I

—WV‘

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS AND PROCEDURES '
EMPLOYED BY REHABILITATION FAOIUTY
ADMINISTRATORS IN ILLINOIS:
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JEAN McMARTIN ROMMES
1977

 

III/I ' LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
BY REHABILITATION FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS

IN ILLINOIS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY
presented by

Jean McMartin Rommes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Department of Admin—

 

 

istration and Higher
Education

 

Date July 21, 1977

 

0-7 639

 

 

1A8 A139

 

 

 

 

5‘

 

 

 

.c.
['\L~‘_L,‘—‘:.:llw ‘ .'E ' ' . a .‘ ."l 4"“. :‘”.I .. WED
'23 H. ‘ '1 -L’ ‘ {Vi :‘...‘ ‘7‘“ '-. {KHT'T‘EK
\‘,'
v"
9
' - "..‘M;\t '1: .71. I: ,
,f.‘ .
‘ .
I .. i ' ‘ .
. ‘ TIN? I‘~.‘il l ' 7, "-..u ., I “J LdQXCbt“ the
s. - 1 ' ‘ . J,

    
  
   
    
  
 
   
 
  

   

' N." I . . .d
W3 mhrsds; u." get: ‘ht-I . ' _ ’. . ‘fiéh 11%: [y affiiovad

fig rehzzbzt LenLuu 1

‘k. - .
":‘I I A1! dealing Wine-.1" ('2 Problem.
. , . _ . .
' -r-~ A '- ' '. ' .
‘. wen "Gr” ||."’NL1' " a ‘che,

l .

“inlfitthtiflh .I I.
mutated m want J"

:IT‘K-

  

."

..,.
, om! y‘J‘. (ob'egl um; wen-
ll) .‘nw to mm! «c anplnym newtcxrarirn

(2) new 1: 3w atnmaetda fur employ” ”detainee;
T3) Bow to conduct orfect 19a oo-thc-10b tummy:
«‘00 now to prepare employees for greet»: rememb-
htliéyx , I .
‘lflhiov to improve confilcation with h‘”;"
:66 w handl. midfi- grim! ‘

‘A I" no «amine «army nods.

"on mmuaum m W “3‘:

  

ABSTRACT

ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
BY REHABILITATION FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS
IN ILLINOIS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY
BY

Jean McMartin Rommes

The purpose of this study was to identify the
methods of personnel administration presently employed
by rehabilitation facility administrators in Illinois
in dealing with seven personnel administration problems
which were identified by the Rehabilitation Services

Administration Region V Management Needs Survey, dis-

 

tributed in March 1975. The seven problem areas were:
(1) How to evaluate employee performance;
(2) How to set standards for employee performance;
(3) How to conduct effective on-the—job training;
(4) How to prepare employees for greater responsi-

bility;

(5) How to improve communication with employees;
(6) How to handle employee grievances; and
(7) How to determine staffing needs.

Present methods of administration were compared to

methods prescribed by three accrediting agencies: Illinois

Jean McMartin Rommes

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.

The population consisted of the eighty-nine
facilities in Illinois which were accredited and rated
by the Illinois Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
A sample of sixteen facilities was chosen on the basis
of the returns on a questionnaire sent to each facility.
The questionnaire obtained information regarding each
facility's size, number of staff, and so on. Returns
on the questionnaire revealed that the three important
variables were: size of facility, number of full-time
staff performing professional activities, and relation—
ship (if any) to a parent organization. A sample of
sixteen facilities was chosen by establishing frequency
tables which showed the relationship of each responding
facility to each of the three variables.

Each of the sixteen sample facilities was
visited, and the administrator of the facility was
interviewed. The interview format which was used was
based on the standards pertaining to each of the per-
sonnel administration problems found in the standards
guides of the accrediting agencies. Each interview
was taped.

The researcher and two judges listened to the

tapes and recorded answers to each question. The methods

Jean McMartin Rommes

of administration employed were listed and the numbers of
administrators employing each method were compiled. The
judges participated in collating and categorizing the
data. The data were reported in lists showing the
responses to each question, the numbers of adminis—
trators who were judged to respond in the same way, and
the percentage of the sample the number represented.

The major findings of the study were discussed
under the seven headings which described the administra—
tive problems. The findings included the following: job
descriptions plus verbal cues were used to set standards
for employee performance; the employee was involved in
setting standards in less than half the facilities; and
a majority of job descriptions were specific; employees
were evaluated regularly; evaluations were used to provide
feedback regarding performance; educational leave was
supported financially; there were no developmental plans
for staff training; few administrators trained staff for
upward mobility; communication posed problems for large
facilities; all facilities had a grievance procedure;
and staff members were not included in long-range plan-
ning. Specific problems within each of the administra—
tive areas were also identified, and solutions were

suggested.

ADMINISTRATIVE METHODS AND PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
BY REHABILITATION FACILITY ADMINISTRATORS

IN ILLINOIS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

BY

Jean McMartin Rommes

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1977

(,3.
5‘
e;

(H
\,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Walter F. Johnson for
his help and encouragement in developing the project and
for his support during the two years of preparation. The
members of the Guidance Committee are also to be acknowl-
edged: Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, Dr. Richard Featherstone,
and Dr. Milton B. Dickerson.

Drs. Beverly A. Belson and Laurine E. Fitzgerald
had great faith that this project would be completed;
their support was essential throughout the preparation
of the dissertation.

Dr. Tom Guest of the Community Mental Health
Center of McDonough and Fulton Counties in Macomb,
Illinois gave freely of his time in reading and criti-
cizing various drafts of the dissertation. His sug-
gestions and criticisms were invaluable in the writing
of the document, and his moral support was most important.

I would like to thank my husband, Jay, for his
patience and understanding during the entire period of

preparation.

ii

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . .

Statement of the Problem . . . . .
Development of Rehabilitation
Facilities . .

Standards for Rehabilitation Facilities
Training of Facility Administrators .
Accrediting Organizations. . . . .
Region V Survey . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . .
Limitations and Scope of the Study. .
Definition of Terms. . . . . . .
Overview of the Study . . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . .
Organizational Climate. . . .
Managerial Philosophy . . . .
Leadership Style. . .

Administration in Rehabilitation

Facilities . .

Environmental Constraint Models.
Prescription Models. . . . .
Accreditation Requirements . .
Summary. . . . . . . . .

ME THO DOLOGY . o 0 o I t o o a o

The Population and Sample. .
Instrumentation . . . . .
Returns on the Questionnaire.
Selecting the Sample . . .
Interviews. . . . .
Analyzing the Data . . . .

I O O O Q 0
o a O I o o
O O O O O O

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . .

Concern 1: How To Set Standards for
Employee Performance. . . . .

o o i O o o

I '} I19
)I' K fill \r‘.

V.

Concern 2: How To Evaluate Employee
Performance . .

Concern 3: How To Conduct On-the—Job
Training . .

Concern 4: How To Prepare Employees for

Greater Responsibility . . .
Concern 5: How To Improve Communications
with Staff Members. . . . .
Concern 6: How To Handle Employee
Grievances . . . . .
Concern 7: How To Determine Staffing
Needs . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

Summary of the Study. . . . . . .
Major Findings. . . . . . . . .

Concern 1: How To Set Standards for
Employee Performance

Concern 2: How To Evaluate Employee
Performance . .

Concern 3: How To Conduct Effective
On-the-Job Training. .

Concern 4: How To Prepare Employees
for Greater Responsibility . . .

Concern 5: How To Improve Communi-

cations with Staff . .
Concern 6: How To Handle Employee
Grievances . . .

Concern 7: How To Determine Staffing
Needs I O I O O O I I O I

Discussion and Implications . . . .

One: Participation in the Administra-
tive Process . . . . . . .
Two: Job Descriptions . . . . .
Three: Evaluation of Employees . .
Four: In—service Training . .
Five: Preparing Employees for Greater
Responsibility . .
Six: Environmental Constraints .
Seven: Communication. . . . .
Eight: Time. . . . . . . .

Speculations . . . . . . . . .

Implications for Future Research. . .

iv

Page

77
85
95
100
105

109
111

117
117
121
122
122
123
125
125
126
127
127
127
128
130
130
131
132
134
135

136
137

Page

APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO ADMINISTRATORS . 140
B. STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FORMAT . . . . . . 144
C. COMPILATION OF ADMINISTRATORS' RESPONSES
TO STRUCTURED INTERVIEW . . . . . . . 155
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 171

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1. SIZE OF FACILITY . . . . . . . . . .
2. NUMBER OF STAFF . . . . . . . . . .

3. RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT ORGANIZATION. . . .
4. FACILITIES MEETING SIZE REQUIREMENTS . . .

5. FACILITIES MEETING NUMBER OF STAFF REQUIRE-
MENTS . O C O I O I O I C O U C

6. FACILITIES MEETING RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT
ORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS . . . . . .

7. NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING SIZE
REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF
POPUIATION I I O I O O O O O l C

8. NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING NUMBER OF
STAFF REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PERCENTAGE
OF POPULATION . . . . . . . . .

9. NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING RELATION-
SHIP TO PARENT ORGANIZATION BASED ON PER-
CENTAGE OF POPULATION. . . . . . . .

10. FACILITIES CHOSEN: SIZE, NUMBER OF STAFF,
AND RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT ORGANIZATION. .

vi

Page
57
58
58

60

61

61

63

63

64

65

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

 

Rehabilitation facility administration is a rela-
tively new field. Formal training programs were first
established in the United States in the mid-19603, and
many are less than a decade old.l Many administrators in
rehabilitation facilities have not been trained in person—
nel administration or in rehabilitation. The literature
reveals that personnel administration methods presently
employed in rehabilitation facilities are of concern to
facility administrators, formal training program personnel,
and accrediting agency personnel.

In March, 1975, the Rehabilitation Services Admin-
istration Region V office distributed the Management Needs
Survey to rehabilitation facility administrators within
the region. The Survey was designed to identify specific

areas in which facility administrators felt they or their

 

1Isadore Salkind, "The Training of Workshop
Directors," in Administrative Techniques of Rehabilitation

Facilit O erations, ed. John G. Cull and Richard E. Hardy
(SprinineId, III.: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers, 1974),
p. 49.

 

staffs needed additional training. A number of issues
identified were personnel administration issues. The
Survey simply identified problem issues; it did not pro-
vide for responses regarding aspects of each issue which
were most troublesome, nor did it identify what the spe-
cific training needs were. In order to identify the
problem aspects of each problem area, it will be necessary
to identify through interviews with administrators the
methods presently being employed.

Development of Rehabilitation
Facilities

 

The need for rehabilitation services for the
handicapped citizen is ancient; the principles and dyna-
mics of rehabilitation services are quite new. Sheltered
workshops existed as early as 1889,2 but they tended to
serve the needs of a specific category of handicapped
citizen, such as the blind or crippled child or adult.
Gradually, workshops began to serve the general category
of handicapped person, regardless of the handicapping
condition, age, or sex. Generally, these facilities
were simply places where the handicapped could work and
earn a modest amount of money. For the most part, they

were shops which provided goods and services, the

 

2Albert F. Wesson, "The Apparatus of Rehabilita-
tion: An Organizational Analysis," in Society and Rehabil-
itation, ed. Marvin B. Sussman (New York: American Socio-
IogIcaI Association, 1965), p. 148.

 

production of which nonhandicapped workers considered too
boring or repetitious. A more recent trend in sheltered
workshops is not only to provide the handicapped citizen
a place to work, but also a place where he can be trained
to join the competitive work force.

This trend has necessitated many changes in the
staffing patterns of sheltered workshops, or as they are
now called: rehabilitation facilities. Staff members
in the sheltered workshop were primarily concerned with
production of the goods and services provided by the work-
shop, and in many cases, sheltered workers were subject to
sweatshop conditions. In rehabilitation facilities,
staff members are concerned about production, but they
are also concerned about the learning that is taking
place. Less time may be spent in production so that
workers can learn skills of daily living, independent
living, and the personal skills that are required in
competitive employment.

Standards for Rehabilitation
Facilities

These changes in the function of the rehabili-
tation facility or the sheltered workshop have created
a concern among rehabilitation facility staff regarding
their personnel administration policies, relating both
to the professional staff and the workers. Standards

specifying the workers' rights and privileges have been

P'V"

in existence for several decades, but standards regarding
the professional staffs' rights and privileges as workers
are considerably more recent. The concept seemed to be
that while the sheltered worker might not know his rights
were being violated or that his interests might not be
protected, the professional staff, being "normal," could
protect their interests. Concern for the policies used
in personnel administration for professional staff became
prevalent only in the last decade, when concern for such
matters became widespread throughout business, government,

and industry.

Training of Facility Administrators

 

As in business, government, and industry, persons
performing personnel administration tasks were not always
trained in this area. In many cases, particularly in
small rehabilitation facilities, the persons performing
personnel administration tasks were also responsible for
production, so that the skills necessary to perform both,
while not mutually exclusive, were often difficult to
find in one person. Rehabilitation facility adminis-
trators found themselves caught between the humanistic
concerns for the welfare of their staff members and the
realistic concerns regarding production. Salkind expanded

upon this dilemma and described the problem very clearly.3

 

3Salkind, "The Training of Workshop Directors,"
pp. 15-43.

Rehabilitation facility administrators have been caught
in a familiar dilemma: do they hire the businessman or
the humanist? For many administrators the answer was to
hire the person who was capable of being both a business-
man and a good personnel administrator.

Training programs for rehabilitation facility
administrators are quite new in the United States. The
earliest were established in 1964 through grants from
the Rehabilitation Services Administration and according
to Salkind, there were nine existing programs graduating
approximately fifty per year in 1974.4 Personnel admin-
istration in many facilities is being performed by people
who are not trained in personnel administration, or in
many cases, even in rehabilitation. Thus, personnel
administration methods presently employed in rehabili-
tation facilities have become of concern to the staffs
of formal training programs, as well as to a number of
organizations directly concerned with the management of

rehabilitation facilities.

Accrediting Organizations

 

There are a number of accrediting organizations;
some of them extremely important to facilities because
the facilities depend on them as direct funding sources.

Others are important because accreditation by the

 

4Ibid., p. 49.

organizations mean additional funds from local, state,
and federal sources. With the new emphasis on therapy
and training, these additional funds become very impor-
tant if the facility is to survive the current infla—
tionary period.

One of the most important accrediting programs
for rehabilitation facilities is the Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF). CARF
was under the auspices of the Joint Commission on Accredi-
tation of Hospitals and became an independent organization
in 1971.5 It was originally an outgrowth of the Associ-
ation of Rehabilitation Facilities and the National
Association of Sheltered Workshops and Homebound Pro-
grams, both of which had published individual sets of
standards in 1965. The criteria CARF published in 1973
provided rehabilitation facilities with a uniform set of
standards, a compilation and combination of the standards
of the above associations.

Another accreditation program which often affects
rehabilitation facilities is that of the state associ-
ations which are charged with purchasing services for the

handicapped citizen through the auspices of the

 

5William H. Henderson, "Standards for Rehabili-
tation Facilities and Workshops," in Administrative Tech-
niques of Rehabilitation Facilit 0 erat1ons, ed. JOKE
G. Cull and‘Richafd‘E. Hardy (SpringfieId, 111.: Charles
C. Thomas, Publisher, 1974), p. 107.

Rehabilitation Services Administration. In 1970, at a
meeting of the Council of State Administrators of State
Rehabilitation Agencies, the members agreed that facili-
ties from which services are to be purchased must be
accredited by their respective state agencies.6 Standards
guides were established by the states and most were put
into effect by 1968.

A third set of Standards applicable to some
rehabilitation facilities was established in 1973 when
the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals pub-

lished the Standards of Community Agencies Servicing

 

Persons with Mental Retardation or Other Developmental

 

Disabilities. The accreditation program is currently

a voluntary one; however, Social Security and Medicare
benefits are paid on the basis of accreditation by the
Joint Commission, providing considerable impetus for
facilities to become accredited. In some states,
accreditation by the Joint Commission will become man—
datory if the facility is to receive funds through the
state Department of Mental Health. All of the accrediting
agencies discussed above require certain standards to be
maintained in the personnel administration area. Stan-
dards for hiring, dismissal, training, performance evalu-
ation, and grievance procedures are among those covered

by each agency. Personnel administration and the methods

 

61bid., p. 106.

used by practitioners in facilities are obviously of

concern to the agencies which accredit facilities.

Region V Survey

Accrediting agencies are not alone in their con-
cern. In March of 1975, the Center for Continuing Edu—
cation for Rehabilitation Services Administration Region V,
located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, distributed the Manage-
ment Needs Survey which was designed to identify the
training needs of rehabilitation facility administrators
and their staffs.7 Four hundred seventy-five question-
naires were distributed to rated facilities within the
Region V area. (Rated facilities were those accredited
by the state Vocational Rehabilitation Agency.) The
Region V area included the states of Illinois, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan. Twenty-eight percent
(136 facilities) of those contacted returned usable
questionnaires. The data were reported by arranging
the statements describing training needs in order of
percentage of facility administrators who indicated they
or their staffs needed help in that particular adminis-
trative or programmatic area. The first twenty statements

included seven which dealt specifically with personnel

 

7Rehabilitation Services Administration, Region V,
Management Needs Survey, Minneapolis, 1975. (Mimeographed.)

administration problems. The seven problem areas spe-

cified in the questionnaire were:

(1) How to evaluate employee performance;

(2) How to set performance standards for employees;

(3) How to conduct effective on-the-job training;

(4) How to prepare employees for greater responsi-
bility;

(5) How to improve communication with employees;

(6) How to handle employee grievances; and

(7

V

How to determine staffing needs.

At least 70 percent of the facility administrators
who responded indicated they or their staffs needed help
in all seven of the problem areas. The Region V survey
simply identified the seven problem areas; it did not
attempt to discover what aspects were most troublesome
or what the specific training needs were. For example,
the Survey revealed that evaluating employee performance
was a concern for over 90 percent of the respondents,
but failed to identify what aspects of the problem pre-
sented difficulties. Problems in evaluating employee
performance could involve many things: perhaps employees
do not have specific job descriptions and thus do not
know their specific job responsibilities; perhaps
employees are not evaluated regularly but haphazardly,
making employee evaluation difficult; perhaps the per—

sonnel doing the evaluations are uncomfortable carrying

10

out this responsibility and do it poorly; perhaps the

job expectations are phrased in such a way that it is
difficult to be objective about employee performance; or
perhaps the facility has no policy for action when an
employee receives a poor evaluation. All of the problems
listed above are related to evaluation of employee per-
formance, but involve quite different aspects of the task.
The same is true of any of the other six problem areas:
difficulties could be found in many aspects of the problem
area, and to produce a solution requires defining those
aspects which prove troublesome.

To define the troublesome aspects will require
that the present methods of personnel administration be
identified. Comparing the present methods of personnel
administration with the methods prescribed by the three
accrediting agencies would provide specific delineation

of troublesome aspects of each problem area.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this research is to identify the
present methods of personnel administration employed by
facility administrators in Illinois in dealing with the
seven personnel administration problem areas identified
by the Region V Management Needs Survey, and to determine
the specific problems facility administrators are exper-
iencing in each of the areas. Present methods of per-

sonnel administration will be compared with the methods

11

prescribed by the three accrediting agencies and specific
problem aspects of each area will be identified by inter-
viewing administrators of rehabilitation facilities.
Accrediting agency standards will be used for comparison
purposes only; there is no attempt to establish whether
or not the facility meets the standards. Procedures
specified in the standards will be used as examples of
methods of personnel administration which, in turn, will
provide a basis for discussion to determine specific
problems or issues within the problem areas.
Identification of specific aspects of each
problem area will have implications for the formal train-
ing programs available for rehabilitation facility admin-
istrators. Since the purpose of the Region V Survey was
to identify training needs, the present research will
doubtless be of value in designing the short-term train-
ing programs which were their goal. There will be
implications for in-service training programs as well.
In addition, it is quite possible that this research
will show the need for new and different standards of
personnel administration for rehabilitation facilities,
thus contributing to the agencies which accredit

rehabilitation facilities.

aspects:

1.

3.

12

Limitations and Scope of the Study

 

The study will be limited in the following

It will be limited to the state of Illinois and
to those eighty-nine facilities within the state
which are rated by the Illinois Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation as Level I, II, III,

or IV.

The administrative area of the study will be
limited to personnel administration only and to
those seven areas of personnel administration
identified by the Region V Survey. The seven

areas are :

(1) How to evaluate employee performance;

(2) How to set performance standards for
employees;

(3) How to conduct effective on-the-job
training;

(4) How to prepare employees for greater
responsibility;

(5) How to improve communication with employees;

(6) How to handle employee grievances; and

(7) How to determine staffing needs.

Personnel standards which deal with employees

who perform professional services as defined by

13

the facility will be included, not those standards
which apply to client-employees within a facility.
4. The generalizability of the results will be

limited by the representativeness of the sample.

Definition of Terms

 

For purposes of the study, the following defi-

nitions are necessary:

Agency.--For purposes of this research, the term
"agency" will refer to the three accrediting agencies,
to distinguish between the accrediting agencies and

"facilities" as they will be defined.

CARF.--The Commission on Accreditation of
Rehabilitation Facilities, publishers of the Standards

Manual of Rehabilitation Facilities.

 

I2!§.--The Illinois Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation. IDVR has established levels of per-
formance to which a facility may aspire. The four levels
have different standards which apply to each: moving
from very basic standards for Level I to very sophisti-
cated standards for Level IV. The level of the facility
determines the amount paid per client, per week, to the

facility. The levels are: I, II, III, and IV.

Joint Commission.--The Joint Commission of

Accreditation of Hospitals, publishers of Standards for

14

Community Agencies Serving Persons with Mental Retardation

and Other Developmental Disabilities.

 

Region V.--The Rehabilitation Services Adminis-
tration is divided into geographic regions. Region V
includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin,

Minnesota, and Michigan.

Region V Survey.--The Management Needs Survey dis-

 

tributed by the Center for Continuing Education for
Rehabilitation Services Administration, which identified
the training needs of rehabilitation facility adminis-
trators and their staffs, and upon which the present

study is based.

Rehabilitation Facility.--"A distinct entity,

 

either separate or within a larger institution which pro-
vides goal-oriented, comprehensive, and coordinated ser-
vices to individuals designed to minimize the handicapping
effects of physical, mental, social and vocational dis-
advantages and to effect a realization of the individual's

potential."8

Overview of the Study

 

In Chapter II, the literature related to the

study will be reviewed. Material from business

 

8Standards Manual for Rehabilitation Facilities
(Chicago, 111.: Commission on Accreditation of ReHEEiIi-
tation Facilities, 1973), p. 16.

15

administration will be included, as well as literature

in the field of rehabilitation administration. In
Chapter III, the methodology employed in the study will

be discussed and will include the method of selecting
facilities and the interviews conducted in the facilities.
Chapter IV will be devoted to a discussion of the findings
of the research. In Chapter V, a summary of the study
will be presented and conclusions drawn. Recommendations
for future research will be made and the implications of

the study will be discussed.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

It should be noted at the outset that little
research has been done in identifying the methods of
personnel administration used in rehabilitation facilities
by staff who perform professional functions and duties.
Thus, much of the material that has a bearing on the pre-
sent study was found in other fields; most notably, in
business. Literature appropriate to the study in business
is reviewed and discussed first, and then research in
the specific area of rehabilitation is reviewed and dis-
cussed.

