of the present study is only to determine 1: responses differ. It is addressed to the single issue of whether or not managers' assumptions about subordinates differ in firms which have continued or discontinued specific kinds of participation plans. The equilibrium model prOposed by Lowin clearly suggests the futility of seeking prime causes for participative management, including Scanlon Plan, success or failure since managerial beliefs as well as structural elements appear to interact to form a "successful” 0? an "unsuccessful" whole. A participative form of management must meet the psychological as well as the material needs of both managers ant: subordinates more effectively than an hierarchical form in order to actlieve equilibrium in the participative decision making mode, accord- IOQ to Lowin's argument. 22 His model indicates a continuing tendency for organizations to shift unidirectionally toward hierarchical control. Almost any problems which arise which put stress on subparts of the organization will tend to move the organization in the direction of hierarchical control and away from participative management practices. In terms of the present study, Lowin's work would suggest that pressures for emasculation or abandonment of a Scanlon Plan might be expected to far outweigh pressures for its growth and retention since traditional management principles are closely bound up with commitment to hierarchical organization structures. Indeed, the pre-existing beliefs of both managerial and operative members of the organization might be expected to be a major obstacle to the implementation of a successful Scanlon Plan. The present study attempts to find consistencies in responses of managers of firms where participative plans have been continued or have been abandoned. Multiple forces in interaction appear to combine to move the organization in the direction of either hierarchical or parti- cipative control. The nature of those forces and the dynamics of their interaction are complex and still not well understood. They are probably unique to a given firm or group of factors as has been suggested by Seashore15 who demonstrated that such factors as degree of cohesiveness and support of the individual by the group varies with group size, continuity of membership, status character of jobs and the kinds of primary work associations that exist. In examining personality structure as a participative management variable, Vroom16 has reported results of a study which found that: 23 "... authoritarians and persons with weak indepen- dence needs are apparently unaffected by the opportunity to participate in making decisions. 0n the other hand, equalitarians and those who have strong independence needs develop more positive attitudes toward their job and greater motigation for effective performance through participation." In a more recent study, however, Tosi reported failure to replicate Vroom's findings.18 Such findings help to illustrate the validity of Lowin's comment that: ". . empirical demonstrations of participative decision making effectiveness or of its absence can be generalized to only such other p0pulations as do not vary significantly ... from the test population." And "The relative effectiveness of (such systems) may vary considerably from setting to setting. Success in one climate may prove failure in another.", "... (Hence) it is impossible to evaluate a priori the net extent of the damage done to a (participative; program by one environmental constraint or another." Much of the appeal of democratic-participative management may stem from the proselytizing of behavioral scientists and management theorists over the past three or four decades. TRADITIONAL VIEWS In earlier times management systems were largely structured around traditional views of man at work. The traditional view of man held by managers -- and the one around which classical organization structures appear to have been designed -- sees subordinates at any level as being lazy, irresponsible, passive, and amenable to motivation toward desirable outputs only through threats and coercion on the one hand or through enticement on the other. 24 Superiors at all levels, however, tended to be seen as self— motivating, ambitious, creative, resourceful, honest, and dedicated to the best interests of the organization. Haire, for example, has reported findings from a management survey by Porter where: "In every case, no matter what the level of the respondent, his job and his superior's demanded initia- tive. His subordinates did not. This was true all the way up and down the hierarchical ladder. The man had to have initiative to do hAEOJOb; the person below him was better off without it. One paradox of management attitude then lies in the fact that many managers appear to believe that subordinates lack the necessary quali- ties of managers and that (at the same time) organization structures should be changed to allow greater participation and involvement of subordinates in decision making activities as well as greater freedom for subordinates to exercise self-direction and self—control. Managers appear to believe in democratic methods if applied to themselves, while viewing most subordinate employees as fundamentally incapable of practicing democracy. Such evidence gives rise to an interesting series of assumptions about people and about organizations. Assuming the normative model of participation, espoused by Likert, Haire, and others, to be valid, a basic question arises over whether or not people are capable of the kinds of internally generated drive which such organizational systems call for. If people are, in fact, lazy and work avoidant in terms of organizational goals, then classical pyramidal top-down authority structures would appear to be highly effective devices for getting work done. If people are, indeed, indolent and irresponsible, then a 25 participative form of management would be seen as almost wholly ineffec- tive in achieving legitimate organizational goals, and prohibitively costly as well. Yet managers consistently report a belief in partici- pative management theory while concurrently indicating a low regard for the capabilities of subordinates. In 1950 Haire and Gruneszj reported findings which indicated that a stereotype exists of an average factory worker as being essentially unintelligent, well-adjusted, sociable and uncomplicated, but decidedly not capable of high level decision making. Data was obtained from 179 introductory psychology students, using a form of projective technique to avoid cliche or standard responses. The interesting point in this study is that respondents went to great lengths to deny the possibility that typical workers might possess intelligence or creativity beyond a very low order. When confronted with the image of an intelligent factory worker, respondents developed elaborate rationalizations (such as lack of drive, lack of formal schooling, poor family background, poverty, etc.) to resolve the perceptual conflict raised by juxtaposi- tion of intelligent with factory worker. Several respondents resolved their cognitive dissonance by promoting the worker to foreman -- presumably because management even at the lowest levels does not conflict so strongly with the image elicited by the term "intelligent." In an extensive discussion of the historical development of attitudes of managers toward workers as well as toward other managers, Bendix22 has reviewed the social, philOSOphical, and economic bases for the traditional pessimism concerning the intellectual or creative abilities of workers. Beginning even before F. W. Taylor (who had 26 made it clear that workers did not really know enough to maximize their prosperity), the worker has been regarded (according to Bendix) as inferior to management. During the 1930's there arose an awareness of workers as total human beings whose cooperation should be sought and who possessed a creative Spirit, but still an inferior one when compared to the skills routinely exercised by managers. Bendix suggests that workers are still viewed by management as, "the great unwashed, who (are) unreasonable, sentimental, emotional, ignorant, intellectually incapable, and destined to follow the leadership of their betters."23 In the same theme Coates and Pellegrin24 reported results of a 1957 study involving 50 first-line supervisors and 50 top-level execu— tives representing 30 different managerial hierarchies. Their goal was to determine if there were differences between hierarchical levels in perceptions of the importance of informal factors in obtaining promotions. Influence of various factors were found to be viewed differently by top managers and by foremen in terms of their effective- ness in achieving promotion. The significant relationship of this study to one aSpect of the present one is that it demonstrated a clear difference between the beliefs and attitudes held by lower level members of the management hierarchy and those held by top level executives. In 1959 Bennis25 traced the relationships between systems of belief about man at work and the develOpment of leadership policies. He cites Robert McMurry26 who claimed that bottom-up or consultative management is preferable ideologically, but for a number of reasons it is neither acceptable nor practical, nor is it congruent with what he (McMurry--a psychoanalyst), knows about personality functioning. 27 McMurry claimed that only about 10% of all managers really believe in the human relations, or participative, approach to management. Ghiselli27 has reported results of an investigation involving 113 top managers, 176 middle managers, 172 lower level managers, and 319 line workers in several firms. The results showed clear differences between upper and lower level managers on a comparison of five traits (intelligence, supervisory ability, initiative, self-assurance, and occupational level). Responses on a standardized self-description inventory were used as an instrumental measure. Ghiselli found that responses followed the hierarchical structure on every trait measured. Top and middle management respondents earned higher scores on all scales than did lower level managers and line personnel. Furthermore, there were pattern differences demonstrated between hierarchical levels. Ghiselli notes that: . as a general rule, in terms of traits that might be termed managerial traits in a wide variety of business and industrial establishments, those persons who hold positions at the t0p and middle levels of management tend to be similar to each other and digger- ent from those in the lower levels of management.” and: "Top management personnel appear to be superior in capacity to direct the activities of others, to develop new ideas, and to see new approaches to problems, to possess the self-confidence necessary to make the impor- tant decisions, ... and to manifest the ambition and upward drive required to achieve the level of their positions. It is not that middle management personnel are deficient in these characteristics, since indeed they are superior in them to the general population and to persons in lower management. Rather it is that they do not possess these characteristigg to the same degree that top management personnel do." Ghiselli's findings hardly constitute an endorsement of Miles' Human Resources concept nor do they support the suggestions of McGregor 28 that the capacity for participation in decision making is widely dis- tributed throughout the population.30 Yet, Yoder, in discussing results of managerial attitude measures, notes that: "Management policy is largely determined by managers' theory, ... managers formulate their policies from the rationale implied in their theories."31 It would seem, therefore, that a large bulk of management theory stands in the way of successful development of participative management systems. In another article, Yoder points out that: "Though there have been thousands of inquiries into the attitudes of the rank and file, only a few investi- gations have reached above the lower levels of supervision. Differences in the theoretical positions of two managers in the same organization may lead them to different explana- tions of the same problems, different policies for the same sitgption, or different ways of implementing the same policy." In commenting on findings from a series of experimental measures of attitudes of managers at various hierarchical levels done at Stan- ford University, Yoder notes that top level managers often appear to hold quite different views than do subordinate level managers on the same questions. Individual managers also are often found to take theoretical positions which are not internally consistent. Yoder Comments that: "Individual companies would do well to pay some attention to the theory patterns and profiles of their managers. They could probably gain a good deal more from such examination than they do from persistent indoctrination of the management team in policies that 33 may appear theoretically unsound to many of its members." 34 In a unique study Haire, Ghiselli and Porter reported findings on similarities and differences in manager's attitudes, involving 29 responses from 2800 managers in 11 countries. One phase of this research dealt with managerial views on leadership policies. Data were obtained by requesting responses on a five-point scale ranging from "agree strongly" to "disagree strongly“ on items concerning: a. Belief in the innate capacities of individuals for initiative and leadership. b. Belief in participative management. c. Belief in internal rather than external control (i.e., the self-control of the individual flowing from commitment and understanding as opposed to control through externally imposed rewards or punishments). In developing the research items the authors inferred a logical consistency between various aspects of leadership policy which was not borne out in the results they obtained. Logically, they argued that a belief in the inherent capabilities of individuals might be expected to precede commitment to participative management and to managers expressing a belief in decentralized self-control by subordi- nates. Management practice, they felt, could logically be expected to reflect a progressive embodiment of a basic belief in the individual. Such a belief would presumably have to exist as a foundation for higher- order concepts of management, such as participation and self-direction and control. As noted, the findings of the study did not bear this out. In all countries studied, managers indicated a significantly higher belief in participative leadership policies than they did in the innate capabilities of people to function effectively under such policies. Results consistently showed a low regard for the untapped potential of people and at the same time reflected a strong belief in leadership policies which would involve people more completely in mana- gerial activities and allow people more autonomy in doing their work. 30 This pattern was found to be consistent among managers in all eleven countries studied. The authors, in attempting to explain this seeming paradox, note that: "It is at least possible that this result is the effect of the partial digestion of 15 years of exhorta- tion by the group-oriented consultants and professors of management .... The data suggest that the ideas dealing with management practice have been persuasive, while the basic conggction about the nature of people remains unchanged." This study, however interpreted, represents a major foundation for Miles' Human Resources versus Human Relations dichotomy. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF MILES In 1963, Yoder, Miles, et.al., reported an instrumental measure with which managerial attitudes toward various aSpects of the manage- ment process might be researched.36 They developed a "What's Your Theory?" game designed to identify patterns of management theory endorsed by managers. They noted that: "The studies adopt a common concept of 'attitudes,‘ assuming that attitudes modify perceptions of various referents or values and are behaviorally relevant as predispositions toward action or behavior, so that significant clues to manager and organizational effective- ness may be found in distinctive patterns of manager attitudes." Miles later questioned the assumption that a common set of beliefs and theories about managing are shared by practicing managers. In 1964 he reported that major discrepancies appear to exist between individual managers' interpretations of commonly accepted theories of management.38 No clear patterns had emerged, however, to distinguish groups of managers holding disparate views. 31 "Differences in age, education, and experience were examined (using the above mentioned, 'What's Your Theory?' questionnaire) as possible clues to particular attitude patterns, but no strong relationships were found. Further, environmental factors such as type of work and location appeared to be ruled out as major determining factors, since the managers studied held comparable positions in companies within Sgsingle industry and located in the same geographic area." The basic form of the research instrument used in the present study was reported by Miles in 1964 also.40 The two part form of the questionnaire (aimed at discovering per- ceived trait differences between respondent managers and other organi- zation members, as well as differences in respondents' regard for policies of participative leadership) was described in detail. The following year (1965), Miles published his theory of a dual attitude set held by managers, Human Relations or Human Resources.41 The Human Relations model is seen by Miles as a device for improving morale by making subordinates feel they are useful and important in achieving organizational goals. Miles concluded that Human Relations is regarded by managers as a means of buying cooper- ation from subordinates. Its implementation allows subordinates to (express opinions and otherwise discuss decisions, and even to partici- pate in relatively trivial or low-level decision making. However, the actual making of all important decisions is still an exclusive function of the manager at his own or higher levels. Consequently, Miles sees the Human Relations model as, "Only a slight departure from the traditional autocratic models of management.”42 Opposing this model, Miles describes the Human Resources approach as, "A dramatic departure from traditional concepts of management."43 Its focus is on a supposedly universal human capacity for creativity, 32 responsibility, self-direction, and self-control. Managers who share this belief concerning people see their jobs in an entirely different light than do their Human Relations oriented counterparts, according to Miles' thesis. Such managers imply an obligation, in themselves, to encourage and support creative contributions from subordinates through creation of a truly participative environment which not only allows but solicits and uses subordinate assistance at all levels of decision making. Survey results seem to indicate that most managers feel the Human Relations approach is appropriate in dealing with subordinates, but that the Human Resources approach involving full participation is most appropriate in dealings between their own superiors and themselves. Miles' studies have indicated that respondents consistently rate themselves as being equal to or higher than their own bosses on measures of capability, while seeing subordinates as less capable than themselves on the same measures. While formally constituted systems of participation such as Scanlon or CRS plans are not identified as being included in Miles' studies, several of the logical implications he draws from his data apply to the present study which does involve such management systems. He implies that: "... the Human Resources model has little chance of ever gaining real acceptance as a guide to managers' rela- tionships with their subordinates .. (since) .. managers at every level view themselves as capable of greater self- direction and self-control, but apparepxly do not attribute such abilities to their subordinates." A second implication is that, "Real participation will seldom be found in modern organizations,“ since managers feel no obligation to 33 allow it -- and in fact will often junk whatever participative practices exist when problems arise or when pressure builds up from above. Thirdly, their long held Human Relations beliefs cause managers to apply "just enough“ participation to improve morale and satisfaction without ever committing themselves to making full use of employee's abilities. As an extension of this set of arguments, Miles (in another article written in response to comments about the first)45 argues that management has an economic obligation to stockholders and society to utilize the resources at its disposal, including the human resources of employees, in the most efficient manner possible. He states that the typical company wastes its human resources for at least three reasons. First, because management doesn't know such resources exist; second, because management doesn't know how to go about unleashing hidden ability; and third, because management feels threatened and challenged by such a process. Management attitudes, stemming in part from formal management education over the past few decades, typically regard people in organi- zations as "necessary but probably more trouble than they are worth."46 “Managers more often than not regard their subordinates as problem "47 Such attitudes, in Miles' causers, rather than problem solvers. opinion, emanate from the long-term influence of Industrial Engineering coupled with the Human Relations Movement of the 1920's and 1930's which stressed the need to make workers feel important. Throughout the balance of this article Miles (although not men- tioning the term by name) describes the basic characteristics of the 34 Scanlon Plan as being an ideal organizational form in which to implement the Human Resources model of management. Miles' studies have served to establish limited reliability for the instrument used in the present study, although instrumental validity remains to be established through extensive and rigorous additional research. As one example, Miles, Porter, and Craft published findings (in 1966) of a study on "Leadership Attitudes among Public Health Officials" involving 250 members of public health organizations from eight western states.48 Using the same instrument used in the present study, they collected relative attitudinal data from the subject officials regarding their perceptions of ten traits and abilities of low-level employees, immedi- ate subordinates, persons at the respondent's own levels, and superiors. Superiors were consistently ranked highest on all traits followed by persons at respondent's own level, subordinates, and rank-and-file members in that order. This was in agreement with prior reported findings. Respondents consistently placed themselves closer to their superiors than to their subordinates on all scales, and this fact was more pronounced for some traits than for others. Respondents saw the largest differences between themselves and subordinates in three areas. These areas related to the ability to exercise responsibility and perspective, to demonstrate judgment and initiative, and the ability to be creative and flexible. Table 1 indicates the perceived trait differences reported by respondents in this study. 35 Table 1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTICIPANTS' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR OWN CAPABILITIES AND THOSE OF THEIR SUPERIORS AND SUBORDINATES49 Differences between participants' per- Traits and Abilities ceptions of themselves and: Related to: Rank and Their Own Their Own File Subordinates Superiors Perspective-Responsibility 2.19 0.97 0.58 Judgment-Initiative 1.99 0.78 0.43 Altertness-Self Confidence 1.25 0.63 0.41 Creativity-Flexibility 1.88 0.80 0.06 Dependability-Pride 1.33 0.38 0.09 On the second half of the questionnaire relating to acceptance of and attitude toward selected policies of participative leadership, public health officials responded as indicated in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 ACCEPTANCE AND ATTITUDES TOWARD USEFULNESS OF L ADERSHIP POLICIES AT VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONAL LEVELS 0 Average Response to Statement That Policies are Appropriate Average for: Degree of Rank and Their Own People at Policy Agreement File Subordinates Own Level Encourage participation in decision making 4.26 4.05 4.38 4.44 Allow subordinates to help set own perform- ance goals 4.12 3.90 4.16 4.22 Allow subordinates to modify techniques and procedures of their own job 3.98 3.68 4.04 4.17 Scoring: Strongly Agree = 5.00; Agree = 4.00; Uncertain = 3.00; Disagree = 2.00; Strongly Disagree = 1.00. 36 Table 3 PARTICIPANTS ATTITUDES TOWARD LEADERSHIP POLICIES5I Average Response to General Statements Reflecting; Agreement Policy will Policy will With Given Improve Improve Policy, Poligy Morale Performance Encourage participation in decision making 4.33 4.37 4.17 Allow subordinates to help set their own performance goals 4.01 4.41 3.85 Allow subordinates to modify techniques and procedures of their own jobs 3.92 4.20 3.82 Miles and Blankenship reported (in 1968) some indications that a relationship exists between selected structural characteristics of bureaucracies (i.e., size, hierarchical level, and span of control) and decision making behavior of managers.52 A self-administered questionnaire consisting of five examples of managerial decisions was used to examine the degree to which 190 mana- gers at various hierarchical levels used autonomous or participative decision making procedures, either upward or downward in the organiza- tion. In general it was found that a manager's position in the organiza- tional hierarchy appeared to have a significant effect on his pattern of reported behavior. Upper-level managers reported greater reliance on subordinates in initiating action and for ideas and recommendations than was true for lower level managers. Upper level managers also reported having greater autonomy and freedom from need for approval by 0 A. 0““ ( D'i‘ II! erD II . I‘b. IIbI 37 their superiors than did lower level managers. Low level managers, on the other hand, reported comparatively high reliance on superiors for suggestions and initiation of action with concurrent low reliance on subordinates for such factors. With regard to size of organization, the authors found that lower level managers in small firms tended to report feelings of greater autonomy in decision making than was true for low level managers in large firms. It was also found that the more subordinates a manager has report- ing directly to him the more likely he will be to accept suggestions from subordinates. In 1968 Miles also co-authored (with Roberts and Blankenship)53 a study wherein the instrument used in the present study was partially correlated with a Leadership Behavior Measure consisting of five items taken from Likert's System Measures.54 Respondents consisted of nearly 400 managers drawn from five hierarchical levels in six Operating divisions of a west coast manufac- turing firm. The divisions were ranked in terms of performance based on company Operating data. Results were compared between measures of evaluation of other organization members (using the 10 trait measures on the Miles instrument described above), behavior measures (from the Likert Scales), satisfaction measures (from a 5-item general satisfac- tion questionnaire), and objective performance measures (from company records showing increase in shipments, Operation profit as a percent of sales, warranty expense, and return on assets). Data analysis was facilitated by rank ordering all variables. 38 The relationship between satisfaction measures and performance measures was found to be significant beyond the .05 level (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, r = .89), for all ranks and all divisions. The Kendall coefficient of Concordance (W) for three variables (i.e., Leadership behavior, Satisfaction, and Performance) was reported as .82 which indicated significance at the .01 level of confidence. Finally, when all four variables were considered for all six divisions, the Kendall coefficient of Concordance was found to be .64 which was significant at the .01 level. The authors warn that these findings should be regarded with caution since absolute score differences and samples were both very small and no controls existed to offset the possible effects of struc- ture, technology or interpersonal relationship as possible mediating variables. The authors interpret their findings as providing support for the argument that: "Democratic-participative leadership behavior is related to satisfaction and to performance--and there is some suggestion ... that attitudes of support and confidence in subordinates are related to the other three variables (e.g., Leadership behavior, satisfac- tion, and performance). The linkage between leadership attitudes and (other variables) is, we feel, likely to be the most difficult to demonstrate, since attitudes may be expressed in a variety of pghaviors or may not be expressed in behavior at all." This study is cited as one of the few which attempts to relate managerial responses regarding subordinates' traits and abilities, on the instrument used in the present study, to other measures of managerial beliefs or behaviors. Furthermore, it does so across organizations, or at least across major organizational segments. 