TNE {SNTTNGENCY THEGRY. OF {EVANS MT "sN:S AN ENANTNNTTGN 0F THE NELNTTONSNTPS 0? CL MATE AND EN €36an WTTH i ERFGRMNNCE INNS? SATESFACTTON EN N STABLE ENWNGN; TENT ' Thesis for NE Begree 8% P11 D MTCHIGAN STNT F. UNWERSITY -;»-."r a; _(1 (-~ -r.--:va-.— ' r "3.1 ‘ . LV;£.T._J V.- L:V;-.; .1974. 65 T f .5" a - . " Uri/11’ . “1': i ‘Y i .’.“”'£»’3-’1 Stat} . a“- ~ ‘ ‘ . _ T‘ if! f, (L . ) (a... a w This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Confingency Theory of OrganizaTions: An Examination of The ReIaTionships of Climafe and Personalify Wifh Performance and Safisfacfion in a STable Environmenf presented by Ronald G. Storey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in ManagememL _p/’ f o I I //’ ”'TT" 1 me We / My professor Date ll/ll/74 3w T‘ ‘ ....~_.......:( (2 DEC 04 1999 $vov- H. L on- ‘ ‘v— (in- TLE Os‘ (1 :H-L.‘ ‘h“ib. 5‘ 33:; E “Nance are A hi: hi. aCCESSAV Q: \- conglc‘or V N‘stl‘" I": x 5* Data I‘. “is ABSTRACT THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF CLIMATE AND PERSONALITY WITH PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION IN A STABLE ENVIRONMENT by Ronald G. Storey The objectives of this research were to (1) provide additional empirical evidence of the relationship between climate and firm performance for firms operating in a rela- tively stable environment, and (2) to explore an extension of contingency theory which includes the personality dimension of organizational members along with environment and climate in explaining organizational performance and individual per- formance and satisfaction. A high and a low performing firm in the automobile parts and accessories industry were chosen for study. This industry was considered to be operating in a relatively stable environ- ment in View of the stability of earnings for firms in the industry relative to those in other industries. Data was collected by a mailed questionnaire from 130 managers in production, research and marketing roles. The r .n-‘n !: O R‘Ar‘ Luge: .3»,va . :12. News 0: Q I u v I‘ - Q ‘0. ‘FH"“H‘V: . Inn- and." ‘UJ-A- 252:;3; to be :- Q t I “ wan». ,.,: 1......‘gu‘ .1 a“ .A'R ' ~~ ue sw~~< c.-. ‘un d “-\,c Ronald G. Storey : analyzed by analyses of variance using three ran— factorial designs with two levels of firm performance, :vels of role, and two levels of climate, personality, .vidual performance. 'he findings indicate that the climate dimensions studied >etween the high and low performing firms with the former to be more free of stress, having less Organizational .ty and more Relationship Orientation. 'he findings suggest that there are certain personality :ristics which lend themselves to higher levels of indi- performance in some situations. This indicates new pro- ' trait approaches if situational characteristics are 'ed simultaneously. 'he apprOpriateness of a firm's reward system was found .gnificantly related to firm performance. The firm whose 'ewarded high performers more than low performers had firm performance than that which rewarded low performers .n high performers. Lesearch personnel were found to be less satisfied than L production and marketing and this could have undesir- .sequences for the firms' future ability to adapt to ' environmental situations. Satisfaction was found to .er in stressfree climates and among managers with cer- 'sonality characteristics. 'he study indicates that the extension of contingency .0 include personality could be a potentially useful one '- Ear ‘ ‘ f ‘ :v-a on; "‘Y"‘:_ unu- until OJ. vnl~ .: opp “:‘Hre < it vnv i‘ubd. o-vv~ b “‘1 I .ml S.&..-.-l Ronald G. Storey and that further research is needed to provide more evidence of the nature of the relationship between climate and environ— mental stability for firm performance. Tc? m .E.& a . H :L UoUanu. w “W IYV ‘h \.‘ '4. :1 'U n) THE CONTINGENCY THEORY OF ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF CLIMATE AND PERSONALITY WITH PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION IN A STABLE ENVIRONMENT BY 3" (A‘- \-\ Ronald G. Storey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1974 COpyright BY Ronald G. Storey 1974 e au‘. n to H T mm TU. P. h. .2 C An sfiu v C n“ o I . a “In .‘ a 7 4 V. e u Em 0 +5 .Yu nu. rs a) 3.. III. D; at o . .n a v . v . A—v Ah. 9" .\ 6 D U uim - Q w.. n. 4.. .. a .mal ‘ ACKN OWLE DGEMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the firms and managers participating in this study, without whose interest and c00peration this research could not have been undertaken. It is hoped that they will find the results of this inquiry not only interesting but useful. My committee members, especially Chairman Henry L. Tosi, provided continued assistance and guidance in this re— search project, for which special thanks are extended. Finally, the very meaningful contributions of enthu- siasm and understanding as well as the attendant sacrifices nmde by my wife, Wayne, and our children, Kim, Margo and Craig, during the years of work culminating in this disser- tation are greatly appreciated. A . v9\fl A? Flt. ..~A y. l h' .15;:er V‘s‘~?‘f" Ho ' N ‘Jo..vy\ D' or. H. H H (/7 r4 (7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix P FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv , PRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Irpose of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1e Mix Model: A General Overview . . . . . . 4 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Perceived Structure . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Managerial Style . . . . . . . . . 19 Role Conflict and Ambiguity . . . . . . . 20 Summary of Organizational Climate Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . 30 Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Interpersonal Orientation . . . . . . . . 31 Tolerance for Role Conflict . . . . . . 32 Tolerance for Role Ambiguity . . . . . . 32 Need for Independence . . . . . . . . . . 32 Need for Achievement . . . . . . . . . . 32 Summary of Personality Dimensions . . . . 37 Organizational Performance. . . . . . . . . 38 Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . 38 Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Relationships Between Environment, Cli- mate, Personality, Performance, and Satis- faction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Relationships Between Environment, Climate, Personality and Performance. . 40 The Relationships Between Environment, Climate, Personality, and Satisfaction. 41 asearch Objectives and Hypotheses. . . . . . 43 lapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 iv QC LL CC CC CC V A ax ‘ I. I p . P... A» 2. C «1 .nu .. . I: at CC «I C. rt. :. . I C I E E E I c 6 no. E G t I T c. .3 C C r 14 I S I. I s t . A. 5....u1. "9...; V1. t h. hca PL tilnr‘snrpl SIIAT.mI\-nvuI ms“ an E E I. .~ 2.1. e A... WM 7; Cu Co Co Mm T. C P S . Q» 3" Chapter II. ME THODOLOGY O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of Industry, Firms and Subjects Measuring Industrial Environment and Company Performance . . . . . . . Measuring Industry Stability- Volatility Industrial Environment for Selected Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . Measuring Company Performance . . . . . Selection of Research Designs . . . . . . Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . Design 3: Role x Climate x Personality Statistical Techniques for Data Analyses III. SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND RELIABILITY . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived Structure . . . . . . . . . . Managerial Style . . . . . . . . . . . Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . Role Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . Interrelationship of Climate Dimensions Climate Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary on Climate Scale . . . . . . . Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal Orientation . . . . . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . Tolerance for Role Conflict . . . . . Tolerance for Role Ambiguity . . . . . Need for Independence . . . . . . . . . Need for Achievement . . . . . . . . . Interrelationship of Personality Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Personality Scales . . . . . Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Job . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Firm . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Career Opportunities and Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 45 45 45 46 47 48 50 54 54 55 56 59 59 6O 60 62 63 64 66 68 69 69 70 72 72 72 73 74 74 75 75 76 ‘3' g, .‘I : \Yfiv\.'fi GII~nOer ‘ pun»- . L)» (H {u (1) tn ff) (I) (f) fl") (I) (n (u {U {1' 11) C' Chap: M'u i A g Rel Desi S'JITL‘T: ar Cli r) F4 F1. Chapter IV. FI Satisfaction with Pay . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Superior. . . . . . Satisfaction with Co-workers. . . . . Satisfaction of Need for Security . . Satisfaction of Need for Affiliation. Satisfaction of Need for Autonomy . . Satisfaction of Need for Esteem . . . Satisfaction of Need for Self- Actualization . . . . . . . . . . Interrelationship of Satisfaction Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Satisfaction Scales. . . . Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . NDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings Related to Research Question One Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance on Climate . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Composite Climate. . . . . . . . . . Role Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . Role Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Clarity . . . . . . . . Organizational Conformity. . . . . . . Task Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Orientation . . . . . . . Design 3: Role x Climate x Personality on Individual Performance. . . . . Summary of Findings Related to Research Question One . . . . . . . . . . Climate Stress and Firm Performance. . Climate Stress and Individual Per- formance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Stress and Role. . . . . . . . Findings Related to Research Question Two Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance on Personality . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Orientation (LPC) . . . . Authoritarianism (Auth-F). . . . . . . Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC). . . Need for.Achievement (N-Ach) . . . . . Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance on Personality . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Orientation (LPC) . . . . vi Page 76 76 76 77 78 78 78 79 79 80 80 117 117 118 ukzppa' with out T 5:33: m' ‘F A... . ‘_ v1““"~: “Nu.onu. Desizr r) (? (f) (U 1" (I) ([1 (I) wwfl’ A (:1 (I) m (n (n (1’ £11 "J ’4- Chapter Page Authoritarianism (Auth-F) . . . . . . . . 120 Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) . . . . 122 Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA) . . . 123 Need for Achievement (N-Ach). . . . . . . 125 Summary of Findings on Research Question Two. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . 127 Findings Related to Research Question Three . 131 Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Per- formance on Satisfaction . . . . . . . . 131 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 1 Composite Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 134 Satisfaction with Firm . . . . . . . . . 134 Satisfaction with Career . . . . . . . . 138 Satisfaction with Pay . . . . . . . . . . 139 Satisfaction with Competence of Superior. 140 Satisfaction with Self-Actualization. . . 143 Satisfaction with Security. . . . . . . . 145 Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance on Satisfaction. . . . . . . 146 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Design 3: Role x Climate x Personality on - Satisfaction .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 The Relationship Between Personality and Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 The Interaction of Role and Personality on Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . 157 The Interaction of Climate and Person- ality on Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . 159 The Interaction of Role, Climate and' Personality on Satisfaction. . . . . . . 157 Summary of Findings Related to Research Question Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Objective One: Research Question One (Relevance of Climate to Performance). . 132 The Relationship Between Climate and Firm Performance . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Relationship Between Climate and Role 187 The Relationship Between Climate and Individual Performance . . . . . . . . . 190 vii rhnfir+(7_ *—3 :J‘ (D D) e; ,1 (D D! -398 SETH, M‘JiCES o \esearp H. V vari beans a :55 q VF P3,???" t ‘4']. Chapter . ' Page Summary of Findings and Conclusions Related to Research Objective One . . 191 Objective Two: Research Question Two (Relevance of Personality to Per- formance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 The Relationship Between Personality and Firm Performance . . . . . - . . 192 The Relationship Between Personality and Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 The Relationship Between Personality and Individual Performance . . . . . 198 The Relationship Between Personality and Perceived Climate Stress. . . . . 202 The Relationship Between Personality, Climate, and Individual Performance . 203 Objective Two: Research Question Three (Relevance of Performance, Role, Climate and Personality to Satis- faction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 The Relationship Between Satisfaction ‘ and Firm Performance . . . . . . . . 205 The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Individual Performance. . . . . . 210 The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Perceived Climate Stress. . . . . 212 The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Personaltiy . . . . . . . . . . 213 The Interaction of Personality and Perceived Climate Stress on Satis- faction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 General Conclusions, Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research. . . . . 219 Research Question One. . a . . . . . . . . 219 Research Question Two. . . . . . . . . . . 220 Research Question Three . . . . . . . . . 222 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . 225 APPENDICES I. Research Questionnaire, Scoring Key and Variable List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 II. Means and Standard Deviations of Variables. 241 LIST OF REFERENCES 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o O 243 viii . C . e 1i Cu Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES A Priori Relationships Between Climate Dimensions and Organizational Task Accomplishment and Perceived Stress . . . Selected Industries in Decreasing Order of Volatility of Earnings, Average Return on Investment, and Number of Firms in Industry Sample, 1960 - 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significance of Difference in EBIDT Volatility Between Selected In- dustries Using a One-Tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two-Sample Test. . . . Numbers of Questionnaires Distributed and Returned by Firm, Function and Performance Level . . . . . . . . . . . . A Priori and Empirical Inter-Scale Correlations of the Climate Subscales . . Summary of A Priori and Empirical Relationships Between Selected Climate Dimensions and Number of Items and Reliabilities of Revised Subscales. . . . Inter—Scale Correlations of the Personality Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . Inter-Scale Correlation Matrix for Items in Composite Measure of Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance of Climate in Design One. . . . . . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Composite Climate Score . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means Climate in Design One . . . . . . . . . . ix of Page 27 49 51 53 65 68 73 81 86 87 88 I.’_‘ 1 chube B. DeSi: Tuke. (4'31. DESi A ‘v Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Role Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Role Conflict in Design One. . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Organizational Conformity . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Organizational Conformity in Design one 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O I I O O 0 Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Task Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Task Orientation in Design One . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Relationship Orientation. . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Relationship Orientation of Immediate Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance of Personality Dimensions in Design One. . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Relationship Orientation (LPC). . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Relationship Orientation (LPC) . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Authoritarianism (Auth-F) . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Authoritarianism (Auth-F) in Design one 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) . . . . Page 90 91 95 95 99 99 102 102 109 110 111 112 113 113 e I O U u 91.- Table Page 26. ,Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) in Design One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 27. Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Need for Achievement (N-Ach). . . . . . 115 28. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Need for Achievement (N-Ach) . . . . . . 116 29. Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance of Personality Dimensions in Design Two . . . 118 30. Design Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Relationship Orientation (LPC) . . . . . . 119 31. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Relationship Orientation in Design Two. 119 32. Design Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Authoritarianism (Auth-F) . . . . . . . . . 120 33. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Authoritarianism (Auth-F) . . . . . . . 121 34. Design Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) . . . . . 122 35. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) . . . 122 36. Design Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA). . . . . 124 37. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Tolerance of Role Ambiguity (TRA) in DeSign Two 0 O O O O C O O O I O O O O O O 124 38. Design Two: Analysis of Variance Table for Need for Achievement (N-Ach). . . . . . . . 126 39. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Need for Achievement (N-Ach) in Design Two 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O O O 126 xi a .‘b‘ a i .l‘ ‘ w , L . .3 1 . ~ . Cu Q. S . w it» Q» “U INK“ Q 1“ I... -‘4 :— Cu 2.. Cu V. e nL pk 'hs S. Q» Ca Ce CC .C A: urn. A 1.9.. Cu e Table 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance of Satisfaction in Design One . . . . . . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Composite Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Composite Satisfaction in Design One. . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Firm . . . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Satisfaction with Firm in Design One. . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Career . . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Satisfaction with Career in Design One. . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Pay. . . . . . . . . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Satisfaction with Pay in Design One . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Competence of Immediate superior O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Simple Main Effects of Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on Satis- faction with Competence of Immediate Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Self—Actualization . . . . Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means of Satisfaction of Self-Actualization in Design One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design One: Analysis of Variance Table for Satisfaction with Security . . . . . . . . . Tukey‘Test for Comparison of Category Means of Satisfaction of Security in Design One . . . xii Page 133 135 135 136 137 138 139 141 141 142 143 144 144 145 146 2.. I. .1 a 7. nia VA v 3 #t L. .n“ e As at T .3 C.» r . uh F. a.“ .1 U .u S m: n. . in 9. nm F‘J F!i fl... .ng Table Page 55. Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance of Satisfaction in Design Two . . . . . . . . . . 148 56. Tukey Test for Comparison of Means of Satis- faction Dimensions in High and Low Stress Climates in Design Two . . . . . . . . . . . - 149 57. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Satisfaction with Co-workers in Design Two 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 150 58. Summary of Levels of Significance of F Statistics for Analyses of Variance for Selected Effects on Satisfaction in Design Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 59. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Personality Main Effects on Satisfaction . 158 60. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Role x Personality Interaction Effects on satiSfaCtion o o o o o o o o o o o o O 0 0 158 61. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Climate x Personality Interaction Effects on satiSfaCtion o o o o o o o o o o o o o O 0 160 62. Comparisons of Overall Satisfaction of Type X Personalities in Stressfree and Stressful Climates. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C C 166 63. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Role x Authoritarianism x Climate In- teraction on Satisfaction with Firm . . . . . 169 64. Tukey Test for Comparison of Category Means for Role x Tolerance for Role Conflict x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers. .7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 xiii '.'* *3 3“ 1_ S! A 15.. _4*_ ." Cease; Env'rc Relatj Aixj and Ether: FaC‘ (a) Per SCher Fee (a) Firm Firm Firm Co: Firm Con Firm Firm Firm L THC Firm ) Role 1 Ruth LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Conceptual Schema of the Mix Model Process 6 2. Environmental Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3. Relationship between Approach to Design and Administration and Environment with Stress and Organizational Performance . . . . . . 29 4. Schema of Research Design 1: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Climate,(b) Satisfaction, and (c) Personality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5. Schema of Research Design 2: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Satisfaction and (b) Personality . . . 55 6. Schema of Research Design 3: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Individual Performance and (b) Satis- faction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 7. Firm x Role Interaction on Climate . . . . . 89 8. Firm x Role Interaction on Role Conflict . . 92 9. Firm x Role Interaction on Organizational Conformity for Low Performers . . . . . . 96 10. Firm x Role Interaction on Organizational Conformity for High Performers . . . . . . 97 ll. Firm x Role Interaction on Task Orientation. 100 12. Firm x Role Interaction on LPC . . . . . . . 111 13. Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on TRC. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 114 14. Firm x Role Interaction on N-Ach . . . . . . 116 15. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on Auth-F o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o l 2 1 xiv :Iu-r ... J c; ‘ m. Rc;e x q- r: A ‘- ”9 Pic: 3 F“) 15:” .E. Fir: : l9. Fin-u PJC'lE w; 1 ‘2: ROLE ‘1 ‘1. .\V'l‘ I! F “‘ LrC S ‘: m H 4,. ‘91 . .r' (j. P AMV 2!. id. \C Figure Page 16. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on TRC O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O 12 3 17. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on TRA. O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 125 18. Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on Satisfaction with Firm . . . . . . . . . . . 137 19. Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on Satisfaction with Career . . . . . . - . . . 140 20. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers in Stressful Climate O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 151 21. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers among Low Performers . . . . 151 22. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers among High Performers . . . 152 23. Role x TRA Interaction on Satisfaction with Autonomy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 1 5 9 24. LPC x Perceived Climate Stress Interaction on Satisfaction with Relations with Superior. - 162 25. TRC x Perceived Climate Stress Interactions on Selected Satisfaction Dimensions. . . . - 163 26. N-Ach x Perceived Climate Stress Interaction on Satisfaction with Security. . . . . . . . 165 27. Role x Climate x Authoritarianism Interaction on Satisfaction with Firm. . . . . . . . . . 170 28. Climate x Authoritarianism Interaction on Satisfaction with Firm Among Research and 170 Marketing ROI-es . O O O O O O O O O O O O O 29. Role x TRC Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers in a Stressful Climate . . . . . 172 :30. Role x TRC Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers in a Stressfreecujflate .,. , , , 172 XV .ovwve ,.'l“ to. 4 Aw u... Pets . and Q11 Perscr Se‘ Figure Page 31. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Co-workers Among Low TRC's . . . . . . 173 32. Profiles of Perceived Stress in High and Low Performing Firms. . . . . . . . . . . . 186 33. Profiles of Perceived Stress by Role . . . . 188 34. Possible Curvilinear Relationship Between Organizational Approach, Environmental Volatility and Firm Performance . . . . . . 195 35. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Firm. . . 196 36. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Role. . . 198 37. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Indi- vidual Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 38. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Perform- ance by ROI-e. O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 201 39. Satisfaction Profiles of Subjects by Role for Selected Dimensions of Satisfaction . . . . 207 xvi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Research During the last few decades, managers have been the targets of a variety of approaches to organizational design and patterns of administrative behavior. Two camps have been more or less clearly identified as the classical and human relations oriented schools. The former is character- ized by its emphasis on the need for well established lines of authority, clearly defined goals and jobs, and authority equal to responsibility. The latter focuses on the need for participation in the decision-making process in order to elicit more commitment, creativity, and generally higher levels of motivation. There is growing evidence that, while no one way to organize and administer is always best, there seem to be strategies which work better in particular situations. This approach, which attempts to reconcile the classical and human relation approaches has become known as contingency or situational theory (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; and Woodward, 1958). In short, it draws upon preliminary findings that suggest that the classical or me- chanistic approach seems to work well in relatively stable situations while the less.structured or organic strategy a_:;:.=.:s to :W‘Mr-‘or‘ '9‘ Vou- you \- ov ' ‘ nnlie ticl'. tests ‘ LElca 1 CI . .Lz'. gas b" 0.0:. ‘1‘ ’PR. « :. V;;s in ‘ 1::e1at‘ :.:‘1“‘uy me :’~:p‘ “Na‘zat‘ All i: .L. “e CC“ ‘ . ‘04». r p...‘ "‘3 Pam :Et are I I-‘ «‘J‘G ."»r le‘ i"-.' bu l .rc‘iw t... ‘ (D ‘.\ ‘t‘at; s‘Or“ ‘1 ., J ‘."SC P ‘ w ”J . s “:7“; H ‘ 0 ‘v ~..:> "\ \aC‘Q g. \ 2 appears to work better in the relatively uncertain or dynamic environments. While there is as yet a paucity of published research which tests the contingency approach, and while some method— ological questions have been raiSed on some of the research that has been reported, the contingency concept appears promising and warrants further examination and refinement. One of the purposes of this research is to further examine the relationship between the patterns of organizational structure and administration and firm performance in a stable organizational environment. An interesting question arises from the implications of the contingency theory of organization. If there are parti— cular patterns of organization structure and managerial style that are more congruent than others in terms of effecting higher levels of organizational performance in differing environmental conditions, are there characteristics of individ- ual performance and/or satisfaction in some situations than in others? Are some peOple better suited for work in mechanistic work situations than in organic, and vice versa? While the question rattles the skeleton of trait theories of leadership and selection and placement, is it not conceivable in the light of current developments in organizational theory that relationships between personal attributes, performance and satisfaction might have been doomed to inconclusiveness by virtue of the confounding effects of situational job characteristics? . . . n a V; :._f\‘f\b .~.I—Avo¢ 0‘ QL'O “In. H . ...;.c_n1 :‘vcboay . .u-.. ‘ \ INT’ ‘r \ a . '. ‘.. '1. I ”A «QOUV- b I a .“;"fi‘ ib.~_1:i . ‘ :V‘37v‘ ' “15.... ‘ “hangs '.~‘b‘\‘ b 9“ " ‘ ‘I'I ' H-v 'vn.“‘ It“ 1 "n "A. . “IL-uh: D“ I !n I '1 J _.1 A second purpose of this research is to examine the relationships of several personality characteristics which might be related to higher levels of performance and/or satisfaction in certain types of job settings. If there is such a thing, as some research suggests (Tannenbaum and Allport, 1956; Vroom, 1960; Morse and Lorsch, 1970), as an optimal "fit" between the organization's climate, its external environment, and the profile of individuals' attitudes toward organizational phenomena, a better under- standing of individual performance and satisfaction under various situational circumstances is required. It is felt that a significant contribution can be made by examining several of the variables which are frequently considered to be of importance in this complex relationship. Morse and Lorsch (1970) note this problem. They suggest that what is needed at this point is research designed to determine what personal characteristics are most related to performance in various combinations of organization and task situations. While their research examined the single personality dimen- sion of "sense of competence", they are quite explicit in their view that "the strengths of (an) individual's other needs - - such as those for power, independence, structure, achievement, and affiliation" (p. 67) are likely to be mod- erating variables in determining how a particular person achieves a sense of competence. In summary, then, the purpose of this reSearch was two-fold. First, a partial replication of the work of 2h? 67.38 a". J; 'fi F vence “‘1 '0 ' # .rn :5 Fat. &-0 r; “m we mu s.-;n t1 '-='v 9 g“ A :"‘»;"I~: C: noun-.‘d . C \ADRO'+ Wavy: ' . Secon the relatic Srgatizatic 12" “a 54...}, mi likiiual pts LCE (as d" “:3 . "“lZatic The 1. Lawrence and Lorsch was undertaken in order that further evidence would be gathered about the relationship between the patterns of organizational structure and administration and firm performance in a stable organizational environment. This would assist in evaluating the reliability of the findings of some prior research based upon the contingency concept. Secondly, the research was undertaken to explore the relationships between various mixes of personality and organizational climate in a stable environment to examine how they might be related to individual satisfaction and individual performance as well as firm performance. The Mix Model: A General Overview The basic concept underlying the second purpose of this research can best be described in terms of the follow- ing "Mix Model." This concept can be described as an historical outgrowth or extension of contingency theory. It attempts to examine differences in organizational perform- ance (as does contingency theory) and extends the two dimensional contingency theory which dealt with environment (the technical need set) and the structure and administra- tive dimensions (the organization climate set) to include a third dimension, the personality characteristics of the organization members (the individual characteristics set). The Mix Model treats as dependent variables organi- zational performance, individual performance and individual 10:6;5‘“ +kac "tui- our-oval .:;s' C.“ 3' a p-..“ 1 09“- -.-:I:q:‘;(‘r “'Ihso‘tu ugy . a ' - ‘:IIO~ a“ W" "'bovtt. . ':"':‘: 6.1.8 I '..~"" be. . I _ -~-'ZEIS w; 3331335 thd :- ‘ \ “‘e ~:;X \‘ at, ‘u H‘ aruEr 5.. satisfaction. The mix model concept suggest that for every organ- ization these three factors (climate, environment, and member characteristics) are present and interact to affect organization performance, individual performance, and satis- faction. The congruency of their interrelationships is termed the "organizational fit." The basic prOposition is that organizations that can be described as high per- formers will have so developed and arranged these three factors that they may be shown to exhibit a high degree of 9fit9. Organizations that can be described as being poor performers may be shown to exhibit a low degree of "fit". A conceptual scheme of these proposed relationships is illustrated in Figure 1. This figure portrays environ- ment, climate and personality as independent variables, their particular pattern of combination or mix as a process or moderating variable and organizational performance, individual performance and individual satisfaction as out- puts or dependent variables in the mix process. While more detailed discussion of the major elements in the Mix Model is presented later in this and the follow- ing chapter, a brief definition of these variables and a synopsis of the general nature of their interaction as suggested by the model is provided in this overview. Q‘vavtmfl .‘y a- . s on. .vvnv-rn" 1 r, . ‘ob‘bgo n.‘ 1') n?\ In" t ‘IOO‘I — I. 'l H" n v- -....I',,I‘.. 3539 l. s“ \~‘g » C! ‘ ‘ “25“}: - t. ‘ I §‘ - .3 ‘- ‘\l‘..‘ .‘ ‘ ‘. . "é INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS (INDEPENDENT (DEPENDENT VARIABLES) VARIABLES) Environment Organizational Performance Climate OrganizatIonal Individual Fit ‘ Performance (Mix) - ’ ' Individual [Personalityv Satisfaction ] Figure 1. Conceptual Schema of the Mix Model Process. By environment is meant that composition of situa- tional characteristics external to the organization Which could impinge upon its goal seeking activities. The criti- cal dimension of environment in current contingency theory is its stability-volatility characteristic, with particular respect to technology and markets. The Mix Model treats climate as that composition of situational characteristics internal to the organization which might be related to the attainment of organizational and member goals. The dimensions of climate, as perceived individually by organizational members, examined in this study are task and relationship orientations of immediate superiors, role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational conformity and organizational clarity. The concept of personality as used in the Mix Model can be defined as those attitudes and values which, concep- tually, can (1) differentiate individuals, (2) influence their behavior, and (3) can be described in terms of the values fizzles cf 1 ' A Lumpy“ Y —‘ ;cuavo$ba¢-u ‘ . '1‘! flfi': ; w n 00.: VJa-o--\v ‘ ‘ ':"""f‘e an" ... 'D‘H‘vu‘v 4“; “On. IHF l r ~ , nua‘ .L'vu'a . 7. "N n V" g 01.-.: 'a‘fia b. ’:""")f\1r‘-‘ .' 1'..be u a -....‘ ?‘ In :«...O: IOH‘N ...‘_.‘bc 4. ‘0 3:1: V, ‘ ‘al C .1 has be '1')! h }v a“ (is a It knflv, A.V H», a“ tEr . . ‘ I l 1.4» [Leta h n a- of particular sets of social and psychological phenomena. Examples of some of the dimensions of personality are authoritarianism, interpersonal orientation, tolerance for role cbnflict, tolerance for role ambiguity, need for inde- pendence and need for achievement. Justification for conceptualizing personality and situational variables (climate and environment) as inter- acting variables is rooted in a long history of recognition by psychologists of the importance of both personality and environmental variables in the explanation of behavior. "The postulate that behavior is a function of the interaction of organism and environment is widely accepted and both its theoretical and practical implications have been explored (Boston, 1961; Bruns- wick, 1956; Cronbach, 1957; Murray, 1938)... but there have been few attempts to develop multi— variate definitiOns of environment, and fewer still to study behavior as a function of the simultaneOus variation of situational factors." (Forehand and Gilmer, 1964, p. 361). Vroom (1960) also states: "In both social and industrial psychology there has been a general reluctance to deal with personal- ity and environmental variables simultaneously. As a result, while much is known about the separate effects of the two types of variables, little is known about the nature of their interaction. The need for research directed at this type of problem and for a theoretical framework capable of dealing with both personality and environmental variables is, however, widely recognized." (p. 2). Katz (1955) also pointed to the need for this type of research. "If social psychology has any unique subject mat- ter, it may well lie in this neglected area of the interaction effects of personality and social settings.‘ (p. 352). 2:1. acie . . on I A ‘ ":I IUOQO“ .1 \ ‘ ‘ .zterac -1 'zlun “d M's: “ ‘ ‘s s “ fl.‘ 6 ~“s 1 O Y. ’uWn o‘,o .8) I The theoretical foundations laid by Allport (1940, 1954, 1955, 1956) and Tannenbaum and Allport (1956) in terms of event-structure theory, Hall (1971) in terms of a theoret- ical model of career subidentity development, and Litwin and Stringer (1968) in terms of motivation as moderated by the interaction between needs for achievement, power and affilia- tion and organizational climate, all have considerable relevance to such research. In addition, the empirical findings of Tannenbaum and Allport (1956), Vroom (1960), Litwin and Stringer (1968), Morse and Lorsch (1970) and Lyons (1971) indicate the fruitfulness of research in this direction. However, a note of caution in drawing inferences from the research on the need for participation in explaining organizational phenomena or developing prescription for structural design is introduced by Tosi (1970). Tosi's study, which found, contrary to Vroom, that the personality dimensions of authoritarianism and need for inde- endence did not moderate the relationship between climate and performance and satisfaction, could be interpreted as an argu- ment for the Mix Model approach. Personality might be impor— tant in some instances (Vroom, 1960) but not in others (Tosi, 1970). Duncan (1972) has also urged future research to focus on the interface between individual properties and organiza- tional pr0perties. In his view, most contingency theories now tend to be one sided in that they focus on the environment , , ‘ n:'fi:h¥ e C "~¢u~o “' '. f- " I b: ".3 u) I! o “"0 . . «5:. beak C flan“: Viou ': 5":A. ‘ " DA.“ 5 3». 1. RD 5’ '5 to flu y w' “ at . 1.5.1.4 l . V “I ,"r A ‘I. “V. SL 9- . . F V'lfi “‘ Maw“: :ONI 'fifihu N” “ V‘tosz‘ " . F :W‘ '.“. ‘ o ‘- 3‘. u.; ‘ M ‘II‘ 4‘ “ ‘ \ u . ’in . .h' ‘k. s \ . i. W‘. - - .“ '~ (“A .5 . ~."q c‘ 5“ \‘ \g ‘ \. ,~‘ .~' >~ ‘ oz'J .— or task situation and ignore the important contingency variable of differences among individuals. He claims it is only by beginning to include personality characteristics that the contingency approach can be developed more fully. One of the basic notions expressed by the Mix Model is that organizational performance is related to an inter- action between environment and climate. The nature of this interaction as suggested by such prior research as Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and Burns and Stalker (1961) holds that the climate of high performing firms in relatively stable environments would be more bureaucratic or mechanistic than low performing firms. Similarly, firms performing well in volatile environments will be less bureaucratic and more organic in their climate than low performing organizations. A second notion suggested by the Mix Model is that individual performance and satisfaction are also related to the mix of environment, climate and personality. The parti- cular relationships to be formulated and tested in this study are presented later in this chapter following a more extensive review of the literature. However, it should be stated clearly at this point that this study represents only a partial validation test of the Mix Model concept since subjects in this study were drawn only from relatively stable environments. Consequently, while the Mix Model considers both stable and volatile environments, and corollary hypotheses to those formulated in this study are implied, A“? thcse bu.‘ . q (3 3:31.95 . ’._h :9 “:3 VI I ‘hA Oust Lamaze a 7 t *3 tha O.-‘~ ‘ 'CP! ‘-1\.H ‘\ ‘ fin . "v wDe .‘ . h‘ ‘, .;:~ h‘:: . ““le E:‘ ‘v- ‘ ‘ “‘1 LS ‘ at» . usaychlc‘ 3‘:;1 ‘6 90r. 1’: EX. 10 only those relating to stable environmental settings were tested in this research. The following sections of this chapter present more detailed discussion and review of the literature for each of the major elements of the Mix Model. Environment The organization's external environment was defined by Lawrence and Lorsch as the "technical and economic conditions outside the firm." (1967 b, p. 15). The critical feature of the environment is its stability--or looking at it from the other direction, its volatility. The selection of environ- ment as an exogenous variable in the model rests upon the con- cept that the pattern of organization structure and administra- tive strategy in part is influenced by the difficulty organi- zations face in c0ping with environmental conditions which impinge upon their goal seeking activities. To the extent that the environment is unchanging, pre- programmed decision-making processes permit the organization to c0pe with little difficulty (Cyert and March, 1963). In these circumstances a relatively high degree of differentiation (division of labor) is permitted, with tasks becoming more simplified and routinized. Integration of the specialized sub-units can readily be effected via the formal organization's hierarchical network of authority relationships. In such stable conditions the bureaucratic model of organization can be expected to be applicable (Perrow, 1967, p. 204). 3 . . ‘ 09' r;v—~« I“ gain.“ 0 o "I N‘Knh n U. shun“: - ., . “"‘A‘. I “-0.\vu- on. ,. n.“ Uh“: u... ‘ I .;A‘=‘ A”. iv~-~-v.l Qn.':"“~ ....._‘ L- , hg‘ -" c. Vué‘.‘ . - In.