To put the discussion in perspective, a definition
of personnel administration was necessary. Many were
available and could have been cited; in the judgment of
researcher, one of the most universal was that of Sikula:
". . . personnel administration is the implementation of

human resources (manpower) by and within an enterprise."1

 

1Andrew F. Sikula, Personnel Administration and
Human Resources Management (New Yofk: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1976), p. 6.

16

17

He elaborated further by indicating that ". . . personnel
administration concerns the human resource areas of human
resource planning; staffing and appraisal; training and
development; compensations—-collective bargaining; and
personnel research."2 These areas were identified as

the functions of personnel administration and implied
that they had to operate smoothly and efficiently in
order for the organization to produce whatever it was
created to produce. Problems in any one of these areas
created barriers to efficient production.

Efficient production was related to another con-
cept in the field of personnel administration: motivation.
Motivation of workers was considered to be a major part
of the personnel administration function and was a factor
which deserved discussion. Theories of motivation formed
the basis for many theories of organizations and of
organizational behavior. Levinson provided an excellent
summary of the prevailing theories of motivation.3 He
indicated that they could be conceptualized in two very
different manners.

One set of theories, derived primarily from
Skinner, assumed that man was motivated by things outside

himself; that his environment determined what he would do

 

21bid., p. 7.

3Harry Levinson, The Great Jackass Fallac
(Boston: Harvard Univer31ty, 1973), pp. 17-35.

18

in any given situation. These theories were primarily
concerned with forces and factors which shape a person's
behavior, rather than with an individual's feelings, per—
ceptions, and ideas. The theories led to research dealing
with the control of behavior and implied that someone else,
or something external to the individual, could control
behavior. In the area of work motivation, questions were
usually asked about how can the employee be motivated,
reflecting again, the idea of external control. This
implied that by doing something to the individual or his
environment, the desired behavior could be made to occur:
The other set of theories stemmed from the work
of Freud and assumed that motivation was shaped by feelings,
wishes, attitudes, and thoughts. These theories assumed
that motivation was caused by biologically based givens
and focused on the development of internal capacities,
primarily emotional and cognitive, giving rise to feelings
and perceptions. Research stemming from these theories
was generally concerned with understanding behavior,
rather than with attempts to shape it. The focus was
on helping the person become more comfortable with his
thoughts and feelings. Managerial practice based on
these theories generally sought to understand the person's
motivations and tried to create an environment in which
these internal motivations could flower and produce to

meet the needs of the organization.

19

Managerial practice, while it was assumed to be
based on one of the two described sets of theories,
appeared to be controlled by the individual manager,
rather than by the organization. In most organizations,
there were prescribed ways of performing managerial tasks,
but the literature confirmed that most managers brought
their own personality into the ways they dealt with
subordinates. The literature in this area revealed no
organization which mandated that personnel administrators
follow the precepts of one or the other of the two methods
of conceptualizing motivation. Nevertheless, the ways
that managers tended to view motivation and the ways they
chose to motivate their employees determined a part of

the organizational climate.

Organizational Climate

 

The organizational climate was considered a
major aspect of personnel administration and was impor-
tant in studying organizations. In general, it was
assumed that a "good" organizational climate was indica-
tive of high productivity and high employee morale.

This was not borne out by the research. Patrick found
that there were inconsistent relationships between

morale, climate, and productivity.4 The main reason

 

4John F. Patrick, "Organizational Climate and the
Creative Individual," Public Personnel Review 32 (1970):
31-35.

 

20

for his findings was that no standard method for measuring
morale, climate, or productivity had been established.
Each company he studied had established methods for
measuring each within the organization, but these methods
varied greatly from organization to organization, and
different variables were considered more or less impor-
tant, making standardization impossible.

The major difficulty of relating organizational
climate to high productivity was a conceptual confusion
of equating the "climate" with the variables which com-
prised it.5 Nontangibles formed the base of the organi-
zational climate, rather than a physical piece of evidence
that could be weighed, measured, and quantified. Even
job satisfaction and employee happiness were not always
related positively to high productivity. Miljus found
that unhappy workers responsible to autocratic managers
were often the most productive and efficient workers.6
Thus, it became obvious that a clear relationship between
the organizational climate and the organization's pro-
ductivity was not possible, given the present state of

the art.

 

5Frederick L. Falater, "The Study of Organiza-
tional Environment," Personnel Journal 49 (1970): 200-05.

6Robert C. Miljus, "Effective Leadership and
Motivation of Human Resources," Personnel Journal 49
(1970): 36-40.

21

In spite of the difficulties in measuring organi—
zational climate, Sikula suggested that to attempt to
measure the climate was necessary.7 A number of variables
from various sources were suggested for inclusion when
one attempted to measure the climate, but the most impor-
tant, according to Sikula, were managerial philosophy and
leadership style.8

Managerial philosophy describes an executive‘s
internal system of interpreting knowledge, facts
and events according to his inherently based
assumptions about and conceptualization of
reality, validity and value. Leadership style
refers to a specific mode, fashion, and distinc-
tive manner of administrative performance and
conduct.
Essentially the distinction drawn here was that managerial
philosophy referred to the administrator's theories about
what motivated people, and his leadership style referred

to the administrative practices he employed.

Managerial Philosophy

 

One of the best known theorists in the area of
managerial philosophy was the late Douglas McGregor who
developed the concepts of Theory x and Theory Y.lo

Theory x described a management which assumed that

 

7Sikula, Personnel Administration, p. 131.

 

9

81bid., pp. 129-30. Ibid., p. 129.

10Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise
(New York: McGraw-Hill BooE Co., I960)1

 

22

people were essentially lazy and that if work was to be
performed, it was necessary to coerce or manipulate the
worker. Theory x was directly related to the environ-
mental concept of motivation discussed earlier. Opposing
Theory x, McGregor offered Theory Y, which assumed that
expenditure of effort in work was as natural as expen-
diture of effort in play or nonwork activity, and that
man naturally wanted to work and produce. Theory Y was
more related to the concept of motivation which focused
on the inner needs of the individual. McGregor assumed
that most organizations operated on the Theory X concept
and advocated that they turn instead to Theory Y, which
he felt was certain to improve production, working con-
ditions, and employee relations. He envisioned the
possibility of integrating the individual and organi-
zational goals, thus eliminating the idea of friction
between the two, and emphasized interpersonal relation-
ships and flexibility of organizational structure.

While Theory x focused primarily on fitting man
to the organization, Theory Y was more concerned with
fitting the organization to man. Theory Y proponents
tended to see the basic problem as a conflict between
the psychological needs of individuals and the formal
requirements of organizations. Argyris built a complete

system around the notion of the basic incompatibility

23

of the individual and the organization.11 According to
him, the incompatibility tended to result in frustration
which could be inferred from “pathological behaviors"
and "defense mechanisms" exhibited by many individuals
employed in organizations. The organization was seen as
a mechanism that inhibited the fulfillment of individual
needs, particularly the needs for a sense of personal
value, self-esteem, and independence. In a later work,12
Argyris attempted to integrate individual and organi-
zational needs, using sensitivity training as the medium
for building understanding between managers and subordi-
nates. The purpose of the training was to obtain open-
ness, cooperation, and commitment between and among
managers and subordinates and to create a climate within
the organization where both organizational and individual
needs could be met.

Another approach, emphasizing job enrichment, was
that of Frederick Herzberg.13 He conceived of "satis-

fiers," which were motivating, and "dissatisfiers," which

 

11Chris Argyris, Interpersonal Competence and
Organizational Effectiveness (Homewood, 111.: Irwin-
Dorsey Press, 1962).

 

12Chris Argyris, Inte rating the Individual and
the Organization (New YorE: John Wiley and Sons, 1964).

13Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man
(Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1366).

24

counteracted motivation. Satisfiers included recognition,
achievement, responsibility, personal growth, advancement,
and most important, the work itself. Dissatisfiers, on
the other hand, included supervision; working conditions;
interpersonal relationships with supervisors, peers, and
subordinates; salary and status. Herzberg encouraged
management to enrich the jobs of subordinates and to
increase the number of satisfiers for individuals, while
recognizing that the dissatisfiers for each individual
were still at work. If work was given meaning by expand—
ing the responsibility and recognition that an individual
received, these satisfiers would outweigh the dissatisfiers
which were present for every individual.

Another attempt to analyze managerial philosophies
was developed by Blake and Mouton.l4 Their managerial
grid was a device which was used to help managers analyze
their administrative or managerial philosophies more
accurately. The grid was simply a two-dimensional diagram
with the horizontal axis labeled "concern for production"
and the vertical axis labeled "concern for people." The
primary purpose of this device was to provide managers
with insight into their own behavior and how their
behavior affected others in the organization. The grid,

coupled with self—administered exercises and teaching

 

14Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, The Manage-
ment Grid (Houston: Gulf Press, 1964).

25

tools derived from sensitivity training, enabled managers
and administrators to identify conflicts within the
organization and provided the basis for dealing with

the problems. The management grid was an especially
good tool because it pointed out that concern for people
and concern for production were not necessarily mutually
exclusive concepts; that most managers and administrators

were concerned to a greater or lesser degree with both.

Leadership Style

Leadership styles were also under research
scrutiny. These studies were particularly important
to this paper because leadership style referred directly
to the heart of the project: how administrators per-
formed certain administrative tasks. One of the most
popular and most publicized methods of studying leader-
ship was developed by Rensis Likert.15 Likert devised a
classification of leadership styles referred to as
exploitive-authoritative, benevolent-authoritative,
consultative, and participative. In his work with this
system, managers were asked to respond to specific
questions regarding the organization's administrative
practices in areas such as communications, motivation,
decisions, goals, leadership, and control. The answers

individuals gave to such questions as "Where are decisions

 

15Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).

 

26

made?" corresponded to one of the four classifications.
Usually the participants were asked to answer each set
of questions twice; once as a description of actual and
existing methods, and again as a model of how the ideal
organization ought to operate. For most organizations,
composite profiles indicated that the organization was
operating between the benevolent—authoritative and
consultative classification, while the ideal organi-
zation was conceptualized as operating between the con-
sultative and participative classifications. Likert
concluded on the basis of his research that the partici-
pative group leadership style was the best approach.

Sikula16

points out that while many authorities were
not certain as to the practicality of the participative
method of leadership, they were nevertheless willing to
conclude that Likert's four classification system was
an excellent tool for use in analyzing organizations.
Keith Davis had also attempted to integrate much
of the current management literature into a classifi-
cation that, like Likert's, consisted of four levels.17

He saw the four classifications of leadership styles as

depending on a number of managerial variables: managerial

 

16Sikula, Personnel Management, p. 133.

 

l7Keith Davis, Human Behavior at Work: Human

Relations and Organizatiqhal Behavior (New York: McGraw-
1 I .

 

 

27

orientation, employee orientation, employee psychological
results, employee needs, performance, and morale.
According to how these variables were perceived, the
organization or individuals within it could be seen as
autocratic, custodial, supportive, or collegial. As
with Likert's theory, Davis' method of looking at organi-
zations was based primarily on Maslow's theory of self—
actualization and was designed to help organizations
make it possible for individuals to reach the goal of
self-actualization. In both methods of looking at
organizations, the most satisfactory method of leader-
ship was seen to be a participatory one: Likert's par-
ticipative method or Davis' collegial method.

A number of studies indicated that participation
in management decisions did increase productivity

(Bavelas,18 and Katz, Maccoby, and Morselg). However,

the work of Patchen20 and Rubenowitz21 indicated that

 

18A. Bavelas, "Acceptance of Change Through Par-
ticipation in Group Decisions," Human Relations, June,
1947, pp. 173-80.

19D. Katz, N. Maccoby, and N. Morse, Productivit ,
Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation (University

0 Mic 1gan: Institute for Social Research, 1950).

20M. Patchen, ”Participation in Decision Making
and Motivation," Personnel Administration, November-
December, 1964, pp. 35-ZI.

21$. Rubenowitz, “Job Oriented and Person

Oriented Leadership," Personnel Psychology 15 (1962):
76-84.

28

high productivity could be achieved in a nonparticipatory
atmosphere if other conditions existed, such as enthusiasm
for the goals, clear requirements, and a supportive
approach by management. This conflicting evidence would
lead one to believe that participation in management
decisions has little or nothing to do with productivity;
that some other variable determines productivity.
Ordiorne maintained that people, particularly middle
class people, preferred to work in a situation where
their opinions were sought.22 He further believed that
with middle class people especially, management should
seek out opinions and ideas and agree on both goals and
results to be achieved, but should leave the specific
methods of achieving the goals agreed upon to subordi-
nates, insofar as the subordinates had the capability
of realizing those goals.

Ordiorne had conceptualized this idea further
to the point where it was used as a prescription by many
administrators. Management by objectives had become
popular in many fields, apparently because it helped in
establishing accountability. The method, very simply,
demanded that the administrator and subordinate sit down

together, decide what the goals of the subordinate will

 

22George S. Ordiorne, Personnel Administration

by Objectives (Homewood, 111.: Ricfiard D. Irwin, Inc.,

 

1

.,_—.

29

be, and establish time-related objectives to meet the
goals. The system ideally established regular communi-
cation between the superior and the subordinate regarding
progress toward the goals, and placed the responsibility
for meeting the goals directly upon the subordinate.
There was little leeway for equivocation regarding job
responsibilities; all aspects of the subordinate's
responsibilities were represented in the agreement drawn
up between the two. At regular intervals the superior
and the subordinate met to discuss progress and to change
or modify either goals or objectives. Barriers to the
goals were discussed, as well as methods of removing
them. The subordinate's performance in this system was
clearly specified and could make evaluation of employee
performance quite objective. This system incorporated
many of the aspects of participative administration advo-
cated by Likert and Davis, but still allowed for pro-
duction concerns. It also gave the administrator a guide
for behavior in very specific terms, while Likert and
Davis provided no such guide.

The theories discussed thus far were by no means
all inclusive. While there were others which might be
considered to have bearing on the research presented,
those discussed were representative of personnel admin-
istration theories in business. Two sets of theories of

motivation were discussed and were shown to be related

 

30

to the discussions of organizational climate, managerial
philosophy, and leadership style which followed. Attempts
to measure the organizational climate were presented, and
the difficulties encountered in the various efforts were
discussed. McGregor's concepts of Theory X and Theory Y
were discussed in the area of managerial philosophy.
Argyris' system of integrating individual and organi-
zational needs, Herzberg's concepts of "satisfiers" and
"dissatisfiers," and Blake and Mouton's managerial grid
were also discussed. Likert's and Davis' classifications
of leadership style were considered. Participation in
management decisions was discussed, and Ordiorne's system
of management by objectives was presented.

Administration in Rehabilitation
Facilities

 

Discussions of management in rehabilitation
facilities have generally taken one of two forms: a
description of management of rehabilitation facilities
based on environmental constraints; or a model based on
the personal experience of one of the well-known admin-
istrators in the field or based on research in the field
of business. In both types of discussion, emphasis was
placed on the fact that rehabilitation facilities had
special problems not encountered in the ordinary world
of business. The problems were usually identified as:

(l) rehabilitation facilities generally had two purposes

 

31

instead of one: the rehabilitation of individuals,

which was difficult to measure in objective, quantifiable
terms, and the production of goods, which was easy to
identify in objective, measureable terms; and (2) rehabil-
itation as a process emphasized the individual as the
important aspect of the work, which made a personnel
administration emphasis on procedure and uniformity of
performance difficult for practitioners to accept. Given
these two biases as generally accepted by most, if not
all, administrators and researchers in the field,
attention can be paid to the two different aspects of

research in rehabilitation.

Environmental Constraint Models

 

As noted above, the first form of discussion was
a description of rehabilitation organizations based on
sociological constraints. One of the best examples of
this is the research of John R. Kimberly. He studied the
changes in dominant values and levels of technological
development, conceptualized as environmental constraints,
and related them to differences in orientation and
23

structure in a sample of rehabilitation facilities.

His thesis was that while workshops all engage in the

 

23John R. Kimberly, "Environmental Constraints
and Organizational Structure: A Comparative Analysis of
Rehabilitation Organizations," Administrative Science
Quarterly, March, 1975, pp. 1-97—7

 

32

dual activities of rehabilitation of handicapped citizens
and production of goods and services, there was a dif-
ference in emphasis depending on the date of establishment
of the individual organization. He hypothesized that
workshops established prior to and during World War II
would be more likely to be production oriented, and those
founded after World War II would be more likely to be
rehabilitation oriented. He surveyed 123 sheltered work—
shops located in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
and found that date of establishment was directly related
to the orientation of the workshop and to the amount of
operating income generated by production activities. He
indicated that those workshops founded after World War II
often had a much higher percentage of income from grants
and foundation monies than those founded prior to and
during World War II. His findings were directly related
to the emphasis on rehabilitating the returning veteran,
and to an increase in awareness of social responsibility
on a national scale as evidenced by the amount of
available government monies to organizations such as

the Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Kimberly's findings lent support to theories
about the relationship between social structure and
organizational structure and suggested the utility of
a general theoretical perspective which viewed organi-

zational structure as the product of a variety of

33

interacting constraints, both external and internal.
He speculated that because it was difficult for organi-
zations to depend on federal funding as an on-going
source of income, organizations tended to attempt to
reduce this environmental uncertainty by increasing the
amount of direct control the organization had over cer-
tain segments of the environment. One way in which
organizations attempted to do this was by increasing
their visibility to those who controlled the funding
source. One of the difficulties he pointed out in his
conclusion was that often organizations were unable to
develop alternative sources of funding, and consequently,
the mortality rate of rehabilitation facilities tended
to be very high.

Another proponent of this view was Albert P.
Wesson. He traced the advent of various social service
programs directly to the prevailing philosophies of

24 In his view,

workshops and rehabilitation facilities.
rehabilitation facilities and the populations served

were in direct proportion to the widening social phil-
osophy of the country as a whole, and maintained that,

in time, rehabilitation itself became a social movement.

He, too, related the maintenance of services and the

 

24Albert F. Wesson, "The Apparatus of Rehabili-
tation: An Organizational Analysis," in Sociolo and
Rehabilitation, ed. Marvin B. Sussman (New YorE: American
Soc1oIog1caI Society, 1965), pp. 148-78.

34

modes of operation to differences in sources of funding,
and maintained that those with a greater proportion of
operating income stemming from federal and state funding
sources were more likely to be rehabilitation oriented
than those which depended on production as a basic source
of income.

Financial and economic concerns were considered
to be the most determining factors in the type of organi-
zational structure the rehabilitation facility might
adopt. While Kimberly and Wesson approached the problem
from a sociological point of view, Isadore Salkind dis-
cussed the problem as it related directly to the day-to-
day operation of the workshop and how it affected the

25 Salkind

administration of the rehabilitation facility.
maintained that despite the differing varieties of
rehabilitation facilities (differing in the types of
handicaps served and differing in philosophy and
assumptions), there was a common denominator: "Paid
work is the main activity of the workshop.“26 He
identified the dual responsibility of the workshop: the

rehabilitation of individuals and the production of goods

and services and related this dual responsibility directly

 

25Isadore Salkind, "Economic Problems of Work-
shops," in Rehabilitation in Commghity Mental Health, ed.
Richard Lam5_§fid Associates (San FrancisES?’ Jossey-Bass,
Inc., 1971). PP. 71-91.

261bid., p. 74.

35

to the administration of the facility, and showed how
these two responsibilities sometimes conflict with one
another. He cited as an example the problem universal
in rehabilitation facilities: several clients were
ready for placement, but the facility had a production
deadline which could not be met without the work of
those clients. The dual purposes of the facility were
diametrically opposed to one another, and the adminis-
trator was in the difficult position of having to make

a decision which would affect the operation of the
entire facility. He cited many such problems: the
work force of the facility being dependent upon the
facility's case-finding and thus much less predictable
than the ordinary business work force; the difficulty

a board of directors may have in defining policy because
of the dual nature of the rehabilitation process; the
difficulty of maintaining a steady flow of work in the
facility; and the problems engendered by trying to main-
tain work that will aid in the rehabilitation process
while still turning a profit or at least meeting the
cost of the program. Salkind moved directly from these
problems to one which was directly related to this study,
though it was not intended to be a part of the study:
the shortage of trained personnel to operate rehabili-
tation facilities. He maintained, as do most authors
addressing the problem, that facility administrators had

to be trained both in small business administration and

36

rehabilitation, and must be able to make the dual
responsibilities of the facility complement one another

instead of being diametrically opposed to one another.

Prescription Models

 

Another method of discussing rehabilitation
facility management and administration was what the
researcher termed the "prescription" method, in which
the author prescribed a method or model of administrative
practice based on personal experience or on a theory
usually drawn from business. Those reviewed here were
based on personal experience with some ideas drawn from
the theories of management and leadership discussed
earlier in this chapter. One aspect appeared to be
clear. The discussions of administration reviewed here
concentrate heavily on the participation of employees
in the administrative process, adding credence to
Ordiorne's theories that employees wanted to be included
in decision-making.

One discussion, while it was not directed toward
rehabilitation facilities but toward mental health ser-
vices, was important here because it emphasized the fact
that the product of mental health services (and of
rehabilitation facilities) was not one which can be

quantified objectively and the quality of the product

37

was very difficult to appraise.27 Whittington discussed
the problems engendered by the fact that because people
were the product, and because in dealing with people,
counselors and other professionals were guided by the
conventions of confidentiality, accountability was often
difficult to assign and even more difficult to assess.
Another aspect of the difficulties in administering a
mental health facility (or a rehabilitation facility)
centered around the fact, mentioned earlier, that
because emphasis was placed on the development of the
individual in the therapeutic process, it was difficult
to impose organizational constraints and policies on
professionals within the organization. Nevertheless,
Whittington attempted to identify what makes a successful
mental health administrator by providing prescriptions
for a number of administrative tasks. He pointed out
that while the successful administrator had usually

won his spurs as a practitioner, he had to begin to
think as an administrator once he assumed an adminis-
trative position. Whittington emphasized communication
and clarification of roles and responsibilities. The
successful administrator, whether he operated out of a

participatory model or an authoritarian model, had to

 

27H. G. Whittington, "People Make Programs: Per-
sonnel Management," in Administration of Mental Health
Services, ed. Saul Feldman (Spfingfield, 111.: CharIes
C. THomas, Publishers, 1973), pp. 56-85.

