L32:— nLrfi r"' "7“.” u..'n.‘$“. ‘Unh— F .he general ieszribe values 0‘ ::e iescriptlon 5% raisin organizatu The value 1 the Organizationa ....;ants to res: 75:13:; S organizat .’ U) (1- m ’1 (D p. r? O ‘1 <. J t (D ‘1 (D ‘J ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES, STRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY By Ronald J. Hunady The general purpose of this study was to identify and describe values of individuals that could be relevant to the description and prediction of performance and behavior within organizations. The value instrument used in this research. called the Organizational Value Questionnaire (OVQ), required par- ticipants to respond to a series of statements describing various organizational practices and policies. The OVQ was administered to 738 managers from 12 firms. The responses to the OVQ were factor analyzed and ten meaningful value factors were identified. The first objective of this study was to attempt to analyze the relationship between the value factors, and an organization's structural characteristics, and system of production technology. The four organizational structural characteristics studied were: (1) Job Position, (2) Man- agerial Level. (3) Functional Work Area, and (h) Organiza- tion Size. The three production systems used in this study 1:113]: Joan Hood“a 5211mm: Proiu a. (3) Process Fr as;e:t of the resei 2:312: out to 3:14 The second 2 :92: to predict J fizizations by an: scares and two at' :easgres used in . r ‘2) Propensit 319 Up the DTB’il 2” ‘35 carried {O’QI‘tEen 31 nu "~38 ‘ are too ext 4% 51m: iftkéer .1 the Valu a :15 ”fa _, M! Gap eflyl V “It s‘ al‘ ~ he and “.533 a. is. re c0 Pagyne ‘ 8 \ u ' have «C: Ronald J. Hunady follow Joan woodward's classification of: (1) Unit and Small Batch Production. (2) Large Batch and Mass Production, and (3) Process Production. This served as the descriptive aspect of the research. A two-way analysis of variance was carried out to analyze these relationships. The second objective was to utilize values in an at- tempt to predict individual attitudes within business or- ganizations by analyzing the relationship between value scores and two attitudinal measures. The two attitude measures used in this study were: (1) Job Satisfaction. and (2) Propensity To Leave. This part of the research made up the predictive study. A one-way analysis of vari- ance was carried out to analyze these relationships. Fourteen significant and meaningful relationships were found to exist between the value factors and the or- ganizational structural characteristics. These relation- ships are too extensive to report in this summary. Eight significant relationships were found to exist between the value factors and technology. In most cases, the results support Woodward's observations of the types of behaviors existing within each technology classification. The results of the analysis of the relationship be- tween values and Job Satisfaction implies that those man- agers who view executive positions as having status distinc- tions and are concerned with the welfare and needs of their employees, have greater Job satisfaction than managers who do not hold these values. In addition. they stress getting :35 job done but '1 2:1: and {01131 the 118111128 teen values and wars who are nonsemtive 01‘ the behavior. I tartan climate. t ::‘:1one through {an those manage ilonalue on e: 1131!. managers 1 ‘45 'ho place a 1 =1": zoSt likely ‘ Ronald J. Hunady the Job done but not through a stress on the use of con- trols and formal authority to do so. The results of the analysis of the relationship be- tween values and Propensity To Leave indicates that those managers who are least likely to leave an organization have a conservative orientation and place less value on competi- tive behavior. In addition. while they favor an equali- tarian climate. they place a higher value on getting the Job done through the use of controls and formal authority than those managers most likely to leave. They also place a low“value on executive status distinctions. Correspond- ingly. managers who are less conservative in orientation and who place a higher value on competition appear to be the most likely to leave. In addition, they tend not to ‘value an equalitarian climate, but stress a climate where there are executive status distinctions and the task is ac- complished without a stress on formal authority and con- trOIS o CBC-:XILIZL‘CI‘I(EXECW 1“ Dartl ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES, STRUCTURE AND TECHNOLOGY By ‘00 Ronald J? Hunady A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1971 © Copyright By Ronald John Hunady 1972 All of my c :essful cozpletid thesis, honever. timing inspirat: its research en: 'gn "+1318 and revs: In additio‘ nation to Dr. E. 2:105! and Dr, H' ‘ a : '1‘ ““113 Greer. "7° my hours athor 1n the se 313: . A Sincere ".255 “when, r- 34“ ‘ ‘wate wOI‘k 8» 39am ' Hy appreci; ACKNOWLEDGMENTS All of my committee members contributed to the suc- cessful completion of this dissertation. A special note of thanks, however. is given to Dr. Henry Tosi. for his con- tinuing inspiration and guidance throughout all stages of this research endeavor. Working with Dr. Tosi was a chal- lenging and rewarding learning experience. In addition. this author wishes to express his appre- ciation to Dr. Raymond Tucker of the Department of Communi- cation, and Dr. Chan Hahn of the Department of Management. of Bowling Green State University. Dr. Tucker willingly gave many hours of his time and effort to assist this author in the setting up and analysis of computer and sta- tistical programs. Dr. Hahn provided valuable editing as- sistance and continuous encouragement. A sincere note of thanks is given to my wife, Suzanne, whose support. enthusiasm and sacrifice during the years of graduate work and the completion of this dissertation are greatly appreciated. 