“ 5 11 On the other hand, if the environment is characterized by rapid change, unpredictable in its timing and direction of changing conditions, the problem of coping is a much more difficult one. If the attempt to more successfully cope with this uncertainty, the decision-making locus and process is likely to be markedly different than in the former case. Highly structured decision-making machinery would not permit decisions to be made quickly to meet the rapidly changing conditions. Furthermore, the unanticipated nature of the changes would render preprogrammed decisions useless, if not dangerous, since they would not likely be conceived with the resultant conditions adequately taken into consideration. Consequently, the locus of decision making would be located closer to the source of impact from a change in the environ- ment. In addition, since decisions would be required to be made quickly, there would be a need for relatively greater integration in the organization so that the implications of the changes and possible action alternatives could be inputs to the decision making process. In short, the organization structure and administrative practices that could be expected to cope effectively with highly uncertain conditions in the external environment are likely to be quite different from what would be effective in highly certain situations.7 While there are innumerable dimensions of the external environment which might be candidates for consideration in In:O-‘r: an ~5¢=¢5 .40: :."I 'fin-cn ind .Oinu-Ivln 22:13.31: 8C '7’ 'a. ((1 J In"; '9 C... ‘ror. ‘ 3" «- ... marge: 2‘: a 1.‘ H M . trot ‘s CR .I‘“n I “1'“. s'_ . .1 'jd ’2 x 12 measuring environmental certainty, two offer particular promise as being relevant to business organizations. The environment in which a firm is Operating can be thought of as being comprised of (l) the markets in which it operates and (2) the state of technology which is used in its pro- duction activities. Figure 2 illustrates this two dimensional paradigm of environmental conditions. In the diagram, the technology and market dimensions have been dichotomized into stable and dynamic levels of what might better be considered to be continua of each dimension. Cell A represents that environ— ment which is characterized by relatively stable technology and market dimensions, while Cell D represents that environ- ment which can be described as being dynamic in the rates of change in both technology and markets. Similarly, Cells B and C protray environments with a high degree of volatility of technology and relatively stable markets and stable techno- logy and volatile markets respectively. TECHNOLOGY DIMENSION Stable Dynamic Stable A B MARKET DIMENSION Dynamic C D Figure 2. Environmental Paradigm. uh .a“ aerated c tells B, ( 31:1 as t! {“rnnvb ‘ ins-iv. b .0 .“ ‘ 5:.31e0 b' . 24:: y “.331 92C! ‘2‘; -..._al 58‘ 13 High performing firms in Cell A can be expected to be operated quite differently from high performing firms in Cells B, C, or D, according to the mix model. Research findings such as those by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967 b) wOuld tend to support this conclusion. For instance, the container firms studied by Lawrence and Lorsch would be examples of organiza- tions in the relatively stable environment (Cell A) and the plastics firms can be considered to be Operating in Cell D of Figure 3. It will be recalled they detected significant differences in the high performing firms in these two environ- mental settings. Furthermore, they indicated that low per- forming organizations seemed to display a poorer "fit" between the environmental demands and their patterns Of internal dif- ferentiation and integration. Burns and Stalker (1961) in their survey of 20 industri- al organizations in the United Kingdom noted the differences in internal organizational characteristics which were associated with differences in the stability Of the environment with which the organizations were coping. Although they did not reduce to measurement differences in either the rates of technological or market changes or internal organizational characteristics, they did recognize two distinct patterns of organizational practice in the two environments. "One system, to which we gave the name 'mechanis- tic,‘ appeared to be apprOpriate to an enterprise Operating under relatively stable conditions. The other, 'Organic,' appeared to be required for condi- tions of change." (Burns and Stalker, 1961; p.5). F‘ ‘00! .‘...'-;+ 1. gator-8|- 0 34AD:‘ ad: Igvnolfi Mil-p31 “a! Dov... ti». grccess a . 0 gay-— 3 v. "“‘C *0: 4 :9 i-~.‘: h .Z“.‘\'es IN; a.‘ .‘On ‘ n' : ‘\“ " man J! . ' ‘\ n .“~a“ b O '92; Fn‘ .Q" . ‘V 1 \ ‘V :;-.-A ~ ‘N‘Et a-_. ‘\ v i 14 The certainty of the environment is apparently intimately connected with the pattern of internal organiza- tional administration in explaining differences in organiza- tional performance. Joan Woodward (1958) employing an ambitious research strategy, found technological variables in the production process an important factor, with high performing organiza- tions having different patterns of organization structure and administrative strategies in different technologies. Similarities in managerial approaches between high performing organizations using small batch and continuous production technologies were seen to be related to the severity of con- sequences arising out of unprogrammed changes in the pro— duction throughput. Consequently, while the predictability of future events in the process technologies is very high, the contingent costs that would result from breakdowns call into play a less structured managerial system not unlike that found in the more unpredictable but less cost-critical tech— nology of the small batch production systems. Large batch or mass production industries were found to employ more traditional patterns of organization and administration. However, research by Hickson, Pugh and Phesey (1969) indicates that the "technological imperative", i.e. that technology is of primary importance to structure, is not supported. In a study of 52 diverse work organizations employing 250 or more in the Birmingham area in England, --\;P:*‘ in Iivo‘b‘ ‘0 . 3213(1th '="=*'es "oou‘U. "a ‘ch‘hn, ~~ ”UVobA-\ awnn "qtr or: 3*}; . ‘Hler 8‘ '.\C.I+ ‘- 0L Eiq N! :: '1' a n. ‘ H‘s La. ~i 15 operation technology (the techniques used in the workflow activities of a organization) was related only to those variables immediately impinged on by the workflow. Under- standably, the smaller the size of the organization, the closer the administrative and hierarchical structure is to the technology and consequently influenced by it. But in larger organizations, the higher levels in the hierarchy are insulated from the impingements of the technology and consequently technology is not a significantly related variable to that organizational characteristic. While technology itself might be less important in influencing structure than was earlier thought, the cer- tainty associated with the technology nevertheless seems to be supported by both theoretical (Perrow, 1967) and empiri- cal (Burns and Stalker, 1961; Woodward, 1958) evidence as a variable of considerable importance and one which should be given consideration. The second dimension of environment (markets) has been given less specific attention in the literature as an independent variable related to organization structure and administrative practices. Burns and Stalker treated envir- onment as a composition of technological and market forces as did Lawrence and Lorsch, both of which must be considered bases from which this study was developed. Economists and historians, however, have treated market conditions as an exogenous variable with which business organizations must ucnay‘ ”A oA—bv. 5 A1» | ‘- Mov- . .“NR unto. :...E::- , ‘5 “C ‘III #3. Fr. ""1 0-0. m t. .’ fl nb‘ ~Es . c "c. “'u G. r .t! C a 16 cope. Development economists have focused attention on the importance of markets as institutions which take a prominent place in the socio-economic infra-structure which is viewed as a prerequisite to economic growth and the simultaneOus successful performance of business organizations. Hence, business historians (Cochran, 1957; Chandler, 1962; Gras, 1939; Nevins, 1963) have noted changes which took place over relatively long time spans in environmental condi- tions and treated these as independent variables to which successful firms were more proficient at adapting than less -successful organizations. The role of change in markets has been quite important in these historical treatments. For example, to Gras and Larson (1939), the metamorphosis from one stage of organiza- tional deve10pment to another was primarily a function of the external environment exhibiting its influence through market forces. They saw the locus of business actually shifting from the petty capitalist or peddler to the diversified sedentary merchant to industrial capitalist and then to the financial capitalist. History also records the Ford example of the impor- tance of c0ping with changing market forces for the success of the firm. Nevins and Hill (1963, Vol. 3) relate how Ford was unable to recognize changes in consumer tastes and demands while Sloan at General Motors displayed this perceptiveness with almost fatal consequences for the Ford organization. | Chard) ‘:;si:ess orga as sell as t'r. l7 Chandler's institutional approach to the history of business organization also cited the importance of markets as well as the technological dimension of the environment. The rates of change of these dimensions were seen by him to be of vital importance to the successful performance of the organization. "As long as an enterprise belonged in an industry whose markets, sources of raw materials, and pro- duction processes remained relatively unchanged, few entrepreneurial decisions had to be reached. In that situation, such a weakness was not critical, but where technology, markets, and sources of supply were changing rapidly, the defects of structure become more obvious" (Chandler, p. 41). To conclude this review of the implications that environmental conditions have for the success of business organizations, one common thread throughout organizational environment literature should be recapitulated. Fairly certain environments appear to permit, even demand, greater degrees of organizational structure than do more dynamic environmental conditions. Climate The second major variable in the Mix Model is Climate (Organizational Internal Environment). Taguiri and Litwin (1968) define climate as "a relatively enduring quality of the internal environ- ment of an organization that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics of the organization" (p. 27). .1“ . a“. refer .q m.beuse ""3". ‘7 ‘4’ vsU‘A-‘L Ib“ 35.115101} ’5'3“. on a . ‘Cu cub; . lb 355 few a ..e 'Orga L? . . ing u . .Agture 18 In the remainder of this report, the term "environment" will refer to the external environment and the term "climate" will be used to refer to the internal environment of an organization. The concept of climate as used here permits the inclusion of a great variety of dimensions. The problem of operationalizing the concept, however, requires the selection of a few and rejection of many of the possible dimensions that could be accommodated by the definition. In the final analysis, however, the concept of climate rests on the con- ceptions of the organization's internal environment that are held by individuals in the organization. The dimensions of climate that were employed in this study were (1) perceived structure, (2) managerial style of immediate superior, (3) role conflict and (4) role ambiguity. Perceived Structure Perceived structure is the pattern of organizational relationships as perceived by its members. Meyer defines structure as the degree of constraint on behavior by rules, formal procedures, or policies. (Meyer, 1968) However, this dimension was found to break out into two separate dimensions. One, organization conformity, "appeared to tap the constrain- ing and undesirable aspects of structure", while the other, organizational clarity, "measured the desirable component of structure; that is, the well-organized state that appears to be necessary to accomplish significant goals" (p. 161). The nvarnc +1.3" . ‘ I iovrv’vové A - n :u’cd than a 5H a VA] ganiza Vfihfic ~Luuv~ c ‘“ kn.‘ &“ ol‘d “'0‘ r e“...C Organ 55£;e:ial Ease thhe EXEC dElI lzujec n u p.1“ L“ . I‘dLbLO" 'P: ”V :5; Np . ‘ c“ Lvnsla :4» Ale, and "Q «.3 ‘ uyr auto PIE 3:. ha“ ., ‘ q _ “‘asEr is h l9 proposition with respect to perceived structure can be stated then as: Proposition 1: The degree of organization conformity in high performing organizations Operating in stable environments will be less than in low performing or- ganizations in that environment. PrOposition 2: The degree of organization clarity in high performing organizations Operating in stable environments will be greater than in low performing organizations in that environment. Managerial Style Managerial style is the behavioral pattern of managers in the execution of their managerial roles as perceived by their immediate subordinates. Two dimensions of these patterns" are considered. They are task and interpersonal or relation- ship orientations. These dimensions have been discussed by such writers as Blake and Mouton (1964), under concern for production and concern for peOple; McGregor (1960) under Theory X and Theory Y; Fleishman and Harris (1962), under structure and consideration; Rossel (1970) under instrumental and expres- sive, and White and Lippett (in Cartwright and Zander, 1948) under autocratic and democratic management. Previous research has demonstrated that these dimensions of managerial style are not opposite ends of a single continuum, but are two independent continua (Fleishman, Harris and Burtt, 1955, and Blake and Mouton, 1964). Fitting this two dimensional concept of leadership style into the mix model can be explained in terms of the following prOposition: ’ 1 5‘. ::.e Conn. The :azsiierec‘ «L. . msracterl ““ ““\—Ag tL. ...:t an or this stanc ‘4 which say; 20 Proposition 3: The managerial style in high per- forming organizations in stable environments will reveal relatively greater concern for (a) task (structure) and for (b) people (consideration) than low performing organizations in that environ— ment. Role Conflict and Ambiguity The final dimension of organization climate to be considered in the Mix Model is that which focuses on the characteristics of the constituent roles in the organization. This dimension can best be approached by employing the concept that an organization is a system of interrelated roles. From this stance, Katz and Kahn (1966) see role behavior in or- ganizations as a "process of learning the expectations of others, accepting them, and fulfilling them" (p. 172). Role conflict occurs when the role incumbent perceives himself to be the recipient of incompatible role expectations. The intensity of role conflict is a function of (a) the rigor with which role senders exert pressure on the actor (incum- bent) to change his behavior, (b) the role diversity exper- ienced by the actor, i.e. the number of other actors with whom the focal person inter-acts in the course of executing his role (Snoek, 1966; Cummings and E1 Salmi, 1970), and (c) the personality characteristics, such as tolerance for role con- flict, of the actor (Getzels and Cuba, 1954, Kahn gt_al, 1964). In addition to"role conflict being a characteristic which can be used to measure organizational climate, another measure of\the quality of role characteristics is the extent . . a an voh‘l v. bb$v .....' L: .ty-‘0 b..- ' Iv. F:v‘91 o.-....L . DA ...95 a ""AQL -, _,‘ 'II'... ‘ . a.--_“ vunfi‘ux. .'! :"": ‘\ '-'..‘.‘ . '1 . h“ I ' n 'Bu-‘§\v ..'.‘::+" va-._‘,.‘ ' 1 ‘:‘\,‘ '- ‘n5 1 ‘4“ g :‘i, ‘ h. s... Avr- “ \ d “'.E 21 to which it displays role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is that quality of a role which results from the behavioral pattern of the role lacking clarification or consensus among the occupants of similar roles as to what their roles actually consist. That is, the expected pattern of behavior for that role is not clearly communicated to the incumbent or related actors. Conditions vary among and within organizations which significantly contribute to differential amounts of role conflict and role ambiguity characterizing the overall organ- izational and subunit climates. Kahn,gt.§l.,(l964 have suggested three general conditions which contribute to these conditions. They are (l) organizational complexity, (2) rapid organizational change, and (3) managerial philosophies and practices relating to the diffusion of information. Organizational Complexity.-- Additional support for the contention of Kahn, et_al.(l964) that organizational com— plexity is related to role conflict and ambiguity is provided by the empirical findings of Snoek (1966) and the theoretical treatment of Merton (1957). Snoek investigated the relation- ship between role conflict and diversity of role sets_and found them to be positively related. Role conflict was more common in jobs requiring the individual to maintain a highly diversified set of role relationships. Merton (1957) also suggested that role diversity would lead to increased role conflict and ambiguity, pointing out that "those in the role- set and es :3; have c conflict 1 lc-cation < teristics Isle in t1 jective c 9 . "“h‘ fl‘ f; ““Je» .9- 22 set and especially those occupying disparate social statuses may have differing expectations (moral and actuarial) of the behavior of the status-occupant". (Merton, 1957, p. 380). -Closely associated with the organizational complexity/ conflict relationship is the concept that focuses on the location of a position and its relationship with role charac- teristics. Kahn,et’al.,(1964) found that the position of the role in the organization was related to the degree of ob- jective conflict to which the occupant of the role was subjected. "In general, positions contained deep within the organizational structure were relatively conflict- free; positions located near the skin or boundary of the organization were likely to be conflict rid- den; living near an intra-organizational boundary revealed many of the same effects but to a lesser degree" (Katz and Kahn, 1966, 192). To the extent that roles located "deep within the organization" have less role diversity than those which are located "near the skin or boundary" one would expect the former to exhibit less role conflict and ambiguity than the latter. Organizational Change,—— Lyons (1971) in his review of some of the literature noted the suggestion of Kahn,et 31., (1964) that role conflict and ambiguity tends to be increased by organizational change in terms Of: (1) growth which may require reorganization; (2) technological changes which may require changes in social structures, or at least in the way work is performed (Rice, 1958, 1963; Emery and Trist, 1965; I"3=t and E which prod: for his as: Rcll all. a; ' Lida» Lem ' L {EICEIVE L 3911.136 an ccfilict \. "NH “k‘5«kr.e a: '4'. . 'rfifatl'): A. . .‘ F ‘ ite LOLlf‘ “W395 c EP-c . . Ctr»: t 11‘ ‘4‘: ngr‘e 0‘ 23 Trist and Banforth, 1951) and (3) frequent personnel changes which produce ambiguities for the person transferred and also for his associates. Roles which demand innovative problem solving are also characterized by objective conflict and subjective tension (Katz and Kahn, 1966, p. 192). In those situations actors perceive the time requirements and effort expended on the routine activities of administrative paperwork to be in conflict with their "main purpose in performing the non- routine activities." If organizational complexity and rapid organizational change as defined here are more characteristic of firms operating in dynamic environments than in stable environments, one could propose that organizations Operating in environ- ments which are identifiable by their relatively dynamic characteristics will have inherent in their roles greater degrees of role conflict and ambiguity than those organizations operating in an environment which is characterized by its high degree of stability. Furthermore, those subunits in the organization which are most closely associated with the dynamic aspects of the environment will display more role conflict and ambiguity than those subunits which are less associated with the envir- onment or more associated with a stable environment. On the basis of the above review Of the literature on the relationship Of role conflict and ambiguity with the location of roles in an organization and with organizational .4‘ change, a p v.riables f In t. setufacturi graduction zeticnal st ids in tn: the roles j Efl§;h mu len: {67‘ .. mlCAS: 24 change, a prOposition can be formulated dealing with these variables for firms in a stable environment. In the context of the above literature review, for a manufacturing firm in a relatively stable environment, the production function would be located "deeper" in the organi- zational structUre than would the research function; and this in turn would be further removed from the "skin" than the roles identifiable with the marketing function. This notion lends itself to expression in propositional form as follows: Proposition 4: In manufacturing firms Operating in a relatively stable environment, the degrees of role conflict and role ambiguity perceived by occupants of roles in marketing will be greater than the levels perceived by those in research, and they in turn will perceive greater levels than incumbents of roles in production. Managerial Philosophies and Practices.—— Managerial philosophies and practices constitute another family of variables which are related to the degree Of role conflict and role ambiguity to be found in an organization (Kahn, g5_ g1., 1964). The rationale of the classical approach to organiza- tion design has been to control out the variability inthe individual-specific predispositions brought to the tasks and replace them with highly prescribed behavior patterns. The result of such a rigid climate would be to reduce role con- flict and ambiguity. Paloli (1967), in an experimental study, differentiated ergenizati: organizati< zatio: a: M recur. “0“; C id- 167915, 1‘4 ' I 3.1" I); (D :0 I I! :71 25 organizations into "regulated" and "natural" types. Regulated organizations were those which had a high degree of speciali- zations among members, high concern for rules and regulations, high amount of work pressure, a high number of formal work levels, high clarity of goals, control based upon authority and power rather than influence, and a low amount of individual freedom for members. This profile approximates the rigid climate which contingency theory suggests would be appropriate under conditions of environmental stability, as is the case of the firms in this study. The opposite characteristics describe the profile of his "natural" organizations. Paloli found that the low role diversity, as well as the low rate of organizational change, and the task oriented managerial approach in the regulated organizations tended to reduce at least certain types of role conflict and role am- biguity. This is consistent with the contingency View of high performing organizations Operating in relatively stable en- vironments. This can be expressed propositionally as: Proposition 5: In relatively stable environments, the levels of role conflict and role ambiguity will be lower in high performing organizations than in low performing organizations. The Relationship Between Climate and Organizational and Member Goals There is considerable evidence that the climate, or internal environment, differs among organizations. Further- :more, what appears to be emerging from contingency theory V‘e'ature tar are me n themselx ‘5’)”3 cc: 4 ‘ In . emerat K" OI; ‘ ' g ‘ ~u( NY. .SMLLSLHN O I ‘ ‘he ‘ hi’flltrs \ I n"‘ I ““r- TI the Eff t‘ _ ~5rebs .26 literature is that these climates may be differing not because they are necessarily held to be of unequal valence as ends in themselves, but because their instrumentalities in at- taining commonly accepted goals or outcomes are perceived to be moderated by environmental conditions. Organizational maintenance and growth requires task ac- complishment. Also, stress levels must be at least as low as members' acceptable levels in order to maintain their member- ship. Treating these as necessary conditions for the attain- ment of organizational and member goals, attention will now be directed at the relationships between these and the climate dimensions employed in this study. According to Fleishman, et_al. (1955) and Blake and MoutOn (1964), organizational performance will be enhanced under a leadership style with both high Task and Relationship Orientations. While individual stress will likely be reduced by the support provided by a relationship oriented superior (assuming adequate competence Of the superior) (House, 1971), the effect of Task Orientation on the subordinate's perceived stress is less obvious. If he sees the superior's Task Orientation as being instrumental in attaining personal need satisfaction, it will be seen as an assistance in avoiding stress. On the other hand, if Task Orientation is not seen as being instrumental in Obtaining satisfaction of his needs, it will likely be viewed as stressful (House, 1971). The net effect on stress.of high Task Orientation by a superior, then, :azzct be 5 :ezceized * Orga 1- . M“ A‘." V' 95v¢ies I in '3?+ 0: " Pits O . ~~-=.cr.s - :~"h _ I.‘~::pll 8" ¢ hype. ~“V ‘v' ., «ed 33"“; ~n “c”«2 “Isa . . - r112 27 cannot be specified without knowing its instrumentality as perceived by the subordinate. Organizational Clarity would be helpful in uniting ef- forts in seeking accOmplishment of commonly held tasks or objectives and in reducing uncertainty and thereby stress on the part of the individual. Organizational Conformity, is defined operationally as a source of frustration and stress to organizational members. From such findings as those of Kahn, 33 31., (1964) and Paloli (1967), role Conflict and ambiguity appear to be dys- functional to organizational performance and serve to increase stress for organizational members. The hypothesized relationships between these climate di- mensions and two independend variables, organizational task accomplishment and members' perceived stress, are summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 A PRIORI RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CLIMATE DIMENSIONS AND ORGANIZATIONAL TASK ACCOMPLISHMENT AND PERCEIVED STRESS Climate Dimension Organizational Members' Perceived Task Stress Accomplishment Managerial Style of Superior - Task Orientation + Unspecifiable - Relationship Orientation + - Perceived Structure - Organizational Clarity + - - Organizational Conformity - + Role Characteristics - Role Conflict - + - Role Ambiguity - + 92365 1n 0 \ .1 . , E::.lO£ S 20:31 per 5.0? . v:\.‘atln S“kv 28 Two points should be emphasized from the above dis— cussion. First, there is no evidence to suggest that differ- ences in organizational environment moderate the underlying relationships between these climate dimensions and organiza- tional performance and individual stress. Second, the means by which firms in stable and volatile environments attain the desired levels of these climate dimensions will vary. Firms in the first instance will rely much more on formal rules and regulations, job descriptions, position power, etc., i.e., rigid or mechanistic approaches. Organizations in dynamic settings will more likely rely on individuals clarifying the structure and role relationships, etc., through more personal interaction, i.e., flexible or organic approaches. The difficulties in attaining desired states for each of these climate dimensions are likely to be greater for firms Operating in dynamic, uncertain environments than for those in stable settings. This suggests that firms in stable environ- ments would attain more desirable levels of these dimensions than those in dynamic environments. However, that is not a question which can be examined in this study. By combining scores on the dimensions of climate, the internal environment can be depicted in terms of a continuum of stress running from a climate that is relatively stress- free to one which is relatively stressful. Using the contingency approach, it would be anticipated that organizations will employ that approach to organizational :‘esign a: is their 1:; organ she conti :stratlor. . A ““':n ‘ --:~..c OI 3?:rsach a h “In u. ,5“ Au l' ‘Q.._"H‘ “' * ->?:.m‘ 2‘“. INF“? QHD‘ ""§.| “My 1 v ' h “9:55,: I ‘55P, 29 design and administrative practice which will be instrumental in their specific environments in avoiding stress and attain- ing organizational maintenance and growth. Figure 3 illustrates the contingency notion that the approach to design and admin- istration that will be instrumental in attaining the desired end (low stress and high performance) is the rigid or mechan- istic approach in stable environments and the flexible or organic one in dynamic settings. Stress is generated when the approach and environment are not congruent. Rigid Stress: Low Stress: High APPROACH TO (Mechanistic) erformance: High Performance: Low DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION . Stress: High Stress: Low Flex1ble _ , ——— (Organic) Performance: Low Performance: Hi h Stable Dynamic ENVI RONMENT Fig.3. Relationship between Approach to Design and Administration and Environment with Stress and Organization Performance It is notable from Figure 3 that stressfree climates are shown to be associated with an apprOpriate fit between the rigidity or flexibility of the design and administrative prac- tice on the one hand and the stability characteristic of the environment on the other. That is, a streszree climate can result from a rigid design and administrative arrangement in . . vagnflf UV... ave \- O ) ."r‘" " ..‘.‘Au ... . I": ’ihsse ' P n :I;'."YII\Q| .‘5AVs...l‘ q ‘...;.2 I ’9'. ~“‘-)“J q :‘fl’Qy ing“ (‘3 ‘15“ ‘4; .‘UI‘ . {fix .«lct’ a C: s . bra “\ats C 3 Uk- Q“! a .1 S Us a: 30 conjuction with a stable environment, or a more flexible arrangement where the environment is dynamic. From Table l and the above discussions there emerges the notion that high performance firms should more closely approximate the desired levels of the climate dimensions ( those that are associated with low stress) than the low performing firms. This can be expressed propositionally as: Proposition 6: For organizations Operating in stable environments, the climates in high performing firms will be more stressfree than in low performing firms. Summary Of Organizational Climate Dimensions Organizational climate is defined as that relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organiza- tion. While many dimensions of climate can be suggested, the Mix Model as developed here, considered perceptions of (l) task orientation, (2) relationship orientation, (3) organiza- tional clarity, (4) organizational conformity, (5) role con- flict, and (6) role ambiguity. This multidimensional concept of climate was also transformed to a single dimension which treats climate as a continuum ranging from low stress to high stress as perceived by individual members. PERSONALITY The third major variable in the Mix Model is Personal- ity (or Individual Characteristics). The concept of personal- ity as used in the Mix Model was defined above as that pattern of individual attitudes and needs which, conceptually, can n: a-r' . 1.; GlIIEIE. .' 9'1. 3}be' sets of soc1 For ' tzalized at atthsritar i a: for IC !.\ «’1 need f( :"eri g .l duclv‘ ‘ Lar "r": R ( 5‘. y 1' \nC 7. ) iith 0the “flat inte Rich is 31 (l) differentiate individuals, (2) influence their behavior, and (3) be described in terms of the values of particular sets of social and psychological phenomena. For the purposes of the Mix Model as it is concep- tualized at this stage, dimensions of personality include (i) authoritarianism, (ii) interpersonal orientation, (iii) toler- ance for role conflict, (iv) tolerance for role ambiguity, (v) need for independence, and (vi) need for achievement. Authoritarianism This refers to the tendency Of the individual "to glorify, to be subservient to and remain uncritical toward authoritative figures of the ingroup and to take an attitude of punishing outgroup figures in the name of some moral author- ity." (Adorno, et 31., 1950, p. 228). Interpersonal Orientation This dimension of personality focuses upon the criteria which individuals feel are important in their relationships with others. Basically, the concept being employed here is that interpersonal relationships can be viewed as an activity which is either (a) an end in itself, or (b) a means to an end. Individuals who look upon social interaction as an end in itself can be described as relationship oriented. Those who look upon such interaction as a means to an end can be considered to be goal or task oriented. .C.€I8.'!C€ i Thi , ‘. ., 1 HUM"! n “(Igl‘ u ‘L in his job flict is t szzn ccnf 1 I; a essence 32 Tolerance for Role Conflict This dimension is defined as the degree to which an individual's attitude toward the presence Of role conflict in his job is one of tolerance. One's tolerance of role con- flict is taken to be indicative of his ability to cope with such conflict in his job situation. Tolerance for Role Ambiguity This dimension of personality is defined as that tendency of an individual to be tolerant in his attitude to- ward the presence of role ambiguity in his job situation. Need for Independence This personality characteristic can be defined as that tendency of an individual to prefer self-directed activity rather than having his activity initiated and directed by others. This need is made manifest in a pattern of behavior and feelings which demonstrate the subject's desire to main- tain his own autonomy. Need for Achievement The need for achievement is the degree to which an individual is motivated to attain high levels of performance. Manifestations of achievement motivation include (a) high aspiration level in so far as it does not reach beyond one's capacities, (b) preference for high probabilities when the outcome of an action is highly determined by chance, (c) strong striving for upward mobility, (d) great persistence when 1 Ii ccnfronted tendency tc gerception. cf task pa: S‘LPPert t‘r (“hf 4 L vvuM‘LLE' ( V“ 5:54 c. H “~45“ ‘ u m .‘ bdouates . 33 confronted by a task of intermediate difficulty, (e) strong tendency to resume a task when interrupted, (f) dynamic time perception, (g) future oriented time perspective, (h) choice Of task partner primarily influenced by competence of the other, (i) a seeking of recognition by performing well, and (j) a desire to perform well. (Hermans, 1970, pp. 354-5). There is considerable evidence in the literature to support the notion expressed in the Mix Model that some per- sonality characteristics lend themselves to differing levels of satisfaction and performance in various organizational climates. Passing metion was made above in the general over— view of the Mix Model to some of this literature. More detailed examination of the literature is warranted in this section. Tannenbaum and Allport found evidence to support the hypothesis that "a greater proportion of those relatively 'suited' to the program in which they were placed will be more favorable (or less unfavorable) to their program than will be the case for those who are 'unsuited' to their program." (1956, p. 277). "General support was found for the hypothesis. The attitude of favor or disfavor, developed by workers in a large business organization to two experimental programs with contrasting patterns of allocating aut- hority appears to be a function, as was predicted, of the interaction between the personality structure of the individual and the structure of the work-program in which he is Operating. Those individuals, who by their trend-structure...are 'suited' to the program they are in, tend to feel a greater satisfaction with it...then do those whose trend structures are 'un suited' to their program (1956, p. 280). “- aess was xentlv t #1 :v;&e f veg-Md . t I . "CV‘ vall‘ 55-min . .55“ i, “:5" i¥\o b 34 Unfortunately no measure of performance effective- ness was used in Tannenbaum and Allport's research and conse- rquently the relationship between the mix of personality and climate factor and performance was not revealed. Hall (1971) developed a theoretical model which con- ceptualizes the relationship between one's career work role (defined as a position or status in social space and a concom- itant set of expectations of the incumbent) and his ideal identity (the individual's perception of his ideal self). He suggests that career satisfaction is a function of the degree of congruence between career role and career subidentity (that subset Of ideal identity which relates to vocational activi- ties). The concept of congruency between role and identity is used to discuss outcomes in terms of satisfaction and mental health (concerns which were also discussed by Argyris, 1964) but again there is no attempt to examine performance as an outcome variable. Litwin and Stringer (1968) present some suggestive evidence of relationships between several dimensions of climate and aroused motivation in terms of needs for power, affiliation and achievement. For example, they suggest the work Of Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), Litwin (1966) and Ciarlo (1961) provide some evidence to support the hypothesis that situational structure tends to reduce the level of aroused achievement motivation. In addition, they argue that 'formality and social distance will tend to increase as the hierarchy of work rules becomes more explicit. This tendency (although necessary to 'r; - Izsn‘oalv- M ,, H‘QAID a, :333}’ O :5“ “5130 O k 0 "-- 55": “went :2. M‘CNQ . jcst‘ ‘n .I 35 maintain the integrity Of the structure) reduces the salience of close, affiliative relationships" (p. 48). Finally, with respect to the need for power and its relationships with the structure dimension of climate, Litwin and Stringer draw on the work of Verhoff (1955) and Uleman (1966) to suggest that "in situations where there is a hier- archy of status and authority, and where there are cues that suggest competition for recognition and status. . ., n-Power will be aroused and power-related behavior will be generated" (p. 48). Morse and Lorsch (1970) extend the approach used by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967b) who examined the effects of external environment on organizational design and administrative strategies. They found high performing organizations were staffed with managers exhibiting higher sense of competence motivation. This was a major step in wedding the external environment, external organizational climate and personality characteristics into a meaningful mix which tended to explain differences in overall organization effectiveness. However, sense of competence could be alternatively explained as de— pendent upon organizational effectiveness rather than their suggested hypothesis that it is vice-versa. Unfortunately, the nature of static correlational studies always is such as to render them unable to detect casual relationships. Never- theless, the findings of Lawrence and Lorsch and Morse and Lorsch provide further encouragement for studies examining environmental, climate, and personality variables simultaneously. Ir: Lasrence gers in t EEVLICI‘IE 36 In addition to the findings of Morse and Lorsch, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967b) were led to speculate that mana- gers in the high performing firms in the dynamic and stable environments had somewhat different personality needs. Those in the plastics organization seemed to prefer more in- dependence and had greater tolerance for ambiguity, while those in the container company were perhaps better satisfied with greater dependence upon author- ity and were more bothered by ambiguity....while we have no way to confirm this speculation, it does raise again the importance of the point made earlier, that the organization must fit not only the demands of the environment, but also the needs of its members. (1967b, p. 155). The contingency theory and prior research reviewed above suggests that there are individual characteristics that would lend themselves to superior performance and that these characteristics would be systematically related to different levels of performance as the environmental situational vari- ables changed. In particular, where the environment is stable, the Mix Model suggests individual performance and satisfaction will be greater as the subjects’personalities are more (a) authori- tarian (Sanford, 1950), (b) task oriented in their interpersonal relations (Fiedler, 1967; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967), (c) in- tolerant Of role conflict and (d) role ambiguity (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Lyons, 1971), and (e) dependent (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Trow, 1957). This pattern of individual characteristics defines what will be called Type X individuals. Finally, (f) individual performance and satisfaction are 5‘. hf 21X will be taritar; 3025110 I"! L4,, "' u‘u . 3."; ’- an,‘on ::s...Q“C '11 37 expected not to be inversely related to need for achieve- ment in these mechanistic organizations (Hermans, 1970). On the other hand, where the environment is dynamic the Mix Model suggests individual performance and satisfaction will be greater as the subjects' personalities are less aut- horitarian, more relationship oriented, tolerant of role conflict and role ambiguity, independent and characterized by high need for achievement. This pattern of personality characteristics defines what will be called Type Y individuals. Since this study is restricted to firms in a stable environment only the relationships between individual per- formance and personality characteristics of individuals working in, what are expected to be, relatively mechanistic organizations can be examined. These prOposed relationships can be stated prOpositionally as Proposition 7: High performing individuals working in a stable environment will a. be more authoritarian b. be more task oriented c. be less tolerant Of role conflict d. be less tolerant of role ambiguity e. have greater needs for independence f. have an equal or greater needs for achievement than low performing individuals in the same environ- ment. Summary of Personality Dimensions Personality was defined as that pattern of individual attitudes and needs which, conceptually, can differentiate individuals, influence their behavior, and can be described in terms of the values of particular sets of social and psycholo- gical phenomena. :iu! ,Apv .n'.‘ Uni. H .... a t. - t. a C ”on ~io~'~.u - ‘v‘: V's R... “a . . -1Vn ‘. ,. ~ .‘.“‘0.‘u J . ~ “"'V‘v v.“': r J I o.a h .¢.~ aafii I. ‘§ I ‘4: -~ ‘A we - . I. (9.. ‘A \‘:Q‘ ‘ 5“i ‘ d I ‘1‘ , "’Slt‘ A {Va 5 38 A review of the relationships of these variables to environmental conditions as conceptualized by the Mix Model and supported by prior research and theory was presented. The a priori characteristics of individuals particularly well suited to work in stable environments were formulated. Organizational Performance For the purpose of this study organizational perform- ance was defined as the average annual rate of return of total earnings before interest depreciation and taxes (EBIDT) on total assets for the ten years ending 1960-1969. Since the study required a high performing and a low performing firm in the same industry, firms could be designated as high or low performing as their rates of return were above or below the industry average for the same time period. Individual Performance Individual performance is the degree to which an individual attains a given standard of goal achievement. Unhappily, the wide variety of tasks that are involved in managerial jobs makes it extremely difficult to develop a uniform standard of performance that is applicable to all jobs. The difficulties of appraising managerial perfOrmance is in itself a major field of study. In this study, where the subjects ranged in function, position level and company, individual performance was opera- tionally defined as high if the subject was an above average Werner F Ives o averace i! J HM“ «anon "'35 -..h res: t -.n - \n“ "-sSfac- { . 