38

communicate what was happening in the organization to
his subordinates and had to make a distinct effort
through extensive job descriptions, development of per-
formance objectives and the like, to clarify roles and
responsibilities not only to individuals, but to the
entire organization. Because of the independence that
mental health professionals often felt was inherent in
the nature of the work, Whittington also indicated that
mental health administrators ought to encourage staff to
make decisions wherever possible without reverting to

or checking with a higher authority. The corollary to
making decisions at whatever level, that of accounta-
bility, was not discussed. Whittington also discussed
evaluation of employee performance as a valuable tool
for rewarding effective performance and for punishing
undesirable behavior. He related evaluation of personnel
to retaining of individuals and indicated that adminis-
trators were often afraid of negative reaction among
personnel if someone was discharged, and thus did not
often take the necessary steps in this area. Throughout
his discussion, Whittington emphasized the importance

of communicating to staff members the personal values

of the administrator and advocated the establishment of
a professional camaraderie characterized by the use of
first names, openness to comments and criticism, and

staff participation in determining responsibility and

39

authority as the most effective method of achieving this
goal. The interesting aspect of his recommendations was
that being able to use the above prescription of adminis-
trative methods assumed that the administrator valued
these things personally and that they were, indeed, his
values. This would not always be the case, and instead
of being a prescription for successful administration,
was a description of the personality and value system

of the successful administrator.

Marcus and Mundel, in a humorous article,
expanded on some of the difficulties in administration
identified by Whittington. Their contention was that
there was a basic conflict between the ethics and values
>developed by formal mental health training and those
needed for effective administrative functioning. They
described the results of this conflict in diagnostic
terms as the "Wishy-Washy Syndrome" in administrators

28 The

and the "Prima Donna Complex” in practitioners.
"Wishy—Washy Syndrome" was characterized by a denial of
the fact that one was an employer and therefore a boss,
and was directly related to the training one received

as a therapist in which one learned that it was never

good to have power over others. The "Prima Donna

 

28Sander J. Marcus and Harvey P. Mundel, "The
Wishy-Washy Syndrome and the Prima Donna Complex: Impli-
cations for Graduate Training," The Ontario Psychologist
8 (1976): 50-54.

 

4O

Complex," on the other hand, consisted of a denial of
the fact that one was an employee, and therefore had a
boss, and was again directly related to the fact that
in one's training, one was taught that one only had to
answer to the founder of the school of therapy one prac-

ticed.29

The implications for administrators who came
from the ranks of practitioners was that they had to
resolve the conflict described above and help their
subordinates resolve their conflicts before any kind
of successful administration was possible.

A more specific prescription for the successful
administration of rehabilitation facilities was given by

Olmstead.30

He viewed the organization as a system,
composed of many subsystems, and believed that the
organization should be viewed as a whole in order for
the administrator to have a complete view of it. Thus,
he saw the administrator's major role as that of inte-
grator of the many subsystems that made up the total

organization. He provided a prescription of management

techniques which effectively integrated the system.

 

ngbido ' pp. 50-51.

30Joseph A. Olmstead, "Organizational Factors in
the Performance of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation
Workers," in Workin Pa ers No. 1 (Washington, D.C.:
National Study of SociaI WeIfare and Rehabilitation
Workers, Work and Organizational Contexts, Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Rehabili-
tation Services, May 1971), pp. 89-130.

41

Several important aspects of the prescription were:
formulating ground rules for working, developing, and
maintaining an effective communication system, promoting
high levels of motivation in employees and setting
standards of performance.

Olmstead was a firm believer in written policies
and procedures as the method of formulating ground rules
for working. Each individual had to know what the organi-
zation was supposed to accomplish, how his individual
duties related to the organization's objectives, and what
constituted the ground rules for performing his activities.
Written job descriptions, as specific as possible, were
one way to communicate the ground rules. Specific inter—
action with employees on a day-to-day basis was another
method offered. Organizational charts which delineated
specific areas of responsibility was another.

In developing an effective communication system,
Olmstead was committed to a formal method of organization.
He saw formal communication being established through
organizational charts and chains of authority. Regular
meetings with department heads were emphasized, as well
as regular meetings of departments, with minutes of
meetings available to all. Deviations from the accepted
methods of communication and from the formal lines of
communication could not be tolerated because they led

to loss of ideas and concepts. By controlling and

42

regulating relationships, an administrator could stabilize
the communication system.

Motivation was defined by Olmstead as the willing-
ness of individuals within the organization to cooperate
and contribute their efforts to the work of the organi-
zation. His prescription for administrators faltered
at this point, and he offered no direct methods for main-
taining high motivation among employees. Rather he dis-
cussed the fact that almost everything in an organization
had an effect upon motivation, and therefore every
decision and action by an administrator was to be con-
sidered in light of its possible effects upon motivation
of individuals.

In discussing setting standards of performance
for employees, Olmstead again relied on specific job
descriptions and setting performance objectives as the
basis for evaluating employees. He specified that
administrators were to make it clear to employees
exactly what the expectations were and then evaluate
performance solely on the basis of those expectations.
Olmstead recognized that setting explicit standards
would be difficult in some organizations and for some
specific jobs, but specified that standards were to be
established and were to be a matter of record within

the organization.

43

A final prescription for administrators was
given by Sanders.31 He offered specific standards of
administrative practice in all seven of the areas of
administration on which this research was concentrated:
setting standards of performance and evaluating per-
formance of employees, conducting in-service training
for employees, preparing employees for greater responsi-
bility, establishing and maintaining communications,
establishing a grievance procedure, and determining
staffing needs.

In setting standards of job performance, Sanders
relied heavily on the job description and on the orien-
tation of the new employee to his job. He, too, was a
firm believer that no area of responsibility should be
left hazy in the mind of the employee and that the proper
method to use to ensure absolute understanding was a
specific job description and thorough discussion of the
items contained in it. He provided examples of good
and bad job descriptions and some tips on how to write
them for the greatest understanding. Again, in evaluating
employee performance, Sanders was quite specific about

the use of the job description as a base for evaluating

 

31Bert C. Sanders, ”Personnel Administration in
Rehabilitation Facilities,” in Administratiyg_Teghnigues
of Rehabilitation Facilit O erations, ed. John G. Cull
and Richafd’E. Hardy (Spring 1e , I 1.: Charles C.
Thomas, Publishers, 1974), pp. 15-43.

 

44

performance. He provided several examples of evaluation
forms and specified evaluation at intervals of thirty,
sixty, and ninety days for probationary employees and
then annually thereafter.

In-service training was important to Sanders.

He advocated a regular program of in-service training
within the facility using both in-house expertise and
outside consultants. In-service training was to be done
at least once a month and was to concentrate on helping
the individual employee learn his own particular job
and on learning related jobs within the organization.
Understanding the philosophy and operation of the
organization was another important aspect of in-service
training. As finances permit, in-service training was
to be expanded to include attendance at workshops, con-
ferences, and short-term training programs outside the
facility.

Sanders stated emphatically that it should be
policy and practice to promote from within but maintained
that the promotion had to be earned. In his discussion
of in-service training, it was clear that he believed,
while he did not specifically state, that one of the
purposes of in-service training was to prepare indi-
viduals for greater responsibility. Each individual
was to be given the opportunity to apply for each

position available and was to be provided with feedback

45

regarding the decision, including suggestions on how to
better prepare for the next opportunity.

While the issue of establishing and maintaining
communications linkups was not specifically addressed,
it was implied throughout Sander's discussion of admin—
istrative practices and procedures. The implications
were that communication should be as direct and as
immediate as possible. Employees had to know what was
going on in order to relate their jobs to the total
organization. Indeed, communication was the essence
of Sander's position on administrative practices and
procedures.

Sanders was specific on the issue of grievance
procedures and provided four steps to be followed. The
point he stressed was communication, both spoken and
written. The employee and the supervisor were to discuss
the problem face to face within twenty-four hours of
the incident. If the issue was not resolved at that
point, all further communication was to be in writing.
Sanders specified that the grievance must go right up
the line and specified time limits and methods of com-
munication to be used at each level. It was interesting
to note that there was no mention of board involvement
in this area, though Sanders discussed board involvement

in a number of other areas.

46

Planning for facility expansion was considered
important by Sanders. He advocated employee involvement
in planning and specified that a facility have a one-year,
a three-year, and a five-year plan, which included pro—
jections of staffing needs and program expansion.
Employee participation in planning was to be by com-
mittee appointment and was to be encouraged on both a
formal and informal basis. One of the things he cautioned
against was discouraging employees from contributing new
ideas for programming by indicating lack of financial
support for new programs. He felt that employees should
be encouraged to write programs and that these should be
filed and periodically reviewed to determine their
feasibility in the near future because of changes in
funding. Staffing needs were important in planning,
and Sanders indicated an administrator should be con-
stantly aware of the need for more staff or for helping
existing staff acquire new skills to meet new needs.

In this section, two methods of describing
administrative practice in rehabilitation facilities
were reviewed. The studies done by Kimberly, Wesson,
and Salkind were discussed as examples of the environ-
mental constraint method of studying rehabilitation
facility administration. Another method was termed
the "prescription" method by the researcher, and the

works of Whittington, Marcus and Mundel, and Olmstead

47

and Sanders were discussed as examples of this method

of studying rehabilitation facility administration.

Accreditation Requirements

The three accrediting agencies introduced in
Chapter I also prescribed methods of administrative
practice for rehabilitation facility administrators.
Examination of the three revealed a prescription which
was very specific.32 Each of the three accrediting
agencies specified standards regarding each of the seven
personnel administration areas identified by the Region V
Survey.

The issue of evaluation of employee performance
was addressed very specifically. Job descriptions were
required by each and were to include all qualifications
required, the position the person reported to, the duties
involved, and the positions supervised. They were to be
reviewed regularly, and the employee was to be a part of
the review. All employees were to be appointed for a
probationary period, and it was suggested that the
employee be evaluated more than once during the pro-
bationary period. All employees were to be evaluated
regularly, and the result was to be discussed with the

employee and entered in the employee's personnel file.

 

32The three sets of standards are those specified
by IDVR, the Joint Commissions, and CARF, and are found
in the standards manuals of each organization identified
in Chapter I.

48

Job descriptions were suggested as a base for
setting standards for employee performance. Use of
personnel policies and performance descriptions was also
suggested. Standards were to be specific, written, and
the employee was to be involved in setting the standards.
The point was that standards for employee performance
were important enough to warrant considerable time on
the part of the administrator and the employee to ensure
that they were mutually agreed upon.

In-service training was an important area judging
by the length of the standards. Facilities were required
to have a specific plan for in-service training, and it
was recommended that staff have input in establishing a
plan. The plan was to reflect programmatic standards,
include opportunities for educational leave, provide
orientation for new employees, help employees reach
desired standards of performance, provide opportunities
for lateral or upward movement, specify regular meeting
times, and include attendance at workshops and con-
ferences. One of the important aspects of in-service
training was an assessment component. The in-service
training program was to provide some mechanism for
assessing the needs of employees so that these could
be reflected in the plan.

Closely related to in-service training was the

problem of preparing employees for greater responsibility.

49

The standards specified that there should be a plan for
training and viewed the entire area as extremely impor-
tant. Plans to help employees prepare for upward or
lateral mobility were to be included in the in-service
training program. Staff were to have ready access to
professional reference material. ”Grooming" employees
for responsibility at higher levels was suggested, as
well as providing employees with incentives for continu-
ing their education. Present staff were to be encouraged
to apply for positions that became available.

Communications with employees was addressed pri-
marily as a formal issue. Meetings were specified, notes
were to be taken and made available to all staff members.
Formal communications were acknowledged to take place,
but there was little or no mention of how to deal with
the informal communication that would occur in every
organization. Nor were there any suggestions or mandates
on how to establish a good communication system with
employees. In another sense, however, communication was
the essence of all the standards mentioned up to this
point. Communication was specified in all the areas,
especially in those areas dealing with evaluation of
employee performance and in setting standards for
employee performance.

In the area of grievance procedures and deter-

mining staffing needs, the standards provided only that

50

plans be written and reviewed regularly. They were to be
available to all employees and employees were to be

aware of what was contained in each plan. It was spe-
cified that staff were to have some input in the writing
of each plan and that the staff were to be involved in

the regular review.

Summary

In this chapter, literature relating to the
research project was reviewed. Research and literature
in business was reviewed to provide a basis for the
later discussion of literature in the field of rehabili-
tation. Basic theories of organizations, administration,
and leadership in the field of business were reviewed
and summarized. Specifically, theories of organizational
climate, managerial philOSOphy, and leadership style were
discussed and their relationship to methods of adminis-
tration were clarified. Finally, literature in the field
of rehabilitation was discussed, and two types of
literature were explored: that which dealt with
rehabilitation organizations in terms of the environ-
mental constraints placed on them and the literature
which described how rehabilitation facilities should be
administered by prescribing specific methods of adminis-
tration. Finally, the accrediting agencies' standards
for administration in rehabilitation facilities were

reviewed and discussed.

51

The literature which was discussed in this
chapter advocated the participatory method of adminis-
tration. This focus was also reflected in the standards
of the accrediting agencies. Staff participation in
many of the planning phases of administration was

stressed in each of the accrediting agency manuals.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to identify the
methods of personnel administration presently employed
by rehabilitation facility administrators in dealing with
the seven personnel administration problem areas identi-
fied by the Region V Management Needs Survey performed
by the Rehabilitation Services Administration in 1975,
and to identify specific problems within each of the
problem areas. The Management Needs Survey identified
training needs perceived by rehabilitation facility
administrators, but within that broad category, did not
specify what methods of administration were presently
being used nor did it identify what aspects of each

broad area presented problems for administrators.

The Population and Sample
The population was composed of all the rehabili-
tation facilities in the state of Illinois which were
accredited and rated by the Illinois Division of

Vocational Rehabilitation (IDVR), as of September 1, 1976.

52

53

A complete listing of these facilities was obtained from
the Macomb, Illinois branch of IDVR. There were a total
of eighty-nine facilities, varying in size of client
population, size of staff, and in their relationship

(if any) to a parent organization. A group of forty-
eight facilities was selected from among the eighty-nine
facilities on the basis of information received from
their responses to a questionnaire which was sent to
them. The sample of sixteen facilities is described in

a subsequent section.

Instrumentation

 

A questionnaire was sent to the administrator of
each of the eighty-nine facilities which comprised the
population. (A copy of the questionnaire is included in
Appendix A, along with a copy of the letter which accom-
panied it.) At the time the questionnaire was sent, each
facility was assigned a number to ensure anonymity for
the facility. The questionnaire asked for information
regarding the size of the client population served and
if the facility specialized in any particular type of
handicap. The number of employees who carried on pro-
fessional activities was queried, and the number of
employees who were full and part time. Information
was also sought regarding whether or not the facility
had a parent organization and if they shared a governing

board with the parent organization. The facility

54

administrators were asked to indicate whether their
facilities were private, nonprofit; private, for profit;
or governmental, and if they would permit the researcher
to visit the facility to interview the staff who performed
administrative tasks. The results of the questionnaire
were used in selecting the sample to be studied.

The questionnaire was developed by the researcher
in consultation with Dr. Walter F. Johnson. The variables
chosen were: size of facility; number of staff performing
professional activities on a full-time basis; specialty A
in serving a particular handicap; having a parent organi-
zation and sharing a governing board with the parent;
being private, nonprofit, private, for profit, or govern-
mental; and if they would permit the researcher to inter-
view staff members; were agreed upon as those which would
provide the researcher with data on which to choose a
representative sample from the population.

The questionnaire was mailed on November 1, 1976,
to all eighty-nine IDVR rated facilities in Illinois
with a cover letter detailing the project and asking
for cooperation. (A sample of the letter and question-
naire is included in Appendix A.) On January 6, 1977,

a follow-up letter and another copy of the questionnaire
were mailed to those who had not yet returned the

questionnaire. (A copy of the follow-up letter is also

55

included in Appendix A.) A deadline date of March 1,
1977, was established, beyond which returns would not

be considered.

Returns on the Questionnaire

 

As of March 1, 1977, a total of sixty-one ques-
tionnaires had been returned. This return constituted
a 70 percent response for the total pOpulation of eighty-
nine facilities. Of the sixty-one which were returned,
forty-eight (78 percent of those returned) administrators
indicated that the researcher could interview staff mem-
bers if the facility were chosen, seven (11 percent of
those returned) indicated they did not wish to partici-
pate, three (5 percent of those returned) were undecided
regarding participation in the study, and three (5 percent
of those returned) were no longer functioning as rehabil-
itation facilities. Questionnaires (ten) returned after
March 1, 1977, were not included for consideration. A
review of these late responses indicated that the sample
which had been selected would not have been materially

different had they been included.

Selecting the Sample

 

The forty-eight questionnaires which were
returned by facility administrators and which indicated
that the researcher could interview staff were used as

the base for selecting the sample. There appeared to

56

be no identifiable variable which determined why the
facility administrator agreed to a visit. The question-
naires from those facilities whose administrators refused
a visit or were uncertain regarding a visit showed that
those facilities were representative as to size of
facility, number of staff, relationship to a parent
organization, and so on.

A review of the returned questionnaires showed

‘the important variables to be the number of clients
served, the number of full—time staff carrying on pro-
fessional activities, whether or not the facility had
a parent organization and whether or not the facility
shared a board with the parent organization. Only one
facility specialized in one particular handicap; the
remaining served a variety of handicaps. Only six
facilities had part-time professional staff, only four
used professional staff on an outside contract basis,
and only three used volunteers in a professional
capacity. All but one facility was private, nonprofit,
and all but eight facilities offered the programs indi-
cated.

It was thus possible to choose sixteen facilities
from the forty-eight which indicated the researcher
could interview staff on the basis of three variables:
number of clients served, number of staff carrying on

professional activities and the relationship (if any)

57

to a parent organization. Since these variables were
shown to be the ones on which the facilities differed,

it was important to be certain that the sample adequately
represented each variable. Frequency tables were estab-
lished for each variable, showing how many of the forty-
eight facilities represented the gradations in each
variable. Percentages were then computed showing what
percentage of the forty-eight each gradation represented.
Based on these percentages, it was then possible to
choose the facilities to be included in the sample.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 indicate how this was done.

TABLE 1

SIZE OF FACILITY

 

Size Number of g of 48 Estimated Sample Size

 

Facilities if N = 16

0-50 11 22.91 3.66 (4)
51-100 13 27.08 4.3 (4)
101-150 9 18.75 3.0 (3)
151-200 7 14.58 2.33 (2)
201 or more 8 18.75 3.0 (3)

 

NOTE: Estimated sample size refers to the number
of facilities which would have to meet the size require-
ments assuming that sixteen facilities would be visited.

Size refers to the size of the client population
served.

The numbers in parentheses to the right of the
estimated sample size represent the nearest whole number.

58

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF STAFF

 

Number of' Number of % of 48 Estimated Sample Size
Staff Facilities Assuming N = 16

 

0-5 2 4.16 .66 (1)
6-10 15 31.25 5.0 (5)
11-20 15 31.25 5.0 (5)
21-30 8 16.66 2.6 (2)
31—40 5 10.41 1.66 (2)
41 or more 3 6.25 1.0 (1)

 

NOTE: Number of staff refers to the number of
full-time staff performing professional activities.

Estimated sample size refers to the number of
facilities which would have to meet the number of staff
requirements assuming that sixteen facilities would be
visited.

The number in parentheses to the right of the
estimated sample size represents the nearest whole number.

TABLE 3

RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT ORGANIZATION

 

 

Parent Number of % of 48 Estimated Sample Size
Organization Facilities if N = 16
Have parent,
share 20 41.66 6.66 (7)
‘Have parent,
do not share 11 22.91 3.66 (4)
No parent 17 34.41 5.50 (5)

 

NOTE: Parent organization refers to the relation-
ship (if any) to the parent organization.

Estimated sample size refers to the number of
facilities which would have to meet the parent organization
requirements, assuming that sixteen facilities would be
visited.

The number in parentheses to the right of the esti-
mated sample size represents the nearest whole number.

59

The questionnaires from the forty-eight facility
administrators who indicated they would participate were
sorted according to number of clients served (designated
”size" in Table 1). Of the forty-eight facilities, eleven
served between 0 and 50 clients, thirteen served between
51 and 100 clients, and so on, as can be seen in the
table. A sample of sixteen, or one-third of the forty-
eight facilities which agreed to participate, was postu-
lated. Percentages were then computed to determine what
percentage of the sample of sixteen would represent the
size requirements. For example, by reviewing Table 1,
it can be seen that eleven facilities of the forty-eight
had a client population of fifty or fewer clients.

These eleven facilities comprised 22.91 percent of the
forty-eight facilities. Thus, 22.91 percent of the six-
teen sample facilities, or 3.66 facilities, had to meet
this particular size requirement for the sample to be
representative of the forty-eight. The same procedure
was followed to determine the number of staff require-
ments and to determine the parent organization relation-
ship requirements. It was determined that the sixteen
facilities chosen for the sample had to be representative
in number of clients served (size), number of staff
carrying on professional activities on a full-time basis

(number of staff), and in relationship (if any) to a

60

parent organization (have parent, share; have parent,
do not share; no parent).

Tables 4, 5, and 6 reveal the facilities (desig-
nated by code number to assure anonymity) which were
chosen and which of the requirements each met. For
example, by examining the three tables, it can be seen
that facility 41 served between 101 and 150 clients,
had between 21 and 30 full-time staff carrying on pro-

fessional activities, and had no parent organization.

TABLE 4

FACILITIES MEETING SIZE REQUIREMENTS

 

Facilities (by code)

 

Size Which Meet the Number
Requirements

0-50 99, 77, 69, 61 4
51-100 126, 96, 68, 39 4
101-150 41, 31, 70 3
151-200 87, 122 2
201 or more 103, 101, 97 _3
16

 

NOTE: This table shows the code numbers (assigned
by the researcher to assure anonymity for the facilities)
of those facilities which meet the size requirements
designated by the far left column. The far right column
shows the number of facilities which must meet the size
requirements assuming that N = 16. These figures were
determined in Table 1.

61

TABLE 5

FACILITIES MEETING NUMBER OF STAFF REQUIREMENTS

 

 

Facilities (by code)
Nughzgfof Which Meet the Number
Requirements

0-5 61 1

6-10 99, 77, 69, 39 4

11-20 126, 96, 68, 70 4

21-30 41, 31, 87 3

31-40 122, 97 2

41 or more 103, 101 _2
16

 

NOTE: This table shows the code numbers (assigned
by the researcher to assure anonymity for the facilities)
of those facilities which meet the number of staff require-
ments designated by the far left column. The far right
column shows the number of facilities which meet those
number of staff requirements assuming that N = 16. A
comparison between Table 5 and Table 2 will show the dis-
crepancies which are fully explained in the text.

TABLE 6

FACILITIES MEETING RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT
ORGANIZATION REQUIREMENTS

——

Facilities (by code)

 

Parent
. . Which Meet the Number

Organ1zat1on Requirements
Have parent, 99, 61, 126, 68 8

share 31, 70, 122, 69
Have parent,

do not share 96, 103, 101 3
No parent 77, 39, 41, 87, 97 _§

16

 

NOTE: This table shows the code numbers (assigned
by the researcher to assure anonymity for the facilities)
of those facilities which meet the parent organization
requirements designated by the far left column. The far
right column shows the number of facilities which meet the
parent organization requirements assuming that N = 16.

A comparison between Table 6 and Table 3 will show the
discrepancies which are fully explained in the text.