39 56 continued the investigation of leader attitudes Miles and Ritchie by administering the questionnaire to over 100 union officers who held positions at various levels of union hierarchies. 0f the 110 usable questionnaires returned, 13 were from area or regional officers, 42 were from full-time paid business agents, 17 were from local presidents, vice presidents, or other high ranks, 17 were from minor officials and 20 were from shop stewards. All were from the area of northern California. The Miles instrument was slightly modified by changing terms to conform with “peculiarities of union hierarchies and terminology," but was essentially the two section form used in the present study of Scanlon Plan managers. Union Officials generally followed the same hierarchical patterns set by industrial managers, public health officials, and government officials in previous studies in responding to questions regarding participative leadership policies. " ... while union leaders tend to advocate lower level participation in decision—making and setting ... goals, they do not feel strongly that this participation will result in improved decisions or reasonable ... goals. Neither do they feel that greater autonomy for shop stewards would result in improved performance. Instead the value of increased lower level participation is viewed in terms of improved morale and greater acceptance of decisions made by (superiors)." ".. Officials at all levels see themselves as virtually equal (in capability) to those above them, but they attribute much less capability to those below them, particularly the rank-and-file member. In fact, rank- and-file members are generally rated lower in capability by union Officials ghan by the managerial counterparts of such Officials." This study is Of interest in that it demonstrates that Miles' Human Relations model of other organization members and toward 40 participative leadership policies appears to Operate in supposedly democratic mutual-benefit organizations such as unions, as strongly as in purely hierarchical business organizations. Miles and Ritchie in 1970 published findings from a study of 330 managers from five Operating levels of six divisions in a west coast firm whose policies were strongly oriented toward participative manage- ment.58 Two measures were used. One was a measure of perceived participa- tion wherein respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their probable involvement in a hypothetical series of decisions in their firms. The first variable in the study was the average score, on a 5-point scale, of a respondent's perceived participation based on this measure. The second variable was taken as his average score on the 10-trait scale which constitutes Part I of the Miles instrument. Respondents were asked to place Rank-and-File Employees, Subordi- nates, Themselves, and their Bosses, along 7-point scales indicating relative amount Of each trait, in the manner discussed previously. A third and final variable was taken as satisfaction level, derived from the questionnaire previously used by Roberts, Blankenship, and Miles which is mentioned above.59 In analyzing results, means of responses separated by hierarchical level were used to test for a hypothesized relationship between the respondent's levels in the organization and their responses. It was found that perceived participation appeared to increase as one moves nearer the top of the hierarchy. 41 Furthermore, "Upper level managers tended to view their subordi- nates as considerably closer to themselves in ability than did managers lower in the hierarchy, particularly those at the lowest level.” In closing, Miles and Ritchie state succinctly the broad concept underlying the present study by noting that: "The prime fact remains, we believe, that a simple quantity theory of participation is insufficient and that the quality of participation, as influenced by the superior's attitudes concerning his subordinates, is a crucial vgaiable in the participative decision making process." With this concept as a point of departure, the present study was undertaken using the procedures described in Chapter Three. SUMMARY Reported studies dealing with assumptions of managers at various hierarchical levels regarding other organization members reflect a seeming paradox. 0n the one hand, most managers wherever they may be, report a belief in participative management and an understanding of and agreement with the fundamental views eSpoused by behavioral scientists and management theorists such as the late Douglas McGregor, who argued for democratic practices in management to unleash the full creativity of workers. Many of these same managers, however, appear to have serious doubts about the capacity of subordinate members of their organizations to function effectively in a participative environment. Several studies have demonstrated this effect in different firms (Coates & Pellegrin, Ghiselli), and among firms in different countries (Haire, Ghiselli and Porter). That this fact may be attributed in 42 part at least to traditional views of managers as being substantively different from workers has been argued by Haire, Haire and Grunes, and Bendix. Yoder has pointed out that little research has been reported on attitudes of managers above the supervisory level. Particularly rele- vant findings which have been published in the area stem from work done by R. E. Miles (in conjunction with various associates) in investigating instrumental responses of managers in industrial firms, public health agencies, government offices, and unions. In all areas reported, consistent patterns have emerged which tend to support Miles' hypothesis that two discrete sets of assumptions are held by operating managers. One of these he has designated a Human Relations model which is essentially manipulative and basically pessimistic about workers' decision making capabilities. This model sees the value of participa— tive leadership practices as confined almost wholly to improving the morale of workers. The other is designated the Human Resources model and views workers in essentially the same light as the Theory Y model proposed by McGregor. Most managers appear to tend (whether holding Human Relations or Human Resources beliefs) to express positive beliefs toward the principles of participation and democratic leadership styles. However, managers holding Human Resources views presumably are more likely to implement and support such principles in practice than is true of managers who hold Human Relations views of subordinates. Miles (et.al.), has also reported findings that upper hierarchical levels of management tend toward a higher incidence of Human Resources 43 beliefs than do lower hierarchical members who appear to espouse the Human Relations model of attitudes toward subordinates. The design of the present study is predicated on these findings in seeking to find if there is a tendency for managers in firms which have continuing Scanlon or CRS plans to respond on instrumental measures more nearly in accordance with the Human Resources model than is true of managers in firms which have tried and later discontinued such plans. The published materials cited above would logically lead to an hypothesis that managers in firms where participation was a successful reality might be expected to view subordinates as more nearly like themselves in capability, and view participative leadership policies as more desirable at all levels than would be true of managers in firms where such participative systems had failed to be retained. Chapter three develOps the research design employed to test the hypotheses derived from the foregoing published materials. 44 FOOTNOTES 1Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., and Porter, L. W., "Cultural Patterns in the Role of the Manager," Industrial Relations, February, 1963, pp 95-117. 2Haire, M., and Grunes, W. F., "Perceptual Defenses: Processes Protecting an Organized Perception of Another Personality,” Human Relations, Vol. 3, 1950, pp 403-412. 3Miles, R. E., "Theories of Managing: Conflicting Attitudes Among Managers and Their Bosses," Personnel, (March-April, 1964), pp 51-56. Also: Yoder, 0., Miles, R. E., McKiBben, L., Boynton, R. E., and England, G. W., "Managers' Theories of Management," cademy pf Manage- ment Journal, Sept. 1963, pp 204-211. 4Lowin, Aaron, "Participative Decision Making: A Model, Litera- ture Critique, and Prescriptions for Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 3, 1968, pp 68-106. 5 Lowin, op. cit., p 69. 6Loc. cit. 70p. cit., pp 70-71. 8Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., The Manggement pf Innovation, London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd., 1961. pp 119-125. 9Woodward, J., Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, London: Oxford University Press, 1965. 10Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W., Organization and Environment, Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1969. I‘Lawler, E. E., "Attitude Surveys and Job Performance," Personnel Administration, Sept.-Oct., 1967, pp 485-487. 12Brayfield, A. H., and Crockett, W. H., "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 52, No. 5 (1955), pp 396-424. 13Porter, L. W. and Lawler, E. E., "PrOperties of Organization Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior," Psyghological Bulletin, Vol. 64, NO. l, (1965), pp 23-51. 14Turner, A. H., and Lawrence, P. R., Industrial Jobs and the Worker, Boston: Division of Research, Harvard University, Graduate Scfiool of Business Administration, 1965. IQ l o {In 3J5 J . I \ ad C out RI 1r?! ‘1... 45 15Seashore, Stanley E., "Group Cohesiveness as a Factor in Indus- trial Morale and Productivity,‘l in Yukl and Wexley, Readings ip_ Organizational and Industrial Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press,7197l, pp 242-249. 16Vroom, Victor H., "Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation," Journal pf Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, 1958. pp 322-327. I7Ibid., p 326. 18Tosi, H. A., "A Re-examination of Personality as a Determinant of the Effects Of Participation," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 23, 1970, pp 91-99. 19Lowin, A., "Participative Decision Making: A Model, Literature, Critique, and Prescriptions for Research," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 3, 1968, p 79. 20Haire, M., "The Concept of Power and the Concept of Man," in: George Strother (Ed.), Social Science Approaches 39_Business Behavior, Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1962, p 178. 2IHaire, M., and Grunes, W. F., "Perceptual Defenses: Processes Protecting an Organized Perception of Another Personality," Human Relations, Vol. 3, 1950, pp 403-412. 22Bendix, R., Work and Authority ip_1ndustry, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956. 23Ibid., p 296. 24Coates, C. H., and Pellegrin, R. J., "Executives and Supervisors: Informal Factors in Differential Bureaucratic Promotion," Administra- tive Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, 1957 (Sept.), pp 200-215. 25Bennis, W. G., "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 4, 1959 (DeC.), pp 259-301. 26McMurry, R., "The Case for the Benevolent Autocrat," Harvard Business Review (36) Jan.-Feb., 1958, pp 82-90. 27Ghiselli, E. E., "Traits Differentiating Management Personnel," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 12 (Winter 1959), pp 535-544. 231oid., p 543. 291bid., p 544. 30McGregor, D., The Human Side pj_Enterprise, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960, p 48. PL nim— DJ- RIUII Hh‘i: H ~ 4o 3IYoder, D., "Management Policy for the Future,” Personnel Admin- jgtggtlgp, Vol. 25, No. 5 (Sept-Oct. 1962), p 13. 32Yoder, D., “Management Theories as Managers See Them," Personnel, Vol. 39, No. 4 (July-Aug. 1962), p 26. 33Ibid., p 30. 34Haire, M., Ghiselli, E. E., and Porter, L. W., "Cultural Patterns in the Role of the Manager," Industrial Relations, February, 1963. pp 95-117. 351bid., p 98. 35Yoder, 0., Miles, R. E., McKibbin, L., Boynton, R. E., and England, G. W., "Managers' Theories of Management," Academy pj_Manage- ment Journal Sept. 1963, pp 204-211. 37Ibid., p 204. 38Miles, R. E., "Theories Of Managing: Conflicting Attitudes Among Managers and Their Bosses,“ Personnel, (March-April, 1964), pp 51-56. 391bid., p 54. 40Miles, R. E., "Conflictin Elements in Managerial Ideologies," Industrial Relations, (Oct. 1964?, pp 77-91. 4IMiles, R. E., "Human Relations or Human Resources?" Harvard Business Review, (July-Aug., 1965), pp 148-161. 42Ibid., p 150. 45Miies, R. E., "The Affluent Organization," Harvard Business Review , (May-June, 1966), pp 106-114. 46Ibid., p 109. 47Ibid., p 109. 48Mi1es, R. E., Porter, L. w., and Craft, J. A., "Leadership Attitudes Among Public Health Officials," American Journal pj_Public Health, Vol. 56, No. 12 (Dec. 1966), pp 1990-2005. 49Ibid., p 1993. 5OIbid., p 1994. 47 5IIbid., p 1995. 52Blankenship, L. V., and Miles, R. E., "Organizational Structure and Managerial Decision Behavior," Administrative Science anrterly, Vol. 13, 1968. PP 106-120. 53Roberts, K., Miles, R. E., and Blankenship, L. V., "Organiza- tional Leadership Satisfaction and Productivity: A Comparative Analysis," Academy pf Management Journal, (Dec., 1968), pp 401-414. 54Likert, R., The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, New York: McGraw-HTTT'BOOk Company, 1967. 55Ipid., p 411. 56Miles, R. E., and Ritchie, J. 8., "Leadership Attitudes Among Union Officials," Industrial Relations, Vol. 13, 1968, pp 108-117. 57Ibid., p 109. 58Ritchie, J. B. and Miles, R. E., "An Analysis of Quantity and Quality of Participation as Mediating Variables in the Participative Decision Making Process," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 23, 1970, pp 347- 395. 59Roberts, Miles, and Blankenship, Op. cit. 60Ritchie & Miles, Ibid., p 359. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The research was designed to test the general hypothesis that managers in firms which install and later discontinue participation plans, specifically Scanlon Plans, will differ from managers in firms where such participation plans are continued in effect, when compared on response measures of attributes of other organization members and usefulness of participative leadership policies. Additional selected information about the organizations was also gathered which might, if ignored, tend to cloud the results of the primary study. POPULATION AND SAMPLE The initial population consisted of 19 companies representing all firms There Scanlon Plans had been installed or operated under the consultative guidance and direction of one or more members of the consulting group headed by Dr. Carl Frost of Michigan State University. Identity of firms was Obtained through interviews with Dr. Frost, and from membership records of the Midwest Scanlon Associates, an organization made up of Scanlon Plan firms in the midwest which have been associated with the M.S.U. group. Of the nineteen firms identified, eight had discontinued their membership in MSA at the time the study was begun and all Of them had discontinued the plan. 48 (“I 49 The remaining eleven firms had active, dues-paying memberships in MSA and had cost saving sharing plans in effect at the time the study was begun. One of these firms discontinued its membership in MSA during the course of this study, but retained its prior method of cost reduction sharing in effect. This firm (S-lO) was included in the Continuing Scanlon Plan group for purposes of data analysis. These nineteen firms were taken as the total population of firms which could meet the selection criterion of having had the same specific change agent (Dr. Frost and associates) involved in installation or maintenance of the plan. 0f the 11 continuing Scanlon Plan firms, nine were located in western Michigan and two were in Northern Illinois. All of the eight discontinued plan firms were located in Michi- gan at the time the plan was in effect. Seven of these were still located in Michigan at the time the study was begun. Eight of the continued and six of the discontinued firms were located in small towns or cities of less than 100,000 population. The remainder were located in cities of over 100,000. 0f the eight discontinued firms, six were still in operation at the same or nearby locations; one had moved to a new plant in the same City; and one had been sold and moved to another state (S.C.). Current addresses and telephone numbers were found for all but one of the firms (D-7) in the study either by consulting the Directory 9:: Michigan Manufacturers or through the telephone company. 50 INITIAL CONTACT PROCEDURE Contact was made by placing a telephone call to the president or (if the president was not available) to a vice-president of each com- pany. A request was then made for an interview appointment. An appointment was successfully made in all firms contacted. In the one firm which had been sold (D-7) the ex-president, who still resides in Michigan, was located and interviewed and provided names and locations for most of his former management group. Responses were then solicited from these individuals by mail, so that the company was included in the Study. All eight discontinued firms, therefore, are included in the results of the study. Of the continued Scanlon Plan firms, all were visited. One (S-7) was unable to participate in the study however, due to internal problems of an unspecified nature. While limited data concerning this company was obtained, executive approval to gather questionnaire data from all hierarchical levels Of management was not obtained. As a result the firm was nOt included in the study. Only ten of the eleven continued firms identified are included in the final results of the study as a result. The research design required classification of instrumental responses by hierarchical level. To do this it was necessary to deter- mine total employment and number of hierarchical levels present in each firm in the sample. This information was obtained during interviews with senior executives of each firm. A dummy organization chart was used to identify as many members of management at all levels, including first-line foremen. as possible and to locate them hierarchically 51 within the organization. Whenever doubt was expressed concerning the hierarchical level of a respondent the interviewee was asked to resolve it on a basis of reporting responsibility. By considering "who reports to whom" all such conflicts were resolved. In one instance, where a very large company was involved (S-ll) this procedure was outlined by telephone prior to the actual interview visit. This allowed preproduc- tion of a respondent listing by the firm with hierarchical grouping and position already indicated. Tables 4 and 5 indicate total number of employees, number of hierarchical levels in the firm, and total number of respondents at each level for all firms in the study. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents in discontinued firms returned questionnaires while 75 percent of those in continued firms did so. These totals were achieved after two series of follow-up letters after which further follow-up was deemed unproductive. Approximately 90 percent of the responses returned were returned within one week of the initial visit. One single very large company (compared to others in the study sample) represented almost half of the responses obtained from the continued group (87 of 175 questionnaires distributed to that group). Since results from this firm (S-ll) might tend to overwhelm the findings from all other firms in the category, individual company results are also reported which allow separation of the data to include and exclude this firm. ma om mm mm as an om momapeaoeoa 52 mm_\o~F mm\mm ~F\m~ m~\~m Fm\mm m~\om m\op mpmuop om ~m\mw m~\mm m\up op\mp m\m ~\m F\P o ooo.m Fpim om m\op . . ~\m «\o o\_ _\F a om orim on ¢F\om . i o\op ¢\m m\¢ F\F v 00F mum mm ~F\mP . e\e m\m N\m N\~ _\F m omm mim Aumwcmu >m>c=m ou cowmmecma .. werewpcmvw mam; mpcmucoqmmc cm>m_mv moF mum on FF\eF . i . ~\m m\m _\F m cop mim oop m\m . i i ”\p P\F —\_ m we mum mm “\m i . M\m N\N N\N O\F e oem elm no m\m . ¢\¢ _\_ o\P _\N O\P m 009 mum cop o\m . i . N\N m\m F\_ m mm Nim ooF m\o . i . e\¢ F\P _\F m cop Him pcmocma Tampoh m m a m N P mpm>m4 acoEAoPaEm muou Ecru Pmuwgocecmwz “coccau Pouch ~m>m4 an umcczumm mmmcoammm use umuwowyom mpcmucoammm co .oz mzmHm em: wszthzou 2H m4m>MA 4 20mm mmmzoammm e mPQMH 53 mm mm mm om cop momapcmucma -\~m . . ¢N\om m~\mm mp\om “\N mFmpoh mm Np\mr i i N\m m\m M\m F\F w com mic em m\—F - . M\e _\m F\m F\_ e 005 “To ooF mp\m_ . i “\N e\¢ m\m _\F a cop mio om m\op . . N\m e\¢ N\N F\F a Rep min ooF m\m . i N\N M\m N\N O\o a mu eio om e\m - i . N\m _\— F\F m cm mic mm PF\NF i i m\m ¢\m m\m P\F v omp «To ooF m\m . i i _\F P\F P\_ m ox Fig pcmocmm Fmvmm o m e m N P mpm>m4 cape $0 muoo Ecwm Pmuwsucmcmwz cmm> “we; _m>m4 xa umccaumm mmmcoammm use umquWbom mpcmucoammm mo .oz mmm>0FaEm Page» mZmHu ea: amszHHzoumHo 2H m4m>u4 4 20mm mmmzommmm m mPQMH 54 INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT IDENTIFICATION Names and position titles of management personnel at each hier- archical level were Obtained from the tOp executives interviewed. While names and titles of a maximum number of managers at all levels was sought, particular concentration was on finding operational line personnel rather than heads of staff departments. A form cover letter was immediately addressed to each respondent at the termination of the interview with the executive who served as information source. The addressed letter was paper-clipped to a stapled questionnaire. Also attached to each questionnaire was a stamped, pre-addressed, mailing envelope. Each questionnaire was issued an alpha-numeric identifying number at the time the letter was attached. This number was written on the questionnaire itself and also entered beside the name of the respondent on a listing of reSpon- dents which was generated at the same time. QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION Several methods were used to get questionnaires into the hands of respondents. One involved calling respondents into the office, singly or as a group. The other involved the investigator being conducted through the Offices and plant and handing out the questionnaires. One of these procedures was used in four of the firms in the sample (S-l, S-2, S-6, and S-lO). Seldom, however, were all of the respondents available at a given time. Personal distribution appeared to be excessively costly in terms of time loss for the firm and upset work routines and was only used when the executive interviewed volunteered 55 to allow this method of distribution. In all other instances question- naire packets were addressed to each identified respondent and left with the executive interviewed for distribution through the in-plant mailing system or for direct distribution by the executive or his secretary if the organization was small. This method was used in 8-3, S-4, S-5, S-8, S-9, and S-ll as well as in all discontinued firms except D-7. Since both the questionnaire and attached letter contained detailed instructions for filling out the questionnaire and mailing directly by the respondent, it was not felt that actual personal contact by the investigator with each respondent was essential. Quality of returned data was generally satisfactory in View of the redundant nature Of responses required on the instrument used. INSTRUMENTATION The major research device used in the study was the Miles Research Questionnaire. This instrument was selected after consideration of several alternatives, as being most immediately relevant to the ques- tions under investigation. Authority for its use was granted by Professor Raymond E. Miles during a telephone conversation with the investigator on January 6, 1971, and later confirmed by letter dated January 8, 1971. Miles stated verbally that the present form of the questionnaire is derived from analysis of responses obtained on earlier and longer versions. The present form embodies ten trait characteristics in Part I. Each respondent was asked to make four entries for each of the ten characteristics. The four entries related to placement of average I" J..- as L). ‘ t'i I0 I}. a C.) Tng 56 rank-and-file employees, average immediate subordinates, people at respondents' pyp_hierarchical level, and people at the level of respon- dent's Own superior or pppg, The relative amount of each of 10 traits or Characteristics possessed by the typical member of each of the four groups (Employee, Subordinate, Own, Boss) was indicated along a 7-point scale ranging from a minimum amount at l to a maximum at 7. 0n the second part of the questionnaire each respondent was asked to indicate his own level of agreement on a five-point scale, (strongly agree = 5, strongly (isagree = 1) with several aspects of three policies of participative leadership. These policies were derived from the normative model of participation proposed by Likert, Bennis, Haire, and others.1 Miles verbally indicated that the three policies on the present questionnaire have been found by him to be those with the highest reliability of the four statements he has previously reported using.2 One earlier version of the same instrument also included a statement suggesting that managers should pass along to subordinates most of the information they receive.3 This question, according to Miles, proved ineffective in adding data about respondent's attitudes not derived from the series of statements which accompanied it. It was, therefore, eliminated from the questionnaire. For each respondent, attitude responses were solicited toward each of these policies with respect to that policies' worth, its effective- ness, and its impact on morale when applied to each of three hierarchi- cal levels, Own, Subordinates, and Rank-and-File Employees. 57 Additional limited demographic information about the respondent himself, or about his organization, was also solicited on the ques— tionnaire. ASSUMPTIONS As stated earlier, this study was undertaken with the objective Of determining whether significant differences would be found between responses of managers in firms with continuing Scanlon type plans when compared with responses of managers in firms where Scanlon type plans had been tried and discontinued. It was assumed in all cases that fundamental attitudes or beliefs about people in various hierarchical roles in organizations, and toward participative leadership policies, tend to be quite stable and to 4 has reported some change very slowly, if at all. While Lieberman drift of the attitudinal set of persons who change formal position in an organization to more closely conform with the role expectation of the new position, the bulk of the psychological literature (following Thurstone)5 supports the contention that (by one definition): "An attitude is a dispositional readiness to respond to situations, persons, objects, or ideas in a consistent manner which has been learned and has become one's typical model of reSponse." Another author states that: "Consistency arises from the stability of goals. A person remains 'in 'character' ... because most of his acts constitgte efforts to maintain the same set of values." In still another reference it is noted that: "An attitude is an organization of motives around an individual's responses to a person, situation, or institution. Attitudes Show an 58 evaluative personal reaction... attitudes are not simple emotions or motives because they cannot exist apart from a relationship to a person or Object, and because the situation may call forth different emotions at different times, still con- sistent with the core of the attitude. ... Experi- ments have shown that established attitudes have an organizing influence on a person's motivated behavior in new situations... The previously formed attitude is a selective factor to determgne what will be perceived, learned, and believed." Since the foregoing quotations are randomly representative of a large body of psychological literature which exists in support of the assumption, that basic attitudes or fundamental beliefs of managers may be expected to remain stable over long periods of time, the present study does not attempt to account for possible shifts in basic beliefs which might have taken place among respondents as a result of success or failure of a participative system of management of which he was a part. RESPONDENT LIMITS Care was taken to exclude from the study potential respondents who may have joined discontinued firms after the plan had been dropped. Only persons who actually were present while the plan was in effect were solicited. DEFINITIONS An operational definition of a CRS Plan for purposes of this study is necessary since the term Scanlon Plan encompasses a wide variety of organizational arrangements. The following minimum criteria for such a plan were therefore established: 59 1. A sharipg_formula: A formal agreement had to be in existence whereby total or partial cost reductions resulting from suggestions, or from increased productivity, were jointly shared among all par- ticipating employees on a non-individualized basis according to a defined and generally known formula or "ratio" relating to cost per unit of output or unit of sales. 