39 performer and low if his performance was average or below average in the judgement of the company officer responsible for personnel appraisal. Satisfaction Satisfaction in the Mix Model is defined as the grati- fication of a need or the provision of pleasure or contentment with respect to the quality of the work situation. Drawing on the work of Smith,et‘al.(l969), Maslow (1954), and Porter and Lawler (1968), the Mix Model variable, satisfac- tion, is viewed as a multivariate phenomenon composed of eleven These are satisfaction with (1) job, (2) firm, dimensions. (6) co-workers, and (3) career progress, (4) pay, (5) superior, satisfaction of the need for (7) security, (8) affiliation, (9) autonomy, (10) esteem, and (11) self-actualization. The Relationships Between Environment, Climate, Personality, Performance, and Satisfaction Having disCussed the nature of each of the variables of the Mix Model and reviewed some of the more relevant litera- tnxre dealing with the behavior Of some of the pairs of these variables, attention will now be turned to explicating the nature of probable interaction effects of (1) environment, climate and individual performance, and (2) environment, climate and satisfaction. The Feb I" ;. e ear-La e8, , ‘ V 23210281 , . Ir" Q . ":‘EL'ZG L4 40 The Relationships Between Environment, Climate, Personality, and Performance The contingency theory Of organization which developed out of the work of Woodward (1958), Burns and Stalker (1961), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and others has suggested that organi- zational performance is contingent upon the fit between the organizational climate and environment. Specifically, organi— zations Operating in relatively stable environments which are rigidly designed and administered tend to be higher performing organizations than those which are more flexible. And con- versely, organizations Operating in relatively dynamic envi- ronments which are more flexibly designed and administered tend to be higher performers than those which are more rigid. Furthermore, while performance is frequently viewed as a multiplicative function of ability and motivation (Vroom, 1964, p. 198), the whole concept of classical organization theory is based upon the notion that performance can be con— trolled by short circuiting the motivation variable. Conse- quently high structure, precise job description and task re- quirements in conjuction with task independence and close task oriented supervision are employed to assure at least minimally acceptable levels of performance regardless of individual dif- ferences in motivation affected by personality characteristics and their resultant differential patterns of need and perception. In short, the differences in individual performance in mechanistic firms are minimized by the structural character- istics of the task situation. Organization performance, and :3 a“: uu' e. V It? Q N1 eh?! .u at. an \ ,‘ run. in. h It a I q u v. .I. nu; r1 1. no. r. n v1 a“ (u +\ C v. LL E +; hr. by a P C a at e f .l «mm “C a e -1 D» C LU. .1 urban C . .... ‘I . uvhl. ‘ u .Nl. m. 3. a kw nu. 1|; LL D» Q; 0.. .. . 1 a r. 0» LI! «1 .C c .5 m... .h s. 1.. A» IN. vs 1‘4 fhv .n- .5“ as nF' ‘.M ex .6 t I. . I) . n H \M\ Uh M. 41 by reduction, individual performance in stable environmental settings is more a function then Of the fit between climate and environment than it is between personality and climate. Stated in propositional form this implies: Proposition 8: For individuals working in stressfree climates in stable environments, high performers will approximate Type X's more than will low performers. Proposition 9: For individuals working in stressful climates in stable environments, high performers will approximate Type X's more than will low performers. Proposition 10: For organizations Operating in stable environments, the performance of individuals in stress- free climates will be greater than the performance of individuals in stressful climates. The Relationships Between Environment, Climate, Personality and Satisfaction The literature focusing on job satisfaction has usu- ally attempted to eXplain differences in job satisfaction or morale to be a function of the nature of the job situations in which individuals Operate. The work role variables most frequently considered are (l) supervision, (2) the work group, (3) job content, (4) wages, (5) promotional Opportunities, and (6) the physical conditions of the work situation. The Mix Model breaks with this traditional approach in that it also considers the moderating influence of individual differences in attitudes and needs in the relationship between these climate variables and satisfaction. The underlying rationale for hypothesizing the parti- cular interaction effects that will be developed from the Mix Model is grounded in the psychological principle that satisfac- tion is a function of the intensity of a need and the degree . "FJV; A“! =“ ' $1.0“. 42 to which the drive for that need is able to be reduced by the means available from the surrounding environment. Shaffer formalized this by hypothesizing that: “Overall job satisfaction will vary directly with the extent to which those needs of an individual which can be satisfied are actually satisfied, the stronger the need, the more closely will job satisfaction de- pend upon its fulfillment (1953, p. 3). It will be recalled that stressfree climates in stable environments were anticipated to have high structure and task orientation as well as low role conflict and ambiguity, and also that Type X individuals have high needs for structure and task orientation, and low tolerance for role conflict and ambiguity. Furthermore, it will be recalled that organic organizations in stable environments, and their resulting stressful climates, and Type Y personalities will have char- acteristics at the opposite ends of the climate and persona- lity continua. Based upon the earlier review of the literature and the ensuing discussion of the Mix Model concept, the following propositions can be stated in the context of a stable envir— onment: Proposition 11: Personality Type X's will be more satisfied (Or less dissatisfied) in stressfree cli- mates than Type Y individuals. - Proposition 12: Personality Type Y's will be more satisfied (or less dissatisfied) in stressful cli— :mates than.Type X individuals. Proposition 13: Personality Type X's will be more satisfied (or less dissatisfied) in stressfree than in stressful climates. .1 i 1 vir‘hnn . 1%“...VuaJ 3.33:8 a: “"’h‘ I :-:u'.e en ’ . 5225-1 as ‘0 :DPIH‘I': - intiuu- u L , . 'l-h - "vw- .J.._33Ce {44.) o 43 Research Objectives and Hypotheses The objectives Of this research were to (1) provide additional empirical evidence on the relationship between climate and firm performance for firms Operating in relatively stable environments, and (2) to test the validity of the Mix Model as it extends the contingency approach to organizations to include the personality dimension Of its members along with environment and climate in explaining organizational per— formance and individual performance and satisfaction., The following general notions, based upon the pro- position developed above, were tested in this study. 1. Managers' perceived climate will be related to firm performance, individual performance and own work role. (See propositions 1 through 6 and 10 above). 2. Managers' personality characteristics will be related to firm performance, individual performance, own work role, and perceived climate. (See propositions 7, 8, 9, above). 3. Managers' satisfaction will be related to firm perform- ance, individual performance, own work role, perceived climate, and personality. (See propositions 11 through 13 above). Chapter Summary The objective of this chapter was to review the develop- ment of the contingency approach to organization theory and describe the Mix Model concept upon which this research project has been is €38 mes actions of oim n 1 Reno? “‘6': I \"Vr\.u . 44 has been based. The rationale for the selection of variables, the dimensions of those variables and the anticipated inter- actions of the input variables in relation to the levels of firm and individual performance and satisfaction was also developed. In addition to indicating the rationale upon which this research has been undertaken, it is hoped that the theoretical development of the Mix Model as formulated in this chapter will be a contribution to the body of theory of organizational behavior tying tOgether the major concepts of environment, climate, personality, performance and satisfaction. The following chapter will describe the methodology employed in the study, with particular reference to the selec- tion of a research design, organizations for study, question- naire design and scoring procedure, and analytical techniques. “(Pm W'r lieu/HY d-kL 4‘ . :‘ovuuy'x ‘ '~ .4 firm II) rn p )1 We 5 3" c “w . rerfn CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the method- ology employed in the study. There are five rather distin- guishable stages. They are (l) the selection of an industry and firms representative of the pOpulation of interest, (2) the selection and design Of measurement instruments, (3) the evaluation of these instruments and final scale construction based upon data Obtained in the study, (4) the selection of a research design, and (5) the choice of statistical techni- ques for data analyses. Since the evaluation of instruments involves discussion of data collected in this study, discussion of stages (2) and (3) is deferred to the following chapter. A description of the remaining three stages is presented in this chapter. Selection of Industry, Firm and Subjects Since the study was to focus on firms in a stable envi- ronment, some method had to be devised to determine what indus- tries were stable and what were dynamic. Furthermore, it was important to keep the two firms selected as closely matched in terms of technology, markets, size, etc., as possible, while at the same time differing on the basis of overall organizational performance. 45 . “an“ ‘ r- (,.. r -" ..“4~ i..;.\ l I rest ,acle 1 vista our)- 1 ‘0‘ \"l 9.. . a - AI.” ‘NM P.“ a: v. u‘“; ‘h t require licit “WV 1'- C LE ' AU (N... J be “491: : ani or ‘1» 46 Measuring Industrial Environment and Company Performance The selection of an industry and companies, then, pre- sented two preliminary problems: (1) the identification of stable industrial environments and (2) the assessment of over- all organizational performance of firms in the population Of interest. As a point of departure, a list of Michigan firms em- ploying 1000 or more employees was compiled from the Directory of Michigan Manufacturers. The restriction to firms of that size was designed to eliminate organizations which would not. likely have sizeable managerial staffs in each of the three functional areas of interest. Restriction to firms in Michigan was made in recognition Of the constraints on the area within which travel by the researcher would be feasible, since it was anticipated that discussion with company officials would be required to explain the nature of the study in the course of soliciting their cooperation in the project as well as obtain- ing their evaluatiOn of the nature of the environment in which their firms were Operating. For the purpose Of measuring environmental stability and organizational performance, data were drawn from the Com— pustat Data Tapes available from the Computer Tape Library at Michigan State University. These tapes include names and financial data for some 900 companies for the twenty years 1959-1969. The next step involved selecting for further study all these 5 tries a ... ‘ Mzcnlgr . ‘ Y -aae u try as "H‘s-a- :‘ R:‘! "‘\'H\.‘ n..‘ 47 those firms on the Compustat Tape that were in the same indus- tries as those firms incLuded in the earlier listing Of Michigan companies. Having selected such firms, analyses were made with respect to both stability 95 volatility Of the indus- try as a whole and the performance Of those Michigan firms vis-aévis other firms in the industry (as defined by the classi- fication of firms employed in the Compustat Tape). In this fashion, industries could be ranked in terms of stability and firms could be ranked in terms of their per- formance. From these analyses, firms and industries which met the requirements of the study were identified and contacts made to elicit participation. Measuring Industry Stability-Volatility The measure employed to describe the stability-volatil- ity dimensions Of the environment of an industry was the aver- age Of the coefficients of variation of EBIDT of the firms in the industry over the years 1960-1969 inclusive. The ration- ale for using volatility of EBIDT as an index of the stability of the environment is quite straightforward. Since a stable environment has been defined as one where the certainty of information and predictability of market and technological change is high, and the rates of change in these areas are low, tine difficulty in coping with such an environment would be relatively easy. Such ease in coping with the environment could be expected to be revealed in relatively small deviations ' 1 ‘vn‘m I 559..) 4 4‘" ‘- SobJab. nu. véle.'v ‘ A R~H~ “ONO.“L.’ unu'. ,u‘ : ~».ab..r V as...” . A 'uuAn-n b - ~52: I: LIP-"ac u ‘N K H ~. N‘. ‘ ‘\ “N y . 48 from the mean EBIDT for companies in that environmental situation. On the other hand, if the market dimension is rela- tively dynamic, perhaps as a result of rapid changes in consumer tastes, of changing prices of substitute or compli- mentary goods, etc., or if the technology used in the industry changes rapidly and unpredictably, the problem of coping with the environment would be considerably more difficult. The degree Of difficulty would be reflected in greater deviations from the mean EBIDT for companies in that environment. It is to be noted, however, that the variance of EBIDT is also effected by the ability of the management of the or- ganization to cope effectively with the environment. Conse- quently, a low variance might also be indicating a relatively high level of ability of the management to COpe with the environment and not just of uncertainty in the environment. The converse might also be true. However, assuming managerial ability to be normally distributed between organizations and industries, as long as the numbers of firms and industries are relatively large, the measure Of volatility would not be greatly affected by the differences in managerial ability to cope with uncertainty . Industrial Environment for Selected Industries The ranking of selected industries in decreasing order car volatility, as well as the number of firms in each industry, aand the industry weighted AROI are shown in Table 2. cr't u“"“ 0?} flat. .NJ .13. av. a/u pka 13. AU 72C. 2 ‘ 20H i 202< I l\ f‘ (I. ’l\ I ‘ ( I I 2 .3 AH). DJ 5 7 e 2 6 C 96 0 O C 1. 2 1. 2 2 2 .. '. 'l- ll. 1|I We «\U 49 TABLE 2 SELECTED INDUSTRIES IN DECREASING ORDER OF VOLATILITY OF EARNINGS, AVERAGE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, AND NUMBER OF FIRMS IN INDUSTRY SAMPLE, 1960-1969 Rank Industry Industry Volatilitya AROIb NC Number Name of Earnings l 3670 Electronics .599 15.68 19 2 3721 Aerospace .557 17.72 16 3 3570 Office & Business Equip. .503 31.79 12 4 2899 Chemical & Chem. Prepara- . tions .463 16.86 13 5 2844 Cosmetics .452 29.25 11 6 2050 Food - Bread & Cakes .392 12.99 5 7 2830 Drugs .379 27.28 25 8 2010 Food - Meat Packers .366 10.70 7 9 3714 AUTO PARTS & ACCES- SORIES .322 19.11 18 10 2020 Food - Dairy Products .306 17.51 6 11 3220 Metal & Glass Containers .291 16.06 6 12 2650 Paper Containers .287 15.34 8 13 3000 Tire & Rubber .274 15.24 12 14 2800 Chemicals .258 20.83 33 15 2052 Food — Biscuit Bakers .219 19.03 5 16 2070 Confectionary .181 28.79 5 Source: The data presented in Table 2 were computed from raw data on the Compustat Data Tape, 1970 edition, Com- putor Services Library, Michigan State University. aVolatility is measured by the weighted average coefficient Of earnings before interest, depreciation, and taxes for each firm in an industry, weightings being the firm's share of industry sales over the 10 year period. bAverage Return on Investment is measured by the weighted aver- age Of (EBIDT/Total Assets) x 100 for each firm in an industry weighting being the firm's share of industry sales over the 10 year period. CN represents the number of firms in the industry sample. 'v- rm $1 I'L. : I .5331 . q .apfln 0va U . CA;‘. #56. e . 53 )5 fete: Us Sit .g‘fe §1~ni “as.“ . 50 To determine the significance of indicated differences in volatility of environments, industries were first ranked from highest to lowest volatility of EBIDT as in Table 2. Recognizing the possible non-normality of distributions Of coefficients of variation and other assumptions with respect to variances that are required Of parametric tests, the dif- ferences between each pair Of industries were tested by using the one-tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two-Sample Test, a non-para- metric test requiring only ordinal data. Eleven class inter- vals along the continuum of earnings volatility were used. Table 3 summarizes the results of this test. As is evident, differences between many pairs of industries were highly significant. It is notable that the auto-parts and accessories industry was shown to be significantly less dynamic than the office and business equipment, aerospace, and electronics industries. Furthermore, it was not significantly more dynamic than metal containers, an industry considered by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) to be relatively stable. The auto-parts and accessories industry was selected for its relatively stable environment. Further analyses were made then to select two firms from within this industry, one high performing firm and one relatively low performing firm. Measuring Company Performance The measure used to evaluate a company's rate of return was the average rate of return on investment (AROI) over the ten years, 1960-1969 inclusive. In order to minimize variance I s \I 'I |.|.' ..| 9.53.? v. 334 N (Flues/Rs < ”CZ ~ $43 .33 ~ ZEWDQZH . .......~.§Z...-~.§..~.L ~ 3 .13 3.42630 1 L A 2“ ta U. I ~ ~Lz32-4wa 3.323.103.2150! 9-: stn.-—n. h zuin..3.~.v—: 5.3 ~ Q h L.<.~Av\r .NRL a :3 2H Q F. v u u.-.~u~l\.nl 51 .mHmEmm wuumspcw on» CH mfiuwm mo Hones: may mucmmmumwu z .Hoo. v o . mumcflmucoo Hobo: cmnu husaflumao> Hmummum m was Avauv mowaouuomam .aanmaflEHm .so. .Amawv mommmoumd swap muflawumHO> um3oa m mm: Rosy mpumm ous< .mamfimxm mom a Av*v v s .Aumcmscv um3oa Omxcmu ms £Os£3 muumdccw umsuocm cmcu Aum3oav Hmummum ms muumspcfl cm mo BQHmm mo wuflHHDMHo> map nosn3 um mocm0flmscmflm mo mam>ma may no xauume M NO comwumeoo ms m magmas « ss mossouuoosm as as. s ms oomomouos oa so. so. . NH mmoosmom s oosooo NH so. mm. os. . as msosussmooss Hso ussoso o msoossmso ma mo. mo. as. as. « os mosuoEmou as so. ma. so. ms. sH. « o mmxso s omoumuooom m mo. os. ma. ss. sm. ms. .. o mosuo mm mm. mm. om. so. om. so. os. . s muoxoso umoznooom s oo.v so. so. sm. ms. ss. as. mm. s o mamas oso< os mm. om. mm. mm. Hm. oo. mo. so. mm. s m muoooouo susoo o oo.v No. Ho.v sH. mo. ss. om. om. so. ss. . s muoosmpcou Hops: o so.v as. mo. sm. Hm. ms. ms. so. so. as. so. . m msossmuooo moons o Ho.v so. No. om. so. mo. om. so. os. ms. so. am. s m mHsoHEoou mm Ho.v so. No.v as. as. mm. as. mm. mm. ms. om. ms. mo. . H .musoomsm . woos m sH MA as as os o o s o m s m m H scam ssumsosH sz nose susssuMHo> zoo ammo mqmzamuose mmeomqmm zmmsemm >OzmHSm >OMOOOZAOM DMAHdBIWZO d UZHmD mmHMEmDQZH NBHAHB¢AO> BQHmm ZH mmuzmmmthQ m0 MUZ +4 5 st <3sJ§ m B c>m m i cam on a (J §.J E4 D «:3 filéta H s s a 85* as “89‘ m h. m a 5% D2 gag 1: Production High 20 11 11 55.0% L Production Low 20 12 12 60.0 I. Research High 15 10 10 66.6 L Research Low 15 8 8 53.3 L Marketing High 17 11 11 64.7 L Marketing Low 18 '10 10 55.5 Total Firm L 105 62 62 59.0% }1 Production High 20 10 10 50.0% H Production Low 20 10 10 50.0 11 Research High 20 11 11 55.0 Ii Research Low 20 12 11 55.0 }{ Marketing High 20 11 11 55.0 11 Marketing Low 20 16 16 80.0 Total Firm H ’ 120 69 68 56.6% GRAND TOTAL 225 131 130 57.8% aFirm L was a relatively low performing organization. Firm H was a relatively high performing organization. ,cl w‘!‘ 05‘ J fi‘ ‘5 rv-L' Q n ‘ ffl’ .n-Hov ' 3 a n9 LIre . N: \b u \L. t 54 Selection of Research Designs In order to examine the relationships between personal- ity, climate, satisfaction and individual performance as well as role and company performance, three factorial designs were employed. Each of these designs is described below. Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance The design employed to test the main and interaction effects of firm, role and individual performance on (a) cli- mate, (b) satisfaction, and (c) personality was a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design. In this design three levels of role, two levels Of firm performance, and two levels of individual per- formance were treated as factors and climate, satisfaction and personality scores were treated successively as dependent variables. A schematic presentation of this design appears in Figure 4. Production ROLE Research Marketing Low High INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE Figure 4. Schema Of Research Design 1: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Climate, (b) Satisfaction, and (c) Personality. ‘P" "P .y‘.‘.‘ 4 «4. To P. . DU cw“. wail“ 1 an» .flu .,re , l .3.“ J h. e b) a l N“: 0 I . .1 a: r ‘nu FH\ c k ‘W his a :u 55 Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance The design used to test the main and interaction effects of role, climate and individual performance on (a) satisfaction and (b) personality was a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design. In this design, three levels of role, two levels of climate, and two levels of individual performance comprised the factors and satisfaction and personality were each treated as dependent variables. A diagram Of this design appears in Figure 5. Production ROLE Research Marketing Low High INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE Figure 5. Schema of Research Design 2: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Satisfaction and (b) Personality. Design 3: Role x Climate x Personality The design used to test the main and interaction effects Of role, climate and personality on (a) individual performance and (b) satisfaction was a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial design also. In this design, three levels of role, two levels Of climate and two 16 , . o:nL~ o‘bh‘ H5 17 54:5 lie '1!" a I’.‘ .* v~~ III) ahr‘ 56 two levels of personality were treated as factors and satis— faction and individual performance were treated as the depend- ent variables. A diagram of this design appears in Figure 6. L A W s LV .Production ROLE Research Marketing Type X Type Y PERSONALITY Figure 6. Schema Of Research Design 3: 3 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design with Dependent Variables (a) Individual Performance and (b) Satisfaction. Statistical Techniques for Data Analysis The approach used to analyze the data can be described as a four stage process. These stages involved (1) determina- tion of inter-item correlations for scales measuring each of the climate personality and satisfaction variables, (2) deter- mination of internal scale reliabilities, (3) analyses of *mariance for the three research designs, and (4) where analy- ses of variance indicated significant effects, analyses of (iifferences among means to determine the nature of the effects, using the Tukey test, were conducted. 5% ~53 flaw Ping; o Afi- 5'5. who" lunar v 9 U Q\ N to ”at “t 57 Since scale construction is the topic of the next chapter, discussion of the first two stages will be deferred to that section. A brief description of the techniques of analysis Of variance and the analysis of differences among means is provided in this section. Analysis of Variance Analysis of variance is a statistical technique which permits differences between means to be partitioned in such a way that sources of the variance can be identified. For a completely randomized design, the total sum Of squares can be partitioned into two components - sum of squares within-groups and sum of squares between-groups. The within-groups sum Of squares arises due to the individual differences among subjects who receive the same treatment level in the research study. These individual differences in scores reflect chance varia- tion. Differences among scores of subjects who receive dif- ferent treatments reflect not only these chance differences arising from individual ideosyncracies but, in addition, re- flect systematic effects of the particular treatments if they are present (Kirk, 1969, pp. 50-59). When the design is a factorial design, having more than one treatment variable, in addition to testing the hypotheses of equal means for column and row means, interaction means must also be tested for equality (Blalock, 1960, pp. 257-8). f {1- 58 An F ratio provides a test of the hypothesis that all treatment means are equal. This test is the ratio of the between-groups mean square and the within-groups mean square (Kirk, 1967, p. 59). When significant F statistics were found and the hypothesis of no relationship could be rejected, the Tukey test for making pairwise comparisons among means was used to find the source and level of significance of these effects. A level of .10 was established as the lower limits Of acceptable significance. The computer program used for the analysis of variance was a multivariate analysis of variance and covariance program (Dixon, 1969). f. C J Do I p) F! all. Tawny. o sky. A Frau: it. v i g D .‘_ 5‘... «‘ufl .: on ‘t CHAPTER III SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND RELIABILITY Introduction In this chapter the scales that were employed in the data analyses are described and their internal reliabilities reported. In some cases a scale's reliability could be im- proved by deleting items which were found not to correlate highly with other items in the a priori scale.a Raw scores were transformed to Z-scores for all analyses. The measure of internal reliability of a scal that was used was the coefficient k(raj) kk _ l + (k-l)r.. 1] where k = the number of items in the scale rij = the average correlation between all pairs of items in the scale (Nunnally, 1967, p. 193). Nunnally suggest that the coefficient Of internal reliability is perhaps the most meaningful measure of relia— bility. This coefficient of reliability sets an upper limit to the reliability of the instrument. If it proves to be very 59 o N ‘Uloh an nqfi‘! '1 (V IA 9 fi‘ns! «lot-.1 c:~¥ '1‘.“ E. \m 60 low, either the test is too short, the number of items (k) should be increased, or else the items have little in com— mon (Eij is low). It has been suggested that for basic research (such as this) moderate reliabilities in the order of .60 or .50 will suffice while applied research might require a minimum Of .90 and preferably .95 (Nunnally, 1967, p. 226). The scales that were developed from this data for each of the dimensions of the major variables of (1) climate, (2) personality, and (3) satisfaction are reported below. Climate The dimensions of climate included measures Of perceived structure, managerial style and role conflict and ambiguity. Perceived Structure The two sub-dimensions of perceived structure exam- ined were: (1) organizational conformity and (2) organiza- tional clarity. The items used to measure these were drawn frtnn Litwin and Meyer (1968). Unfortunately, they did not report the reliabilities of these instruments. Their relia- lxilities were found in this study to be .594 and .776 respec~ tively. Organizational Conformity.--The four item scale used to measure organizational conformity had an internal relia- bility of .594. The items to which subjects responded by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed on a four point scale were: I~v 5:. ' a‘ c r J)! .— . \ ‘1'». ~\“; 8 61 New and original ideas are not prevented from receiving consideration by excessive rules, administrative details and red tape. If you don't Conform to standard practices around here, you will be looked upon critically by your superior. Unnecessary procedures are kept to a minimum in this unit. There are a lot of rules, policies, procedures, and stand- ard practices one has to know to get along in this unit. Organizational Clarity.-—The five items used to measure organization clarity had an internal reliability of .776. The items, to which respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed on a four point scale were: The assignments in this section are clearly defined. The policies and organizational structure of this unit have been clearly explained. Things seem to be pretty disorganized around here. Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack Of organiza- tion and structure. I feel I am a member of a clearly and precisely structured team. Managerial Style The two sub-dimensions Of managerial style were defined in Chapter I as Task Orientation and Relationship Orientation. The items used to measure these dimensions were drawn from Litwin and Meyer (1968). However, the reliability of these scales was not reported. Task Orientation.--The three item scale used to measure task orientation had an internal reliability of .573. The items to which subjects indicated on a four pOint scale to: c v.‘ n .An' .‘yu- ' .- .mflu, .‘ ‘¢\ £013- s. ‘ “3:54 .5" .5‘0 E ‘ 62 the degree to which they agreed or disagreed were: My immediate superior tries to suppress or cut off con- flict when it arises, when he cannot do that he tries to force his own solution to settle the issue. My immediate superior treats his peOple like a stern father, and his motto appears to be "nice guys finish last." ‘ My immediate superior does not use his hierarchical power in the authoritarian-obedience sense to maintain his control. Relationship Orientation.--The reliability Of the four item scale was .658. The items to which subjects indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed on a four point scale were: My immediate superior does not place a high value on maintaining good relations and does not feel that the attitudes and feelings of people are important in their own right. My immediate superior tries to avoid disagreements, rejections, and conflict; where conflict does arise he tries to smooth over. My immediate superior treats his people in a brotherly way, and his motto appears to be "nice guys don't fight." My immediate superior strives to keep his emotions low- key, and his humor aims at maintaining good interpersonal relations. Role Conflict The items used in the role conflict scale were drawn from Rizzo, et al., (1970). They reported reliabilities of .816 and .820 on two administrations of their eight item scale. In the administration of these items in this study the internal Ice-u Chit—s f '0‘. . _""'\".' “Iv-Hunt» A < n V.‘ 7ft ac fly 1 1" '14 1|:- ol nu. I . TI. TI a I m I \M. AU .«u t f u .l n n s: 0 fly 0» LI kl» n... .hu .. o la in u S» 3h » :u L» t .- h n, . . as» .. .. -.!« 2,. a: as. I \ u-\ o s t u u D \ \ 63 reliability was maximized at .761 by dropping one Of the original items from the scale. The remaining items, to which subjects responded on a seven point scale ranging from True to False, were: I have to do things that should be done differently. I receive an assignment without the manpower to com— plete it. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. I receive incompatable requests from two or more peOple. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. I work on unnecessary things. Role Ambiguity The items used in the role ambiguity scale were also drawn from Rizzo, et a1. They reported reliabilities of .780 and .808 for two administrations of their six item scale. In the administration Of these items in this study it was found that the internal reliability of the scale was .834 by dropping one of the items. The remaining items, to which subjects responded on a seven pOint scale ranging from True to False, used in this study were: I feel certain about how much authority I have. Goals and objectives for my job are clear and planned. lhanW what my responsibilities are. .F‘C on. '5 3.1 “'~e a 3‘5 K.“ ‘ Y l i \ ‘ . s ‘I :QC ‘5. Q"" a d I h I A ‘6'.“~ ual} & 64 I know exactly what is expected of me. Explanation is clear of what has to be done. Interrelationship of Climate Dimensions After having computed the reliability of the various scales for the climate dimensions the next point of interest was to determine how well these scales fitted together as a measure of perceived climate along the stressfree/stressful dimension as defined above. It will be recalled that the theoretical construct of climate discussed earlier envisages a stressfree climate in a stable environment as having low Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Organizational Conformity, and high Relationship orientation and Organizational Clarity. Stressful climates would be characterized by the obverse of _ this profile. The relationship between Task Orientation and Perceived Stress was not specified in advance for reasons dis- cussed in Chapter I. Consequently, the correlation matrix of these dimensions would be expected to appear as illustrated in panal (a) of Table 5. That is the set of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity and 'Organizational Conformity ought to be positively correlated. In addition, Relationship Orientation and Organizational Clar- ity alsoOught to reveal positive interscale correlations. Ihxrthermore, the two sets would be expected to be negatively correlated, since a stressfree climate, for example, was Opera- tionally defined as having low degrees of the first set and W3 65 TABLE 5 A PRIORI AND EMPIRICAL INTER-SCALE CORRELATIONS OF THE CLIMATE SUBSCALES (a) A priori inter-scale correlations Scale 1 2 3 4 6 1. Role Conflict + + - n.a. 2. Role Ambiguity + - n.a. 3. Conformity b - n.a. : 4. Relationship Orientation n.a. 5. Clarity n.a. 6. Task Orientation (b) Empirical inter-scale correlations (N=130) Scale 1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 6 7 1. Role Conflict .428++ .495++ -.244+ -.429++ .283+ .718++ 2. Role Ambiguity .310“+ -.163+ -.540++ .142 .673H 3. Conformity -.287++ -.301++ .269+ .663H 4. Relationship Orientation .243+ --.510++ .614++ 5. Clarity .149* .680++ 6. Task Orientation .594++ L Composite Climate Scale * p 3.10 + p 3 .01 ++ p i .001 using two-tailed test L;-L LOQUAI o ::~L buy“ ‘ 1 ltd: “"6? D.,‘ fs. 93L. o‘~&£ o'- “ssh: .‘ 0“: 66 high degrees of the second set. The development of interscale correlations and the interpretation of an overall measure was complicated by the fact that the subscales had varying numbers of items and differing ranges over which they were scored. To overcome these complications, the scores on each subscale were trans- formed tO a range of 1-5 and the average score of items on each scale was used instead of the total score. This avoided inadvertent weightings due to varying numbers of items and score ranges. Interéscale correlations for each of the pairs of six climate sub-scales were computed and are portrayed in Table 5, panel b. Climate Stress Inspection of panel (b) of Table 5 reveals that the underlying relationships between the first five subscales fit the a priori stressfree/stressful construct. The relationship between Task Orientation and Perceived Stress was expected to be moderated by the perceived instru- mentality of Task Oriented leadership. If Task Oriented leadership was perceived to be instrumental in attaining per- sonal need satisfaction it would be stress reducing. If it was perceived to be not instrumental in this way, it would be stress inducing. Apparently the subjects in this study did IKTt see Task Orientation of their superior to be instrumental ixi this way but viewed it as a stressful characteristic. 67 Reflecting the scores of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Organizational Conformity and Task Orientation removes all the negative signs with the exception of the correlation between Organizational Clarity and Task Orientation which then becomes negative. Combining the subscales after reflecting the scores of these dimensions results in a scale for which a low score de- picts a climate perceived as having high Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Organizational Conformity and Task Orientation and low Organization Clarity and Relationship Orientation. This describes a climate perceived by organizational members to have relatively high degrees of stress. High scores on this scale depict a climate perceived as being relatively stressfree. The inter-scale reliability of this composite scale measuring perceived climate stress was found to be .721. The correlations of the subscales with this overall measure Of perceived stress range from .594 to .718 as shown in panel (b) of Table 5. The important implication of the inter-scale relation- ships for this study was that it rendered testing hypotheses related to the stressfree/stressful concept of perceived cli— mate, as measured by an overall scale, operable. Table 6 presents a summary of the a priori and empiri- cally based relationships between the climate dimensions used in.tflxis study as well as the number of items in and internal reliabilities of the revised subscales. ~ . L. '1‘ . N 2 h.‘ A.v — — ~ 0 O 0 0 I t hVu N: h.» .‘ \ 01in ‘11- «i c ls... no}. fr.» . «I 68 TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF A PRIORI AND EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SELECTED CLIMATE DIMENSIONS AND NUMBER OF ITEMS AND RELIABILITIES OF REVISED SUBSCALES Dimension A’Prioria Empiricalb kC rkkd Stress Level Stress Level Stress- Stress- Stress-IStress— free full free full 1. Role Conflict Low High Low High 7 .761 2. Role Ambiguity Low High Low High 5 .834 3. Org'l Conform- ity Low High Low High 5 .594 4. Org'l Clarity High Low High Low 4 .776 5. Relationship Orientation High Low High Low 4 .658 6. Task Orien- tation n.a. n.a. Low High 3 .573 cNo. of items in subscale dReliability Of subscale aExpected direction of scoring bActual direction of scoring Stmmnary on Climate Scale A climate scale was developed with a reliability of .721“. This scale was comprised of subscales measuring role cxnxflict, role ambiguity, organizational conformity, organiza- ticnmal clarity, task orientation, and relationship orientation. rd (I) l r . "$4.. 1-.“- 1 0’ an .IP‘ who". 7 I , icfile ‘Ht .5 s“ . v \- 69 A stressful climate was operationally defined as that indi— vidually perceived climate which scored below the median on the climate scale. This climate was typically one in which there were higher levels of role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational conformity and task orientation, and lower levels Of organizational clarity and relationship orientation. A low stress climate was operationally defined as that cli- mate which was scored above the median on the climate scale. This climate was typically one in which there was lower levels of role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational conformity and task orientation and higher levels Of organizational clarity and relationship orientation. Personality The six dimensions of personality that were defined in Chapter I were (1) Interpersonal Orientation, (2) Authoritar- ianism, (3) Tolerance for Role Conflict, (4) Tolerance for Role Ambiguity, (5) Need for Independence, and (6) Need for Achievement. Interpersonal Orientation The instrument used to measure interpersonal orienta- tion was the Least Preferred Co-worker scale developed by JFiedler (1967). While it was recognized that considerable (montroversy surrounds Fiedler's approach and findings (Graen, 1971), particularly with regard to the meaning of the ZDPC score (Mitchell, 1971; 1969; Bieri, 1961; Foa, Mitchell .... _ «- 70 and Fiedler, 1971; Steiner, 1959; and Mitchell, Biglan, Oncken, and Fiedler, 1970), for want of a better scale this instru- ment was used. The LPC instrument has sixteen bipolar semantic—dif- ferential items (i.e. pleasant-unpleasant) on which the subject rates his LPC. The sum of these scores is treated as his LPC score. The instrument appears as Part I of the Individual Preferences Questionnaire in Appendix I. The instrument has been widely used and was found here to have a reliability Of .893. However, two items, numbers 13 and 14, were found to have relatively low inter-item correlations. After drOpping these items from the original scale, the reliability was in- creased to .935. The revised scale was used in subsequent analyses. Authoritarianism The seven item authoritarianism scale was drawn from the Adorno, et al.(1950) F-scale's 28 items. The internal reliability Of this shortened version was .791, which compares favorably with the range of .81 to .97 for the longer version. The seven items used in this study and to which subjects indi- cated on a five point scale the degree to which they agreed or disagreed were: Obedience and respect for authority are the most impor— tant virtues that children should learn. Every person should have complete faith in some super- natural,power whose decisions he obeys without question. 71 Young peOple sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. . Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. There is hardly anthing lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude and respect for his parents. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished. Tolerance for Role Conflict The seven items used to measure tolerance for role con- flict had an internal reliability of .760. The items, to which respondents indicated the degree to which they_wou1d like or dislike various characteristics of role conflict if they were in theirgjob situation on a seven point scale, were: I have to do things that should be done differently. I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. I receive incompatible requests from two or more peOple. I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. I receive an assignment without adequate resources and Inaterials to execute it. I work on unnecessary things. 