62

Tables 7, 8, and 9 reveal the number of facili-
ties which should have been chosen according to the per-
centages explained previously and the number of facili-
ties which were actually selected. There were discrepan-
cies between the number of facilities which should have
been selected and the number actually selected. The
discrepancies occurred because it was discovered that
once one set of criteria had been met, it was difficult
to match the other two. In several cases, it came to
a point where a facility of 201 or more clients had to
have a staff numbering between eleven and twenty and
have no parent organization, and so on. A perfect match
was simply not possible in all cases. Because of these
discrepancies, a t-test for related measures was performed
for the two variables where a perfect match was not pos-
sible: number of staff and relationship (if any) to a
parent organization. The t-test for related measures
was performed to assure that the differences based on
the percentages and the number of facilities selected
did not affect the representativeness of the sample.
There was no significance even at the .50 level for

either of the variables.'

63

TABLE 7

NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING SIZE REQUIREMENTS
BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

 

 

Size Number Based on % Number Chosen
1-50 4 4
51-100 4 4
101-150 3 3
151-200 2 2
102 or more 3 3

 

NOTE: This table shows the number of facilities
in each size range which should be chosen assuming N = 16
and the number which were actually chosen in those size
ranges.

TABLE 8

NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING NUMBER OF STAFF
REQUIREMENTS BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

 

 

Number of Staff Number Based on % Number Chosen
0-5 1 1
6-10 5 4

11-20 5 4

21-30 2 3

31-40 2 2

41 or more 1 2

 

NOTE: This table shows the number of facilities
which should be chosen according to the number of full-
time staff who perform professional activities assuming
N = 16, and the number which were actually chosen. A t-
test for related measures showed no significance at the
.50 level. Therefore, the differences between the number
based on % and the number chosen did not affect the
representativeness of the sample.

64

TABLE 9

NUMBER OF FACILITIES CHOSEN MEETING RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT
ORGANIZATION BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

 

(Parent Organization Number Based on % Number Chosen

 

Have parent, share 7 8

Have parent, don't
share 4 3

No parent 5 5

 

NOTE: This table shows the number of facilities
which should be chosen on the basis of their relationship
to a parent organization assuming N = 16, and the number
actually chosen in these categories. A t-test for related
measures showed no significance at the .50 level. There-
fore, the differences between the number based on % and
the number chosen did not affect the representativeness
of the sample.

Table 10 shows each facility (designated by code
number) which was selected, the number of clients actually
served, the number of full-time staff who performed pro-
fessional activities, and the relationship (if any) to
a parent organization.

The sixteen facilities were selected on the basis
of number of clients served (size), the number of staff
performing professional activities (number of staff),
and relationship (if any) to a parent organization.

The facilities which were selected were shown to be
representative of the forty-eight which indicated that

the researcher could visit. It was also shown that the

thirteen facilities whose administrators did not choose

65

TABLE 10

FACILITIES CHOSEN: SIZE, NUMBER OF STAFF, AND
RELATIONSHIP TO PARENT ORGANIZATION

 

 

Facility . Have Parent, Have Parent, No

Code Size Staff Share Don't Share Parent
31 120 23 x
39 61 7 x
41 150 22 x
61 50 5 x
68 55 12 x
69 40 9 x
70 130 14 x
77 50 7 x
87 180 25 x
96 90 13 x

97 230 38 x
99 50 10 x

101 400 54 x

103 500 100 x

122 198 37 x

126 80 14 x

 

NOTE: This table shows, by facility code number,
the actual number of clients served (size), the number
of staff carrying on professional activities (staff), and
the relationship, if any, to a parent organization, for
each of the facilities chosen to be a part of the sample.

66

to participate did not differ in any of the variables
from those whose administrators did choose to participate,
indicating that the sample is representative of the popu-
lation. Once the facilities were selected, arrangements
were made to visit each of the sixteen facilities and to
interview staff members who had supervisory responsi—

bility.

Interviews

 

The basis for the interview, as stated in
Chapter I, was the three standards guides published
by the three accrediting agencies: Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF).

publishers of Standards Manual for Rehabilitation

 

Facilities; Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hos-

 

pitals, publishers of Standards for Community Agencies
Serving Persons with Mental Retardation and Other

Developmental Disabilities; and Illinois Division of

 

Vocational Rehabilitation, publishers of A Criteria for

 

the Classification of Programs and Services in Rehabili-
tation Facilities. Each standards guide was reviewed
and all standards pertaining to each of the seven per-
sonnel administration issues were listed. The standards
listed were then incorporated into the structured inter-
view format by listing each standard as a question in
the apprOpriate area and including all the qualifiers

the standards listed. (A copy of the interview format

67

is included in Appendix B, as well as a complete listing
of standards used to formulate it.)

Telephone calls were made to each facility admin-
istrator and arrangements were made to visit the facility.
Follow-up letters were mailed after the call, confirming
the appointment date and time. A copy of the original
letter explaining the project and a copy of the interview
format were included. It was left to the facility admin-
istrator's discretion whether or not to include other
staff in the interviews. In seven of the visits, the
researcher talked only with the administrator; in nine
of the interviews, the researcher talked with other mem-
bers of the staff as well. In only one of the visits
was there a suggestion that talking with other staff
would not be appropriate; in all other visits the
researcher did not talk with other staff because of
problems in scheduling.

Two trial runs of the interview were performed
prior to interviewing the first of the facility adminis-
trators. In both cases, the trials were done in facili-
ties with which the researcher was familiar. The trials
were performed so that any problems in the interview
format could be identified and corrected prior to con-
ducting the interviews with the sixteen sample facility
administrators. The trial interviews were not included

in the study.

68

Taping the interview was discussed with each
administrator on the phone and was reiterated in the
follow-up letter. There was no objection to this pro-
cedure by any of the administrators. The interview took
place in the office of the administrator or in the
offices of other staff members who also had supervisory
responsibility. There was only one occasion when there
was a group interview; the remaining interviews were
conducted one-on-one.

The interview format provided structure only;
it was not held to absolutely. It provided a starting
point for discussion of each of the topics and the dis-
cussion was allowed to flow unobstructed as long as the
general topic was being discussed and the questions were
being answered. Several deviations were followed after
the first three interviews. The researcher found that
it was much easier to conduct the interview if the
formal organizational structure of the facility was
known. One of the first things that was requested
during the interview was an organizational chart. This
made the relationships between and among staff members
easy to understand and showed which staff members had
administrative responsibility. The chart also provided
for each in communication in that both the researcher
and the administrator were able to use the same job

titles in describing the procedures used in a number of

69

administrative areas. Second, it became clear that it
was easier to discuss the first two areas, evaluating
employee performance and setting standards for employee
performance, in reverse order. If one started with
evaluation of employee performance, one was soon dis-
cussing setting standards for employee performance.
Reversing the order of the two areas simply made more
sense. Third, the issue of in-service or on-the-job
training and preparing employees for greater responsi-
bility were seen by most of the interviewees as being
closely related and were often discussed as two aspects
of the same issue. These deviations did not mean major
departures from the procedure originally established;
rather they seemed to enhance the discussion which took
place.

The interviews generally took between two and
three hours, depending somewhat on the director's
schedule, but primarily depending on how much discussion
was generated by the tOpics. It became very clear that
if administration was not a primary concern of the
director, very little discussion could be generated
beyond ”This is what we do . . ." Each interview was
taped, using sixty or ninety-minute cassettes and a

portable cassette recorder. After each interview, the

7O

researcher made quick notes of impressions, important
points, and particular aspects of each interview which

were noteworthy.

Analyzing the Data

 

After each interview, the researcher listened to
the tapes with a c0py of the interview format as a guide.
As answers to the questions on the interview format were
given, they were transcribed on the apprOpriate page of
the interview format. Two judges were asked to partici-
pate in the study at this point. Mr. James H. Starnes,
Director of the McDonough County Rehabilitation Center
in Macomb, Illinois, and Mr. Ben C. White, Executive
Director of the Community Mental Health Center of
McDonough and Fulton Counties, also in Macomb, Illinois,
were each supplied with tapes of the first four inter-
views and asked to listen to the tapes and write the
administrator's answers to the questions on the interview
format. They were instructed to write the answers ver-
batim and to include all qualifying statements regarding
the question or issue. The researcher collected the
copies of the interview formats which were used by the
judges, and a meeting of the researcher and the two
judges was held. Answers were compared and the judges
determined that their answers and those of the researcher
were the same and instructed the researcher to proceed

with this phase of the study independently.

71

The researcher then listened to the remainder
of the tapes and recorded the answers. The data were
then collated according to the specific questions asked
and the answers given. The judges were again asked to
assist in this procedure. In some cases, the answers
were simple "yes” or "no" answers, easily identifiable
and easily categorized. In other cases, the answers
were quite different and categories were difficult to
determine. The judges were asked to determine how
answers were to be categorized. The answers which went
beyond a simple "yes" or "no" were submitted to the
judges for final approval on the categorization. In
some cases, the answers given by the interviewees could
not be categorized, so each different answer was listed
separately. Due to this fact, some of the tables show
many answers to the same question. The data were then
put into table form, and the percentage that each answer
represented of the total sample was computed.

The data have been presented in Chapter IV.
Tables have been presented and discussed in the text
of the chapter. Obvious trends have been noted and
relationships between the three variables (size, number
of staff, and relationship [if any] to a parent organi-
zation) and the responses to the questions have been

discussed.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to identify the
methods of personnel administration presently used by
rehabilitation facility administrators in dealing with
the seven personnel administration areas identified by
the Region V Survey and to identify specific problems
within each area. Each of the areas has been dealt with
separately, and the methods used in each have been
described as they were described by the facility admin-
istrators during the interviews held between the
researcher and the administrators. Trends in methods
of administration employed by administrators have been
noted. The data have been presented in Appendix C.

It was felt that the text could be easily read if the
data were presented in this fashion. Each question
asked of the administrators has been numbered and has
been referred to by number in the text. All questions
presented in Appendix C have been discussed in the text

of this chapter.

72

73

Concern 1: How To Set Standards for
Emplgyee Pefformance

 

 

Six administrators (37.5%) (Question 1) indicated
that they used job descriptions as well as verbal cues
from supervisors to set standards for employees. Two
(12.5%) indicated that they used the job description
only, and two (12.5%) indicated that the program set
the standards. The last two were very emphatic about
this point, indicating they could see no other way to
set standards for employee performance: either tasks
were performed or they were not. Both the facilities
had thirty-eight staff members and served approximately
two hundred clients. Neither of the facilities relied
heavily on financial support from federal or state fund-
ing agencies. Two administrators (12.5%) used "setting
objectives” as a technique; one setting weekly objectives
and the other setting yearly objectives. Only one (6.25%)
administrator indicated that there was no attempt to set
standards for staff performance and indicated that the
work was so variable that setting specific standards of
performance was almost impossible. It was clear that
methods of setting standards varied from facility to
facility and that there was no method that a majority of
administrators employed.

In seven (43.75%) of the facilities, the super-
visor and the employee jointly set the standards by

which the employee operated (Question 2). In four (25%)

74

of the cases the supervisor set the standards for the
employee. In thirteen of the facilities, the supervisor
was involved in setting the standards for the employees,
a clear majority of 81.25 percent.

Ten of the sixteen administrators (62.5%)
(Question 3) indicated that they felt their standards
were specific as to qualifications, supervisors, duties,
and positions supervised. Five (31.25%) indicated that
they were not specific, but only two said that they felt
this presented them with problems.

In eight (50%) of the facilities (Question 4),
standards were written, while in five (31.25%) the job
descriptions were written, but the verbal cues given to
the staff were not. There were three (18.75%) adminis—
trators who indicated that the standards were entirely
verbal.

Nine (56.25%) of the administrators (Question 5)
informed their staff members of the standards while five
(31.25%) indicated that the employee was both informed
and a party to setting standards. Three of the five
indicated that they saw no other way to set standards;
if the employee was not a part of the process, there
would be no personal investment in the standards of
performance that were established. Two (12.5%) indi-
cated this was left entirely up to the supervisor, but
that usually the employee was both informed and a party

to setting standards.

75

When asked to identify the problems they had
with setting standards for employee performance, adminis-
trators tended to perceive more than one problem area.
Four (25%) (Question 6) indicated that their employees
were young and inexperienced and that this made setting
standards difficult. Their four facilities all served
fewer than one hundred clients and had ten or fewer staff
members. They were also fairly new facilities, having
been established within the last three years, and the
administrators reported that they had had a fairly high
turnover in staff. The administrators felt that setting
standards would become easier as the staff gained exper-
ience and became more involved in their jobs.) Four (25%)
indicated that attitudinal standards (attitudes about
rehabilitation, clients, supervisors, and work in
general) were hard to convey to new staff members. Four
(25%) indicated that staff members tended to resist set-
ting objectives, either written or oral, although two
of them reported success in convincing the staff that
this was necessary. Four (25%) indicated that it was
difficult for them to set objective standards of quality
of performance for their staffs, and they found it very
difficult to document this kind of a problem. Two
(12.5%) said their job descriptions tended to be vague,
and this made setting standards difficult; and two

(12.5%) said that supervisory personnel found it

76

difficult to be objective and honest in setting standards
for employees. One (6.25%) felt that setting standards
tended to kill creativity, and one (6.25%) found no
problems in this area (this was the administrator who

did not set standards).

One administrator stated that he felt that spe-
cifying the percentage of time an employee spent in each
area helped in setting standards or at least in setting
priorities for staff members. One saw the entire process
as a constant dialogue between the staff member and the
supervisor and indicated that it improved communication
with employees. In one facility, several of the staff
were directly responsible to people outside the facility
and this made setting standards of performance a joint
effort between the supervisor in the facility and the
supervisor outside the facility.

A few trends were evident in this section, as
can be seen in the text. More administrators used job
descriptions and verbal cues from supervisors to set
standards than any other method, but there was no clear
majority employing any method or combination of methods.
The supervisor was involved in setting standards in
thirteen of the facilities, but the employee was only
involved in setting standards for himself in seven.
Standards tended to be specific as to qualifications,

supervisor, duties, and positions supervised. Standards

77

tended to be written, and employees were informed of
the standards in all facilities which set standards for
employee performance.

Cohgern 2: How To Evaluate
Employee Perfbrmance

 

 

In fourteen (87.5%) of the facilities, employees
were hired for a probationary period of time (Question 7).
Eight administrators (50%) reported a probationary period
of three months for all employees, five (31.25%) reported
a period of six months for all employees, and one (6.25%)
varied the probationary period depending on the level of
the position. Only two (12.5%) of the administrators
indicated that there was no formal probationary period
for new employees. All fourteen administrators of
facilities which had probationary periods indicated that
an employee could be released at any time during the
probationary period.

Nine (56.25%) of the administrators indicated
that employees received feedback only as problems arose
on the job (Question 8). This included the two facili-
ties whose administrators indicated that they did not
have formal probationary periods for employees. Three
(18.75%) of the administrators indicated that the
probationary employees received no feedback, while four
(25%) indicated that periodic feedback was given to pro-

bationary employees. The time frame ranged from once

78

each week of the probationary period to a minimum of

two times during a three-month probationary period. The
very regular feedback sessions (once a week and once

every two weeks) had come about on both facilities

because of recent specific problems the administrators

had had with new employees. After review of the problem,
administrators decided to hold regular review sessions
with all new employees to establish communication channels
and to alleviate problems before they became problems
which could have led to the employee's release. The nine
who indicated that feedback was given only as problems
arose had not had difficulties with probationary employees
and felt that feedback was necessary only when there were
problems. The three who indicated that no feedback was
given indicated that there had not been a need for feed-
back to this point. One indicated that he thought it

was because his facility was well funded, enjoyed a good
reputation in the state, and thus could attract high
quality applicants who would not need a lot of feedback
during a probationary period.

Five (31.25%) of the facility administrators
indicated that they would and had in the past considered
extending the probationary period for employees if it
appeared that the employee could learn to do the job
satisfactorily (Question 9). Eleven of the adminis-

trators (68.75%) felt that they would rather release

79

the employee rather than extend the probationary period.
The eleven included two who indicated that there was no
probationary period. The five who indicated they would
extend the probationary period felt that they could work
as well with a known individual and would rather try to
iron out difficulties than take a chance on a new
employee.

Thirteen administrators (81.25%) reported that
employees were evaluated regularly (Question 10). Twelve
(75%) evaluated on a yearly basis, either on the anni-
versary date of the employee or at the end of the fiscal
year. One (6.25%) administrator evaluated every six
months. One (6.25%) indicated that an informal evalu-
ation was done and indicated that this formed an on-going
dialogue with employees regarding their work. Two
(12.5%) administrators indicated that employees were
evaluated only as necessary; “necessary" in both cases
meant that there were problems with an employee. These
both indicated that they saw no point in a formal piece
of paper being prepared on employees every year and felt
that it served the needs of the administrator rather than
the needs of the employee or clients. The administrator
who evaluated employees every six months was establish-
ing a new procedure where employees would be evaluated
twice a year and in which the evaluation would be

directly tied to salary increases. He was involved

80

with a facility of fewer than fifty clients and fewer
than ten full—time staff and felt that this could be
done until the facility grew to the point where the
system was no longer workable.

In twelve (75%) of the facilities, the evalu-
ations were reviewed with the employee, and in one (6.25%)
they were not (Question 11). All twelve of the adminis-
trators who reviewed evaluations with employees felt that
this was an excellent way to improve communications with
employees and felt that it was important in giving feed-
back. Five indicated specifically that they felt this
was a good way to ascertain both client and staff needs
and a good time to let an employee know what new programs
might be necessary in the future. It was also a good
time to suggest further training for employees and to
negotiate for salary increases.

In fifteen (93.75%) facilities the evaluations
were placed in the employee's personnel record
(Question 12). Only one administrator said that no
evaluations were done, and, therefore, nothing was
placed in the employee's file. All fifteen indicated
that it was part of the facility's policy to have a
personnel file on all employees and that the evaluations
were a necessary part of the record-keeping system.

One problem which appeared to be widespread

among facilities was that employees in supervisory

81

positions did not like to evaluate and sometimes tend

to evaluate poorly. Six (37.5%) administrators indicated
this was a problem for them (Question 13). All six
were from facilities of more than one hundred clients
and had staffs numbering from fifteen to thirty—eight.
This appeared to be a problem for administrators of large
facilities. The five (31.25%) administrators who indi-
cated that they had no problems in this area were from
facilities of fewer than seventy-five clients and had
staffs of twelve or less. In all but one case, the
administrator was the only person evaluating employees,
while in the one case, the administrator and one other
staff member did the evaluations. In this case, the two
had been working together closely for some time and gen-
erally agreed with one another. Three (18.75%) adminis-
trators indicated that nothing seemed to happen when
someone received a poor evaluation, and all were in the
same group which indicated that they had difficulty with
staff who were supposed to evaluate employees. These
two problems seemed to go hand in hand. Two of the
administrators (12.5%) who had difficulty with staff
members evaluating others said that the evaluations

were not always objective and that this caused them
problems. Another (6.25%) indicated that supervisors
were not always aware of the consequences of evaluations

and that particularly when someone got an inflated

82

evaluation, both the employee and the program suffered.
Several staff members of one facility indicated that
there was resentment when the Director evaluated employees
with input from one or two key staff people. They felt
strongly that either the Director ought to evaluate by
himself or that the two key staff people ought to evaluate
publicly. One (6.25%) administrator indicated that super-
visors tended to give uniform evaluations to all employees
performing the same job; that there was no attempt made
to differentiate between a good job, a mediocre job, and
a poor job.

It appears clear that in facilities where only
the Director evaluated there were few problems. This
appeared to happen only in facilities of fewer than
seventy-five clients and with a staff numbering fewer
than ten members. In larger facilities, where more than
one staff member evaluated, there were a variety of
problems, with the most prevalent problem appearing to
be supervisors' lack of experience and/or training in
performing this administrative task. A number of admin-
istrators lamented the fact that while the employees
who were in supervisory positions were highly trained
in their areas of expertise, they had not been trained
in any administrative duties that would be a part of a

high level position.

83

Thirteen of the administrators (81.25%)
(Question 14) indicated that evaluations were used
for feedback to the employee, to set goals for the
future, for salary negotiations, or for some combination
of the three. Three (18.75%) indicated that they were
not specifically used except as a tool to deal with
immediate problems with individual staff members.

There was no form used by a majority of admin-
istrators in evaluating staff (Question 15). Four (25%)
used a check-list form, three (18.75%) a number rating
system, two (12.5%) a number rating system with point
totals, two (12.5%) used a written narrative with no
specific form, and so on, as can be seen in Appendix C.
Only one administrator (6.25%) indicated that he was
unsatisfied with the form that was used and said he was
looking for another form. Two had recently revised
their form and were satisfied with the revisions; one
had adopted a check-list form and one had devised a
number rating system. It was clear that the check-list
form or number rating system was preferred over a more
complicated form involving a narrative portion or a
point total form.

Seven administrators (43.75%) were satisfied
with the way evaluations were being used, while six
(37.5%) indicated that they wished to tie evaluations

to setting goals and objectives for the following year

84

and for salary negotiations or merit raises (Question 17).
It was clear that a majority of administrators felt that
for evaluations to be useful to them, they had to be
allied with these two areas. Four administrators felt
that it would be impossible to do this in the near future,
however, because the financial situation was such that
few if any salary increases beyond a cost of living could
be given.

All sixteen (100%) facility administrators indi-
cated that they had job descriptions (Question 18) and
thirteen (81.25%) said that their job descriptions were
reviewed (Question 19). Seven (43.75%) reviewed the job
descriptions yearly, five (31.25%) reviewed them as
needed, and one (6.25%) every six months (Question 20).
The six-month job description review was in conjunction
with the evaluation each six months. Eight (50%) admin-
istrators indicated that the employee was involved in
the review to some extent, while two (12.5%) adminis-
trators reviewed the descriptions themselves or had the
immediate supervisors do the review (Question 21). In
two facilities (12.5%) the review was performed by the
main office of the organization, and in one facility
(6.25%) the review was done by a committee.

Again, it was clear that job descriptions were
universal and that a review at some time was practiced

by a majority of facilities, with the employee being

85

involved in the review at some point in the process.

All eight administrators who indicated that the employee
was involved in the review said that they felt it was
extremely important for the employee to be involved
because he was most familiar with the requirements of the
job and could be most helpful in pointing out areas which
were neglected. It was also helpful in making the
employee feel more a part of the organization and that

he had some control over his own job.

Cohgern 3: How To Conduct
On-the-Jéb Training

 

 

All sixteen (100%) of the facility administrators
indicated that they conducted training with staff members
(Question 22). Thirteen (81.25%) of these tied the
training in with a formalized program of in-service
training, while three (18.75%) had no planned program
for training. All indicated that on-the-job training
was important because, with only one exception, all had
hired staff with little or no experience in rehabili-
tation. They attributed the lack of training to the
fact that there were few professional preparation pro-
grams for specialists in rehabilitation, that people
who did have degrees in rehabilitation were difficult
to find, and once found, often could command higher

salaries than facilities could afford to pay.