2. Clear, open, and generally recognized communication channels between all levels Of the organization had to be in existence either through a formally estab- lished committee structure consisting of both managerial and Operative employees, or through other established organization structures which effec- tively served as information channels for upward and lateral, as well as downward, communication. 3. Operative employees must, through established Chan- nels, have (or have had) the right, recognized by management, to submit suggestions and/or implement changes for cost reduction or methods improvement. 4. All firms, to be included in the study, must have, or have had, consultative assistance in implementa- tion of a Scanlon type plan from one or more members Of the consulting group headed by Dr. Carl Frost of Michigan State University. While the terms CRS plan and Scanlon Plan are used inter- changeably throughout, the term CRS plan is considered the more definitive for purposes of this study. A Discontinued Plan Firm was defined, for purposes of this study, as one which had met all the minimum criteria for a CRS plan as defined above, which had maintained operations under such a system for at least one year continuously, and had subsequently formally discon- tinued the plan, or superceded it with another which did not meet the above minimum criteria. A Continued CRS Plan Firm was similarly defined as one which meets all of the criteria for a CRS plan, which has existed for at least one year continuously prior to the study, and which was in operation at the time this study was begun, February 1, 1971. 60 Since the instrument used in the study was designed to measure what Miles has termed a Human Resources versus a Human Relations model of managerial perception, it is necessary to operationally define each of these perceptual states in terms of the instrument. Operationally, a pure or ideal Human Resources response would be indicated by zero difference values on all ten measures of trait characteristics. A respondent who answered in such a way that a perfect Human Resources response was obtained would place all hierarchical levels (i.e., Employees, Subordinates, Own, and Boss) at the same scalar point for each of the ten characteristics (i.e., Judgment, Creativity, Responsibility, Dependability, Pride in Performance, Alert- ness, Initiative, Self-confidence, Long Range Perspective, and Willing- ness to Change) in Part I of the instrument. By so answering he would produce a subtracted value of zero for each hierarchical pair. He would, in other words, report rank-and-file employees, his immediate subordinates, himself, and his boss as all being equal in terms of the ten factors. The mean value for such a respondent on Part I would, therefore, be zero. On Part II of the instrument, the ideal Human Resources respondent would indicate strongly agree on all items relating to participative leadership policy. His mean response value on Part II, measured at any dimension, would, therefore, equal five. Operationally, a pure or ideal Human Relations respondent would place rank-and-file employees toward l.on the seven-point scale of trait characteristiés in Part I. This would be true for all ten items on that section of the questionnaire. He would place Own and Boss near [.on the same scales. Consequently, the average of mean 61 organizational distance reported by such a respondent would approach the maximum possible subtracted value of p, Likewise, on Part II of the questionnaire the ideal Human Relations reSpondent would tend to indicate strongly disagree on most statements relating to participative leadership policy. Consequently, his response average on Part II, measured on any dimension, might be expected to approach a mean value of 1, This definition of a Human Relations response is grossly over- simplified for convenience in processing data. In fact, a Human Relations orientation might be expected to result in a smaller than maximum possible difference between Own and Employee on those traits which traditionally are expected in good subordinates. Also, it is implicit in the hypothesis that application of participative leadership policies at the Rank-and-File Employee and Subordinate levels will tend to improve morale at those levels. Since measures of ppy.pggp an ideal Human Relations response should deviate from the scalar limit are not known, the present definition is proposed for operational purposes only. It should be noted, however, that by not taking these factors into account any results Obtained will err on the side of conservatism. Mean values approaching zero on part one and approaching five on part two of the instrument were taken to indicate a strong Hpmgp_ Resources value set. Mean values approaching six on Part I and one on Part II were taken to indicate attitudes consonant with a Human Relations model of values toward subordinates in the organization. Values on Part I of the instrument, higher than the overall mean for all respondents were defined as "Human Relations" oriented. 62 Values on Part I lower than the overall mean were similarly defined as "Human Resources" oriented. On Part II Of the instrument values larger than the overall mean were defined as "Human Resources" oriented, while values lower than the overall mean were defined as "Human Relations" oriented. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF HYPOTHESES The hypotheses to be tested were: H-1: H-2: Managers in firms with continuing plans will indicate consistently smaller differences between people at their own level (Own) and rank-and-file employees (EMP) on questionnaire items relating to trait measures of competence and ability than will be true of managers in firms with discontinued plans. (H-l = CRA <- DRP) Where: CRP = Response scores on value Of participative leadership policies of managers in firms with continuing Scanlon Plans. 63 DRP = Response scores on value of participative leadership policies of managers in firms with discontinued Scanlon Plans. ANALYTIC PROCEDURES After responses had been collected, individual response items were transferred to punched cards to facilitate analysis. To test the proposed hypotheses the t-test was deemed the most elegant, powerful, and universally understood statistic which lent itself to the data. An overall average, or mean, difference value was first Obtained by subtracting means of “Employee" values from means of "Own" values for each respondent grouping on each of the ten trait items on Part I of the questionnaire (all of these measures were on 7-point scales where a value of l_= minimum amount of the trait, and a value of Z_= a maximum amount). Mean difference values were recorded for each respon- dent grouping. A second difference value was derived by subtracting mean "Subordi- nate" value from mean "Own'I value for each respondent grouping in a similar manner. A third difference value was taken by subtracting "Own” mean values from means of “Boss“ values recorded for each characteristic, by grouping. Finally, an overall "lowest-to-highest" difference value was determined by subtracting ”Employee" values from "Boss" values. The mean difference values thus obtained were then averaged to establish mean values for each Of the ten trait characteristics and finally for all of the trait characteristics combined, for each respondent grouping. 64 The procedure in each case involved adding the difference values for all respondents and dividing by the actual number of responses obtained. Care was taken to obtain true N's, since some respondents did not respond on all scales. For example, respondents at the first (or highest) hierarchical level seldom entered values for "Boss" since they were often the owner of the firm and actually iad no superior in the organization. Next, an overall mean value was calculated by adding the absolute values for each of the 27 items on Part II of the questionnaire dealing with the usefulness of participative management policies and dividing by the actual number of responses broken down by each respondent grouping. (On all scales, "Strongly agree" = 5, and "Strongly disagree" = l, as the scalar extremes). Next, a mean value was determined for: 1. Level of agreement with each of the policies; 2. Whether the policy, if followed, would improve morale; and 3. Whether the policy, if followed, would improve performance. These means were calculated for l, 2, and 3 above using all hierarchical levels combined. Finally, means were determined in the same manner for each grouping on all items in Part II relating to l, 2, and 3 above (agreement, morale value, performance), if such participative leadership policies were used by: 1. Supervisors at the lowest levels of the organization; 2. Supervisors at the respondent's own level; and 3. Supervisors at the level of respondent's superior. 65 TESTS OF HYPOTHESES To test hypotheses H-1 and H-2, the data values were sorted to separate responses of managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms from those of managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms and the foregoing sets of averages were calculated for each group separately. The means and difference values obtained from the foregoing pro- cedures were then subjected to two-tailed t-tests of significance using the POP-10 computer at Western Michigan University. The results are reported in Chapter Four. LIMITATIONS Prior to beginning the study it was planned to introduce additional variables relating to company characteristics or performance on the Scanlon Plan. These initially proposed variables included financial condition of the firm prior to installing a Scanlon Plan, levels of bonus paid under the plan, and nature of industry, using criteria similar to those developed by Woodwardg, (i.e., continuous, unit and small batch, and process). Since data for classification of firms in the study into such categories was found to be largely subjective, such analysis was not undertaken. No adequate measure of prior financial condition appeared feasible, since in most cases no objective standard of comparison seemed applicable and executive responses could not be standardized. Furthermore, several of the firms in the study were individually owned or closely held. In several Of these firms requests to the owner- president for historical records of sales, earnings, or profit ratios 66 were politely, but firmly, refused. Since the major purpose of this study was to measure belief patterns of managers, it was decided that insistence on obtaining confidential information might well defeat the primary goal. Primary attention was placed on return of question- naires. The question of bonus records under the plan could not be standardized since data in most cases were unavailable which would fit a standard or criterion measure. Finally, the wide variation in production processes, nature of products, and labor content between firms visited rendered attempts at clear classification by nature of the production process unsatisfactory. The majority of firms in the study had some aspects of both unit and small batch, and large batch and mass production. None appeared to fit Woodward's definition of a process indUStPY- SUMMARY The study was designed to test whether managers in firms having continuing Scanlon (or CRS) Plans would respond differently from mana- gers in firms where such plans had been tried and later abandoned. Responses on questionnaire items designed to measure assumptions about other organization members and perceived value of participative leader- ship policies were compared. Responses were obtained from ten Continued Scanlon Plan firms and from eight Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. Only responses from members of management at all levels were collected. Only respondents who were present at the time the plan was in effect in discontinued firms were solicited. 67 The Miles questionnaire, designed to measure relative degree of Human Relations versus Human Resources attitude, was used as the research instrument. Instrumental responses were operationalized by subtracting (on Part I Of the questionnaire) means of scalar response values for Employee from Own, Subordinate from Own, and Own from Boss to obtain means of perceived organizational distance between rank-and-file employees and respondents, between immediate subordinates and reSpon- dents, and between respondents and their own bosses. Means of response values on perceived value and effectiveness of selected participative leadership policies were also determined for all respondent groupings. Responses were grouped according to Continued Scanlon Plan, or Discontinued Scanlon Plan category. After being arrayed in the same format for both respondent group- ings, means were compared for similar items between "Continued" and "Discontinued" Scanlon Plan firms to test the validity of H-1 and H-2 that the direction of differences would reflect consistently more favorable attitudes toward participation (i.e., the Human Resources model) among managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms than would be shown by managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms; and would predict that managers in firms which have tried and discontinued Scanlon Plans would report greater perceived organizational distance and lower confidence in participative policies (i.e., the Human Relations model). Chapter four reports in detail the results of the foregoing pro- cedures. 68 FOOTNOTES 1See particularly, Haire, Mason, "The Concept of Power and the Concept of Man," in George Strother, (Ed.), Social Science Approaches tg_Business Behavior, Homewood: The Dorsey Press, 1962, pp7163:183. 2Miles, R. E., "Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideologies," Industrial Relations, October, 1964, pp 77-91. 3Ni1es, R. E., Loc. cit. 4Lieberman, 5., "The Effects of Changes in Roles on the Attitudes of Role Occupants,“ Human Relations, Vol. 9, 1956, pp 385-402. 5Thurstone, L. L., The Measurement gj_Attitudes, Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1929. 6Freeman, F. 3., Theory and Practice pf_Psychological Testing, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1955, p 484. 7Shibutani, T., Society and Personality, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961, p 288. 8Shaffer, L. F., and Shoben, E. J., Jr., The Psychology pf_Adjust- ment, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956, p 93. 9Woodward, Joan, Industrial Organization: Theoyy_and Practice, London: Oxford University Press. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The first set of hypotheses examined dealt with differences between responses of managers in continued versus those in discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. The hypotheses anticipated that managers in firms which had retained CRS or Scanlon Plans over time would reSpond to questionnaire items more in accordance with the Human Resources model of Miles than with the Human Relations model, while managers in firms where such plans had been abandoned were expected to respond in ways indicating l stronger Human Relations and weaker Human Resources attitudes. As noted earlier, the smaller the difference between placement of Own and Employee on Part I, and the larger the value for participative policies applied at the lowest levels, the higher the implied level of trust and confidence in subordinates. NULL HYPOTHESIS The general null hypothesis was stated: "No significant differ- ences will be found between responses of managers in firms having continuing Scanlon Plans and response of managers in firms which have discontinued such plans." Symbolically: H-O: CR = DR. Legend: CR = Response means of managers in Continuing Scanlon or CRS plan firms. OR = Response means of managers in Discontinued Scanlon or CRS plan firms. 69 7O ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES The alternative hypotheses were stated: Using responses of managers in firms with Continuing Scanlon Plans, a consistently smaller overall difference (p = 5;.05) will be found between averaged mean value for people at their own level (Own), and averaged mean value for rank-and- file employees (Emp), for all questionnaire items relating to trait measures (amount Of trait possessed) than will be true for responses of managers in firms which have discontinued such plans. Symbolically: H-l: CRA <1: DRA. Legend: CRA Mean overall difference value between “Own" and "EMP“ on questionnaire items related to amount of specific traits possessed, reported by managers in firms with continuing Scanlon or CRS plans. DRA Mean overall difference value between "Own" and "EMP" on similar trait items as reported by managers in firms which have discontinued Scanlon or CRS plans. The hypothesis, H-l-l, states that: Smaller difference values (p =g.05) will be bund for managers in firms having continuing plans than will be found for managers in discontinued plan firms when response differences are compared between "Own" and "Emp" on managerial traits and abilities which have been identified2 as: Judgment, Responsibility, Initiative, Long-Range Perspective, and Willingness to Change. Symbolically: H-l-l: CRAA <: DRAA. Legend: CRAA= Mean difference values between "Own" and "Emp" on five managerial trait items as reported by managers in firms with continuing Scanlon or CRS plans. DRAA= Mean difference values between "Own" and "Emp" on five managerial trait items as reported by managers in firms with discontinued Scanlon or CRS plans. 71 Respondent membership in firms having a continuing Scanlon Plan or membership in firms having discontinued a Scanlon Plan was taken as the independent variable to examine the hypotheses. Differences between mean scores on attitude response measures toward other organization members was taken as the dependent variable. Table 6 indicates means of response differences, and N's of responses, for all managers in each of these categories with reference to reported scalar difference between themselves (Own) and rank-and- file employees (EMP) on each of ten trait characteristics and on all traits combined. In addition to the differences reported between respondents and rank-and-file employees, three other sets of ten difference values were determined for each group of managers. These were differences taken from: A. Mean values reported between placement of persons at respondent's own level (OWN) and his immediate subordinates (SUB). B. Between persons at respondent's own level (OWN) and persons at the level of respondent's superior (BOSS). C. Between persons at the rank-and-file employee level (EMP) and persons at the highest hierarchical level reported (BOSS). The latter measure (difference between EMP and BOSS) was taken across all ten traits as an implied measure of "Organizational Distance" perceived by respondents. An additional hypothesis was stated as H-l-2: “Managers in firms with continuing Scanlon Plans will indicate smaller overall difference (p =:s;,05) between rank and file employees (EMP) and their own boss (BOSS) than will be true of managers in firms where Scanlon Plans have been discontinued. 72 Table 6 MEAN DIFFERENCE VALUES FOR CONTINUING VERSUS DISCONTINUED PLAN MANAGERS ON TEN TRAIT CHARACTERISTICS Managers in Managers in 4 Continuing Discontinued t-value p = Trait Scanlon Scanlon of signifi- Plan firms Plan firms differ- cance (Own - Emp) (Own - Emp) ence level* Judgment 2.2713 2.5672 -1.717 .05 Creativity 2.2636 2.5909 -l.343 n.s. Responsibility 2.7674 3.1667 -l.775 .05 Dependability 2.0709 2.6269 -2.334 .01 Pride in Performance 1.8819 2.5735 -3.001 .01 Alertness 2.1760 2.5735 -l.888 .05 Initiative 2.4683 3.0882 -3.057 .01 Self-Confidence 2.1811 2.4265 -1.038 n.s. Long-Range Perspective 2.9444 3.6269 -3.496 .01 Willingness to Change - Flexibility 2.2969 3.1940 -3.483 .01 MEAN 7' 2.3300 2.8440 -3.231 .001 3.0. 1.0688 1.0509 N = 130 N = 68 Scoring: 6 = Maximum difference, 0 = Minimum difference. *one-tailed t-test 73 Symbolically: H-l-2: CRB <:: DRB. Legend: CRB = Mean of scalar difference between placement of rank-and-file employees (EMP) and placement of own superior (BOSS) reported by managers in continuing Scanlon Plan firms. DRB = Mean of scalar difference between placement of rank-and-file employees (EMP) and placement of own superior (BOSS) reported by managers in discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. PART I FINDINGS No differences statistically significant by one-tailed t-test at 3 were found when mean differences or below the .05 level of probability were compared between placement of OWN and SUB, or when OWN and BOSS value differences were compared, for the two groups of managers repre- senting continued and discontinued plans. Using the gigp_§g§§ to measure direction of difference, however, continuing plan managers ranked subordinates significantly closer to themselves (p = .001), but the probability of either group of managers ranking themselves closer to their boss was not significant (p = .5). The data in Table 6 provides support for hypothesis H-l on all traits except CREATIVITY and SELF-CONFIDENCE. On these two traits responses from Continuing Scanlon Plan firms and from Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms were not statistically different at or below the .05 level. The data reported in Table 6 also provides support for H-l-l. Two of the five managerial traits (Judgment and Responsibility) differ between the two sets of responses at the .05 level and the remaining three (Initiative, Perspective, and Flexibility) are each differeht at the .01 level. 74 When means of reported amount of each trait held by rank-and-file employees (EMP) was subtracted from mean amount of each trait attribu- ted to respondent's superior (BOSS), the differences shown in Table 7 were found. Referring to the data in Table 7, partial support is provided for hypothesis H-1-2. Responses of managers in continuing Scanlon Plan firms differed from those in discontinued Scanlon Plan firms at least at the .05 level on all trait difference items except JUDGMENT, RESPON- SIBILITY, and SELF-CONFIDENCE. For these three traits only, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. ITEM RANKING By ranking mean difference values (between Boss and Own) from perceived differences in trait characteristics where the greatest discrepancies occur between the two respondent groups to where the groups of managers' responses were most alike, those characteristics were highlighted where managers in continuing Scanlon Plan firms disagree most strongly with managers in discontinued firms in their perceptions of organizational distance (or total difference between the highest and lowest members). Those characteristics, in descending order of the discrepancies reported between the two respondent groups, are shown in Table 8. NOTE ON FIRM S-ll As may be noted in Table 4, one organization in the Continuing Scanlon Plan group (S-ll) was much larger than the remaining firms con- tacted. Since nearly half of all responses from firms in the continuing 75 Table 7 DIFFERENCE IN MEANS REPORTED FOR "EMP" AND FOR "BOSS" (Based on means reported by all respondents in each group) Respondents Respondents in Continuing in Discontinued Prob- Trait Plan Plan t-value ability (Mean diff) (Mean diff) N = 123 N = 66 p* Judgment 2.7459 2.9546 -O.924 n.s Creativity 2.5366 3.0455 -1.750 .05 Responsibility 3.2195 3.4615 —0.975 n.s Dependability 2.1463 2.6818 -2.011 .05 Pride in Performance 1.8771 2.8508 -3.695 .01 Alertness 2.3306 2.8955 -2.297 .05 Initiative 2.8083 3.3433 -2.245 .05 Self-Confidence 2.5492 2.7612 -O.805 n.s Long-Range Perspective 3.3141 4.1364 -3.485 .01 Willingness to Change/ Flexibility 2.2787 3.0448 -2.372 .01 Mean 2.5752 3.0843 -2.674 .01 5.0. 1.2855 1.1788 Scoring: 6 = maximum difference; 0 = minimum difference. *one-tailed t-test 76 Table 8 RANKED CHARACTERISTICS WHERE GREATEST DIFFERENCES IN PERCEIVED VALUES OCCURRED BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS Difference in Means Between Continued Characteristic and Significance Discontinued p* on BOSS minus EMP Pride in Performance .9737 .01 Long-Range Perspective .8223 .01 Flexibility .7661 .01 Alertness .5649 .05 Dependability .5355 .05 Initiative .5350 .05 Creativity .5089 .05 Responsibility .2420 n.s Self-Confidence .2120 n.s Judgment .2086 n.s *One-tailed, t-test. 77 category were obtained from this one company, some measure of possible bias was deemed necessary. If responses from this firm were not fairly representative of the Continuing Scanlon Plan group as a whole, results would be unreliable and any findings unsound. To test the impact of S-ll on the data obtained from Continuing firms, a partial analysis was conducted on the data both including and excluding firm S-ll. While data from S-ll clearly exerted a large impact on results of the Continuing group of Scanlon Plan firms, its ihclusion or exclusion did not appear to seriously alter results one way or the other. For example, Table 9 shows the same data that was reported in Table 6, except that responses from managers in firm S-ll are not included in the Continuing Scanlon Plan group. While exclusion of the data from firm S-ll does result in altera- tion of the level of significance on one item, it can be seen from the example of Table 9 that the general nature of the findings are not severely biased by 'hclusion of data from S-ll. The same items are or are not statistically significant as in Table 6 which included data from S-ll. Furthermore, this firm was included in the original sample with full awareness of the fact that it differed substantially in size from other firms in the study. Size alone was not considered to be sufficient reason for its exclusion from an already small population of firms which could meet the selection criteria established.4 PART II DATA Alternative hypothesis H-2 stated that "Managers in firms with Continuing Scanlon Plans will indicate higher agreement with selected 78 Table 9 MEAN DIFFERENCE VALUES FOR CONTINUING VERSUS DISCONTINUED PLAN MANAGERS 0N TEN TRAIT CHARACTERISTICS WITH FIRM S-ll EXCLUDED FROM THE CONTINUING GROUP OF RESPONDENTS Continuing Discontinued firms firms t-value Own minus Emp Own minus Emp Of Signif. Trait N = 69 N = 67 Difference level p* Judgment 2.2319 2.5672 -1.693 .05 Creativity 2.3333 2.5909 -0.921 n.s Responsibility 2.6087 3.1667 -2.084 .05 Dependability 2.0896 2.6269 -1.875 .05 Pride in Performance 1.8116 2.5735 -2.900 .01 Alertness 2.0870 2.5735 -2.021 .05 Initiative 2.4928 3.0882 -2.461 .01 Self- Confidence 2.1739 2.4265 -O.904 n.s Long-Range Perspective 3.0000 3.6269 -2.922 .01 Willingness to Change/ Flexibility 1.9855 3.1940 -4.165 .01 Scoring: Maximum possible difference = 6; minimum possible difference *one-tailed t-test 79 participative leadership policies by reporting consistently greater (larger numeric) values at all levels than will be true for managers in firms which have discontinued Scanlon Plans. Symbolically: H-2: CRP ::> DRP. Legend: CRP = Mean of Response scores on agreement with all participative leadership policies indicated by managers in firms having Continuing Scanlon Plans. DRP = Mean of response scores on agreement with all participative leadership policies indicated by managers in firms having Discontinued Scanlon Plans. A series of subordinate hypotheses to H-2 were stated as: H-2-l: CRPL;:> DRPL. H-2-2: CRPO-=>-DRPO. H-2-3: CRPB;:> DRPB. Legend: CRPL Mean score on overall value* of participative leadership policies when applied at the lowest level of the organization, reported by respondents in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms. DRPL Mean scores on value* of participative leadership policies when applied at the lowest level of the organization, reported by respondents in Discon- tinued Scanlon Plan firms. CRPO Mean scores on value* of participative leadership policies when applied by managers at respondents pyp_level reported by respondents in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms. DRPO Mean scores on value* of participative leadership policies when applied by managers at respondents pyp_level reported by respondents in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. CRPB Mean score on value* of participative leadership policies when applied by persons at the level of respondent's own superior (or Boss) reported by respondents in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms. *overall value is taken to mean 7 for scores on agree, morale, and performance combined. 