72 Tolerance for Role Ambiguity The six items used to measure tolerance for role am- biguity had an internal reliability of .726. These items, to which respondents indicated the degree to which they would like or dislike characteristics of role ambiguity if theyewere in their jobs on a seven point scale were: I feel certain about how much authority I have. Goals and objectives for my job are clear and planned. I know that I have divided my time properly. I know what my responsibilities are. I know exactly what is expected of me. Explanation is clear of what has to be done. Need for Independence The three items drawn from Vroom's sixteen item need for independence scale had an internal reliability of only .399. Consequently it was dropped from further analyses. iNeed for Achievement The five items that constituted the need for achieve- ment measure were drawn from Hermans' (1970) Measure of Achieve- nmnrt Motivation. He reported the reliability of the 29 item version to be .80. The reliability of the shortened version used in this study was found to be .615. The items to which subjects were to indicate aphrase which completed the statement that most closely described his feelings or experience were: .1 g. II 73 At high school, I thought perseverence was? When I am working, the demands I make upon myself are: If I have not attained my goal and have not done a task well, then: Working is something: To prepare yourself a long time for an important task: Interrelationship of Personality Dimensions After having computed the reliability of the various scales for the personality dimensions, the next step was to determine how well these scales fitted together. Since an overall measure of personality was desired, the question was one of determining the reliability of an overall scale.comr prised of the subscales developed for each dimension. This was accomplished by computing the inter-scale correlations for each of the pairs of the five personality subscales. The inter-scale correlations of the personality subscales are portrayed in Table 7. TABLE 7 INTER-SCALE CORRELATIONS OF THE PERSONALITY SCALES Scale 1 2 3 4 5 1. LPC . - -.075 .039 -.021 .215* 2. Auth-F ' - .029 -.021 -.160 3. TRC - -.001 .073 4. TRA - —.073 5. N-Ach - 74 It is obvious from Table 7 that the personality dimen- sions were quite independent of one another, although there .appeared to be a tendency for individuals who are relationship oriented to also have a high need for achievement. The implication this had for further data analyses was that instead of combining personality dimension scores into a single personality score as originally planned, the personality dimensions would be analyzed in a series of analyses of variance 7* to test the hypotheses on personality. Summary Of Personality Scales Scales were developed with satisfactory levels of relia- bility to measure Interpersonal Orientation, Authoritarianism, Tolerance for Role Conflict, Tolerance for Role Ambiguity, and Need for Achievement. A Need for Independence scale had unsat- isfactory reliability and was consequently drOpped from further analyses. It was found that the remaining five scales were quite independent of each other, making their combination and the com- ‘putation of a single personality score unjustifiable. While this finding did give rise to the requirement of more complicated data analyses, it did not provide contrary evidence to the notion that personality characteristics are systematically related to individual performance and satisfaction in various functional roles and climates. Satisfaction The eleven dimensions of satisfaction for which scales gave 50' 1“ \fl.‘” ‘ . 'Vv‘c A I \1“! "vgu "N' 51. ‘Ohh t) . sq I: 4 f 1. /' ’ v - r-v- 75 were developed were satisfaction with (1) job, (2) the firm, (3) career opportunities and progress; (4) pay, (5) superior, (6) co-workers, and satisfaction of needs for (7) security, (8) affiliation, (9) autonomy, (10) esteem, and (11) self- actualization. Satisfaction with Job The four item scale used to measure general satisfaction with job was drawn from Hoppock (1935) and had a reliability of .757. The items were: Please indicate with an "X" the statement which best tells how well you like your job. Indicate with an "X" HOW MUCH OF THE TIME you feel satis- fied with your job. Indicate with an "X" the statement which best tells HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT CHANGING YOUR JOB. Indicate one of the following to show how you think you compare with other peOple. Satisfaction with the Firm A two item scale drawn from HOppock (1935) was used to measure the level of satisfaction with the firm. It was found to have a reliability of .695. The instructions given subjects for these items were the same as those given for the items on satisfaction with the job. The two items were: All in all, what do you think of this firm as a place to work? How does this firm compare generally with other places in this area as a place to work? :5 ,p l H I S n\. l v. “'5 '0 O — :A -b Q’:. been :9‘ Uh" \ ..E 1| 9 i... 1 b.' Q J is. u ‘ I \‘z 4 ‘R Q 1 ~{ 76 Satisfaction with Career Opportunities and Progress rThe two items used to measure the individual's satis- faction with career Opportunities and progress to date were drawn from Harrison (1960) and had an internal reliability of .729. How do you feel about the opportunities that are available for a person to rise to a position which fully utilizes his abilities? How do you feel about the progress you've made in the company up to now? Satisfaction with Pay The two items used to measure satisfaction with pay were also drawn from Harrison (1960) and had an internal relia— bility of .861. The items were: How do you feel about your earnings compared with what other companies have to offer? How do you feel about your earnings taking into account the difficulty and responsibility of your job? Satisfaction with Superior Two items were developed to tap the individual's satis- faction with his superior and were found to have an internal reliability of .605. The items were: How do you feel about the kind of interperSonal relations you have with your immediate superior? How do you feel about the technical competence of your immediate superior? Satis faction with Co-workers Only one.item was included to tap the level of satis- faction of respondents with their co-workers. The item was: n\-‘ 77 How do you feel about working with your current group of co-workers as compared to other groups you have worked with? In addition to the above measures of satisfaction, a shortened version of the Porter and Lawler (1968) questionnaire was used to compute scores for satisfaction of needs for security, affiliation, autonomy, esteem, and self-actualization. The instrument listed eleven characteristics or qualities connected .1 with the subjects' positions in the firms. For each character- istic they were asked to giVe three ratings on a seven point >1 Is scale. The ratings were: a. How much of the characteristic is there now connected With your position? b. How much of the characteristic do you feel should be connected with your position? c. How important is this position characteristic to on? In this study, satisfaction was imputed by the score on rating "a". A high score indicated higher levels of satisfaction than lower scores. A preliminary analysis of the data showed that responses to rating "a" provided a better measure of satis- faction than either the (b-a) or (b-a)c technique. This is con- sistent with findings reported by Evans (1969) and Quinn and Mangione (1973). Satisfaction of Need for Security Only one item in the Porter and Lawler instrument fo- cused on the satisfaction of the need for security. Consequently, the coefficient of reliability could not be calculated. The item was: 78 The feeling Of security in my management position: Satisfaction of Need for Affiliation Two items were used in this scale. While the relia- bility of this subscale was very low (.185) the scale was higly related to the other satisfaction scales so these items were retained in the overall determination of satisfaCtion. The items were: I TWTm-m ‘2’. I The opportunity, in my management position, to give help to other people: The gpportunity to develop close friendshipe in my management position: Satisfaction of Need for Autonomy This scale was comprised of two items and had an inter- nal reliability of .785. The items were: The authority connected with my management position: The opportunity for independent thought and action in my management position: Satisfaction of Need for Esteem The three items in this scale yielded an internal relia- bility of .696. The items were: The feeling of self-esteem a person gets from being in my management position: The resti e of my management position inside the company (that is, the regard received from others in the company): The resti e of my management position outside the company (that is, the regard received from others not in the company). a “hf 9“ ~\ 79 Satisfaction of Need for Self-Actualization This scale was also composed of three items drawn from the Porter and Lawler questionnaire. The internal reliabil- ity of this scale was .734. The items were: The opportunity for personal growth and development in my management position: The feeling of self—fulfillment a person gets from being in my management position (that is, the feeling of being able to use one's own unique capabilities, realizing one's potentialities): The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in my management position: Interrelationships of'Satisfaction Dimensions After having computed the reliabilities of the various 3 priori scales for the satisfaction dimensions, the next step was to determine how well these scales fitted together as a composite measure of satisfaction. This was accomplished by computing an inter-scale correlation matrix. However, two changes were made. First of all the two items composing the satisfaction with superior scale were run as separate items, since the reliability of the scale was relatively low, (.605). Secondly, since these scales had varying numbers of items and the ranges over which scales were scored also varied (some were iL—S, others 1-6, and still others l-7),the scores on each scale were transformed to a range of 1-5 and the average score of items on each scale was used rather than the tOtal score. This avoided inadvertent weightings due to varying numbers of items and score ranges. The resulting correlation matrix is 80 shown in Table 8. The reliability of this composite measure of satisfaction was .815. Summary of Satisfaction Scales A single overall satisfaction scale was developed with an inter-scale reliability of .815. This scale was comprised of twelve subscales which tapped the dimensions of satisfaction that were identified with (1) job, (2) firm, (3) career pro- gress, (4) pay, (5) relationship with superior, (6) technical 4competence of superior, (7).co-workers, (8) needs for security, (9) affiliation, (10) autonomy, (ll) esteem, and (12) self- (actualization. Chapter Summary This chapter has described the inter-item and inter— :scale reliabilities and the items used in the scales employed 111 this study. In addition, the nature of the interrelation- Ships of scales that were designed to measure conceptually Italated dimensions of climate, personality and satisfaction as Shown by the data'collected in this study were reported. In the light of the patterns of relationships that were travealed from the data, some revisions in the major scales for “Measuring climate and satisfaction were made. The reliability (If the final version of these scales were .721 for the per- cxaived climate measure and .815 for the satisfaction measure. The personality dimensions were found to be quite inde- Pendent and therefore did not lend themselves to combination 2 .34 :<.~. 81 ummu Umaflmulmco mcflms Hoo. v a ++ Ho. mo. W m«« CH. v m x. l meUm GOHuUMMmHumm wflflwOQEOU .MH ++eHm. u coflumflaamm< .ma ++mam.++mmm. u manusomm .HH ++mom ++Hem++mae u coflumuflamsuoanmamm oa ++nmn ++mnm++mmv ++~ee u meocousm m ++ome ++onm++moe ++mmm ++mam u ammumm m ++mn¢. +mom. meo.++amm woma +emm u mumxuoznoo .n ++Hmm ++mmm++mam ++mmm ++~om +ma~ +¢H~ n uoaummsm mo moamumdsoo .m ++mmm +Hom++emm ++mmm ++omm +vm~ +evm ++¢me u uoauwdsm spas danmcoaumHmm .m ++mm¢ mmo«a>oa +vmm +oam +m¢m +va amma +NH~ n Imam a ++mmm ++mem++mmm ++¢em ++mm¢ ++emm ++mam ++mmv ++¢em ++mo¢ u ummumo .m mmm. Hmo. mmm. mom. mum. mmm. mma. omm. and. mom. mmv. u swam .m ++ . .+ .++ . .++ .x: . + ..« .++ .+ . . . ++Hmm +mom++mmm ++Hom ++no¢ ++oom +mm~ ++vmm ++qu «.mva + Hmv ++mo¢ u now .H ma NH Ha 0H m m n m m a m m H mamom Aoma n zv ZOHBUthHBdm m0 NMDm¢m2 MBHmomSOU ZH mSMBH mom meBdZ ZOHBflAmmmOU mfldum mmBZH m 393. 82 into a single overall personality scale. This caused the sub- sequent analyses of personality to be treated as several indi- vidual personality dimensions rather than as a single dimension. The following chapter will present the findings of the :atudy as they relate to the three general research questions orrtlined in Chapter I, employing the measures discussed in Chapter II and III. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction In this chapter, the findings which relate to the propositions that underlie the general research questions as developed in Chapter I will be reported. In view of the fact that the data analysis generated considerably more findings that those which bear directly on the prOpositions mentioned above, not all the findings are considered rele- vant to these propositions. Only those findings which bear on the research questions are reported. It will be recalled from Chapter I that the general research questions being investigated were: 1. Are managers' perceptions of climate related to firm performance (Propositions l, 2, 3, 5, 6) own work role (Pr0position 4), and individual performance (Proposition 10)? 2- Are managers' personality characteristics related to firm performance, own work role, individual performance, Perceived climate, and the interaction of perceived climate and performance (Propositions 7, 8 and 9)? 83 I: 84 3. Are the levels of managers' satisfaction related to firm performance, own work role, individual performance, per- ceived climate, personality, and the interaction of per- sonality and perceived climate (Propositions ll, 12, and 13)? The statistical technique used for most data analyses was analysis of variance as discussed in Chapter II. Since each of the three research designs has three factors (say, A, B and C), there are seven hypotheses which can be tested (Kirk, 1969, p. 218). There are three main effects, three first order interactions, and one second order interaction. The results of the analyses of variance are presented in the generally accepted analysis of variance table format. The F statistic presented in this table merely indicates wheth- er a significant relationship exists between the variables tested by the hypothesis; it does not reveal the nature of the relationship. The overall F ratio is merely a first step in analyzing the data. The Tukey comparison test is then used to make pairwise comparisons of means. Findings Related to Research Question One Evidence relevant for examining the first question was provided by the analyses of variance in Design 1, treating Perceived Climate as the dependent variable, and in Design 3 treating Individual Performance as the dependent variable. 85 Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance on Climate It will be recalled from Chapter II that Design I was a 2.x 3 x 2 completely randomized factorial design using the fixed effects model. The factors employed were two levels of Firm (a low and a high performing firm), three levels of Role (production, research, and marketing), and two levels of Indi- vidual Performance (low and high). Cases were randomly deleted to obtain equal n's in each of the twelve cells. (There were ten cases in each cell. Overview The effects on Climate by Firm, Role, Individual Per- formance, and the interactions of these factors were examined.1 In addition to treating the composite measure, Climate, as a dependent variable, runs were also made using the individual climate subscale scores for Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Organizational Clarity, Organizational Conformity, Task Orienta- tion, and Relationship Orientation. Before examining in detail the analyses of variance for these runs, a summary overview of the significant F statistics for the seven hypotheses for each of these runs is presented in Table 9. It is seen from Table 9 that there were signifi- cant interaction effects by Firm x Role and Firm x Role x Indi- vidual performance for at least one of the climate dimensions. 1It should be noted that while this report speaks of the main and interaction "effects" on a "dependent" variable by the "independent" variables or factors, this terminology is merely conventional in analysis of variance writing. The data in this study is all ex post facto and as such the direction of causality cannot be infEEred. 86 30H m .mHQmwum> mumEHHo on» mo mmummp nmfln m wouMOHuCH muoom swan d .mHQMHum> may no mmummp 30H m mmumowpcfl ouoom m .mHQMHum> may mo mmummp cm“: m mmumoapcfi muoom 30H m cam OHQMHHM> mumEHHo may mo moumop 30H m mmumowpafl mnoom swag m umnp Om pmuowammu mum3 mmHmom mmmnu co mmuoom m mmumoflccfl muoom 30H m “mumEHHo omnwmmmuum m wmumoflpcfl mnoom swan < N .mumEHHo Hsmmmmuum H OH. H x m x m H x m H x m mo. HO. 0H. m x m AHV .muwm HMSpfl>HUGH mo. Ho. Ame mHom mo. oH. Ame Euflm mcoaumucmauo mcoflumucmauo ~>ua5m0mcoo mmuflumao «spasmansa Nuoaamaoo mumsaao HancowumHmm xmme H.muo H.muo mHom mHom mmamomeoo mousom mZO szmMD ZH mfifiquo m0 mUZde¢> ho mmmNA¢Z< mom mUHBmHadfim m m0 m024UHMHZUHm ho mqm>mq ho Nm¢ZEDm 87 However, none of the null hypotheses relating to Role Ambi- guity and Organizational Clarity were rejected. Composite Climate The results of the analysis Of variance for overall climate are presented in Table 10. Inspection of Table 10 shows that there is an interaction between Firm and Role on Climate. TABLE 10 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR COMPOSITE CLIMATE SCORE Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean ‘ .0554 l .0554 .2652 Firm (F) .1623 l .1623 .7776 Role (R) .4962 2 .2481 1.1886 Individ. Perf. (I) .1496 1 .1496 .7168 F x R 1.2677 2 .6339 3.0364 .10 F x I .0005 1 .0005 .0024 R x I .3008 2 .1504 .7204 F x R x I .1306 2 .0653 .3129 Error 22.5449 108 .2087 Table 11 reveals that the climate in production in the low performing firm is more stressful than the climate in production in the high performing firm. The difference is significant at the .05 level. Furthermore, it is seen from Table 11 that there is a significant difference in climate between the production and 88 marketing roles in the low performing firm. The climate in production is relatively stressful while in marketing it is perceived to be quite stressfree. This difference is signi- ficant at the .01 level. TABLE 11 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF CLIMATE IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q* Significance ‘ Level Firm L - Production vs Firm H - Production -.20196 vs .12931 3.241 .05 Firm L - Production vs Firm L - Marketing -.20196 vs .19708 3.905 .01 * The q statistic is expressed in percentage points of the studentized range and assumes a two tailed test. See R. E. Kirk, Experimental Design Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, California: Brookstole Publishing Company, 1969), p. 90. Findings Regarding Composite Climate.--In response to the general research question "Are managers' perceptions of Overall Climate Stress related to firm performance, own work role, and individual performance?", the answer, based on the findings of this study, is a qualified no. While there were no simple relationships found to reach acceptable levels of Significance, there was a first order interaction between Firm.and Role which was significant. Detailed investigation of this relationship revealed that (a) in production, managers in the low performing firm perceived a more stressful climate than those in the high performing firm, and (b) within the 89 low performing firm, production managers perceived their cli— mate to be more stressful than those in marketing. This in- teraction is illustrated in Figure 7. Stressfree .25 . m (.197) .15 i p' Firm L (.129) PERCEIVED '05 ' ' m'. ( 025) .00 » L020) ' STRESS _ 05 {-.041) Firm H -.15 P (-.202 -.25 L ‘ ‘ Stressful Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 7. Firm x Role Interaction on Climatel. 1 The difference in Climate between p and m is signifi— cant at .01 and between p and p' at .05. These findings bear on Proposition 6. It will be re- called that Proposition 6 anticipated the Climate in Firm H to be more stressfree than that in Firm L. While the findings were in the predicted direction, the difference inoverall cli- mate scores between firms was not statistically significant. While these are the findings for the composite Climate Stress measure, different findings could and did occur for the individual dimensions of perceived climate. These are dis- cussed individually below. 90 Role Conflict Table 12 portrays the ANOVA for the Role Conflict di- mension of climate. There is a Firm x Role interaction with Role Conflict which is significant at the .01 level. TABLE 12 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR ROLE CONFLICT Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0300 1 .0300 .0759 Firm (F) V .0144 1 .0144 .0364 Role (R) .7477 2 .3739 .9464 Ind.Perf.(I) .0716 l .0716 .1813 F x R '4.3624 2 2.1812 5.5217 .01 F x I .0110 l .0110 .0278 R x I .1443 2 .0721 .1826 F x R x I .4248 2 .2124 .5377 Error 42.6622 108 .3950 Table 13 shows that in the low performing firm, there are significant differences among roles in the level of role conflict. There is considerably more Role Conflict in pro-_ duction than in research in the low performing firm. The difference is significant at .01. The degree of Role Conflict in production is also greater than that in marketing (p < .001), in Firm L. 91 Furthermore the degree of role conflict in the low per- forming firm's production role is greater than that in the same role in the high performing firm (p < .02). There are also differences in role conflict between the research roles of the two firms. In this role, Firm H has more role con- flict than Firm L (p < .10). TABLE 13 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF ROLE CONFLICT IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Meansl q Significance Level Firm L - Production vs Firm L - Research -.31072 vs .15421 3.308 .01 Firm L — Production vs Firm L - Marketing -.31072 vs .23675 3.895 .001 Firm L - Production vs Firm L - Production -.31072 vs .30106 2.591 .02 Firm L - Research vs 4 . Firm H - Research .15421 vs -.20171 1.802 .10 1 Role conflict scores were reflected so that a high score indi- cates a low degree of role conflict and a low score indicates a high degree of role conflict. Findings Regarding Role Conflict.--In response to the general research question "Are managers's perceptions of Role Con- flict related to firm performance, own work role, and individual performance?" the answer, based upon the findings of this study, is that there is no simple relationship which is statis- tically significant. However, there were four significant in— teractions between Firm and Role on Perceived Role Conflict. 92 These were described above and are portrayed graphically in Figure 8. (Strgggfree) '25r .15- PERCEIVED .05 * ROLE .00 ' CONFLICT -.05 ' -.15 ~ -.25 ’ (Strfisgfiul) _.35 -u3LUlp . . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 8. Firm x Role Interaction on Role Conflictl. 1The difference between p and r is significant at .01, between p and m at .001, between p and p' at .02, and between r and r' at .10. 93 PrOposition 4 which anticipated that role conflict would be greater in marketing than in research, and greater in research than in production was not supported by the data. In fact it was found that for both the high and low perform- ing firms, role conflict was less in marketing than in research, although the differences were not statistically significant. Regarding the level of role conflict in production, it was found that the mean for both firms was greater in production 4 than for research or marketing but not significantly so. How- ever there was a significant Firm x Role interaction on Role Conflict. Role Conflict in Firm H's production role was less than in that firm's research and marketing roles, although the differences were not statistically significant. On the other hand, in Firm L, Role Conflict was greater in production than in research (p < .01) and in marketing (p < .001). It is interesting to note that while the differences in Role Conflict between roles are opposite to what was predicted, these significant reversals were found in a firm whose perform- ance was relatively low. With regard to Proposition 5 which anticipated that Perceived Role Conflict would be lower in the high performing firm than in the low performing firm, the data in this study indicates that the prOposition is not supported. The mean was .00486 for Firm H and .02675 for Firm L. Since a high score indicates low perceived role conflict, the direction was Opposite to that suggested by Proposition 5 although the difference was not statistically significant. 94 Role Ambiguity No significant relationships between Role Ambiguity, and Individual Performance were revealed. Furthermore, it was found that there were no significant differences between the levels of Role Ambiguity in production, research and mar- keting roles. (See Proposition 4). Finally, while Proposition 5 states that Role Ambiguity in Firm H will be less than in the low performing firm, the actual mean levels of Perceived Role Ambiguity for these firms are -.03497 and .07249 respectively. Since a high score indi- cates low Perceived Role Ambiguity, the direction of the difference in these scores is Opposite to that suggested by the prOposition, although, this difference does not reach acceptable levels of satisfaction. Organizational Clarity There were no significant relationships found in this study between Organizational Clarity and firm performance, V own work role, and individual performance. While Proposition 2 anticipates that the level of Organizational Clarity would be greater in the high performing firm than in the low per- forming one, the opposite was found with means of -.00501 and .05099 respectively, although the difference was not significant. Organizational Conformity The second order interaction of Firm x Role x Individual Performance was also found to be significant. (See Tables 14 and 15.) While both high and low performers in Firm L's DESIGN ONE: 95 TABLE 14 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CONFORMITY Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level than .1533 l .1533 .3680 .10 Firm (F)' 1.1993 1.1993 2.8795 Role (R). .6959 .3479 .8354 Individual Performance (I) .0033 l .0033 .0080 F x R 1.5962 2 .7981 1.9162 F x I .2875 1 .2875 .6904 R x I .9748 2 .4874 1.1703 F x R x I 2.0261 2 1.0130 2.4323 .10 Error 44.9805 108 .4165 TABLE 15 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFORMITY IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Meansl q Significance Level Firm L vs Firm H -.06423 vs .13571 2.399 .10 Low Performers in Production: Firm L vs Firm H -.49988 vs .26654 7.520 .01 High Performers in Research: Firm L vs Firm H -.37372 vs .19988 5.628 .01 1Organizational Conformity scores were reflected so that a high score indicates a low degree of the variable and a low score indicates a high degree. 96 production roles indicated higher levels of Organizational Conformity than their counterparts in Firm H, the difference was significant only in the case of low performers (p < .01). For subjects in research, both high and low performers in Firm L indicated more Organizational Conformity than did their Opposite numbers in Firm H, but the difference was significant only for high performers (p < .01). For subjects in marketing, low performers perceived greater conformity in Firm L but high performers indicated more in Firm H, however neither difference was significant. In summary, the findings tend to support Proposition 1 in that Organizational Conformity is perceived as greater in Firm L than in Firm H with the exception of high performing managers in marketing. In that case, however, the differ- ence does not reach statistically significant levels. These findings are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. High .6OL .40,(.500) . .20, r ORGANIZATIONAL 0 4 .OOr L 3 Firm L QNFORMITY _ . 20 P p' r, $52132; ..,40L("267) (-.028) ' Firnxfi Low -.60 ‘ ‘ 4 Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 9. Firm x Rol Interaction on Organizational Conformity for Low Performers l The difference in Organizational Conformity between p and p' is significant at .01 and between p and m at .05. High 1.0 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFORMITY Figure 10. 97 , FinnH m! . (.091) (-.125)p _ ' -0219) (.167np m Ehth Production Research Marketing ROLE Firm x Role Interaction on Organizational Conformity for Low Performersl. l The difference in Organizational Conformity between p and r is significant at .01, between m and r at .01, and between r and r' at .01. 98 Findings Regarding Organizational Conformity.-- In response to the general research question "Are managers' perceptions of Organizational Conformity related to firm performance, own work role, and individual performance?", the answer is that there is a significant interaction with firm performance but not with role and individual performance. PrOposition l which suggests that Organization Con- formity, in firms in stable environments, will be less in high performing firms than in low performing firms was partially supported by the findings in this study. The second order interaction indicates that this difference was largely due to the differences in the predicted direction in the levels of conformity perceived by low performing production managers and high performing research managers. The perceptions of high performing marketing managers were in the opposite direction to that predictedknn;did not attain statistical significance. Task Orientation The analysis of variance table for Task Orientation is presented in Table 16. Examination of that table reveals a Firm x Role interaction. Since the interaction effect involves the variable for which a main effect was found significant, and since the interaction indicates the main effect holds only under certain situatiOns, only the higher order finding will be discussed. .1.» 99 TABLE 16 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TASK ORIENTATION Source Sum of Degrees Of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0839 l .0839 .2010 Firm (F) .7675 l .7675 1.8388 Role (R) 6.8176 2 3.4088 8.1655 .01 Ind.Perf.(I) .0802 1 .0802 .1920 F x R. 3.3330 2 1.6665 3.9925 .05 F x I .0337 l .0337 .0807 R x I 1.1054 2 .5527 1.3241 F x R x I .1849 2 .0924 .2215 Error 45.0802 108 .4174 Table 17 reveals that subjects in production perceived the climate in Firm L to be significantly more task oriented than their counterparts in Firm H (p < .01). This interaction is illustrated in Figure 11. TABLE 17 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF TASK ORIENTATION IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Meansl q Significance Level Firm L - Production vs Firm H - Production -.57009 vs .02380 4.11 .01 Firm L - Production vs Firm L - Research -.57009 vs .00989 3.88 p .01 Firm L - Production vs Firm L - Marketing -.57009 vs .4182? 6.84 .01 Firm L - Research vs Firm L - Marketing -.00878 vs .41827 2.96 .05 1Task orientation scores were reflected so that a low score indicates a high degree of the variable and high score indicates a low degree. 100 I (D High ’ (-. 570) TAS K . 0 r ORIENTATION (.024) Low .8 ' L ‘ ‘ Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 11. Firm x Role Interaction on Task Orientationl. 1The difference in Task Orientation between p and p' is significant at .01, between p and r at .01, between p and m at .01, and between r and m at .05. There were several differences in climate among roles in the low performing firm. Production personnel saw their climate more task oriented than their colleagues in research (p < .01) and marketing (p < .01). Researchers claimed their climate also had greater Task Orientation than did marketing personnel (p < .05). 101 Findings Regarding Task Orientation.-- In response to the general research question "Are managers' perceptions of Task Orientation related to firm performance, own work role, and individual performance?", the answer, based upon the findings of this study, is that while there is no significant relationship with individual performance, nor any simple rela- tionship with firm performance, there is a relationship with role and that this relationship varied between firms. That is,while there is a tendency for Task Orientation to increase as one moves from marketing to research to production roles, this increase is more marked in the low performing firm than in the high performing firm. Turning to PrOposition 3(a) which anticipates that Task Orientation will be greater in high performing firms than low performing firms in a stable industry, the Firm x Role interaction indicates the Opposite to be true. However, the only significant difference between firms in perceived Task Orientation within roles was that for the production role. There, Firm H's Task Orientation was less than that in Firm L. This suggests that high performing firms in stable environ- ments will have lower levels of Perceived Task Orientation than low performing organizations. Relationship Orientation The results of the ANOVA for Relationship Orientation are presented in Table 18. For that table it is seen that there are differences in the Relationship Orientation dimension 102 of organization climate that are related to Firm and Role, and are significant at the .05 level. TABLE 18 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0100 1 .0100 .0210 Firm (F) 2.1357 1 2.1357 4.4654 .05 Role (R) 3.9918 2 1.9958 4.1331 .05 Ind.Perf.(I) 1.2584 1 1.2584 2.6312 th R 1.1411 2 .5706 1.1930 F X I .0242 1 .0242 .0506 R X I 1.0506 2 .5253 1.0983 F X R X I .1186 2 .0593 .1240 Error 51.6541 108 .4783 Table 19 indicates that Relationship Orientation is lower in the low performing firm than in the high performing firm (p < .05). It was also found that Relationship Orientation was lower in production than in research (p < .05) and marketing (p < .01). TABLE 19 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION OF IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Firm L vs Firm H -.12427 vs .14255 2.99 .05 Production vs Research -.24285 vs .08745 3.02 .05 Production vs Marketing -.24285 vs .18238 3.89 .01 all 103 Findings Regarding Relationship Orientation.--In re- sponse to the general research question of whether or not there are significant relationships between mangers' per- ceptions Of the relationship orientation of their immediate superiors and firm performance, own work role, and individual performance, analysis of the data in this study revealed the following: i 1. There was a relationship between Relationship Orientation and firm performance. The high performing firm was seen by its managers to have a more relationship oriented climate than the low performing firm. This finding bears directly on Proposition 3(b) which anticipated this relation- ship. Since the findings were significant at the .05 level and in the direction called for by Proposition 3(b), this proposition is supported by the data in this study. 2. There was a significant relationship between Relationship Orientation and work role. Specifically, Rela- tionship Orientation decreased as one moved from marketing to research to production. 3. There was no significant relationship between the perceived relationship orientation of one's immediate superior and one's individual performance rating. 104 Design 3: Role x Climate x Personality on Individual Performance Design 3 was a 3 x 2 x 2 completely randomized factor- ial design using the fixed effects model. The factors employed were three levels of Role (production, research, and marketing), two levels of Perceived Climate Stress (low and high), and two levels of Personality. Since the five personality dimensions used in the study were found to be independent, this required five runs Of this design using (a) high and low Authoritarian- ism, (b) Task and Relationship Interpersonal Orientation (i.e., low and high LPC), (c) low and high Tolerance for Role Con- flict, (d) low and high Tolerance for Role Ambiguity, and (e) low and high Need for Achievement. Cases were randomly deleted to Obtain equal n's in each of the twelve cells. The total number of observations in the design for runs (a) through (e) were 84, 72, 108, 72, and 96 respectively. Design 3 was employed to test Proposition 10 which was: For organizations operating in stable environments, the level of performance of individuals in stressfree climates will be greater than the performance level of those in low stress climates. The findings for each of the five runs showed that none Of the Composite Climate Stress main or interaction effects was significantly related with Individual Performance. Consequently Proposition 10 could not be supported. Since none of these analyses of variance revealed significant F ratio's, the analysis of variance tables are not reported. 105 Summary of Findings Related to Research Question One The first research question explored in this study was whether or not perceived climate stress is related to firm performance, individual performance, and managers' own work role. Specifically, propositions 1 through 6 and 10 were tested. Climate Stress and Firm Performance Significant differences were found between the high and low performing firms on two dimensions of climate as antici- pated by PrOposition l and 3(b). Specifically, excessive Organization Conformity was lower (p < .10) and Relationship Orientation was greater (p < .05) in the high performing firm than in the low performing firm. In addition, a lower level of overall Climate Stress was found in Firm H than in Firm L, as suggested by Proposition 6, although this difference was not statistically significant. Finally, Organizational Clarity and Task Orientation tended to be lower in the high performing firm, contrary to Propositions 2 and 3(a), and Role Conflict tended to be higher in Firm H, contrary to PrOpositions 5(a) and 5(b). However, none of these contradictory tendencies reached acceptable levels of significance. Climate Stress and Individual Performance PrOposition 10, which anticipated that individuals in Stressfree climates would have higher levels Of performance than those in stressful climates, was supported by the direction 106 of the difference in climate stress although the difference did not reach significant levels. Climate Stress and Role The analyses of the relationships between Climate Stress and Role permitted a test of the differences in Role Con- flict and Ambiguity between roles suggested by Kahn, gt al., (1964) as stated in Proposition 4. In addition, it provided empirically based answers to the general research question of whether or not there are differences in other dimensions of climate as well as the overall measure of Climate Stress be- tween roles. Proposition 4, which anticipated that Role Conflict and Ambiguity would be greater as one moved from production to research to marketing roles, was not supported by the data in this study. NO significant differences were found between roles in the levels Of Role Ambiguity. With regard to Role Conflict, the differences between all three roles in Firm L were in the Opposite direction to that predicted and the dif- ferences were significant between production and research (p <.01) and between production and marketing (p < .001). None of the differences in Firm H were significant. Conse- ’ quently the data in this study would reject this proposition and suggest that any relationship between role and Role Con- flict and Ambiguity may be moderated by firm performance. Turning to Overall Climate Stress, there were no dif- ferences between roles across firms although there were 107 differences between roles within Firm L. In that firm, the level of stress was greater in production than in marketing (p <.01) as well as greater than in Firm H's production role (p < .05). Task Orientation was found to vary between roles but only in the low performing firm. In Firm L, Task Orientation was greater in production than in research (p < .01) and marketing (p < .01). Relationship Orientation was found to be lower in production than in research (p < .05) and marketing (p < .01). Findings Related to Research Question Two It will be recalled that the second research question centered on whether managers' personality characteristics are related to (1) firm performance, (ii) their own work role, (iii) their performance level (Proposition 7), (iv) their per- ception Of climate and, finally, (v) whether or not the rela- tionship between performance and climate is moderated by personality (Propositions 8 and 9). The first three sub-parts of this question were able to be explored using Design 1 treating the various dimensions of personality as the dependent variables. The last two sub-parts were investigated using Design 2 with the person- ality dimensions again being employed as the dependent variables. 108 Design 1: Firm x Role x Individual Performance on Personality To review briefly, Design 1 was a 2.x 3 x 2 completely randomized factorial design using the fixed effects model. The factors employed were two levels of Firm (a low and a high performing firm), three levels of Role (production, research, and marketing), and two levels of Individual Per- formance. Since the Personality dimensions were found not to be related, no overall measure of this factor was avail- able. Consequently, the analysis Of this design was compli- cated by the necessity of running it for each of the five dimensions of Personality, LPC, Auth-F, TRC, TRA, and N—Ach. Cases were randomly deleted to obtain ten observations in each of the twelve cells. Overview I This portion of the analysis deals with the effects on Personality by Firm, Role, and Individual Performance, and the interactions of these factors. Since the various dimen- sions Of personality were found not to fit together in an overall way, tests of the hypotheses relating to personality were made for each Of the dimensions of Interpersonal Orienta- tion (LPC), Authoritarianism (Auth-F), Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC), Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA), and Need for Achievement (N-Ach). Before reporting in detail the results of these indi- vidual analyses, a summary overview of the significant F statistics for the seven hypotheses for each of the personality 109 dimensions will be discussed briefly. marized in tabular form in Table 20. TABLE 20 This overview is sum- SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF E STATISTICS FOR ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS IN DESIGN ONE Source LPC Auth-F TRC TRA N-Ach Firm (F) .01 Role (R) .05 .05 Indiv. Perf.(I) .05 .10 F x R .10 .05 F x I .10 R x I F x R x I It is seen from Table 20 that there were significant Firm, Role, Individual Performance main effects and Firm x Role and Firm x Individual Performance interactions for at least some of the dimensions of Personality. None of the null hypotheses were rejected for Tolerance for Role Ambiguity so the ANOVA table for this dimension is not reported. Relationship Orientation (LPC) Table 21 shows a Firm x Role interaction effect that was significant at the .10 level. fied in Table 22 and Figure 12. This interaction is clari- While subjects in Firm L 110 in marketing are more interpersonally oriented than subjects in research (p < .05) the difference is not significant in Firm H. Furthermore, the difference between marketing and production subjects' Relationship Orientation does not remain significant when examined within each firm. However, when differences in LPC is examined between roles in Firm L, it was found that research subjects were significantly more task oriented than production subjects in that firm (p < .05). TABLE 21 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION (LPC) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .2841 l .2841 .7250 Firm (F) .0492 l .0492 .1256 Role (R) 2.8694 2 1.4347 3.6608 .05 Indiv. Perf. (I) .0098 l .0098 .0249 F x R 2.0628 2 1.0314 2.6317 .10 F x I .0319 l .0319 .0815 R x I .2837 2 .1418 .3619 F x R x I .0831 2 .0415 .1060 Error 42.3203 108 .3919 111 TABLE 22 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION (LPC) Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Firm L: Research vs Production -.36036 vs .04195 2.87 .05 Firm L: Research vs Marketing -.36036 vs .23319 4.24 .01 Relationship .25 L233) Firm L Oriented .15 (.094) Firm H .05 LPC .00 -.05 -.15 -.25 Task -.35 r Oriented . ("360). 