86

Eight (50%) administrators reported that one of
the important purposes of on-the-job training was to
familiarize all staff with the total Operation of the
center, and eight (50%) indicated that training usually
reflected the needs of staff as they were indicated
(Question 23). Five (31.25%) said that training usually
reflected the needs that management staff perceived of
those staff who reported to them. Only one (6.25%)
indicated that one of the purposes was to establish a
feeling of accountability and responsibility among staff
members.‘ Thirteen (81.25%) of the administrators indi-
cated that training according to needs either expressed
by staff members themselves or expressed for staff by
supervisors was the underlying base for on-the-job or
in-service training sessions. This appeared to be the
most important function of in-service training or on-
the-job training.

In seven facilities (43.75%) all staff had the
opportunity to contribute ideas to the established pro-
gram and were directly involved in the development of
the program (Question 24). In all other facilities
(nine: 56.25%) training was assigned to various staff
members as a part of their job duties. In all facilities
suggestions from staff to whomever was in charge were
encouraged. In the larger facilities (150 or more

clients), in-service training was more likely to be

87

conducted by department heads for their own staffs,
while in smaller facilities, all staff were more likely
to be involved in developing a training program.

In fifteen (93.75%) of the facilities, training
reflected programmatic standards (Question 25). Only one
facility administrator (6.25%) indicated that the pro-
gram did not, and this was not fully explained. Two
administrators (12.5%) had separate programs for manage-
ment and nonmanagement staff, but these did reflect pro-
grammatic standards. These two administrators were the
same administrators who had selected management staff
to develop the in-service training program for the total
staff. In both cases, they were responsible for training
programs for their own staffs as well as planning for the
total facility staff. All fifteen administrators who
followed programmatic standards for their training pro-
grams said this was the only way the facility could keep
abreast of new developments in the field and felt that
it was an excellent way to improve the existing programs.

Ten (62.5%) facilities provided Opportunities
for educational leave for staff members (Question 26).
Four (25%) Of these provided leave to take courses at
local colleges and universities only. This generally
meant that staff were provided time away from the
facility during working hours with no penalty. Four

(25%) facilities provided time away from the facility

88

during working hours to take courses at local colleges
and time away from the facility to participate in short
training courses (less than a month). Two facilities
(12.5%) provided leave time for attendance at short
training courses only; these two facilities had no
access to local colleges or universities Offering
appropriate courses. Six (37.5%) facilities provided
no opportunity for educational leave. Each indicated
that if someone wanted to pursue a training course, they
were encouraged, but no time off with pay could be given.
All six indicated that they felt such a provision in
their personnel policies would enhance the programs

they could Offer to clients but cited financial problems
as the main reason for not Offering such an option to
staff.

Of the ten facilities whose policies provided
educational leave for staff, five provided at least
partial funding for courses, books, and other expenses
(Question 27). Two (12.5%) paid 100 percent Of the cost
of tuition and expenses, two (12.5%) provided 50 percent
Of the cost, and one (6.25%) provided 25 percent Of the
cost. Five (31.25%) provided leave time only, and the
cost of attending was left to the staff member. Four Of
the administrators whose policies permitted leave time
indicated that if someone wanted to attend one short

course, it could usually be reimbursed as attendance

89

at a conference and was not considered in the same cate-
gory as educational leave. All six administrators who
indicated no educational leave time was available said
they were exploring the possibility of changing the
policy, and all indicated that lack Of funds was the
major problem. The ten facilities which provided some
financial support to educational leave were representative
of the total sample; they were of all sizes, all numbers
of staff, and had varying relationships to a parent
organization. They were not totally confined to one
geographic location within the state.

Ten (62.5%) facility administrators indicated
that they provided programs for employees who were not
performing up to desired standards. Four (25%) indicated
that they did this only in certain areas and when the
total group of staff could benefit from it. The ten
who said they did provide such programs indicated that
they did programs both at their own facilities and, where
it was applicable, sent the employees to short training
courses, conferences, or workshops. Two (12.5%) indi-
cated that they did not provide this for employees; one
because the union made it difficult and allowed employees
to Object to extra training time and one because he felt
there was no one in the facility who needed the training.
All facility administrators said that if a person really

was not performing up to desired standards, there would

90

be some attempt at training made; but if this did not
help, the employee would be released.

Only three administrators (18.75%) said that
they trained specifically for lateral or upward mobility,
and all three qualified their answers: two said that
they trained only when the interest and qualifications
were present without further training, and one indicated
that they trained only at the management level
(Question 29). Six indicated that the employee could
benefit from the on-the-job or in-service training that
was Offered but that this was not the purpose of the
training. All indicated that the employee could learn
some things about other jobs at his own level or at a
higher level that would certainly enhance any attempt at
lateral or upward mobility but that usually to make such
a move would require considerable visible initiative on
the part of the employee. Only four (25%) indicated
that they made no effort to encourage employees to learn
about other jobs in the organization through the in-
service or on-the-job training programs.

Fourteen (87.5%) administrators indicated that
assessing the training needs of staff was a part of the
training program provided for staff (Question 30). All
administrators indicated that this was done both by ask-

ing staff what they felt were their own training needs

91

and comparing the facility's program both to other pro-
grams and to the standards imposed by various accredit-
ing agencies.

Only three (18.75%) facility administrators said
that they did not have regular meeting times for training
(Question 31). These were the same three administrators
who indicated there was no regular plan for training.

The times for training and intervals between training
sessions varied greatly, as can be seen in the responses.
One (6.25%) facility had established a training program
for one group of staff which concentrated on their par-
ticular job and offered the program yearly to all staff
in that job. Six (37.5%) of the facilities had programs
monthly. Three (18.85%) of the facilities had provisions
for a regular meeting and an additional meeting quarterly
or yearly. Two of these were part of a larger organi-
zation and the quarterly meetings were provided by a
central Office. One was a single facility which shut
down for one week during the year and provided staff
with an intensive period of training. This week was

also used to provide staff with time to travel to other
facilities, to set Objectives for the following year,

and to generally "get their house in order.” It was
clear that a large majority of administrators set

regular times for meetings for training programs,

92

but there was no clear pattern to the times provided or
the intervals between meetings.

All sixteen (100%) administrators indicated that
they provided staff with time off to attend conferences
and workshops, and all reimbursed staff to a certain
extent, as can be seen in Question 33. All administrators
indicated that they felt this was important, particularly
those who were not able tO allow staff leave time for
educational purposes. These six administrators indicated
that this was the only opportunity their staffs had to
learn new techniques or to be exposed to other profes-
sionals in their field, and they actively encouraged
staff to attend conferences and workshOps appropriate
to their jobs. All facility administrators indicated
they would like to have more money for this purpose,
and several indicated that their budget was quite
inadequate so they had to be very careful in allowing
staff to go to more than a few select programs. Two
administrators were actively involved in sponsoring
conferences and workshops and felt this involvement
was extremely important. The facilities generated some
revenue from these programs which could be put back
into sending facility staff to other conferences. Both
these facilities were large (more than 150 clients) with
over thirty staff members. They were also both in the

Chicago area and the administrators had established

93

ties with several colleges in the area and had access
to faculty and staff who could help in sponsoring con-
ferences and workshOps.

Ten (62.5%) administrators indicated that their
biggest problems with on-the-job and in-service training
were financial, and one indicated that while there were
no problems at the present time he foresaw problems in
the future (Question 34). One Of the administrators
who felt that the budget was adequate but not luxurious
in this area indicated that one of the reasons it was
so good was that he had succeeded in procuring a training
grant for part of the training program for staff and
suggested that this was a resource that he felt had been
overlooked by many administrators. Four (25%) adminis-
trators indicated that a big problem for them was that
staff tended not to take training seriously and that
this bothered them. They also indicated that the staff
members tended to be marginal employees who did just
enough to avoid being released and were not contributing
at maximum to the organization. They wondered how to
deal with the problem and indicated that these staff
had a great impact on the morale of the organization.

It was clear in this section that in-service or
on-the-job training was important in rehabilitation
facilities. Thirteen of sixteen facilities had specific

programs and training times set aside for this purpose.

94

Attendance at conferences and workshops encouraged and
financially supported by a majority of workshops. Edu-
cational leave was encouraged financially by ten facili-
ties and encouraged by the others but given no financial
support. The purpose of training varied from facility
to facility, but a majority of administrators felt that
the purpose was to acquaint all staff with the way the
total organization functioned and to meet the training
needs of staff as they were expressed. All agreed that
educational leave and attendance at conferences and
workshops was an appropriate part of the training pro-
gram and should be encouraged. The one negative impres-
sion that the researcher had when discussing in-service
or on-the-job training with all administrators was that
it was essentially a ”crisis centered” program for most
facilities; that there was no established procedure
that the facility would follow for training if the staff
did not express a need for particular kinds Of training.
NO administrator indicated that orientation Of
new employees was a part of the in-service or on-the-
job training program. In five of the larger facilities
(over 150 clients), orientation was conducted centrally
by a personnel manager who also did the hiring on the
recommendation of the supervisor. Orientation times
varied according to the position, but, generally, it
was a period of three or four days for lower level staff

and up to a month for professional, managerial staff.

95

In all other facilities, orientation of new employees
was generally left up to the individual supervisor and
was conducted as needed. NO administrator indicated
that there was a specific plan for orientation of new
employees, but five indicated that they felt that some
of their problems with staff could be alleviated if
there was a definite plan.

In three large facilities (over two hundred
clients), in-service or on-the-job training was conducted
on two different levels: managerial and nonmanagerial.
In these three facilities, the managerial training tended
to take place away from the facility. In the two facili-
ties which were part of a larger organization, in-service
training was conducted both centrally and locally, with
some programs for management staff and others for non-
management staff. These two facilities had the most time
allowed by any facility for in-service training: one
met all day once a month and one day once a quarter
while the other met for two hours every two weeks and
one day a quarter.

Concern 4: How To Prepare Employees
7for Greater Responsibility

 

 

Only two administrators (12.5%) indicated that
there was a specific plan for preparing employees for
greater responsibility, but only one indicated that it

was one of the purposes of the in-service or on-the-job

96

training program (Question 35). Thirteen (81.25%) said
that they had no plan for this kind of preparation, but
twelve of those said that they did train if the Oppor-
tunity arose and if the staff involved had all the qual-
ifications for the position. One administrator (6.25%)
indicated that he regularly prepared people for greater
and greater responsibility by delegating more responsi-
bility when he felt that the employee could handle it.
One administrator said that he had no plan for this and
did not want one because of difficulties encountered in
the past. He had recently gone through an expansion
period and had had problems with staff who felt they
were qualified for positions beyond their capacities.

All sixteen administrators (100%) indicated that
their staffs had access to some professional research
material, but all indicated that they were sure that
much Of the material was never read by staff (Question 36).
Only one administrator (6.25%) provided staff with oppor-
tunities for research on the facility's time, and two
(12.5%) indicated that research was performed in their
central Office. Thirteen (81.25%) said that there would
be no Objection to anyone performing research in the
facility but that it would have to be done on his own
time (Question 37). Three (18.75%) administrators

expressed concern because they felt that only one or

97

two staff really had the qualifications to perform
research and said they would want to supervise the
research if it involved clients.

Only two administrators (12.5%) said that they
were prepared to train staff for new or newly vacant
positions (Question 38). One indicated that this was
a part Of the in-service training program and that he
believed in cross-training as much as possible to ensure
the continuity Of the program regardless Of the personnel.
One, as indicated above, regularly gave staff greater
responsibility as they demonstrated an ability to handle
it. Six (37.5%) administrators said they would train
staff only if the Opportunity arose and only if the
staff member had the proper qualifications for the
position. Six (37.5%) indicated they would train if
the staff member had all the qualifications for the
position when it became available. None of them indi-
cated they would be willing to allow staff members the
Opportunity to pursue a degree full time, and all
pointed out that while they did allow staff the Oppor-
tunity to take courses at local colleges, there was no
provision for extended (up to a year) leave for edu-
cational purposes. One (6.25%) indicated that he would
train someone for a new position only when he had to;
this was the administrator who had recently gone through

a difficult expansion period. One (6.25%) indicated

98

that the union made training difficult by discouraging
individuals from receiving such training.

All sixteen (100%) administrators said they would
rather hire from.within the organization than go outside
it if the choice were possible (Question 39). Seven
(43.75%) indicated that they did not always have qual-
ified people, and they were not able to expand their
facilities fast enough to keep the people who were qual-
ified for positions. Three (18.75%) indicated that they
were convinced that hiring from.within was essential to
good staff morale, and three (18.75%) indicated that they
looked for people who could take more responsibility
and delegated it regularly. Two (12.5%) said they liked
to hire at the work supervisor level (the lowest profes-
sional level in most facilities) and promote from there,
and one (6.25%) indicated that jobs available in the
facility had to be advertised within the facility for
seven days before they could be advertised elsewhere.

All sixteen (100%) administrators had had diffi-
culty with staff being interested in positions for which
they were not qualified (Question 40). Twelve (75.0%)
had had some problems with staff not being interested in
upward mobility even when they were qualified because
they did not want the extra responsibility they saw with
higher level jobs, and some refused positions because

they saw them as being more administrative and with less

99

Opportunity for direct service to clients. Four (25%)
indicated that one of their biggest problems was inade-
quate financial support for any training programs, par—
ticularly for sending staff members somewhere for
extended periods Of training. One (6.25%) said that
the union tended to exert pressure on staff to stay in
union positions, and one (6.25%) said that he would like
to train people for different positions but wanted to
avoid what he called "the vulture syndrome”: becoming
prepared to take another position and then just waiting
for someone in that position to leave.

Responses in this area were contradictory. When
asked if they trained staff members for new or newly
created positions, only two administrators indicated
that they did. Twelve indicated that they would only
under certain circumstances. When asked if they would
hire from.within their organization to fill positions,
all sixteen said they would rather do that than look
outside the facility. It would appear that facility
administrators made it difficult for themselves by not
training people specifically for lateral or upward
mobility and, indeed, did not really encourage staff
to become interested in new positions by providing
training for those who might have potential. Doing so

would take time and planning, but it was clear that

100

the administrators would like the Opportunity to hire

from within if at all possible.

Concern 5: How TO Improve Communications
with‘Staff’Members

 

Twelve (75%) administrators indicated that the
relationships between and among staff members was essen-
tially informal, with two (12.5%) indicating that while
relationships were informal, people generally had to go
through channels to get answers to questions, and one
(6.25%) indicating that with certain key staff relation-
ships were informal but that other staff had to go
through channels (Question 41). In nine facilities
(56.25%), if a staff member wanted something, he could
go directly to the person who controlled it. Three
administrators (18.75%) said that their relationships
tended to be formal, and one indicated that the formality
occurred because of the relationship with the union. Of
these three, two facilities were large (over 150 clients)
and had more than thirty-five staff members. All three
administrators felt that the formal relationships were
due partly to the size of the facility and partly due
to the way that staff viewed management. All three
indicated that they were unhappy with the formality Of
the facility but were unwilling to attempt to disrupt
their method Of operating. The two administrators from

the large facilities both felt that one of the ways to

101

change the relationships would be to change the Official
method of requisitioning money and materials, but both
said that to change would have a detrimental effect on
the smooth Operation. Both felt that in order to main-
tain some type of control those relationships had to be
somewhat formal. The third facility was the same size
(over 150 clients) but had fewer staff members (twenty-
five). The staff, however, was spread throughout several
buildings, and the administrator felt that the geographic
spread tended to formalize relationships because staff
did not have a chance to get to know one another.

Twelve administrators (75%) said that information
tended to get filtered from either supervisors or the
Director to the staff; generally through a formalized
route (Question 42). All twelve said that they simply
did not have the time to talk with each staff member
personally to inform him Of what was happening. All
indicated that there were individuals on their staffs
with whom they regularly communicated, and they relied
on these key people (usually people in supervisory
positions) to filter the information on down. One
administrator (6.25%) had employed a staff member spe-
cifically for this purpose: a major part of the indi-
vidual's job was to communicate with staff on all levels
and to report to the director. The director felt that

the system worked quite well because staff were not

102

afraid to speak to this employee while they were Often
afraid to speak with him. Only one administrator (6.25%)
said that information generally did not get filtered from
one staff member to another and said that this was pri-
marily because he informed people on a need-to-know basis.
Thirteen administrators (81.25%) said that they
met with at least parts Of their staffs on a weekly basis
(Question 43). The two who indicated that they met with
department heads only and the one who met with management
staff only were from large facilities (more than two
hundred clients) and had large staffs (more than thirty-
five individuals). They felt that they could not com-
municate with that number Of people efficiently and that
smaller meetings were important. Two of these were the
administrators who indicated that communications tended
to be formal. Ten administrators (62.5%) met with all
staff on a weekly basis and felt that these meetings
were extremely important for information purposes. They
did not all indicate that communication could be improved
through these meetings. Three administrators (18.75%)
said that they did not meet with staff on any regular
basis because there was no need. All three were in
small facilities (fewer than fifty clients) and had
staffs of seven or fewer. They all indicated that they

met informally in the morning over coffee before the

103

clients arrived or after the clients left and that most
communication occurred during that time.

Nine administrators (56.25%) felt that their Open
door policy was the best way to encourage communication
with staff (Question 44). Seven (43.75%) made a distinct
effort to go where the staff were and to chat informally
with them as the opportunity arose. Several had indi-
cated in previous sections that they employed other
methods of establishing communication with staff such
as conducting the orientation with staff members and by
discussing evaluations with staff. It is interesting to
note that these methods were not mentioned when the spe-
cific questions were asked.

Six administrators (37.5%) indicated that their
greatest problem in communication was that staff members
would not talk in meetings (Question 45). They felt that
staff members tended to be afraid of the administrator
and did not communicate their concerns. Another prevalent
problem was in making staff understand priorities (par-
ticularly financial ones) and the constraints placed on
a nonprofit organization. Six administrators (37.5%)
felt that this was a problem. Three (18.75%) felt that
their reliance on a key group Of staff probably impeded
communication but felt that they simply did not have the
time or the energy to attempt to open communication

channels with all staff. Three (18.75%) said that

104

management's carpeted and air-conditioned Offices
probably had something to do with the way communication
flowed; that these luxuries created barriers and a

sense Of injustice. Several felt that communications
were impeded because the Director Often had to be in
many different places and simply was not accessible

to staff. One (6.25%) felt that people did not know
what was going on simply because they did not listen
even when information was communicated to them, and one
(6.25%) said that in his large organization the grapevine
worked almost too well; staff on the floor knew things
before management did. One (6.25%) said that the formal
relationships impeded communication, and only one (6.25%)
commented that some employees tended to be suspicious Of
management.

In this section, the administrators were attempt-
ing to describe the atmosphere Of their facilities and
the things that tended to characterize their communi-
cations flow. Most Of them had difficulty describing the
flow, and four indicated that they had thought about
communications Often, recognized the difficulties, but
had not been able to establish procedures and routines
that solved the communication problems they were exper-
iencing. No administrator felt that the problem had

reached proportions that affected the kind of service

105

the facility could provide its clients. All felt that
probably communications could be improved in some way.
Cghgern 6: _§9w TO Handle
Employee Grievances

Fourteen administrators (87.5%) said that they
had a grievance procedure which applied to all staff
members (Question 46). One (6.25%) indicated that the
procedure applied to union staff but not to management
staff. Only one (6.25%) indicated that there was no
grievance procedure at present but did say that the
facility was in the process of writing one. In all
facilities, including the facility that was in the
process of writing a procedure, the steps in the pro-
cedure were essentially the same: the employee with a
grievance began with the supervisor and, if given no
satisfaction at that level, worked his way up through
the channels specified on the organization chart. The
last resort in all but one case was a hearing by the
governing board or a committee Of the governing board.
The one case which was different was one involving a
union where the last resort was an arbitration hearing
which included management and union representatives.
The differences between the procedures described tended
to be the point at which the grievance and the reply
had to be in writing and the time limits allowed between

steps in the procedure. All administrators indicated

106

that they felt grievances needed to be handled promptly,
and all felt that their procedures were designed with
this in mind. In some larger facilities, the procedure
tended to be at maximum two steps longer than in smaller
facilities because of the number of steps in the organi-
zation chart. Several of the larger facilities had cut
out intermediate steps because using them tended to make
the procedure too long.

Ten administrators (62.5%) indicated that the
procedure was reviewed as Often as review was necessary
(Question 47). Five (31.25%) said that it had not‘been
reviewed in the past but expressed certainty that if the
need arose, it would be reviewed. In two facilities
(12.5%) staff had input into the review, but all admin-
istrators in facilities that had provisions for a review
indicated that if a review was conducted it generally
occurred because some staff had concerns about the pro-
cedure. All administrators felt that if staff did have
concerns about the procedure, their concerns would be
heard by the appropriate review body. One administrator
indicated that the procedure his facility used was cur-
rently under review because some staff had voiced con-
cerns about the fairness of the policy. Only one pro-
cedure (the one involving a union) included a formal
representative for the grieving party, but five admin-

istrators indicated that they felt if the grieving party

107

wanted a representative that would be acceptable. Nine
indicated that the question had never been raised, and
they were not certain how this would be received.

Seven administrators (43.75%) said that the
majority Of their problems centered around employees who
tried to circumvent established grievance procedures
(Question 48). The most common reason administrators
gave for this was that employees were generally afraid
to confront a supervisor with a grievance and tended to
try to go up the chain Of command beyond the person who
was presenting them with the problem. The second most
prevalent problem was that employees do not read the
procedures that are given to them (six administrators
or 37.5% felt that this was a problem). In all facilities
which had a grievance procedure, the procedure was
available in written form either in handout form or in
an employee handbook. In all cases, the procedure was
given to the employee at the time Of hiring. The
employee was instructed to read the procedures in all
cases. None Of the administrators said they specifically
discussed the grievance procedure with a new employee
at the time Of hiring nor did they discuss all other
policies and procedures at that time. None of the
administrators indicated that discussion Of these poli-
cies was a part of the orientation for new employees.

Employees were instructed to read the policies and

108

become familiar with them in all cases and were encour-
aged tO discuss anything that was unclear with the direct
supervisor. Nevertheless, six administrators felt that
the reason employees tended to abuse the system was
because they did not read the procedures and, therefore,
were not aware that the procedure existed or that they
were abusing it.

It appeared clear in this section that facilities
did have procedures that were appropriate for dealing
with employee grievances. The problems in dealing with
employee grievances appeared to be twofold: (1) employees
tried to circumvent procedures, either knowingly or
unknowingly; and (2) employees were not always aware
of the proper procedure. Several suggestions were made
by administrators for dealing with the problems. One
suggested that the procedure be discussed with the
employee at the time of hiring, but he also said that
this would be a negative aspect in an essentially posi-
tive situation. Another suggested that the procedures
be discussed with each employee by the immediate super-
visor after the employee had several days to read the
procedure. Still another suggested that going over the
procedure be a regular tOpic Of discussion in the orien-
tation procedure. Others rejected this suggestion
because there was no real orientation procedure; orien-

tation was left up to the immediate supervisor. It was

109

clear that the information regarding grievance procedures
had to be disseminated in such a way that there were no
misunderstandings about it.