80 DRPB = Mean score on value* of participative leadership policies when applied by persons at the level of respondent's own superior reported by respondents in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. Three policies of participative leadership, based on the normative model of participation of Haire, Likert, and others, are included as segments Of Part II of the Miles Instrument. POLICY STATEMENT I: "Subordinates should be encouraged to participate in decision-making within their own departments." POLICY STATEMENT II: "Each subordinate should be allowed to participate in the setting of his own performance goals." POLICY STATEMENT III: "Subordinates should be allowed to use their own ingenuity in modifying and adapting the techniques and procedures required in their jobs." Three sets of responses were solicited on each questionnaire on each of these policy statements, as it applied to each of three hierarchical levels (employee, immediate subordinate, and respondent's own level). Respondents were asked, for each level, whether they agreed with the policy if used at that particular level, if they thought morale would be likely to improve if the policy was applied at that level, and if they would expect performance to improve if the policy was applied at that level. An underlying assumption of the Human Relations model is that the morale of subordinates can be improved by application of participative management policies. Consequently an additional hypothesis was stated as: No significant (p =<.05) differences will be found between responses of managers in continuing plans and managers in discontinued plans when responses on items relating to morale improvement are compared. (Hypo- thesis H-2 of course predicts that overall differences will be found, 81 so items relating to Agreement and Performance Improvement are expected to differ sharply between the two groups of respondents.) Symbolically: H-2-4: CRPM = DRPM. Legend: CRPM Mean of response scores on all questions con- cerning the effect on Morale of participative leadership policies, as reported by managers in continuing CRS firms. DRPM Mean of response scores on all questions con- cerning the effect on Morale of participative leadership policies as reported by managers in discontinued plan firns. PART II FINDINGS Tables 10, ll, 12, and 13 show response means for respondents in Continuing Scanlon Plans compared with similar means for respondents in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms with scores broken down to Show: (a) Level of general agreement with each policy if used at various hierarchical levels; (b) Level of belief that the policy, if used by managers at various levels will improve morale; (c) Level Of belief that the policy, if applied at various hierarchical levels, will improve performance; and (d) Overall means for the policies. To summarize the differences in responses to questions about par- ticipative leadership policies between managers in Continuing and Discontinued Scanlon-Plan firms, Table 13 shows the reSponse means of these two groups across all three policies (Leadership Policies I, II, and III combined). From Tables 10 through 13 it can be seen that managers in Discon- tinued CRS Plan firms report consistently lower acceptance of these participative leadership policies than do managers in Continuing 82 .mocoscowcme mm>ocaeH n u mmchoz mm>ocasH n m momcm< n mp :30 mo. eeo.~ so mmme. eoem.e amp .mmm. aree.e u a_oeoecoamoa pa mo. NMN.F ON ~_Pe. mmem.e amp ommm. some.e m meomaeae an mo. m~0.~ so come. mpmm.e mm, emmm. e_mm.e < eo_Poae as _oo. mom.m _N Nmmm. mm_m.m .m_ meme. een~.e eaoz mammmcme Foo. Fem.m so NeNO.P Neom.m om_ emom. Noep.e o _o>o. No. NmN.N PA some. eoeo.e mm. cams. mmem.e m amazoP an Po. omN.N ON mums. e_am.m ems __mm. mmmm.e e eospaae as ea c z .o.m x z .o.m x .. mcmra .coomwo mo mcmmmcmz mcmfia .pcou we mammmcmz Ameexaz-eo_awooo ca ooaaeowocaa epsoem mooaccoaoaemv H >uzooa aszmemoomaa< so mumsmeuz zo .mzesa zop :30 mats—u No. mom.N so Neem. .ope.m mm, meow. meoo.e u -eoaaoc pa mo. mmm._ so Pmee. eeem.e mm_ emmm. acme.e m mammaeae Ne Po. emm.~ oe eemP.F oooe.m mmp mpmm. ammo.e < eospaaa as Foo. mmm.e PA omen. mmoe.m _m_ _PNN. seem.m cap: mammocms Foo. Pee.e ON meme. mmeo.m mm, meme. momm.m u Fo>o_ Po. mom.~ ON anew. ammo.e omp ”who. Nmmm.e m pmoeoF Ne Poo. woe.m _A mNo~.P mem_.m om, -P_.P mome.m a eoepaea EH ....Q m: Fm>ip z .o.m x z .o.m x .3. mcmpa .coomNQ so mammocmz mcmpm .pcou we mammucmz Ampmom wucmscomcma czo creep mcwppmm c_ mpoawowucoa upzocm mmpocwoconsmv HH >UH40N amzmmmaoF czo m_ucmu No. _mo.m we mega. emom.m om? ao_m. moms.e o -eoamoc as .m.: mam.o we mmeo. oomm.e amp _Noe. mmpm.e m meomaeae ma .a.c Nee.o we mmmm. mmeo.e mm, emmm. mom—.e e eoa_eaa as me. emm._ so mm.m. meek.m Fm_ Pemm. Noao.e eaoz mammocme mo. me.F we meme. Nmmm.m mNF NNmm. momm.m u Poses .m.c moe.F me seem. mmeo.e omF ems“. mmm~.e m emo3o_ so .m.e mom.F ma mFeP._ Amme.m GNP _meo. okom.m < eospaaa cm .a o=_a>-o z .o.m x z .o.m x .. mcmFe .coumwa co mammocmz weeps .ucou No mammocmz Anon ezo CL moseseeooo use mocseoooca scenes op eoeoPFa on epsoem mooaewecoesmv HHH >uHooa eHzmemoeus zo .mzesa omzzsezoumHo oz< ozHDZHAzou 2H mmmwezqz no manage zum3emm mwuzummaaHo oz< mzemz NP mpnMH 85 .m>ocaev prz mocmEcomcma n o mm>ocqsw prz mpmcoz n m mmmwuwpoa saw; mmcm< u <«s .pmoo-o .eoesao-oeoe mo. meF.N no emme. memo.e mm_ seam. mmmm.e o Amosoe_oa .Fav .m.e Nem.P as emme. mmom.e amp m_mm. oepe.e m amen :30 mo. omN.F as meme. oem_.e ems meow. mmmm.e e ea eoTFQQa CH Po. ema.~ ON memm. Nmem.m _mF amen. mmom.e U Amosoapoa Apav mo. Amm._ 0A Pose. eme~.e ems ease. ampe.e m Posse ago so. mme.~ PA owes. mamm.m omp comm. o~m~.e a so eo_saaa CH Foo. mmm.e ON Fame. nepe.m amp came. NNFm.m o AmoLoLPoa _Fav Po. mme.~ PA ammo. ammo.e amp mamm. _m,m.e m Fo>o_ amazes Foo. emm.m PA NFNm. spam.m Fm, mmee. msmm.m e on earsaaa EH «a maro>iu z .o.m .w z .o.m x as mcopa .coomeo so mcmmmcmz mcmFe .pcou co mcmmmcmz HHH a .HH .H muHquoa aHzmmmo omszzou mp mpnmh 86 Scanlon Plan firms, but that the two groups of managers are in closer agreement on the value of such policies when applied to themselves than when applied to rank-and-file employees. The null hypothesis (that no differences will be found between responses of the two groups of managers) can be rejected since statistically significant differences between the overall means of respondent groupings regarding participative leadership policies have been demonstrated. Table 13 indicates overall support for hypothesis H—2 at the level of p =s;.05. Hypothesis H-2-l is supported at the level of p = 5;.01. Hypothesis H-2-2 is supported at the level of p =5; .05. Hypothesis H-2-3 is weakly supported since differences significant at the .05 level were found on agreement and expectation of performance improvement, but no significant difference was shown on gprplg_improve- ment if all three policies are used by respondent's boss. H-2-4 was not supported for the lowest and subordinate levels on policies I or II. It was supported (no significant difference was found) on policies I and II if applied at OWN level and on policy 111 at all levels. On the overall mean for all policies significant differ- ences were found between groups of respondents in reported likelihood of morale improvement if participative policies were applied at rank- and-file or subordinate levels. The hypothesis must be rejected although the reported differences in perceived morale effect are significantly smaller between the two respondent groups than is true of their level of agreement with the policies or their scores regarding potential performance change which might result from application of the policies. 87 SUMMARY It was hypothesized that managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms would respond to questionnaire items more in accordance with the Human Resources model Of Miles than would be true for managers in firms which had discontinued Scanlon Plans. The Human Resources model implied lower, and statistically signifi- cant, difference values between rank-and-file employees and persons at respondents' own level when compared on perceived amount of ten traits possessed by each group. The Human Resource model also implied significantly higher mean values for response to statements concerning the overall usefulness of selected Participative Leadership policies when applied at the lowest levels of the organization. The alternative hypotheses were supported, and the null hypotheses were rejected on every question relating to differences in attitudinal response scores between managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms and managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms with the exception of H-2-4 which predicted equal scoring on morale items. Differences were found in every case and consistently were in the predicted direction. The magnitudes Of such difference values were statistically significant at the .05 level of probability or lower using a one-tailed t-test as a criterion measure since all non-null hypotheses except H-2-4 were directional. In this part of the study, the sampling unit used was managers who were divided into two dichotomous groups based on membership in a Con- tinuing Scanlon Plan organization or in one which had installed and later discontinued a Scanlon or other CRS type of plan. 88 Dependent variables were taken as the means of response scores for each set of sampling units, on: (A) Questions relating to perceived differences between hierarchical groupings of organization members on relative amount of ten trait characteristics possessed; and, (B) On perceived value of three policies of participative leadership when applied to different hierarchical levels within the organization. The above findings show that responses of managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms do, indeed, differ substantially from those of managers in firms which have discontinued such plans after having tried them. Before proceeding, in Chapter Six, to a discussion of the findings, further analysis of the data may prove worthwhile, since the question of whether there are differences in the beliefs of occupants of different hierarchical levels within the Continuing and Discontinued groups of firms still has not been answered. Chapter Five presents such an analysis. 89 FOOTNOTES IFor a Human Resources model trait difference, values would tend to approach 0, and values for participative leadership policies would tend to approach a maximum value of 5. A Human Relations model implies higher trait difference values (approaching a maximum value of 6) between groups of or anization members, and lower values (approaching a minimum value of 1 for perceived value of participative leadership policies. 2See: Miles, R. E., "Conflicting Elements in Managerial Ideolo- gies," Industrial Relations, Oct. 1964, pp 77-91, and also, Miles, R. E. Porter, L. W., and Craft, J. A., "Leadership Attitudes Among Public Health Officials," American Journal gf_Public Health, Vol. 56, No. 12, Dec. 1966, pp 1990-2005, for discussion of managerial characteristics in terms of the present instrumental measures. 3One-tailed t-test. A one-tailed t-test is used rather than a two-tailed test except where hypotheses are bi-directional. 4Data is included in the appendices of this report showing results of analyses which both include and exclude firm S-ll from the study. Complete analyses were not performed for each condition of inclusion or exclusion, however, data will remain available to make such comparisons in future further analysis. CHAPTER V ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BY HIERARCHICAL SEPARATION The nature of the data collected in pursuing the major question Of this study (i.e.: Do instrumental measures of managers' assumptions differ between continued and discontinued CRS plans?) lent itself to additional analysis of an exploratory kind. Several published studies (some of which are cited in Chapter Two) suggest the possibility that although continuing and discontinued Scanlon Plan managers clearly differed in their responses, their beliefs might not be uniform throughout the hierarchy of the various firms. While no prior hypotheses had been stated relative to such a possibility, it was decided to process the data along additional dimensions in search of additional findings. It was decided to dichotomize responses into pppgr_and lgygr_ hierarchical categories. As noted earlier, Miles had suggested that upper level managers tended in his studies to respond to questionnaire items more in accordance with the Human Resources model than was true of lower level managers. The latter, he reported, tended to respond more in accord- ance with the Human Relations model. In order to operationally define upper and lower hierarchical levels, a title matching procedure was used. This was necessary since the number of hierarchical (reporting) levels in the organizations studied ranged from three to six. 90 91 Of the Continuing Firms included in the study, four had three levels of management, three had four levels, two had five levels, and one had six levels. Of the Discontinued Plan Firms, two had three levels, and the remaining six had four levels each. By comparing position titles of respondents as well as by dis- cussion with the interviewed executives concerning the nature of reSpon- sibility involved at various levels, respondents in all of the firms studied had already been hierarchically classified, as noted earlier in Tables 4 and 5. To facilitate analysis of the data, Lower hierarchical members were defined as first-line supervisors in all but two cases. Upper hierarchical members were defined as consisting of all levels of management above first-line supervisor. In the two firms which appeared to be exceptions, the only change was to include the lower pyp levels in a single classification rather than the lowest level (highest number) only. The two exception firms were S-lO and D-4. In each of these two firms questionnaire responses were Obtained from two group leaders who were in effect working foremen, but who had reporting responsibility to first-line foremen. Since these (total Of four) group leader respondents also had some degree of directive authority over Operative workmen, they were included in a single level with the foremen to whom they reported by assigning a single hierarchical value to both levels for purposes Of data analysis. Tables 14 and 15 show the number of respondents classified as upper and the number classified as lower from each classification of continued or discontinued Scanlon Plan. 92 Table 14 RESPONDING MANAGERS IN CONTINUING SCANLON PLAN FIRMS Total Upper Total Lower Total N Firm Level Managers Level Managers (All Managers) S-1 2 4 6 S-2 4 2 6 S-3 2 4 6 S-4 4 3 7 S-5 2 1 3 S-6 4 7 11 S-8 8 4 12 S-9 8 6 14 S-1O 1 6 7 S-11 33 28 61 TOTAL 68 65 133 93 Table 15 RESPONDING MANAGERS IN DISCONTINUED SCANLON PLAN FIRMS Total Upper Total Lower Total N Firm Level Managers Level Managers (All Managers) D-l 2 1 3 D-2 8 3 11 D-3 2 2 4 D-4 2 5 7 D-5 7 2 9 D-6 8 7 15 D-7 3 3 6 D-8 10 7 17 TOTAL 42 30 72 94 A third set of hypotheses was then stated which dealt with hier- archical levels of respondents. The independent variable was taken as membership in Upper or Lower level management, with Lower defined as first-line supervisors or group leaders; and Upper defined as all management levels hierarchically superior to the first-line supervisory level. The dependent variables were, once again, response scores on the two parts Of the same questionnaire. NULL HYPOTHESIS: No significant differences will be found on means of attitude scores related to traits of other organization mem- bers or to value of selected participative leadership policies when responses of Upper Level and Lower Level managers are compared. Symbolically: H-O-3: UH = LH. Legend: UH LH Upper hierarchical level manager responses. Lower hierarchical level manager responses. ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS 3: Managers at upper hierarchical levels will indicate smaller mean difference values between rank-and-file employees (EMP) and persons at their own level (OWN) on items relating to selected traits than will managers at lower hierarchical levels. (p = 53.05). Symbolically: H-3: UHT-<1 LHT. Legend UHT = Perceived difference (in amount of traits possessed) between rank-and-file (EMP) and persons at own level (OWN) reported by Upper Level managers. LHT = Perceived differences (in amounts of traits possessed) between rank-and-file (EMP) and persons at own level (OWN) reported by Lower Level managers. SUBORDINATE HYPOTHESIS 3-1: Managers at Upper hierarchical levels will indicate higher mean scores for Value of Selected Policies of 95 Participative Leadership if used at the lowest levels of the organiza- tion than will managers at lower hierarchical levels (p =ss:.05). Symbolically: H-3-l: UHP::> LHP. Legend: UHP Upper hierarchical level managers' mean response scores on items relating to usefulness of partici- pative leadership policies when applied at the lowest levels of the organization. LHP Lower hierarchical level managers' mean response scores on items relating to usefulness of partici- pative leadership policies when applied at the lowest levels of the organization. FINDINGS To examine the set of hypotheses dealing with hierarchical level means of responses for all Upper Level managers were determined without consideration for whether they were associated with Continued or Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. Table 16 compares the differences in mean values reported between these two groups of managers for each of the ten traits measured and for all differences collectively. To further explore differences between responses of upper and lower hierarchical respondents, Table 17 Shows mean scalar values reported across all ten traits measured for placement of Employees, Subordinates, Own, and Boss, by upper and lower level respondents. In addition, Table 18 indicates the subtracted mean differences found when these mean values were compared. Hypothesis H-3 is weakly supported overall at the .05 level of confidence although support is not provided on each individual trait difference between upper and lower hierarchical reSponses. 96 Table 16 MEAN DIFFERENCE VALUES FOR UPPER VERSUS LOWER HIERARCHICAL LEVEL MANAGERS 0N TEN TRAIT CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN EMPLOYEE AND OWN LEVEL Upper Level Lower Level Managers Managers Means of Means of Differences Differences t-value of Trait (N = 107) (N = 89) difference p* Judgment 2.2710 2.4944 -l.357 n.s. Creativity 2.2523 2.5227 -l.l65 n.s. Responsibility 2.7009 3.1477 -2.096 .05 Dependability 2.1048 2.4494 -l.504 n.s. Pride in Performance 1.7885 2.5055 -3.271 .001 Alertness 2.1359 2.5222 -l.917 .05 Initiative 2.5714 2.8202 -1.256 n.s. Self-Confidence 1.9714 2.6111 -2.883 .01 Long-Range Perspective 3.3077 3.0337 1.433 n.s. Willingness to Change - Flexibility 2.5524 2.6667 -0.452 n.s. Sum 2.3624 2.6760 -2.038 .05 5.0. 1.047 1.116 *one-tailed, t-test. Direction of response differences is significant (P = .02) by sign test. 97 Table 17 RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF TEN TRAITS POSSESSED BY: INDICATED FOR EMPLOYEES, SUBORDINATES, OWN, AND BOSS MEAN VALUES Mean for Mean for Average Upper level Lower level All Traits Respondents Respondents t-value p* Employee T = 3.4368 T = 3.1506 1.985 .05 S.D. = .9900 S.D. = 1.0452 N = 109 N = 91 Subordinate 7'= 4.9176 X'= 4.5152 3.252 .001 S.D. = .8363 S.D. = .8805 N = 108 N = 86 Own Level 7'= 5.7952 Y'= 5.8266 -O.331 n.s. S.D. = .6877 S.D. = .6409 N = 107 N = 91 Boss' Level T'= 5.9829 T'= 6.0841 -0.828 n.s. N = 99 N = 92 Scoring: Min = 1; Max. *two-tailed, t-test. 98 Table 18 DIFFERENCE VALUES BETWEEN VARIOUS HIERARCHICAL LEVELS AS REPORTED BY UPPER AND LOWER HIERARCHICAL MEMBERS Upper Lower Level Level t-value p* Own minus 7'= 2.3624 X'= 2.6760 -2.038 .05 Employee S.D. = 1.0475 S.D. = 1.1156 N = 107 N = 91 Own minus X'= 0.8914 7'= 1.3200 -4.300 .001 Subordinate S.D. = .6670 S.D. = .7103 N = 106 N = 86 Boss minus R'= 0.2023 X'= 0.2694 -O.666 n.s. Own S.D. = .7350 S.D. = .6460 N = 99 N = 91 Boss minus T = 2.5744 T = 2.9454 -2.028 .05 Employee 5.0. = 1.2362 S.D. = 1.2844 N = 99 N = 91 *two-tailed, t-test. Scoring: Minimum difference = 0; maximum difference = 6. 99 To test Hypothesis H-3-1 dealing with acceptance of participative leadership policies, the data shown in Table 19 was derived. Hypothesis H-3-l can be only partially supported based on the results shown in Table 19. Upper and lower level managers did not appear to differ strongly in their evaluation of the usefulness of participative leadership policies when applied at the rank-and-file level of the organizatiOn, except that upper level managers appeared to feel somewhat more strongly than lower level managers that such policies applied at the lowest levels will improve morale at those levels. Stronger differences appeared to exist when such policies were considered for use by higher hierarchical levels however. Results achieved in examining hypotheses H-3 and H-3-1 did not indicate strong differences between Upper level managers and those lower in the hierarchy. UPPER AND LOWER SEPARATED BY SCANLON PLAN STATUS Next it was decided to explore the relationship between Upper and Lower hierarchical level responses and continuance or discontinuance of a Scanlon Plan. TO that end means of summarized data were compared between: upper-continued and lower-continued, and between upper- discontinued and lower-discontinued categories. It was discovered that, using combined values for all ten trait items from Part I of the questionnaire, the following values emerged. lOO .m>oLnEH FFF3 mocmEgoegma u u mm>ocaeH prz mpogoz n m ”mmruw—oq saw; mmgm< u <*« .ummuuu .nmprmp-mcoe .mmcmomwo xpmcogpm n F .... “mmgmm mecogum u m ”mcwcoum _o. Pkm.~ mm Fame. ~mmo.e mop momm. mmmN.e u Ammwuwpoq .m.c mmP.P mm oose. emmm.¢ oo_ mmmm. Pm~¢.¢ m Fpmv mmon :30 an _oo. mem.m mm ammo. mNNF.¢ no, game. o¢m¢.e < nor_aam eH Fo. ooe.~ mm mpeo. mem.m MP, «Pom. .Nom.¢ o AmmPUFPoa mo. wmm.P um mmoe. eumm.¢ mp, mowm. mmF¢.¢ m F_~v Fm>a_ :20 an .00. mm¢.m mm News. emfim.m mp. emmm. emom.¢ < uaVFggm cH .m.= Nou.o mm owe“. Pmmo.m mFF NNmN. mmmu.m u Ammwu_~oa mo. mou.~ mm mmmm. mN¢P.¢ m_P “New. mmmm.¢ m FFav Pm>m_ umm3o_ pm .m.c FNP.P mm was“. mom~.m mFF mmom. om.m.m < umw_aam cH .Q azpm>-u z .o.m .w z .o.m .w «. msmmmcmz Fm>m4 gmzoA mgmmucmz pm>m4 gamma mmmwm4 mmzog oz< mung: >m HHH new .HH .H mmHoHAOm aHImmmoHH omszzou mp mpnoh lOl Continued S.P. Discontinued S.P. N = 68 N = 39 Upper X = 2.0967 X = 2.8256 Manager S.D. = l.0388 S.D. = 0.9008 Var. = l.079l Var. = 0.8ll4 N = 62 N = 29 Lower X = 2.5859 X = 2.8686 Manager S.D. = l.0504 5.0. = l.24ll Var. = l.l033 Var. = 0.4484 Difference T = -2.668 T = -0.l65 Upper vs. p = 0.0l p = n.s. Lower This difference suggested that a more detailed analysis between the four cells might prove fruitful. It had been suggested earlier that a continuum might exist from upper level managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms to lower level managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms with the former group most nearly reflecting the Human Resources model in their responses, and the latter group more nearly approaching the Human Relations model. To further explore these possibilities, t-tests were run on Part I data relating to trait differences perceived between rank-and-file employees and persons at respondents' own level for: A. Upper level Lower level B. Lower level Upper level C. Upper level Lower level D. Upper level Lower level representing the two managers managers managers managers managers managers managers managers in Continuing Plan firns versus in Continuing Plan firms; in Continuing Plan firms versus in Discontinued Plan firms; in Discontinued Plan firms versus in Discontinued Plan firms; and in Continuing Plan firms versus in Discontinued Plan firms, as ends of the suspected continuum. l02 Table 20 summarizes the results of these tests of the data for "Own" minus “Employee“ values reported by each group. Unidirectional differences were found to exist in responses of upper and lower level managers when they were separated into those who were associated with Continuing Scanlon Plan firms and those who were associated with Discontinued Scanlon Plans, when trait difference measures were considered. To determine if the same kind of separation of response values would emerge when perceived usefulness of Participative Leadership policies was considered, the data shown in Table 2l was derived using summarized values across all three leadership policies if used by each of three hierarchical groupings. From examination of Tables 20 and 2l, it is obvious that hypothe- ses H-l, H-2, and H-3, dealing with reSponse differences of managers in Continuing or Discontinued Scanlon Plans, and with response differences of managers in Upper or Lower hierarchical classifications, might be combined in such a way that clear support for more limited hypotheses could be provided from the data gathered in the present study. Upper level managers in Continuing Scanlon Plan firms indicated significantly stronger commitment to the Human Resources model of Miles on both sections of the instrumental measure used than was true of lower level managers in Discontinued Scanlon Plan firms. SUMMARY Since reported studies have shown differences on similar instru- mental measures between upper and lower members of management hierarchies, all respondents from the l8 firms in the study were 103 .o u mucmgmwwwu Esswcwz mm u mucmgmmmwc Easwxmz ”Hemp om asafloo pxmc cpflz umgmmeouv .npmmm-p meu-m ”mcwgoum : FOO.WH «(1.1 : Fo.v" ax COV mO.WH .4. Foo. mmp.m- mmmm.u ommm.m «emmmm.m ammo.~ u.m FF< No. mom.~- oooo.m aemmmm.m —mfim.m momo.~ u.w xpwpwnwmed - mmcmcu op mmmcmcwppvz .m.c mmm.o- nmmm.m ayampmm.m ompm.m mmmm.m u.w m>wpumamcma mmcmm-mcog Po. unm.m- ammmm.m memo.~ eemue.m Fmom.P u.m mucmuwmcou -wpmm Po. mom.N- «mmp.m ommo.m oomm.~ omom.~ u.m m>wpmvuwcH No. wNN.~- momm.m mmmm.m seemue.m momm.P u.w mmmcgcmF< —oo. eom.m- F¢NN.N mFo¢.N **«~mo¢.m mqmm.P u.w mucmscomcma c? muwca Fo. Nmm.mu mm¢o.m vmpm.~ «Boom.~ omom.F u.m xpwpwnmucogmo No. mum.~- NNNN.m mmmp.m semepp.m mmm¢.m n.m qupwnwmcoammm .m.c eom.p- mmmm.m nmmm.m um¢.N ammo.~ u.w xpw>wpamgo mo. «mm.F- ooom.m empo.~ «wfimc.m mmuo.m u.m pcmEmuza As - UV Now u zvu Amm " zvu Are u zqn Ame u zvm an m3Pw>lp gmmmcmz memcmz commcmz gmmmcmz “Pugh Lw204 Luna: gmzog swan: cop; :ochom cmacwpcoUmwo aura :och m mcwzcwpcou mzmHm z<4m 2042m4 mmzoA oz< «mam: mow =um>¢4a2m= UJHu-oz muzmmmumHo no mzm4 Foo. mpo.¢ xxeemmm.m *mFN¢.¢ opmm.e mope.¢ .mmgm< .mmom Foo. FON.¢ «eemmoo.m mmep.e oemp.e nomm.¢ mucaELoegma Poo. me.m *«emmmo.¢ Fmo¢.¢ mwmm.¢ Pmme.¢ mpmgoz Fm>w4 Foo. Pmm.m seepmm¢.m mmmm.e wmpm.¢ ommm.¢ mmem< :36 NPm>mP Poo. Fem.m memm.m aam¢m¢.m mumm.m momm.m mucmELowLma pmm3o_v Foo. ¢m¢.m «mmmm.m N¢NP.¢ ummm.¢ moum.¢ mpmgoz mmwumFoa Poo. mm5.m «Nemm.m F_MN.m emmm.m ommo.¢ mmzm< PP< {ml Am-vv .NNN "2v Ame nzv Ame "2V Ame uzv m=Pm> Fm>m4 Fm>84 pm>m4 Fm>m4 -p Logo; Lmaa: gaze; gmaa: flew Auv any Am~l mcmmmcmz um:CwucoumPo mcmmmcmzlmmwacvpcou onhm4 HzmmmuuHo >m cum: uH mHImmmoHHm4 4 mmzoammm mo mz [Lil-z Margin 19 X2 A-15 WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOLOF BUSINESS KALAMAZOO,MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT 4900i Date Address Dear Please pardon my persistence. You may recall that I visited your plant several weeks ago while conducting a study of how operating managers feel about "participation" in their own organizations. You, together with some other key members of management, were asked to fill out an opinion questionnaire like the one enclosed. Perhaps your cepy was mislaid, or didn't reach you, or you forgot about it, -- in any case, your opinion really is important to the study, and we can't find a response from you. There are so few people with your kind of experience in dealing with participation plans at the management level that every questionnaire is extremely important to the success of the study. So will you please take a few minutes today to fill out the enclosed duplicate questionnaire, put it into the attached stamped enve10pe, and drop it in the mail? Thank you for your help, and for your patience. Sincerely, Roger L. Wallace Assistant Professor RLW:cah Enclosure APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF T-TEST TABLES (APPENDICES C THROUGH K) APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF T-TEST TABLES All of the t-tests performed were two-tailed. To obtain the value for one-tailed t-test, the value given in these tables for p_should be halved. All of the following tables are presented in the sequence: 1. Part one data. (40 columns) Part one row means. (8 columns) Part two data. (27 columns) boom Part two row and column means. (l8 columns) The following explanations relate the above four sets of data to the research instrument (Appendix A) as follows: PART ONE DATA The first four columns relate to Characteristic l (Judgment), the second four columns (5 through 8) relate to Characteristic 2 (Creativ- ity), the next four columns (9 through 12) relate to Characteristic 3 (Responsibility), and the same pattern continued with each subsequent four columns related to a single Characteristic. Characteristic 4 (Dependability, Characteristic 5 (Pride in Performance), Characteris- tic 6 (Alertness), Characteristic 7 (Initiative), Characteristic 8 (Self-Confidence), Characteristic 9 (Long-Range Perspective), and Characteristic l0 (Willingness to Change) all follow the same pattern. The first column in each series represents the mean difference between respondent's rating of himself (OWN) and rank-and-file employees (EMP). B-l B-2 The sggggg_column in each series represents the mean difference between OWN and SUBordinate. The thirg column in each series represents the mean difference between BOSS and OWN. The fggrth_column in each series represents the mean difference between ranking of BOSS and EMPloyee at the rank and file level. The total of 40 columns, therefore, represents four difference means for each of lo characteristics measures. PART ONE ROW MEANS Column one under this heading represents the mean scalar value for placement of EMPloyee across all ten traits. Column two represents the mean scalar value for placement of SUB- ordinate across all traits. Column three represents mean placement of OWN across all traits. Column four represents mean placement of BOSS on all traits. Column five represents the Mean Difference Value between OWN and EMPloyee across all ten traits. Column six is the mean difference value for OWN minus SUBordinate taken across all ten traits. Column seven represents the mean difference of BOSS minus OWN across all traits. Column eight shows mean difference for BOSS minus EMPloyee at the rank and file level across all ten traits. B-3 PART TWO DATA Part two of the instrument asks for responses on items relating to the usefulness of three stated policies of participative leadership (See Appendix A for statements of policy). Columns 1 to 3, 10 to 12, and 19 to 2T refer to AGREEMENT with the policies if used at three hierarchical levels. Columns 4 to 6, l3 to 15, and 22 to 24 refer to MORALE improvement by use of the policies at various levels. Columns 7 to 9, 16 to l8, and 25 to 27 refer to possible improve- ment in PERFORMANCE which might result from use of the policies at various levels. The first column in each series of three refers to use of the policy at the level of rank-and-file employees, the second column refers to use of the policies by respondents to supervise persons at the rank of their own subordinates, and the third column refers to use of the policies by the respondent's boss in dealing with persons at the respondent's own level. For example: Column 1 is the mean response value for "Agree with Policy I if used at rank-and-file levels," Column ll is the mean response value for "Agree with Policy 11 if used at the Subordinate level," and so on. It may be noted that the morale and performance questions are reversed for Policy I on the questionnaire. This fact was compensated for in processing the data so that values given are in the same sequence for all items in the processed results. 