1 Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 12. Firm x Role Interaction on LPCl. 1 The difference between p and r is significant at .05 anui the difference between r and m is significant at .01. 112 Authoritarianism (Auth-F) The analysis of variance tests of the null hypotheses (relating to Authoritarianism are reported in Table 23. The main effects of Firm, Role and Individual Performance were significant at the .01, .05, and .05 levels of significance respectively. Table 24 reveals the nature of these relationships. It is shown in Table 24 that subjects in the low performing firm are more authoritarian than those in Firm H (p < .01). inspection of Table 24 also reveals that subjects in production are more authoritarian than those in research (p < .10) and 'marketing (p.< .05). And finally, it is seen that high per- forming managers are less authoritarian than those rated as low performers (p < .05). TABLE 23 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR AUTHORITARIANISM (AUTH-F) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .1562 l .1562 .5082 Firm (F) 3.0655 1 3.0655 9.9764 .01 Role (R) 1.9039 2 -.9519 3.0980 .05 Indiv. Perf. (I) 1.4315 1 1.4315 4.6588 .05 F x R .0903 2 .0451 .1469 F x I .0033 l .0033 .0107 R x I 1.1818 2 .5909 1.9230 F x R x I .4098 2 .2049 .6669 . Error 33.1857 108 .3073 113 TABLE 24 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF AUTHORITARIANISM (AUTH-F) IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Firm L vs Firm H .19591 vs -.12376 4.47 .01 Production vs Research .21244 vs -.03046 2.77 .10 Production vs Marketing .21244 vs -.07376 3.25 .05 High Performers vs Low Performers -.07315 vs .14530 3.25 .05 Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) The analysis of variance table for TRC in Table 25 shows that the Firm x Individual Performance interaction ‘was significant at the .10 level. TABLE 25 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOLERANCE FOR ROLE CONFLICT (TRC) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0568 .0568 .1418 IFirm (F) .7889 .7889 1.9708 :Role (R) .8337 .4168 1.0412 Indiv. ‘Perf.(I) .4567 1 .4567 1.1408 1F x R .3874 2 .1937 .4839 :F x 1. 1.1754 1 1.1754 2.9361 .10 .R.X I 1.8021 2 .9010 2.2508 .F x R x I .3273 2 .1636 .4088 Error 43.2347 108 .4003 114 Table 26 reveals that the high performers in Firm L are significantly less tolerant of role conflict than the high per- formers in Firm H (p < .01). In addition, high performers in Firm L are less tolerant of role conflict than low performers .01). Figure 13 illustrates this interaction. in that firm (p < TABLE 26 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF TOLERANCE FOR ROLE CONFLICT (TRC) IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level High Performers: Firm.L vs Firm H -.21999 vs .14011 4.41 .01 Firm L: Low Per- formers vs High Performers .10132 vs -.21999 3.93 .01 High .15' d. L140)High Performers .10 4.101) a 05 L066)Low Performers .00’ 18.9. _,05 . -.10' -.15 » “'20 ‘(-.220) 0 Low -.25 . . Firm L Firm H Figure 13. Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on TRCl. 1The difference between c and d is significant at .10 and be- tween a and c at .10. . 115 Need for Achievement (N-Ach) The analysis of variance tests Of the null hypotheses relating to N-Ach are reported in Table 27. It is seen from that table that there were significant relationships between N-Ach and Individual Performance and the interaction of Firm x Role. TABLE 27 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT (N-ACH) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance ‘ Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .1927 1 .1927 .3416 Firm (F) .0064 1 .0064 .0214 Role (R) .7356 2 .3678 1.2241 Indiv. .Perf. (I) 1.0448 1 1.0448 3.4771 .10 F x R 1.9906 2 .9953 3.3122 ‘ .05 F x I .0056 1 .0056 .0187 I! x I .7776 2 .3888 1.2939 'F x R x I .3897 2 .1949 .6485 Error 32.4525 108 .3005 Table 28 reveals the nature of these relationships. An examination Of that table reveals high performing subjects have significantly higher N-Ach than low performing subjects. 116 Investigation Of the interaction shows three significant contrasts. First, of the subjects in research roles, those in Firm L had higher N-Ach than those in Firm H (p < .05). Second, of the subjects in Firm H, those in research had lower N-Ach than those in production (p < .05) and marketing (p < .05). Figure 14 portrays graphically this interaction. TABLE 28 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT (N-ACH) Comparison . Category Means q Significance ' Level Low vs High Performers -.12256 vs .06406 2.81 .10 Research: Firm L vs Firm H .05163 vs -.32688 3.09 .05 Firmllh .Research vs Production —.32688 vs .12074 3.65 .05 Research vs Marketing —.32688 vs .09643 3.45 ‘ .05 High .20 ) I .10 .(.121) p (.052) m' (.096) Firm H '00 {-.032) p N———.ACH “"10 ’ .m (-.086) Firm L -020 r -.30 L LOW —o40 ‘ j 11_. Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 14. Firm x Role Interaction on N-Achl. l The difference between r and r' is significant at .05, and between p' and r' at .05, and between r' and m' at .05. 117 Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance on Personality The questions of whether or not Personality is related to perceived climate and whether the relationship between per- formance and climate is moderated by personality were examined by using Design 2. As indicated in Chapter II, Design 2 was a 3 x 2 x 2 completely randomized factorial design using the fixed effects model. The factors were three levels of Role, two levels Of Climate, and two levels of Individual Performance. Cases were randomly deleted to obtain equal n's in each of the twelve cells.. There were ten cases in each cell for a total N = 120. This design was run using the Personality dimensions successively as the dependent variable. The results of each of these runs are reported below. Overview This part of the analysis considered the effects on personality by Role, Individual Performance, and Climate and the interactions of these factors. Since the dimensions of personality were found not to fit together in an overall way, tests of each of the effects were made for each of the dimen- sions of Relationship Orientation (LPC), Authoritarianism (Auth-F), Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC), Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA), and Need for Achievement (N—Ach). Before reporting in detail the results of these indi- ‘vidual analyses, a summary overview of the significant F statistics for the seven sources of variance for each Of the personality dimensions will be introduced briefly. 118 view is summarized in Table 29. TABLE 29 This over- SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF F STATISTICS FOR ANALYSES OF VARIANCE OF PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS IN DESIGN TWO Source LPC Auth-F TRC TRA N-Ach Role (R) .025 .05 Indiv. Perf. (I) .10 Climate (C) .001 .10 R x I .10 .05 .05 R x C I x C R x I x C From Table 29 it can be seen that there were significant effects by Role, Individual Performance, Climate and the inter- action of Role x Individual Performance on some of the dimensions of Personality. Relationship Orientation (LPC) As shown in Table 30, Relationship Orientation was found tn) be significantly related to Role. Table 31 reveals that subjects in marketing were more interpersonal oriented (or less tuask oriented) than those in production (p < .05) and research (p < .05). 119 TABLE 30 DESIGN TWO: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION (LPC) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0854 .0854 .2010 Role (R) 3.3908 1.6954 3.9887 .025 Individ. Perf. (I) .0201 l .0201 .0473 Climate (C) .0398 l .0398 .0936 R x I .5249 2 .2624 .6174 R x C .1764 2 0882 .2075 I x C .6441 l .6441 1.5153 R x I x C .6295 2 .3147 .7405 Error 45.9063 108 .4251 TABLE 31 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION IN DESIGN TWO Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Marketing vs Production .20748 vs -.10824 3.06 .05 Marketing vs Research .20748 vs -.l7929 3.75 .05 120 Authoritarianism (Auth-F) The analysis of variance of Authoritarianism results in Table 32 reveal that the null hypothesis with respect to the relationships between Auth-F and Role, Individual Performance, and the interaction of Role x Individual Performance could be rejected. ‘The nature of these relationships appear in Table 33 and Figure 15. Subjects in production tended to be more authoritarian than their counterparts in research (p < .10) and marketing (p < .05) although differences were significant only for low performers. Table 33 also shows that high performers tended to be less authoritarian than low performers (p < .10), but this difference was significant only in production and research. TABLE 32 DESIGN TWO: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR AUTHORITARIANISM (AUTH-F) Source' Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0368 l .0368 . .1078 .JRole (R) 2.4234 2 1.2117 3.5522 .05 Individ. . :Perf. (I) .9862 l .9862 2.8910 .10 (Zlimate (C) .0111 1 .0111 .0324 I? x I 1.7433 2 .8716 2.5552 .10 I? x C .5967 2 .2984 .8746 it x C .0097 l .0097 .0284 11 x I x C .0735 ' 2 .0368 .1078 Error 36.8411 108 .3411 —— 121 TABLE 33 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR AUTHORITARIANISM (AUTH-F) ‘Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Production vs Research .21244 vs -.03763 2.71 .10 Production vs Marketing .21244 vs -.12230 3.62 .05 Individual Perform- ance:Low vs High .10816 vs -.07315 2.40 .10 Low Performers: Production vs Marketing .39521 vs -.20191 4.57 .01 Research vs Marketing .13118 vs —.20191 3.32 .05 Production: Low vs High Performers .39521 vs .02968 2.80 .10 Research: Low vs . High Performers .13118 V5 ".20643 2.59 .10 High .5 . ‘4 '(.40) 03 P .2 - .AUTH-F .1 . L '0 ('03) ' (.04) High Performers -01 b . -.2 * (-.20) Low Performers r Low -.3 ‘ 9 Production Research Marketing ROLE liigure 15. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on Auth-Fl. 1 The difference between p and m is significant at .01, be- tween r and m at .05, between p and p' at .10, and between r and r' at .10- 122 Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC) The analysis of variance results in Table 34 indicate that the Role x Individual Performance interaction was signi- ficant at the .05 level. Table 35'and Figure 16 indicate that low performers in research were significantly less tolerant Of role conflict than high performers in that role (p < .01). TABLE 34 DESIGN TWO: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOLERANCE FOR ROLE CONFLICT (TRC) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance ' Squares Freedom Square Level .Mean .0025 .0025 .0066 .ROle (R) .1850 2 .0925 .2466 Individ. ‘Perf. (I) .2376 l .2376 .6334 (Elimate (C) 1.0078 1 1.0078 2.6860 I! x I 2.6922 2~ 1.3461 3.5879 .05 I! x C .2014 2 .1007 .2684 II x C .2268 1 .2268 .2684 I! x I x C 1.4654 2 .7327 .6046 Error 40.5202 108 .3752 1.9529 TABLE 35 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR TOLERANCE FOR ROLE CONFLICT (TRC) (Comparison Category Means q Significance Level. Re search: Low vs [Ligh Performers .24004 vs -.27259 3.74 .01 —’ 123 High .40- .30 (.24) .20 .10 TRC -.00 ‘.10 -.20 -.30 , (_.27) -.40 . J_ . Production Research Marketing ROLE Low Figure 16. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on TRCl, 1The difference between r and r' is significant at .01. Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA) The effects on TRA by Climate and the interaction Of Role x Individual Performance were found to be significant from the analysis of variance results in Table 36. “From finable 37 it is seen that subjects in stressful climates had «greater TRA than those in stressfree climates (p < .001). It (mas also found that for subjects in research, high performers vwere less tolerant of role ambiguity than low performers (p < .05). This Role x Performance interaction is illustrated in Figure 17. 124 Table 36 DESIGN TWO: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TOLERANCE FOR ROLE AMBIGUITY (TRA) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0510 l .0510 .1511 Role (R) .4117 2 .2059 .6100 Individ. Perf. (I) .1750 l .1750 .5185 Climate (C) 7.3109 1 7.3109 21.6632 .001 R x I 2.1896 2 1.0548 3.1255 .05 R x C .7782 2 .3891 1.1530 I x C .0789 l .0789 .2338 R x I x C .3327 2 .1663 .4929 Error 76.4480 108 .3375 TABLE 37 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR TOLERANCE OF ROLE AMBIGUITY (TRA) IN DESIGN TWO 1Comparison Category Means q SignificanCe Level High Stress vs Low .26744 vs -.22621 6.58 .001 Stress Climate Research: Low vs Itigh.Performers .14995 vs -.25453 3.11 .05 125 High 1.0 . , low Performers 'oZ r ( ' (-.25) High PerfOrmers Low —1.0 1 1, . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 17. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on TRAl. 1The difference between r and r' is significant at .05. Need for Achievement (N—Ach) The effect of Climate on an individual's N-Ach was signi- fiicant at the .10 level. The analysis of variance results of tflne tests of hypotheses is shown in Table 38. The nature of true relationship between Climate and N-Ach is reported in Table 35). Subjects in high stress climates were found to have lower N—Ach than those in low stress climates (p < .10). 126 TABLE 38 DESIGN TWO: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT (N-ACH) Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0531 .0531 .1634 Role (R) .6222 .3111 .9573 Indivi.l Perf. (I) .8690 1 .8690 2.6740 Climate (C) .9321 1 .9321 2.8684 .10 R x I .8855 2 .4428 1.3625 R x C .1408 2 .0704 .2167 I x C .1317 1 .1317 .4054 R x I x C .6196 2 .3098 .9533 Error 35.0961 108 .3250 TABLE 39 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT (N-ACH) IN DESIGN TWO Comparison Category Means q Significance ' Level High Stress vs Low Stress Climate -.109l7 vs .06710 2.39 .10 127 Summary of Findings on Research Question Two Summary of Findings on Relationship Between Personality and: (1) Firm Performance There was a significant difference between the high and low performing firm in the Authoritarianism of their personnel. Managers in the high performing firm were significantly less authoritarian than those in the low performing firm. (p < .01) . There were no other significant differences between the high and low performing firm across roles and individual performance for LPC, TRC, TRA, or N-Ach. O (2) Own Work Role There were significant differences in LPC and Auth-F between roles. Subjects in marketing were more relationship oriented than those in research (p < .10), although these differences were statistically signi-. Furthermore, .05) and production (p < ficant only in Firm L (.01 and .05 respectively). in Firm H, production personnel tended to be more task oriented In Firm L, on the than either those in research or marketing. other hand, production personnel were significantly less task oriented than those in research (p < .05) . With regard to Auth-F, individuals in production were more authoritarian than those in either research (p < .10) or marketing (p < .05). Turning to N-Ach, it was found that the relationship between Role and N-Ach in Firm L differed from that in Firm H. 128 While in Firm L there were no significant differences in the levels of N-Ach between managers in production, research and marketing, there were differences in Firm H. In the high performing firm, research personnel had less N-Ach than those in production (p < .05) or marketing (p < .05). Furthermore, research personnel in Firm H had lower N-Ach then their counterparts in Firm L (p < .10) . (3) Individua 1 Per formance PrOposition 7 anticipated that high performing managers in stable environments would be more authoritarian and task oriented, have lower tolerance for role conflict and ambiguity and have equal or greater need for achievement than low per- formers. The directions Of the differences found were all as pre- dicted but was significant only for Auth-F (p < .10). Further- more, the relationship between Auth-F as well as TRC and TRA with performance were found to vary between roles. High performers in production and research were signi- ficantly less authoritarian than low performers in those roles (p < .10 respectively). However, in marketing roles, high per- formers tended to be more authoritarian than low performers, although this difference was not statistically significant. In research, high performers were less tolerant of role conflict than low performers (p < .01). However, high per— formers in both production and marketing tended to be more tolerant of role conflict than their low performing colleagues, IL 129 though the differences were not statistically significant. Turning to TRA, it was found that high performers in research were less tolerant Of role ambiguity than low performers in that role (p < .05) . A similar tendency was noted for managers in production but the difference did not reach accept- able levels Of significance. On the other hand, high per- formers in marketing were more tolerant Of role ambiguity than low performers in that role, although the difference was not significant. (4) Perceived Climate Stress Perceived climate stress was found to be significantly related to TRA and N-Ach. It was found that individuals who perceived their climate to be relatively stressful had greater tolerance for role ambiguity (p < .001) and lower needs for achievement (p < .10) than those who saw their climate as being relatively stressfree. (5) The interaction of Personality and Perceived Climate on Performance Propositions 8 and 9 state that the performance of Type X personalities will be greater than Type Y personalities in stable environments, regardless of whether the climate is per- :eived as being stressfree (Proposition 8) or stressful (Pro- osition 9) . Jointly, then, these propositions anticipate that here would be no significant interaction of Personality and :rceived Climate Stress on Performance, and that Type X's uld be higher performers then Type Y's. 130 The findings appear to support these propositions. There were no significant interactions of any of the personal— ity dimensions with climate on individual performance. Sec- ondly, the differences in performance for three Of 'the four dimensions of personality in stressfree climate (PrOposition 8) and all four of the dimensions of personality in stressfree climates (Proposition 9) were in the predicted directions. Although none of these differences were significant individu- ally, a sign test Of the eight differences supports the concept expressed jointly by the propositions at the .05 level. (6) The Interaction of Role and Performance on Personality The Mix Model concept anticipates that there are Optiom- al mixes of personality characteristics and role functions for individual performance. That is, high and low performers will differ in their personality characteristics, and that these profiles will vary between production, research, and marketing Some supportive evidence for this concept was revealed roles. Three personality characteristics, by the data in this study. Auth-F, TRC, and TRA, were found to interact with role and individual performance. Low authoritarians performed better than high authori- How- tarians in production (p < .10) and research (p < .10). in marketing, high Auth-F's tended to perform better than ever, Low Auth-F's, although the difference did not reach statistical :ignificance. 131 Ifigh TRC's tended to perform better than low TRC's in But in research, low TRC's were production and marketing. <.01). rated as higher per-formers than high TRC's (p low TRA's tended to outperform high TRA's in Finally, in marketing, production and research (p < .05) . However, high TRA's tended to perform better than low TRA's. Findings Related to Research Question Three The third general research question in this study was: Are the levels of managers' satisfaction related (ii) own work role, (iii) to (1) firm performance, individual performance, (iv) perceived climate, (v) personality, and (vi) the interaction of person- ality and perceived climate (Propositions ll, 12, 13). The first three of these relationships were able to be examined by Research Design One, using satisfaction as the dependent variable and firm performance, own work role, and individual performance as the independent variables. The fourth relationship was studied with Research Design Two, using satisfaction as the (dependent variable and individual performance as the independent variable. The last two relationships were examined by Research Design Three, with satisfaction again used as the dependent variable but with personality and perceived climate stress as the independent variables. Firm x Role x Individual Performance on Satisfaction Design 1: (will be recalled from Chapter II that Design I was It. a 2 }{ 3 )c 2 completely randomized factorial design using the 132 fixed effects model. The factors employed were two levels of Firm (a low and a high performing firm), three levels Of Role (production, research, and marketing), and two levels of Individual Performance (low and high). Cases were randomly deleted to obtain equal n's in each of the twelve cells. There were ten cases in each cell. Overview This section deals with the analysis of the effects on satisfaction by Firm, Role and Individual Performance, and the interactions Of these factors. In addition to treating the composite measure, Satisfaction, as a dependent variable, runs were also made using the individual climate subscale scores for Satisfaction with Job, Firm, Career, Pay, Relationship with Superior, Competence of Superior, Co-workers, Esteem, Autonomy, ( Self-Actualization, Security, and Affiliation. Before reporting in detail the results of these indi- vidual analyses, a summary overview of the significant F statistics for the seven sources of effects for each of these runs is presented in Table 40. It is seen from Table 41 that there were significant effects on satisfaction by Firm, Role, Individual Performance, and the interaction of Firm and Indi- 'idual Performance. The most frequently found effects were he Role main effect and the Firm x Individual Performance iteract ion effect . 133 H X m X m H X m mo. moo. mo. H x m m X m CH. AHV .Hnmm .>H©CH OH. mo. Ho. OH. mo. OH. Amy maom 3. as as; V 3 93 V 3 3 S 3 SSH .d 3 .d n... S S .1: 3 7L9 n S O n 0 Due D. D. T: O p. O I. O TrT. 1 3 _ 1a m JuT:T. K I 1 O. 3 n I. n 21: O a M 3 d ado. 8 m T: 1 TL 1 D.- U a O 108 I 1. 3 S O I. r. 3v. 0 m 1 1.1.3 Int. 1 I. a D. 1. T.O m V4. 0 8 OT..O P .4. rA 01. rA 8 I U 11....u O I. UH I O U.— 3. O . S a T. U 0 u MZO ZOHme ZH ZOHBUdmmHB HO mmqudz¢ mom mUHBmHfififim m m0 MUZ¢UHmszHm ho mqm>mn HO wmdzzbm 0v mdmds 134 None of the null hypotheses were rejected for Satis- faction with Job, Relationship with Superior, Co-workers, Esteem, Autonomy and Affiliation. Since the null hypotheses could not be rejected for these variables, their analysis of variance tables are not presented in this report. Composite Satisfaction The results Of the analysis of variance for the over- all measure, Satisfaction, is presented in Table 41. Examina- tion of that table reveals that there is a relationship between Role and Satisfaction. Table 42 reveals the nature of that relationship. It is found that the level of satisfaction of subjects in research is lower than that in production (p <.10) and marketing (p < .05). Satisfaction with Firm Table 43 portrays the ANOVA results for Satisfaction with Firm. It is seen from that table that there is a relation- ship between Role and Satisfaction with Firm as well as an interaction between Firm and Individual Performance on Satis- faction with Firm, each of which is significant on the .025 level. From Table 44 it is learned that subjects in research are less satisfied with their firm than those in production and marketing. The difference in levels of Satisfaction with Firm between research and production is significant at the .025 level and between research and marketing is significant at the .01 level. 135 TABLE 4 1 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR COMPOSITE SATISFACTION Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0338 1 .0338 .1036 Firm (F) .3030 1 .3030 .9279 Role} (R) 1.5957 2 .7978 2.4436 .10 Indiv. Perf. (I) .0003 1 .0003 .0011 F x R .0229 2 .0115 .0351 F x I .4494 l .4494 1.3765 R x I .1616 2 .0808 .2474 F x R x I .2710 2 .1355 .4149 Error 35.2625 108 .3265 TABLE 42 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF COMPOSITE SATISFACTION IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level search vs oduction -.1417l vs .06280 2.27 .10 search vs rketing -.14l71 vs .12938 3.00 .05 136 TABLE 43 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH FIRM Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level 'Mean .0048 l .0048 .0067 Firm (F) .8131 l .8131 1.1480 Role (R) 6.1844 2 3.0922 4.3658 .025 Indiv. Perf. (1) 1.3855 '1 1.3855 1.9562 F x R .1429 2 .0715 .1009 F x.I 3.8689 1 3.8689 5.4625 .025 R x I 2.3648 2 1.1824 1.6694 F x R x I 2.2206 2 1.1103 1.5676 Error 76.4930 108 .7083 The interaction between Firm and Individual Perform- ance is seen to be explained by differences in two comparisons. first, in the low-performing firm, low performing managers are 10re satisfied with the firm than are high performers (p < .05) . econdly, high performers in Firm L are significantly less atisfied with their firm than are high performers in Firm H p < .05) . This Firm x Individual Performance is illustrated 1 Figure 18. 137 TABLE 44 'NHEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS (H‘SATISFACTION WITH FIRM IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Research vs Producthmi -.3l449 vs .17783 3.70 .025 Research vs Marketing ‘-.31449 vs .15557 4.79 .01 Firm L - Low Performers vs High Performers .21100 vs .01651 3.74 .05 High Performers - Firm L vs Firm H -.36302 vs .16073 3.41 '.05 High .40 .30 L .20 . . .10 (.16) F1rm H SATISFACTION 00 WITH FIRM -.1o -.20 "3° (-.36) Firm L Low -.40 r . Low High INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE .Firnxre 18. Firm x Individual Performance Interaction on iatisfactiOn withlfirml. lThe difference between a and b is significant at .05 and he difference between d and b is significant at .05. 138 Satisfaction with Career As shown in Table 45, there was a relationship between Satisfaction with Career and Role (p < .10) and an interaction of Firm x Individual Performance (p < .005) . The nature of these relationships is revealed in Table 46. It is seen from this table that subjects in research were less satisfied with their career Opportunities and progress than were those subjects in production (p < .10). TABLE 4 5 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH CAREER Source Sum of Degrees Of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean ' .0167 l .0167 .0219 Firm (F) .6516 1 .6516 .8514 Role, (R) 3.6974 2 1.8487 2.4157 .10 Indiv. >erf. CI) 2.4946 1 2.4946 3.2597 .10 ' x'Il 1.2182 2 .6091 .7959 )( I 7.1795 1 7.1795 9.3814 .005 }( I .8778 2 .4389 .5735 x R x I .6823 2 .2412 .4458 .ror' 82.6523 108 .7653 139 TABLE 46 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF SATISFACTION WITH CAREER IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Research vs Production -.23227 vs .19724 3.11 .05 High Performers: Firm L vs Firm H -.1859l vs .45067 3.99 .01 Firm H - High Per— formers vs Low Performers .45067 vs -.32690 4.87 .01 Investigation of the Firm x Individual Performance inter- action, illustrated in Figure 19, indicated that high perform- ing managers in Firm L were much less satisfied than the high (See Table 46). This difference was performers in Firm H. It was also found that in Firm significant at the .05 level. H, high performers were much more satisfied with their career opportunities and progress than were low performing managers. This difference was significant at the .01 level. Satisfaction with Pay The analysis of variance table for Satisfaction with Examination of that table reveals Pay is presented in Table 47. that there was a highly significant relationship between Role and Satisfaction with Pay (p < .01). 140 High 050 " d .40 (.45) F1rm H .30 .20 SATISFACTION .10 - a 00 _ L02) WITH ° -010 ’ m _ _ 20 P b (-.18) Firm L -030 i(“033)C LOW -040 ‘ ‘ Low High INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE Figure 19. Firm xlIndividual Performance Interaction on Satisfaction with Career . 1 The difference between d and b is significant at .01, and the difference between c and d is significant at .01. The nature of this relationship is revealed in Table 48. Fuxnn that table it is seen that subjects in research were much less satisfied with pay than were their colleagues in produCtion. Satisfaction with Competence of Superior TTue results Of the analysis of variance Of this di- mension of satisfaction are presented in Table 49. It is seen there that there was a significant Firm x Individual Perform- ance interaction (p < .05). 141 TABLE 4 7 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH PAY Sauce Smnof Degrees of Mean F Significance Snares Freedom Square Level Mean .2521 l .2521 .3204 Firm (F) 1.5195 1 1.5195 1.9305 Role (R) 8.2444 2 4.1222 5.2373 .01 Individ. . Perf. (I) .2322 l .2322 .2950 F x R 1.6446 2 .8223 1.0445 F x I 1.2803 1 1.2803 1.6266 R x I .0291 2 .0145 .0185 F x R x I 1.3804 2 .6902 .8769 Error 85.0043 108 .7871 TABLE 48 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF SATISFACTION WITH PAY IN DESIGN ONE ,‘ .__ Comparison Category Means q Significance Level 5 esearch vs Production -.3.5416 vs .28653 4.57 .01 '_ 142 TABLE 4 9 DESIGN ONE: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH COMPETENCE OF IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .6507 l .6507 .6678 Firm (F) .0000 l .0000 .0000 Role (R) .1115 2 .0557 .0569 Individ. Perf. (I) .0000 l .0000 .0000 F x R .4300 2 .2150 .2193 F x I 3.8540 1 3.8540 3.9314 .05 R x I 1.4811 2 .7405 .7554 F x R x I 2.8826 2 1.4413 1.4702 ErrOr 105.8741 108 .3803 The nature Of this interaction is revealed in Table 50. From this table it is seen that while there was an overall F ratio which was significant, analysis of simple main effects 'evealed that none Of the comparisons reached acceptable levels F significance. There was a tendency, however, for low per- rmers in .Firm L to be more satisfied with their immediate perior ' s competence than high performers in that firm. The averse was the case in Firm H. 143 TABLE 50 ANALYSIS OF SIMPLE MAIN EFFECTS OF FIRM X INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE INTERACTION ON SATISFACTION WITH COMPETENCE OF IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR Comparison Category Means q Signifi- cance Level Low Performers: Firm L vs Firm H .25285 vs -.10557 1.966 n.s. High Performers: Firm L vs Firm H -.10557 vs .25285 1.966 n.s. Firm L: Low Per- formers vs High Performers .25285 vs -.10557 1.966 n.s. Firm H: Low Per- formers vs High Performers -.10557 vs .25285 1.966 n.s. Satisfaction with Self-Actualization Table 51 presents the results of the analyses of variance (”1 this dimension of satisfaction. These were significant rela-' tionships between Satisfaction with Self-Actualization and Firm (p < .10) and Role (p < .05). Table 52 reveals the nature of these relationships. It is; seen from Table 52 that subjects in Firm L were significantly less satisfied with self-actualization than were subjects in Firm H (p < .10). 1 Examination of the Role effect reveals that subjects in marketing were less satisfied with self-actualization than were those in production (p < .05) or marketing (p < .05). DESIGN ONE: 144 TABLE 51 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH SELF-ACTUALIZATION Source Sum of Degrees of Mean F Significance Squares Freedom Square Level Mean .0277 1 .0277 .0397 Firm (F) 2.4288 1 2.4288 3.4706 .10 Role (R) 4.8153 2 2.4077 3.4404 .05 Individ. Perf. (I) .2266 1 .2266 .3238 F x R .7084 2 .3542 .5062 F x I .2928 1 .2928 .4185 R x I .0925 2 .0476 .0680 F x R x I .7286 2 .3643 .5206 Error' 75.5869 108 .6998 TABLE 52 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF SATISFACTION OF SELF-ACTUALIZATION IN DESIGN ONE Ckmnparison Category Means q Significance Level F113“ L vs Firm H -.12706 vs .15747 2.63 .10 Research vs Production -.26414 vs .11406 2.86 .05 Research vs Marketing —.26414 vs .19570 3.48 .05 145 Satisfaction with Security The analyses of variance relating to this dimension of satisfaction are reported in Table 53. There was a relation- ship between Role and Satisfaction with Security that was 'significant at the .10 level. It is seen from Table 54 that there is a distinct dif- ference in the security experienced by subjects in research and marketing. those in the marketing function (p < .05). DESIGN ONE: TABLE 53 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR SATISFACTION WITH SECURITY 4.“... .—_x_—-_ Managers in research feel less secure than Source 'Sum of Degrees of Mean F Signifi- Squares Freedom Square cance Level .Mean .1660 1 .1660 .1631 Firm (F) .9257 1 .9257 .9091 Role (R) 5.8998 2 2.9499 2.8972 .10 Individ. Perf. (I) .0801 l .0801 .0786 LF x R .5061 2 .2530 .2485' .F x I .0288 1 .0288 .0283 R x.I .5829 2 .2915 .2863 F‘)< R x I .3651 2 .1826 .1793 Error 109.9634 108 1.0182 146 TABLE 54 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS OF SATISFACTION OF SECURITY IN DESIGN ONE Comparison Category Means q Significance Level Research vs -.22629 vs .31618 3.40 .05 Marketing Design 2: Role x Climate x Individual Performance on Satis- faction The question of whether or not satisfaction is related to perceived climate was examined by using Design 2. As indicated in Chapter II, Design 2 was a 3 x 2 x 2 completely randomized factorial design using the fixed effects model. The factors were three levels of Role, two levels of Climate, and two levels of Individual Performance. Cases were randomly deleted to obtain equal n's in each of the twelve cells. There weretmnlcases in each cell for a total N = 120. This design was run using the Satisfaction dimensions successively as the dependent variable. Since the main effects on satisfaction of Role, Individual Performance and their interaction effect has already been examined using Design 1, in this section the summary table of significant F statistics ‘wi11.be followed by tables which report the Tukey test of Jnean comparisons that are significant for those sources that iJTvolve Climate, i.e., the Climate main effect and the Climate :c Role, Climate x Individual Performance, and Climate x Role x 147 Individual Performance interactions. Overview Before examining in detail the analyses of variance for these runs, a summary overview of the significant F sta- tistics for the four sources of variation of interest for each of these runs is presented in Table 55. The most striking con- clusion to be derived from that table is that Climate is very closely related to the composite measure of satisfaction as well as every dimension of satisfaction studied except Satis- faction with Pay. It is also seen from this overview that there was no significant interaction of Individual Performance x Climate nor Role x Climate on overall Satisfaction nor any of the dimen- sions of satisfaction. Table 56 reveals the nature of the main effects of Climate on Overall Satisfaction and the various dimensions of satisfaction. Subjects who perceived their climate as being relatively stressfree were found to be more satisfied than :hose who perceived their climates to be stressful. This elationship was found for Overall Satisfaction (p < .001), well as for satisfaction with Job (p < .001), Firm (p < .005), reer (p < .005), Relationship with Superior (p < .01), Com- ence of Superior (p < .001), Esteem (p < .001), Autonomy < .001) , Self-Actualization (p < .001), Security (p < .01), Affiliation (p < .001). TABLE 55 SUMMARY OF LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF OF SATISFACTION IN DESIGN TWO F STATISTICS FOR ANALYSES OF VARIANCE .OOl UOIQPTITJJV r—I quxnoes 9 uomezne 8 -n10v-;Ias 9 H O Amouoqnv o v—i O meansa o C) U‘) sxexxom—oo H o Jorledns S JO 0 eoueqedmoa ' IOIJSdnS H mm dws o -UOIQPIGH ' 595 L0 W 139123 3 Ln min; g H QOD g v-l O uorqoegstqes 9 8 a. H m x eoxnos P AL 2 L) +4 U -a x x x r-i C) m m m 149 TABLE 56 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR SATISFACTION DIMENSIONS IN HIGH AND LOW STRESS CLIMATES IN DESIGN TWO Dimension of Category Means q Signifi_ Satisfaction High vs Low Stress cance Level Overall Satisfaction —.25748 vs .26778 7.93 .001 Job , -.29909 vs .29875 6.24. .001 Firm -.22353 vs .22130 4.18 .005 Career -.23978 vs .23959 4.23 .005 Relationship with Superior -.25546 vs .2193? 3.76 .01 Competence of Superior -.26849 vs .33431 4.88 .001 Esteem -.31358 vs .33534 6.77 .001 Autonomy -.35132 vs .42695 7.40 .001 Self—Actualization -.28124 vs .32510 6.13 .001 Security -.l9528 vs .31101 4.03 .01 .Affiliation -.25737 vs .28376 6.43 .001 Analysis of the second order interaction of Role x Individual Performance x Climate on Satisfaction with Co-workers is reported in Table 57 and illustrated in Figures 20, 21, and A 22. These show that Satisfaction with Co-workers was greater .in Low Stress climates than in High Stress climates for low Iperformers in production (p < .01) and marketing (p < .05) and tended‘to be so but did not reach statistical significance for luigh performers in production. However, Satisfaction with (no-workers was lower in Low Stress climates than in High Stress (glimates for high performing research personnel (p < .05) and 150 tended to be so, but did not reach statistical significance, for high performing marketing personnel. TABLE 57 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR SATISFACTION WITH CO-WORKERS IN DESIGN TWO Comparison Category Means q Signifi- cance Level Y1 Low Performers in Low Stress Climates: Production vs Research .382 vs -.542 4.260 .01 Marketing vs Research .266 vs -.542 3.725 .05 Low Performers in Low Stress vs High Stress Climates: Production .382 vs -.542 4.250 .01 Research -.542 vs .035 2.660 .10 Marketing .266 vs -.426 3.144 .05 High Performers in Low Stress vs High Stress Climates: Research -.310 vs .382 3.190 .05 Design 3: ,Role x Climate x Personality on Satisfaction Analysis of the data to determine whether or not per- sonality was related to satisfaction and if there was an interaction between personality and climate on satisfaction :required the use of the third research design. It will be recalled from Chapter II that Design Three (Has a 3 x 2 x 2 completely randomized factorial design using ‘the fixed effects model. The design employed three levels of Iuole, two levels of Climate, and two levels of Personality. 151 High 1.0 r .8 L .6 L High Performers ° 4 1. 382)p SATISFACTION . 2 ( (.266) WITH . o L m COWORKERS - . 2 _(-. 195 -.4 L p' Low Performers ' ' 6 ' (-. 542) -.8 Low -l.0 . . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 20. Role x Individual Performance Interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers in a Stressfree Climatel. l The difference between p and r is significant at .01, jbetween m and r at .05, and between r' and r at .01. High 1.0 r .8 .6 L '4 “'382) ' m' ( 266) SATISFACTION . 2 . p ' . WITH . 0 . Stressfree Climate COWORKERS -.2 _ 4 Stressful Climate - 6 '(-.542) (-.426) ' ’ (-.42) -08 1’ Low -l.O . . . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 21. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers among Low Performersl. 1 The Difference between p' and r' is significant at .01, between m' and r' at .05, between p' and p at .01, between r' and r at .10, and between m' and m at .05. 152 High 1.0 ’ .8 ’ Stressful 6 P Climate ' (.382) f .4 L m r (.267) SATISFACTION .2 'b-OBO) (.036) WITH .0 r .p m' ' COWORKERS -.2 '( P' \Etressfree _. 4 _ .195) (_.310) Climate -0 6 b -0 8 Low -1.0 ‘ ‘ ‘ Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 22. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers among High Performersl. 1 The difference between r and r' is significant at .05. Again, since the Personality dimensions were found not to be related, no overall measure of this factor was available. Consequently, the analysis of this design was complicated by the necessity of running it for each of the five dimensions of Personality, LPC, Auth-F, TRC, TRA, and N-Ach. Cases were randomly deleted to obtain equal n's in each (of the twelve cells. The total number of subjects in the (analyses were 84 with LPC, 72 with Auth-F, 108 with TRC, 72 Ifiith TRA, and 96 with N-Ach. 153 The design used, successively, Composite Satisfaction and the various dimensions of satisfaction as the dependent variables. The main hypotheses of interest in this design were those which (1) tested the relationship of Personality and Satisfaction, and (2) examined the "fits" of Personality and Satisfaction with Role and/or Climate. Specifically, the purpose of running this design was to test the main effects of Personality and the interaction effects of Role x Personality, Climate x Personality, and Role x Climate x Personality on satisfaction which could not be tested by Design One or Design Two. Since the effects of Role, Climate, and Role x Climate were tested above, no attempt is made to discuss these dupli- cate tests again here. Overview The format for reporting the results of the tests of interest in Design Three follows that used in reporting the analyses in Design Two. The summary table of significant F statistics will be followed by tables which report Tukey tests of significant mean comparisons. In cases where there are :multiple order effects by a factor, only the highest order in- teraction will be reported. Table 59 presents a summary of the levels of signifi- cance of the F statistics for the analyses of variance for the tests of the hypotheses of interest in DeSign Three. Examina- tion of this table reveals that there were sixteen signifi- cant Personality main effects, four Role x Personality 154 interactions, six Climate x Personality interactions, and two Role x Climate x Personality interactions with satisfaction. The only dimensions of satisfaction for which at least one of the null hypotheses could not be rejected were Satisfaction with Pay and Satisfaction with Competence of Superior. The Relationship Between Personality and Satisfaction It is seen from Table 58 that there was a personality main effect on satisfaction for all dimensions of personality except Authoritarianism. On the basis of this evidence, the hypotheses that there is no relationship between the Inter- personal Orientation (LPC), Tolerance for Role Conflict (TRC), Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (TRA), and Need for Achievement (N-Ach) dimension of personality and certain measures of satisfaction can be rejected. The nature of these relationships appear in Table 59. In that table it is shown that subjects whose Interpersonal (Orientation was task centered were less satisfied with their <3areer, self-actualization and affiliation than were those who were more relationship oriented. Individuals who had low tolerance for role conflict “here found to have lower scores on the composite measure of satisfaction. Tolerance for Role Ambiguity was found to be inversely rtalated to satisfaction in this study. Subjects with low TRA were more satisfied overall, and particularly with their rela- tjxons with immediate superior and with self-actualization than 155 mmo. U x m OH. OH. mo. mo. m x O 0H. m x m OH. OH. Ho. mo. 8 oms S. oxm m x 0 ca. m x m m Minusfi U x m CH. m x 0 0H. m x m mo. moo. 0H. m 0mg .IJW HS 1.Vns Am 3 do an, O “a H J“ «u )& F coo S I. a 1.08 n S O n O n a P p. I. 0 EA 0 I. o 0.4T. a. 1 . .0 m Au I .A .4 I 0. flag n I. n u n.