111 :3:- u was . Trim: 1- mom; TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST 0? TABLE 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V1.1 Chapter I. INTBomCTION O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Generalweflleil.......c...... 1 Purpose Of the Study 0 e e e o e e e e e e o 7 The Concept Of V‘lues s e e e e o e e s e e 8 Definition of'Values . . . . . . . . 8 Differentiation between‘Values, Attitudes. Needs. Sentiments, and Opinions . . . . 13 Research on Values and Behavior . . . . . . 16 Values and Non-Organizational Behavior . . 16 Values and Organizational Behavior . . . . 19 The Measurement Of Values 0 s e e e e s e e 29 General Approaches e e e e e e e e e e e o 29 Development of the Organizational Value Questionnaire e e e e o e s e e e o e e 32 Research Objectives and Hypotheses . . . . . 38 IntrOductloneeeeeeeeseeseee 38 Organizational Value Factors . . . . . . . 39 Individual Attitudinal Measures . . . . . #2 The Research Plan Summarized . . . . . . . #2 Hypotheses Relating to Values and Struc- tural and Technological Factors . . . . 43 Managerial Level and Job Position . . . . #3 Production Technology . . . . . an Hypotheses Relating to Values and Attitudes Tamra the Jab and the Firm 0 e s s e e “'7 Limitation Of the Study 0 e e e e e e e e e 51 II. maommr O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 53 General Overview of Procedure The Sample 0 e e e e The Subjects . . . The Fine 0 O O O The Pilot Study . es The Measures . . . Analytical Techniqu 29% iv hxer The P3: Analys% The Desc The Fred: IX. EDELIS . . Overview The Fact: Pactorl The Pr. Cooper: With Factor Results . Chapter The Factor Analysis . Analysis of Variance The Descriptive Study . The Predictive Study . III. RESULTS . . . . . s . . . meflie' I O O O O O O The Factor Analysis . . Factor Scoring . . The Procedure for Identifying Comparison of the Factor Analysis Resu Factors with Those of the Earlier Study . . Factor Intercorrelaticns Results of the Descriptive Study . . . O‘Vefllew cusses Analysis of Variance The Organizational System of Production Technology Utilized . The Organizational Structural istic of Job Position . The Organizational Structural istic of Managerial Level . The Organizational Structural istic of Functional Area of The Organizational Structural istic of Size . . . Results of the Predictive Study Ovefliew e s e e e 0 Job Satisfaction . . Propensity to Leave . IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0 General Summary . . . . Character- Character- Character- Work . Charact 81'- The Value Scale Factor Analysis . . The Ten Organizational Value Factors The Replication of the Earlier Research Summary of the Descriptive Study accuse-Joce- The Relationship Between Job Position and Values cease. and. Values 0 e The Relationship Between Managerial Level Area and Values . . . . The Relationship Between Organization Size and Values 0 e o e The Relationship Between Functional Work The Relationship Between Technology and Values Interaction in the Descriptive Study V Page 68 7o 71 72 7a 7a 711 75 85 86 90 92 93 95 103 11H 11? 129 1 36 138 1116 159 159 161 163 165 166 169 171 173 171+ 179 fight Summary Study . The He‘ Satl The Bel pens: General I -;.‘;.'v i “.4433 o—a . The Organ}; Cover by ’O H O The Pourte High LoaE o s O C - Complete P for the H°338 and Factor A Yes ‘ e a Chapter Summary and Implications of the Predictive Study 0 The Relationship Between Values and Pro- pensity to Leave General Conclusions . .APPENDICES I. II. III. IV. LIST The Organizational Value Questionnaire with Cover Letter and the Attitudinal Scale The Fourteen Organizational Values with their The Relationship Between Values and Job Satisfaction Righ Loading Items from Rizzo's Study . Complete Factor Structure of Value Scale Items for the Sample of Managers Means and Standard Deviations of the ihj Items Factor Analyzed . OF REFERENCES vi Page 180 181 183 188 189 197 206 213 216 Categorica‘ Sample 0 Table i. 2. 3. 9. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Categorical Frequencies of Responses for the Sample of Managers by Industry and Firm . . . Categorical Frequencies of Responses for the Sample of Managers According to Structural Characteristics 0 e e s e e e e o e e s e e e Categorical Frequencies of Responses for the Sample of Manufacturing Managers According to Structural Characteristic and Technological Grouping. e s e s s e s e e s e e s e e s e e Categorical Beeponses of Manufacturing Managers According to Firm and System of Production TechnOIOBy e e e s e s s e e s s e s e e e e The Ten Value Factors with Their Headings, Items Used to Score Them and Item Size . . . Intercorrelations of Factor Scores . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Position and TeChnOIOSy s e e e e e e e e e o e o s e e e Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Position and TOOhflOlOSY e e e e e e e e o e s e o e 0 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for POSItion and TGChnOIOSy e e e e e s e e e Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Psaltion and Technology 0 e e e e e e e 0 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Position and Technology . . . . . . . . . vii Page 57 58 6O 63 76 91 105 105 107 107 108 e.;i Jae ‘7 e" 9 a]. ‘1 t. 22. ’ Analy818 o. Scheffe Tee on the 'J: for P031: on the V - Authorit, Table 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Poaitlon and Technology 0 e e e e e e s s 108 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Position and Technology . . . . 109 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Cell Means with Significant Interaction Effects for Position and Technology on the Value of Executive Status and Authority 0 e e e e s e e e s s s 110 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Position and TOOhflOlOSy e e e s s e e e e e e e e e e 111 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Unionization for Position and TeChnOIOgy s s e e e e e e e e s e e e e 111 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Position Sud TCOhn01OSy e e e e e o e e e e e e e e e 112 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on theralue of Paternalism for Position and Technology 0 e e o e s e e e e e e e o e 112 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Position and TechnOlogy e o e s e e e s e e s e e e e 113 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Member Equality for Position and TeChnOIOSy o s e e e e e e e e s e e e e 113 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Managerial LBV91 and TeChnOIOSy e e e e e e o 116 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Social Responsibility for Managerial Level and Technology . . . . . . . 116 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Managerial Level and Tech- nOIOSy o e e e e o e e s e e s e e e o e e e 118 viii vs ""3 l .dra 2% Scheffe Te on the V Authorit nology . 5. Analysis 0 on the V Level an 1.. Scheffe Te on the 7 Level ant 3. Analysis oi on the V Personne nolOgy , =5 Scherre T. on the V Pemonne “010-357 . Analysis 1 °n the 1 ’0? Fun Table Page as. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Managerial Level and Tech- nOIOSy e e e e e e e e e e e e s e e e e e e 118 25. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Managerial Level and TechnOIOgy e e e s s e e s e e e e 119 26. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Paternalism for Managerial Level and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 27. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Managerial Level and Tech- nology e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 120 28. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Managerial Level and Tech- nology s e e o e e e o e e e e e e e s e e o 120 29. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Functional Area and Technology . . . . . 122 30. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Functional Area and Technology . . . . . 12h 31. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the‘Value of Social Responsibility for -Functional Area and Technology . . . . . . . 126 32. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Work Emphasis for Functional Area and Technology 0 e e s e o e e s e e e 126 33. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Work Emphasis for Functional Area and TOOhHOlOSy s e e e e e e e e o e e 12? 3h. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Size and TBChnOIOgy e e e o e e s s e e e e e e s e e 130 35. Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Size and TOOhHOlOSy o e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e 130 ix ‘-‘"'e l ‘0'. J N. 42. J. F. Analysis 0 on the V Authorit Scheffe Te on the V Authorit Analysis c on the V Technolc Scheffe T( on the \ Technolt Analy313 1 on the I TBChnol‘ SCthfe T1 °n the 1 Technolt Table 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. #1. U2. #3. an. #5. 1+6. 47. Page Analysis of‘Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Size and Technology . . . . . . 132 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Size and Technology . . . . . . 