Concern 7: How To Determine
Staffing Needs

 

 

Nine administrators (56.25%) reported that they
had a long-range plan which included projections of
staffing needs (Question 49). Six (37.5%) had long-
range plans which did not specifically include projections
Of staffing needs. Two of the administrators (12.5%)
reported that staffing additions depended on availability
of money and funding, so they were not included in the
plan. One (6.25%) said that his current long-range plan
was geared to improvement of existing programs, not to
expansion, and therefore did not include projections of
staffing needs. Three (18.75%) said that their long-
range plans did not include projections of staffing
needs. Only one administrator (6.25%) said there was
no long-range plan for his facility at the time of the
visit.

Only seven administrators (43.75%) said that
there was any staff involvement in long-range planning
(Question 50). Nine (56.25%) indicated that there was
no staff involvement. Eleven (68.75%) said that their
planning was based on funding availability only, while

two (12.5%) indicated that it was based both on client

110

needs and availability of funds (Question 51). One
(6.25%) indicated that the needs of present clients
dictated the nature Of the plan, and one (6.25%) indi-
cated that it was a combination Of funding availability,
client needs, and program needs. Only one administrator
(6.25%) said that there was no plan.

Ten (62.5%) administrators reported that one of
their biggest problems in planning was a lack of a good
needs assessment (Question 52). They felt that they
could certainly plan more realistically if they had a
better idea of the needs Of the community they served.
Ten (62.5%) said that another major problem was the
uncertainty Of fund availability. All ten indicated
that they found it almost futile to plan one, three,
and five years ahead when they were even sure that the
facility would still exist. Another administrator (6.25%)
said that uncertainty Of funding was the reason he
refused to plan in the first place; he felt it was futile
to gO through the motions. Another (6.25%), however,
felt that that attitude readily led to defeat; was a
self-fulfilling prophecy; and his philosophy was to "plan
based on what you know you will need to provide the
necessary services, and then go out and find the money."
This administrator was a firm believer in "If you do not
do it yourself, surely no one else is going to do it for

you." Still another (6.25%) indicated that he planned

111

on the basis Of what he saw as needs and the services
he felt were necessary, but sometimes he was not always
able to fulfill the plan because of lack of funding for
various projects.

It appeared clear that lack of funding availa-
bility and lack Of a complete needs assessment were the
biggest problems in planning, including planning for
staffing needs. Most administrators appeared to feel
that planning was almost futile because Of the problems
of funding. Because of this attitude planning for the
future was not as important to administrators as it

might be.

Summary

In this chapter, the results Of the research have
been reported. The major findings were summarized in the
order in which the concerns were presented.

In the area Of setting standards for employee
performance, a few clear trends were evident. More
administrators used the job description plus verbal cues
from the supervisor to set standards for employee per-
formance than used any other method. There was no clear
majority which used any method or combination of methods.
The supervisor was involved in setting standards in a
majority of facilities, but the employee was involved
in setting standards for himself in half of those.

Standards spelled out in job descriptions did tend to

112

be specific, and job descriptions were written in all
facilities. The verbal cues given by supervisors were
not written. In all facilities, employees were given a
job description, and in all but one facility, they were
informed Of the minimum standards of performance but

not always of what would constitute excellent or superior
performance.

In the area of evaluating employee performance,
several trends were clear. Job descriptions were used
as a universal tool to set the minimum standards for
employee performance. In a majority of facilities,
employees were hired for a probationary period and could
be released during that period with little or no diffi-
culty. In a majority of facilities the employees were
evaluated regularly and the evaluation was reviewed with
the employee and entered in the personnel file. All
facilities which evaluated regularly had a form which
was used, but no single type Of form was used by a
majority of administrators. A majority Of adminis-
trators indicated that evaluations were used to provide
the employee with some feedback regarding performance.
The major problems in this area appeared to be the lack
of training on the part of supervisory staff in doing
evaluations of their subordinates and in tying the
evaluations with goals and objectives for the following

year, as well as to salary negotiations. A majority

113

of the administrators felt that evaluations would become
more important if the evaluation were connected directly
to salaries and if the facility regularly had the funds
to reward excellence of performance.

On-the-job training was done in all facilities
with a majority Of facilities having a specific plan for
training, including training times set aside for that
purpose. Attendance at conferences and workshops was
supported financially by a majority of facilities, as
was educational leave. The purpose Of training in a
majority of facilities was to acquaint all staff with
the way the total organization functioned and to meet
the expressed needs of staff for further training. It
appeared to the researcher that in-house training was
generally "crisis oriented" rather than planned for in
a developmental way. NO facility indicated that one of
the purposes Of the training was orientation Of new
employees. Orientation of new employees was either
done in a separate program or left to the individual
supervisor. In facilities which were a part Of a
larger organization, training tended to be planned for
on two levels: the total organization level and the
individual facility level. In larger facilities of
over two hundred clients, training tended to be done

on two levels: managerial and nonmanagerial.

114

In the area of preparing employees for greater
responsibility, responses tended to be somewhat contra-
dictory. Only two administrators responded that they
actually trained staff for new positions, while a
majority indicated that they would do so only under
certain circumstances but offered a number of qualifying
statements. When asked if they would rather hire from
within, all administrators said they would but listed
a host Of problems associated with that kind Of decision.
Only one administrator indicated clearly that he did
cross training with staff members to assure the con-
tinuity of programs regardless Of personnel. It was
clear that in a majority of facilities preparing
employees for greater responsibility was haphazard at
best, and certainly followed no clear plan Of identifying
staff members with potential and no clear plan for
training them once they were identified.

In the area of improving communications with
staff members, responses were again mixed. The only
clear trend that was evident was that in small facili-
ties with many Opportunities for one-to-One communi-
cations, communication did not seem to be a problem.

In larger facilities, organizational channels appeared
to impede the flow of communication, but this was not
the case in all larger organizations. The question of

communication and how to improve it Often was interpreted

115

as an attempt to improve the atmosphere Of the organi-
zation, and here administrators felt that they had to
weigh the needs of individuals against the smooth running
of the organization. In the final analysis, most indi-
cated that they would choose to keep their present method
of organization.

All facilities either had a grievance procedure
or were in the process of writing one. The procedures
tended to be essentially the same: the grieving employee
began with his immediate supervisor and then, if no
satisfaction was achieved at that level, worked up the
organization ladder to a board or board committee hearing.
The only facility whose procedures deviated from the
procedure just described was one with a union involvement.
In this facility, the procedure deviated only in that
there were provisions for union involvement at some of
the levels. There appear to be two major problems in
this area: (1) employees tended to circumvent prOper
channels either through ignorance or because they did
not want to confront the source of the problem, and
(2) employees tended not to know procedures because they
did not read the procedures.

Two major problems were seen in the area Of
planning for staffing needs. One was the lack Of an
organized needs assessment on the part of a majority

of facilities, and the other was that administrators

116

tended to consider planning futile when funding sources
were extremely variable. A majority Of administrators
indicated that there was no direct staff involvement in
planning for the future, and a majority indicated that
their planning was based solely on the availability of

funding.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this research was to identify the
methods Of personnel administration presently employed by
rehabilitation facility administrators in Illinois in
dealing with the seven personnel administration problems
identified by the Region V Survey and tO identify spe-
cific administrative problems within the problem areas.
Present methods of administration were compared to methods
described by the three accrediting agencies: Illinois
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Commission on
Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities, and Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. These accredit-
ing agency standards were used as examples only; there
was no attempt to establish whether or not the facilities
met the standards. The procedures described in the
standards were used as examples of personnel adminis-
tration methods which provided a basis for discussion

Of the seven personnel administration problem areas:

(1) How to evaluate employee performance;

117

118

(2) How to set performance standards for employees;

(3) How to conduct effective on-the-job training;

(4) How to prepare employees for greater responsi-
bility;

(5) How to improve communication with employees;

(6) How to handle employee grievances; and

(7) How to determine staffing needs.

The population consisted of the eighty-nine
facilities in Illinois which were accredited and rated
by the Illinois Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.

A sample of sixteen facilities was chosen on the basis
of returns on a questionnaire sent to each facility.

The questionnaire obtained information about each respond-
ing facility's size, number of full-time staff who per-
formed professional duties, particular handicaps served,
the facility's tax status (private, nonprofit; private,
for profit; or governmental), the programs offered by
the facility, the relationship (if any) to a parent
organization, and whether or not the researcher could
visit the facility to interview staff members. As of
March 1, 1977, a total Of sixty-one questionnaires had
been returned, and the sixteen sample facilities were
chosen from the forty-eight facilities whose adminis-
trators indicated that the researcher could interview

staff members.

119

Returns on the questionnaire revealed that the
three important variables were: size of the facility
(number Of clients served), the number of full-time staff
performing professional duties, and the facility's
relationship (if any) to a parent organization. The
sixteen sample facilities were chosen by establishing
a frequency table showing the size, number of staff, and
the relationship (if any) to a parent organization of
each Of the forty-eight facilities whose administrators
indicated that it would be possible to visit the facility
and to interview staff members and by computing per-
centages which were representative Of the forty-eight
according to the three variables. Sixteen facilities
were chosen according to the percentage figures. The
thirteen facilities whose administrators chose not to
participate did not differ in any of the variables from
those facilities whose administrators did choose to par-
ticipate, so the sample was representative of the sixty-
One facilities which responded.

When the sample facilities had been chosen,
arrangements were made to visit each facility to inter—
view the administrator and staff members who had super-
visory responsibility. The interview format was based
on the standards pertaining to each Of the personnel
administration problems found in the standards guides

Of the accrediting agencies. The interview format was

120

sent to each facility administrator prior to the visit,
as well as a copy Of the letter which detailed the study.

Once the study was in progress, the order of
discussion of two of the areas Of study was changed:
setting standards of employee performance was discussed
before discussing evaluation of employee performance.

It was found that it was difficult to discuss evaluation
of employee performance without first establishing the
method of setting standards for employee performance.
Reversing the order of the two made more sense. An
organizational chart was also requested prior to
beginning the interview. Discussing the organizational
chart with the administrator alleviated the problem

of unfamiliar job titles and functions and insured that
the administrator and the researcher were discussing the
same issues.

The interviews were held in the Office of the
administrator or the offices of the staff members who
had supervisory responsibility. There was only one
interview which was conducted in a group setting; the
rest were conducted individually, first with the admin-
istrator and then with members of his staff. The inter-
views generally took between two and three hours. They
were recorded using a cassette tape deck and sixty- or
ninety-minute tapes. Notes were taken after each session
regarding impressions, important points, and aspects Of

each interview which were noteworthy.

121

After the interview, the researcher listened to
the tapes with a copy of the interview format. The
methods of administration employed were written as the
administrator described them, including any qualifying
statements about the issue. Two judges were asked to
record answers from the first four interviews. Their
answers were compared to the researcher's and they were
judged to be identical. The researcher was instructed
to continue independently. After the interviews were
completed, the methods of administration employed were
listed and the numbers of administrators employing each
method were compiled. The two judges were asked to par-
ticipate in collating and categorizing the data. All
answers beyond simple ”yes” and "no“ answers were sub-
mitted to them for final approval on categorization.
The data were reported in lists showing the responses
to each question, the numbers Of administrators who
were judged to respond in the same way, and the per—
centage of the sample that the number represented.
Obvious trends were noted and relationships to any of
the three variables on which the sample was chosen were

demonstrated.

Major Findings

 

The major findings of the research were discussed
under the seven headings which described the administrative

problems as they were identified by the Region V Survey.

122

Concern 1: How To Set Standards
IO} EmpIOyee Performance

 

A majority Of administrators used job descriptions
plus verbal cues from supervisors to set standards for
employee performance. The supervisor was involved in
setting standards for employees in a majority Of facili-
ties, but the employee was involved in setting standards
in less than half the facilities. Job descriptions had
been established in writing in all facilities, and a
majority Of administrators reported that job descriptions
were specific. Verbal cues given by supervisors were not
written. In a majority Of facilities, employees were
informed of standards but were not a party to setting
standards. Four specific problems were identified in
this section: (1) employees tended to be young and
inexperienced; (2) attitudinal standards were difficult
to convey to staff members; (3) staff tended to resist
setting Objectives; and (4) standards Of quality were
difficult to objectify. Facility administrators who
indicated that employees were young and inexperienced
were in small facilities which had been established
within the last three years.

Concern 2: How TO Evaluate
Employee PerfOrmance

Job descriptions were used as a universal tool

in setting the minimum standards for employee performance.

In a majority of facilities, employees were hired for a

123

probationary period and were provided feedback regarding
their performance only as problems arose during the pro-
bationary period. A majority of administrators evaluated
employees regularly, reviewed the evaluation with the
employee, and entered the evaluation in the employee's
personnel file. All facilities employed a form for
evaluation, but no one form was employed by a majority

Of facility administrators. A majority of administrators
reported that evaluations were used to provide feedback
to the employee regarding his performance. Two major
problems were identified in this section: (1) many
supervisors did not like to evaluate and performed the
task poorly; and (2) evaluations were not connected to
setting goals for the following year or to salary negoti—
ations. In small facilities where only the administrator
evaluated, there appeared to be few, if any, problems.

In larger facilities, with more than one person evaluat-
ing, the most prevalent problem was the supervisor's lack
of experience in handling this administrative task.

Concegn 3: Howigp Conduct Effec-
tive On-tHe-JOB Training

 

A majority of facility administrators reported
that there were specific plans for training and that
the plan included specific times for training. A
majority Of facility administrators reported that it

was policy to support attendance at conferences and

lllll'll)

4.] ||l.'l|| ‘I u
'4‘

124

workshops as well as educational leave. The purpose of
training in a majority of facilities was to acquaint all
staff with the way the total organization functioned and
to meet the expressed needs of staff for further train-
ing. In a majority of facilities, orientation of new
staff tended to be accomplished through separate programs
or left to the individual supervisor. In a majority Of
facilities, staff had the Opportunity to contribute to
the development of the training program. Two major
problems were identified in this section: (1) staff
tended not to take training seriously; and (2) there

was lack Of financial support for the training program.
In larger facilities, training was likely to be done by
department heads for their own staffs; in smaller facili-
ties, the staff was trained as one group. Facilities
close to colleges and universities were more likely tO
provide educational leave time; facilities not near cOl-
leges or universities were less likely to provide edu-
cational leave time. Facilities located near large
metropolitan centers provided the most leave time and
the most financial support for educational leave. In
large facilities, training was generally done on two
levels: management and nonmanagement. In facilities
which were a part of a larger organization, training

tended to be done both at the single facility level and

125

at the total organization level. Larger organizations
tended to allow more time for training than did smaller
ones.

Concern 4: How To Prepare Emplgyees
fbr Greater Responsibility

 

 

Only two administrators responded affirmatively
when asked if they trained staff for upward mobility,
but all indicated that they would rather hire from within
their organizations when new or newly vacant positions
were available. These responses appeared to be contra-
dictory: if administrators preferred to hire from
within their own organizations, surely it would be to
their benefit to train subordinates for upward mobility.
Three problems were identified in this area: (1) staff
who were interested in positions were not always qual-
ified for them; (2) many staff were not interested in
lateral or upward mobility; and (3) there was inadequate
financial support for training programs.

Concern 5: How Te Im rove Com-
munications with Sta

 

In small facilities, communications did not
appear to be a problem, and opportunities for communi-
cation among staff members were readily available. In
larger facilities, administrators reported that organi-
zational channels appeared to impede communications.

In a majority of facilities, information tended to

126

filter through supervisory staff. A majority of admin-
istrators held weekly staff meetings with all staff; in
three large facilities, meetings were held with manage-
ment staff or with department heads only. A majority Of
administrators relied on the "Open door" method of
encouraging communication from staff members. Five
major problems were identified in this area: (1) staff
were uncomfortable when talking in meetings; (2) making
staff understand priorities was difficult; (3) an informal
group of staff tended to run things; (4) carpeted and
air-conditioned offices for administrators created
barriers; and (5) the administrator was Often inacces-
sible because of many commitments.

Concern 6: How To Handle
'Employee Grievances

 

 

All facilities had a grievance procedure or were
in the process Of writing one. The steps in the procedure
were essentially the same in all facilities: the employee
began with the immediate supervisor and worked his way up
the organizational channels. The one exception was the
facility where the procedure allowed for union involve-
ment. In all facilities except the one in which the
procedure was currently being written, employees were
given copies Of the procedure and expected to know it.

Two major problems were identified in this section:
(1) employees tended to circumvent the procedures; and

(2) employees did not read the procedures.

127

Concern 7: How To Determine
Staffing Need§

 

 

A majority of facilities had long-range plans
which included planning for staffing needs. In a
majority of facilities, the staff were not involved in
long-range planning. A majority Of facilities based
their long-range plans on funding availability only.
Two major problems were identified in this section:
(1) lack Of adequate needs assessments made planning
difficult; and (2) uncertainty Of funding sources made

planning difficult.

Discussion and Implications

One: Participation in the
Administrative Process

 

 

Participation in decision making was one of the
points that was stressed in the review of the literature.
Likert and Davis' methods Of classifying leadership style
were discussed as was Ordiorne's concept Of management by
Objectives. All three were based on the assumption that
individuals in organizations preferred to be included in
the administrative process. All of the authors whose
works on administration in rehabilitation were reviewed
stressed participation by employees in the administra-
tive process. As indicated in the findings, the results
Of the study revealed that in a number of significant
areas, rehabilitation facility administrators did not

encourage participation by employees. It should also be

A‘

128

noted that the emphasis in the literature, both the
literature in business administration and the literature
in rehabilitation administration was on participation by
employees in the administrative process, yet this study
revealed that rehabilitation facility administrators

in Illinois did not encourage participation by staff
members in the areas identified in the findings.

One of the implications which could be drawn from
the study was that facility administrators were not aware
of the research regarding participation in the adminis-
trative process and were not practicing participative
management because they have not discovered it. Another
implication might be that administrators were aware of
the research but chose not to practice the methods
which were suggested. For example, one administrator
indicated that he did not believe in allowing employees
to participate in the administrative process because
they were not ultimately responsible for whatever action
was taken, while the administrator was. He felt strongly
that if he was responsible, he should make the decision
regarding any action taken. It was possible that more
administrators felt as he did but did not take the

opportunity to say so.

Two: Job Descriptions

 

Olmstead specified that one of the keys to good

administration was a clear foundation of the ground rules

129

and indicated that well-written job descriptions often
satisfied this condition. Sanders concurred in his
discussion Of job descriptions. All the facility admin-
istrators indicated that job descriptions were written,
but one-fourth indicated that the job descriptions were
not specific as to qualifications necessary for the
position, the supervisor of the position, the duties

of the position, and the positions supervised. The
administrators did not indicate that the job descriptions
were discussed thoroughly with each employee and that
employees were not always included in a review of the
job description. Specific job descriptions and a
thorough discussion Of them were not administrative
tools that all rehabilitation facility administrators
employed.

One implication was that facility administrators
had not taken the time to write specific job descriptions.
Another might be that positions in rehabilitation facili-
ties changed often and the responsibilities and duties
of the positions changed as well. For example, one
administrator pointed out that in the last three years,
the Illinois Division Of Vocational Rehabilitation had
made several major changes in their standards regarding
the qualifications and responsibilities of various staff

members.

130

Three: Evaluation of Employees

Whittington indicated that administrators were
Often afraid Of negative reaction among staff members
if disciplinary action was taken against an employee
but indicated that evaluation was a valuable tool for
rewarding effective performance and punishing undesirable
behavior. His contention that administrators were Often
afraid of negative reaction by staff members was not
confirmed by this study, but the study did reveal that
one of the problems administrators saw in the area of
evaluation was that staff members did not like to evaluate
other staff and generally tended to perform the task
poorly. The administrators felt that the reason for this
was that the staff members had not been trained to per-
form this task and did not indicate that fear of negative
reaction was a reason for performing the task poorly.

One implication, as Whittington suggested, was
that evaluators might indeed be afraid of negative
reaction among evaluees. Another implication might be,
as the administrators indicated, that employees have
not been taught how to adequately perform this task.

If this was the case, in-service training could provide

a remedy for the problem.

Four: In-service Trainihg
Sanders indicated that it was important for

administrators to have specific plans for in-service

131

training. This research demonstrated that while facility
administrators indicated that there were plans for this
activity, the plans tended tO be haphazard and ”crisis-
oriented." NO facility administrator indicated that
there was a plan which was designed to systematically
increase staff competency. What was described were the
activities which had occurred in the past, and none of
these descriptions indicated that in-service training was
systematically and carefully planned.

One of the implications was that administrators
did not have the time to develop a detailed plan for
training, yet this task was assigned to other staff mem-
bers in only a few facilities. In-service training
appeared to lack focus and specificity and, in this
context, appeared to be of little importance to facility
administrators. While this contention might not apply
equally to all facilities, it was clear from the findings
that this was an area which required attention from
administrators. The focus in facilities in the recent
past has been on development of clients; it would appear
that staff members deserved similar attention in the
area Of in-service training.

Five: Preparing Emplqyees for
Gieater ResponsiBiIity

 

Closely related to the issue of in-service

training was the issue Of preparing employees for

132

greater responsibility and upward mobility. Sanders
indicated that it should be the policy of the facility

to promote from within the facility and indicated that
preparation Of employees should be one of the primary
focal points of in-service training. This study revealed
that most administrators, while they indicated that they
preferred to promote from within their own organizations,
did not attempt to train individuals for greater responsi—
bility. The administrators reported inconsistent behavior
in this area. One administrator indicated that he had
recently experienced difficulties with staff who wanted
higher level positions but who were not qualified for
them. NO other administrators indicated that they had
had such experiences, so it appeared unlikely that this
could have been the reason for other administrators'
behavior.

Again, one implication was that administrators
lacked the time required to train staff for greater
responsibility, yet this task was assigned to others
in few facilities. Since most of the administrators
indicated that they wished tO promote from within the
facilities, training staff members should be a more

important administrative function.

Six: Environmental Constraints
Kimberly, Wesson, and Salkind all reported on

the environmental constraints placed on rehabilitation

133

facilities and related the constraints experienced by
facilities to the philosophy Of the facility or to the
behavior the administrator exhibited in various situations.
One of the points made was that funding source availa-
bility was an environmental constraint and Often dictated
action by administrators. This research confirmed that
notion. Well over half the administrators indicated

that they experienced problems with funding and that

lack of funding Often dictated their actions. This was
particularly noticeable in the area of planning. All

but one facility administrator indicated that their
facilities depended upon state and federal funds and

that uncertainty regarding the dispersal of funds
affected the way they planned. One administrator went

so far as to say he would not plan because he felt

there was no reason to waste time and effort when he
could not be sure that there would be money to make the
changes he wished to effect.

Planning appeared to be unimportant to some
administrators, yet this was not the case. Administra-
tors were willing to plan i£_the funding sources could
be relied upon to produce the monies required. The
implication was that the reliability of the funding
sources should be improved. Perhaps facility adminis-
trators should consider changing this aspect of their

environment as Kimberly suggested.