& o a M 9 Au 9 Mae 3 m 1.1 I T. I e u a o 1 o.e 1,1.3 e SSE o I. T. .L o m J Iline I44I. 1 37L 9 P 1. I. m H. O a 00.0 PT. 1. .A 2 K a 1 u I H O .L. P I o S 1. o _ s e I. u 0 u ZO maummmm mafiumqmm mom MUZ¢HM4> m mUHBmHfidfim h ho WUZ¢UHMHZUHm m0 mum mmmma ZUHmma ZH ZOHBU¢mmH94m O mmqudz¢ mom >mq mo wmfizzom mm mqmflfi TABLE 58 (Cont'd) HOIAEIIIIIV quxnoas “013 —ezIIenqov JTBS Kmouoqnv meeqsg Slexzom-oa Jorxedns go eoueqedmoo Jorzedns Q3?“ suorneteu fied 18819:} MJIJ qor “OI1DEJSI198 IIEIGAO eoxnos TRA 156 .025 .05 .10 .10 R x P C x P R x C x P N-Ach .01 .10 .05 .01 .01 .025 .05 R x P C x P R x C x P Personality Dimension P: Role R Climate C: 157 were those who had high TRA. Subjects who had high N-Ach revealed greater overall satisfaction as well as higher satisfaction with job, esteem, autonomy, self-actualization, and affiliation that those with low N-Ach. The Interaction of Role and Personality on Satisfaction Table 60 reports the significant differences in means for the Role x Personality interactions shown in Table 58. None of the pairwise comparisons of means for the LPC and Auth-F runs were found to be significant. For this reason, comparisons of means for the LPC x Role interaCtion on Satisfaction with Esteem are not reported in Table 60. While a Role x Personality interaction was found to reach significance, analysis of this is not discussed at this point since a second order interaction was also found. Conse- quently the finding of this interaction is reported in a following section. Examination of the TRA x Role interaction on Satisfaction (with Autonomy, revealed that low TRA individuals were more satisfied with autonomy than were high TRA respondents. Final- ly, of the low TRA subjects, those in research were less satis- fied with autonomy than those in production. This TRA x fable interaction is illustrated in Figure 23. 158 TABLE 59 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR PERSONALITY MAIN EFFECTS ON SATISFACTION Personality Satisfaction Comparison Category Means q Signifi- Dimension Dimension cance Level Career Low vs High LPC -.l94 vs .181 3.44 .10 LPC Self-Actual. Low vs High LPC -.344 vs .189 8.74 .005 Affiliation Low vs High LPC -.292 vs .088 4.39 .05 Composite TRC Satisfaction Low vs High TRC -.O9l vs .109 4.65 .05 Compos.Satis.Low vs High TRA .107 vs -.125 3.41 .10 TRA Rela. w/Sup. Low vs High TRA .167 vs -.255 3.30 .10 Self—Actual. Low vs High TRA .164 vs -.291 6.52 .025 Compos.Satis.Low vs High N-Ach -.094 vs .116 4.36 .05 Job Low vs High N-Ach -.156 vs .190 5.46 .025 N-Ach, Esteem Low vs High N-Ach -.215 vs .186 7.05 .01 Autonomy Low vs High N-Ach -.306 vs .158 7.49 .01 Self-Actual. Low vs High N-Ach -.201 vs .128 4.83 .05 Affiliation Low vs High N-Ach -.265 vs .161 8.16 .01 TABLE 60 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR ROLE X PERSONALITY INTERACTION EFFECTS ON SATISFACTION Perscnuality Satisfaction Comparison Category Means q Signifi- Dimension Dimension cance Level Production: Low vs High TRA .470 vs -.l60 2.89 .10 'TRA. Autonomy Low TRA Research vs Prod.-.452 vs .470 4.09 .05 159 High .50 a 47) p .40 L .30 ‘ .20 - SATISFACTION .10 L (.13) WITH '00 ' , L9” TRA \ AUTONOMY p' -.20 1"16) Hi h TRA —.3o . (,9 -040 ,, m. (-033) I‘ LOW -050 L Lg-o45) . __. Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 23. Role x TRA Interaction on Satisfaction with Autonomyl. 1The difference between p and p‘ is significant at .10 and that between p and r is significant at .05.‘ The Interaction of Climate and Personality on Satisfaction The significant differences in pairwise comparisons (of means for the Climate x Personality interactions on dimen- ssions of satisfaction are reported in Table 61. There was a (Zlimate x Personality interaction on satisfaction for three cpf the five dimensions of personality. These were LPC, TRC, and N—Ach . 1 Climate x LPC on Satisfaction with Relations with sniperior.--Relationship oriented subjects (High LPC's) in high stzress climates were much less satisfied with Relations with sLuoerior than were those in stressfree climates. On the other 160 TABLE 61 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR CLIMATE x PERSONALITY INTERACTION EFFECTS ON SATISFACTION Personality Satisfaction Comparison Category Means q Signifi- Dimension Dimension cance Level LPC Relations High LPC: w/Superior Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.730 vs .430 5.40 .005 Stressfree Climate: Low vs High LPC -.150 vs .430 2.70 .10 TRC Autonomy Low TRC: Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.707 vs .364 6.91 .001 High TRC: Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.073 vs .332 2.61 .10 Stressful Climate: Low vs High TRC -.707 vs -.073 4.09 .01 Self-Actu- Low TRC: alization Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.562 vs .338 30.24 .001 Stressful Climate: Low vs High TRC -.562 vs -.023 18.11 .001 Security Low TRC: Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.558 vs .294 4.66 .005 Stressful Climate: Low vs High TRC -.558 vs -.097 2.51 .10 Affiliation Low TRC: Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.435 vs .257 4.67 .005 N-Ach Security High N-Ach: Stressful vs Stressfree Climate -.335 vs .595 6.22 .01 Stressfree Climate: Low vs High N-Ach -.051 vs .595 4.32 .01 161 hand, task oriented subjects' satisfaction on this dimension was not significantly different between the two climates. See Figure 24. Within low stress climates, however, task oriented subjects were significantly less satisfied with superior rela- tions than were relationship oriented subjects. The implica- tion of these findings, then, is that the effect of climate on satisfaction with superior relations is much less signifi- cant for task oriented subjects than for relationship oriented individuals whose satisfaction responds favorably with a move from a stressful to a stressfree climate. Climate x TRC on Satisfaction with Autonomy.-- While both High TRC's and Low TRC's were more satisfied with auton- omy in low stress than high stress climates, there was no difference in their levels of satisfaction when they were in low stress climates. However, in stressful climates, those who were less tolerant of role conflict were much less satis- fied with autonomy than were High TRC's. See Figure 25, panel (a). Climate x TRC on Satisfaction with Self-Actualization and Security.—— The findings in Figure 25 indicate that low' (TRC managers were much more satisfied with both dimensions of satisfaction in low stress than in high stress climates, while erC's showed no significant difference in their satisfaction (on either dimension from one climate to another. Although 130th high and low TRC subjects tended to be more satisfied in High SATISFACTION WITH RELATIONS WITH SUPERIOR Low Figure 24. H I H omooxiowmwaHOHNwS-moxqooxoo 162 L d (.43) High LPC b . (-. 15) Low LPC p a .(-.41) l 4 Stressful Stressfree Climate Climate LPC x Perceived Climate Stress Interaction CH1 Satisfaction with Relations with Superior . l and between d and b at The difference between c and d is significant at .005, .10. High SATISFACTION WI'IH AU'IONOMY LOW High SATEEACIHIJWTfiiSEGflUTY Low 163 '40 , b (.36) .30 d L33) .20 High TRC .10 F .00 r .07 -.10 ,( ) _.20 L Low TRC "-40 a.vs b .001 ...50 c vs d .10 EiVSCZ.01 -060 L -070 r(-.71)a -080 -— Stressful Stressffee Climate Climate (a) .40 r .30 ) '20 b (.29) .10 ' 000 ' d (013) -.10 High TRC _.20 ~(""009) W m '-.30 . Differ. pp -.50 r a vs C .10 "'60 I-.56) -.70 . a -080 tressful Stressfree Climate Climate (C) Figure 25. SATISFACTIGV WITH SELF-ACTUALI ZATION SATISFACTION WITH AFFILIATION .40 .30 .20 .10 .00 -.10 -.20 -.3O -.4O - -.50 . -.60 -.70 -.80 .40 .30 .20 .10 .00 -.10 -.20 -.30 -.40 -.50 -.60 -.70 b L34) High TRC d ('29) L baOZ) . LOMTTC ’ Differ. L a vs b .001 a vs c .001 h(-056 a SUmmSfifl.£fixemfiiee Climate Climate (b) b L25) d L08) LowTRC Differ. p a vs b .005 Stressful Stress free Clhmme Clhmue (d) TRC x Perceived Climate Stress Interactions on Selected Satisfaction Dimensions. 164 stressfree than stressful climates, the differences between their levels of satisfaction were only significant in high stress climates wherein low TRC subjects' satisfaction was the lower. Climate x TRC on Satisfaction with Affiliation.-- Sub- jects who were less tolerant of role conflict were signifi- cantly more satisfied with affiliation in stressfree climates than they were in high stress situations. For high TRCs' on the other hand, indications were that climate was not related to their level of satisfaction with affiliation. See panel (d) of Figure 25. Climate x N-Ach on Satisfaction with Security.-— Re- spondents who had a high N-Ach were more satisfied with secur- ity in low stress than high stress climates. The difference in level of satisfaction for low N-Ach subjects between cli- lnates was not significant. In stressfree climates, high N-Ach subjects again were more satisfied with security than low IWmAch.subjects. There was no significant difference between tinese groups of subjects in stressful climates. This indicates tfluat satisfaction with security was more sensitive to changes iJiiclimate for subjects with high N-Ach than for those with low N-Ach. See Figure 26. The general conclusion that can be drawn, from these aruilyses of the Climate x Personality interactions on satis- faction dimensions, is that the sensitivity of some personality 165 High .70 , .60 . d (.59) High N-Ach 050 P .40 . SATISFACTION '30 .20 , WITH .10 P “SECURITY '00 - b (—.05) Low N—Ach -010 5 -.2o (“'18) a -.30 r c .40 .1_.33) Low -.50 - I Stressful Stressfree PERCEIVED CLIMATE Figure 26. N-Ach x Perceived Climate Stress Interaction on Satisfaction with Securityl. l The difference between c and d is significant at .01, and between b and d at .01. characteristics to climate, as reflected in differentials in the levels of several dimensions of satisfaction, was signifi- cant. Climate and Satisfaction for Type X Personalities.-- :Examination of the relationships between Climate and Satis- :faction for Type X's provided evidence directly related to IErOposition 13. That prOposition predicted that in stable ennvironments, Type X's would be more satisfied in stressfree cilimates than in stressful climates. 166 Table 62 presents the findings of these _a_ priori com- parisons of overall satisfaction. (See page 42 above) . It is clear from these findings that the prOposition was strongly supported . TABLE 62 COMPARISONS OF OVERALL SATISFACTION OF TYPE X PERSONALITIES IN STRESSFREE AND STRESSFUL CLIMATES Personality Dimension & Level for Satisfacti n Level in t df Signifi- Predicted Type X Stressfree Stressful cance Direction Personality Climate Climate Level High Auth-F .325 -.260 5.361 82 .001. yes Lew LPC .129 -.435 4.669 70 .001 yes Low TRC .279 -.460 7.989 106 .001 yes Low THUR .335 .121 3.633 70 .001 yes Summary of Findings of Climate x Personality Interaction on Satisfaction.--Pr0positions ll, 12 and 13 were able to be tested by this analySis. PrOposition ll anticipated that in stressful climates the levels of satisfaction of Type X's would be greater than those of Type Y's. PrOposition 12 predicted that in stressfree climates, the satisfaction of Type X's would be less than that of Type Y's. Jointly, then, these two prOpositions called for a specific Climate x Personality interaction on Satis- faction. 167 While there were no significant interactions found for the Overall SatisfaCtion measure, there were significant interactions with some of the dimensions of satisfaction and LPC and TRC. The relationship between LPC and Satisfaction with Superior Relations was moderated by Climate, but in the Opposite way to that anticipated by PrOposition 11, though this was significant only in stressfree climates. In these climates, Low LPC's were less satisfied than High LPC's with their relationship with their superior (p < .10) rather than more as predicted. However, in stressful climates, Low TRC's were less satisfied than High TRC's, as predicted by Proposition 12, with Autonomy (p < .01), Self-Actualization (p < .001), and Security (p < .10). In stressfree climates, the Low TRC's ‘were more satisfied than High TRC's, as predicted by Proposi- 'tion 11, on each of these dimensions of satisfaction, but the (iifferences were not statistically significant. Proposition 13 predicted that in stable environments, Type X's would be more satisfied in stressfree climates than 111 stressful climates. The findings for Overall Satisfaction strongly supported this prOposition for all four dimensions (If Type X personalities: High Auth-F's (p < .001), Low LPC's (E3 < .001), Low TRC's (p <.001), and Low TRA's (p < .001). TTue Interaction of Role, Climate arui Personality on Satisfaction There were two second order interactions of this type ‘thxzh reached acceptable levels of significance. The first 168 involved the Authoritarianism dimension of personality and was found to be related to Satisfaction with the Firm. The second was revealed in the TRC dimension of personality and was related to Satisfaction with Co-workers. Authoritarianism x Role x Climate on Satisfaction with Firm.—-The results of the analysis of this interaction are reported in Table 63 and illustrated in Figures 27 and 28. The findings indicate that generally both high and low Authori- tarians' Satisfaction with Firm are lower When they perceive their climate to be relatively stressful than when it is stress— free. However, this result did not hold for all roles or for both authoritarian types. For example, neither high nor low authoritarians in production indicated any difference in this dimension of satisfaction between high and low stress climates. (In research roles, however, high Auth-F's indicated lower levels of Satisfaction with Firm when they were in high stress climates as opposed to low stress climates (p < .005). There 'was not a significant difference for low Auth-F's under simi- lar circumstances. In marketing roles, on the other hand, it was the low .Auth-F's whose level of Satisfaction with Firm drOpped signi- ficantly from perceived Stressfree to Stressful Climates (p < .05). Finally, in Stressfree climates, there were no signi— :ficant differences found in this dimension of satisfaction (either between roles or between high and low authoritarians. 169 TABLE 63 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR ROLE X AUTHORITARIANISM X CLIMATE INTERACTION ON SATISFACTION WITH FIRM Comparison Category Means q Signifi- cance Level. Production in High Stress Climate: Low Auth-F vs High Auth-F .490 vs -.343 3.89_ .05 Research in High Stress Climate: Low Auth-F vs High Auth-F —.l86 vs —.971 3.66 .05 Low Auth-F: Production vs Research .490 vs -.186 3.16 .05 Production vs Marketing .490 vs -.314 3.75 .05 High Auth-F: Research vs Marketing -.976 vs .078 4.90 .01 Low Auth-F in Research: Low vs High Stress Climate -.314 vs .578 4.16 .05 High Auth-F in Research: LOW’VS High Stress Climate -.971 vs .294 5.90 .005 High Auth-F in High Stress Climate .Research vs Marketing -.971 vs .078 4.90 .01 131 Stressful climates, on the other hand, high Auth-F's tended “to kxe less satisfied with firm than low Auth-F's. For_production anui research this was significant at the .05 level. However, fom'lnarketing the relationship was reversed, i.e., low Auth-FYs were less satisfied than high Auth—F's, although this differ- ence was not statistically significant. Tolerance for Role Conflict x Role x Climate on Satis- farrtion with Co-workers.--The results of the analyis of this second order interaction are reported in Table 64. This table 170 .8 r '6 1 490) 4 ' IowluKhHstinsflxessfifl.Clhmue O 2 p SATISFACTION 0 (.078) ' ) WITH -.2 ,(—.344) FIRM -.4 y p (-. 314) -. [ High Auth-F's in -. _ Stressfree Climate -1.0 J r' 1 Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 27. Role x Climate x Authoritarianism Inter- action on Satisfaction with Firm . 1 The difference between p and p' is significant at .05, between r and r' at .05, between p and r at .05, between p and m at..05, between p' and r' at .10, and between r' and m' at .01. .8 .8 r '6 . '6 .( 578 - 4 .4 ' )1 High Auth-F's ° H.294) , * 2 . 1' LavAnflvf‘s .2 ' (.186) h' .0 .(-.010 ~0 1' (.078) ' '- DJVAUHPF' “'0 . - -0314 4 ’ Hufi1AuUrT”s '4 i h ( ) -.6 L -.6 L -.8 l -.8 L _1.0 ‘ ( .971) 1 0 4‘ ‘ Low Stress High Stress Low Stress High Stress (a) Research 1 (b) Marketing1 1The difference between 1' and 1The difference between h' is significant at .01. l and h is significant at .05. Figure 28. Climate x Authoritarianism Interaction on Sat- is faction with Firm among Research and Marketing Roles. 171 indicates that High TRC's tend to be more satisfied with their co-workers than Low TRC's. This relationship held for all roles in a Stressful climate, although it was statistically significant only in production (p < .01). This finding also held for production and marketing roles in a Stressfree cli- mate, on the other hand, High TRC's tended to be less satis- fied with co-workers than Low TRC's, but this difference did not reach significant levels. These findings are illustrated in Figures 29 and 30. TABLE 64 TUKEY TEST FOR COMPARISON OF CATEGORY MEANS FOR ROLE X TOLERANCE FOR ROLE CONFLICT X CLIMATE INTERACTION ON SATISFACTION WITH COWORKERS ,-.,,... Comparison Category Means q Signifi— cance Level Production in High Stress Climate: Low TRC's vs High TRC's -.875 vs .793 5.74 .01 .Low TRC's in High Stress Climate: Production vs Marketing -.875 vs .023 3.09 .05 High TRC's in High Stress Climate: .793 vs -.105 3.09 .05 Production vs Reseach Research in Low Stress Climate: Low TRC's vs High TRC's -.105 vs .793 3.09 .05 High TRC's in Low Stress Climate: - ' Research vs Marketing -.234 vs .793 3.53 .05 :Low TRC's in Production: Low vs High Stress Climate -.875 vs .280 3.98 .05 172 High 1.0 .8 .6 .4 SATISFACTION .2 WITH -0 COWORKERS ”'2 -.6 - 8 Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 29. Role x TRC interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers in a Stressful Climate . l The difference between p and p' is significant at .01, between p' and r' at .05, and between p and m at .05. High 1.0 _ ‘3 * m' (.793) '(.408) H' h TRC 04 b p 19 SATISFACTION .2 p' " WITH .0 (0280) (Low TRC COWORKERS --2 r, (-.105) — 4 P -.234 -06 b ( ) _ 3 ’ Low -l.0 . . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 30. Role x TRC Interaction on Satisfaction ‘wiifli Coworkers in a Stressfree Climatel. l The difference between r' and m' is significant at .05, between m' and m at .05. 173 In addition to these relationships for High TRC's, several significant findings were revealed for Low TRC's. Low TRC's in production indicated that they were less satis- fied with coeworkers when their climate was stressful than did Low TRC's in marketing (p < .05). They were also less satisfied than Low TRC's in production when climate was stressfree (p < .05). These relationships are illustrated in Figure 31. 1.0 r .8 , .6 Low TRC's in .4 ~ p Low Stress SATISFACTION .2 _ ('280’ 1// WITH .0 ('023’ (.023) COWORKERS _ 2 m (—.105) _o4 )- 6 Low TRC's in -' Hi h Stress \/ g -.8 . p (-.875) -100 ‘ I . Production Research Marketing ROLE Figure 31. Role x Climate Interaction on Satisfaction with Coworkers among Low TRC'sl. 1 The difference between p and p' is significant at .05, between p' and m' at .05. 174 Summary Findings Related to Research Question Three The third research question centered on exploring the relationships between satisfaction and (1) firm performance, (2) own work role, (3) individual performance, (4) perceived climate, (5) personality, and (6) the interaction of person- ality and perceived climate. The first three of these rela— tionships were examined in Design 1, with satisfaction treated as the dependent variable. The fourth relationship was explored in Design 2, with satisfaction as the dependent variable. And finally, the last two relationships were examined with Design 3. (l) Satisfaction and Firm Performance There were no significant differences between the high and low performing firms on overall satisfaction or on the individual satisfaction dimensions with the exception of satisfaction with Self-Actualization. This was greater in Firm H than in Firm L. (p < .10). (2) Satisfaction and Own Work Role It was found that managers in research were less satisfied than those in either production (p < .10) or marketing (p < .05). Looking at dimensions of satisfaction, it was found that personnel in research were less satisfied with the firm (as a place to work than were those in production (p < .025) or marketing (p <.01). 175 In addition, research personnel were less satisfied with their career opportunities and progress (p < .10) and with pay (p <.Ol) than personnel in production. Furthermore, research managers were less satisfied with opportunities for self-actualization than were those in either production (p < .05) or marketing (p < .05). Finally, research personnel were less satisfied with the amount of security in their job than were their collea- gues in marketing (p < .05). (3) Satisfaction and Individual Performance Overall Satisfaction did not differ significantly be- tween high and low performing managers. This indicates that the reward systems in the two firms in this study did not effectively discriminate between high and low performers to reinforce high performance behavior. However, there were significant differences between the firms in the relationships between individual performance and the various dimensions of satisfaction. Generally speaking, the high performing firm had a reward system which resulted in its high performing managers kxeing more satisfied than its low performing managers. On tlue other hand, the low performing firm's reward system.resulted 111 its high performing managers being less satisfied than itus low performing managers. This difference in the overall refilationships of satisfaction and individual performance be- tween firms was significant at the .05 level. 176 With regard to Satisfaction with Career Opportunities and Progress, high performers in Firm H were more satisfied than low performers in the firm (p < .01). On the other hand, in Firm L the low performers were more satisfied with the Firm as a Place to Work than were high performers in that firm (p < .05). (4) Satisfaction and Perceived Climate Stress The relationship between satisfaction and Perceived Climate Stress was highly significant. Subjects who perceived their climate as being relatively free of stress had greater overall satisfaction (p < .001), as well as greater satisfac- tion with Job (p < .001), Firm (p < .005), Career Opportunities (p < .005), Relations with Superior (p < .01), Competence of Superior (p < .001), Co—workers (p < .10), Esteem (p < .001), Autonomy (p < .001), Self-Actualization (p < .001), Security (p < .001), and Affiliation (p < .001) than subjects in high stress climates. In fact the only dimension of satisfaction which was not significantly related to perceived climate stress was Satisfaction with Pay. (5) Satisfaction and Personality Satisfaction was found to be related to LPC, TRC, TRA, and N-Ach. Task Oriented subjects were found to be less satisfied than Relationship Oriented subjects with Career Opportunities and Progress (p < .10), Self-Actualization (p < .005), and .Affiliation (p < .05). 177 Individuals who had low tolerance for role conflict were found to be less satisfied than high TRC‘s on Composite Satisfaction (p < .05) as well as with Co-workers (p < .01), Autonomy (p < .10), and Self-Actualization (p < .10). Managers who had low tolerance for role ambiguity were found to be more satisfied than high TRA's on Composite Satisfaction (p < .10). Low N-Ach subjects were found to be less satisfied than high N—Ach subjects on Composite Satisfaction (p < .05) as well as with Job (p < .025), Esteem (p < .01), Autonomy (p < .01), Self-Actualization (p < .05) and Affiliation (p < .01). (6) The Interaction of Personality and Perceived Climate Stress on Satisfaction The Mix Model anticipates that the relationships between perceived climate and satisfaction would be moderated by per- sonality. Specifically, Proposition 11 anticipated that in Stressfree climates satisfaction would be greater as Authori- 'tarianism was greater and as LPC, TRC and TRA were lower. (The converse of this was anticipated in Stressful climates by Ilroposition 12. Since N-Ach was not specifiable as a char- auzteric of Type X or Type Y personalities, no proposition was fkarmulated on its relationship with satisfaction in various c l imate cond itions . While there were no significant interactions found for true Overall Satisfaction measure, there were significant inter- actions with some of the dimensions of satisfaction between 178 Climate and two dimensions of personality, LPC and TRC. The relationship between LPC and Satisfaction with Relations with Superior was moderated by climate in the opposite way anticipated by Propositions 11 and 12, though this was significant only in stressfree climates (Proposi- tion 11). In these Climates, Low LPC's or task oriented sub- jects, were less satisfied than High LPC's or relationship oriented managers, rather than more as predicted. In stressful climates, however, Low TRC's were less satisfied than High TRC's, as predicted by Proposition 12, with Autonomy, Self-Actualization, and Security. In stress- free Climates, the Low TRC's were more satisfied than High TRC's, as predicted by PrOposition 11, on each of these dimensions of satisfaction, but the differences were not significant. Proposition 13, which predicted that in stable environ- ments, Type X's would be more satisfied in stressfree climates than in stressful climates, was supported. (7) The Interaction of Personality, Role and Perceived Climate Stress on Satisfaction Second order interactions of this type were found to reach significant levels for Authoritarianism on Satisfaction with Firm and TRC on Satisfaction with Co-workers. Auth-F.-- In production neither High nor Low Auth-F's revealed significant differences in Satisfaction with Firm vehen the climate was Stressful rather than Stressfree while 179 there were differences in other roles. In research, highly authoritarian subjects' levels of this dimension of satis- faction were less in Stressful than in Stressfree climates (p < .005). In marketing, on the other hand, it was the Low Auth-F's whose satisfaction declined with similar changes in climate (p < .05). In Stressful climate, high Auth-F's were less satisfied with the firm than low Auth-F's in production (p < .05) and research (p < .05). TRQ.-- High TRC's were generally found to be more satis- fied with their co-workers than Low TRC's. This relationship held for all roles in a Stressful climate, although it was statistically significant only in production (p < .01). This finding also held for production and marketing roles in Stressfree climates as well, though only in marketing was it significant (p <.05). Low TRC's in production indicated less satisfaction with their co—workers when climate was Stressful than did Low TRC's in marketing (p < .05). They were also less satisfied than LOW'TRC'S in production when climate was Stressfree (p <.05). Chapter Summary The findings relating to the three general research (questions which were focused upon in this study were reported. In addition, the findings for each of the specific propositions (developed in Chapter I were reported. 180 Discussion of these findings and their implications is the subject of the following chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Objectives The objectives of this research were to (1) provide additional empirical evidence on the relationship between climate and firm performance for firms operating in relatively stable environments, and (2) to explore the validity of an extension of contingency theory which includes the personality dimension of organizational members along with environment and climate in explaining organizational performance and individual performance and satisfaction. Methodology The automobile parts and accessories industry was chosen for study since the volatility of earnings before interest, (depreciation and taxes(EBIDT) over the ten year period 1959-69 (was considered stable relative to other selected industries (Turing the same time period. (See Table 3). A high and a low performing firm was selected for -<:loser examination. Performance was measured by average rate (of EBIDT on total assets for the same ten year period as above. Tflne high performing firm, Firm H, had an average rate of rraturn of 24.36% compared with the industry average of 19.11% eund the low performing firm's, Firm L, 8.15%. 181 182 The data was Collected by a mailed questionnaire. Subjects were drawn from production, research and marketing managerial ranks and were performance rated, by the executive responsible for personnel, as being either an above average performer or an average or below average performer. The questionnaires were coded to distinguish responses returned by high and lOw performers. One hundred and thirty usable questionnaires were returned, for an overall return rate of about 58% with a cell range of 50% to 80%. (See Table 4). Three designs were used for data analyses. Design 1 was a 2 x 3 x 2 factorial design with two levels of individual performance, three levels of role, and two levels of firm performance. This design was employed to examine these factors' effects on climate, satisfaction, and personality. Design 2 was also a 2 x 3 x 2 design with two levels of individual performance, three levels of role and two levels of climate. The dependent variables analyzed with this design were satisfaction and personality. Finally, DeSign3 was a 2 x 3 x 2 factorial design with two levels of personality, three levels of role and two levels of Climate. Dependent variables examined were individual per- formance and satisfaction. Findings Objective One: Research Question One The first objective of this research was to provide additional empirical evidence on the current contingency approach 183 to organization theory, particularly as it applies to firms in relatively stable environments. The Relationship Between Climate and Firm Performance The review of literature in Chapter I revealed that there is a growing body of theory and empirical evidence that supports what has become known as the contingency approach to organizational design and administration. Basically this approach suggests that there is no "one best way" to design and administer organizations that would be appropriate in all situations. Contingency supporters would suggest, however, that under some conditions one approach would work best and under different conditions another approach would be most appropriate. To date the contingency approach has focused on a search for the contingency variable as well as means by which firms' design and administration can be compared and evaluated. While several contingency variables have been sug- gested, most have in common the element of uncertainty or in— ability to predict outcomes in advance. Coping successfully with differing degrees of uncer- tainty calls for different approaches to organizational design and administration, according to the contingency View. One of the notions upon which the specific propositions developed in this study is based is that organizations in both stable and unstable environments can attain relatively high levels of task performance and low levels of stress on members. However, the internal arrangements by which these states will 184 be reached are likely to be quite different for firms in very different environmental settings. Firms in stable or certain environments will tend to rely more on position power, rules and regulations, job descriptions, etc., or mechanistic approaches. Firms in dynamic environments, on the other hand, will rely on inter- personal interaction on an informal basis, influence based upon expertise rather than position, etc., or more organic approaches. Since this study involves firms in a relatively stable environment, it is expected that their approach will be relatively mechanistic, compared, say, to firms operating in a much more dynamic environment. Furthermore the Mix Model in Chapter I suggests that in stable environments, firms that attain higher levels of performance will also have lower levels of stress by using more mechanistic approaches to design and administration than the lower performing firms in the same environment. The relationship anticipated between firm performance and perceived stress by members, then, is that the stress in high performing firms will be less than that in low performing firms (Proposition 6). The findings in this study were in the predicted direction for the overall climate measure, but did not reach statistical significance except in production roles. (See Table 11). Examination of the individual dimensions of climate stress revealed that Organizational Conformity was significantly 185 lower in the high performing firm, as predicted by Proposi- tion 1 (see Table 15), and Relationship Orientation was significantly higher, as expected by Proposition 3a. (See Table 19). However, several dimensions of climate stress indicated higher, though not significantly, stress in the high perform- ing firm contrary to what was anticipated. These contrary tendencies were for Organizational Clarity (Proposition 2), Task Orientation (Proposition 3a), Role Conflict (Proposition 5a), and Role Ambiguity (Proposition 5b). It is notable that those differences in climate dimen- sions between the high and low performing firms that were significant were in the directions predicted. This provides some support for the general notion that high perfOrming firms will have less stress. Figure 32 illustrates the climate pro- files of the firms. The fact that several dimensions of climate tended to differ between the high and low performing firms in the op- posite direction as that predicted deserves further considera- tion. These findings could be interpreted in several ways. They could indicate that differences in Organizational Clarity, Task Orientation, Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity are simply not closely related to organizational performance, or that due to lack of precision in measuring them, they are really related to firm performance, but in the opposite direction to that anticipated. A third explanation is available, however, which permits these findings to be reconciled with the propositions. Overall Stress Organizational Conformity Organizational Clarity Task Orientation of Superior Relationship Orien- tation of Superior Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Figure 32. 186 .10 .05 Firm H [firm L i l i l ¥ 1 ! -l.0 -.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 How) Gfigh) Z-Scmrs PERCEIVED STRESS High and Low Performing Firms. Profiles of Perceived Stress in 187 This explanation is that Firm L did have levels of some di- mensions of Climate that were more functional than those in Firm H, but they were insufficient to swamp the significant differences in favor of Firm H's climate along the dimensions of Organizational Conformity and Relationship Orientation. Furthermore, since the sample was restricted to only one firm in each performance category, there could be true dif- ferences in the Climate dimensions as predicted between high and low performing firms in the universe of stable environ- ments that were not captured due to sampling error. The conclusion of this study is that there is some support for the notion that in stable environments, high per- forming firms have lower levels of stress than low performing firms. The Relationship Between Climate and Role Overall Stess.-- While there were no differences in Overall Stress between roles across firms, there was a signi- ficant difference found between roles in Firm L. (See Table 11). Figure 33 illustrates the climate profiles by role. In the low performing firm Overall Stress was greater in pro- ciuction than in marketing. Further examination of Figure 33 :reveals that the greater stress that is perceived in Firm L's production roles is due to greater Role Conflict and Task (Irientation and less Relationship Orientation, relative to Inesearch roles. Each of these dimensions is discussed further below. 188 Contrast p Overall Stress P vs M .01 Resanrh Organizational n.s. Conformity Organizational n.s. Clarity Task Orientation P vs R .01 of Superior P vs M .01 anmc- R vs M .05 tion Relationship Orien- P vs R .05 tation of Superior P vs M .01 Role Conflict Firm L: P vs R .01 P vs M .001 Role Ambiguity n.s. i - -l.0 -.5 0.0 .5 1.0 (LOW) (High) Z-Scm£s PERCEIVED STRESS Figure 33. Profiles of Perceived Stress by Role. 189 Role Conflict and Ambiguity. -— PrOposition 4 stated the suggestions of Kahn, et 31. (1964) that role conflict and ambiguity would be greater as one moved from roles "deep" within the organization to those near the "skin" of the or- ganization's boundaries. Specifically, this anticipates that Role Conflict and Ambiguity would be greater as one moved from production to research to marketing. The findings indicate that there was no significant difference between roles in Role Ambiguity. With regard to Role Conflict, the levels in Firm H were lowest in production as predicted but greatest in research, although differences 'between roles in this firm were not significant. In Firm L, however, the differences between all three roles were in the opposite direction to that predicted and the level in pro- duction was significantly greater than that in research and marketing. (See Table 13). These findings suggest that the relationships between Role Conflict and role are moderated by firm performance for firms in a stable environment. They might also suggest that for low performing firms in a stable environment the pressures of role conflict might be backing into production from research and marketing functions who appear to have Clear understandings of their roles yet are frustrated by the relatively low perform- ance of the total organization. Task Orientation. -- Task Orientation was found to vary between roles but only in the low performing firm. (See Table 17). In.FirmI”Task Orientation was greater in production than 190 in research and marketing. This is consistent with the suggestion above that pressures are backing into production from research and marketing functions. Relationship Orientation.-— Relationship Orientation was found to be lower in production than in research and mar- keting. (See Table 19). These findings might be explained by systematic differences in job content between roles. Those in research and marketing involve relatively complextasks in that predictions of outcomes are more difficult to make since one is dealing directly with unknown technical relationships in research and the human element. Production tasks are likely to be based more on known physical relationships and consequently more certainty. (Perrow, 1970). Given these differences between roles, it is completely consistent with contingency theory that decisions be made Closer to the source of application and a leadership style which is based on inter- personal influence and technical expertise rather than posi- tional power in the organizational hierarchy. In short, the finding of greater Relationship Orientation in roles which have greater uncertainty is consistent with contingency theory. Relationship Between Climate and Individual Performance Individual performance was found to be unrelated to either Perceived Climate Stress or any of its separate dimen- sions of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Organizational Clarity, Organizational Conformity, Task Orientation or Relationship 191 Orientation. Furthermore indivdual performance was not found to be significantly affected by any interaction of climate and role, except for some personality characteristics. How- ever these will be discussed below in another section. The implication of this finding is that climate does not affect individual performance. However, one must recall at this point that the measures of individual performance used in this study provided only two classifications, high and low performers. Furthermore, the method of classifying personnel into these categories was not able to be monitored for con- sistency by the researcher. It is possible that a relationship does exist between climate and performance but due to experi- mental error and lack of percision in weighting differences in performance levels, such relationships were not revealed. Summary Findings and Conclusions Related to Research Objective One The findings of this study indicate that the overall cli- mate tended to be less stressful in the high performance firm than in the low performing firm as predicted. In particular, Firm H revealed significantly less Organizational Conformity and more Relationship Orientation than did Firm L. The relationship between climate and role showed that in Firm L managers in production perceived their climate to be more stressful overall than those in marketing. Examination of individual dimensions of climate revealed that, in Firm L, production managers perceived significantly greater Role 192 Conflict and Task Orientation than those in research and marketing. One explanation for this finding may be that pressures for improved firm performance are backing up into the production roles. It was also found that Relationship Orientation was significantly lower in production than in research and mar- keting roles. This finding was considered to be consistent with contingency theory to the extent that research and mar- keting roles have greater task complexity and uncertainty than do production roles. Individual performance was found to be unrelated to either perceived climate stress or any of the dimensions of perceived climate employed in the study. Possible sources of experimental errors were cited as limitations of this finding. Objective Two: Research Question Two The second objective of this research was to explore an extension of contingency theory which includes the person- ality dimension of organizational members along with environ- ment and climate in explaining organizational performance and individual perfOrmance and satisfaction. The second research question focused only on performance. The third research question centered on exploring these effects on satisfaction. The Relationship Between Personality and Firm Performance There was a significant difference in the level of Authoritarianism of managers in the two firms studied. (See 193 Table 24). The high performing firm's managers were less authoritarian than those in the low performing firm. While the extension to the contingency theory, the Mix Model, anti- cipated a difference in Auth-F between the two firms, it pre— dicted the difference to be in the Opposite direction. That is, it proposed that in a stable environment, the level of managers' authoritarianism in a high performing firm would be greater than in a low performing firm. While this finding appears to contradict the Mix Model's suggestion that high performing firms in stable environments will be staffed by more authoritarian personnel than low per- forming firms, there are several ways in which this finding can be reconciled with the Mix Model. The findings of lower authoritarians in Firm H than in Firm L could be due to a sampling error among the high and low performing firms in stable environments. Since only one firm in each performance category was included in this study, there is a substantial probability of sampling error. Another way in which this finding could be reconciled with the Mix Model is if instead of being in a relatively stable environment, the firms were in fact in a dynamic en- vironment. The Mix Model would then predict that the high per- forming firm's personnel would be less authoritarian than Firm L's as was found. Reexamination of the range of the volatility of environ- .ment measures indicates that while the Auto Parts industry was not significantly more volatile than the Metal and Glass 194 Container industry it did have a higher volatility of earnings and tended to be more toward the middle of the range of volatility than the container industry. Furthermore, while the volatility of earnings does appear to be an improvement over paper and pencil perceptual tests of environmental stability/volatility, it is conceivable that where the number of firms in an industry is small (such as was the case in the Metal and Glass Container industry which had only six firms), there is a greater probability that managerial effectiveness in COping with environmental volatility will not be randomly distributed among firms in the industry and this ability will be confounded with the measure of environment volatility. It is also possible that the relationship between environment stability and structure (or climate) on organiza- tional performance is not a linear relationship, as assumed by current COntingency theory, but a curvilinear relationship in which performance is highly sensitive to changes in environ- mental stability within a certain narrow range, and that range is toward the stable end of the volatility continuum. SuCh a relationship is depicted in Figure 34. Point C may represent the location along the volatili- ty dimension of the container industry studied by Lawrence and Lorsch. The auto parts industry studied in this research is represented by A. Under the curvilinear relationships depicted in Figure 34, it is seen that the apparently conflicting finding with respect to Auth-F and firm performance literature 195 Organic igh Performing Firms LH ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACH Low Performing Firms Mechan- istic —— C . Low A High ENVIRONMENTAL VOLATILITY Figure 34. Possible Curvilinear Relationship Between Organzational Approach, Environmental Volatility and Firm Performance. can be reconciled. The fact remains that the configuration of the performance curves has not been determined to date due to the lack of research in this area. One implication of this finding, however, is that there is some question about the linear relationship between climate and environment on firm Performance which is implicitly assumed in current contingency theory. The indication from this finding suggests that the relationship may be more complex. Only additional research Will reveal the region in which the relationship between environ- ment and such variables as climate as well as personality are 196 sensitive in their interaction on firm performance. Figure 35 illustrates the personality profiles of subjects by Firm. __E__ AUTH-F .01 Firm H Firm L K1_. LPC n.s. TRC n.s. \ TRA n.s. N-ACH n.s. . . -l.0 -.5 0.0 .5 1.0 How) Gfigh) Z-&xnes Figure 35. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Firm. The Relationship Between Personality and Role Significant differences were found in Interpersonal Orientation and Authoritarianism between managers in different functional roles. In particular, marketing managers were more relationship oriented than those in either research or production. And production managers were more authoritarian than managers in research or marketing. (See Tables 22 and 24). 197 While no specific predictions were made with respect to the personality profiles of managers in each role these two dimensions are consistent with popular stereotypes, particularly of the "hard-nosed" production manager and the gregarious, peOple-oriented sales type. It is also consistent with the researcher who could be expected to prefer individual tasks and independence, consequently tending to be low in authoritarian- ism and task oriented as was found to be the case. The remaining personality dimensions, Tolerance for Role Conflict and Ambiguity and Need for Achievement, were not found to vary significantly between roles across firms. There Was a difference, however, in the relationship between N-Ach and Role in the high performing firm, although there was no such difference in Firm L. In the high performing firm research personnel had a much lower need for achievement than those in production or marketing. Furthermore, research personnel in Firm H had a lower N-Ach than their counterparts in Firm L. This finding suggests that Firm H might do well to reexamine its personnel practices and turnover history for research personnel to determine if they are losing those who have greater needs for achievement. It is possible that re- search effectiveness in Firm H could be improved with more achievement oriented personnel and hence overall firm perform— ance could be even higher. Figure 36 illustrates the personality profiles of sub- jects by roles. AUTH-F LPC TRC TRA N-ACH Figure 36. 198 Contrast p P vs R .10 P vs M .05 M vs P .10 M vs R .05 n.s. n.s. n.s. I l n l l L. - L “1.0 -05 0.0 .5 1.0 (Low) GHQh) 7-Ekrmes The Relationship Between Personality and Individual Performance Personality Profiles of Subjects by Role The Mix Model concept suggests that there is a rela- tionship between personality and individual performance. Several significant relationships were revealed, although most varied between roles. znent than low performing managers. (See Figure 37). High performing managers had a higher Need for Achieve- The Mix Model anticipated -that the high performing managers would have equal or 199 __IL_ AUTH-E .05 High Low . Perform— Perform- ! ers ers LPC n.s. L TRC n.s. TRA n.s. N-ACH .10 . _ "100 -.5 0.0 .5 1.0 (Low) (High) Z—Scores Figure 37. Personality Profiles of Subjects by Individual Performance. 200 greater Need for Achievement than low performing managers when they were in firms operating in relatively stable environments and highly structured climates. Consequently this finding is consistent with the Mix Model's extension of contingency theory. (See Table 28) High performers also tended to be less tolerant of role conflict and ambiguity than low performers as expected, although these differences were statistically significant only in re- search roles. Furthermore, high performers tended to be.some- what more task oriented than relationship oriented as pre- dicted, but again not significantly so. (See Tables 35 and 37 and Figure 17). Finally, high performers were less authoritarian instead of more authoritarian than low performers as predicted by the Mix Model, but only significantly so in production and research. In marketing high performers tended to be more authoritarian than low performers but the difference was not statistically significant. (See Table 24). These findings are shown graphi- cally in Figure 38. One implication of these findings is that there are some personality profiles that are better fits for certain roles than others. The finding that Authoritarianism, Tolerance for Role Conflict, Tolerance for Role Ambiguity and Need for Achievement are significantly related to performance, at least for certain roles suggests that personnel placement procedures in these firms might benefit from the consideration of these personality characteristics. 201 UZHBHMMdE .mHom ma mocmEHOMHOm an muoanSm mo mmawmoum mafiamaomumm mwuoom rememc o.H m. o.o A301: o.HI ..m.C 4 J ‘ .m.C \ mHm IEHOMHOQ mHmEHOMHO Seq noes .moc mommmmmm mmuoom I N rememc Axons o.H m. .o.o m.) o.au - J - .m.c mo. mo. .m.G mum \\\\mwm IEHOMHOQ IEHOMHOm 304 nose 1 Ho. .mm whooem oneoooomo mmuoom I N Acoemc 1304c o.H m. o.o my: o.au - - ( .m.o mosnz ImOc g9 .m.o oma .m.: use mum mum :Euomumm (Euomnwm Son soar - Ho. unmaos 202 Another implication of a more general nature is that there are characteristics of individuals which lend them- selves to higher levels of individual performance in some situations than other. This suggests that the trait theories of leadership, selection and placement may have been doomed to inconclusiveness by virtue of the confounding effects of situational or job characteristics. Such findings suggest that there is new promise to these trait approaches if situa- tional characteristics are considered simultaneously. The Relationship Between Personality and Perceived Climate Stress It was found that individuals who perceived their cli- mate to be relatively stressful had greater Tolerance for Role Ambiguity (see Table 37) and lower Need for Achievement (see Table 39) than those who saw their climate as being relatively stressfree. The first of these relationships is a curious one. One might have expected that the more tolerant a manager would be of role ambiguity the less role ambiguity would be above his threshold of awareness and hence the lower he would per- ceive climate stress to be (since role ambiguity is one of the components of the climate stress measure). It is possible that this is the relationship between TRA and RA but that this effect is swamped by a stronger negative correlation between TRA and one of the other dimensions of climate stress. No further analyses was conducted to ascertain the relationships between TRA and the individual dimensions of climate stress. 203 However, this curious finding does suggest the need for fur- ther research. That high N-Ach's perceive low climate stress is con- sistent with prior research (Hermans, 1970) which has shown that individuals with high N-Ach have greater persistence and are less deterred by environmental constraints in attaining goals than are low N-Ach's. This suggests that the same cli- mate stress will be perceived by low N-Ach's as being a greater deterrent to goal attainment than it will by high N- Ach's. This suggestion could not be tested in this current study but presents an Opportunity for future research. The Relationship Between Personality, Climate and Individual Performance The Mix Model suggests that Type X personalities will perform better than Type Y personalities in stable environments, regardless of whether the climate is perceived as stressfree (Proposition 8) or stressful (PrOposition 9). Jointly, these propositions anticipate that there will be no significant inter- action Of Personality and Climate Stress on individual per- formance and that, for stable environments, Type X's will per- form better than Type Y's. A sign test of the differences in performance levels for each personality type moderated by climate was interpreted as supporting the notions expressed by the joint prOpositions and Proposition 8 individually. (See page 130). The implication of these findings is that firms in relatively stable environments ought to consider the personality 204 characteristics of employment applicants in the course of their employment and placement appraisal programs. The per- formance of individuals entering desired (Stressfree) climates in firms in a stable environment would appear to be more likely to be high if they are authoritarian, task oriented, and have low tolerance for role conflict and ambiguity. Furthermore, high performers were found to have higher F needs for achievement, although the differences were signifi- cant only in stressfree climates. This finding appears to conflict with that of Hermans (1970) who found that the differ- F ence in performance of high and low N-Ach's was significant only in unstructured situations. Since these firms are oper- ating in stable environments, mechanistic structures would likely characterize employee situations. Consequently, according to Hermans' findings, one might expect a more signi- ficant difference between high and low N-Ach's performance in climates less suited to the stable environment, i.e., stress- ful climates. One way in which these findings can be reconciled is if stressful climates were more structured than stressfree Climates to the point of excess. Since one of the character- istics of stressful climates was excessive Organizational Conformity, such climates can be considered overstructured relative to the stressfree climates. Under these conditions the findings of this study and Hermans are compatible. 205 Objective Two: Research Question Three In addition to exploring the validity of the Mix Model concept as a predictor of organizational and individual per- formance (which constituted the second research question of this study), the third research question focused upon the relationships between satisfaction and firm performance, role, individual performance, perceived climate, and the interactions of climate and personality on satisfaction. The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Firm Performance Managers in the high performing firm were found to be more satisfied with self-actualization than those in the low performing organization. (See Table 52). However, none of the remaining dimensions of satisfaction differed between firms. While it is conceivable that the opportunities made available in the high performing firm for satiating self-actu- alization needs might have resulted in greater task-oriented behavior by its members such that firm performance was enhanced, such a conclusion is very tenuous. Since no similar difference. was revealed in any of the other twelve measures of satisfaction, this single relationship could be explained as a chance hap- pening. That there is not a strong relationship between firm performance and member satisfaction is not an unusual finding as the review of literature in Chapter I indicated. While one might expect high performing organizations to have more satisfied employees than low performing firms, an effective reward system 206 would discriminate reward allocations on the basis of per- formance or employee contributions to the organization. If that were the case, differences between levels of satisfaction of high and low individual performers would be more pronounced than between high and low performing firms. This was in fact found, as discussed in more detail below. The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Role Satisfaction was found to vary significantly between roles. Personnel in research were considerably less satisfied overall, with the firm and with self-actualization than thOse in either production or marketing. (See Tables 42, 44, and 52). In addition research personnel were less satisfied with their career opportunities and progress as well as with pay than production managers. (See Tables 46 and 48). Finally, research personnel were less satisfied with the amount of security in their job than were those in marketing. (See Table 54). The satisfaction profile of subjects by role is illustrated in Figure 39. The implication of these findings is that research is not given as high a priority in the firms studied as is pro- duction and, to a lesser extent, marketing. This is consistent with the interpretation of the environment being relatively stable. Under stable environmental conditions, the need to develop new production technology (production process research) and products (product research) are less critical to an 207 .cofluommmeumm mo mconcwEHo omuomamm MOM maom an mpomnnsm mo mmaflmoum :ofluommmflumm mmuoom I N rememc Asoqc one m. o.o m.I o.eI . mo. 2 m> m mo. 2 m> m oa. m m> m n Ho. 2 m> m . . . . w mo. m m> m s COfiu . lQéKfim . Ho. 2 m> m mmo. m m> m s . mo. 2 m> m . oH. m m> m m ummuucou .mm musmflm muflnsomm soeumseamsuosumamm wmm ummumo Seem cowuowmmflumm Hamnm>o 208 organization's short run success in the marketplace than pro- duction efficiency (resulting in competitive prices and delivery times) according to both economic theory and contin- gency theory. Consequently the most influential and pres- tigeous, and hence satisfying, functional roles will be pro- duction and marketing. The least will be research. The insidious nature of short run planning horizons, however, is the viciousness with which it locks out prepara- tions for meeting secular changes in the envirOnment. The role of research is central to this preparation and yet it is not seen as nearly as important as either production or marketing in these two firms. Interviews with top level executives elicited the following comments which reveal their perceptions of the critical problems of doing business in the auto parts industry. Engine Parts Product Manager: "The most important factors that have to be contended with in this line are the technical problems related to keeping our prices down and quality up, and being able to get delivery out on time. As far as the production technology is concerned things are pretty much the same now as they were 10 or 20 years ago. But that's going to change in the future. Plastics and powdered metals are practically nothing now. But their potential is terrific. The rotary engine has some of us Concerned too. It probably won't be too important for another 10 years. But when it comes it will mean a lot of changes for us due to the fact that it uses so much fewer parts - and no pistons! Some projections are calling for 90% of auto- mobile engines will be rotary types within 10 years." 209 Manufacturing Engineering: "There has been little basic change in manufactur- ing in the past several years. Research is basically in materials, not processes. The major problems are in applying Old principals, but the basic process is still the same. But with the current pollution concern, there is more uncertainty shaping up for the future." Division Sales Manager: "The most demanding areas are price and quality, but these vary between markets. For instance the auto- motive market is the most demanding. Its high volume puts severe requirements on price, delivery and quality. The heavy engine industry has a much lower volume but the unit value is higher and the competition is not so keen. ' In the auto industry, contracts are awarded on an annual basis. Computerization has aided prediction and has eliminated fear of overbuying or underbuying. We release projected delivery figures monthly. The first 30 days' are really precise. The first 60 days' are reasonably precise, and the first 90 days' will probably have some Changes made but by and large they prove to be pretty Close to the mark." These comments serve to illustrate the perceptions held by those executives interviewed in the two firms. As indi- cated, they reveal the notion that the industry's environment has been very stable and predictable with few changes of any significance in either markets or technology in the recent past. However, there are indications that the demands placed on the industry will call for substantial changes in future. Many of these changes will require substantial inputs from research roles (both product and process engineering research). In view of the more central importance that the research role will likely be called upon to play in the near future 210 in these firms, and since low levels of satisfaction are likely indicative of high turnover rates, it would seem ad- visable for the firms in this study to take immediate steps to raise the levels of satisfaCtion of research personnel, particularly high performers, in order to attract and hold those whose contributions will be of considerable importance for future organizational performance. The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Individual Performance Satisfaction was found not to vary between high and low performing managers across the two firms. However, there was a significant difference in the relationship between satis- faction and individual performance between the two firms. In the high performing firm, the high performers were more satis- fied than their low performing colleagues. However, in the low performing firm, high performing managers were less satis- fied than were low performing managers. (See Tables 44, 46, and 50). This finding raises some interesting questions about the nature of these organizations' reward systems and their performance effectiveness. Lawler (1970) indicated that "the relationship between satisfaction and performance is important and should be monitored not to determine if satisfaction leads 13) performance, but because it tells us something about how. rewards are being given out in an organization" (p. 228). He pointed out that the high performers should be the most satisfied. 211 If they are not, the organizational reward system probably is not working appropriately. In the case of the firms in this study, the high per- forming firm's reward system is apprOpriate in that satisfaction varies directly with performance. Since turnover and ab- senteeism are highest among those who are least satisfied (Brayfield and Crockett, 1955; Herzberg,e£ a1. 1957; Lawler, 1967; Schuh, 1967; Vroom, 1964), and since it is the low per- formers who are least satisfied in Firm H, this firm could be expected to have its greatest turnover among its least pro- , ductive personnel. In Lawler's view this is precisely the kind of turnover organizations should seek. On the other hand, in the low performing firm, the high performing managers are less satisfied than the low performers. Consequently, turnover will be greatest among high performing personnel. This, of course, is not the group to lose. The ultimate result of such reward systems as were found in these two firms (if satisfaction reflects thesystem) is likely to be an increase in high performing individuals in the first firm and a subsequent increase in its overal per- formance. There would also be a decrease in the incidence of Ihigh.performing personnel in the second firm which would be followed by its overall performance falling. That the first firm.had in fact a much better performance record than the latter firm is consistent with the relationship between satis- faction and individual performance anticipated by Lawler. 212 The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Perceived Climate Stress Satisfaction was inversely related to perceived climate stress. Subjects who perceived their climate as being rela- tively stressfree had greater overall satisfaction as well as greater satisfaction with job, firm, career Opportunities, relations with superior, competence of superior, co-workers, esteem, autonomy, self-actualization, security, and affilia- tion than those in stressful climates. (See Table 56). The fact that perceived climate was found to be so closely related to satisfaction calls for a note of caution. The data are e5 post facto and this fact renders causal inter- pretation hazardous. While one is tempted to infer from these relationships that stressful perceived climates cause dissatis- faction, it is possible that dissatisfaction (caused by some third variable) distorts perception of climate in such a way that it appears to be stressful to the perceiver. Unfortunately, this uncertainty of the direction of causality can not be resOlved with the research methodology used in this study. It could be resolved, however, if similar data were collected as of two or more time periods and the data were analyzed with dynamic correlational analysis. A second technique that could be used to improve the methodology would be that of using inde- pendent measures of climate and satisfaction. Since these measures were obtained from the same subjects in this study, they might not be completely independent. It may be a lack of independence that is causing the high correlations between In 213 satisfaction and climate that were found. The Relationship Between Satisfaction and Personality Satisfaction was found to be related to several per- sonality characteristics. These were interpersonal Orientation (LPC), tolerance for role conflict (TRC), tolerance for role ambiguity (TRA), and need for achievement (N-Ach). (See Table 59). Task oriented managers were less satisfied with career Opportunities and progress, self-actualization, and affilia- tion than were relationship oriented subjects. Recalling that task oriented managers (Low LPC's) tended to be higher per? formers than relationship oriented managers (High LPC's), the finding that the former are less satisfied with career opportu- nities and progress and self-actualization might suggest pro- motion practices in the firms studied are biased against manag— ers who are inclined to be task oriented in their interpersonal relations, even though this appears to be functional for per- formance. Such a bias in favor of the human relations approach would seem to be contrary to the best interests of firms operating in stable environments, like thoSe in this study, as is predicted by contingency theory. That Low LPC's are less satisfied with Affiliation than High LPC's lends validity to the interpretation of the LPC scale. This suggests that Low LPC's are more task oriented in their interpersonal relations than High LPC's and this in 214 behavior prevents the quality of these relationships with others from being as affiliative as those of High LPC's even though such a quality is desired. Individuals who had low tolerance for role conflict were found to be less satisfied than High TRC's on Overall Satis- faction. SinCe low tolerance for role conflict was associated with high individual performance, this finding could be indic- ative that reward systems are also biased against Low TRC's. Perhaps Low TRC's display behavior patterns in the course of COping with this conflict that are perceived by the reward system allocators as undesirable. Managers who were Low TRA's were more satisfied overall and particularly with Relations with Superior and Self-Actuali- zation than were High TRA's. This finding might indicate that Low TRA's find interaction with their superiors to be instru- mental in attaining role clarification. The results of this clarification through interacting with superiors could then lead to greater satisfaction with Relations with Superior and Self-Actualization. Finally, low achievement oriented managers were found to be less satisfied than High N—Ach's on Overall Satisfaction and particularly so with Job, Esteem, Autonomy, Self-Actualiza- tion, and Affiliation. Since High N-Ach's tended to be higher performers than Low N-Ach's, this finding is consistent with previous findings on N-Ach which indicate that those with high needs to achieve are motivated primarily by intrinsic rewards 215 such as Self-Esteem, Autonomy, and Self-Actualization and are more satisfied with their jobs when they provide for such satisfaction. In summary, satisfaction was higher as the subject was more relationship oriented, tolerant of role conflict, intoler- ant of role ambiguity and achievement oriented. Conceptually, there are three reward systems within which the individual operates. There is the formal reward system Operated by the formal organization, which dispenses such rewards as promotion, pay, and autonomy. There is also the informal reward system which is administered by others with whom one comes in contact, such as peers, subordinates and others with whom one has informal relationships. The types of rewards provided here are also extrinsic, in that they are dispensed by others, but are individualistic rather than formalistic. Examples of these kinds of rewards are affiliation and esteem. The third reward system is comprised of those rewards which are intrinsic to the individual, i.e.,which he gives himself. These rewards include self-esteem and self- 'actualization. The implications of the above findings for the organi- zations center upon changing the reward system so that certain high performers, i.e. , task and achievement oriented managers, find greater satisfaction within the organizations. For low LPC's, this might be accomplished by reviewing jpractices of evaluating candidates for promotion and giving :more favorable attention to those who are more task oriented. 216 Such explicit recognition by the formal reward system is likely to enhance these managers' self-actualization satis- faction as well. The organizations might also give more favorable con- sideration for promotions to those with low tolerance for role conflict as well as allowing them more autonomy in reducing the role conflict in their immediate situation within the organization. Such action could be expected to have a favorable impact on low TRC's overall satisfaction as well as with their satisfaction with autonomy and self-actualization. To the extent that dissatisfaction with co-workers eminates from role conflict, such autonomy might be expected to reduce this dissatisfaction as well. The Interaction of Personality and Perceived Climate Stress (n1 Satisfaction The Mix Model anticipated that the relationships between perceived climate and satisfaction would be moderated by per- sonality. Specifically, Proposition 11 predicted that in Stressfree Climates satisfaction would be greater as Auth-F was greater and LPC, TRC, and TRA were lower. The converse of this ‘was anticipated in Stressful climates by PrOposition 12. Since NcAch was not specified as a dimension of Type X or Type Y personalities, no proposition was formulated on its relationship *with satisfaction in various climate conditions. While there were no significant interactions found for the Overall.Satisfaction measure, there were significant 217 interactions with some of the dimensions of satisfaction between Climate Stress and two dimensions of personality, LPC and TRC. (See Table 61). The relationship between LPC and Satisfaction with Relations with Superior was moderated by Climate Stress in the Opposite way anticipated by PrOpositions 11 and 12, though this was significant only in Stressfree climate (PrOposition 11). In this climate, Low LPC's or task oriented subjects were less satisfied than high LPC's or relationship oriented subjects, rather than more as predicted. This may indicate that in stressfree climates, even in stable environments, there is considerable Opportunity for close supportive relationships to develop between superior and subordinate. Furthermore, if relationship oriented subordin- ates (high LPC's) value such relationships more than task oriented subordinates (low LPC's) one might expect the former to register greater satisfaction on this dimension. This .finding is also consistent with the interpretation Of LPC as a :measure of cognitive complexity (Mitchell,et_al., 1970). Using this interpretation, High LPC's are more cognitively complex and.therefore would more fully recognize variations in climate. (monsequently, their increased awareness of climate differences vwould lead High LPC's to respond with greater satisfaction when -the:climate Changed from being relatively stressful (undesir- aflole) to more stressfree(desirable) than would Low LPC's. 218 Turning to TRC, it was found that in Stressful Cli- mates Low TRC's were less satisfied than High TRC's, as pre- dicted by PrOposition 12, with Autonomy, Self-Actualization, and Security. In Stressfree climates, the Low TRC's were more satisfied than High TRC's, as predicted by Proposition 11, on each of these dimensions of satisfaction, but the differences were not significant. As predicted, these findings suggest that in Stressful climates in stable environments there is likely to be lower perceived instrumentality of one's efforts in attaining task performance and personal need satisfaction, than might be expected in Stressfree climates. For subjects who attach high values to certainty of instrumentality (such as Low TRC's are likely to be) it is understandable that their satisfaction on such needs as Autonomy, Self-Actualization and Security would be jeOpardized in Stressful climates. With regard to N—Ach, it was found that this dimension of personality was also moderated in its relationship with Satisfaction with Security by Climate Stress. In Stressful climates, Low N-Ach's tended to be more satisfied with Security than High N-Ach's, though the difference was not signi- ficant. In Stressfree climates, on the other hand, High N-Ach's were more satisfied with Security than Low N-Ach's. Further- :more while the level of satisfaction on this dimension did not increase significantly in Stressfree over Stressful Climates for Low N-Ach's, it did so for High N—Ach's. (See Table 61). 219 This finding seems to suggest that High N—Ach's per- ceive security as being more dependent upon job performance than Low N-Ach's. Furthermore it could indicate that High N-Ach's perceive their instrumentality for task accomplish- ment to be significantly greater in Stressfree rather than Stressful climates. General Conclusions, Limitations and -n Suggestions for Further Research Research Question One In There was some support for the notion that, in stable environments, high performing firms have lower levels of stress than low performing firms, particularly along the dimensions of Organizational Conformity and Relationship Orientation. There was also some evidence to suggest that there are likely to be systematic difference in climate between roles, notably the Relationship Orientation of the immediate superior, which increased as one moved from production to research to marketing. Additional differences in climate' were found between roles within one or other of the firms 'which might be related to firm performance. The relationship suggested by Kahn, 2E al., (1964) that role conflict and role ambiguity would increase as one :moved from production to research to marketing was found to 1x3 moderated by firm performance. No significant differences *were found in these dimensions of climate in the high 220 performing firm and the differences in the low performing firm, which were significant, were in the Opposite direction. Research Question Two The second research objective of this study was to explore the validity of the Mix Model as an extension of contingency theory. This model adds the personality dimen- l“ sion of organizational members to the environmental and climate dimensions in attempting to explain organizational performance and individual performance (Research Question Two) and satisfaction (Research Question Three). Considering the relationship between personality and firm performance, the high performing firm was found to be staffed with managers who were less authoritarian than those in the low performing firm which was contrary to the direction hypothesized. This finding could be explained by sampling error since only one high and one low performing firm were included in this study. Or it could also be due to a cur- vilinear relationship between the organizational approach to design and administration (organic/mechanistic) and environ- mental volatility for high and low performing firms. Interpersonal orientation and authoritarianism were also found to vary between roles. Marketing managers were found to be more relationship oriented than those in research and production. Production managers were more authoritarian than those in research and marketing. 221 A relationship was also found between personality and perceived climate. Individuals who perceived their Climate a: being relatively stressful had greater tolerance for role ambiguity and lower needs for achievement than those who saw their climate as being stressfree. There was support found for the notion that there are personality characteristics that will be associated with individual performance in stable environments. However, some of these characteristics differed between roles for high per- formers. High performers tended to be task oriented, have high tolerance for role conflict in production and marketing and low tolerance for role conflict in research. They also had higher needs for achievement. Finally, high performers were found to be less authoritarian than low performers in production and marketing and more authoritarian in research. They also had higher needs for achievement than low performers in production and marketing and more authoritarian in research. The implication of these findings is that there are certain personality characteristics of individuals which lend themselves to higher levels of individual performance in some situations than others. Such findings suggest that there is new promise to these trait approaches if situational or con- tingency characteristics are considered simultaneously. To summarize the findings relative to personality and firm and individual performance, the notion that contingency theory can benefit from an extension to include personality '222 characteristics received support. However, some of the find- ings were inconclusive and the direction of others were inconsistent with the Mix Model. These findings appear to call for additional research to confirm those reported here. Research Question Three Considering the relationship between satisfaction and firm performance, no differences were found in satisfaction between the high and low performing firms or individuals. However there was a significant difference between firms in the relationship between satisfaction and individual .performance. In the high performing firm, high performing managers were more satisfied than low performing managers, which indicated an appropriate reward system. On the other hand, in the low performing firm, high performers were less satisfied than low performers. This indicates an inappro- priate reward system and one which might have contributed to this firm's relatively poor overall performance. Satisfaction was also found to vary between roles. In particular, personnel in research were found to be less satis- fied than those in production and research on a number of di- mensions. It appeared from these findings that research is not given as high a priority in the firms studied as is pro- duction and, to a lesser extent, marketing. This was seen as being consistent with the industry environment being relatively stable and thereby putting most competitive pressure on 223 production efficiency. The lack of importance given to research was seen as a high risk strategy in the event that the environ- ment will undergo dramatic change in the near future. Indi- cations are that such changes will emerge. This suggests that significant changes in the treatment of research personnel is warranted at this time. Satisfaction was found to be considerably greater in I U .— n.._ climates perceived to be relatively stressfree as well as among those who were relationship oriented, more tolerant of ) role conflict, less tolerant of role ambiguity, and achieve- ment oriented. Summarizing the findings related to satisfaction, it appears that the high performing firm had an apprOpriate reward system in that it satisfied high performing managers more than low performing managers. The low performing firm's reward system was dysfunctional in that it rewarded low per- formers more than high performers. This anomaly might be largely responsible for the difference in overall firm perform- ance. Research personnel were less satisfied than those in production and marketing and this could have dire consequences for the firms' future ability to adapt to changing environ- mental situations. Finally, satisfaction was found to be greater in stressfree climates and among managers with certain personality characteristics. Again the indications are that the extension of contin- gency theory that is made by including the personality 224 dimensions is a useful one. Furthermore, the reward system is a dimension of climate that should also be given greater consideration in contingency studies. Limitations In the course of discussing the findings in the preced- ing sections, several references were made to difficulties in testing prOpositions due to certain limitations inherent in this study. These limitations fall into three categories. The first relates to the number of firms studied. In * view of the fact that only one firm was in each of the high and low firm performance cells, there are severe hazards in ascribing differences between the two firms to differences in their performance. Any number of other confounded variables might also explain such differences. Consequently, a vast improvement in future studies would be that of including two or more firms for each level of performance and environment. The difficulty in matching such firms and obtaining their co- Operation in such studies however is a very real problem which future researchers will face. A second limitation of this study which was recognized above is the measure of individual performance. Two problems arose in the measure as used here. The first was the impos- sibility of monitoring the method of assessing mangerial per- formance. This meant that the problem of inconsistent rating procedures could have crept in and made inter-rater reliability 225 less than adequate. The second problem was that posed by the dichotomous measure of performance which made measures of relationships with other variables less precise than a more continuous measure would have provided. It must be recognized however, that the dichotomous measure made the assessment stage considerably less complicated and time con— suming for the personnel executive in each firm and additional demands on him might well have been resisted. The third limitation was the lack of complete inde- pendence of the measures. Although the analysis procedure assumed that climate and other measures Such as personality and satisfaction were independent, in fact they were not, being measured by the same person. Consequently the relation- ships between these are somewhat subject to critical review. On the other hand, resources available for this study pre— cluded the researcher from travelling to each site and measur- ing climate with more objective techniques. Suggestions for Further Research Further research is required among firms in a similar environment, preferably with more than one low and high per- forming firm to access the generality of the findings in this study, especially as they relate to firm performance. In addition, similar research in firms whose environ- ments are located throughout the continuum of environmental stability is required to generate data which would provide 226 additional tests of the validity of the Mix Model's sug- gestion that different personality characteristics and techniques for attaining stressfree climates are appropriate for firm performance as environment changes. Such studies would also provide data which would per- mit testing of the validity of the curvilinear shape of the curve depicting the relationship between climate and environ- ment for high performing firms which was suggested in this study. As a final suggestion for future research, the findings of this study indicate that the reward system is a dimension of climate that should also be given consideration in con- tingency studies. APPENDICES APPENDIX I RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE, SCORING KEY AND VARIABLE LIST MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Deparfmenf of Management Research Questionnaire 227 Company Code Number Position Type Production Research Marketing' 228 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS variable _ Stbject (001) : Firm (002) __ Rule (003) ____ Indiv; (1) (2) (3) OU§UNH Notes and Instructions: Perf. (004) 1. Note: This questionnaire has two main parts. One is called the "Organ- izational Characteristics Questionnaire", and the other is called the "Individual Preferences Questionnaire." As the names indicate, they are designed to obtain your ideas about how the organization is designed and put together to get its work done and what your personal preferences are concerning things around you. This questionnaire has been designed to be completed quickly and easily. It should take no longer than 45 minutes to fill out. How- ever, please read carefully the instructions which precede the questions. It is important that you respond to all the questions. We suggest that you move through the questionnaire at a fairly even pace. If a question is not clear to you, use your best judgement in completing the question and pencil in a note telling us of your interpretation. he would appreciate your answering all the questions honestly. The significance and reliability of our findings depends heavily on your being candid. Your responses are strictly confidential. Only the researchers will have access to your questionnaire. Please return the questionnaire in the return envelOpe provided to: Professor Henry L. Tosi Graduate School of Business Eppley Center East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Your cooperation is greatly appreciated by the doctoral student requiring this research information for graduation. 