132 Analysis of'Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Size and TCOhnOIOSy e o c e e e e e o e e e e e e e e 133 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Unionization for Size and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Size and TechnOIOgy o e e e o o e e e e e e e e e e e 135 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Paternalism for Size and TechnOIOgy e e e o o e e e e e e e c e e e o 135 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Size and TechnOIOgy c e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e 137 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Cell Means with Significant Interaction Effects for Size and Technology on the‘Value of Member Equality.o................137 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Job satisfaction 0 e e o e e e e e e e e e e o e 139 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and EIploitation for JOb Satisfaction e e e e e e e e e o o e 139 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Managerial Climate for Job SBtiBfBCtion e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 1&0 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for JOb SStiSfactlon e o e e e e e e e e e e luO tan F é. Analysis c1 on the V: 5‘1. SCheffe T! 0n the \ (K -. 4J0 Deheffe 0n the ‘ Satisfa SChetre T On the Table Page #8. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Job SatiSfaction o e e e e e e o e e e e e e e e lul “9. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Job Satiflfaotion o e e o e e e e e e e e e e e e lul 50. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . 142 51. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for JOb Satisfaction e e e o e e e e e e e e e e 1&2 52. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Job Satisfaction e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 143 53. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . 143 Sn. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Job satiszCtion e e e e e e o e o e e e e e e 0 1“5 55. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Managerial Climate for Job Satisfaction e c e o e e e e e e e e e e e 0 1“5 56. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . 1H5 57. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Propensity to Leave e e e e e e e e e e o e e e e e e e 1&8 58. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Propenflity to LOSVB c e e e e e e e e e lue 59. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Propensity to Leave . . . . . . . . . . iu9 60. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Managerial Climate for Propensity to Leave . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 xi fable 51. Scheffe Te 56, 70, on the ' Propens . Analysis I on the ' for Pro Scheffe '1‘4 on the I for Pro, Analysis on the to Leav Am1:818 on the t0 Leav “313813 on the Pers om Ana13318 0n the PI“398m A‘na‘lb’sis °n the PI"3131511: Table Page 61. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Managerial Climate for Propensity to Leave e e e e e e e e e e e e e 151 62. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Pr0p6n31ty t0 LOEVC e e e e e e e e e e e 151 63. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism forPropensitytoLeave. . .. . . . . . . . 152 6“. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Propensity to Leave e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 152 65. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism.for Propensity to Leave e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 153 66. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the'Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Propensity to Leave . . . . . . 153 67. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Propen81ty to Leave e e e e e e e e e e e e e 155 68. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Propon81ty to Leave e e e e e e e e e e e e e 155 69. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Member Equality for Propensity to LOCVQ e e e e e e e e e e e e e 156 70. Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and ' Authority for Propensity to Leave . . . . . . 156 71. Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Propensity to Leave . . . . . . 157 72. Summary Comparison of Significant Relationships Between‘Values and Structure. Technology and Attitude Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16? xii Zézeral Overview “I Our conte: flex, tonal orzl the pattern of CF ’3 crqani zati or. thus as the mos n.‘ 1.." ‘ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION General Overview Our contemporary society is one in which large, com- plex. formal organizations exert a predominant influence on the pattern of our lives and life styles.1 We are born in, educated by, worship in, and spend most of our lives working for organizations. We have come to rely on these institu- tions as the most rational and efficient mechanism by which human effort and organizational resources can be combined to achieve the objectives and needs of our society. In the interest of increasing organizational effective- ness and the integration of its human resources. management theorists and practitioners have shared a common goal in ad- vancing the knowledge frontiers of organizational theory and behav10re 2 1There are numerous definitions of organizations; the one used in this study follows the thinking of Etzioni in viewing organizations as social units deliberately created to achieve specific goals. See: Amitai Etzioni. Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.. I96“), p. 1. 2Organization theory and behavior is viewed following Pugh, as the study of the structure and functioning of or- ganizations and the behavior of groups and individuals within them. See: D. S. Pugh. "Modern Organization Theory: .A Psychological and Sociological Study.” Psychological Bulletin. 