134

Seven: Communication

 

Not all the literature concentrated specifically
on the issue of communication, but all implied that good
communication was important in being a successful admin-
istrator. Whittington and Olmstead discussed the issue
explicitly and indicated that good communication was the
key to being a successful administrator. Both stressed
methods of good formal and informal communication. All
administrators interviewed indicated some problems in
the area of communication but found it difficult to
specify their problems. One problem which was clear
to the researcher was that administrators were very
busy and Often did not have time to communicate infor-
mally with their staffs. Much of the emphasis was thus
placed on formal communication. The esprit that Whit-
tington and others emphasized was not established by
using formal methods of communication. Administrators
tended to find it difficult tO establish good communi-
cation linkages because Of their other responsibilities.
Those who were particularly concerned about communication
tended to represent large facilities and indicated that
they hesitated to upset the formal structure that had
been established by attempting to establish new com-
munications systems. This appeared to be a good example
Of what Argyris was referring to when he discussed the

basic incompatibility of the organization and the

135

individual and what he was trying to correct in his

attempt to integrate individual and organizational needs.

Eight: Time

 

Many of the discrepancies between the methods
prescribed in the literature and in the standards guides
and those employed by administrators appeared to be
caused by lack of time on the part of the administrator.
Lack of time was described as a problem by administrators
when discussing many of the administrative areas included
in the study. One implication was that administrators
did not know how to delegate authority. Small facilities
could easily be administered by one person. As they
expanded, however, facilities became less manageable for
one individual. Administrators of large facilities
indicated they delegated authority by creating depart-
ments. Administrators from facilities Of seventy-five
to two hundred clients and Of ten to thirty staff members
were the ones who reported difficulties with lack of
time. Perhaps a more accurate implication was that
while facilities were in the process Of growing, the
administrators found it difficult to delegate authority
because they were testing staff members to determine

their capacities for administration.

136

Speculations

 

A number of administrative problems identified
and discussed in the previous section might be Of con-
cern to formal training programs for facility adminis-
trators. While there were only a few institutions offer-
ing the BA and MA degrees in 1974, according to Salkind,
these programs did produce potential employees for
facilities; and some graduates of these institutions
were employed in the facilities whose administrators
were interviewed. One implication of several of the
problems identified by administrators was that employees,
including those who had been trained at the MA level by
institutions offering programs in rehabilitation facility
administration had not been trained in appropriate
administrative methodologies or techniques. They did
not know how to evaluate other employees, they did not
know how to establish effective in-service training
plans, they did not know how to establish effective_
communications with subordinates, and so on. The
problems identified here could perhaps be resolved by
changes in the training of facility administrators.

One of the major concerns of the accrediting
agencies, as specified in their standards manuals, was
that of accountability, particularly in dealing with
clients. All facility administrators indicated that

they were preparing the paper work necessary to establish

137

the facility's accountability in dealings with clients.
Only one administrator indicated that he was attempting
to provide the same sort Of accountability in dealings
with staff members but did not specify a method Of doing
so. Two administrators were using a modified management
by objectives approach, which they felt did help estab—
lish accountability among staff members. Perhaps the
accrediting agencies could establish standards for
dealing with employees similar to those for dealing

with clients; standards which might force accountability
throughout a facility.

Many Of the administrative problems identified
here could be of concern to the national organizations
to which many facility administrators belong. It would
be appropriate for the organizations to include sessions
in their national meetings which would focus on the
problems Of establishing and improving communications
with staff members, methods Of evaluating subordinates,
effective in—service training programs, and the like.
The focus in the national organizations has been on
service to clients; perhaps it would be appropriate
to turn attention to administrative problems in future

meetings.

Implications for Future Research
One of the problems identified in this study was

the lack of employee participation in the administrative

138

process. The literature reviewed clearly indicated that
participation was considered important by experts in
both business administration and rehabilitation adminis-
tration. Research could be done using Likert or Davis'
system of classifying leadership style to determine if
rehabilitation facility administrators tended to function
toward the autocratic end of the scale, as this research
suggests. Such research could suggest changes in admin-
istrative behavior and could demonstrate the necessity
for changing administrative practice.

Another method of approaching the problem Of
apparent autocratic leadership might be to use Blake
and Mouton's managerial grid as a research device to
determine how facility administrators viewed themselves
as administrators and to determine where their concerns
actually were: concern for people or concern for pro-
duction. Use Of this device might show administrators
how their actions directly affect their employees and
could suggest changes in behavior.

Another concern expressed by administrators was
lack of time for a number Of important administrative
functions. A research project designed to help adminis—
trators determine where they spent the majority Of their
time might also help them in budgeting their time more
appropriately. It might also indicate the need for
additional staff or for reallocation of duties among

existing staff members.

139

One of the problems identified was that staff
members who had administrative responsibility were often
not trained in administrative methods, including those
staff members who had received formal training in rehabil-
itation facility administration. This finding indicated
that there might be conflicts between what trainers in
institutions and facility administrators perceived as
the important aspects Of facility administration. A
research project designed to compare the perceptions of
trainers and administrators of the important aspects Of
facility administration would identify any conflicts
which might exist and might suggest changes in training
programs which would eliminate the conflicts. Elimi-
nation of any conflicts could lead to more effective

administration in rehabilitation facilities.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO

ADMINISTRATORS

APPENDIX A

LETTERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO

ADMINISTRATORS

13 Lakeview Drive
Bushnell, Illinois 61422
October 28, 1976

Dear Colleague:

I am presently employed at the McDonough County Rehabili-
tation Center where I have held the position Of Rehabili-
tation Coordinator for the past year and a half. I have
become most interested in the administration Of rehabili-
tation facilities during this period. I am also a Ph.D.
candidate at Michigan State University and have decided
to conduct a research project for my dissertation which
is relevant to our rehabilitation work in Illinois. I
would like to explain the nature of my project to you and
hope you will be able to help me.

In March of 1975, the Center for Continuing Education for
Rehabilitation Services Administration Region V sent out
a survey which was designed to identify the training needs
of facility administrators and their staffs. The survey
succeeded in identifying a number of areas where respon-
dents felt they could benefit from training. Among these
were seven personnel administration issues:

. how to evaluate employee performance;

. how to set performance standards;

how to conduct effective on-the-job training;

how to prepare employees for greater responsibility;
how to improve communication with employees;

how to handle employee grievances; and

. how to determine staffing needs.

Th Region V Survey did not identify specific problem
areas within the issues, nor did they specify a training
program which would help alleviate the problems.

gaunt-wand

140

141

The purpose Of my research is threefold: to identify
present methods of personnel administration utilized by
facility administrators in Illinois; to identify problem
areas in those methods with the help Of the facility
administrators; and to suggest a training program which
will focus on the problem areas, or at least provide the
basis for a training program.

In order to accomplish this, I would like to visit
selected rehabilitation facilities in Illinois and inter-
view the staff who have responsibilities in each of the
seven personnel administration areas. No facility will
be referred to by name, nor will individuals be identi-
fied, though facilities will be described demographically.
To insure accuracy in reporting the data, the interviews
will be taped and notes will be taken. The interviews
will be structured around questions deemed important but
will allow for discussion of the issues and for qualifying
statements.

The interviews will take approximately four hours, or a
morning or an afternoon, and will be arranged at the con-
venience of the facility administrator and staff.

The facilities which will be visited will be chosen on
the basis Of the enclosed questionnaire. I would appre-
ciate your cooperation in filling the questionnaire out
and returning it to me. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Jean M. Rommes

Rehabilitation Coordinator

McDonough County Rehabili-
tation Center

142

QUESTIONNAIRE

How many clients does your facility serve?

 

Does your facility specialize in any particular handicap?

yes no If yes, please specify

 

How many employees in your facility carry on professional
services (specify number of employees in following cate-
gories):

 

 

 

 

 

 

gprofessional
paraprofessional
volunteer
contract
How many are: full-time
gpart-time
DO you have a parent organization? yes no

DO you share a governing board with your parent organi-
zation?

yes no
Is your organization: private nonprofit
private for profit
governmental
What programs do you Offer in your facility? (please
check the appropriate ones)
work activities
work adjustment
work evaluation
counseling
placement
sheltered work
remedial academics
If your facility is selected, will you allow the

researcher to visit your facility and interview you
and members of your staff?

yes no

143

13 Lakeview Drive
Bushnell, Illinois 61422
January 6, 1977

Dear Colleague:

Several weeks ago you received a letter from me detailing
my proposed dissertation topic. I asked you to fill out
a short questionnaire so I could choose a number of
rehabilitation facilities for personal visits. I have
not heard from you and assume that the questionnaire

has been misplaced during the holiday excitement. I have
enclosed another questionnaire and a stamped envelOpe.

I hOpe you will fill it out and return it to me quickly
since it is important that I be able to choose a repre-
sentative sample as soon as possible. I would not want
to exclude your facility from consideration, but I will
have to unless I hear from you by March 1, 1977.

I hOpe to hear from you soon. Thank you!

Sincerely,

Jean M. Rommes

Rehabilitation Coordinator

McDonough County Rehabili-
tation Center

JMR:1w
Encl.

APPENDIX B

STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FORMAT

APPENDIX B

STRUCTURED INTERVIEW FORMAT

Introductions, brief explanation of the project, and pur—
pose Of the interview.

Demographic data regarding staff members to be interviewed:

degrees held

areas in which they were earned

how long they've worked for the organization

what other positions they've held in rehabilitation
facilities

what other positions they've held in fields other than
rehabilitation

Evaluation of employee performance:
DO you have job descriptions?
DO they indicate all:
qualifications
supervisors
duties
positions supervised
Are they reviewed?
Who does the review?
How often?
Are employees appointed for a probationary period?
How long is it?
What happens if the employee does not complete the pro-
bationary period successfully?
Are employees evaluated regularly?
Who does it?
Is it reviewed with the employee?
Is it entered in the employee's record?
What problems do you have in evaluating employee per-
formance?
Possible problem areas:
uniform evaluations
no evaluations are done
no way to objectify evaluations
personnel are uncomfortable doing it and do it poorly
nothing is done when an employee receives a poor one

144

145

Setting standards for employee performance:
How do you set standards for employee performance?
use job descriptions?
set Objectives?
use personnel policies?
use performance descriptions?
Who is involved in setting standards?
Are standards specific?
Are they written?
Is employee informed or party to setting standards?
What problems do you have in setting standards?

Possible problem areas:
job descriptions tend to be vague
Objectives are established but not performed
Objectives are hard to quantify
performance descriptions or Objectives are ignored
it is difficult to specify performance evaluation
techniques
it is hard for supervisors to be objective and honest

Conducting on-the-job training:
DO you have an on-the-job or in-service training plan?
Who is involved in developing it?
Does it:
reflect programmatic standards?
include Opportunities for educational leave?
provide orientation for new employees?
provide induction training for new employees?
provide programs for employees who have not reached
desired standards?
provide Opportunities for training for lateral or
upward movement?
assess training needs for staff?
specify regular meeting times?
include attendance at workshops, conferences?
Do you have problems with on-the-job training?
Possible problem areas:
not enough financial support for the program
staff don't take advantage of opportunities to attend
‘ programs
staff don't take training sessions seriously
programs tend to be dull and boring

146

Preparing employees for greater responsibility:
DO you have a specific plan for this?*
DO you include this in your in-service training program?
Does staff have ready access to professional reference
material?
DO staff have Opportunities for research?
DO you train possible candidates for different jobs?
Are present staff encouraged to apply for new positions?
DO you have problems with preparing employees for greater
responsibility?
Possible problem areas:
staff aren't interested in upward mobility
staff who are interested aren't qualified
inadequate financial support for training programs
administrator prefers to hire outside the organization

Improving communications with employees:

DO you hold regular staff meetings?

How often?

With all staff?

With department heads?

Do you keep minutes Of meetings?

Are they available for all staff?

Are your staff relationships formal or informal?
DO you have problems with staff communications?

Possible problem areas:
staff don't attend staff meetings
staff tend not to take staff meetings seriously
staff don't read reports of meetings they don't
attend
staff relationships are too formal
staff relationships are too informal

Handling employee grievances:
DO you have a grievance procedure?
Is it written?
Is it used?
Is it reviewed regularly?
Who does the review?
Is it published and easily available to employees?
DO you have problems with employee grievances?
Possible problem areas:
employees are not informed of procedures
employees do take procedures seriously
employees don't follow procedures
employees tend to circumvent procedures

147

Determining staffing needs:
DO you have a long-range staffing plan?
Does it include:
projections Of staffing needs?
definite points at which new staff must be added?
regular offerings of new programs?
provision for staff involvement in revising the plan?
DO you have problems with determining staffing needs?
Possible problem areas:
uncertain financial situation makes planning hard
problems in determining service needs impedes planning
little staff participation in long-range planning
uncertainty about federal and state programs and funds

148

Standards on Which the Interviews Were Based

Concern:

CARF: 4.2

How to evaluate employee performance

Standards of qualifications for all staff
shall be established and maintained. Job
descriptions shall be established for all
personnel. Each job description shall set
forth the qualifications, reporting super-
visor, position(s) supervised, and duties and
shall be dated and periodically reviewed for

continuing appropriateness. (p. 43)

DVR: Job descriptions shall be established for all

positions within the facility. (p. 3)

Joint Commissions:

7.4.2.7

7.4.2.8

7.4.2.8.1

7.4.2.8.2

Concern:

CARF: 4.2

All employees are appointed for a limited
probationary period in order to determine if
they are capable Of fulfilling the Specific
requirements of their jobs. (p. 112)

Each employee is evaluated at least annually
after the initial trial period. (p. 112)

The evaluation is reviewed with the employee.
(p. 112)

The evaluation is recorded in the employee's

personnel record. (p. 112)

How to set employee performance standards

See standard 4.2 above

149

Current personnel policies and practices
shall be established, maintained, and readily

available in written form. (p. 43)

DVR: Vitas for all professional staff members and job

descriptions are required. (p. 3)

Joint Commissions:

7.2.3

7.2.12.1

7.4.2.2

7.4.3

7.4.3.1

The governing body establishes a job description
for the position Of chief executive Officer,
including apprOpriate qualifications Of edu-
cation experience, personal factors, and skills.
(p. 107)

Regardless of the means by which the agency
makes professional services available to its
clients, there is evidence that members of
professional disciplines work together in
cooperative, coordinated, interdisciplinary
fashion to achieve the Objectives Of the

agency. (p. 110)

There are written job descriptions for all
positions. (p. 111)

The agency develops with each consultant, pro—
fessional and paraprofessional staff member

a performance description of his assigned

.duties. The performance description includes,

but is not necessarily limited to: (p. 113)
The staff member's accountability for accom-

plishing mutually determined Objectives; (p. 113)

7.4.3.3

7.4.3.4

7.4.3.5

Concern:

150

The development Of outcome measures to
evaluate the staff member's performance;

(p. 113)

Specified performance evaluation techniques;
(p. 113)

A signed performance description agreement
between the agency and the staff member.

(p. 113)

How to conduct effective on-the-job training

CARF: 4.4.1 Each facility shall conduct an in-service

training program for all staff. (p. 44)

4.4.2 Staff shall have ready access to profes-

sional material relevant to the service and

to rehabilitation in general. (p. 44)

DVR: Facilities shall have an in-service training plan.

(p. 3)

Joint Commissions:

7.2.10

7.4.2.10.7

The agency has a written plan for improving

the quality of staff and services that reflects
the staff's programmatic responsibilities in
establishing and maintaining standards for
services to clients. (p. 109)

The plan shall include opportunities for con-
tinuing educational experiences, including

educational leave. (p. 113)

7.4.6.1

7.4.6.2

7.4.6.3

7.4.6.4

7.4.6.5

7.4.6.6

7.4.6.7
7.4.6.8

7.4.7

151

A staff development program is provided that
includes:

Orientation for all new employees to acquaint
them with the philosophy, organization, pro-
gram, practices and goals of the agency;
Induction training for each new employee, so
that his skills in working with the clients
are increased;

In-service training for employees who have not
achieved the desired level of competence and
Opportunities for continuous in-service train-
ing tO update and improve the skills and com-
petencies Of all staff;

Supervisory and management training for all
employees in, or candidates for, supervisory
positions;

Training programs designed to facilitate an
increase in personal effectiveness, as well
as lateral or upward movement;

Emphasis on interdisciplinary training pro-
grams;

Studies to assess the needs Of staff;
Participation of appropriate staff in staff
development programs;

Provisions are made for all staff members to

improve their competencies, through means as:

152

7.4.7.1 Attending staff meetings;
7.4.7.2 Attending seminars, conferences, workshops

and institutes. (p. 114)

Concern: How to prepare employees for greater responsi—
bility

CARF: 4.4 The facility shall encourage and support pro-
fessional growth and development related to
the attainment Of facility goals and Objec-
tives through:

4.4.1 In-service training programs

4.4.2 Ready access to professional reference
material relevant to the service and rehabili-

tation in general

4.4.3 Provision Of opportunities for professional
education
4.4.4 Provision for Opportunities for research

DVR: Facilities shall have an in-service training plan.
Facilities shall have written personnel policies.
(p. 3)
Joint Commissions:
7.2.2.1.2 The agency provides orientation and training
for new members. (p. 107)
7.4.2.10.1 A merit system or its equivalent is regular

policy. (p. 112)

153

7.4.6.5 through 7.4.6.8 (see previous section)

7.4.7 through 7.4.7.2 (see previous section)

Concern: How to improve communication with employees
CARF: 4.4.1 The conduct of regular staff meetings. (p. 44)
DVR: Regular meetings shall be held to discuss client
progress. Regular staff meetings shall be held.
(p. 5)
Joint Commission:
7.2.11.1 Staff meetings are held regularly. (p. 109)
7.2.11.4 Minutes and reports Of staff meetings and of
standing committees' and ad hoc committees'
meetings, including reports Of recommendations
and their implementation, are kept and tiled.
7.2.11.5 Summaries of the minutes and reports Of staff
and committee meetings are distributed to
participants and to appropriate staff members.

(p. 110)

Concern: ‘How to handle employee grievances

CARF: 4.3 Current personnel policies shall be estab-
lished, maintained and readily available in
written form.

4.3.1 Personnel policies shall be a matter of
Official record, and be made available to
all staff in employee handbook or other

suitable means. (p. 43)

154

4.3.2 Personnel policies shall cover the basic
relationships between the employer and
employees, the responsibilities and Obligations
of each, and the general working arrangements.

4.3.3 Personnel policies shall be reviewed regularly.
(p. 44)

DVR: Written grievance procedures are available. (p. 4)

Joint Commissions:

7.4.2.10.3 An effective grievance procedure is in force.

(p. 109)

Concern: How to determine staffing needs

CARF: CARP requires that a number of different staff pro-
fessionals be available either on a full- or part-
time staff basis or on a consultant-affiliation
basis. (4.5.1; 4.5.2; 4.5.3: pp. 44-45)

DVR: DVR requires that new staff members be added to
the facility for the facility to meet requirements
for higher levels Of accreditation. (pp. 8, 9,
10, ll, 12, 13)

Joint Commissions:

7.4.5 Staff is sufficient so that the agency is not

dependent upon the use of the clients or

volunteers for productive services. (p. 114)

APPENDIX C

COMPILATION OF ADMINISTRATORS' RESPONSES

TO STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

APPENDIX C

COMPILATION OF ADMINISTRATORS' RESPONSES

TO STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

CONCERN: HOW TO SET STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

1. Question: How do you set standards for employee

performance?

Answer Number Percent
a. Use job descriptions plus verbal

cues from supervisor 6 37.5
b. Use job descriptions only 2 12.5
c. Program sets the standards 2 12.5
d. Sets weekly Objectives 1 6.25
e. Sets yearly objectives 1 6.25
f. Uses evaluation form 1 6.25
9. Uses job description for first

year, then yearly evaluation to

set standards for the next year 1 6.25
h. Verbal cues from supervisor l 6.25
1. Does not set standards 1 6.25
2. Question: Who is involved in setting standards?
Answer Number Percent
a. Supervisor and employee 7 43.75
b. Supervisor only 4 25.0
c. Supervisor plus core of staff with

experience 2_ 12.5
d. Depends on employee 2 12.5
e. NO one sets standards 1 6.25

3. Question: Are standards specific as to qualifications,
supervisor, duties and positions supervised?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 10 62.5
b. No 5 31.25
c. Depends on individual supervisor l 6.25

155

156

4. Question: Are standards written?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 8 50.0
b. Job descriptions are, but verbal

cues are not 5 31.25
c. NO 3 18.75
5. Question: Is employee informed or party to setting

standards?

Answer Number Percent
a. Informed only 9 56.25
b. Absolutely both 5 31.25
c. Usually both, depending on super-

visor 2 12.5

6. Question: What problems do you have in setting
standards?

Answer Number Percent

a. Employees are young and inexper-
ienced; this makes setting

standards very difficult 4 25.0
b. Attitudinal standards are diffi-
cult to convey to new staff 4 25.0

c. Staff tend to resist setting Objec-

tives, either verbal or written 4 25.0
d. Standards of quality are hard to

objectify 4 25.0
e. Job descriptions tend to be vague 2 12.5
f. Supervisors find it hard to be

Objective and honest with employees 2 12.5
g. Setting specific standards tends to

kill creativity 1 6.25
h. NO problems in this area 1 6.25

157

CONCERN: HOW TO EVALUATE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE

7. Question: Are employees hired for a probationary

period?
Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, three months 8 50.0
b. Yes, six months 5 31.25
c. No 2 12.5
d. Yes, six or three months depending
on position 1 6.25

8. Question: When does the individual receive feedback
during the probationary period?

Answer Number Percent
a. Feedback only as problems arise 9 56.25
b. NO feedback 3 18.75
c. Periodic evaluations with pro-

bationary staff 2 12.5
d. Two-week reviews for the first

three months 1 6.25
e. Weekly meetings with probationary

staff 1 6.25

9. Question: Do you have provisions for extending the
probationary period if necessary?

Answer Number Percent

a. NO, if they have not worked out in
the probationary period, they are

released 11 68.75
b. Yes, if it appears they can learn
the job satisfactorily 5 31.25

10. Question: Are employees evaluated regularly?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, yearly 12 75.0
b. NO, only as necessary 2 12.5
c. Informal evaluation only 1 6.25

d. Yes, every six months 1 6.25

158

11. Question: Are the evaluations reviewed with the

employee?
Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, in a joint meeting with the
supervisor for discussion 10 62.5
b. Yes, employee signs it after
reading it 2 12.5
c. NO l 6.25

d. Note: Three facilities (in previous
question) do no formal evaluation.