3-4 PART TWO ROW AND COLUMN MEANS Column 1 + Row mean for effect (agreement + morale + performance) of Policy I if used at the lowest level. Column 2 is similarly the row mean for all aspects of Policy I if used at the subordinate level, and column 3 measures the effect if used at ng level for all parts of Policy I. Columns 4, 5, and 6 refer to the same means for Policy 11, and columns 7, 8, and 9 give similar data for Policy III. Column 10 is the mean value for Agggg_with all three Policies (I, II, and III), if used at the lgwg§t_levels of the organization; column ll is the mean value for Mg§§l§_improvement for all three policies if used at the lgwg§t_levels, and column 12 refers to the mean score on Performance improvement for all three policies if used at the lowest levels. Column 13 refers to Agreement with all policies at subordinate level, column l4 refers to Morale if used at subordinate level, and column l5 is the mean score for Performance change if all policies used at subordinate levels. Columns l6, l7, and 18 refer to the same factors for all three policies if used by respondents superior at respondents' QWN_level. APPENDIX C T-TEST RESULTS FOR THE CONTINUED VERSUS DISCONTINUED GROUP OF RESPONDENTS (NOTE: All tests reported here are two-tailed. To obtain the one-tail values, the reported p should be halved.) ,II I I:,2.mam.s-;:is;llllmmn.s- allzélllAmH.s--ilIIIIEIsmn.a,;:Iri-z h~n.a IIzeII-nva.a ..e Ix-e ems.» -!I:II,I:-.momm;-l-I:I ooa on“ nom.:u-:.::: .Towm. ;,z:.:;=l-nca ..... -:I- cog ., -: vsa - TTTTT tu.nlgll:lz cmfi.au ssm.a. ocn.a- «No.8. omo.a IIIIIIII!IIII:IIII-avavwn.«:IIIIII~ommov.a-IIIIIIosnANA.a-e:i-;loofluvo.flA: I; m.m~os.a vo~mom.« onnvva.d \mnnmm.a acumen.” nomvmho.s mannmNIaIIIIIIIaaNmma.NIIIIIIINSNNAAInIIIIIII onsmso.a aamaan.a nsosmn.~ ochnNHIQIIIIIIGQQaMNIdI omoo~o~.a mvcama.a naasao.a nanonco.s Tmuoamnewtlliilimvmvmo.~-Iz:3i-ocsunmn.s oomnom.~ msomvn.~ oosvnnv.s -aamaso.~.:ll.;.monswa.a.-.,ae; mnv.AI NAN.HI u34 . III- IL I .mmnmdm.a :Itzvoauom.~ I.-n~. sesame.“ manaxm.m “a 74w: am oma nmd .vfl malltlliilllldimo «Na Nma mud TEIIEII-i.n flIFIF- . Amfizunzommum Aa QMDZHBZOU I-III I I...I:!.-.,.N . . --.-. I-.- ~0:Il::z:a;--:.umamslll-:I oma A" “scram “0:. mma III II I III.IIIIIIITIIUN, I TI l I I I II I III I III I II I III: .III I.. ..I IIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIL IIIT III TIT.III.IIIIIII III dump oso yuan I I I IIIII III IIIIII III III IIII I ...IIIIIII.O.. IIIIIIIIII I III.IIIIIIIIII .IIIIVIIIIII I in II I III II II T IIII I l I l T II II I I I IIIII. I II II.I r r I III III II II IIII I I I II III.‘ I III III . .4 II II..III . IIII.IIIII l.lIT III. IIII IIIIII III l ouaaquz~;«au.>z=dnm-ll::lli . mWMAx s.) mumupIHl.zI-l-- l:l.----i- -, II-;,-liT::lTI-l;!- o -. . \ . / ... ...o . I. II”. c .IAWIU III I III: II III.III» III-II.. III III .wa .\ III ,I III I If IIIIIIII I. I I ’- I\._..I. lo I I I III I l I I I I I II I III I! III I I I I I ...... IIII II:IIII: II .I I . .. :II:II. IIIII III I:IIIIIIII IIIIIII-IIIIII - I] .I III:IIII .. II mazmnzommud Afl< IIIIILH QMDZHHZOOmHn m=m¢n> OHSZHHZOO IIIII ¢H¢d mzo H¢¢m .:::::::::-::_-::::aan.a aa~.a -:::-,.::auaes:::::2:- msfi.s -- - - nsa.a :- -::::ovo.s - .-::,-smuaa .mammlll. as“ AmHI- :::;:.oms::-:--;-::\mn.- -t-:.:.-nofi- --:s::.IammH--:-a-:.::::ona.-:::-::.:! mmsm :: mom.a: moo.n- omo.u- mms.fi- asa.n- «Ha.~- osn.s uaaaa-a III-I-ri. . I- .llx.nefiNcA-dIIIMOvanlnIIIInumanaoqn:III-somomvd.H :::I.:--INmnonv.H.-.i:I :.smso~n.fl:Ii II.mnm.ond.~.ddlI:I~NI:l -III . ovoosn.a sumumo.a oaoflmwm.s mosses.“ Nansen.“ masvma.fi nonneeo.s la .o.m : .z:: . :::-:.-:.ammona.mlllllilsnoanq+wslllll:\noonsn.a-::::svomman.a::alléinvmmma.m ...... ,uamooo.~::iII:-¢m«ossm.q:wélm-;:::::I::- mnmvmo.a nnnman.o \mmmnmo.s mvmsna.n smmone.m ooao~s.n ooan«om.a .« muz<~m4> I ..... -::-I::.:II,-onnnm.mIII.0¢numm«M-III.--ooooofi.a .I.I:I.:mmv-mv,mo.a-I--lo~mnnm.~ -.:-I-----:mamamo.N:-Idar.wmsn~acn.aI .«NII I:IIII sascha.m ovannm.a NQImamnooaw.a momomoo.a sooamo.« avnov«.~ aaIuavmmosv.s .6 zIh .- 3.13:! ; «.3- ,-.:-:-M.-.-:-- .....l-wo: III.I II :III III admaQNMIQ :aoanmm.a nmmacm.a assessmesIIIIIIANadammaulIIIIIwaoson.a owmummwu AN 0:03.“ mmmommé ammunoé osmfimmoé mecca-«J avmnnmé omnmmmé 3 .o.w I: .:I-mmnm3u.dlIINo~mav.II-£81.;.N--:l:::--.mmmmmm.o..:a: Ililnmnvovo.dIllIAImmo.«IIINaSi.v Am ommomn.d .moo~m.~ anmc.a.~ mssaoma.s shaman.“ vvnsmn.~ aoomun.» .« uuz III:- :: -::-.-:. --.-Imoonnno.QIIoomomoa M-Iilnnmaov...nIIQmNnvnm.aIIII- .-osemon; -IIIs.ooeo«~n.Iwwvmvs-.n .w amvnoon.a oooama.~ ~amoum.n evil-.319 saavvn.« mvcnon.m mononm.~ 3 zIh :: QNnNnmm.d:IIIII¢amHna.a:IIIII:am-nn.H:.I I. ono~o~.« .::-noonna.fl .--.Nmnnam.a - Kudonm.fl Aw --II- - mavnss.a oflfioa~.fi ocflqn~.« cnnooo.a shoved.” ”means.” avosav.fi .« .o.m endoqsqIuIIIIIqumMNnIaIIIIIIISHmn¢oIAIIIIIIImn“cam.n.:I::;-msa~od.d. :::::noann¢.a - :--~hn~mn.n I. “m .- II:- vammmfi.a ocmomv.u awoNNn.fl “NRfino.~ oncomn.a momoha.« anxS)o.fl "a ”U7«~aq> IwmmoamtIaIIIIIIqma0¢oIHIIIIIIIaomomo;nII:::::«mdaos.m-Iz.5::mmnoso~.s_ ;.- caesou.fl::;-;: Hhcomc.~ - -am ..:-3:: e ossofisn.a om~o~¢.a .vcvco.~ smflovm.~ “mmoson.s moflmfimo.s mafiamd.~ A" 24w: mm we no::- Ne II on II--::III::I oo:I:--:II:::I:,oo I..-:II-fl~::-u~qm::II: H~d «ma om” -d mud ”Na “N” .H ugnxIP moqmuq.dIIIIIIIammnnoo.s.IIII-amm¢~ma.a,:.:I:nmnmcv.a.::s:-Ianmmo¢.a-::I::-mosmvao.u:-::I-aons\~m.a:--~m.-II::-:II:- vqnaao.fi ammooa.d aooodoo.a Nflmvo~.« nmwmso.a smoavoo.a magmamm.a .fl .o.m mmmmaaIuIIIIIIIomoaaNQIu:IIIIINnmNoaoIaII:I:zamoams m IIIIIImovov~.~::-:IIa~nm~oo.a-:I:-oanmmomaa::-A--I. I:: II ssmnom.m snuava.a omsvooo.a vmo¢no.a cuvoeo.m mawvmmo.s smomnnn.a A“ uu7<_m4> IIIIIIIIIququnanIIIIIImnNnNmm.aIIII:Iq-n-.a:I-:::-mnmuoa.».I::I-:-mmoo.m -II-:-n--n~.sgI:I::asnsus.dIII:-:I::;.-III: nnnmuo.~ sooooon.3 \ofiosa.d cmmmoc.~ a~msnn.~ omocuvfl.a omcamco.a .« z4ux .nd on I IIIIIIABI.- -II-:Isuo-I--:-I-:;e~o,--:-t:2- .oo :IIII;I:;Ido.IIIIIIINMIIum«WIIII ama . 9w“ mud ONH and am“ «ma ”a UJ¢z ban—ZED nan-nu.- ga H20 “52m.- Ii -IIIE :- I- mazmnzommnm AA¢rnuu nupzwyzoomna m=m¢m> amazHazoo I--- «94: nzo am-» \aflaafie~::I::I:m¢ooHv.~.I :::.Hcm~am.a.-I;:- onfi¢nh.H::I.I; smnhav.H-I Rm. - aasoos.~ Hnm0n~.a omnoun.« omocoo.a «memom.fl .« .o.m namaanodIIIIIl.mmn-.m3.~: III- vmao:.d-I:.-I.-snm§n.n -1---...Nmomv~.mII-E-.m-II-II-.-- ocqflnn.c oanwmm.fl mflauo~.« «smfinm.~ Hmnanc.m “a ugz<~aq> onuv.v.o..nIIIII-.Io.v.m.nmflw.a- ...-I..- moconné. ----...-..-:- smsvou.n3:-...--,.;-vononfl .v-IIfh-m- III- - III-I omoo-.~ HQIMOflaumv~.a. mcmnod.a mnmoo~.~ smscdn.n “a z¢mz nflIIIIIIIIIIIIIimQ .I I- - I- NN." wwa at .mn ...:- -IImo -. vma .. ,. ,on oma no. - . . coir-III -II-m mi: - umaquIIII «Na .« w4a2«m - -I..onl:. . $0.9 $4.0 «2.9 3mg SN; n36 dag .mo-maI-I - ........ 2: a: o: 2: 02 .19: 2: J.,-oi? -. mats eon-J- ”8.? m2;- HZJ- 8&5 Sm.~ ”3:: I ZNmommé H933; «.ognaJ-I:E..N3.3.3.6------5.8.:flog-z--IISSQ:..a 3.2.30.8 a .......... : 33min $032.5 3:»: own-32.5 £23394--.£0833..s- ---23m.n..-fl-----...H ----- we...“ ------ -- $3319 ammofiné 33-34 H233; $33.19 5:20;. 3,332.8 a . “inanmd ommiomé 33:; ”232.9 0333.8 9323.8 $33; 3 ”33;; ----------:--.------S-£~..q ........ 33de vmonmo.~ «3.3.9.0 3335 23,3... «3.03.» a ............................ a. Swmwwwai::Ema-W3.4...----.:MQQMMKI-EII-m-m32:.»-:..-:-wwwfisd 32:; E33.» 2 7:2 3 3 mo 3 no 3 E 3 um; I .3 8H 2” .3 and 02 S: 3 Sailw .n a - in --------------- .-.-v.----.-:-:---.-. n m .n -- .... c :HEEoomHA—Imnmmgémazfizaa SS .55 .mza 39. .. I 3 v.38 m5“: :2. 33222830 .2, 83:28 I 237* I , - .- - - . . . z . QEEOOMHQEDQEE nan-5mm ----------- » nuszazoomHn mamxm>. nupznazoo . .:-:-, .mzo pm¢m .mz . wily-ms; n ....... . -m --------------------- . vmwnhm.~ .H 2¢mx — on Am wm~m VNH nu. mJazdm .. o - Aggouun gang GEE—.200 ---------------------------------- .-. ES! to: E0 Hu amazuhzou .IIIIIIIII IIIIIII... II. IIII. - -I II I III III-II IIII l.lII 00000.» QMDzHHzoumHn mam¢n> amaznhz¢u- ‘45 a»)... 4“» nupzaoomHa mpg—g GEEOUIIIII <93 03H. “53$ :: 00wm0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 .0000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0.0 000.0IIIIII::II000.0 000.0 :000.~II:II::I:I00n.~ 000:0 000:0 0:402u0II. 0000000.0 o000000.0 000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 .0 III-II:0000000.0;:IIII0000000quIIIIII000000.0IIIIIII000000000IIIIII00000001aIIIIIIu0uNdMMIQIIIIII0000«NNIQIII00:IIIQImIII- . 0000000.0 0000000.0 000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 .0 :I0000000.0-:II::0000000.0I:III:000000.0IIIIII:0000000.0IIIIII00000vNIQIIIIII000000040IIIIII0000000.0III00I00200000I. 000000.0 000000.m 000000.» 000000.0 m00000.0 000000.0 000000.0 00 -,000000.0 :- ...... 000000.0-IIIIII000000.0IIIIIII000000+0 00000010 0000NNIflIIIIIII00000mI0 00 7002 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 , .0 0000 -II3000 :II:II:-000.-:-IIIIII::000II-IIIIII:I.000I::IIIIIIII-000 000I:-IIIIIIIII000::::II::00-:040000II- .001-III!- rI-meIIIII-II:-:i:-0..-0- 00 00 00 m0 .5 :--;--:--- - 0 C mmmwmI. 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 .0000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0.0 : - -3010. II--.-I-II-oon.~-:IIIIII:II0m~.NIIIIIIIIIva.N:IIIIIIII000.n 000.0 0.00.0 0 03170 0000000.0 0000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 00 0000000.0.I-II:0000000.0::IIII0000000quIIIIII000000040IIIIII00000«IdIIIIIII0a0000qIQIIIIII0000~0040 00 Ia-m 0000000.0 0000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 00 III I I-0000000. +-II.0000000.02IIII:0000000.0IIIIII000000040IIIIII000000+0IIIIIII000000040IIIIII0000000-nIII00I00; -I 000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 000000.» 000000.0 000000.0 000000.0 .0 000000.0 ;II:I-000000.0::IIIII000000.0 000000.0IIIIIII000000.0IIIIIII00000040IIIIIII000000em 00 7000 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0 00.0 000 ,I-I-II- 000.. .-:I:III:000::.IIIIIII:.000I:: -;000- #00 000 .0 04mn GMDZHHZOU «0.4.3 03H. 9&4 . 0.0.3 80. 0.0.00 ...-x. 0.1 C : m0000::IIII 0M0h0 m00.0 - 300nm 00mw0 nmwn0- :- -:: : ”mmmn 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0.0 - 000.0----:IIII-000.0:--I-IIII:000I0:--IIIIIII000.0I-IIIIIIII000.0 000.0-; I:I:-.-00400H0IIIII: 000m000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 000000..0 0000000.0 000..00.0 .0 I .0000000.0IIIII:0000000.0:IIIII0000000.0IIIIII000000940 000000040IIIIII00.0000.0II:00-II40I0:IIIII. 0000000.0 .000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 00.0000.0 .0 0000000.0IIIIII00000nnquIIIIII000~00040IIIIII000000040IIIIII000000040IIIIII0000000e0III.0-002 nupzaazoo " 11": ! ILaiIIO I IO‘IIPIO'vwo' $35803 Béqufizoo 02.08. 2:38 92 39. oz... .520 . ‘..:I“‘lu.vL. I. -.l - : 000.m I- 1 0mm.a 000.0 000.3 nowww;--xjaz:s;mwm.e 000.0 .0000 no“ on“ no. 000 so. on. 000 .u.o «ou.0sz::tssztssvw.~z .0aa.n unm‘v 000.0tneteazi::v00.m oa0.n‘ ., u34¢wnazlx on0an.o.0 «mm0ono.a av00300.a vnomnmm.a maunumm.0 moo0nao.0 mm.0mnm.0 .0 I!‘ It:a:::lt nmaannm.s.z:i--avav¢noau allnoaooooaa::. «nNuHNNqu Hasnmoméuzia:llfimonnuv4u vaMwMNaa‘ .w .o.m mosm0oo.s cnsmom¢.s c0son00.a 0¢00000.s «snuonn.s «anonon.0 «manuoo.s .0 -; , 00m0000.s--s--s0Hmc000.szslleumnovmv«aazllilmommvmnquistilluoo¢oaniagaiullamom¢mm1alilzll~mn0ommqsalu.0100:40m421. 000000.n emoqoo.m samn0a.» enuncv.n onmmnv.¢ nnmnnn.v novnao.n .0 : --000000.v.;-§un-ommonm.v ...... 1:000fln...:I‘it::momncm.nilxnl::nnnnomscintutleommsamiw «mm..~‘v .0 740x no on 00 a. so 00 0. .0 0~.m ixzzxilaii ............... .Hn. ,zi.‘-.c00,;a;gi:luxi,0n01;;;1z1!i1!20n0@1. ni.m00 and anaesisalii.duiu4mn ow32_hzoo ... IIJv‘l‘ 'II'll‘ --. Il,‘.ll'tl II F mhmwhlh O['li .III{I.I’-r rr- 1. GBZHHZOUmHQ mbmmms anZHHzoo 92% 24.00 92¢ 30% 03H. Hmu011|| 00.000o.s monvn¢¢.s 000ncno.0 omnncoa.0 .0 -::e::.::i-::e-; nommo0m.0.u!¢s-00.0.00s0.Iiuzlmfl0n.00.0:1:!!a0v0qnom. I... .0.m .I nomovan.a oonvm.0.0 0a¢00.c.0 nmn0nmm.0 .0 avem0nn.0..zig ..... 00.0000.a:-::;10000m00.0-12:1-00v00mn.0 .H 00:..10213 «00009.. 000000.. .mevo..¢ on0mco.n .0 000nmmétilnxuermsonav.mztizl:zno¢nmn¢minnlu:lao000~«vg-::.0 240. . so no 00 a. .0 00.0 n00 «mail «00 And--i--.i.-- 3 Lair}! :- a. .0 00 . m. 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIDIII Till ...Ilyllatll .vInlo iii-Ill.- llllllllll .rb Er‘tihb I; . C 3......»- .-.--s-ls--m..... W ..-i: 5.2.... . 3.0 .m -3. .. a 0g . a a: . a .23 no. 00. co. 000 000 om. ca. .0.0 000.0: .:z::1|!mmo.0;;:;n|1::nu0m+¢ mm~»0 dmm.m «no.0 000.0,.:.s::a-:m:4«auai||. o0oasoc.s sooov00.a .m00000.0 0.0.nmo.0 0000.00.0 o0¢o0o0.0 00000.0.0 .0 unecoov.sellcnr00mom0m.uzelulneoo0nm0.0 se00000om.a;;zu:-00000v0«0:11;:gov0000osatitrr-000.000.0.s:.HI:-+n+wsinr. o.m00v0.0 .0000no.0 n.0o3.m.a 0.00.0..0 ovn.v.o.0 n¢0o.mn.a so.nuqm.s ..0 00vcov0.mlslxlaaan00¢».uIIIIIaAmdmmam.an:;:a|aamaann.uu:nllna0000004aznllulaamnmmn4diiuaug0~0no0maaaua.0luuza.mqgll. ooooo0.c no0mmo.m wm0v...n 00.non.c 0mm.om.n msn0oa.¢ 00.noa.v .0 a0000m+qstllllt¢on0n0a«zillnlumammdm1auiilitso00man.c ochoo.n 000000.¢ won000qmn:txaa ram: .00 a. 00 .0 00 no mo .0 00.0 - 004:... 000 000p 000 000- ..... 000 gand-;izs:szdasim40n.¢nmma <03 mzo .520 .Iu'l‘llllllllil l‘ --!'| 1" Il’ll‘éi Jam-051;: .mma.;- -.u.o- 1 I‘-.'yu--l9. lll--II- « u:4«>u» 0-‘0..--ll. oma.ms «N 00¢0000.a 000000.” .0 .o.m ! lll. Eli. o..os...0 00.00... .. uuz..0<> .0.. _ .. -elli.0 ...... magma-II I .a ugmlmua:m;00:QszzzmMM03 , . _ a M 0.00.-. ,:-s--z;.t z-ig- -12: - 1 - - r i: - iii-ii- ,1 «.53 mag gamma .i:|1-i-.l~?-lnll\i (Ha N20 HMQN - 111:1.a1t2- 1- - «use. m=m¢M> mama: ¢H¢a uzo a¢-0 -mo0000+.111111100000044111111-..0000q.0 ...... .00000...:::-1t.000nn..é:-1- 000000.. ....... 1-.0000000901z1.0-1111--11111. . 000000.. 000000.. .000000.0 000¢.0.. 000000.. .00000.. 0.00000.0 .. .o.m 1111111--1- - -.1.000000..1-11111000000.0111111140000009011 ........ n.0000..1-11114000.00.0--1111-0.0000.n:11111-mn0vnm02&111401111111111-.1 000000.. «00000.0 .00.0ov.0 000000.. 000000.0 0onmov.0 0900.00.0 .. muz._m<> 00000m.01111111momo.o-N111«0u0.000000.0.1111;000..0..-1-11-movm0m.0-1111110oooom.01114000000..00.011100;11 11-1111 .L 00omn..0 .00000.. .0-00000¢00.0 000m0om.0 000000.. 0.0.0..0 .0-00000000.0- .. 2.0: -1111-1:. -11111111 00 --:11111-0o -11111:--;.o .11+1:-u0- .-1- ..0 1:1- ;00 --1 on :1 .0- -um.mz111 .1 00. 0o 00 00. 00. oo oo .. 0.01.0 _ 1111:111-11 --11 - .--.0-1111 ----0N111l11- - -20. 1:1111.- 0.;111111z» .0.-:19111-.-.-0.1111-1: -1m.11111- -1-:-1111111. l-‘llo 21 1.1 v .- .--1 -1I'-li1-11-1.i10. 1 '11-1-1-1Dl-IllnlI-l-l-Itl-111 I cI-io-I u} s -1 1' I ll . D -11-1-1111111:0.0.01111111111qna.0111111-1-1000.01111111111N00.01-1111111.000 0 -1111111:00040 -0n~.0 .momm 1. on. 00. cm. 0.0. on. no. 00. ....o -1f!1111-.€ - -f!1!ii!11-;;111111-,1!11 1: 1!! 1:1-111. - J 0.0.0- 00m..- 00..0- 00..0- 000.0- 000.0- 00...- 0:..>-0 1| 13030..-111l111m00000-A11-I111-.mmonn-. 111-110.00.030.a..--.!.-1-nm.0oe.A1-l1i ”MK-000$ ~33...“ .0 ..- 000000.. 00000... 000000.. «00000.. 000.00.. 00000... 00.000.. .. .o.m .1111-1.-.-;11111-0000o.ev-1111110.0000.--1111.000.00.0-_e1: 000..cm.0 -,- .000.0...s:1111-0000.0.01-1:-100¢v.v.01111. -11. .0 «0000... 000000.0 .00.n0.0 .n.n00.. 0.0mo0.. 00000..0 00.000.0 .. uuz<.m¢> . ........ 1- .-:-11- v.0m00..-111111000000.0 --- 000000.. -, m000000.0 --- 000000.. -- 0000c..n-1-:1-000000.0 .0 1-.L 0000m00.0 0o0¢0..0 000000.» v000n00.0 o.00¢0.. 000000.0 omnnnm.0 .. znh omhmmm09a SHAQNN0411 11.3mvosn.d:11-111 mvmmah.a -- 1;- onoans.d . 1 .nqaosfl.d.1 1- -. .vomvmm.d -1-0~ _. -. - 111.1- 1 ovmnm80H oomcna.d «Nahnn.d onhosh.fi mommam.a snmsms.d Nanosm.d 0a .o.m. woaNdNQfQIIIIIIQQOmmfléfilllilllflflNvdhod1ll1iilfi¢ouom.N 111:1fmaooad.dz111e1 ommnmmed 1111 1nmaasm.mst110m.1::--1111 1 ooo¢nd.fi NdNahn.H nachos.“ oumnNOuN vwonnv.d ooHst.d NNNO0N.N 0H uuz .IIIIINnnGnNMhQIII111Nnoan9+fll111111nnunna.n1:151:zmmamem.Nz1tr 11ommoomm.a1.- 1smd¢mNn.d -; . Haafia00N-11:~N11 .-:11-111 «hwnhhmm.a omamon.d Nochsn.n ammomn.m admmhhn.a mQMMAdn.a omcfixo.fi an 24m: mm .100 m” $01-1.--11-11-11- .1180 -11-..-,1- 11-1mm1 .. :..-.1 ...-£189.11. 1: .-11 .0N1uNHm-11-1-111 00 00. 00. 00 00 00. 00. .. 0.0.20 MW «W nn. . EN” 11...; ..--1..: ..nn.:;1 11111.1....1 an 11 11.1.11 11:..- om 1..-1.511111: 111-11-11.11 3 1 1111 - -1- 11-1 11 - - -111-- -1 1 - - - 111 -- 1-- - 1.1111211 11 11111. . D nouoa.1.111-1111111mmm..qu 1- 111-1-111-11nns08 1.11.1.11-21Hdm.u_ ...-.-. 5.8.8 . ..-1 ..11-1. «.779 --:-1-1.-.nas.& ..---...-11.-.1-. .moam-11 - 1 00. 00...... .1-1111110001-1-111-1-00.1---- 00. .. -111-- --00.; .11:- 00. 1111-1- -..-0.0.11- - 000.- 000.0- 000.0- 000.- 000.0- 020..- 000.0- 330.70 00000m1011|l111~000081d1111111000000..11.-11_-1-1._000000..:-1-1.1- 000000.. 1-1--111.000.0000 ...--111 00000000 .. -.0. - . - -111 1 000000.. 000000.. 00000000 0.0.0.0.. 00.30.. 000000010 . 0000000... .0. .o.m 0000001NII-II-qugas-A1lll10-N0.00-411111031000... . 1.1-000000..N1-1--1..000.000.01-111000000000-1.1100.-.- -1. 1-111 - 00003.0 000000.. ...-00000.0 000.00.. 000.0-00.0 0000.000 0.000000 .. 007.10; 100003-011110000000«0.111111000000041 11100000000111-11- 00.000 . 0 1.1- --1 0000000001 000.00....--11-.....0-111..-111.111 - 0000.0.0 0000000.0 0000000.0 000.00.0 000000.0 .0-00000000.0 00..000.0 .. 200: 80 00 . 00 00 -.1--111111..01111111--1110m--111-1.-1.-.--. 00. ,. -. 1..-0111100001111 1 00 . 00 00. 00. 00 00 00. 0. 0.0.20 1 00 _ 00 001 . 0021-11-1110N111100... . .1 ; 00 - 1- 11- . 0.053 gang-mumps 11111.1- -11 - .-.11-1-1 . <93 38 .53.. $.12". It 'I‘ll. D-4 ---..-,I-;-,..:-, Sam—33 8955 «EB . .... -- -..- ., -.: --.... i--- ....-.i- : ¢a¢a uzo sm¢m \Nm. s NAN. sillillltmsu . sfillili. Nmo . a.-. illiti I. an .. ..:. .--i-u:.:-il. mommilil.l Raw; on” no“ -MOH.. mad wu.o .l'l'll', .1 l -|..‘ 11 |\I ‘i‘lll.0'. .. . iii- l-n . '1 Itillll‘llo‘l . vl..v'-¢-‘l.u ..:. ||, I ll n1~.s oan.u mflo.m- mav.9- svm.u- ~34«>-H naanxm.m-¢z;:qinvmma¢.a;;:--!-nno~nn.a-.ies;:¢aso~o.fl ,, .11. ‘‘‘ «noonm.d.--:-;,:--:I-+I. I oomvoo.m mcnmofl.a osx~a~.a oeflomm.a «Hoono.d .a .o.m nfiummaéfiiil 11111 nndoom.a. 11.1-8.3th.fl.------|ll.omomnm.N--.-I.-i.-.--;noooon.mnlv-.-..N- --- ..... I I .Kosvflv «nannid osmovc...” omnmen.» voavmo.m ..n muzqmm‘; EaaSJ..!.!...-mummd-a...--.....-,-.§ comm .A,.....--.-...$£3,.-~ -....-s-.333 .nii- m «..---- - iii.-- amongm.~ as.u~ommoao.e- maooos.d finnmmm.~ a~»~\m.n .« 2‘“: mo am mo aw ----am:!::grlntgwsciu~fiw -1 no 50 «ad ms“ s) .« quxI¢umm= mz¢uz :0: mac Hm¢m vva.s .mcnn on« I .u.n mmmqm- u34<>-k nonvmm.«I IIIIII «N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mmfionm.fi “a .o.m ocooco.a ..m I. mdanmm.d “a uu7 somwmm.~ .m 33$...m ......leur no “N MNHm om . Afl.Iquflqm o ,II-I- -.II--- I.----I---In-u-. ill I .II-Ill- ES 39E; éwuug. E... LI [1‘ mafia Inca uzo BEE ........ IM ME many—Er “Emma <83 can. bah ' t..- IIIIIIIIIIII.IIIrfianmI:I.III;:-mmmuw . Nae.a 009.5 «98.9 mammm II - nma.a .moaa no“ on“ no” so” had on“ on“ .u.o I~sa.NIIIIIIIIIItau.nIIIIIIIIIIuns.~ unc.« nma-n IIdmmIN .INnnanIIIIIIIIIunJ«:uHIIIII smunoom.a onsHBVo.a ~nna.un.g ~¢nfima.d unackno.s caononu.s maeoono.s .N I. oBoOflam.a;IIIIImammson.qIIIIIIo~d~mom;a.IIIIIoanuaamIqIIIIIImommmquaIIIIIImonamwnIQIIIIIInvvnmNmIa .fl Imam II «ossvmn.a vvmmkas.a noooasm.a swnmsa.fl oneoass.a osu-vm.s ssae»mm.n am .II--~«o~omo.n.IIII,oQVHoen.sIIIIII~maa¢~nIaIIIIIIn«snmaQIQIIIIIImnsnomm.aIIIIIImNNmN-IaIIIIIIcwk¢¢o~.uIII.Hquz<«m«2IIII nvocfla.. «mn~s~.m amm~o~.v mumsmm.» Non.o..v nogmhn.v ononfid.. .Am -IIII~monmn.. .IIIIanNOHm.¢IIIIIIIacfl~nm.«IIIIIIINnnamaawIIIIIIINONcamImIIIIIIIuamnmoIw vfiunoNIv .a 24ux so .0 cm mm «m on on .N mmmm .IIIIIIII III III ma“ .IIIII cad .-IIIIIII.~HHI-IIII ~Hfl mad. I. INHaI. NddIsIIIIIINHIIMJna¢aIIIII I.-- --III o I n . n N H 7. III III . D - I .IIIII , -II I II II . «mum: It‘ll-lull! .IIII-11 I. .II-II. -..I. I . . mhmwh.k I IJIIIII III'IIIIII ES mag “Ems Ida—.3 03h. High IIIII'IIIII «use; mammm> mumps ¢H¢a can a¢<0 tIII.III‘lcll|II.III|lIII|I'I‘IIII I lul'tllnlwliiilulII I. .l I .I 'IQIIII‘I'III'III‘". II 0.-.: 000.0- -IIIIIIImnflnfiIIIIIIIIIIm00waIII 00040 000.0IIIIIIIIIImwm_wIIIIIIIIII000.n;IIIII- ;II.nmmm «ad «00 00“ 0nd 00H 00a and .u.n 0oo.~-:IIIIIIII~avI«-.IIIIIIII000.suIIIIIIIII000.dIIIIIIIIIIvom.~-sIIIIIIIIwno.nIIIIIIIIIImnm.0 . I. .. uanuwwIII onosn00.e 0msoom0.0 000000.” d00aomm.0 0000000.0 00vomn0.0 nwoa0om.0 00 0n~moa0.a,IzIIzdsmvsmo.aIIIIIInoaaudedIIIIIII0000000.mIIIIrIoou0-m.qIIIIIImn0nna.«IIIIII,0000000.n .I00 .40. nnmcoc0.a 0000000.0 900000.“ ommm00o.0 d00m~0o.s ~000000.0 0donq~n.s .0 0m00~dm.u -IIIvvaNnN0anIIIIIoo~0-+aIIIIIIImn~n000.0IIIIIIa0en00o.aII ..... 0odn0sqa IIII0000000.0 I 0“ m0z « 00 ca . oo .0 no on on 00 ”~00 0a» maaIIIIIIIIIIIIwaaIII mmfl n0» IImwfl msa .aIIqufiamIII 00 _ 00 0a 00 0H 00 00 8 D 900.0 d-.0 000.9 000.0 . 000.0 nvmwa dawns .0000 00“ o0” 0o” o0“ 000 0nd 000 .0.o mo~.~ IIIIIIIIoNN.“IIIIIIIIII40NINI mneIn 000.0 000.0- .Inaman:I,IIIIIIu24qauHIII. 0on0mom.a amcm00o.a . 300000.“ 000mua.fl m0000«.« 0vmcoao.u nmflv00m.0 .m «000000.0IIIIII0000000.aIIIIIIaNms0oméeI ImamfidnmanIIIIIcmn.0flIAIIIIIII0undonqéuIIIIII0000000.u .« IGIW -s0vmn.0 on0ndo..0 000000.« 000000.“ .0000».« 000000000 nms0omm.0 .00 mommaa..aIIIIIInmm0anoeaIIIIIIuanmflnNIuIIIIIINm0a0qu+quIIIIa~00mnIAIIIIIIIdm000am4uIIIIIIoo0H00n.QIIIdaImuz mummDIIzI:II-I --.:II:-:liIIIIl ¢H¢d D39 Hm mmmmp mz¢uz.zzaaoo nz<.3bm 039 B¢¢N anan ...... 000.0 900.9 nna.a maa.s 0mm.0 .I nmmwn .moqa 000 and mod sum 000 000 saw .0.o II 008.9IIIIIIIIIINma.~ mnm.n 0n0qa nam.~ Nm0.~ 0ww-A un4<2np cnnomam.a smamaoo.a onmnsn0.a mnmuamm.a anmmnoo.s ~mmoamn.s «n0anmm.a .m - . 0000000.aIIIIIIdamN000.aIIIIIIocenwwcquIIIIIIaOmnmqu.a: a000~wwéa ..mamnmov.a mvmaunmias_ 00 .quI msomu0o.s 500m0n0.s 0000~0m.a ammav0o.s «0~0m00.s nmoa0nn.a ~000sn0.s .m I .III- IIIIIIIIIIII 0000an0.a.-I;--0000000.aIIIIIInn00flmw.aIIIIIInN0aoanazIIIIIamasmum.aIIIIIIA0~n0amquIIIIIau0ontnwaIIId quz mama: mhmmhs» -IIBlIIlIIIIl ‘1 I v.1... 21...- II I I. I IIII .IIII .IIIII---III,III.II-, I I_ xazoa MDWZHSIKWMMI [IIIIIIIII’IIIIII'IIIIIII n-z. «ES 3955 0.2.5 - I - IIIIIII Ifia ....Izo .520 000.0 30,.0,.IIIIIIII-£0.0._I.II.IIIIII000.0---IIIIIIII .03.... ..---I-IIII.II.0000-III I 02I I 0.00 II II.III.03 1.000 ...IIIIIII .03 --IIIII- III..0..0I|I- I nw~.s 0am.a mao.~- ~00.9I svm.a- ”3400-0 manm0NINIIIIIII000~00.aIIIIIII000~nn.«IIIIIII000000.0IIIIII 000000.H II N I IIIIIIII 000000.~ 000000.0 000~0~.0 000000.” 000000.“ a .o.m mw0m0AInIIIIIIInnA000I0 IIIIII000000.dIIIIIII000000.NIIIIII;n00000. NIIII.~ IIIIII. I 000scfl.¢ cmnnnq.d osmocc.a om0m¢n.n 000000. N a uuz<.mq> ShmQflnédlllIIIIIlINNNNNNfloISLIIIIIIIII NH¢GND~AIIIE0IIIIIIIIINOOOOO -.NIIIIIIIIIIIIDWOW) O. n! .IIIIIIMNIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0m00om.~ ao-u00mmo«0. 0. 000090. a aonmmm. ~ u~000m. n .0 20m: M0 am 00 deIIIIIIIIII-I00IIIIIIIIIIIIIIummmII 00 00 can 000 00 .0 u40z0m ‘Ill- I. I --QvIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIon. .---.. IIIIIIIII-IIII.Io.In,-.-:IIIIIIIIII. I n». .- I- . . om MES gag mung I .--.IIIIIIII: I I II -IIIIIIsuca mzo BEE I_-.I--I.I.IIIIII--.IIII - mg whammy Mag mzfixkom M2952.” IIIIIIIIIIII II ....... I- can; aaa.a n35. oats «1.9 «3.6 ................ 33%;-.....IIIIIIINImIIOImm ...... I- .I ma no." a: om." cod moflIiIIII....II---I..m.m..nII.--::.I----I--..-...1..d ...... .. 30.? 3?? “.277 8?? «3.? mm~.n moo; “3;; I IIIIIII IIII::II.I------IINNommIIIQIIII-.-IInoomodeIIIII---5:31.“.IIIIIIIIIdwNN:.s «Nooacoé 3383.9 33;; ..o. I- ........................... womIowmfia “Rate; “Smash“- moflfimé 3.2.30.8 33.22».PIIIIIomeEoo....s.----...w--:.WWI--. : . 3.32.; .onwmcamual 3min; Rmfimoé vwnosflwée Iflrwmié Samoa..." 3 l «mofiuvmél 333...... ommnaoé «333.9 32.3....“ omonoooé 33305 3 “2.15; . ........................... owmnoo~.a;-I:IIIo~ooS.HI-IIIIIIIIK203.,NIIIIIIIII-coals..o:-IIIII--o,voo~ImN515---Imvwmam.v:.----III.d.«IanInI.HI..w.:II,.I.I~III.II--- -- .I -I I----.---I----I.I-II.---IImNRNaNI.IIsIIIII-:I«230m.a,IIIII:II3n~mn.~II----...:.303on .......... «flair» .......... .223; 33.2.; 3 I :3: I, 2 on 3 No 3 3 r. a mm; 1 mo 03 EH 3 E: on." 2: 3 m .22.". n IIIIIII .10. I. m .II. n I m. a -. 5 . D .I. i 3 xuuo. min: :0: «use; m> «uni: I mpmukuh I II I I I I I - I I . 5:59 gala-.7133 ...... .-IIII II I. IIIIII I r agglmpmug gamma «2%.: 30m uzo Hmfim 5.. D is.» IIIIIIIIIIIIIII .mnqu-I.-I-:II -I 2: ............. Eda ........... nmn.wui waldmlll omncmm.fl;.l.4m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - I .moaonmnfi 30m occavo.fl .m IIIIIIIIIIIIINHHnmm.d "a Mu7<~xq> 32$..NEI-II.I~ ............. I ....... Calm. w: ..IGI 2,:me ........... am am mm; om. . «fl. MJQI dunk: ¢H¢d 038 Hm¢m ill Ill" II-- III..I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII«.nqm-:I.IIIIIIMwmmw . 559.3 oon.a ~na.a mnmumII. I noa.a . .moaa I no“ om“ cod 50H so“ one ooa .u.o Imoa.~IIIIIII:II¢Ha.n ~n~.~ mac-a nosIn IcmuINI ~nn.« u24<>Ih I umunoon.a ona-vo.s ~nna.au.a ~cnams.a onmonno.o «nononn.e ma¢oono.a .w l-msooaamé IIIIIIIIIIIImdomsomds - ”mama-om; onnmaamé momma-N3 monmmmniu Iow-SImINmJ A." IaIm couscmu.e vvwm~as.e noooaam.a sunmsa.a onooaau.s mau-vm.s ssac»mm.a .m -IIsaouomo.a.:I:IIoQVHovn.sIIIIII-sav~n.aIIIIIIncannamIaIIIIIImnsnONN.aIIIIIImNNmNNNIaIIIIIIwmNc¢o~.uIIIaflqu244m421 ncoVHH.c aonmam.m nmmmom.c mnmamm.n Nance... nogwnn.v onondfl.v .N IIIIImoonmn.vIIIIIIIanmon.¢IIIIIIInvawo¢Im unnam&.v moNVQNImIIIIIIIdanmNo.v eaxwoNIv .H Izquz so we no no em cm am am mm; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInaH IIIIII vs“ IIIIIIIIIIINaHIIIIIIIIIIII~HaIIIIIIIIIIIImad-I;I Iwaa NdflzsIIIIIIEHIIu4aa¢J I ---...I. III - I... I- m .. ... N a I 7 III -III- I. . .u IIIIIIIIEIIEIIII, ; I m IIIII IIIIbll. III! iIIoIIIIIIIII .. IIIII I II:III A‘P «man: I III .. IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIII -- .mpmmh.» .IIIIIIIIII I-I -.:- II-I IIIII Itffli IJIIIIIIII . I III!!! IIIII I [III/.IlIIIIIIlIfIJIIl'IIIIII III [ II I I I I II I J r {III/I IIIIIIIII/III , III. , FIfIIIIIIIIItlf/llI/III I I/II/ A Ojii/IIIII /{ |. 2.93.:- mfigI III ......m...:. .39.... .-.--.I-IIIIImE.uIIIIIIIIIIIImIN-m; 2...II...IIIIIIII , II ...IIIIIIMIII-‘ «ma co” cod no“ cod so“ on” .u.n omo.~IIIIIIIIIINaw.”IIIIIIIIII«¢Q.an--IIIIIIIomo.a-IIIIIIIII¢o¢.m.;IIIIIIII~no.nIIIIIIIIIIomo.n I I- I- UIJ.>MHIII uncenso.s smaoomo.o nonnma.a «sodomm.a asmmhdo.a nocomno.a nmoamom.a .N Ivnmmoan.a.I;III«smvsmm.a-IIIIInofimuflIHIIIIIIInnmnmmn.«III;:Iooeo-m.aIIIIIIononna.«IIIIII-on\n¢oh.gI--.H ..m—mIIII nnmcoco.a somsmflo.s acmmns.a ommmooo.n «unmuoc.s ~m~vuso.a adonomm.s .N omhomam.aIIIIIIv¢a~n-+qIIIIIInQNNNNIaIIIIIIImnNnmao.aIIIIIsasanhso.aIIIIIINoanfiaIaIIIIIIIoHIOHQm.a I .H muz mamma- SHE OE HM ammmpIII.:I-III--I :II .IIIIIIII- II ¢H¢a 939 HmIwmmma II ¢H¢a O39 au «man: » whmuFIP .l ‘.-ll|lr!’II .II «M304 mDm¢m> xmhmb II - III1- mZ¢M= ZZSAOU nz< 30M 038 Hm1| v . no no mm on Am m~_m new csfi as“ mad -. IIdA-Iquzqw:-I on «a o« mW, I -II 1 1 I}- II)! 1 I1?Ir|lr m. mon.s usamnI nmv.s o~a.a nvm.u oms.a ooa.s .moma no“ oufi ooa new new on” em“ .h.o -omo.a IIIII oa¢.n msnIa mc~.a "KHIfi oofi.m mo~.a uaJ<>IF waomnoc.a ooflwonn.e oguoaon.a mmmgnom.s mnmoonn.u nmvvxnn.a monooms.a Am I InmcouwmIQIIlelvonvmhm«anuIluzIocmflmon.QIIIIIImommmoc.alIIsladnmmmaméaxlzilzuNsvoac+u1|IIXEoo~H¢~o.a-:!~a-!I4dqm|lll 9:336 onomzmé vnaosmmé . $033.5 oannmsoé ommonvmé nannsnmé .m IIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIvNanaNN.aanllllmmmoNnnqdllIIIISoamNNo.dllilllddammnq4utlllIIMA~nnnoadlllllldnmmomnadIIIIII~0¢¢vmm.a -4A Indqqull omnnom.v onnmno.» anamoo.n -n~v~.v ouanm~.n «annma.¢ monflou.v AN «smear.r-iz nonman.v NomNNNIn anomom.v soomdqu Nudddn.m osnaam.mIlI14HIltfidmu mma mwa no on on cm on .N mmwm Fwd H III... II. . I- I n H a: 3“ 24 31.333 . J. v.