1966, 66, pp. 235-251. :;;;;:;;3 Carzo in 3 igtinthe last :rezendous incree :‘teary and behavi ruiety of diffe. :‘necties developf ticzs. These spa rims (primarily :ngical differe. state of knowled: :s a development U '0- 2 Carzo in a review of the research on the subject found that in the last ten to fifteen years, there has been a tremendous increase in writings relating to organization theory and behavior.3 He states that there have been a variety of different approaches. paradigms and conceptual theories developed to describe and theorize about organiza- tions. These approaches reflect different value orienta- tions (primarily economic or humanistic) as well as method- ological differences.“ Mason Raire in analyzing the current state of knowledge on organizational theory believes that it is a development of widely differing conceptual frameworks growing out of and relative to several disciplines, among which are Sociology. Psychology. Anthropology, Political Science, Economics, and Business Administration. He states that various theorists and disciplines approach the study of organization theory from different starting points and go in divergent directions.5 Among the major theories and models which have prolif- erated throughout organizational literature in recent years in an attempt to provide a comprehensive body of theory, are 3Rocco Carzo. ”Organization Theory: Review of Research and Future Direction.” in Management Research and Practice. William Frey, (ed.). (Amherst. Massachusetts: Eastern .Academy of Management, 1970), pp. 20-21. “Ibis. 5Mason Haire. Modern Organization Theory (New York: John Wiley. 1967). p._l. :czcepts related 32151011 MKMSO Ease theories art :2 the knowledge 2:2?! is no cleat 21123.6 Eaire bell-i azizatton theor‘ '~" Specific are zeied to sum: One or the ‘ke'TJ-Itout MW “lemon theor :33?» and organ : ”tannin” listen later .I ..va1uee 13 be. h 'utea“ n; in thfit riot theory and are indicates tiaral strategy .5; a. socializat 1’ :Iu W. 7‘ Ole in tht 6\ 1"}? /:l” 7 [S 3 concepts related to mechanical systems. organic systems, decision making. information flow and general systems. These theories and models have made a valuable contribution to the knowledge on organizations. However, at present, there is no clearly unified, comprehensive theory on organi- zations.6 Haire believes. nonetheless, that those studying or- ganization theory draw heavily on one another and that there are specific areas where common developments exist or are needed to support advance in research.7 One of the specific subject areas which permeates throughout many of these theories and models advanced by or- ganization theorists is the concept of values; individual, group. and organizational. A review of the recent literature on organization theory and behavior (which will be covered in detail later in this chapter) indicates that the notion of values is being given increasing attention. It has been appearing in theoretical and predictive models of organiza- tion theory and behavior at an intensifying rate. The liter- ature indicates that values can and do influence organiza- tional strategy choices, decision making, and the recruitment and socialization of its members. Values also play a promi- nent role in the organizational processes of communication. 6Ibid.. pp. 1-12. 71bid. Zeaiershipu and ‘ {zips existing V In edditlo] 25:13.3 organiza‘ tintegral part {station theor ate currently col :: organizati one Elite to the de ‘ .I:A.‘\- —-.-.tion of co 21 the influenc \Filley 11.3 ritual isSues treaties v 0 Y: “e st 3-3-11: 1 let ““215 SS instltt ‘ru- "waa‘gflnt ‘“ a1 ck ..a: 7111313 9 ' P111 1188 ““331 Val 1|. leadership. and in the patterns of interpersonal relation- ships existing within an organization. In addition to the role of values in influencing the ongoing organizational processes, the concept of values is an integral part of contemporary and emerging issues in or- ganization theory and behavior. Theorists and practitioners are currently concerned with several major issues relating to organizational performance and behavior. These issues relate to the development and renewal of organizations, the resolution of conflict. the role of structure and technology. and the influence of environmental factors.8 \ Filley identifies changing values as one of the most critical issues in the future of management teaching and practice. He states that there are significant and funda- mental changes taking place in society as a whole and in our business institutions in particular. These changes reflect fundamental changes in the values and life styles of indi- viduals.9 Filley believes that old established organiza- tional values such as rationality. efficiency, conformity and profit maximization are being challenged.10 8Richard H. Viola, "Organization Theory: A Review of Research and Future Direction,” in Management Research and Practice, William Frey, (ed.), (Amherst. Massachusetts: Eastern Academy of Management. 1970). pp. 22-36. 9Allen C. Filley, "Some Major Issues in the Future of Management: Practice and Teaching.