12. Question: Are the evaluations placed in the
employee's personnel record?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 13 81.25
b. Yes, of informal evaluations only 2 12.5
c. NO, no evaluations are done 1 6.25

13. Question: What problems do you have in evaluating
employee performance?

Answer - Number Percent

a. Supervisors do not like to do it

and do it poorly 6 37.5
b. We have no problems with evaluations 5 31.25
c. Nothing happens when someone gets a

bad one 3 18.75
d. Evaluations are not Objective 2 12.5
e. No evaluations done 1 6.25

f. Supervisors are not always aware of

the consequences Of evaluations (pay

raises, probation, etc.) 1 6.25
9. Director does evaluations with input

from two key staff: this causes

resentment l 6.25
h. Supervisors tend to give uniform
evaluations l 6.25

14. Question: How are evaluations used?

Answer Number Percent
a. Only for feedback at time Of evalu—

ation 5 31.25
b. TO set goals for the future 4 25.0
c. Not used 3 18.75
d. For immediate feedback and salary

negotiations 2 12.5
e. For salary raises and setting goals 2 12.5

159

15. Question: What kind of a form is used for evaluation?

Answer Number Percent
a. Check-list form 4 25.0
b. Number rating system 3 18.75
c. NO evaluations 3 18.75
d. Number rating system with point totals 2 12.5
e. No form, written narrative 2 12.5
f. Behavioral form 1 6.25
9. Check list with narrative l 6.25

16. Question: Are you satisfied with the form you use?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 10 62.5
b. NO form, no evaluation 3 18.75
c. Yes, recently changed to it 2 12.5
d. NO 1 6.25

17. Question: Are you satisfied with the way the evalu-
ations are used?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 7 43.75

b. Would like to see evaluations tied

to both Objectives for the future

and to salary negotiations 6 37.5
c. NO evaluations 3 18.75

18. Question: Do you have job descriptions?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 16 100

19. Question: Are job descriptions reviewed?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 13 81.25

b. NO 3 18.75

20. Question: How often are they reviewed?
Answer Number
a. Yearly 7
b. As needed 5
c. Not Reviewed 3
d. Every six months 1
21. Question: Who does the review?
Answer Number
a. Supervisor and employee 6
b. No review 3
c. Supervisor or director 2
d. Staff write their own, with approval

from supervisor 2
e. Main Office does the review 2
f. A committee 1

160

Percent

43.75
31.25
18.75

6.25

Percent

37.5
18.75
12.5

12.5
12.5
6.25

161

CONCERN: HOW TO CONDUCT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING

22. Question: DO you train on the job?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, using our in-service training

program plan 13 81.25
b. Yes, but we have no planned prOgram 3 18.75

23. Question: Is there a theoretical base on which you
build your on-the-job or in-service
training?

Answer Number Percent

a. To familiarize the staff with the

total working of the center 8 50.0
b. Training usually reflects the

spoken needs of staff as they

express their needs 8 50.0
c. Training reflects needs of manage-

ment staff and their perceptions Of

staff who report to them 5 31.25
d. TO establish a feeling Of responsi-
bility and accountability l 6.25

24. Question: Who develops your on-the-job or in-service
training program?

Answer Number Percent
a. All staff have in-put 7 43.75

b. Individual staff are assigned pro-
grams according tO their areas of

expertise 2 12.5
c. Program staff only 2 12.5
d. Management staff only 2 12.5
e. One selected staff member 1 6.25
f. A committee of staff 1 6.25
g. The Research and Development staff 1 6.25

25. Question: Does the training reflect programmatic

standards?
Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 13 81.25
b. No 1 6.25

c. There are separate training programs
for management and nonmanagement
staff members 2 12.5

162

26. Question: Does your training program provide oppor-
tunities for educational leave?

Answer Number Percent
a. NO 6 37.5
b. Yes, to take courses during working

hours at local colleges 4 25.0

c. Yes, to take courses during working

hours at local colleges and for

short (less than a month) training

courses 4 25.0
d. Yes, for short (less than a month)

training courses away from the

center 2 12.5

27. Question: DO you provide financial support for edu—
cation leave?

Answer Number Percent
a. No 6 37.5

b. Yes, four hours Off per week with
pay to take courses at local col-

leges 3 18.75
c. Yes, pay 100% of tuition and
expenses 2 12.5

d. Yes, 50% of cost reimbursed, plus
time Off with pay
e. Yes, 25% Of cost reimbursed, plus
time Off with pay 1
f. Yes, paid leave time to attend
classes 1 6.25
l

N

12.5
6.25

9. Yes, staff can take compensatory

time to attend classes 6.25

28. Question: DO you provide programs for employees who
are not producing at desired standards?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 10 62.5
b. Only in certain areas and when all

staff can benefit 4 25.0
c. NO, the union allows employees to

Object to this 1 6.25

d. NO, we have no one who needs it 1 6.25

163

29. Question: DO you train for lateral or upward movement?
Answer Number Percent

a. Not really, only if employee takes

advantage Of the program that way 6 37.5
b. NO 4 25.0
c. Yes 3 18.75
d. Yes, but only when interest and

qualifications are present 2 12.5
e. Yes, but only at the management

level 1 6.25

30. Question: DO you assess the training needs Of staff
as a part of your training program?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 13 81.25
b. No 2 12.5
c. Yes, but only for management staff 1 6.25

31. Question: DO you have regular meeting times for the
training program?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, monthly meetings 6 37.5
b. NO, meet only as the need arises 3 18.75
c. Yes, both monthly and quarterly l 6.25
d. Yes, weekly for specified period of

time for some staff 1 6.25
e. Yes, weekly l 6.25
f. Yes, monthly, and we close down for

one week every year 1 6.25
9. Yes, monthly or weekly as department

head determines l 6.25
h. Yes, every two weeks and once

quarterly 1 6.25
1. Yes, every two weeks 1 6.25

32. Question: DO you provide for attendance at confer-
ences in your training program?

Answer Number Percent

a. Yes 16 100

164

Percent

56.25
31.25
12.5

Percent

62.5

25.0

18.75
6.25
6.25

6.25

33. Question: DO you reimburse staff for attendance at
conferences and workshops?
Answer Number
a. Yes, at 50-75% Of expenses 9
b. Yes, at 75-85% of expenses 5
c. Yes, at 85-100% of expenses 2
34. Question: What problems do you find in your on-the-
job or in-service training program?
Answer Number
a. Lack of financial support for
program 10
b. Staff do not take training seriously 4
c. NO problems 3
d. Financial support will be a problem
in the future 1
e. Staff give programs that tend to be
dull and boring I
f. Union tends to discourage in-service
training programs 1
9. There are problems in identifying
areas for training 1

6.25

165

CONCERN: HOW TO PREPARE EMPLOYEES FOR GREATER RESPONSI-
BILITY

35. Question: DO you have a specific plan for preparing
employees for greater responsibility?

Answer Number Percent
a. NO 13 81.25
b. NO, and I do not want one! 1 6.25
c. Yes, this is one of the purposes of

our in-service training program: 1 6.25

d. Yes, by regularly delegating addi-
tional responsibility to staff as
they demonstrate capability l 6.25

36. Question: DO staff have access to professional
reference material?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes .13 81.25
b. Yes, but not enough 2 12.5
c. Yes, in their area only 1 6.25
37. Question: Does the staff have an opportunity for
research?

Answer Number Percent
a. Not really. It would have to be

conducted on their own time. 13 81.25
b. Research is done in our central

Office 2 12.5
c. Yes 1 6.25
38. Question: DO you train staff for new or newly vacant

positions?

Answer Number Percent
a. Only if the Opportunity arises 6 37.5
b. Only if the staff have all qualif-

ications for position 6 37.5
c. When we have to l 6.25
d. NO, union discourages this 1 6.25
e. Yes, we do lots of cross-training l 6.25
f. Yes 1 6.25

166

39. Question: If given the choice, would you rather hire
from within your organization or go outside
it?

Answer ‘ Number Percent
a. Yes, but we do not always have

qualified people, and do not
expand fast enough to keep the

over-qualified staff we do have 7 43.75
b. Yes, promoting from within is
essential for good staff morale 3 18.75

c. Yes, we are always looking for

enterprising staff and give more

responsibility as soon as they

can handle it 3 18.75
d. Yes, we like to hire at the work

supervisor level and promote from

there 2 12.5
' e. Yes, jobs must be advertised within
the facility for seven days before
going outside the facility 1 6.25

40. Question: What problems do you have in preparing
employees for greater responsibility?

Answer Number Percent
a. Staff who are interested are not

always qualified 16 100
b. Many staff are not interested in

upward mobility 12 75.0

c. There is inadequate support
(financial) for training programs
d. Union tends to exert pressure to
stay in union position 1 6.25
e. WOuld like to hire from within, '
but want to avoid the ”vulture”
syndrome 1 6.25

uh

25.0

167
CONCERN: HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF MEMBERS

41. Question: Are staff relationships formal or informal?

Answer Number Percent
a. Informal 9 56.25
b. Formal 3 18.75
c. Informal, but through channels 2 12.5
d. Formal, imposed by union 1 6.25
e. Informal with key staff, others

must go through channels 1 6.25

42. Question: How does information get filtered from one
staff member to another?

Answer Number Percent
a. Through supervisory staff 7 43.75
b. Directly from Director to all staff 4 25.0
c. Through informal leaders 3 18.75
d. Through Ass't. Director 1 6.25
e. Lots of times it does not 1 6.25
43. Question: DO you hold regular staff meetings?
Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, with all staff, weekly 10 62.5
b. NO 3 18.75
c. Yes, with department heads only,

weekly 2 12.5
d. Yes, with rehabilitation staff only,

weekly 1 6.25

44. Question: How do you try to establish good communi-
cations with staff members?

Answer Number Percent
a. I try to keep an Open door 9 56.25
b. I make a point to tell people

things when I see them 3 18.75
c. I make a point of getting out

onto the floor regularly 2 12.5

d. I try to meet regularly with all
staff 2 12.5

168

45. Question: DO you have problems with communication?
Answer ' Number Percent

a. Staff are uncomfortable talking in

meetings 6 37.5
b. I have problems making staff members

understand priorities and why things

happen the way they do 6 37.5
c. NO problems in this area 3 18.75
d. An informal group of people tend to

run things 3 18.75

e. Carpeted and air-conditioned Offices

tend to create barriers 3 18.75
f. The Director is often inaccessible

because of many commitments 3 18.75
9. People do not know what is going on

even when there are meetings 1 6.25
h. The grapevine works almost too well 1 6.25
i. Relationships are too formal l 6.25
j. Employees are suSpicious of manage-

ment 1 6.25

169

CONCERN: HOW TO HANDLE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCES

46. Question: DO you have a grievance procedure?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 14 87.5
b. Yes, for union employees, not for

management 1 6.25
c. NO, but we'll have one soon 1 6.25

47. Question: Is the procedure reviewed?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes, by a board committee as

necessary 7 43.75
b. NO 5 31.25
c. Yes, by union and management yearly l 6.25
d. Yes, all staff have input yearly l 6.25
e. Yes, by board and Director 1 6.25
48. Question: DO you have problems with grievance

procedures?

Answer Number Percent
a. Employees circumvent procedures 7 43.75
b. Employees do not read procedures 6 37.5
c. Employees are not sure the procedure

is fair 1 6.25
d. There are no grievance procedures

for management 1 6.25
e. No problems 1 6.25

170

CONCERN: HOW TO DETERMINE STAFFING NEEDS

49. Question: Do you have a long—range staffing plan?

Answer Number Percent
a. Yes 8 50.0
b. Plan does not include staffing needs 3 18.75
c. Not really, staffing additions depend

on grant and money availability 2 12.5
d. Yes, the plan is currently being

written 1 6.25
e. NO 1 6.25
f. NO, planning is geared to improvement

of existing programs, not to expansion 1 6.25

50. Question: Is the staff involved in establishing the

plan?
Answer Number Percent
a. NO 9 56.25
b. Some 3 18.75
c. Only at management level 3 18.75
d. Yes 1 6.25

51. Question: What is your planning based on?

Answer Number Percent
a. Funding availability only 11 68.75
b. Funding and client needs 2 12.5
c. Needs Of present clients 1 6.25
d. Funding availability, client needs,

and program needs 1 6.25
e. NO plan 1 6.25

52. Question: What problems do you have in planning for
staffing needs?

Answer Number Percent
a. We have no needs assessment 10 62.5
b. Uncertainty of funds 10 62.5
c. We have problems, but we always plan

and attempt to get what we need 1 6.25

d. We try to plan, but cannot always

stick to it because of funding 1 6.25
e. Lack Of funding is biggest problem 1 6.25
f. Refuse to plan because you never know
1

what your resources will be 6.25

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexis, Marcus, and Wilson, Charles Z. Organizational
Decision Making. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
19612

 

 

Alkin, Marvin C. "Evaluation and Decision Making."
Planning and Changing, Winter, 1973, pp. 3-14.

 

Allan, W. Scott. Rehabilitationzij Community Challenge.
New York: JOHn Wiley and Sons, 1958.

 

 

Argyris, Chris. Integratin the Individual and the
Or anization. New YorK: John Wiley and Sons,
I964?

 

. Interpersonal Competenceand Ogganizational
Effectiveness. Homewood, 111.: Irwin-Dorsey
Press, 1962.

 

 

Austin, Charles F. Mana ement and Self-Inflicted Wounds.
New York: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Bavelas, A. "Acceptance Of Change Through Participation
in Group Decisions." Human Relations, June, 1947,
pp. 173-80.

 

Benton, Lewis R. Su ervision and Management. New York:
McGraw-Hil , Inc., 1972.

 

Bittel, Lester. What Every Supervisor Should Know. New
York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1974.

Black, James M. The Basics Of Su ervisory Management.
New York: McGraw-HilI, Inc., 1975.

Blake, Robert R., and Mouton, Jane S. The Management
Grid. Houston: Gulf, 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

Bruning, J. L., and King, B. L. Com utationainandbOOk of
gtatistics. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman aid
Co., I968.

 

171

172

Buck, R. D. ”Personnel Problems in Rehabilitation Centers."
In Seiectionl Training and Utilization of Suppor-
tive Personnel in Rehabilipation Faci1ities, pp. 1-
31. Hot Sprifigs, Afk.: RehabilitaEiOn Research
and Training Center, 1966.

 

 

 

Byrt, W. J. People and Organizations. Sydney, Australia:

Commission on Accreditation Of Rehabilitation Facilities.
Standards Manual for Rehabilitation Facilities.
C icagO: 1973.

Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabili-
tation. Epidelines for WorkingRelationshi 3
Between VR Agencies and Rehabilitation FaciIities.
Wa§hington, D.C.: fiflay, 1973.

 

 

Cull, John G., and Hardy, Richard E. Administrative Tech-
ni ues of Rehabilitation Facilit O erations.
SpringfieId, 111.: Charles C. THomas, PEBIishers,

1974.

 

 

, and . Vocational Rehabilitation: Pro-
fession an§_Process. SpringfieId, 111.: CHarIes
C. Thomas, Pu51i§her, 1972.

 

Dailey, Charles A., and Dyer, Frederick C. How TO Make
Decisions About People. New York: Pafker Pub:

IisHing Co., 1966.

 

 

Davis, Keith. Human Behavior at Work: Human Relations
and Or anizational Behdvior. New York: McGraw-
H , Inc., 1972.

 

 

Dean, Russell. New Life for Millions. New York: Hasting
House, Publishers, .

 

DeJager, Harvey C. ”Rehabilitation Personnel Training in
Facilities: The Future." In TheROle of Facili-
ties in Training_Rehabilitation Personnel, pp. 183-
96. Edited by James E. TreIa. CIeveIand, Ohio:
Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services,
1973.

 

 

Delivering Rehabilitation Services Report. National Citi-
zens Conference Of—Rehabilitation Of Disabled and
Disadvantaged. Washington, D.C.: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and
Rehabilitation Services, 1968.

 

 

 

173

Dyer, Frederick C., and Dyer, John M. The_Enjoyment Of
Management. Homewood, 111.: Dow Jones-Irwin, Inc.,

 

Eastcott, L. R. ”Constraints Upon Administrative
Behavior." Canadian Administrator, May, 1974,
pp. 41-44.

Evans, J. J. A Pro ram for Personnel Administration.
New York: HcGraw-HiII, Inc., 1945.

Falater, Frederick L. ”The Study Of Organizational
Environment." Personnel Journal 49 (1970): 200-05.

 

 

 

Goertzel, Victor. "Evaluation of Rehabilitation Programs.”
In Rehabilitation in Commupity Mental Health,
pp. 165-76. Edited by H. Richard Lamb and
Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.,
Publishers, 1971.

 

Henderson, William H. ”Standards for Rehabilitation
Facilities and Workshops." 1n Administrative
Techni ues of Rehabilitation FaciIit O eratiOns,
pp. 96-112. Edited by—dOhn G. CuII and RicHard
E. Hardy. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas,
Publishers, 1974.

 

 

Hepner, Harry W., and Pettingill, Frederick B. Perce tive
Management and Supervision. New Jersey: Prentice-
a , Inc., .

Herzberg,'Frederick. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleve-
land: World PuBlishing Co., 1966.

 

 

Jucius, Michael J. Personnel Management. Homewood, 111.:

Richard Irwin, Inc., 1971}

Katz, D.; Maccoby, N.; and Morse, N. Productivity! Super-
vision and Morale in an Office Situation. Uni-
ver§ity Of Michigan: Institutengrf§Ocial
Research, 1950.

 

 

 

Kimberly, John R. "Environmental Constraints and Organi-
zational Structure: A Comparative Analysis Of
Rehabilitation Organizations.“ Administrative
Science Qparteriy, March, 1975, pp. 1-9.

 

. The Financial Structure_of Sheltered Workshops.
Region 11 Rehabilitation Research Institute Report
Series, N. 3, 1968.

174

Lamb, H. Richard, and Associates. Rehabilitation in Com-
munity Mental Health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., Pub1ishers, 1971.

 

Lassiter, Robert A. “History Of the Rehabilitation Move-
ment in America.” In Vocational Rehabilitatigp:
Profession and Process, pp. 5- 58T7 Edited by John
G. Cull and Ridhard E. Hardy. Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1972.

Levinson, Harry. The Great Jackass Fallacy. Boston:
Harvard University Press, 1973.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York:
McGraw-HiII, Inc., 1961.

Marcus, Sander J., and Mundel, Harvey P. ”The Wishy-Washy
Syndrome and the Prima Donna Complex: Implications
for Graduate Training.” The Ontario Psychologist
8 (1976): 50-54.

McCordic, W. J. ”Who's Making the Decisions and How?*
Education Canada, December, 1974, pp. 42-51.

McFarland, Dalton E. Personnel Management: Theory and
Practice. New York: MacMiI1an Co., 1968.

McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Entepprise. New
York: McGraw-HiII,1nc., 1960.

Miljus, Robert C. ”Effective Leadership and Motivation
of Human Resources." Personnel Journal 49 (1970):
36-40 0

Mott, Basil, J. F. Financing and Operating Rehabilitation
Centers and Faci1ities. ChiOago: NationaI
Society for CrippIed Children and Adults, Inc.,
1960.

Olmstead, Joseph A. "Organizational Factors in the Per-
formance of Social welfare and Rehabilitation
WOrkers." In WOrkin Pa ers NO. 1. Washington,
D.C.: NationaI Study of SociaI Welfare and
Rehabilitation Workers, Work and Organizational
Contexts, Department of Health, Education, and

welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, May,
1971, pp. 89-130.

Olshansky, Simon. ”The Transitional Sheltered Workshop:
A Survey." Journal of Social Issues (March 1960):
203-13.

175

Ordiorne, George S. Personnel Administration byObjec-
tives. Homewood, I11.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,

Pacinelli, Ralph N. “Staff Development in Rehabilitation
Faci1ities." In Administrative Techniques of
RehabilitationFacilit O erations, pp. 55-87.
Edited By John G. CuII ang Richard E. Hardy.
Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers,
1974.

 

Patchen, M. "Participation in Decision Making and Moti-
vation.” Personnel Administration, November-

Patrick, John F. "Organizational Climate and the Creative
Individual.” Public Personnel Review 31 (1970):
31-35.

Redke, Henry. "Facilities as a Training Ground for Per-
sonnel." The Role of Facilities in Training
Rehabilitation Personnel. Edited by James E.
TreIa. Cieveland: Vocational Guidance and
Rehabilitation Services, 1973.

Rehabilitation Services Administration, Region V.
”Management Needs Survey,” Minneapolis, 1975.
(Mimeographed.)

Rubenowitz, S. "Job Oriented and Person Oriented Leader-
ship.” Personnel Psychology 15 (1962): 76-84.

Salkind, Isadore. "Economic Problems of Workshops." In
Rehabilitation in Communit Mental Health, pp. 71-
91} Edited—by H. R char Lamb and Associates.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.

 

. "The Rehabilitation Workshop." In Rehabili-
tation in Communit Mental Health, pp. 50-70.
Editedfiby H. Ric ar Lamb and’Associates. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1971.

 

. ”The Training of Workshops Directors.” In
Administrative Techniques of Rehabilitation

r

Facilit O erations, pp. 444§31 Edited—by John G.
CuII ang Richard E. Hardy. Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas, Publishers, 1974.

176

Salmon, P. J. "Historical Development of the Special
WorkshoP: Its Present Employment and Placement
Practices." In Workshops for the Disabled,
pp. 66-97. Washington, D. rC.: Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Rehabilitation
Services Series No. 371, 1959.

 

Sanders, Bert C. "Personnel Administration in Rehabili-
tation Facilities." In Administrative Techniques
of Rehabilitation Facility Operations, pp. 15-43.
Edited by thn G. Cull and Richard E. Hardy.
Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers,
1974.

 

 

Sikula, Andrew F. Personnel Administration and Human.
Resources. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

 

Smits, Stanley J. "University-Facility Cooperation in
Preparation of Rehabilitation Personnel: A
Reaction and Extension." In The Role of Facili-
ties in Trainin Rehabilitation Personnel, pp. 167-
32. Editedby James E. TreIa. CIeveIand:
Vocational Guidance and Rehabilitation Services,
1973.

 

 

Standards for Community Agencies Serving Persons with
Mental Retardation and Other Developmentalj Disa-
bilities. Accreditation; Council for1 Facil1ties
for the Mentally Retarded. Washington, D. C.:
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals,
1973.

 

 

Standards for Rehabilitation Facilities and Sheltered
Workshops. WaShington, D.C.: Department of—
Hea t , Education, and Welfare, Social and
Rehabilitation Services, Rehabilitation Services
Administration, Revised, 1971.

 

 

State of AIllinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
ACriteria for the Classification of Programs and
Se ervices in RehabilitationL Facilities. Spring-
field, 111., Revised} 1974.

 

Sussman, Marvin B. Sociology and Rehabilitation. New
York: American Sociological Association, 1965.

Trela, James E. The Role of Facilities in Training
RehabilitationPersonnel. Eleveland: Vocational
Guidance and'RéhaBilitation Services, 1973.

 

 

177

Wesson, Albert F. "The Apparatus of Rehabilitation: An
Organizational Analysis." In Sociology and
Rehabilitation, pp. 148-78. Edited by Marvin B.
Sussman. New York: American Sociological Associ-
ation, 1965.

 

 

Whittington, H. G. "People Make Programs: Personnel
Management." In Administration of Mental Health
Services, pp. 56-55. Edited by Saul Feldman.
Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers,
1973.

 

Whitehead, Claude. "Administration of a Sheltered Work-
shop." In Administrative Techniques of Rehabili-

tation Facilit O erations, pp. 3-14. ifidited by
JOKE G. CuII and Richard E. Hardy. Springfield,

111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers, 1974.

 

"’iiiiiflilifliwill“