— n." NH IIIIIIIII1IItIIIIIIIIIvI9II1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllltlllnnllllllxlmH a“ [XIII/twin! 0 II . [If] :‘IJIIIJ’I {I'll-11.1.!” It'll “I’I/ IIJII o! :I'ltllll'llllll- I ) IIJIIIIJI/ l/lr xvii/I (II/(III lu/Ilfb/I II I! jz - mu: I , 1.11111 lll, 55320“,me g, APPENDIX E T-TEST RESULTS FOR UPPER CONTINUED VERSUS UPPER DISCONTINUED GROUP OF RESPONDENTS ...qufu t :2. v, I‘V I III ILII iv. 1. ,\.a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII GBonomHQ-Mumg IngIIn—MDECU-dung-:---I-i:I-III-III-III-I- -» NNNHNn.d Mdflmmv.d 3N0N¢h.d ddmmhflod mmnnmdcoa oamwhnoou 08000.8.fi I. I-num IIIII I. IIIIIIIIIIIII I... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII condo-«511--.--- m3msawn--IIi-I-I-m-vambia---:---¢«~I««+3-I---II-n+an.oQ.-«------n¢owm3£:---:-.;3v».-«--II+«::-.o..m-:--- -= wmm was “Filth: «firmlllxfimfimokloglo oigsllllmmo 34*? m .z smkovn.a anam-.~ soaonn.m mnmaoo.a monmoa.a ms~n~mo.a moavms.u .« uoz<_m«> «mnznvé 323; .133; 323.» 93.2.8 .3334 mo-mw.H-w-.-mI-I-I-.-m ................... I: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII #:ooewa,F-lI-i-mmmumoo-.-$---II-I-¢~m-onan-mI-IiII-IIaImngrm-I-IIIII-Imhmmn¢v-.Ic-IIIIII-I«+v¢momhéI-I-IIII-«mn¢.»QI.-m-IIIII+.H---#qwa-I-II-. -s u i. mm o «m «m m» on aim-3!! .z . No no mo mo we no mo .« ugaz«m u o m c n - I-m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII w IIIIIIIIIII - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII = 2 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I: 1 9m.- I: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII --- -I -----I----I----------I-- -= I A. r I: uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu t: ...................................................................................................................................................... bacon-Egg; m»- «4 I. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII {III-III . I--- II-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-II--II.---III-I-II-II-III-IIII- J IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII nuwnn..-III-IIIIIIIIIIIIII:In .... I---..:-..:--.-IIIIIIIIIIaI-Iinuu---.-:..---IIIII-.IIIIIIinquII-..-I..-IIIIIIIIIII II. I EU»: I... -- I.- I-- - - --- .......................... I ------------------------------ - ----------- --------- IIIIIII - IIIIIIIIIIII --I-I--II-III-II-I-I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II ........ .u. - - --------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------- -:-auzo An>na mnmgp ------------------------- nBszoumB mamas» 3:22.28 I. :..-l <93 mzo SE J II -IIIJ'I’ i ’ ll I -------- .-...-..-:n§z§8ms Emma Bug-93258 «EB - I . I .......... _ <93 88 Ea Hme.s ass.a ~v«.a oas.o $95.3 Hea.a no~.s .moma . -III I. — do“ no mo flea ~sa so A, .u.o K amn.~I flaw..- ~mv.a- moo.~- ooo.nu qua.~I NNH.H u34<>Ih II v I I I . III II III IvInnIIInuls ovoco~.fi onnaon.a s-avnm.a neonooo.s onmqmn.fi annasm.a vunonnn.a .~ flmomonmfi-:-:I:Io~nmoo.a ........... AnnaHc~I¢:-:I:Imcmmonoeo;-:-:-¢anomvha .......... m¢mmmm.« ........... “smodno.a-J-A«:I-.¢.m ........... z «dohohalllllllfinoono.u .mnun.u.u II.Iu.I.m mnuvum.« mnmmmm.w\\\\ «madxooIeIII+mxlle = owms'o.« owmunn.u nooaaao.s owndomo.a m»aos~.~ mco\am.~ smmnnoo.a .« uuzqfim<> movonn.~ nan~s~.~ ~0fl~odm.a ommadmo.s momaov.~ vasvm.~ momagmfl.aI .m I mwomam.m «mmmwm.« III- I.» «nuwwnn.u numvnn.a woman».« “a mmaomfiofihs.:-+u:- 7cwx-Iz-t-s . .om um t. mm on R.- .u. a “Em -. .o no so mo no we we .d ”Jaxqm Hm aw o“ m“ 5H ca ma -:.:.:.:5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . _ ,- IIIIIIIIIIIII-ITIII I- I I I. . . E w nn~.s 089.9 xva.o v«~.a ~vs.e -s.e mama» -------------- umomL-:-:-:J :.:I:-:.:.:.:-J Na» na« so no as” had A) .h.o 83.7 Sfi? 33? H2; 3?? 03.? $0;- u3§¢ _ --------------- -:-:-:-:-m~ndmam4@:-:-:Imne~svufl mewmo.a keohww.fl nqsvmco.a “Akson.d onson¢.a .N A I ........ -:I:-:I:- IIIIII oosonflwfl .......... saooowuax ......... nnmvvoua IIIIIIIIII «womnmaha ......... «mawmsmh .......... cacaovwfi ........... «AKnmfina ...... +«LI:,aww .......... - xncnuan.s snxmxmgw vvxflrh.u Hwnswnhu oaomaon.n wn-mflmmha SNHSNH.N ..m uoaoo~.a osoaoH.~ omnqs~.~ vounoeo.s ovoaofl.fi mgoH-.~ aflo~«~.n A" muz nnsvoo5.a mannao.~ manohn.n . Nod~oam.a .mnvnn.d ma~m~«.n mnHmo«.n .m :-:ae;e:I:::a:I:-:Iansnabnha ...... :-snenoouk-: ....... abooNbN-:z ...... oaq$u¢vh¢ ...... -:o¢ms~oohb --------- Nmm¢mva!:zI:-Enooa~u~;-;-+u:..z¢uz IIIIIIIIII I no - >0 ND In no rm «m «N .uu_m I. oo oo No No no we No .« mgnz 33344-23) -_ I I . -:I I I.. II- - ,.I. a - ¢F¢n uzo H¢¢a nuszOumHn mag mpmuup auuznazoo «mum: ..«Hg ”20 .52." -. 1 .- onn.s ~na.s 993.9 ~Ho.s onh.a ~nv.a van.s .moaa ma as” we” go on wad n9” .u.o mmo.aI nun.a- aan.n- aflfl.aI onn.a om~.aI ovn.aI u;4.>-~ manage." ooNnad.a noocma.« oomsno.a mouonfl.fi voamoa.fi ¢n.~)n.fi .~ I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII gan-Sana .......... ommmsmua ........... «manic-«------II-IoSoI-r« .......... Swami .......... managers --------- $3an IIIIII 3:: ...-2m .......... awands.auuallll&mnofimhallllllu+ao~xmr¢|lllluu¢¢¢¢mupwuulinnl¢¢oHon.*lnxlnllmam*ow.atlulsluooxsow.»IIII.mIII os~ooa.fi monnmc.a nnmaflw.d oomams.» mom~flm.d mamomvm.a mmemek.fi .« “U7.Mm<> «oknonn.a newnao.a nonasc.n Hmnamn.~ n¢~nq~n.a momkmflm.s nmaoxs.~ _~ mmonnmwhfi ......... n~oom-a .......... anwoo¢u¢ .......... m¢¢AH¢hm .......... «anaoevaé --------- «mSmamo.¢ ......... Mo¢oaohw:-:-+as;-z.mx;.:.:-- ¢.o mm ao um um mm ow .w wwwm so no no do do 00 00 .H u.az.w an .n mm ~n in an ow a. . - E «as.s «on.a $08.9 oss.s “as.a Ho~.a ova.» .momm mo mo NEH ”SH no mo sad .u.o nowvw- .o~.sI Hoo.aI moo.~- NVB.~I Hfls.fl- no«.u- ~34<>IE muuwwmum sandms.d omnsna.d omovsv.d owovev.a mmvmvnm.e Hamqymo.a A~ umwohm.fl cmVHnaufl .......... oflflmoooh. ......... mvoomm.a ........... “manon. ........... “amaeQIfl ........... “mafiown.a-:-+“II-.a.m ......... oasnnawwsnsusaInssnaanalnwnllcxvo«as”anllllllosensouaxniuillnmomnorwxnlnIlIkammoms.®II:III.0qdnoo,s-IIngxI:IIIITIIII mwmflo..~ nusova.a vwfinwm~.s osoeoo.H mnomad.n ovscms.d omnsnao.s .« uuz<_m<> .mwwwn.n nvmncmn.e aowns«.d “comma.o mnmnna.~ moamoflm.a noahnam.a A~ sass...“ .m k oooo.o.-..a IIIIIIIII pmfigs-.Ia-I-III-Ia-nennm..~» IIIIIIIIII 339?"? ........... 26.33.. a ---------- anon-3K... $3.35- 23: IIIIIIIIII N» s» an >0 “9 Inn mm “m mmmm . so co co co so so vo .a ugaz(m ow n~ ow “N «N - Iwm :I. - r. maze-An>uu mung: . -. - mpmmu> nuazuazco .......................................... I a! E as L \l-III-Illl-IIIITIIIITII'1llll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DB2 HHZOO “HQ .Imb nupzfizoomua mafia mammuwsnmngzoo mafia II II I. Ii. icl‘t quazuazoo-mnmma ¢H¢a use amIan=zHazoo mummpI:-- nuDZHHzmuwHaiwummnimamMNMIduDzHHzoo:«umm: ¢H¢a can am<~ v RmanIe «wm.s vmfiwmI. Ifiam.a avm.u 000.9 .moqa as“ on“ as” Ned ad” 3”“ .u.o omoéunIIIIIIIIIunm-suIIIIIIIIImonIaIIIIIII1azooo.quIIIIIIII¢a«IauIIIIIIIIImNn.a.-:-II-:sIuaJ«.nHIII oonnnuo.a s~mm¢ao.a wcmuvnm.g onwmuom.s mmsnmum.a nooanqm.» Aw unmounm.sIII:II~msmnmm.u-IIIIIBQNNHsadIIIIII-nvmdfimoIaIIIIIIanmo«NIQIIIIIIamovnou.aI-24fl;I-m.m- wonmome.a «ovsnhn.a ~vomooo.s «manmvn.a usevvnn.s “nomad“.s Am ownflmnmquIlluszgvmmaanIalllsnIoNmmmu+dIIIIIII-NNNNwIaIIIIIIMNamaanaIIIIIIANanNo.uIIIAa-uux Amwall savom~.m anoca.v onwvah.n sagas... ..noe-n.v do.~ofl.v .N nnnodAI. amauna-e . oaoNQN.» asm~amImIII:zthw»mo v IIIII-50«~+¢.Ila.a.II.mmuII|I on a. «v av nv me .N mmfim we am on «a mo IzsImoIIIzzIIIIAd-IDJmu4wllI um om mu .m mm mm, <88 03H. Sufi.“ Elixll APPENDIX F T-TEST RESULTS FOR THE LOWER CONTINUED VERSUS LOWER DISCONTINUED GROUP OF RESPONDENTS .IIIIVIILI. “I. I ..:—...i Ifi§IB§dBZEOO mg ...... I . :I-I..II.-.. (Ha EDI Hw—(hklll-i-II III I . ......oé ..:-...,o n3... NI; 03... So; 2...... .33 3 so on so on we no .II; 3o; mono- sow-.o- ooné moo; onis- 3?...- ”311 Zoo-om; wow-Hon; 3:..qu $23.~ 332; .3285 :23; :.. IIIIIIIIIIII ----I-II-IIIIII-I-om~oon..-H:I-:-ILooomfia--I:I::n3oomu«I------I--Iwooofi--I-II-I-Imooouoo...oIIIIIIII-$oool.£--I-II:33-3..«-II-i «1 I ..o..m.::----- LVZECL.onmElllomm.sITmsmoIoonIlonoaaoglII-iIai-JIIINIII 3.33; ~33»... ooa.om.~ 332.; 3.3935 333mg .2834 3 32:5; '23:... Room..." oomuom.~ 332...». oowouwoé oowoomé 2.33.... a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~o«gingi-II-Ihhmnun-.....-IIII-III-o9335-----IIII-«o333--::----gussmm£-IIIIII-ommsaw, ----I-----In33Y.Im-II .II-$- : I fox-1------- .o~ P». “u ow am no ow I“ “who .3 on .3 so so 3 do 2 flux; 5 o n o o N a 1 h F Duaauuz_ HHH .thrSJ nzanm>zu05m «MIDI. mu: m.> «I: n-n..:IP >420 Agfi «M38 Egg 985500 5.3 nzo Hu nupzaazoo manna <93 ”.20 “BEN :06 31a 3.... 235 In; 2?: his .8: 3 so on 3 so 3 2 (6 fl mmv.a. c.m.g. one a- mos.s «no.8- 038.”- sna.a- uaJ‘>-h _ 333$ 33th 2932.9 332”.“ $234 223; smawéoé & «32m; .......... 932K; ........... 33235 ........ $2.33...“ .......... $335 .......... ~23?“ ........... 0333.31.13 .... $5591--. coosfi~|oShofilllbgorsmksloi“$993251m9233.m9» .333? @9399 332; 333... 1392.9 2.31:" 33:.m 32:5.” Zooowoé 3 87:5; 3.03%». 3.23.» anifidé 33an Sinusw 0.0334. S-.m1~mn~1,..$.:.m1 -...m: ............................. 3vwith}:--:-mm.no¥.§----.«Paun333.5------:measfi:11--:o-nav”w-------1..om~o~c..w--13.u:2nmo.u::S .1232. . - v39 so aw on on ».u. mm mm mrm 3 no we on we 3 .3 3 ”3%.; «a , aw o“ 3 Z 3 m" 1. ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2 -- : ............ ..r mats Sis 30;. ~35 Esé Eé M914: 1.8.; No . S 3 on S 3 a» £6 om? 3.59.- E98 BS; 03..." 53.? 92...? ”3.5L ............................. mfi~arno,...a1-1::.322.2n 90¢...an 3227a 2230.: Nmnamré $.33.~ a --- ....................... .oaooma..H----1.1-:on$.:n .......... amuse...” .......... varwnig ......... 3331.1“. .......... omomflmpfi. .......... 3:3,“:11: .oJm .......... 9353f 23w.“ ...[nfnohlnwagmrallfifl onfbfififl; x. 33.3-9. ~9i9 333$ :33; \ooSm.~ somvmmmé N203; 082m.~ Inmnwé 2 33;; 93.32.: 333.». .3336 . nomuomwé :33.“ Nwmmmmé . «EXTN a ................ :----.--:--n.o~n351-11-16m33§11111§an3”$1-11---«ogom...b:-------n¢3.m¢..#----------vrmv3...n:----.--. Nmmoom....~ 9.: 25: 3 on E 3 ...v \w a.» “w mmmm R .3 3 do mm ,3 3 ... ”Sarto. 3 3 w.“ 3 3 o o anpznazoomun «use; mpmzu> anpwuuzou mmzcg ¢H¢d n20 HM o~.HnaoHe vaunan.a cannon.» soooo~.o magnav~.s nmmmom.a mmooaw.~ AN a-o\nn-9-:-::-aoeoonra .......... ansoaopm .......... wmcoo$u¢ .......... va$+aanpu ......... o+m¢om.« ........... aavm*¢bm ...... +«.--2.wz ......... .9» K» a» an mm mm «w A" mmmm do mm «o «o ”0 Km Ho .« “405(m an cm nn w» an an om 3 n F earns noa.s vom.s cos.a mom.a fiq~.a osn.s .moga an “a mo A» on mm mm .k.o misus- Han.“ nnm.a- voo.d- nmo.a- mmn.s- noo.s- us;<>-k owmvowrm-:-:-:-anqomm.s \amwmhw.u omvnflm.fi hdflo~0.fi nqmnmox.a Nuxvnvo.s .N cocoon; ......... 333..” ........... 333.5 .......... 3333.. .......... 32:15 .......... meounmobo ......... omutao.s---.+« ..... .. ..m ......... owanv..~ I19|91oflfl~oflhu9-;9I999nsonoppollllllbcosowumnullllubwsvmoumlnulullsmnwwonbanllleihoooo«v.9.999~;9.9199|||||| sovmvm.~ noqcnfl.a snam.a.a mmammo.H mwmood.~ nans«~o.a oVnoq~o.s .« uoz nootow.n oma¢~hd.a \mowmn.a «flvwnfl.» Rococo.~ 05mmven.s sssnnm.fl ,m 33:5 .......... $393.8 ......... \hnmowuw .......... asaemoum .......... coa'un...~a ............ 32335 ......... Sauna;:-...3.-:2m 9 .319999 3.93.39 so no on so do do “n .« m4n:-k cmenco.m oflnwmo.fl Honm¢m.fi v»mmo~.a NmeWWMW ..... ~m ...................... neonaswm .......... mammomua .......... “moonmuh .......... m+u$mcma ........... amonso.v-1-:¢fl..;,cwm..1-:- x>0ossrmlllllllomasmfihmlllxllnmavommkfilllllllfiVfiaHahmllllnst*odawnpainui+mcltxnllllllll ooavcn.v mvflomo.a osmnso.fi unmnvo.~ momenm.m ”a u07 sasaao.~ nvanmom.a- mommom.H sassas.n “annoo.n "m «’33:». «mum¢ananov..ér ....... 339mm,”. ........... owfloafm. ........... 351i», - 1 311.2321 ......... so an “V um 0m 9m mm_m .99 me we on we do "a “Jaz‘m av on on no on 55-...h95 was: ans—23.453043 ”02> N—flDZJJE—DJ ¢R¢u n20 hucu. . I DMDZHEOUmHa MEG..— mDmmg Gaby—Eco mg <88 039 HmSm -l .emawa----9.-.mmmwn 3.: Ea.-.-m---;----figuz ~35 3: .8: mo No «a no NN «o ow .u.o -. -NNN.N-----:aao.a-:---:-¢Na-m Nam-d --9--nmm.a .----¢wN4n-:--:--NmN4«-----:uanauH-IIII- onavaNoua---mamoaoo.a amasaho.a N¢»N¢N.H NNNveNm.s canoes.” nmnmomo.a .N Nanomao a No¢¢oNo.u---u0flam«m.all-u-ImNaNmnm-alz-il-v«NAHNm4a---!w~ognaw-ut-II-omNNASméa “a .u-m -. ---:----.anssovmna noeonos.a sesssoo.a Novmnm.fl nmaocou.s gasses.“ «mamxno.s .N 9-9- NcmNmoo a - . -5NNnomo.a--.-nmNNnoN.a.-9-9Nsoumam.N--99-oNNN¢~o.u9-999-ANGannN-u---e¢aanam.u .N-uuaaaqulll- -I-mfimcflm.n nNooNa.m NNNNss.v Novmmm. HNNocN.v NNNNNN.¢ Nmmamm.n AN NNNNmN.¢:----HNommN.v----unnnnn-v----aommm.a-9--~Hmmov.w unnnnm.m----uNnmNméms .« 24mm .---;---;-::--NN -gz- ...... 0N --.:-- ON ON 0N oN NN .N mmmm so mm -: ao-w-:-:-9-s:ac;--- --- m -i- :--:9-No ma-;--;--~«--m4manH--- ONoNnon.s sasseao.s sfianN.H ooooofl.fl fiqoamN.H ommnovk.a nvq¢flfln.a AN u¢ooame.a---owNfloaoaa---o¢oONNN.a---mvmaommwN----ammo¢a.a-:---w~Nvan9u-I-Ilano“Neafl.N.-AN--4n-m:-9..- nnnnnom.s asasavo.a onnnvm.fl monmflq.fl asavom.d Nmnmfiom.N “nadomm.u AN onmnanN.a .-aonsahnduI-9-9-snvnaoN.u---Nananaaau---nouaua.A----dvmmNam-u-I-IllaNoNcmNea-.NH-uun«qm4al .- aeseaa.v osmssa.m sassmm.» emaovc.m NNNNNN.N mNnNoa.: mmnnaa.v AN aaasmneq -|Ianoo-+¢ «voodd-v vnmwam.m .Inlldvnmndan nsnmvm.q -»uaaam;m-liraw- fimmx - mN oN mN 0N NN oN ON AN mmmm ao-!-!- flu on om- ao-- on, - No --:-:-44.9u4mx«w- .- .« nd Na . a“ N o . - .m-- -. \--\-- .9- - .- . . nuuzaazoo mason --- .- _ . nBzEzmmmHa NEE mamas :fiE can-2%,--. -- 9.-.!- -I--9-9---\----\--- _ ------------ .— ouDZHHzoomHn-muzoq-mbm¢n>iam52HHzoo «M3QA9999-:-I:e- zvz-zl-té- ¢H¢d OBH H¢¢fl ml I! 19-.-! s- ---. - p. as~.n szwq OHN.N- magmm oaN.» NVN.N .muwa an co co No No no .N.o Nn«.v. ...... ----aHo-n. Nmm-N Now-N-----amn.N. nau.N.. !--:-uj4«mnH-. wnsmdfl.a cnsmfld.a «NNfioN.H «OOONnN.N “NNNmNO.N Nu¢mnnm.a ”N mNaoNnN.q-I--Nounnn~.a---¢N¢¢o¢oeu:--:-NNNN¢NO.N---9Nmfl¢omo.m.---mflsvum.N.s-u--4n-m-- .- .- asssmN.d aNanN.« «mNONN.H nannnoo.s cocoomm.s ncoqnoo.s _.N oomomvmqs s~o¢s~mad. Nmonod4a tduommonqfiill- tnnmvnmdu -onmvov0.n--u-mur4umau saaast.m sasgse.w mdoemn.o sassmm.» Nassau.» va0¢m.n AN amoun~4¢ Adanaw4v aneummém- insomnmiw lll-noomnflfimw111-i-ounwmm.m111-hwillmmwx mN mN oN AN mN 0N .N MNMm an an an -mn on -ao--a---44-u4mmqw-. NN oN mN .N ”N . . .. . NN. 'ncv9lu .ll. 0|.Il'l v.l.|:‘l\a.|| ‘.‘9 Il'. l.l- nusbnazoumnn «Nana m=m¢u> nuaznazoo mused ¢H¢a-o:a.a¢-N annoN.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.« NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N .N HNNNNN.N «.oNNN.« NNNNNNNN:-: ...... NNNNNNNN:.:-:-eooNon.N-...AN:. .o.m .......... ona.no.r nNHoNo.N >NNNNN.H NNNNNN.N- nNoonh.N:II.NN-I:I ~31»; ”gown.” ovaamé gins.» anoNNN N." ”33;; NNNNNN.N NN-NNHNNNNN.N- NNNNNN.N oNNon.N NNNn\v.n .N NmmmNN.N N.NNNNN.: .c.n.ro.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N Na 2NN$ M0 N0 mm No No No 9. on . lg. E bub! E00. mug ................................ - - 563 E0 HI‘N II I‘lllllll‘lllllll IIIII .vlll I ; I i ; 1 ! Nam N ............... N N.N....N ............... o ..NN...N:-.:-::::.N.$.Nm--:----------w.N.N...N ................. NNNN- . -- NNN...N----------:::...N.omm ........ .. ............................. NNdNNN-N~NNNN-NNNvNNNN No . ququ- NNN+¢- NNN.N- NNN.N- NNNNN www.mtsi-;i:xsumm~.N NNNN>-N N ........................... nmn.amdN1N------:-mNNno24-9--:-----manamuwé----------.N.Nnnm.N.N...N::-----.N.m.ms..o..3...a::::-maNNNam...N-------..-w.N.w.N.m.9.3..-----.N-m----::-------:----... :-::-::-:-y:-s:.:-wwwmmmmnm ......... mmmmwmmam ......... Nammma:m-::-e:.smommmmw;m:szs:smmwmmnwsfisa:-:.wNNNNmN:N:;:;2:NwNNstwze:shM ..... ”mhw .......... NNNWNNN.N mvaNmth WNNmNm.N mnmmmNN.N NNNNMNN. N INNNNNNN N NNNon:N .N NNNNNNNANillulucaNNNoN.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNNN.N NNNNmoN.N NNNNNNN. N NNNNNN. H .H NNZNNNN> . ........................... 0 ~33... Q--------«NNNNN a-------:-.~nam.Nw..N----------wNN.mu.N..------------.N.N.Nmo.N. w.--:----:N.mmN3--.v.----------o.c.nw.N.,N...w.-----.N._m------.-----.i--- . NNNNNNN. N NNNNNNN. N NNNNNN. N NNNNNN. n NNNNNN. N NNNNNN. v NNNNNN.» NH ZNNN ....................................................................................................... ----------------------------.-.------------------------------------------------------- . No NN NN NN NN NN NN AN NNNN NN NN NN NN NN NN No NH NANNNN .................................. N ----sunnnnunv..-un..a-.0v1---:--xunvxuni: ---mun-..-v.....:.nu..!. i--- .v...:...:....................... ..nl...3......-|!.....----..N...--....nnulnalv--II---H-||-..-----...-......in..-....u-5.----- N N. ...... ,-Nx.--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------m--------------------------------------------------- - -- ----- --. N ....... -nu ............................................................................................................................................................................................N 2 ................................... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- -- --- ---------------- _ ............................................................................................................................................................................................... -------- . ‘ _ ....................................................................................................................................................... ---------------------------------------------- _ .N Nome. NZNNN 3cm amazNNzou NNNNJ m> amazNNzoo NNNNN NNNNN. N .... ..:.:::\\\1 ........ ,- . -- --i ---uggou.agfiga§8éw.§§ .|.\ IIIIIIIIIIII \l \b'lll‘.\|||lll\|‘ll\|lllll\.lll|.l|\ltllll\ ‘13- -IIII.\IIIIII.\|III|.|\I‘I.|1I\\I|DI ’érr ”A m JHFH . c25r§8d§39ma§ 332.28 «ENS %.Smi.uzo .53 ”GENO .mfimm-vy.uu... NV“ nhuu‘ NNN.N- qu<>np NNNNNN.N NH .n.N oNNNNN.H .NN SNNNNAIIIQINN... NNNNNN;N NN NNNNNN.N .N zqwz No NN NNHN No N." u 5.21m I. .. . . -1 N ..... 1 . ‘11.----..-..-----. IIIIII 1‘: ‘ y y“ 1 I. \ , “EEOC ”umg‘ nBono gnammflcu. to! 33.2% ...... EM \‘IIIIIIIIIII|IIIIIIIllillllillllllll IIIIIIIIIIIII)I|0|\|lll|l‘|l|l|llllll I I‘lllll llll‘llll A tlll|ll I‘ll-.I‘l I‘I . , \‘IIII! IttIlI\IIII |\|Ill| agony mason mag 9323.200 mung <93 03. 85E Iai::;1\r.e:..:;nmfiww--e.-‘ :z:n«mna mmmus .wmQ.a smdwg:-.-x. mmm.s ,eg-gzmmaww.- .moma -fl amfl um“ owa d~fi “Na mma .u.o nan.ailllii-.m~a.m Soil «:1. sdgiildomam H31". 9.314; Nanomdm.a sovqmmm.a oofls~¢m.a mmanono.a vvaaamo.a mnoemsm.s ommmawo.s AN admnons.a,z:i|:~as¢ofloqaxnlsslnoo~naoga.zuncnaanmanmfiqlizlueaammoaned:nlunrna~smvmqa owmnom~ta “a .n.m mvnmmoo.o unwnomo.a nmo~no~.s msosnmm.e ou-v~o.a «hednm~.a evadodo.s AN -x:llz.;:--a:,il-“Hummno.a.:-:ianuooomn.a.ls::1nflooaon.ax::|:l«mummu~4§izalaaonmoom~4asalun1udoaNo~«dslrnazdmou-m.asltdaauuz ou:z_pzou «man: s an : 1} 1 I ‘ J r :-.--iii:!i--itt :-tiilul...l- .l 337» z ’i, I!!! {)-Ojnl-€l|9,llll|ll: [It‘llllllIII/Illlflulllililll 1 ’ (1| (fill! I i 1: - f Ill'llco'llfillaulll-1cl.-/.f IJII(II’III( . a; an»: lit/(l- u> g /. oom.a mnm.n ov¢.s noné nwa.s Nan.s sota ,.mnw.4n a: ow“ E." «NH Am." 3." a: .....o . :m s nmmé- unis- ncmé Sm; muoé 319.- iii, .uzJflqusu. naommoné «3:35 oavonvoé «nmomfln.n manmmwwé nmvngoé mm¢nuaq.s .w «322.5 vvoouvoé .3332" awoswam.dsul;;!.movvnmm.dllflinusmnom r nlfimmnvmmé .-ifin, l...m..m mmwmsoné ovnmncoé Nuwsnooé omommdmé 32.30;“ «9333.9 933E; .m Illdoagaoélllluemdmom.s «.rsnmn H .8533». nivsmda .:..omnonmmqsl.i. dwmeaoméf, 3 finial. omanom; aonns~.m nnnnmo...” notes; nnnnom.» nnnnnn.» Insane; .m . u l. lidmnnan. ~vomau€i some¢finl1|ilteam~®1d imvomaa; 3:05,” mmoaona‘vx ,Iilda ndmslll. .. um am so om so so on .m mm; . .2. oc o: 2‘ om 2. we 2 u :23 an aw o." m.“ “a on ma om ..u 03.5 3&5 265 03.5 235 vmoé 35$. ‘ Kimono. «ma 3” an“ om." ow." mm." 3A ....0 sun; ems w srué 37W smmé 31s- aE.s- u: :2-» 333.6 ommfiosoé zoomnmé mvmdommé 933a; $3.398 moflmvsmé .N rgiggleNadmfiqdlloooavmméllloomflmmo.n £334 «rummnfiflllnldmflunmoqqlllllaemll ommmflnwé «unsanné snvmaoné . Nonsnncé noggin semvmmmé nnnmvmmé AN vmamonv.dullllm:nmnm‘ulmmmnmofi.dll|asonomm.a svdaonoallomonsjnmssnmnqlx Simunlddsl. assnmn.v oooon~.m vvmwgJ. vmmflo.» 3235 2.3;.» se..§um.v Am ...llnll.| l.lll..v,m-amJ.I|I.imN~d: v nnrnnm‘v «End; 33.341 «333;. 312;; 2 :«Z 311.311 1:2 on 2 2 on an a :5 S 2 I 2 on mq S 2 “.3an e." n.“ a ‘ {[rIfe , m f [ff/lel I i/fi/ , .AI Ilicl / 9:11: ...III {I J)! a {I ‘ /II‘ 5500 g A a ,.... v~ :5: ...h a... . at». mi) :4 ...: n . :..»?- L ,57: ~. f. Y;u.‘u.zA,t.v . .sva. u y‘ uni-Nth .n. - l} .- 1‘ nupzaazoo auzoqsmammu>;au=zuazoo mumps ,.-r.- :-- i;re;.n|: ¢a¢a can amnainu mmsoon~.s mosnnm~.u .nvqovo.a asuneao.o soa.omo.s ~0fl9¢ww.s Am Nnnounqun:llltmmnmnmm4articIINaNNamqaausalntnvwflunowallniurumnn0¢wfianlllr:flNoqno~.u.::N6-4:+a;w oohom¢m.a amoqsnm.s . «monmom.u okommon.a «nnovnq.a o~¢qovo.a .N . ounamaNJaaaluzzsc«man~«aunslauaNMmma.atu:nzzu--~nmqazlnaxawNamflon4axllaauammnywo.9.ggaf mux¢umuanu «moom~.m n««mm~.. fissamann .!nmomnm»w nomaMn.c -muno~wnn Mu munoud.¢ a~m~no.« oao~m~4n uamuundv mammm~.v K~n0q~.. ”a 74w" on Ho so om on an - mmwm Va am ac «a on ad-|:nzzzzxganewjm:«wul. hm om . mm cm _ mm mm I, ll! i/EIK‘ ; r 373.453) 7| I y Iii/91,1 amaszzoo «use; mammm> amaznh¢oo «mum: m24mz zzaqoo nz ouazmpzoo «man: 1 , ,1 l -- -- I: :4.: -: - -x-- Mpmuh.» I J - I ‘ r l y - pilbg; QMDZHBZOU Mmsog m9m¢m> ONDZHHZOO mummb mz<flz 225400 02¢.Bbm .039 H¢ :uazm_za:nHD «mama nBonumHn «ES 8mg £32283: «BB . . <93 uzo pawn in; N35 2?... «sis CTN omvé 3H; .82. co 2 «o co 3 . «o no J5 nnméu Hooé- omN.s minus- 3%? CTN- SSH- “.31.; $3.34 mHmHmHH nHomSHTs nnnnnnH moncoH NosaooH smHNqa-fia HN mwmmowé $6.395 ....... ----aHNetan..¢- ....... mc¢mo¢¢pn.---::-om~.vmn£1--- ....... $63th ........... anon:£1---+H.::.9..m ...... ---- mousse.» oHm3fiwLwoinIoosTNiomNsooSIII'o33m£1+T 3335 332.4 ommNnmNé omomnooé 2:3an mmNnmNN 3.3235 3 3:15; nooaNoN mnnnns... nanNNHé aasssaH manNnN ooaNomN 312332.“... 3 unwoum.» SEEN NoHNflwé 3.891....“ .uanoTN. .......... H¢msvmpN ........... Nomimfé--:+Hr.-z$x .......... ’N 90 >V Dv 0N PW mm «N mwmflr on an S on on S :.. .H 3%.; .3 am 3 NH NH 0H 3 2 . H .............................. «3.9 30.9 HNoé momé 30.x $58 H09: .2"; no no no No .3 3 «o (.0 3T? HBé- 23.3- HNHé- 03.81 03.31 02...... ~33-.. mHNNIoé $334 noHoonH mmNHNHHé $3305 ngqu 3“:qu .N Sinai: Sage: ....... ..--HNcmnoth ........ Somme; .......... 2.3.15 ......... Nisan-£1 .......... 333.5--.--.H..H..,.f..o.w ......... 9331.. 9 539.1511... L331. THU-Ramps IHSSHlenmNsva-.11|.,..E£o. o 31$- nmcnoaoé $33..." NvNanN 33:3..." oHomHomé Nanme sNHsmH.N .H uuzim; oommomoé umnmcod.“ aNVHNmJ nommommé Cummcé mwmmmm.» vnaanoN .u 3213:: noonHo.u o\om~.m.m onmew.u wwmvwmuu ........... mama-«...».-..51..-.h.anoH.n.--1.+u-...7.4m; ........ - Z 3 3 z ...» “N m... «N $3 an on S S B on 2,, 3 mix; .1- «H 3 . NH HH 3 o : . o I . Inlllllnlulllllllulluv 1:1 1 .1. 1 1 on.IlAIvlllllllllllliclllllll- mu...“ ............................... 1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII ..l’r 11-11-11--.nae—Eonfln-was: 2.2... ..1 - 111111.111 u |.. h 3.. .s31. ..... :...- . ‘ .--:-.------,nuszoumHn xgfibmxg 93592839 mama—1;: . . L:. .- . - <93 E8 BEE ”3.9 :Ké Saé tag on“... 03.9 . 2;; .3: no no mo 3 co vo oo .....o 30.? 3?? H25. 2?? can; smog- $35. “3:; 23mg... 3935 Senna.“ $334 2533.» 333.." 333.." Am ............:.:.......:.:.?33% .......... o m t3 « "a. .......... 3833.3. ......... ¢oma$$ .......... mm 3: ..m .......... 1.3 3.. w ........... 1;? n...“ ....... in -- - .. o .. m ..... {aimoshlflmvmfifioSiammmvillnvas a.» Am 530;; .2334 332.” $32.~ ~33»; 23%; 32.3.» 2 374;; 03:35 333.." Emmmmg 333;. 353%; $834 Nmnommxv. 8 -------:-----:-------------.wosnmup...» ........ Momma..." .......... 933.5 .......... anfimmuw .......... nvm‘ncwn...“ ......... www.mmhmtu ......... nw$§n~a ..... 3;- 73: ......... nv Tu on no «u ow 0&1 kw Jumum S on on S A» mm on 3 .53.; mm «n 3 mm 3 an 2 3 . ....-Ii.1 H nears omwnlsi finmé 30.5 35.5 39m ............. 33.x ...... ‘ (moat: ‘ mo 3 co 3 no. 3 3 .ud 03.? nmoé 33:7 Nita... 21...? 10.? 33.? ”34;; $2.35 cnosmvmé 2.2278 £32.“ 333; 2253.8 $2.305 Q “Gag; 9388..-“ .......... 3i§§l: ...... «wwngtufi .......... omovuvfiq .......... mmvmvmmkm ......... Emvyoogiia 55 ......... A I|LEcckLhfioneLohfilgfiLwllnmscmfiTLnflyn“TIE.”02...”ska nssnas.m 333.." 33.3.“ 0952..“ ”Sumo; 22°35 3330.9. 3 321m; 233.». onfivmzé R33." 3&2.» $030.,m fmmzné 333.” :.. :-:--------------:-- ...... K333. .......... 33:33 ......... vowmfifi. .......... $93? ........... $2.3..m ........... mommomué .......... mooundm...s-:.+a ..... 23$ ........ -A so hm mu >v mo an ac. Aw mmmm S S on on S S no. 3 ”flux; 3 R 3 3 «N . mm . . , «a lllllllllpnl lllllllllll I llllllllllllllllll lllIIIIIH IIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIII IllllIlllllll‘Illb EgmHn ‘A x I . 1.! i. {.‘l’JlI-Ill’"! --- I:---/------:--I----I- HE -e§-3mfi$ -I-!---,,-----,-----,::/ ,gnfiooaa:§s- Iago a: ...-I-I'I'lllllllll lllllll IIIIIIIDIII lll Illlllll Illllllll (III!!! II IIIIIIOIIIIIIII nuszazoomHn MNBQH mammu> QNDZHHzoumHn mumma (fidfl H2O Hfl«4gmm.w an,ommpaulxnuliawaawahnlllnlllfi¢flammw«ullm+mxue ammunm. ommmmm.a nvnmmn.a Nuovoo.m Nomd¢mww “a muziwm<> U: lCuV(~‘ u w ssusso.~ ”vanmmm.sl nonmom.a aasaem.n nannom.n «N I. U Dh.7 AEVRB UVDaUDq.“ Rh0\n+.w ”MM.“ EnNQNN,..YI..Ixn+flonIZC‘MI.-:I ..... . “Cit-Iv u. 90 av nn Rm 0“ hU I 4‘: v Am mm n on no .a anz GDIK s . ‘ a a z 3 Ell IIIIIIIIIIIIIII . IIIIIIIIIIIIII l IIIIIIIIII I! IIIIIIIIII llllllll IIIII I V . j! I]. IIIIII I.”4.1-31.5:1---/:1: ..... (--:...liiifiiln , ----}:--:-----l---:----auazHHz‘ 83¢-“st {ti/2|}! :----i-l.-!-----li.l::{it}!!! -9935 . , nnbznhzoumna ., «5.5 IIICIIIIIIII‘IIIIIIIIIOII as E ,Illllvllllllllllln I IIIIAI III!!! Ilr QHDZHHzoumHQ Muzoa mDmMm> .QNDZHHzoomHn. .dmmmD mZ¢m= 30M mzo .HM ........................... 3.083.0.----.---aoo324------::~03.£.~ mmmdwflé mum-3.040 $0.30.; 233.» .~......: -. 3302.0 233; 232: 0.30.3.0 £320 33%.; 3235 3 7.3: -. 3 mm om 0n o~ 8 a a mm; 2 an on S on 3 S 3 01.23 -- n c m e n m H 5 _ H 3 502 02;: :3 0002:2320 533 9, 80222820 523 I . . . . - . .- w . . -. I b . . in..h\Iin b h ~10 in; Viihk’ I-h .xhh ~Z hvhnZP trig..- 5 AN WNunhaNI‘K in .I‘~’h ...-7L~i.V-«u It. I-i. in ..i‘ \I-I--§\ .‘iihnu .i I~ amazuazoomua gamma «2%.: 3.530 92 8m .25. .23 Hafl.s «39.9 (It!!! |l.|:|.l.\1 l I‘ll....’.|. I II..I I Ill...lll I... no to mo 00 mo 00 oo .u.o sns.a naawfi -llllll.l||rlnl (III In. .-caaé . . guru :9on .mumu III I‘LIII} Ill, .5 IOIII .IIIIIIIIIIIIII-.nao.d.II.135-:INmN.nI;IIIIlII-dmquIIIIIIIIIInmoaa:II:§IiII3mHs.nIII:I?:I€?NmnaniIIIIEIIEImonfidIiIIIII9:IMJJ ouazHHzoomHo «mama -I mz GMDZHHZOU mumma -...IIIIIIIII- ..:... .. . IIIIIIIIIII -.:.. .. . I- IIIIIIII;IJIIIIIIIIIIIII . . . <33 55 H¢I. »I mmvnn.d Hmwfiam.fl nvameo.a aomufla.~ “Movnn.a wsosmflo.s «Known.u u mmflow.m nnfimaawa IIIIIIIIIII xvomoqma .......... mamfiaewa ....... .IImvmmos.a .......... “vommxa.aIc I. omflaws.a .. . E5} .4 “VD wn»ou.a owmmmWIhIIIIIIIbmmva¢P¢IIIIIIImsmmm+I¢IIIIIIIo¢$aoAI$IIIIIII¢mam«mtIallllIIH«IsthfillII mIIIIII 0:0«n. « annomw.a soflons.~ onmfian.fl oonmofl.a mannmmo.s no.¢»u.« a u07: m<> _ vanmmufi.a “summe.a oomwom.~ mmmooo.~ . ommvamn.a oomoom.fi sen;um.m .a .kmooawha. ........ momssoopa. ........ «wwan&um .......... aImmo¢um .......... nn-n¢.9& ......... ”Ivcmomva ......... ownags»~ IIIIII A“ , nu ow \u I» am um ww “m wmmm ” we no no No me mo no A“ m4u> Dmaz~hzoa :umm: n_nm_IIp Ruins-z i.l.IZAI&r...JDIIL I n n,- hdn‘s ~2r~\¢IuI~I-Av7 In I I “U I.” y‘n.‘ ‘ IN ‘1' ,~Iinn “\I-u v . - IE!- vaI n. 24d .7. in Nut) ...................................... I ..InuszEoomHn 533.ng 9322.28 5mm: : .. .......... <93 nzo a¢v :¢-|.|-li-mm ~m nuflm v0 A“ m4uynk vmsnvo.m oammmo.n ammnum m «H‘w fi.fi .0.-m -I-rVI.-I' x F >mflgmm.u ma,mnmhwn|llllnwaa“Hahn-Illlxl Hnmoom.fl ovmnam.fi mounns.n nVfinmwm.an nommom.a asenaa.m ,nodsuowfl -Amzs; .H uuz«_mq> snsuao.m hammoo.n «N wmomn&u~ .......... asuaaaavaz;-z-:vmvm¢moua ......... «soso$u~ an an -:-.:-¢sssnflyn ....... ¢«,:,z-h = «cvoqu48 ......... stooco.a headcm.d ”Hummuo.a ooonnno.m cooomum.u nmnwne.fi .m . . : avoflnon.o nfiom¢sh.s gammnu.fi oonmono.s nmvmoah.s vo.~vnm.a ovuoam.fi. ma .n.w ..-. -- ----------------------- : van«nm~.s :mmqoxe.s acmsvm.fi flofimmnv.s smonmmq.s msmxmnfi.u ”Huang.“ Am vo~mmmo.n oanmoov.s Kmfloxs.a Hmvumaw.u emsmoov.~ monnvon.s Hannss.fl ”a mu:«uaq> : ammo~a~.a cocoan.fl ~mmmom.~ mmmflmfi.o mmmuma.m svmmmo.¢ mn~om~.n .m = neonmofi.e samman.s Hoooas.~ mwmmvu.n oomo-.m omoaoo.v mnnago.» « z«mx : om mm ow am am mm om .m mmfim No no me we no mo mo AH u4nx amazNFZOU «mama o - - -d — 337.... ¢ u «IIIIIIIIIIAII llvlllllcll IOIIIII --.\.§uhk~ anbzqqZDann MESA many—B, 3331953 Ema mz¢u= sou .uzo ax¢m 1-6 umyuma.fl--:-am -,- :.:-:-:- Nvo»nm.a .mw.:,”m.m,.:-:;-- mmnvso.a AN Hamcmm 3322.28 mama: I!!! :-!:, I! ----..-1- $37» I‘ll'u‘ul'l I - :li ili-l-u Ill lift-J1!- llwll (I); w / \\\\\ [all]! lll/"{1- Ill 3.55035 $53 /|l(./-/.--/ gag GE ‘1 lll/liv/ EGO flflmg .i/z-III so ~o no mm mo no so .u.n aav.n;.:a-ltslisoa.~ ..... .i:¢::1!¢un.a;:.aztzs:tmov4n:. -:si::.mov.n :e +siyrsmao.n3;;11-s::1awn." maderw u mv~w-.fi Hsnvma.a nufisqa.a ammomoo.s maaons.a socmnn.d nmnnnow.u ”u .-‘Nflafidmh.a pt: evoouvo.aséz-:gad-na.fl_::n ome~«aw.o-¢;z;gmovqmnm.a :;;:!flecmnmo.u‘,-;. nmmmqmm.~ .fifi .n.w;t| assssm.a nnnnnn.a sasssn.fl uoooomo.e nnnnNe.H Hovmus.a nnnnovv.a .m .:uaoaaaao.aiiltztsquamom.a$111¢tnnsnmm.azilst;sqmoowco.utiise‘ouuvamm.as-:!:iomnonmmau ..... -aumvflmm.n. A“ muzaamqa: unease.» osssso.» assesm.» aasam¢.n season.» mnmaoo.~ anos~fl.v .m am~nvn.v rails:~¢omda«viltlitasmma¢m9nIIIII:2asflNnuéwlzsslsu~vomaanp avancmh‘s «mommmo.e Hoosvom.n sanmmnm.s mmaommn.s vmnonnn.n mamomnm.s 2320.3 owfmmoé $022.8 $033.9 ~.w.~.m2m.a '33:; “.3225 .ozm aflom‘muo.s momomov.s WhooOvn.