229 INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES QUESTIONNAIRE PART I People differ in the ways they think about those with whom they work. This may be important in working with others. Please give your immediate first reaction to the items below. Following are pairs of words which are Opposite in meaning, such as Very Neat and Not Neat. You are asked to describe someone with whom you have worked by placing an "X" in one of the eight spaces on the line between the two words. Each space represents how well the adjective fits the person you are describing, as if it were written: Very Neat : i : : : : : : : Not Neat 8 7 6 5 A 3 2 1 Very Quite Some— Slight- Slight- Some- Quite Very Neat Neat what 1y 1y what Untidy Untidy ’ Neat Neat Untidy Untidy For Example: If you were to describe the person with whom you are able to work least well, and you ordinarily think of him as being "quite neat", you would put an "X" in the second space from the words Very Neat, like this: Very Neat : .: x : : : : : : : Not Neat 8 7 6 5 6 3 2 1 Very Quite Some- Slight- Slight- Some— Quite Very Neat Neat what 1y 1y what Untidy Untidy Neat Neat Untidy Untidy Now, think of the person with whom‘you can work least well. He may be someone with whom you had worked in the past, or he may be someone you work with now. He does not have to be the person you like least well, but should be the person with whom you have the most difficulty in getting a job done. Describe this person as he appears to you in terms of each of the following pairs of words. \kariable . Pleasant : : : : : : : : : Un leasant 005 7 p ( ) Friendly : : : : : : : : : Unfriendly zeiegting : : : : : : : : : Accepting 10 e p u : : z : : : : : : Frustrating Unenthusiastic : : : : : : : : : Enthusiastic Tense : : : . : : : : : Relaxed Distant : : : : : : : : : Close Cold : : : : : : : : : Warm 15 Cooperative : : : : : : : : : Uncooperative Supportive : : : : : : : 2 : Hostile Boring : : : : : : ° : : Interesting Quarrelsome : : z : : : : : : Harmonious Self-Assured : : : : : : : : : Hesitant 20 Efficient ' : : : : : : : : Inefficient Gloomy : : : : 4V: ' : : : Cheerful (020)22 Open - : : : ° : : : Guarded 230 PART II For each of the following statements circle the number which indicates the statement most accurately describing your experience or feelings. Rarely Sometimes Often Very Almost Often Alwayg_ Variable 23 1. How often do you find that you can 1 2 3 A 5 (021) carry out subordinates' suggestions without changing them any? 2. How much do you usually want the 1 2 3 A 5 person who is in charge of a group you are in to tell you what to do? 25 3. To what extent do you feel you ought l 2 3 6 S to clear things with your superior before deciding on a course of action? pm III ' i . The following questions are not directed towards your work or the things you do at work but rather towards your life as a whole, both past and present. In answering these questions we are interested in what you as a person believe and feel in all your activities. . For each of the following statements circle the number which best indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree. Strongly Agree I Can't Disagree Strongly Agree Decide Disagree. 1. Obedience and respect for authority 1 2 3 6 5 are the most important virtues that children should learn. 2. Every person should have complete ,1 2 3 6 5 faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question. 3. Young people sometimes get rebellious l 2 3 A 5 ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. 4. what the youth needs most is strict l 2 3 6 . 5 discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country . 3o 5. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks 1 2 3 b 5 on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. 6. There is hardly anything lower than 1 2 3 h 5 a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 32 7. Homosexuals are hardly better than crim- l 2 3 b 5 (030) inals and ought to be severely punished. 2131 PART IV Please place an "X" in the space indicating the statement which most closely ' describes your feelings or experience. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Hork quickly since your first response will likely be the most appropriate one. Variable (031) l. I would find a life in which one wouldn't have to work at all: 1 ideal 2 very pleasant 33 ___;L__pleasant ‘ unpleasant 5 very unpleasant 2. At high school, I thought perseverence was: 1. not at all important not very important important l quite important , extremely important a) 3A (“Al 3. When I am working, the demands I make upon myself are: § very high 4 high 35 3 not so high 2 low 1 very low 4. If I have not attained my goal and have not done a task well, then: 5 I continue to "stick with it" until I attain the goal 4 I exert myself a second time to attain the goal 36 3 I find it difficult not to lose interest in the goal 2 I'm inclined to leave that task and move on to the next one 1 I usually leave that task and move on to the next one 5. At school, they thought I was: very hard-working i__quite hard-working 37 3__an average worker 2 rather easy-going 1 very easy-going 6. Working is something: I would rather not do 2 I don't like doing very much 38 3 I would rather do now and then 4 I like doing 5 I like doing very much 7. To prepare yourself a long time for an important task: (037) 1 really is senseless 2 often is a waste of time 39 2 can often be useful 4 is usually helpful 5 is necessary to succeed 232 PART V On this and the following page are listed several characteristics or qualities connected with your own position in your firm. For each such character- istic, you are asked to give three ratings: a. How much of the characteristic is there now connected with your position? b. How much of the characteristic do you feel should be connected with your position? c. How important is this position characteristic to you? Each rating will be made on a seven-point scale, which will look like this: (minimum) 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 (maximum) Please put an "X" above the number on the scale that represents the amount of the characteristic being rated. Low numbers represent low or minimum amounts, and high numbers represent high or maximum amounts. If you think there is "very little"o "none" of the characteristic presently associated with your position, you would place an "X" above the number 1. If you think there is "just a little," you would place an "x" above number 2, and so on. If you think there is a "great deal but not a maximum amount," you would place an "X? above number 6. For each scale, place an "X" above only one number. PLEASE DO NOT OHIT ANY SCALES. variable l. The feeling of self-esteem a person gets from being in my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 40 . 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : (039) c. How important is this to me? 2. The authority connected with my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : (max) b. How much should there be? c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : . 55 3. The ppportunity for personal growth and development in my management position: ‘ a. How much is there now? (min) : : : ‘ : : : : - : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : ‘ : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : 4. The prestige of my management position inside the company (that is, the regard received from others in the company): a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : ' : : . 50 c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : S. The opportunity for independent thought and action in my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : ‘ : : : (max) 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : (051, c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : $6 7. 10. 11. 2133 The feeling of security in my management position: Variable a. How much is there now? (min) : : ‘ : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : (054) c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The feelingfiof self-fulfillment a person gets from being in my management position (that is, the feeling of being able to use one's own unique capabilities, realizing one's potentialities): a. New much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The prestige of my management position outside the company (that is the regard received from others not in the company). a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : z (060) c. How important is this to me? : : : : ' : : : : The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 ' b. How much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : The Opportunity, in my management position, to_give help to othergpeople: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) , l 2 3 6 5 6 7 b. New much should there be? : : : : : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : (067) The gpportunity to develop close friendships in my management position: a. How much is there now? (min) : : : : : : : : (max) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b. How much should there be? : : : :4g, : : : : c. How important is this to me? : : : : : : : : (070) Punch Number _l_ 55 6O 65 234 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OUESTIONNAIRE Organizational units differ in the way they are designed to accomplish their tasks. We are interested in obtaining a better understanding of the way your unit is designed and put together to get its work done. The following questionnaire is intended to get your ideas of your unit's design. The question- naire is divided into six short parts. The directions for each part differ, so be sure you read and understand the separate directions before you answer the questions in any one section. PART I Following are statements which describe certain things about some jobs. are asked (a) to indicate the degree to which this statement describes your job by placing an "X" in the appropriate space on the scale which ranges from "Very, False" to "Very True." You In addition, you are asked (b) to indicate how you feel about this charac- teristic of your job (if it is present now) or how you would feel about it if it were present, by placing an "X" in the apprOpriate space on the scale which ranges from "Dislike Very Much" to "Like Very Much." _V__ariabl e l. I have to do things that should be done differently. Card 2 (071) a. How true is this of your job? Very False:_:__:_:__:_:_:_:Very True 1 l 2 3 6 S 6 7 b. New do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:_:__:__:_:__:Like 2 characteristic in your job? Very Huch Very Much 2. I feel certain about how much authority I have. a. How true is this of your job? Very False '__:__ __:__:___ :_:Very True 1 2 3 b S 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:_:_:__:_:__:__:Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 3. I receive an assignment without the manpower to complete it. a. How true is this in your job? Very False .__:_°_ __::____:__:Vety True 5 l 2 3 6 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:__:__:_:_:_:_:Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 4. Goals and objectives for my job are clear and planned. a. How true is this in your job? Very Palse:__:_:__: __.__ :__:—:Very True 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:__:__:_:__:__:_:I.ike characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 5. I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment. a. How true is this in your job? Very False :__:—:__: __ :_:_:__:Very True 1 2 3 b S 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:___:_:__:_:_:Like 10 characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 6. I know that I have divided my time properly. a. How true is this in your job? Very False: : : : : : : :Very True T T T T 3' ‘6‘ T (082) b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:_:_:_:___:__:_:Like 12 characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much 7. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 235 I work with two or more goups which operate quite differently. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:___:__:__: _:_:_:__:Very'True l3 1 2 3 I: 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:_:___:__:___: :Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Nuch ‘ I know what my responsibilies are. 2'1 a. How true is this in your job? Very Palse:_:___:_:__: __ ._ :_:Very True 15 l 2 3 l. 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:__:_:_:_:__:Like L characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much - ‘- I receive incompatible requests from two or more people. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:__:_:_: __.__._ :_:Very True 1 2 3 lo 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:_:__:_:__:__:_:Like characteristic in your job? Very Huch Very Much I know exactly what is expected of me. ( a. How true is this in your job? Very False:__:___:_: _:__:_._:Very True 1 2 3 lo 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:_:_:_:_:_:Like 20 characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:_:_:_: __:_:_:__:Very True ’ l 2 3 lo 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:_:__:_:_:_:Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much Explanation is clear of what has to be done. a. How true is this in your job? Very False:__:_:__:__:__:__: _'_:Very True 1 2 3 l. 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :_:_:_:_:_:_:__:I.ike characteristic in your job? Very Much ' Very Much I receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to execute it. a. New true is this in your job? Very False: : : ' : : : :Very True 7777??? 25 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:__:__:_:___:_:__:Like characteristic in your job? Very Much Very Much I work on unnecessary things. a. How true is this in your job? Very False :__:__:___: __:__:__:_:Very True 1 2 3 lo 5 6 7 b. How do/would you feel about this Dislike :__:__:__:__:_:_:_:Like 28 characteristic in your job? Very Much ' Very Much 29,30,31 32.33.36 35,36,37 38,39,40 41,62,43 2136 PART II Persons working on different activities are concerned to differing degrees with current and future problems. We are interested in learning how your time is divided between activities which will have an immediate effect on company profits and those which are of a longer-range nature. Indicate below what percent of your time is devoted to working on matters which will show up in the division profit and loss statement within each of the periods indicated. Your answers should total 1001. variable (a) 1 month or less 9 (b) 1 month to 1 quarter (c) 1 quarter to 1 year (d) 1 year to 5 years (e) More than 5 years (103) TOTAL I 1002 . PART III In evaluating and considering the potentialities of a new idea, there are many considerations about which persons in different parts of the organization must be concerned. We recognize, while all of these concerns are important, that 'certain concerns will be most important to you. In order to learn which are most 44 45 50 53 important in your personal opinion, we would like you to rank the ten criteria listed below as follows: (a) Place a "l? by the three criteria which are of most concern to you personally. . (b) Place a "2" by the next three criteria which are of second most concern to you personally. Criteria: The manufacturing costs associated with products resulting from the (104) proposed idea. Competition's response to products resulting from the proposed idea. The potentialities for scientific publication which might result from the proposed idea. ' The return on investment the company might gain from the proposed idea. The technical processing problems which might result from the proposed idea. ' The contribution which research on the proposed idea might make to scientific knowledge. ‘ The capability of the sales organization to sell a product resulting from the proposed idea. The technical capability of the research staff to conduct research on the proposed idea. The plant facilities which would be required for a product resulting from the proposed idea. The effect of products resulting from the proposed idea on the sales (113) of existing company products. 237 PART IV For each of the following statements below, plgase draw a circle around: DA - IA - ID - DD - Variable DA IA 5"(114) m (5) 55 60 65 if you DEFINITELY AGREE; that is if the statement definitely expresses how you feel about the matter. if you are INCLINED TO AGREE; that is if you are not definite, but think the statement tends to express how you feel about the matter. if you are INCLINED T0 DISAGREE; that is, if you are not definite, but think that the statement does not tend to express how you feel about the matter. if you DEFINITELY DISAGREE: that is, if the statement definitely does not express how you feel about the matter. I(D3) D81) 1. The assignments in this section are clearly defined. DA IA ID DD 2. Our management isn't so concerned about formal organ- (7) (5) (3) (1) ization and authority, but concentrates instead on getting the right people together to do the job. DA IA ID DD 3. My immediate superior does not place a high value on (1) (3) (5) (7) maintaining good relations and does not feel that the attitudes and feelings of people are important in their own right. . DA IA ID DD 6. My immediate superior places a high value on making (1) (3) (5) (7) decisions that stick, and stands up for his decisions an ideas, even if it means stepping on someone else's toes. DA IA ID DD 5.. The policies and organizational structure of this unit (7) (5) (3) (1) have been clearly explained. DA IA ID DD 6. Ordinarily we don't deviate from standard policies and (1) (3) (S) (7) procedures in this unit. DA IA ID DD '7. My immediate superior tries to avoid disagreements, (7) (5) (3) (1) rejections, and conflict; whatever conflict does arise he tries to smooth over. DA IA ID DD 8. Things seem to be pretty disorganized around here. (1) (3) (5) (7) DA IA ID DD 9. My immediate superior tries to suppress or cut off (1) (3) (S) (7) conflict when it arises, when he cannot do that he tries to force his own solution to settle the issue. DA IA ID DD 10. New and original ideas are not prevented from receiving (7) (5) (3) (1) consideration by excessive rules, administrative details and red tape. DA IA ID DD 11. My immediate superior treats his people in a brotherly (7) (S) (3) (1) way, and his motto appears to be "nice guys don't fight." DA IA ID DD 12. Our productivity sometimes suffers from lack of organ- (125) (l) (3) (5) (7) ization and structure. 238 variable 66 ~DA IA ID DD 13. If you don't conform to standard practices around here, (126) (1) (3) (5) (7) you will be looked upon critically by your superior. ' DA IA ID DD 16. My immediate superior treats his people like a stern (1) (3) (5) (7) father, and his motto appears to be "nice guys finish . - last." DA IA ID DD 15. Unnecessary procedures are kept to a minimum in this unit. (7) (S) (3) (1) DA IA ID DD 16. My immediate superior does not use his hierarchical power (7) (S) (3) (1) in the authoritarian-obedience sense to maintain his control. 70 DA IA ID on 17. ‘My immediate superior strives to keep his emotions low-key, (7) (5) (3) (1) and his humor aims at maintaining good interpersonal relations. 71 DA IA ID DD 18. There are a lot of rules, policies, procedures, and standard (1) (3) (5) (7) practices one has to know to get along in this unit. 72 DA IA ID DD 19. I feel I am a member of a clearly and precisely structured (132) (77 (5) (3) (1) team. 76 Punch 2_. 75 PART V 76 Subject -— (133) ;; Organizations differ in the way influence is distributed among people at 79 various levels in the organization. The purpose of this section is to learn from you how influence is distributed in the production, research or marketing area 80 (whichever is the general functional area with which your job is primarily con- nected) as seen from your management position. In general, how much say or influence do you feel people at EACH of the following levels in your functional area (that is in the production, research, or marketing area) have on the major problems that your area faces. Please respond for your own functional area using the scale below. You E§y_use the same score to describe more than one group or position in your functional area. Scoring Scale: 1. Little or no influence 2. Some influence 3. Quite a bit of influence . A. A great deal of influence 5. A very great deal of influence (a) For each level in the organization shown in the list below enter a number from the Scoring Scale above which shows the amount of influence people at that level have in determining solutions to the major problems facing your functional _ area. NOTE: Please indicate the number of levels in your functional area Card 3 by adding more to the list below, or striking out those levels 1 which are not present in your functional area. 2 SCORE (a) NY POSITION (b) 3 Organizational Level 1. Top (Vice-Presidential 4 level and above) (134) 7 7 5 2. ..... 5 5 6 3. ..... 5 5 7 A. Middle 3 4 (141) 5. ..... 3 3 8 6. 2 2 9 7. First Level Hanagement(139) ] ] 10 (b) In the column under the heading "MY POSITION", please indicate with an X the 11 level in the organization at which your position is located. 12 l3 239 PART VI' The purpose of this final part of the questionnaire is to obtain an indication of the degree of satisfaction you derive from your work situation. For each of the questions below please indicate the statement which most accurately describes your feelings by placing an "X" in the appropriate space. variable 1. Please indicate with an "X" the statement which best tells how well you like """"' your job. (142) hate .it dislike it don't like it am indifferent to it like it am enthusiastic about it love it 15 filth-Eh 2. Indicate with an "X" HOW MUCH OF THE TIME you feel satisfied with your job. 7 All the time Most of the time A good deal of the time 16 . 4 About half of the time 3 Occasionally 2 Seldom ] Never 3. Indicate with an "X" the statement which best tells HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT CHANGING YOUR JOB. 1 I would quit this job at once if I could get anything else to do. 2 I would take almost any other job in which I could earn as much as I am earning now. 17 3 I would like to change both my job and my occupation. 4 I would like to exchange my present job for another in the same line of work. 5 I am not eager to change my job, but I would if I could get a better one. I cannot think of any jobs for which I would exchange mine. 3 I would not exchange my job for any other. mlcn 4. Indicate one of the following to show how you think you compare with other people. No one likes his job better than I like mine. 5 I like my job much better than most people like theirs._ __5__ I like my job better than most people like theirs. 18 5 I like my job about as well as most people like theirs. 3 I dislike my job more than most people dislike theirs. 2 I dislike my job much more than most peOple dislike theirs. ] No one dislikes his job more than I dislike mine. 5. A11 in all, what do you think of this firm as a place to work? -5 It's a very good place - I wouldn't change anything. It's a good place, but there are a few things which should be changed. 19 ‘ 3 It's a fairly good place, but quite a few things should be changed. It's all right, but there are many things that should be changed. It's not a very good place to work. 6. How does this firm compare generally with other places in this area as a place (147) to work. 5 It's much better than most other places. It's somewhat better than most other places. It's about the same as most other places. It's not quite as good as most other places. It's not nearly as good as most other places. 20 H~l~l* Variable 244() Please indicate the degree of satisfaction you experience from each of the following areas in your present job situation by placing an "X" in the appropriate space on the scale provided. - Very:_1_:_2_:_3_:__4_:_5_:Very 21 7. How do you feel about the opportunities that are available for a person to rise Dissatisfied Satisfied (148) to a position which fully utilizes his abilities? 22 8. Now do you feel about the progress Very: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5Very you've made in the company up to now? Dissatisfied Satisfied 23 9. How do you feel about your earnings Very: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : S:Very compared with what other companies Dissatisfied Satisified have to offer? 26 10. How do you feel about your earnings Very: ] : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5:Very taking into account the difficulty Dissatisfied Satisified and responsibility of your job? 25 11. Now do you feel about the kind of Very: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4: S:Very interpersonal relations you have Dissatisfied Satisified with your immediate superior? 26 12. How do you feel about the technical Very: 1 : 2 : 3 : 4: 5:Very competence of your immediate superior? Dissatisfied Satisified 27 13. How do you feel about working with Very: ] : 2 : 3 : 4: §:Very (154) your current group of co-workers, as Dissatisfied Satisified compared to other groups you have ' worked with? Personal Data 28,29 (155) Age No. of years employed 30,31 by the company No. of years in your 32,33 present position End Card 3 (157' . 76 Punch 3 7S 3? “58’ 73 ' Addendum to Scoring Method 23 The following variables' scores were reflected in the analyses: 21 to 30, 71,74,75,78,79,82,86,87,90,9l,94,95,and 97. The scoring key was not sham on the copies of the questionnaire sent out. APPENDIX II MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLES APPENDIX II .MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE 158 VARIABLES VARIABLE .MEAN STANDARD VARIABLE .MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION DEMIETIQNZ 1 190.108 153.225 41 4.338 1.650 2 2.046 1.003 42 5.600 1.152 3 2.023 .830 43 5.769 1.492 4 1.492 .502 44 4.654 1.862 5 4.946 1.869 45 6.223 .990 6 4.954 1.968 46 6.254 1.143 7 3.723 1.730 47 4.492 1.388 8 3.369 1.881 48 5.569 1.049 9 4.269 2.034 49 5.492 1.377 10 3.854 1.965 50. 5.085 1.545 11 3.585 1.760 51 5.985 .940 12 3.346 1.709 52 6.177 1.045 13. 3.785 1.941 53 4.415 1.613 14 4.123 1.661 54 5.585 1.119 15 3.815 1.952 55 5.492 1.377 16 3.708 1.727 56 4.692 1.534 17 4.985 2.203 57 6.054 1.044 18 4.123 1.897 58 6.162 1.062 19 w4.331 1.797 59 4.969 1.220 20 3.208 1.742 60 5.323 1.115 21 2.869 .839 61 5.062 1.445 22 1.962 .751 62 4.823 1.445 23 2.131 .893 63 6.131 .999 24 2.392 1.165 64 6.246 1.027 25 3.531 1.215 65 - 5.346 1.493 26 2.708 1.015 66 5.985 1.071 27 2.831 1.176 67 6.023 1.171 28 3.115 1.373 68 4.769 1.367 29 3.369 1.149 69 4.931 1.307 30 4.015 .757 70. 4.638 1.666 31 4.031 1.019 71 4.038 1.667 32 3.477 1.036 . 72 3.008 1.776 33 4.269 .563 73 4.623 1.797 34 4.192 .705 74 2.862 2.037 35 3.431 .923 75 4.069 1.869 36 4.092 .762 76 3.146 1.788 37 4.162 .870 77 4.346 1.715 33 4.292 1.470 78 3.231 1.939 39 5.662 1.118 79 4.068 1.750 40 5.431 1.628 80 3.538 1.748 241 242 ( VARIABLE MEAN STANDARD VARIABLE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION .DEVLNIEJN 81 4.538 1.526 121 4.838 1.738 82 3.123 1.748 122 4.431 1.783 83 5.246 1.917 123 4.800 1.723 84 4.023- 1.750 124 3.000 1.689 85 5.346 1.513 125 3.892 1.881 86 2.569 1.752 126 4.477 1.526 87 4.215 1.872 127 4.769 1.841 88 3.069 1.901 128 4.046 1.579 89 4.792 1.583 129 4.769 1.955 90 3.077 1.750 130 4.815 1.838 91 3.050 1.713 131 4.092 1.798 92 3.462 1.546 132 4.031 1.675 93 4.508 1.662 133 190.108 153.225 94 3.477 1.835 134 3.477 1.377 95 4.646 1.773 135 2.177 1.861 96 2.838 1.724 136 1.569 1.909 97 4.623 1.818 137 3.300 1.032 98 2.554 1.770 138 1.146 1.571 99 18.969 22.358 139 1.738 1.111 100 17.831 13.549 140 2.292 1.210 101 30.177 19.169 141 3.046 1.594 102 26.669 23.716 142 5.454 .881 103 6.085 10.096 143 5.215 .996 104 1.515 .662 144 4.938 .723 105 2.246 .716 145 4.992 .821 106 2.915 .353 146 3.615 .663 107 1.308 .541 147 3.677 .809 108 2.238 .766 148 3.385 1.081 109 2.869 .438 149 3.615 1.067 110 1.646 .735 150 3.131 1.088 111 2.569 .634 151 2.954 1.147 112 1.769 .677 152 3.769 1.053 113 1.923 .743 153 3.908 1.023 114 5.223 1.561 154 3.869 .866 115 4.246 1.619 155 42.069 8.999 116 5.215 1.965 156 13.538 9.632 117 3.585 1.936 157 3.892 4.228 118 4.369 1.946 158 190.108 153.225 119 4.169 1.610 120 3.800 1.890 LIS T OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levin- son, and R. Nevitt Sanford. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1950. Allport, F.H. "An Event-System Theory of Collection Action: With Illustrations from Political Phenomena and the Production of War," Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, Vol. II, 417-445. . "The Structuring of Events: Outline of a General Theory with Applications to Psychology," Psychological Review, 1954, Vol.61, 281-303. . Theories of Perception andthe Concept of Structure, New York: Wiley, 1955. . Theoretical Statement Concerning the Rel- ationship Between Personality Structure and Group Structure. Maxwell Graduate School, Syracuse University, 1956. (mimeographed). Argyris, C. Understanding Organizational Behavior. London: Tavistock, 1960. . Integratingthe Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Barnes, Louis. Organizational Systems and Engineering ‘Groups: A Comparative Study of Two Technical ‘Groups in Industry. Boston: Division of Re- search, Harvard Business School, 1960. Bennis, W.G. "Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problem of Authority," Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 1959, 4, 259-301. Bieri, J. "Complexity-Simplicity as a Personality Variable in Cognitive and Preferential Behavior," in Fiske, D.W. and S.R.Madd: (eds.), Functions of Varied Experience. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey, 1961, 355-379. Blake, R.R. and J.S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company, 1964. Blau, Peter M. and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organiz- ations: A Comparative Approach. San FranéiSco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. 243 244 Brayfield, Arthur H. and Walter H. Crockett. "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psychological Bulletin, 1955, Vol. 52, No. 5, 396-424. Burns, T. and G.M. Stalker. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961. Chandler, Alfred Dupont. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge,Mass: M.I.T. Press, 1962, Clark Peter B. and James Q. Wilson, "Incentive Systems: A Theory of Organizations," Administrative Science Cochran, Thomas C. The American Business System: An Historical Perspective, 1900-1955. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1957. Cohen, A.R., E. Stotland, and D.M. Wolfe. "An Experi- mental Investigation of Need for Cognition," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 291—294. Cummings, Larry L. and Aly M. ElSalmi. "The Impact of Role Diversity, Job Level, and Organizational Size on Managerial Satisfaction," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, Vol. 15, No. 1., 1—10. Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March. The Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Dixon, W.J., ed. Biomedical Statistics Program, "X" Series. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969. Duncan, Robery B. "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty," 'Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, Vol.17, No.3, 313-327. Emery, F.E. and E.L. Trist. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments," Human Organizations, 1965' V01018' No.1, 21.-320 Etzioni, Amatai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, New York: The Free Press, 1961. Evans, M.G. "Conceptual and Operational Problems in the Measurement of Various Aspects of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 93-101. 245 Fielder, F.E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Fleishman, E.A., E.E. Harris, and H.E. Burtt. "Leadership and Supervision in Industry:< An Evaluation of a Supervisory Training Program," Bureau of Educat- ional Research Monograph, No. 33, Columbus,0hio: Ohio State University Press, 1955. , and E.H. Harris. "Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievance and Turnover," Personal Psychology, 1962, Vol. 15, 43-560 Foa, U.G.,T.R. Mitchell, and F.E. Fielder. "Differen- tiation Matching", Behavioral Science, 1971, Vol. 16, 130-142. Frank, A.G. "Administrative Role Definition and Social Changes,"Human Organization, 1963—1964, Vol. 22, 238-242. if Getzels, J.W. and E.G. Guba. "Role, Role Conflict, and // Effectiveness: An Empirical Study," American Socialogical Review, 1954, Vol.19, 164-175. Gouldner, Alvin W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press, 1955. Graen, G., D. Alvares, J. Orris, and J. Martella. "The Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness: Antecedent and Evidential Results," Psychological Bulletin, 1970, Vol.74, No.4, 285-296. Gras, N.S.B. and Henriette M. Larson. Casebook In American Business History. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1939. Gross, N., W. Mason and A.W. McEachern. Explorations in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Superinten- dency Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1958. Hage, J. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations," Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 1965, Vol.10,289-320. Hall, Douglas T. "A Theoretical Model of Career Sub- identity Development in Organizational Settings," Organizational Behavior_and Human Performance, 1971, Vol.6, No. 1, 50-76. Harrison, R. "Sources of Varation in Managers Job At- titudes," Personnel Psychology, 1960, Vol.13, 425-434. 246 Hermans, Hubert J.M. "A Questionnaire Measure of Achievement Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970. Vol.54, No.4, 353-363. Hickson, David J., D.S. Pugh, and Dianna C. Phesey. "operations Technology and Organization Structure: An Empirical Reappaisal," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, Vol.14, 378-397. Hoppock, reprinted in Robinson, J.P., R. Athanasiou, and K.B.Head. Measures of Occupational Characteristics, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, undated. House, Robert J. "A Path—Goal Theory of Leader Effecti- veness," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, V01016’ N003, 321-3380 Jacobson, E., W.W. Charters, Jr., and S. Lieberman. "The Use of the Role Concept in the Study of Com- plex Organizations," Journal of Social Issues, 1951, Vol.7, 18-27. Kahn, R.L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert R. Quinn, J. Diedrick /, Snoek, and R.A. Rosenthal. Organizational Stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. , and I. Sarnoff. "Motivational Bases of Att- itudinal Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, Vol.49, 115-124. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design Procedures for the ' Social Sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company, 1969. Krech, David, Richard S. Crutchfield, and Egerton L. Ballachey. Individual in Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W. Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, Vol.12, No.1, 1-47, (3). . ,Organization and Environment. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University 1967 (b). 247 Lewin, K., R. Lippitt, and R. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates," Journal of Social Psychology, 1939, Vol.10, 271-299. Lieberman, S. "The Effects of Changes in Roles on the Attitudes of Role Occupants," Human Relations, Litwin, G.H. "Achievement Motivation, Expectancy of Success, and Risk-Taking Behavior," in J.W. Atkinson and N.T. Feather, eds., A Theory of Achievement Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. , and J. Ciarlo, "Achievement Motivation and Risk-Taking Behavior in a Business Setting," Ossening, New York: Technical Report, General Electric Company, Behavioral Research Service, 1961. -: , and Robert A. Stringer, Jr. Motivation and Organization Climate. Boston: Division of Research Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968. Lyons, Thomas F. "Role Clarity, Need for Clarity, Satisfaction, Tension and Withdrawal," Organiz- ational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971, Vol. 6, 99-110. Maslow, A.R., "A Theory of Human Motivation, " Psycho- cological Review, 1943,Vol. 50, 370-396. , Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Bros. 1954. McGregor, Douglas. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory andi§ocial Structure. New York: The Free Press. 1957. Mitchell, T.R. "Leader Complexity, Leadership Style, and Group Performance," Unpublished. doctoral dissertation, Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1969. , Leader Complexity and Leadership Style," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, VOlolG' No.1, 166-174. , Anthony Biglon, Gerald R. Onchen, and Fred B. Fiedler. "The Contingency Model: Criticism amd Suggestions," Academygf_Management Journal, 1970, Vol. 13, No. 3., 253-267. 248 Morse, John J. "Internal Organizational Patterning and Sense of Competence Motivation," Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, Boston: Harvard University, 1969. Murphy, G. Personality. New York: Harper, 1947. Nevins, Allan and Frank Ernest Hill. Ford: Decline and Rebirth, Vol 3, New York: Schriber's Sons, 1963. Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1967. Paloli, E.G. "Organizational Types and R01e Strains:' An Experimental Study of Complex Organizations," Sociology and Social Research, 1967, Vol. 51, 171-184. Perrow, Charles A. ”A Framework of Comparative Organizational Analysis," American Socialogical Porter, Lyman W., and Edward E. Lawler. Managerial‘ Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968. Presthus, R.V. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958, Vol. 3, 48-72. Pugh, Derek, "Role Activation Conflict: A Study of Industrial Inspection," American Sociological Quinn,Robert R., and Thomas W. Mangione. "Evaluating Methods of Measuring Job Satisfaction: A Cinderella Story,"' Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, Vol.10, 1-23. Raven, E.A., and J. Reitsema. "The Effects of Varied Clarity of Group Goal and Group Path Upon the Individual and His Relation to His Group," Human Relations, 1957, Vol. 10, 29-45. Rice, A.K. Prodictivity and Social Organization; The Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavistock Publications, 1958. , The Enterprise and Its Environment. London: Tavistock Publications, 1963. 249 Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney I. Lirtzman. "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organiza- tions," Administrative Science Quarterly,1970, Vol.15, No. 2, 150-163. Rosse1,Robert D. "Instrumental and Expressive Leadership in Complex Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 306-316. Sanford, Fillmore H. Authoritarianism and Leadership. Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Human Relations, 1950. Scott, W.A. "Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Flex- ibility," Sociometry, 1972, Vol. 25, 405-414, and Idem, "Conceptualizing and Measuring Structural PrOperties of Cognition," Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants, O.J.Harvey 156.), New York: Ronald, 1963, 2263288. Schaffer, R.H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monographs, 1953, Vol. 67, No. 14. Simmel, G. Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955. Smith P., L. Kendall, and C. Hulin. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: ' Rand McNally & Company, 1969. Snoek, J. 0., "Role Strain in Deversified Role Sets,“ American Journal of Sociology,l966, Vol. 71, 363- 372. Steiner, I.D., "Interpersonal Orientation and Assumed Similarity between Opposites," mimeograph. Urbana, Illinois: Group Effectiveness Research Laboratory, .1959. Stouffer, S.A., et al., The American Soldier, Vols. 1 and 2 of Studies in Social Psychology During World War II, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949. Taguiri, Renato and George H. Litwin (eds.) Organiza- tional Climate: Exploration of a Climate. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business Schoo1,1968. 250 Tannenbaum, A. and Allport, E.H. "Personality Structure and Group Structure: An Interpretative Study of their Relationship through an Event-Structure Hypotheses," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, Vol. 53, 272-280. Thibault, J.W. and H.H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Thompson, V.A. "Bureaucracy and Innovation," Administra- tive Sciene Quarterly, 1965,Vol. 10, 1-20. Tosi, Henry L., "A Reexamination of Personality as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation," Personnel Psychology, 1970, Vol. 23, 91-99. Triandis, Harry. "Notes on the Design of Organizations" in James Thompson, Approaches to Organizational Design, Pittsburgh: University of Rittsburgh Press, 1966. Trist, E.L. and K.W. Bamforth, "Some Social and Psycho- logical Consequences of the Long-Wall Method of Coal Mining," Human Relations, 1951, Vol. 4, 3-38. Trow, Donald B. "Autonomy and Job Satisfaction in Task Oriented Groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, Vol.54, 204-209. Uleman, J. "A New TAT Measure of the Need for Power," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1965. Verhoff, J. "Development and Validation of a Projective Measure of Power Motivation," Unpublished doctoral dessertation, University of Michigan, 1955. Vroom, Victor,H. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. , Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. , Motivation in Management. New York: American Foundation for Management Research, Inc., 1965. White, R.K. and R. Lippitt. "Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three Social Climates," in Cartwright, D. and A.Zander, Group Dynamics, 2d. ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1968. 251 Woodward, J. Management and Technology. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1958. Wolfe, D., J. Snoek, and R. Rosenthal. Report to Company Participants of the 1960 University of Michigan Research Project. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1961. . a}? «An? . ..: MIC DRIES 111111111111a