& mfmhman.s oomosnm.s NNovmon.s Hanummn.n naonamn.& moamvnv.a avonnwm.s ouvoavo.s ‘ovnmnmw.u momavom.s vvamflvv.a mur<~¢<> nfiocnm...” oooomoa.» ........... “.4 ”Hmong. mwflmcu.n havona.v Novmns.v nassvn.n «~32.» SEE; 33%; 3.23; 33:; MNSR; ”town... .fimr. 0N mm 0N hm o~ om um “IFS": 00 v0 oo oo oo 00 on ka24m 2} h ‘ c n v n N H 0 1 . I A . ‘ JIQI. . _ , _ Am xomo. mz owaznhzou «man: 4 mkmuhnh IIIIII . J yyyyyyyyyyyyy x.) ‘ ‘ ‘ A y ‘ 4 ‘ 1: V‘A .r.» III..:|»ru Inlluvl .annulvuuvl IIII:lllIlilllllIllllllllnllllllllllIIIIUIIICCICIIIIIIICJ as: $2..” 93.“... nN ; .mnnn I ‘‘‘‘‘ no ow om m.» - :..».A. ......... nomé mm~.m mg; .23.. was-» 3230.8 ”33%..“ mmmmvNN.u-----:- @3334 ‘.~ ““““““““ ommvgoé 23.3%; nflvmwnmé ~323£51§ . um “2:33.”. 32535 “233.8 ounsmffi .m l! $335.9 omvanmmd moaonmm; innmavé 3 mo, Frail 2:306 933; 222.”. 33?.» .m 93?... «31%... $3.34 33an ....... A m ..... flaw ........... om ow ow ow Am Him we no mo on 3 mdiw mfi NH GH “H 1.! 1 ............... 11 . I use a 26.5 s21: 3.1a Sud 53.x «Jig ................ .‘mdwm .......... no .3 no I, X. 3 m) Fin Em m rnnfi Sui; Ivan mafia 26;” mm\.~ m... 3! --:-----------------------:.333v.Q ........ HNmommm£ «33:6 1.5.299 «mammflé ouooonnfiy ......... @4333“ ..... 3 ..................... . omzw}.~.m‘._.a.---:::nmn‘tg...‘ .......... n Rmmmfia 02:35 330:; Egg; 33%»...fiib. r» oovomumé mnvnvoné ~3v3m.s Homwflné vovmmmmé vmvwvnké «magma.» .m «33:. a oofincmwélwaonwdfidslilgaimfllvé...lllmmenw‘fij wmnmwié nfiwxamé 3 ”8.2“; Somme... 333;” «SEN.» $32.1», 32.0w...” $030.w,--..::...:¢nmono.nJ:.-.3‘ ‘ ........... .53va 1323... mwmono.n maaonn... :.oMnmune.W!-.----,-mmozmmm:m,..w22-..:.-ommwmwnw..-:-»W-..;. an: ........... cm. 3 «N mm mm mm mw .m mu; an ac om om on 3 on 2 9?: ca nfi Na ad ad - f .---.- 1w. 1--} -.-.m, u {p ............ (J. ................................ I ............ XI: llllllllllllllllllllll IlllllllllllllllIllllllllll'llllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lil'lutl .:.]. ..azfismsmufis gay. 9 till. :-----{--:/:--]--Wsnoo :2 III IlllIllllllblln APPENDIX J T-TEST RESULTS FOR THE LOWER CONTINUED VERSUS UPPER DISCONTINUED GROUP OF RESPONDENTS 33533 mafia- 89E aBzeoomE «ES . .......... <98 nzo SE mvoé ommé «:..: amoé mafia nmné sew; .mnma co ~o mo no no 3 a, . .110 “3.3 onoéu 33.5 25.:- cunt“: mmnéu omnf .931...» 3334 :33.” 333......" 12:5.» 333”; «331.5 333.“ .w- 3335 .......... 3394 .......... nmomlua-:-:----fimowvé .......... 3333““ ......... 332.33 ........ 333$ ...... ..n..r,.,o...m ........... , ImgifiwvrlgnmhlfiimmoiéfoEIIm _ mommmu. .... «SSTN 2.23. n oommmn. a noooooo. s 3302. a «mega. a 3 uuzim; _ N333; :33..." gastw $33.», 339$; 333$ 33$.m .m ........... III---------#~m.c~no...9,-------93Ln.u...a----------¢I.omm..¢--::----3E33--::::m+~$cmm...m-:::--m¢m$ma1pa.---:---:333...wile.--:z‘mz.--------:_ 3 pm 3 mo nm in «a a ”mum _ S on on S S on on 3 ”flux; 5 o m c n N a . III‘A J-IL .n_ 3u32~.233n_3 :uLL: n pnAu_ IKP . -HHHHMHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ............... III/ . . I I! I Ind“ IIII .IISII!,Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ......... 82w? -EEEoomE «EB 5% E: 1!!!! Jill! . Illl: IIIOII Illlll! IIIIIJ ambzpzou muss mama”; QHEHEoumHa «mpg ‘53 uzo amg‘IIIII, , IIII «SQ nits 935 onoé mvné mmfis RH.» .moua _ mm 3 8 .:.r 3 A; f (.3 _ IIII¢IIIIIIIII . , onmé ~35 «mm; n35- ing numé 3a.? 33;: :.mgné mmmnobé 9323.9 swung.“ clout.“ mmmnmmé oommoooé Am 3335 omnaomfi ........... nwam..mwm‘m..¢ ........ $XA§¢F$ ........ onmqmntm .......... “3304?.3 «mnanté . .1... .o.m Cmmnhé mamflmwé IwwuL.» $13.“ pauommrmIéoom‘cfiTIlmZoomisiim-:ri $3.32.." «moonoé ommmnmmé omammamé mssvnmé mnmnmm.m Hmiuaoé in moving Semniw mmnoavi Hs-moaomaoué .3“..sz ommnsv.~ owwomv.~ asuutunnmoé Am Newman.» m§n‘wan.& .......... $9.33wa ......... £93.26 ......... namaoim ........... a¢mavmp~ IIIIIII IIINomSst:L 3 7.3: : S no no on mo 5 3 a umwm on mm mm mm on mm :.. A." m4nx-h umwflvs.fi noow~m.fl Nmoanfi.fl nnommo.fl mwonud.fi oncmos.fl sosonv.a .~ ..... -------------.-----333 51-5-5-3 a; " ”Hz-:-:-..aonmwfiw- --:----.oomf-o;-:-------.m33H 555-me 2 ..«-----.vn.; i . «.:-. -3. E; Aim-5:5: mmflwmu.q “flown".m mmauqu.m mmfln~«.m unuuam.a v»««v«." ma~$m«.m “m ammods.fi smnoflm.fl vso~s~.H smnom~.~ mooaon.fl Nnmhon.fl oomsq~.n .d uuz«H«<> ssnnsmm.a “ocean.” onsmdo.m momoon.m vmhoddn.s owmoo~.a savn~v.~ .~ ..... :-:;-s;-:a-e:-::-svm$npmmhaa::-:-mowmab”a--:-:--nom«$¢p¢-:-:-:-«mmammhm-:-:-:-m¢mmcmnka:-:-::m¢m$mam~¢-:-:-:mwaoxsu--:,A»:;-z-p om¢mom.fl «wwwoauw \mfisks.fl flamoww.a ccnoh..fl m.o~nno.s omq~\sm.a .N 223.3 332-4 ---------- 323-5 .......... anaemia- .......... omovuwfl- ---------- «gm-39¢ --------- «ayvumoé-z-Z ..... .o..m ----------- snwmvn.~ nowhoarH|IIIIIanmvwrhllllllhbshmpvwllllllbwhonahwllllllhbmsakchsaIIIIovoonmm¢$IIL«. nsansa.m naanaa.a \comfls.fl osmnno.fi n~o~no.fl hamnowh.a coqflnoo.s .a uuz«Ha<> Booedfi.n “cocoa-ma \mono~.H nasam .V moa.nn.~ manomhm.s nsmmwfl.fi AN 33: . n o..uov~n...a --------- flow-mafi- ---------- Hvomwauh ----------- moon-nmwm .......... mbflmoamgi :-..-m$xham...s:.i-u-l-tfiz ----------- so no on so 40 Ho mm mm mumm Rn 5n on on no um an .a u4a2 .................. , . . . - xvmnov.m as-mmdxmmzv.ec aaassn.a ovaoan.~ advmxv.n Am ------------------------------------- r gums-.6 mmEgg-£5-55onumfl-.-H,,-----:--mmm3v.n.-----.2ms&J :-i a---3-u¥-.------, NO up on v n z :- 2, am 3 a :3 _ ................................ m v 2 s 3%; - - f - - ......... ------- on on ...... III III IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I lllllllllll I lllll I IIIII N” All .IIIIOII|Il-IIIICIOII x I III ----- (---- /.oI|IIoI-:y IIIII: Illlll IvIIvI IAIIIIIIIIIIIIIII JJ ...-J.-‘-\§LA. tu‘nln n-.tuln-.- ..hhhvs-A 1.1:. .VL ,Q5&.~ ‘h V‘f\“ ugn.a onm.a ~v~.s ovo.& o~o.s mvn.s fio«.~ .muna so co no no oo oo as” ‘a‘ .u.o was.“ ohfl.a- ooa.n vo¢.a- osn.~- qv\.a ma-.>.» onNwamwu:-:-:;~mmmmym.a Nmohmon.e osfinfioo.u momoflon.s sovnwwafls .N anamdn.a mmnovnn.a sonsns.a ommmwom.~ “cosoao.a oamwfioo.s mmdmma.fi .a .n.m mnemnon.e vnanmun.s manqaam.s nmvwomm.s sacnunv.s nxnnamn.s ovummmo.s .N nmn~afin.a hqnoonm.s onmnSH.H nmoonvn.s nau~non.a mosmcos.e owoodfi.fl .H uuz<_m.> Hmsfimsm a assume.“ a.om~o.m «mmwmy.o mammmw.m nnnnon.. oedema.» Am onnmssn.o .smfimn.a mmwmwm.~ mammog.o onmmoh.m mmmo.q.v oonoNfl.n .H z‘mx kn on on mm on 9v He .N mmam we on me me mm on no .H uguzdm a a m c » ~ H s . J .d xogo. m2(uz :oa amazmkzoumflo «all: m> owazupzou mu3OJ mpmwhn» x,...,,-....,... _..-.,;.... ........... .I .5 I; Amuzfiauuwwm innumdag ....... nagging: mz4uz‘3omuhuzoramlw 3334‘ S omwv.ww..w------..w-.:.,Hm--..:---- NOHNNN.H Am omonmw+d.IIIAAIQdflaqmdglllll nanvow.n «N o o v a; .N : 7 a: s a :3 .................. -:-:-:-: A” u&nz.m I.x.I1II.I.II....Il.l../l;llllluuu/M----,--w-,, ..... ,--;-,, ..... , ‘ ,-----.-----.----- . 00 Had Naa 00 and mad mad .u.n Illlli‘zsna.sc :Illlioso.a . :iluil:¢am.sa«zsilllli¢anaanz \eiiiltno«.m.. «mo.n. n~o.au ! ; u34«yuHrI .mflnomsé sovvomoé aoasmvmé 3203.5 3.33m; mnoanuné 3230.9 am ...ngmmé|I.!..~as:mm.a3.I. 5332.5. I vmgmmmé‘ -NmsomweélIéI onmnonqéIlImYmoi.sf; I.-i.n.m ~vnmmoo.a nnwnomo.a Ammnoo~.e msoanom.s ommmvno.s ansanmm.s vvaanam.a Rm vnomnns.a . nNoonsn.s tnmnmvvwaa- mvnnooN4d ;novnm~a49.llllqmmnmonmau lla¢o-om.sll.~« mufi owazuhzouwuo mumm: mpmuhlh I @558 «M53 ,. 82 ”5 £25829 “as - , RE 2:. a: . :II a ... n 11.. 1“ 111:4. 1! a. I ‘I‘I‘-Il I 95500 «was mag nEEoumHn mag <93 03H. .52.“ I o-...«..Is.--. -.-.IIIIIINB...WI 9.3.8 “-mmmmI-.-II mocha --,IIII-,¢I@...FII; --.-...-~.3..u .32 I no as“ as“ no . mad Nag no .u.o -IIao¢.a-.;IzII I mso.a:sI:IIIIII-m.auI-- Nowqa- IIII-Noa.s oqmdwu IIIII«nn;a u3443-k I nfiomoon.a ~amnvsm.s mnvo~¢0.3 Humomfln.s man~mmm.u nmvndso.a nmqoooc.a AN noaomom.a.2;-I.nflfl¢amc.aIIIIIINmmooaquIIIIIIHumavNNJQIIIIIINnvmmmNIdIIIIIIdao«nomaaIIIIIIoNnH~mm4dIIIaAIIqu+mIIII I mmmmsom.s ovumuvo.e ~mmsnoo.a omommam.s onnnflmo.s vamcmflm.a sowmm¢~.s Am Ixfinnnmmn.a IIIIzmxnsnwc.aIIIII-oomno~.flIIIIIII¢san¢Nm.sII-IIIn«~anon.sIIIIIIdmugammdaIIIIIImmkavg”.aIII~fiIMUzL mmsoonsé Nosnnmné vnvvovoé asnmvaoé soavomoé noaswemé .N .m, 0322.: summmaoiaIdvawnqé onwmdwné . moanmNné mandamus 3‘ .n..n. oonomvné .smovsnmé “wommowé onommoné vnnmvncé onccovcé .m I vonmmmv.s.I3vso~n.SIIIIIIN$mdma$ «3.3343 . Navvindé “nowadwé dJuaImi I Sommm.mI 333..» 22m: £03»; £33.. 333; .m L. savomm... incl"; I IcomIZNJI 33st 223$ :33; 3 2;: IIIIII I III II I I I mm II do so . z IIdII. .:I IMMIIImII. ”PI 3 m; I: IIIIIII II I E III ow mm 9 «.34mummI - I II I I -IIIIII .II: 2 . I IIIIIIIIIIIIII mm ._ I!!! IIII III II. III .. III II .II/II ,Is’vd“:§ / ln‘lg ” ..I III II. n 1..... \. III/ll 5.1453043 ‘Uhhga l nnnnHHzoumHn mummb mbmxmb nnDZHBZOO MNSQAII. I MZ¢H= zxaqbo 92¢ 30¢ .osk H¢ nwuoom.n nflmodm.m “mend“.v onmnnm.» oovnom.q onmusm.. NNBNN~.« .N ~ooooa.v mafiafim.c «maovs.v ~ommoo.» okawdv.¢ ”movov.v «dommfi.v .« 24m: n: «v v' «v av cw cw Aw mm_m we so He no on «0 mo .a “Jaz«m n c m w n m H . 0 1 . J .N game. mz ou37~hzoo muzoJ mkmUP-» I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I llllll II/IIIJ 3.5:: “Ihh: EMILE,- hflar—HMBDJ Mail's mzIF nonsnov.s mnovonv.s «onwm¢¢.s wmevadu .~ - nwnmumm.s moon0fl¢.u ~mnnomm.s Hmowmqm.u .fl .n.m . 22298 ofiwmoflé 2.2.235 22$?» 2 naovnan.s mwsnnnfi.a «manhvn.n commaom.s A” mua<~ma> mofiucm.v vmauv:.v mvma~¢gv m-~m«.v .N I nonwoa.v omnmmv.v Hooao~.q anonofiHwIIz-MM:IIJNMw .......... .2. 3 .2. 3. 3. mm; om on om mo .a u_ui4u ma NH «H ma 1 1. IIIIIIIIII _ . J «no 5 «no s ass.s armIG qu.u «mn.a moc.s .noma war new «SH va« «a« um Nsfl .m.n J mww Ga «08 vi n<<.N mcn‘ (4 mmmin mnm.sl 2:18.. m31<>u~ mummnmvé «$33.5 Ntmawmqa 3236.3 mnemnnmé omoommmé mzmmfimé Rm 4 nmomewv.a mnxwmcm.s odsmsmn.s ammoamm.a H¢~moflm.9 oaaoomm.a omsmwao.u .a .n.m . unanon~.s oflvoav~.a smvaaflm.s monmmnv.s m~ovauo.u mknoonm.s gonnmem. mma_hhw a rwvmnom.s msoondMIQIIIIIIanandm.a .NodaNAwifiIIIIIIdnu4««w4uIIIIIIQAflann4 Hosasv.v cvmomn.w mgmwnv.n nvnq~«.v Houamn.n vnnumn.v mwnmmm.v .N 4 summon.v nvmmWw.v vaomom.m mmo~m~.¢ monmoo.m mmvmmm.v ammonm.v .H 7am: vv «v «v vv «v a. mw .m um~m «a «a nu mm me am an AH m,az«m I v, nfi N. «a ea 0 c I .II-D'U-lg"- :.:.-0‘, Q, a O ..I.-OO‘,’ g APPENDIX K T-TEST RESULTS FOR ALL CATEGORIES WITH DATA FROM COMPANY S-TT EXCLUDED IIIIIIII GMDZHHzoomHn mammm> QMDZHBZOU .moo.s IIIII cm” IIIIaon.sILIIII ¢HIh Isvavmn.“:IIIIII~omoov.a.II I- annash.a nmflavc.a nvmmos.fl mxmaao~.a smon\fl.fl .m I -- vmmofin.a oonnos.a soofl\v.fl aflmflme.fl Hanoamo.s oomcfla.a movood.a “a .o.m IIInonnmmowIIIIIIIddummaIuIIIIIIIuommna.n:I--I-:u«maoo.~ nonowfi.a 0¢mm-n.s am:s\n.a "m I . mama's.“ oamsnfl.fl \ooooa.~ ahmvoa.~ mnaomso.n mfivomu.fl amnmom.a “a uuy<fiqq> IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIoQNgown;«IIIIIImsaam~+aIIII.Iaanoamm.m;I -. mvm¢mo.~ I oonanwn.s .I:Immnmam.a .III.,¢oauon.m I-.~ .-II II nnnnnnn.s vwmmms.a nnnnnn.~ aamfloo.m onmvmnv.s masses.“ vmmdnm.~ La 2¢mz IIIzIII I. IIIII we «a aw - no IIIII.:-I.I noI .I; no I, -.-;I. no I «N. IumHmI I.;II no no on mo No 00 00 "a m4az«m n oIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.mII. III: I IIIII.mIIII; ; I- II I- n.- I I :IIIIIII- m IIIIIIIIIII;I.-IaIIII-.IIIIIIII-I III.I I 1 IIII I:I. I- IIIIIIIIIII I:III:: -- -- -I I -.I - ”A -III-macaququaaflI»z«mxou-I.wum.m>gdum; .I:-I- I -- II III I IIIIIII III I. II III. mhmuprh -III- III I IIIII-I I I IIIII- II II III- -I I 3.8 8.: amgqmfifié €4.28 - I III QBzESmS 822, 95:28 I . _. , I as as 2% I. .nmszoomHn—Imbmmg anonoI II. I. .-III; II. .:I.. I ¢H¢a mzo Hm¢m nunpgoxm HHum.zmHm IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII .Im«n.aIIIIIIIIIIaaa.aIIIIIIIIII«an.s nuu.a I vau.aII, Imma.a. IIIIIIIIIomm.aII qmdmmIII I no” om” mma- :. .I-Inmfi I nnfl I- I.ANH , IIIIIImma IwmnmIII I 39.? omm.n- 93.3: «3.? 30:9. 03..."- mafia magi...» nna.mm.vIaIIdo¢.ommodIIIIIIIInnmaodoé .. -IIIII.o~oN:..H I IIINNnonvII. HI! - -.ammomm;«IIIIIIIIImnNmIaANJs a I msmson.fi samvmm.d camcnflo.a ovonflfl.fl ~no~om.a vwnsfls.~ mucous.“ "a .o.m IIIIIIIomwowaImIIIIIIIAmoanQINIIIIIII III.-IIIII ommnmm; NIIIIIIIIIcvmummINIIIIII; -Noooooa.aIIIIIIzmnvnvmoéI Iiiommnnmé ; .--IIoamHmo.m IlIduInumanNoomqsc an, I smooms.m Enema.” «sImsnmmamné omswvomé vomaaoé ovnos~.m 3.33325 3 23: .II.wo-IzIIIIIIIIII~o -I-IIIIIIIIIoo I IIIIIIIooI. I IIIIImo I I III..oo I IIIIIIe mo ::Iam:I umflmIII I no we vo on on no no .« agnzup -I IIIIIIIQAoHomoIdIIIIIIdonmmmIAIIIIIIIomo~¢mIagIasIIIaoam~o¢~gIIIII-akaaamoIsIIIIIImxononquIIIII-oumnwaem aw. I noanmé H3135; «3;va nanvoooé “madam; 36000.." 030;; 3 .o.m . . IIIIIIIIII .-IIIIsIII . nmnmflooé.-- N03,:1m,IIIIIII.¢&v:n.NI In Inuvomkoéu .-II. .-I-..-nnnvocoé .I. . avonwoéinIIImaidaat- INNI IIIIIIIII l mfifiovv.d woumms.» anaNSq.n mflnmmoo.a chasov.a Nemmmo.~ cmomao.» .« muz«Hx¢> IIIIIIIFIIIIIIIIIIIINooEnmé. I!o.omo~o.NIIIIIIE 3.33.ng ..I.-.. 73mvnm.a..IIIII.Io~amon.,.n.I.II-IIII noooodé IIIwmIm,va.o.n .N I codaonu.a ~mnoma.~ onemas.m vvvvvcv.s monmsm.« oooaso.~ Hmmvno.m .« z GNDZHHZOU II .II ¢H¢d mzc B¢IF afinnnmo.aIIIIIz¢smamaI«IIIIIIImmhnnn.H.IIIIIIooo~05.fl .:I-I-noonus.a- ..-I-mnfinam.fl.-.:s nmaoqm.fl «m I. III Hoouwm.fl anoaan.a nomuna.fi mnonmm.a vnv~o~.H nnhkna.a Hmnnsv.fl ~a .o.m enaooamIHIIIIIINaommnIAIIIIIIIsHmm«o.aIIIIIIImqmwam.a I.III mnsmod.a ..nydamw.fl.; II munmon.n I Am . - ..::I ononsm.fi nnnvoo.a nHHvo~.H mnmocm.n “ensue.“ mnmfiofi.d afloooo.a .fl “U24qu> .. III-IIIII III I. IanwooNunIIImmdoco..nIIIIIIIIIoomomo.nI-IIIII wagon.” II ,. mmnmnomé 03909..“ anvomvam. I .m I ._ .I- -.I ssasmnn.a aowouv.a finesse.» mmdmnm.~ amwoson.s novcfla.fl nfionsd.m A“ 7¢mz III IIII we we no “a .IIIIIII; .ooIII:I;II .......... ooIIz;IIIIIIIIstIIIIIIIII.~ ::umflm.IIIIII «o oo 00 v0 «o oo 00 .a wJuwam mm «m .IIInn I mnI.- I I- -- fln. II - .II-un-II-..---I- mmII -II ,IIIIIIIIIIII q. I -IIIIIIIIzIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- I .IIIII I II.I-IIII I-- III I -II -I III- III .:III II . v“ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII--Ieoa,u omfl.s.- -IIIII-m~m.a IIIIIIIIImfia.a.-, .I Haa.s. skm.a III -$.3 .- .momm-II ..... I - .02.. ..m.~.fl-.-_. . IE I m: -w ,3 I -I - a: I- 3 -II -.--v.3- I- 99¢.flI awn.“ o«o.s- fiov.mI Hum.uu mafi.flI ooa.aI uaJ<>Ih .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImo¢~n¢.« ammnnno.sIIIIIIamm¢xma.sII,IIImm~m¢¢.H I;- I.Hnmmoc.fi-sz I: myswcflm.a.-III smnsxmm.s I-4~ I- II ”Nomau.a aficnms.fi \Hnnna.fl mmmomn.a “gamma.“ mcfloas.d aovuncm.n A“ .o.m sawmoaIu .omauaxm;aIIIIIINMQNaao.aIIIIIIHnOHms.~ IIIIIImov0¢m.~.:IIIIIflxnamoo.aIIIIIIoaomoon.aIII4-:IIII- oumvno.m finance.” “maqsa.fl «ouano.fl nnncmc.» noonns.fi Hmnnamm.a .« uuzq_mq> vaanIHIIIIIIIammnumm.aIIIIIId--m.a IIIIImnmmmn.o- II-Izmmmmow.m nnmnmnm.u-I IIsassoa.fl,I -.m I::.. III II. mmflnmo.~ smunvov.s mvomafi.d vmnmov.~ mmosva.~ Hauusasnsna.a. mnsmnmo.a ”« 7am: IIIIIIIIII No on «QIIIIIIIIIIIIonItIngIIIIINo-::.IIIIIIIIoo.; .-.I-:.-.oo :I I_;~-Iru~HmIIIIII co co oo oo «o vo on «a uga:«m mm nm em. IIIIIwm -I I - -I .v~.I mm m; -.I-IIII IJMIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII I ¢H¢a scam-I III-I - I: -I I 59588 .. I I- I 2:24.233: 3 m $528 a, 2" h ‘III' I. [‘III I I IKE t III I IIIII..I II I I II. I. I I‘llil .l ...] v I I I 5! IE... .l.» 'l I! fl .l .t ID I l OmDZHHzoumHn mammm> OMDZHHZOU -:IIII. II ;.I.:- ¢Q<fl_mzo H¢.IIIIIIIItumoWWIIIFI; mma om“ ~nd I - ,I. va_. - I I I mmfl.:;- . ..th, coo.mu mn».a mnm.dI mnH.vI mm~.mn u34<>np .Vaaaaa.m IIIIIIIII NvOOHv.H.:FIII,HomNsN.H:IIIIIImwavns.d.IIIIIIsmnn¢v.HIIII«NIIII:-IIIII amosam.m . fimsmmn.a svmwvm.a onnmqo.a uvan0.H Ad .o.m annvcs.nlizsIIIo¢manNq&v?;IIINovmnnsHé-IIII.anevofi.ni:IIIfIvooona.vIIIe»~.II noosam.viiz.itfnmmmaa.m :IEII vnaovv.d EIIIIInnmmns.n II :I-mmomvm.~:lé.n~-;. IIIIIII. avoonm.v aunmm~.~ anomvm.fi muwsmm.~ memoao.m AH uU?(u14> onwmds.w assmmuoa0hv.s novcda.fl mannma.fl &s&m\m.n "a 24m: ......Irllll' I'll. Na no .I II- no- - I~0.I co IANII ummmIIII no no 30 ac III,II.&¢II:IIIIIII:IIIIIon,:-I---EfI «0 “a mdaaqm ..mn,I, I. .I . no on III-1111.!I. .III IIIII IIIII III IIIIaIII III EIIII ¢H amszazoo III: .II: :I . I ¢H nuflzHHzoo, . mm¢nz soxtmmzo Hmdm OMDDAONM»HH1M,=¢4h ..... ---------------:------flaoé---:----:----m3é.---------..---.maa.é._: :,-:::-.o,oo§.--.-.. . oom.s ommé «35 .8: mm“ 34 cm." duh, . on“ on.“ 24 id vmm.a «3.7 93.? 23.“. 3a.? 318 nwné up :17» n$2,349}------.nnvflaoé ......... $3554---. ..... «2.33.» 3:03; 39.33; mmmnndoé .N ammfinoé omomvsmé Ramos.” 33036 $391.9 2:21" 31:.“ 3 .o.m 3033.8 ammonmné amnesia «533.5 39.33...“ menoé 3:23.» 8 gauged 3330.8 3.32..” wovmmnoé singing $3 an" 333; 3 331m; omwsmaw a mamamia emonvm.m 33:5 $3.36 31:; «$034 -----IA.~-!-,:---..‘ ......... nnnmanm.a oqmoas.a nmmms~.~ Honufl~.o msoflm~.m mmmnon.v ovaosm.» .H zqu co 3 we so no 3 E 3 mm; 2 E E E an an E S “2%; n e m v n m a J K-S AH zomo. ouoaquxm HHH mz«mz 30a owozfihzoum~o m> ouazukzou mhwwh‘p III-4"; CHEEO Iman .wfimEIA—EMZHHZOU ng-gm:mmzpuv.mwm, ....... nmgqoxm-w.a..n.m an.“ ................................................ 3A 1&0 ............ :md- 34$.» nmNnna.d‘:.:- ..................... _ “Hmoay.« .H .n.m mmvomw.u “N 302.“ ..N. I}. ,uwflnfill umovdwé ........ . m ........... 25-.-}, mnownm.~ .fl 74”: no ”N mmwm co 3 “162; AWDZHHzoomHG mDmMN> mMDZHHzoo mzup ......... r:-:-:-:-:-onwmnfln4e:-i-:-floosono._ m¢~woo~.s ¢nonmnm.s waanum“. noommwo.a nwmwnno.s “m .-: mNWwwom.s onvoowm.s ndmmomo.a BNnmmmmna «oaomao.s vmoomflm.s msawamh.s “a .o.m nosnmoows vnsoomv.s «Naonmo.m vaOLnn.s «ammonn.a Hangman.s Hoanxoo.s .m I .nehoanmaa mnenoon.s nmco¢n<.s nnwrmfio.s Nfioanmm.a mmmmmom.s omnmanm.m .H mur<_m4> mnann.n “mmwoo.m sfimnmm.n mm~msv.n onmmnv.v nmnnmm.c novnao.n .m 4 mmaxm«.v nanomm.¢ omom\fl.c moowoo.o cosmo¢.w oMNomm.q nfinqam.e .H ,qmm ....... 4 oo no as a“ No an “N .m m~_m N“ no mm Mn we ms mx .« u4¢:«u _ n ‘zla m w n m a ‘ I n 2 J g m . .J I. J I: .N xouo. ou934uxu «Ad mz ouaz~hzou mhmuka» QHSZHHzoomHQ mammn> QMDZHHZOU ma¢ungz:§AOUida «Nmomu.¢ nmvmun.v anacofi.c mnmnva4n .m . Nnmnom... onnwmvé vmwnan eassmm... "a 23:... no no so an 3 mm; am “a no NR ~H ”Jar-» ...................... :..-fi: msogové nomovom.s.--:-Z-‘xmwaflmNgs::il-an~ndc‘ws---------mmnmadmafil---::vaamd~adiii---mdowmdwad-----«mt-:-----.--------- nmumxom.w‘t,:z[Haanvomdm.z-:.smmmfiunn.s oowonmm.s manmmmu.s nnoamso.a oo«na«~.s .H .o.m onnmavm.s smeammo.s oamoadm.s mvcnnmv.s ovnvcso.s mvmoacn.s nOHnnsn.s .m nmcnmaw.a.|1ll!-~onmn.anltllltokmnunga. auwuwvn.s amnndAdeIIIIIINqamumm«uIII. onflmmmm.a NH manqfimmx neccwn v vommmoéLilliommvavsm .......... mmwmoufv unmammé mange; 33.09.; «N onm.n.s.&%vl-----li«.fi«nut.c omwossJ 9;.sz assust. nnnnnn.v ~vnvm~.v ..n 2u» 111-1, 1 :‘IIIV‘IiIv .‘|I|| .ttll mav.&n ooa.sl moo.«| IIIII I‘l‘llw .o.m oamsn~.azsl:~w omnons.a an nonmamn.s mnvomno.s -:1:~mnmnu.a- cmamvn.fl --; :macvma.d nonoono.s -¢\noamo.aa-;:-20fineon.«e:::4~.n:--av.z-!::: ovmmam.a uofiadmm.s Hmvammo.s mncmnfl.fi «a uoz<~m<> Naomv~.H-L:ie-~vs~ov.-:-i-;-¢z--z.- vasnomo.a onw~nn.~ A“ 2‘“: monmmo.m:elfi pomvvnon.a-; ommnmn.m vononon.a - mo;--;- 23m.--. -:ac- ,-::s:.- we xt-:a:! do- -;-,do .-.-:z:: mo : -:::::--;-umam.;lzs.a on mu «m «e co nu «3 «a MJQY¢m .II-N- 0 .. .-:..WE- it'll-l---- - - . v .- - -al ...-I... .- - .. n..- ..-l. .l -N§!.|..ll:i-:- L.-. --IHi-vl'u tutti---.!- .II-.IIIIL 9 . I I) K .I -l 11.! I. -I-' ll ( ll - A I 1‘: A $tItaIllw 1 O ( 1 I 1 I If... 0 u I. - 011’ \ll'il,|v|-lv» vb:- -'..$.. lilii'!.l\.""li :vae--- :- -«:: - e-.;- auc:4uxu;«aa.»zmmaam.mu304.m>;mumma :4, - I ..... - --:- : ,.:I-!:!a:izt+i-z:- ----- - -:.----mHmuH-H:-;ys- ::--gi:-:- .2. - :Si:.:t::.r: mmzba mammm> mummb :--..---..ia3---|» mmm.an moa.mu ana.au m '0 \‘I II:.nnnmm¢+anrluultmanmo-H-|:a:!;xvmoo-.a _--mflqaoa.fi ,-- :mnonom.a . .- oaoqm~.m . .V mmcn-Nk.s .N _ ---- -: mflaflon.fi sao~on.« nmnmmm~.a aflmmflfl.fl ~n~m~m.a mmnouo.fi fln\on~o.s «a .o.m cm~¢mwu o. m nvnafia-m nmmanom.s-I:ss:~mon¢n.a ::II:-nnoonm.~. ..-s -om¢n.¢-..-;: ”RVs-om.n .N- _;: - ..-.-. “noon H soncsfl.w «mmmaao.a ononcm.fi vmvomn.w onmnum.~ omwmxmo.a .a muz«wm<> .lIl:!:Il!§I:II!::mmnvm¢9N1!!I!IIN00~&NIME:!§=i:nmNOSVdaa..e:: odonvso.s T ssasam.m . .omvdhm.m «snwoanvonm.s.a «N .. r-: -t- Hmnaoa.m numsna.~ onenena.s mnnnmno.s mswhao.d nnnnnn.m ososoaa.an AH 2-» cummnu-dIIIItIrmdmmnm.AII:IIa-H~moao.asc-.:I.onumnmn.a -;:: onsmon¢.s --:-.m»v~on.ae;-:e: namoom.m .;:.~. ; -- .;;u..- nfinvoa.a mvnmmc.a anoonn.a mmwoofl.fl omvvmfi.fl Naomom.fi mmomnu." “a .o.m II vNnmos.dllllllunmacmm46-Ililui9flonma.m-naatsimn¢aqmm.my:-:I.aommumm.u ;-;:-Hmmomv.m s-VI-aqnamna.n.;-4m--z.: ;---LI- «ammod.a amflmfi~.~ nomao«.n onman¢.fl osvvo~.fl oqnmm¢.m vn-»a.n .a uu24Nm<> -Am«NhoobaillllIanQHVINiIIIEIINvnmov9n!}IlIIImmwmnmn.a:-:s:-nnnnno.a3tsin.-Honmoa.n IIIIIII Nomvgo.mllt.,~.Il.-I:-III . manoaoo.a ommmsn.~ omnsne.n mvmvmvn.a onmmma.a nsnmun.~ o~m~nm.w AH 7 mama: e¢9¢a uzo:am¢m-z; nunanoxu Haum zmvm .: -- Nadya--1 #wN.Q.--1Ilii.- oo«.s -...-.I -I mom-...“, nam.s nam.a mm“ mm“ end omd mm“ wMH nan.fi- HRH.H- vac.” ~o~.H- mv~.a mos.»- vmmmmn.d-usllxsvmm-~.Hit-22:.xmnnmm.flt.xs --q9«nam.fl naahnu.fl onmmmfl.a menoVfl.H suumn~.fl nvnoom.fi msoflmm.d Nassau.“ Nfiamos.a m¢nmma.a ~a~¢av.au1:11114ammho.ai-I::I:~H~¢um.o .-- -.Rannhs.a -1. aa~\~n.a - dewwn.fl hoonan.fl ommmdo.fl nqmoan.» “no~¢h.d ovosva.fi -omnmmmmwazlzsrim«nmo¢++IIIIIII~mmmva.ns;-;s-,c¢mnmm.--,, asumufin.s -. osmovn.a - nsnansn a v¢vcec.« nmsmnv.» onunon.~ «ononom.a omcmnos.a m0 me no-;:-:I-;inaxlmc-z;;:.---z-¢o,: -;I:-no---; ;- co ms ms 00 co NR -mm ¢m mm .-:-.mn ,- -;p-- :~». 5:. sn-::--e I 1 -s:£iistz ...... --.s - - -:-z-;s 1.. . ”A mmm-a «ho-m ans.a.. .NNn.~;u:--I-:mn~.s -:zs-é-e-0mo.a-:--;s--: ONH om” mnd am“ am“ mm“ mam.fi- -v.s. onfi.~- oom.n- ss~.fi- mflv.a- -11~mmaA¢.AIIIIIIssmonmno.s-III:2«EOHna.a-II--e-«4h“n¢.d--: : Nfinmfio.H-s;z--Hmonvvm.&-;,-. oovnom.fl oflmnma.a amnccno.a mnfimmq.fl vvougm.a vomsooo.a mfia~dmINIIIIIIIuaomo~m«QIIII-cqnmom«.ars-az--¢amna~.~,.---- ocnodo.~ -ouomnfln.s-.t- omosgm.m sfivoms.a «onmnnm.s honmoa.a Hmomv~.n ccnamoo.a --:|:|||I-§m~n+nelallniuam~oav.s-tnquxssmonea. :::uamoao.-.;y-.:Noohah.~ :-;--.ssm~ofi~.e- ; : oqmvmo.m nnnnnnn.a saaaua.fl Hnoqmo.~ moqo¢n.~ Nmflmflmfi.a ; an «a no .iivo,----: - m9-,;-1:: vol-s ----- co co mu n“ no no -:.III- mm -~ -omur;a:-sr::e-,m- - - -- cm -----..-a om. -;;,- III-Ill :lII-n'll I Hos.q .mnya - - mod - .u.o -- 1 omm.a- u:4<>-» oo\3qo.fl ‘m - I mmo~am.« .fl .o.m ~H-)o.m_-: .N 1:: : admmnm.~ A” uuzqum4> :-m~flm~m.m ?:_.~ I: I mo\vns.m .a z«mz ¢o.s: -.Am :.ummm.--s-II n“ A“ mgoyam - i-om -;-.,--- :- II:-;-Is .flms.»-:.iz:-:.s;;momm-;;- I .nna - -- ,Jn.m-I:- I svu.~- usJ<>-» ammou0m.ag-:wm.-s!-:-. I: Honaomm.a .a .o.m nmaummo.u-,Am- - -:-Iszu «mnkmmn.a “a uuqumq> nsovfifl.fl-:z:g~ -- -::I-n nnnnunm.s «a z«uz -no,:.:;a:-A~-: umHm I :: mx "a u4a1 damn: ¢H¢A-MZO;H¢lh III Il.iln¢.I-II|. amwnmn.fi «a .o.m ..;oa¢ooa.-.;-- -.v- Nooooo.~ mm»¢on.n--s-Nm-II- . .-I.! as uuz .\ I : l.lIIll osmnmn.n Ad 74m: [twaittnnllllflilll,no:ll:o!t:-I;:: l-No:tnlt-I!-91:I.Ifno mu n5 tiltiIIIPIon--.I.t-:-;s . on; ;-i-.-I:.€-:mn. co mo:-:-.-se:--s-,mmfim .« mqnxqm n. I. IIIlII.l :..-.- 0 I ’1’" ................................................................................. wzfi: sou-MEG SE ....... Mmzoa mammm> dump: III ........................ 0.3.a----.--------m3.,..s--:-:-:-----awa...u::-::-:--N:".3:---:-:----amo.-:---:---z-rwawaa - «magma-k .-:--:-:;-:-::-:;-m~a:-:. ............ vnfl .................. and ------------------ om“ .................. and ................. ona .................. flaw .................... ”mnq;-:- - monas- oam.~u ova.a- ooa.u ooq.n mmn.m mm“.fl mxI¢mumlnll. - .......... - ........... naxmeomad --------- Qnmn¢n04d-:;-::-maqmmaqw ......... smomfimquw ...... .;smmnmdmwdw-az-z;-oanwm®4m-z:-a:-wmo«mm-w:s:-4ma; ; : :- ..... ....................... n3.£3...©:..--:-mnm-fl:..-«--:----mmmmwa-u.-:---::§mow-o...mu.-:-----..N-Q.m.m..a-fl..-w-:-:-mm.m.mm--m-.m-:::-mm.w-._N.N.:_-_-..H--- .....- - .o.m omnnonn.u:. mofiomovwn ¢®nwwm.a nmmufimm.s mmmaoam.u qmvvovm.u mmcmam.fi .m Nnoflaoo.a nuzlummfisaflm.s onamas.a hwqwmom.s «nnmdom4WIlll Mummsun.u mommon.fi .H uuqumq> ........................ a uamwomé-:-----nanvmm.a-.------z-nm-madded-:-:----domN-va..d-:-:-----:~A&m.N----------N~mNm-nqw-----------.n.n-mw..ma..n.-----A-u. - ........................ 5. Ema..w--------.s..§.~..n,9-m-:-----mmmfim..-~.-::-----mmm..m...m----iimamfirm-.-- :33..- Qn-Ea 3 73., v0 --:I: n& mo mo v0 no co .m mmwm on nu ¢m co «5 ms ex A” MJmL«m II:- ............................... “ ---------------_c------------------m-----------------:::«----------------au;-------------------;;--------------Aw---------------- ---------- ---g ............ mm--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- ---------------------------.----------.--. 1 . vn ............ .H xwuov ouosquxm «Ha mz «wan» .......................................................................................................................................................... ----------------------------------- -fl mhmuhu» - I I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I'IIIIIIIIO||IIIIIII|I|JII"I|Il-‘l".'lll"lv|I'I'II'IIIII-alIIIIII'I'II'I' ...IIIII-Isv. Haxoun.fi nexamm.a xmznurmpmmw> mumps .............. - - - ,;-:-J-1-:-I-:- m2¢mx 30m .mzo Hm .................. ----imam.3min:--------dNNNNma.»---------Mm-q-w-H-Na.m--:------w-HHumKIWI-:33- ~M~m . v ammo-m.”«.---:-----m-Hd.H-m-w-nm-IIJ-m---:--:--------- ........................ m mam-am...”---------mw.H.Wm-W-.-m-- 30-? H . e . mum-mi...» 2 H n H o . v mgram-m...w.---------mo-H:N-w..-w.-----..-m:-.€-w...-L:-:--: Ho so He we so .3 mo Hm $5 I Id» 3.! Ho Hm mu Hm Hm .H ”33.3 ................................ N---.---------:.---0--:-------------:zm-------------:-:--.m---:-:-:--------.m.---:-----------IN------------..-.H-----:-------------:----- 5 1 . K .m zuuo. ou034uxm HHH mz mung: IIIIII III III. ,IIII! III I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII'I'IIIIIII'III'IIIIIIII.:I'IIII‘I'I'III'IIIIII'IIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIII’IIIII'III'I'I'IIII'IIII'I'I'EI--- IIIIIIIIIIIElli-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. .IIIIIII'III.III'IIIIIIIIIIIII III-I'IIIII1"‘I'I-II-l'--III'IIIIIIItuI-'I'II'IIIII'II-IIII‘II-"'.III'IIIII-III'IIIIII'I'I'II'IIIII'III'II'-III"-III'IIII|‘IIII‘II'-IIIII-II I II II I'll-"II| .IIIII'IIIIII'I'IIII’I'IIIII'"||I"IIIIIIIIIII'II'IIIII||II'""IIIIIIQIIIII'll -II- 'I' .I III I I 'IIIIII'III IIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .II-.IIIII.'II IIIIIIIIII II III III I ISIDI IIII I II I I I I I III -I IIIII I I IIIIIIIIIII [-.IIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIII’IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I MESA mag mamas gig-Hootgm- .oE-Hmfi .nmnauoxm Sum imam--II 1|!- 1-1 - ................................................................ flaw-“M-------------o-&&..a-------..--.s.aa.m :-:--:.-: .39.“. - ; - -. --..nuxm - -- - -- .................................................. - .............. NE .................. a: ................. N3: ............. a: - -:.: ....... - 9?; 30.“ Km; _--.i-tin§.~ 3‘ -,..-§..q.-,---Il .-:- ..... - .......... - ..................................................................... dado-ouc-q-s ......... Nun-o Mfé .......... m¢ao-~€a --------- Nflnm~oo.a;-r- - ..... , . ........................................................................ 0. mm.w.v,mm-..-a--::---mmummmw..w---:-:.mm38”-.-m ,, 2.3.34...“ .3. .0.”- 332,15 snaasnmé Saga-aw. .- .wnnnnmvé 8 - - adeqmfié mmamaflmé @3335 -.:-03%;; ..:. M-..-..fimu-al -:-- quwnmad--- ....... judo-NJ..-- ........ n-NNNNQJ ........... “momma-an ------- A .m ....... :-- : Sign; $.13; o-mWw-mhnw-ii-----Wyn.MEN”-----C -:...Sm - - He so an an “N mu_m «K e W v n ...-.3!!! --.-dwiafi mflfim-lllll ----- ----------:-- dfi D - 3-3 - -- m I m :-:-------- -:-------dasé .............. 39a ............... N 3.: ............... MSW-.9 .............. nos-sq .............. BS; ................ gig------- .-m$m ..... - ...... 33 ................... a: ................... n3 ................. 42h ............. ----.23. ------------------ m Nat-H an ..... ~30» amen!» mlmqa mum-N mam-d mcmé onwdmili: 9.1-,5.--» in - ......................... awn-3v1.9-5:-.."Sunan.s:------noogmfiqu-EE-émnun-349---------Nwmna.m-N-.-a-:::-mwodndw.u--.--:---wonmma N. ..N --.:A m- -- -- . -. -- .......................... 9. wan-mt Hat---:?“nSE.mu.n.--------~.mmw~.%..-m-------:Emu-”.nmwmw---------mMm-mm-v.m..m---:---No.0mdmwa:..--.-----me2:£...~ . -53- . .a .. .m--- - mmmama~.s afloflmvo.s aoflnnmo.a. onmnmwn.a Hmnvsao.a mfinflvao.a omoo~mo.a Am mzqfiwdulllfianmwnjooaa ENE; cRafl-N-walllmrmflom-u Zmfimn.gig-Immiqqul - .............. --:-:-----mwnama31:55-.“~33.-w------qmv.~da.-n--::-:Nmm-modJ.---------o~mama-6.----53Hnnflaim-:-------»-m;mo. fizz-am. -- : . mmm.mm.¢-H..‘.-:::::£«mm-m”c 332.» .:.-$2; ..... wag-ER.» ........... mmmmmwu ........... «mg-3...» ........ Q: :fi 3.: ...... 3 we mm mo mo om on .m ....Em E E E am «m «m an 3 u.1.o..,.<.n. - .-:----- : «a. ..... Afi N” U a a: ............. m .................................. II I , IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII I- IIII .IIIIII’ IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I ,IIIIIIII'|III'I'III'I'II'II.IIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .-III'IIIIIIIIII‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . - ..................... a gammmHn-muwggwmgngzfizs HES ....... - .................................... -:I.-III -II I .-I-, - III-II - <93- mzo EEIEBHoxu-HH. m 5F. 2:; - 22.9- :3 awn-H ........ HM; .......... m3 ................. ENNIS----------...HME ....... we as mm we «0 «N . II-NIn-IIII-I-I-III ------- ...-“HO ....... QIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIII-Il .II IIIIIIIIIII IIIAI I..IIIIII..I ,IIII I in IIII..II I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIICIII,I.IIII .II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl-IIuIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIII . III- HNHHNH. H nHHmm¢.H nmomch. H HHmnhH.H mnnnoHo.s ognmnmo.a osooos.H Hm .......................... oavovaH-:-:-:-ofinn~H-a-:-:Is;nae+nmuH-:-:IzIan¢m¢mrH:-e--:IImHooasas:s:-II¢moHnm.aaz-Iaa;~mmm¢a,Hz-s-HHI.-.ogm;-:-- mammmeH .IIvnnuHH. .uIIIIIII+®m»b¢I¢IIIIIII¢»-mmwmeIIIIIIII¢oooooI¢IIIIII¢¢mocmvrwIIIIIIwmoHIH.H Hm mummHm.H nHmHmn \smoHe. m mnHomm. - .HsooHH. H HcoHHn. H moonns. H .H NDZHHm<> «movmnv.s onHmH.H «quonm.m as :as .n nvmnwmn.a maonH.H mannHo. m .m ---------------------- -;:ooaoos~.s-e--:.OQNVHHo.s-I:I:-Hhmm~m.m-:-:-:-omcu¢v.m-I-IIIIHHQHnHvIa:-:;I:sssanamaas:y:-sHHnw~oHm-s;-+H-:-szz--:-:- .3. .I-.. :.--III?” . III-Ion! mm: m - mm «m IIaIutmI om mm . mm om om mm mm HH .MHazqm H o m v n m. H - - . - .J .I'IIIII'IIII.IIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIII'IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII . IIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIIII -II I .i IIIEEEDEEuhlt-wfhtlfktlIl IIIII'IIII'II-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIII-«IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III IIIII I I Illl. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII :DIIII .I.[-IIIIIIII'IIIIII-IIIIII'I II'II' I"‘--‘I 'II'III'II'-"|' I 'III' ' .--‘I'l'-III'IIIII.|'I-I|I'-'-||II"|----l'--"" ' ' I1. 75.: - iIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIII. ............................... amnzHHzoumHa-mmmS-mammmaIQmszHzoo-dmmg-------:----------------------------:---------:-----::---:-------:--:-:-------. -II- -:--- I ¢ku mzo am ~(vmnm.~ nanman.~ ~0H~0H~.3 OHmuHmo.a oano¢.~ qusvm.m monHomH.5I .u ....................... bHHvOH-H-:-t-:IchmnH-H:--HSIwommo¢cmp :-:;:;mH*ommmbu:I:I:;maavomn$I:;::I:o¢o¢oapm-I:-:;:asas&aa.$-:I+H:-:2wa:-:-:-z mnI;-3I Ix» mm mm mm mm H» «N mmmm_ on om om wm cm . mm om .H “Haida Hm aw oH mH NH oH mH --------- Hnw----------------- ------ ----------- ---------------------- -------------------------------------- 1 . VA oom.u cms.a mus.a «Hn.~ ona.s an s ans.s .moaa mo as co «c an NH «a .u.o «me.HI cmo. HI omo.HI me.H nnH.mI omn.~u mvo.HI ugHH>IH HHHHnmo. a ans-me. H Hmomno. H “vommH. H nasccco.s anson.H no one. H .m -:-:- -: :-:-:-nmhns-H ......... nvvoanH ........... aomemrH .......... mHHmcmHH- .......... H¢honmp«. .......... o¢m¢n¢kH .......... .mmommsam- ..... +H ----- .obm ............ -III:III nmnnuHm.s.:IIIIanonovHIIIzllINVNHa«wwIIIIIIIHHmsemLHIIIIIIIuabwHophallllllwnmHmmPHIIIIIIlbmHamH.w Hm I cfiamm .H mHumsm.m \Hmmov.n mnmvvm.H cmccnm.H manoo~.~ nnHHas.c HH uo7«Hm<> , . . . HmHvaH.s mmano.~ oumm\n. a NHHNOH.N. u qmncmn. H msmomH. n nanoH. n .~ :-:-:-:-:-;e:--mHnHmHn.a.----:vomono.H .......... Hamcmm-m .......... H:wmwm...a ......... cmmcHHI. & ......... HHmQNNIN ........... ommv¢n:m ...... AH-i-rH.wz ......... II III;II-I-IIII mm .,:-I on I-IIIIIIIhnI-II Ism II» on um am u~+nIIIIII mm mm om om . mm mm om .H ”Jasz - - ..H . .1 ........................ m. HHHHH .................... w ................... a II -I-.Iu- IIIIIIIIIIII-IIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllI-II II,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIv-IIIIIIIIIIIII .III-ILIII-IIIII III -:--:-:-:.:-.: :..--:-:;-:-:-: -- - nmpznazoomnn «mum: mammm> amazHHzoo gamma .1 -III,.-II---I-.- I? .II «93 uzoIax H ”HHoss omnnsH. H coco H. H oomsno.H umHoHH. H «OHon.H «menoH.H Hm ......................... mHooHan .:-------Nmmmmn.-H::--.---- omooom-H::-:---.H.N.H.mma...m--------I$H..aam-.«-I------:H-$mmm.o-.&--.---:~omoan-£5-13:-:..o..m mmnoHsmH IIIIII snmaHNIHIIIIIIlwmomxmrfiIIIIIII$¢¢¢¢wmeIIIIIIMomHomkH mmmxo$k¢IIIIIII¢o$sn~IHIIIIIm ouann.H oomonm.H onHmso.H ammnHH.c mnNHm~.~ vanmamo.a conn¢o.H .H uu2 wanmnn.s Homage. H noHHHm. n HmmHmn. N mvmnvmn.- maonHo. a nwoo‘s.~ Hm II:I:-:-:-:-:-:--ooowo§~.ar, -;-osuvo~,.H:, ........ nommxaum .......... emmeVHm ---------- HmonnHv»& ......... cmmomes»& --------- mHvomspw ...... 6H ----- zfiut ......... IHHII---III:-I-on,-III on «m um mm Ia? ow «m an ow om an «n HH uJaEHm ............................. -mw- :-- - «m mm mm H» an om IIIIIIIIIIIIII 9IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. 1. . Wm .......................... H. .2320: .8: NH: $2 33 .8: ......... Ho - v0 95 H5 co co am .u.o www.mI amw.s HHs.H- cam.~- Hso.~I nom.aI oHH.H UDHH>IH ;-:-:---:II:-:-:-wmewm:m -------------- yam-Has. .H .oohusa. H omocac. H omovav.H -¢~vno.a HumvHoo.a H~ ------------------ -:-:-oeo~usH-:-:.:-HmmmHs-.H-:-:-:-Inuvvvwho:-:-:;mm¢¢Hmv«-:-:Izzaavooanm-:II:-:o¢mmoa"HII:-:I:onnommwu¢-:I+H:-:.ch-:-:. nuanusnm.IIIIIInscnesuHIIIIIIIthmaarfiIIIIIIIvnub¢ohHIIIIIIIh$o~HohHIIIIIIIImNmow$hm|III|Ivovanoars Hm mHaoom.m momNOH.H anaoH~.a mmaomn.H mmnon~.v nHmmmn.H ammscHo.a .H uquHa<> «www.m. n . momm¢mn.- ocmmSH. H Hv(-s. o coonno.~ monoH~.a monunHm.s .w -I:-:II:-:-:;I:-:-.usHmmHm ........ -:-ohmo¢vn. a ......... :Nmnmmnba ......... mHHvem-w .......... omvafiufi-I:«¢Immmmooobp¢ ......... mHvommmba-:I+H;-:z«u: ------- I. :I no .II-II. fin --. . mn- Im um um mm Hm mwrmIIIII om om cm H» ow om cm .H “Hasz ...................... - - 3 - - , aofizz -- -- a H aggsmHfiumimeM—DZEOUI mumgI I I I <88 N20 MESH nun—DASH aanm 55h mw -------------------------------- . K oss.s omn.s va.a sam.a oss.& .moua no no as C 3 ..fo )SH.nI «no.9 OHm.H- vom.n- omo.~I m34H>IH 0Hmsao.H nnnon~.H HHcHnH.H NHmH-.H meow90.w .N- -; -. uscnowumI:. ....... cahomw_« .......... annH~.¢ .......... HomooogH--:-:-:mo\H’o.a2. -HH;-..o.m-: :.. >nnnno.u >unowm.fl HrumNnIVHIINIHovoo-HNIIIIhonarm.-mIIHNIlI-l..II nosmno.v manqnm.H Nomnnv.H cognac.» ooswoo.m HH uU7Hqu> neemac.» NNonoH.s- nooan.H nnnmnn.» sumsH~.¢ Hm Row..m.H H333.“ Hvawmnhé “NEW? ........... 5&3.VII-2:22.: ......... D. 2 no :.- t- H.“ mm; mm ow cn en om HH “Jasz av an on km on IIII manage-"HEPMMHHS-Eg-gags-manna ........ - ............................. mag 38 .sz .HasH SBHuxu HH- 5 ................ ------------------------- 3.049., $8.9 - . - Hus-ai-i: 3.0-Sui;- E:Hm-§I:-tf mHHé -- ssqsmoma ......................... :2 . :----NN 3 mu? 3 is” 433an n ouaIHv-III---I-IIIII-o..vd . n .- agflu mdea .913 1a.! m «n . n m 3; H. >II H ............. as HIE-2 «a--. ........ o H., NH Nam-.5 ......... NH «Sum-2a---- «.oz-m. 3-.., H ........... fl «Eda-«H .......... «o- w-quNJ-u ......... 33a mod-a -- -- -3--- -- ........ ........................ mH-mHman-Hz---:---:.n-H.Smnw..m--:-:Inmm-mwa-H-H.-------.£.s.m.-.-H-..H.::--- 3332.3 mmm.aw.$-.-@:- : Hum-EH; AH .Q.m nnvmnon.mIIcnsnmsn-..a men-wHHmé 02.1.3.8 31.4.3.“ “Snag-n.s 3333.8 3. $3me waomnooéIfimoM-HIH nHEmNJ msvuncné mvsvcnoé 33235 .HIIM-m-ZfimflI ....................... H333.a--I---_--sEms . H-z:-:-Avammo-IN-------:«mg-muga-q-----:--w-H_.-NoNo-.w::-I-:nuonm.~H¢--:---:-o-v.Hw.3.qn.-::..-m- ------------------------ m «EH34- ----.---.nmmm,{w.a:-..:---Ammmmw-fi::-:---mmwmn.s-Mo 333%- anHHHfi 353m.» 3 73: .2... - I 3-:- on t, on we H¢ 3 mm; om mm mm on mm mm 2., .H “flu-2.3 I IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII--.I--I-.hféIIIIIIIIII-i- I -o!-IIIIIIIIIIII-..-.IIIm-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIvIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIniIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHII--IIIIIIIIIIIII- -II-III-II- ...... 1-------------- 9.. K HH.mmmo. ouoaHuxu HHH mz _ ........................ ammoaman------,---n.nno.”m1w----------.Nndndfia-m----i:--.mmHmw.nd.a--:-i---o.m«saw...v.-------:-o.~-w~.m.m.»«.----------~.m.\~.~.a...m------....m.------::-:----Eg ........................ 0. mam..-w-----:--.h.§a .:.w-:------mmmwnm..-~:--------.m.mw_,.m..a....m----------wm.w.‘.h.QM----------w$.o.wmu.-:-------g£.fi-..w-::..-w-- -..,“an 3 3 3 .3 i. 3. i 3 mm; “n-1i. mm; mm km «n um so A“ AJny . ...................... ..- N..N.NN-N-N.-N- -------.N.NN,N.N.N...N. :..-Na. NNNNNN. N NNNINN. N :NNNN. N NM. 3.... .N .N ., ........................ be?Sena-:-:---mflmflm"..95------ashavaM-E-iimocoo-wC-:::::mmom¢mo-.&-----:--~.ommawpa-----------oN.3:..--:---N-“--2«-wz:-:--- "NP--.-..ilIII-NN R R , N.»- E N «mi-Semi! on mm «m mm mm in 3 3 ”.52; .................................. N. o m ..:----: -------.N- - - NN 5 llllllllllll Jurlllllliillcllllllnltctlzllvii-.:-!-..-....I!I....IxIIIIIIIIIIIIolilinlll..I.-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIballIII-.II!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllsno...unulIInn-unvulxunoquuvnqu K .IIIIIIIIIIII l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I'I'I I'IIIIII'IIIIIII'IIIII‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. .IIIIIIIIIIIvl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII--IIII'IIII'II'IIIIII'IIII' .IIIIIII[III-II!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII; I [III- .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . IIIIII'III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-I'IIIIIIII'IIIIIII'II'IIII'IIIIIIIII--I.I""-'IIII|"'IIIII'I'IIIII'---II'I'I'I",. .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIII'IIIII III: III-4|. IIIIII;I.. 1 III .IIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII' IIII-II'AII"I'-"III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIII'I'I'IIIIIIIIIIII YIIIIIIIIII I1... IltIIIIIIIIIIIII-I'I‘IIII’III‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I'IIIII'IIIII'IIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIiIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIII'III'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIII. ll’IIIIlIII. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII'I'II'IIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIII'IIII-lIII'II'II' III IIIII I II III III I II IIII'III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIII. II I- I.I II I I I II IIIIII l1 I:ompzHazoomanmnzou:mpmmm>§nmazHHZOQImeogyll!z-:::-.11« :i: ¢H¢a uzo amcm nunpaoxm Hana zmHm NNm.N NNN.N NNN.N vom.N Nan.a NNn.N n»o.a .moma we no No No mo do so .N.o NNo.N- NNN.N- NON.N- NNN.N- mmu.d- NNN.N- «NN.N “34<>-N NNNNNN.N NmNmN.N NNNNNNN.N nmmnmn.N mommco.fi Noanoo.N amflmcuo.s AN ....................... ¢Nmanm.u.w-:---:-NINN-2....N.:----..---NmN-Nmmm...$:;-:-mflINN-«--:---ENNONNN£----------vN,n¢mN..¢-::::-NoN33.9:1; .om NNNNNobw:iIIIIIpNNNoapwtnunnllahN¢+Nmbanlln|ImNNm¢+hNalIIIII+¢¢oawkmllllllnoomsmapmlllllzl¢¢+amomr9|||+~ NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNNO.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N _ NNNNNO.N .NNNNNN.N .N uoz<~mq> Noosmo.N nnmnns.o nNNvNNN.N NNNNNN.N N»NN~N.~ NNNNNN.N HauuNNNNNNN.N .N ....................... 93.: n . m .:---:--..H mmmmv ...u.--------- N mo~#H.H.Ns-------l¢:mm.mm-.-m-------lct~vnmNm----------ommmmn-N «.----«aumownnmmera---Lad 74w: ---------- am an aw NW NW NN mm Nm mmNm an an mm nm . an «n N» A" uJNNNm Nm NN 0N NN NH 0N ma : 6 2 . ......... x NNo.a NNN.N nvo.s wflm.s Nud.a Nom.s nno.a .moaa on so so am on on do .N.o mNN.N ovm.s- nmv..- NmN.N mnm.« Nvm.a- va.s- “344)-N NNNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N NNNNNN.N nmNNNNNNs anflmso.s NNNva.N NNN¢¢0.~ .m ........ --J ....................... 3.33 ..-N -- -- 003No..-a--:-:-:NN mmN-N...N---:-:--me-Non-N-..s--:---$N:I.£::---:.$$0-..#------::m£$¢.-«::-.-+..::-..Q..w::-:---_ .1-NNNNNNN.N.:2.:-vNo0N”hwziissuinoNnahhluiiilihwm“NanbstlxiauaooN”appallliliebmms«aw-IllsiatNNAvaczzltNm _ NNNNNN.N nmnwom.o ONNNNN.N qumovm.s NNNNmoN.N NNNNNN.~ mannvN.n «a uuz<_m<> omnmmmmé Nmmmvo§ )3me momma-mmé :3qu mmwmmmé cnaanoé S ....................... 238%----3? vommnm§:-:-::omm«on£-----------owmmwwn£5-:---3“«3.5-:-:----N3ass..-n.--:-::-nmm~N¢N------+N--2«NF-------- -: Nu . -::-a- -NN-:-: mw Nu ow Nw am Nm mmmm 1.. cm an vm vn an cm A." qur-N NNcNmNo.a wonvnm.d Neonnm.fi onNNnm.a NnmNsmo.N NNNNNN.H mnvoam.fl AN mmHNcHNH. ---------- oemanwna ........... n¢H¢NaNN- ......... $N¢NNNNN .......... #NNnaaNa .......... ¢o¢«m«pfl ........... NNNNN¢.a-:--NN--s,m.m,:-:- :IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIgwxompNNNIIIIIINNNtmmhalllllllomowN¢rmtllllllmh$§Nmhbllllllt¢stona¢k¢lll||i¢¢mmmvrfiilttslinvasthmttth~-:;;:.!IIII: ooommn.a ooomam.u NNmoNN.N mNNnON.n cnnscm.fl NNonmm.N NNNNNH.~ "a mozNNNN> oNNHNso.a eansN.N NNNmom.n Noncom.o NNNnae~.a Nnm~on.a mmnoam.m .N «mmwwanhn. ........ #anmbua .......... “NMNNNNm .......... wabmobum .......... pmwvn¢mhh ......... obwvampw .......... omNVNmNN ...... Na.:-7«mx ....... nu Nw NN am am mm a: Nw mmrwllllu mm mm mm mm n.» mm mm 3 32km .- NN .................... m w ........... NN mm ...... a N...“ ................... N.N. ..................... IIIIII IIIIIIII?!.I.. vIII ulaultnnnlnnnulnvlnivsunuuulnnannlnvnnlunlu:..Illll-nan-..I.}:III..-sxlnonnlnununlllnlnunllunllnauntcnua..ncn-nuuua- .-uun- 1.31:3}-- .. ..---- .-- --- 4-- - 9.. mm .................... N. «mum--:-----:--Na; - wan-9---- -- ...-N3.-- NNNN :NN - NNN..N.----- - .-.-.-NNNN no - N0 do No no No No .N.o Nam.a- amm.fl oma.s- NNn.N- oofl.au omn.fln «No.9- uDJN>uN omnvom.fi omoamvm.s \NNNnNm.a omvam.N NNNomo.N NNmNNON.N NNNNNNNMN .m ............................ mNmNNohN::!:-:;HNNNoNoNw-:::;-mobonava-+;::e:NNmNm¢Na-::s:e:No~NamNa:a:-:-:Nbcaamoua-:-:-:Noqsaao.s-:-Na.:..a.m;-;-: owwwww.w1- mNNwothsililllgnsancrhallllllhhhNa«hm-IIIIIINmachohwsllllluannaamnksllllquooooavraalz+m oflnmos.m mflvommo.s oNvos¢.N NNNNNN.~ somamm.m NNmNNNN.N avmaaNm.s .N muz<_md> Noooon.n mnNNNNN.N \mmwon.N vNNNNH.N Nooooo.m onmvcn.N NNNNNN.N “m ........................ ----«.:.mow”Pi-------ssauag-é-:-:--LamomcmNH:---:---YEmQDNm-iizLANmov...~.----:::th~..:..NN:::-:om~¢3...« . -----3 :--sz - am mm mm a» mm mm mm kw,:|mmymllllu . N a a A N . N 22.. lllllll'llll - I‘ 3-5-------- .............. - - ...... - nan---:..IIII- ............. nu 0N mm vN nN NN ..... -II-.II--- III/IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII aupzwuzaumaq-wn3Qa.wummww-mu=zHHzou.mmsqa-:-:. .-. :.:-. - -.:- ............ «:3 Hz: 3:: ESENPEC . :1.¢uvu|.-a-y- ................... ~ ._ K-28 «N18 30.8 2.6.8 2.3.8 emu.» .mona me He so nsw.su 000.5 000.9: acH.NI ova.al u34<>ch vmanvo.w mammmo.fi donnvm.a vnmoon.fl nvaocM.H .m NNNNHNNN .......... NNNNNVNN ........... NNNNNWNN ...... -:-NNNNNVNN ........... oovonm.N--:.+N:-.o.m .......... Nmmnsu.N ranmN.u wmvmmn.~ Huaflfiaxm nousnmuHIIMRN~11:!:IiIIIIII Hnnnmo.w mvnuoo.fl mamvam.a nwvmas.~ nnounv.~ “a uoz sssaao.w nvahmmw.al momwom.fi GSSBN§.n hfinmoo.n «N O'H\ «.:.-.:.w Hus-m mmmd. :..-“mm.” Ewwvahw ........... N momvmé ........ S.---z:nMDZHBzoolwmzpu 55.55. 95: 32 .56 52.4 nunfioxu 47m 55 J ........................ Nat-9---. - - NZ; -,.No4-..N55 -- NZN «NdNENNNNNNNE ......................... No------------------do - ..-----..No-.------.-----.---,-.we..:--..:-------------MOI-------1-53--- «of------------llimoi-liii---------N.....,.-a:-----.--- nlé flung-a.- ouné- manic.- 3017 mcnéu Sné m-JEJ ....................... flovmodv..ai.---.a-ammoooo.-a--:- ---oud¢.-J--.----.,.u.m.....aW...0..-u:---.---N.mu-m~.mo,...n----1--nom-mwm.m....&---l--5N.m-oN.»“N.J.-:---mm---------------- :-:----:----------m.N-N£3W.-F--:-.:..WENNN.,NQ .......... memmw-Hm ............. N. m-m-mm-mm..-.N- .-.---:--9.0m-N-m-mm-.-.N.--:5-mwN-wm-o-owm ......... mwwnmwu ........ N m ..... .:.-..m ........ . «$32,5- 5eonvm¢wuu 33994 2433.8 Now-Mamv; oomeNNé 333.4 .m nanmon¢.& Wmsmoov.a vmdonH.d omflmwnnéu mnnmmmnI-N mnovvno.s monocn.fi A“ mug-«Ma; ........................ snag-92------ 223 4555 NmmNN-NeN-5-55-N-NfiN-N..N-5-55 flaw-N. .m-:-----N.N-N..N-$-..N.-:-------N-N.NNN NNN ---------:-:------cmNR;...N:-----mN-vmmw..m ........... «- mmmva-mm----------.N-NN.N-m...~...m--- Nm-NNSN .N-thmmw-Hw ........... mmm-Nm-N-nm ....... N -M ....... 7- .6.... ............ om mN om 2.. mm mm om Aw mm; mnli --- - 55 --mni mm mm mm mm WW, 3 mJn-wuflu ................................. “.-:-5-51.---- .o-. i.----55---i---m---5-..5-55-------mI555555---550-5555551-5-5-N5--.:i5!:.5.--5---d.l---!.55--5--- - ------- 55:9 ................................................................................................................................ 2 '-> E «H xuuow ouoaufivxu ad." mz owzzrrzou «6.30.. . mhmmbu» :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-- ----- -:-:-:-:- ........ --:nuuzuazoomHn:mm3qH:mammu>:au=zuazou-¢u:aq ............... z - .:-:.:-:.1 mz¢u= sou .mmm amI> Ad Am .n.m mmaonn.a Ad mu7w~mu> N0N4NN.» NNNHNN.N om m» .N an .N «a a L 74M}. wmmm Juvqtm . I'IIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIII‘IIIII OIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: I III .IIIIIIII I IAIIII I II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Eva-5°83 mmaB-Bmmgbupzfizoohg mzsi 35.48 $2 38 63. .92 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIII IOIIIIII . n I: -III III! I0 I 1 5: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII :III- IIIIIII'I ...................... mw94s-e;:-z;-::-smN.a-:;-:- .NN.N WNNN omn.s mNNNS mos.s .moaa ------------------------- o- nmmom :--... -- -- mm-omso-uo vmo.d of...” now-.9 Homé ocmé mmm.m sax-.4 mun-.:..» ...................... cinema-.955-- 4 mommuo-.-a--::5do mam-0.9.555--.N43finwad-:::zwm.s.ow.nN-.-a::::1...-n-N-o n-N..N-.-a.-:-:-:.m43.m-N-nN-a--:-mm::--- ------------------mSm«Nan-N5:--:-NNN,NN.N.NM..N-::-:mNm-mmwm-.-N .......... mN..-..NN.N:N.-N---:::NNoumNm-uw-5----N.N.wN-w£-...m --------- N.,-N-fl-Nmm-N. ----- . -H ..... ”Num- ........... saomuao.s mNWNmonw mNooovN.s mvNNmaN.s oonmmmn.a mmovwon.a 44NN~NN.N .N 4N»N4¢N.Q cooomsn.s neocM4n.s mNNmmfim.s msmmmmm.s mummeon.s oonwmoo.s .4 wuzq_mq> ...................... ANNegg----}---Aooomo.-m:----:50nnndna-n--:-::-m334..m---::-:-nv,.m~.-N-.-m--::--~o.$.84m.-------N-_«-\..-s-m-N-.-...--------3:-----:-:--------- ----------------------- N m-NN-N-N..-m::5---.N.m.N..N.N.N...N---:---59.Mamba-..-?-:---:-.».Nm-mm...m-5-----N.N.N-N-fir...-:-------m-N-Nwm-N-HN--------N-N-N:..N..4...N.------..m-5-aE.:-:----- om mm om Nm om om NN AN muum mm -mN-;I mm mm 9n mm mo 44 m439 omozapzou «M304 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------. mpmmh-h _- nmfifihzoomg «MES mommy-S 555828 muss ------ ; - - mzfi—z 55.48 92¢ 30m 63.4. 52m nuns-484m Sum 54: m - - ....... . l-~ K «4: s sssé nus-s mNN-s ass-s nssé 4.3.3 ----------------- JUNK-:..- am an om ac an R 2 . .544 :4, EN a 3v; arc-m NmN-m moo-N s44.n QNAN ”...-1.4.. -.. .. no» 444:. s :mcmxxé nnvsswwé vammumé smrmmoné onoocmmé 9.43.8.3 mm ._ $324.5 «2.33.8 NZNENN 333mg NSNNNTN 43-52; 03:...-N...-N--:4-4-.:-wo..m ........... noco~4~§ mnvtmné ~4ovn4m§ aonmgné vovmmmné $352.3 $444593 4w one‘9‘».ralvm4snnd4855n3nnmm4d59mamdunia- ..IINNNa- ,- 4,chan max-moovfi : :..-«Ed: . ....-.:....---:-.....-..---49 0mg . q .......... $439- 4.. .......... ~53. oN-d .......... $334.4 .......... 349.0444.- .......... Ndoom9£1 .......... 344,430.. n ....... 8 -------------------- . onmmomJ 43:“... 3.2-no.0“ $3.4m; 40403.». sovmmmé comma-MN ------- 4 -4-- _--N,-uws_-:.:--- 0N _ NN . om NN NN mm mm 3 MN; 5. mm mm my 9. vm em 44 N Him . <4 r4 NV 4« 84 o m I: 5:: : nungouflnkg mama-g mmazIEow-mg mzfiz 35.50 B: 394 403.4. Hm QMDZHHZOU mmmm: 232:2 .38 SE ........ $355“ 5% EH flan.“ .mHan.-.:‘: mm,,:,:- :,: 1 .unu.: :: «mu.fl-uxl .-‘ muymynwlltil‘ “wowwmmw ..... «wt ................. oraquqlrzg 3. 3.2m o. uiN nwnfiam.m oflmmam.m mm .w m N my ad M_n> -333 .‘w ; :3, : 3mm,~.n..‘m- «C,---.C-uu_.._-----:.-: nw hm ummm .nw «H man«m amazHHZOOquzqu m=m¢u>-hubzaazoo.Mmmmpullu: .ziriara ‘II: : mafia: 55.50 nz< 3cm .039 523 939.5%— :um EH“ mma.ot oom.s ~s«.a «Nfl.~ mmflaa,,:-:,:-:.0Hfi.a:.-:,:.s;,nvv.a ..‘ .anun .‘ . SN aw QN a“ an:. «0: on :-:‘1‘; “ ‘,.u.u ..... . a new.“ , snows emu.“ 0mm." man.“ mom.fl wwwum (I; :wmmn UNI: mmflvaa¢.a anomwwnws ......... unawndNJd;-z-z-mudnmwm.e oaao~w~.a flam«wmo.a ooxawwm.d :‘gm. ............... am¢m¢o¢.a ofiwoomo.s mpofimnn.a nuumfiflo.a omemwmm.» mmoxwmnnfi-:-i-:nmfiwofifiwm : a“: .Hm.m .......... ,swvmWa.s vmflann~.a oqomomm.s ovflmflsn.s HNNW¢~n.s nflommnn.u no.»¢o~ha “mlzi‘r mmumvv~.e sasamnv.s ~mo~oum.s mnnnwnn.e mammomo.a doosmvm.a unvaxflw. A“ mu:«nau> 3%me :32; 3:36 3&3; 3335 31.3; 833; ...... . ‘N ..................... msmvem.v vwwwwn.v nmflnna.q vmqnwc.e naan~a.v oflomnw.v :noNNQNJu;-;-»H _wqu , ....... mm mm mm mm .3 «n 1, SIMNM an N» :.. 2 mm . mm no 3 :41“,qu «a ma mfi afl «H o m ................... -- .3 .: 3 . v5 ‘‘‘‘ he“ a mmo.s‘ afln.s nN(.a «mu.u mm~+& ................ ~ma;a l- ‘:“4 ‘flhnua ,,,,,, ............................... a~,:\-,:-:-:-; no ,‘ an um no. aN“: ex ‘ ,‘,‘; .uma‘ i : ‘ ccc a. hsvfia‘ ses.d Nata vn&.N dwdjfi svwmwi.:livl§vum ..«zlhnlll'l cwvmaom.s ......... «mommmm.q ........ Aaonwflom.a monmw«~.s nvmmomm.a Nmflaflw¢.al:,:i.mNNH~wm.m.:,a~-.;.r :‘r‘;,:. mafia-----ifflwré ~33; $33.8 £22; ggflmnhiazigE:3..y.-ga,‘ 59...? : fih»hfl«h.e oooomsm.s nmoqxfln.a mfigwnfln.e oamnomn.s m¢mm¢ofl.s aoqvmoa.a AN Hmmaovn a hoonnam.s mAHunqm.a ~mummu~.a «nmcflmm.a «Hoovwmqm:-. -.ofinomflmamii;“4.mqwaqmu> .............................. onvuoo.n1--:-:.~nmo-.m-I:-.---onmadam!!!---n.m4.N.no.n 53;... monnn<.v.--:--;. ommcgé: JAN . ‘ ommwwm.v nomflo~.c ~m-n~.v nohnos.v omsnvo.v ommmfim.v vnnwamuw:-t.wflz,.,«m:,...--: mm .. mm mm mm cm mm m“. .3 um; NM NM hm hm. vn mm In}; :1" ..... I h hm. 3 ...a:<¢_ fl mull: Inuuu -: e :.:.:-:- ..... -::;:-:- : .................................... w w -, H (If; ...... ......... ..... -- .......... ...... -A‘.-----:‘,,-,------------.----- (I, 222229282233 22925 $525.28 22222:---2: ; . ; ‘ , I ‘ ‘ , . 22%: 2238 $2 392 .039 2.23 228.522 2.2 225 ‘ E El; 11%;},1 1 6 3 ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ‘ z z . K 2 var e m~u.s moa.s Hfinfls.-,yl,:yt :.mnmm .......... 4 mo Vflfl4fl mmwwoso4a ......... numnoam.s cnr‘fi flmuNmNmAd mwomomv.s Nan.d «mmmmdo+a ..... nonfimnn.a soo.& UDJ<>I» . auawmflmful-iam ..................... . awasa 00.9 .H onmwoon.s mommmna.a owmmmnn.s voxfla on.» .o.m unaqum.a hNthnN.u mfismvmm.s woowu V nmmama.v ‘ nooowv.¢ nmfimon.v Hmflmfim.v 80¢mwm.v ovoeov.v sagas nowho nu.“ m.v ....... «w- m.v mm NM en mm en mm mm mm mmwm u4uxfl¢ '7 - aBzEzoomS 558 893 nSzEzoomE «EB _ .......................................... m2¢m=-zz:qou-nz¢wzom.mozassz¢mnuuunun=aoxu-HH:m-zaHm - -:;:mu ............... 444.9 ............... aas.n ...... ,;-;-§Na.a ...... -:-:.n44.w:-:-:-:-:-¢aa.w--;-::-:-z4nwam ................ mm44& ................. «momm .......... q . ......................... Nos:-:-:-:-:-:-¢o;-:-:;::r--:;mo:-:-:;-:-:-:_au; :-:-:-;-:.wu:,e--:-:-:-:-oo.-::-:-:-:-:-m¢::-:-:-:-:-:-:qmao:-:-:. mac-a- «on.» .i:4mm.q mmw.fi mflmamszit .:w~m.-n ago.” ~344>-- ........................ m44n0q~4a::-:-:«mmnmdoaaazz;-:Hmodmdmad;-;-:,44~omdwq”:-:-:-w-Nm-wwnm:-:;::wnsom~wz&:-:-s:n¢®mfiwd-a-:-4m:-:-:-:-:-:-- .------:-------------....m.m,o§.m-.m ......... m.owemmm-..m-:-::-m.-_mn.o-mm...a::..::.mm.~-.,.m-£.m..-®:-----..-mmwwm-oz-.-w- -------.4.@-n.fi-m..m ......... m-fimmmm-nm: :3- - .num. waammflon§ :momomov.a mhcooqu.a musumsn.s oomouun.a mmocmom.a Hanamhn.s .N mmnmvoo mill-I mmofifinn.s mvmonnn.a Hflwmoon.s cmMounfi.s ooonmmfi.s mnflunno.s n4 ~074~mq> ...... .:-:i:-:;:;smmmomm. n:-:-:;saooomo ms:-:-:-dnnndn<-:;g:-:-wudwma.:-:;:;:;~®mmwwqfl-zs:;szm¢mnnm;m:!:-:-:m«mwwwzm:-z;4wa:-:-:-:-:-:- ....................... mwmoom. m;y:-:--mamflmw;m;-:;:;gsmmmmm:ms:a:y:-wwwmmmwms;z:-:-memom. 4 oumfiam. q “~4mmn.¢ «4 z4ux ............ ----- -----------------------------------------------------------.fi :mw. mm:. mm um ow ow mm AN mmHm m4 He 44 44 44 «V we AH mJamwm : --------- -w---- ----- -N, ------ .--- - --- o ...................... n ..................... m----------------wm .................... N. .................... 4 ................................. . ....... -ao-- ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ 3 .V “N xuuo. ouogguxu 444 m24ux 400 024 300 umnzupzoumuo «M304 m> omszahzoum~o mung: e;- -. mhmuh » -- -- -- - -- -- - - . -.- - - - - - -- - --------------------------h ................................................................... - ..................... - ............ a ........ - - -- - ----v - nxt-- - 1 - z-u-- .-:.---:-.n-u-x-uuu-u-u-u-- a.-.|----nluxn-:us-x-|-.-.u--|:x--:--uux-111-------cnz‘unu-«u-nvnon‘. :EEEOUmHn MESA gang. nuDzHHzoumHa «HEB ---------- - . . - - . .- mzfimz 55.50 nz< 30M OE. Rafi nugguxm S M.,-5E . .- . - - 9 . - ---- .- - - . 3 — -II-I in :-r.!.. --- 11 - - ----- K Inna-s sssé son-s v? s nos-a 5.3.3 sag-é .mnm xiii-:-. ma cc .2 3 me no no ------ :.....a n monpm coin- acsé m3 4 can. o3... 25,; us .:-. N nunaaniq ........ MNmmmmmé -------- .nmvnumfié ......... vdmumam-ws ----amaNa-o-Na.a ......... «Ammonoé -------- nvavau...u-.I «vi-I: ............. . 23..an a mmmouocé 2R3“; 3330.8 3033.3 Soon-m. N. 21-22.“ 2 .o.m . ...... .............. n mooomflmé Nnvnvoné $033.9 3303.9 vocmnmn.» 131K; «33:. . 3:3: a :vosvné Elam-s SEQ-1a mmaiocé “Scam-114303.: Mun-4314‘» Scams-q seam: m. NEE“ n ommmmmé hogan-n Zoowoé «.3306 3 _ 32.33 :..-am»; 333..” TNQZJ 332.» 1.33.4. 333;. 3 2.3;. ............. N ow nw on um um . mm mm 3 mm; 11 d1 11 cc Vv NV nc AH m .n;z N ........................ o Ema-mo . n-------. mN-nona-m:--:-----.nm.Nww-ma-m--::-:”ma-ma...m---:-:--«dawnm.mu-v--------w.mmw-mw...m-------o-o-mw.3-.-w-----.~.m--------:-:-:- n ....... ---------:-.m-m.m.0.0m...”-.:-:----.mmmfimw--:-----Ame-Maw:-:--imamw.m....o.--------ma4.8-m.v 2.3%; 353;. 3 7.3: ............................. -------------------------------. a mm on mm n. e» mm mm Am ”mum n« Av vv «v «c cc «v “a “4a14m : ................................ n------------ - -----o------------------m--------------------Ju--------------------AM-------------------~w------ ---- aw ------------------------.g ................................................................................................................................................................ _ : ............ ma--------------------------------------------------------- --- --- -------------------------------- ; ....... ---.4- K __ _ Amu-x"~.mn. own—34mm“ «.3 mzqmz ._ou 02¢ 20m cugzmhzou mayo; m> ouazmpzoomuo «mum: mpmup-P w-||-'-"||l'-"'|""l-"-"'l"I'I‘|'l|1I:il‘l|lllll:':ll"-“ I|l'l"""'l'-'-"--"""'----'i'--"l“"--"l"'|'-l""""" -:--:-:-:-:-:-- ............................... -:am:znyzooz¢uzag-m=m¢m>-nmbznazoomHn-mmmma:-:a ........................................................................ H ..I-; i!- -Ilimz§.gmmo;2mh€ .oz... ...-,3... nag-8M”. :-m- 5.: . ............ - : -- ---:--.nuu..-....\.- -------mafia-------zz-r-..-3,44.-:------:--n.¢.o..-u.---:--:--:---..-mam.------- -_.- .............................................................................................. :2 nut-2J0. \Mvo.a awm.a flan-m oo..a- ugJ«>-. ; ........................................................... ----....----:-:--------..------.nmw.3-..u-..a---------«.aqmw.Mm..-g;:----:..-mm.“~3.-&--:-:-3&.H.mmafia-----..~--------:--:-:----x -------- uomxncv.~ mmoeonw.a Hosmmvv.s nonnaav.s .a .o.m ................................................................................................................................................................................................ a onmmmcn.a ~nmmona.a ommmmhn.a vo.«avn.s .m Nnmflmum.s oo~m~oa.s om.vmo..s ~0~moo¢.s .H mum¢.aq> _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- «my-awaa-m-:--::-wd~m.m.-m---:--u.oKNNJ.-:-::-g.e.&.s.a.~..-..-----...mitt-.--- N nofluo~.c vmanvv.v mqmdnv.v .m..¢a.v .« 74m: .................................................................................................................................................................................. . m cm v» m» .N mm.m «v 4v av cc .4 “Jazww ; ................................................................ -- n4 ... fl ---..wA-----:-::-------------:.. ............................................................................................................................. -- --------------------------------------------- . ................................................................................................................................................................................................ - . 6 ...-.....n4 ................................................................................................................................................................................ --- -- _ "n --------- .---------------«mm.a.-:-:--:----.qu.d------------m~d.d--------:--gn.q:--:--:-3v4q $-79--:-:-::mun-..a::----------:...ma-m-m------- _ _ ......................... Q ...... --:-5-5:: -------------------- NH ------------------- NN ...... .N N. w. ............... ...fiq ....... mmavalllllilinmm+a Lfi-mm-m- 57a- cam-s.- mma-fi :mé 9.3;-» , , ....... -:--$331.9------_mmsm~mm.GEE--.:“gnaw-Q---:---33...???-------mAa-m~N~a-a:----:3.3.30-.a-------odad~Nm-d-----3::-..- ---::----_ n5mcnmc.a mmmmaov.s ~..ms~n.s H..g.»0.~ naomfinm.s encommm.s nnflnoam.~ .H .n.m ----------------.-.-..- -------------- - - ------------- , ------------------------------ . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g oscvooa.a wanan.~.s ovomowm.a ovflmflan.a am.oo~m.s naoommn.s momoaoc.s .m Nnamoaw.3-11.1;mavoscm.s-IIIIIsmqamam4sallzluwL. n..fiaIllnllwmddamdqgnllllluNddaum-a -sqnnn ------------------- :-..- -mnmmom . q 332 ..m -:--..::3SS..n--:---vmm-mN-m..m-----:...-§.35-.”1----:..--smwnmmJ-ii-E-dd3.3,-«----3:----:-:---:--:.. .oaose.« ovmomn.e avocav.» nvmvna.¢ «ca.n~.n ennnmn.¢ mmnmsn.v .. 24 x ................................. -. ----------....--. ---------- -- --------------------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------------------------. mm mm mm nm on on «a .m m~.m «v-:-!i:||1:a¢w--i «q «a «v a¢ me .4 m40y