“ in.The Acade of Mana ement Proceedings - Thirteenth Annual MeEEing an Uiego, California: 1570). pp. 7-33. 1°Ibid. Others are mat the major will be largely In America We erphasi has dominat increasingl Pragmatism. concomitant, Verson who 0 g . . . I ormlzatj SOCIE’C] in and Since 1 cerhed “it ACCOI‘iln itemization 1 it. I 38 belt Y‘SA went resean I .23‘ U ‘ «0218 9 0th. 5 Others are also voicing this theme. Viola believes that the major issues in organization theory in the 1970's will be largely associated with value problems. He states that a In America our values are undergoing rapid change. The emphasis on the concept of property rights which has dominated behavior is shifting to one which will increasingly be contradictory to the purest form of pragmatism. It is a shift toward "personalism" with a concomitant emphasis upon the primacy of the human person who is trying to discover his identity.11 . . Organizations, then, must satisfy the needs of t e society in which they exist. Since needs are dynamic, and since they are based on values, we must be con. cerned with shifts invalues.1 According to Warren Bennie, "Every age develops an organization form most appropriate to the genius of that age.” He believes that along with the proliferation of recent research. which has increased our knowledge of organ- izations, other changes are taking place that make it neces- sary to revitalize and rebuild organizations themselves.13 11Viola, op. cit., p. 30. 12Ibid. 13Warren G. Bennis, Or anization Development: Its Nature Ori ins and Prospects (Reading. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesfiey Publishing Company, 1969). pp. 1-13. Also see: Richard Beckhard, Organization Development: Strate- ies and Models (Reading. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley gfiblishing Company. 1969): Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton. BuildinggA D namic Cor oration Throu h Grid 0r ani- zation DevelopmenET ea ng, assac use 8: son- es ey Shing Company, 1969): Edgar H. Schein, Process Con- sultation: Its Role in Organization Development (Heading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969): Paul R. Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch, Developing Organiza- tions: Dia nosis and Action (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wes§ey Publishing Company, 1969). its there is c “if the 1970's salution to o :rgarizstional heimss manage the problem of whc 1&1 people, life styles int It is 8;. why: ViOla, :‘Zatic change ~39 OTEaniz: 6 This theme is carried further by Warren Schmidt who states that the 1970's will bring a time of confrontation and revolution to organizations. In his opinion. we are on an organizational frontier. One of the biggest challenges to business managers, as a result of this frontier. will be the problem of managing organizations with an infusion of new people. who will bring radically different values and life styles into the firm.1“ It is apparent that this frontier age described by Filley. Viola. Bennis, Schmidt and others, will be one of dramatic change. Bennie argues that the only viable way to change organizations in this new frontier age is to change their culture. He defines culture as a way of life, a system of values, attitudes, and an accepted form of inter- action and relating.15 However. before the culture of an organization can be changed, it will be necessary to deter- mine the values of organizations and individuals. While there has been a great deal of research carried out on atti- tude measurement. at the present time. very little research has been directed toward the actual identification and de- scription of values that are relevant to business organiza-’ tions and the issues in organization theory and behavior. 1“Warrenfi. Schmidt. Or anizational Frontiers and Human‘Values (Belmont. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 1970). p. 8. 1536111118, 0 e cite. pp. 1-130 Thus. V8 story and we} to organizatiorl tics-s of this r. research study. esters in deta: thins the rest hrtose of the is noted tut to (latex-=1; Ea: 7 Thus, values play an important role in the contem- porary and emerging themes, issues, and paradigms relating to organization theory and behavior. The following sec- tions of this chapter define the Specific purposes of this research study, distinguishes between values and attitudes, covers in detail the role of values in behavior and ex- plains the research plan and hypotheses of the study. Purpose of the Study As noted, very little actual research has been carried out to determine values that are pertinent to business or- ganizations and to the study of organization theory and be- havior. The general purpose of this study is to attempt to identify and describe values that would be relevant to or an underlying framework for understanding, describing, and predicting performance and behavior within organizations. This research project has three specific objectives. First, to determine and describe general organizational value dimensions. This enables one to compare the percep- tions of organizations by various persons. The concept of organizational values then. as used in this study, refers to the values derived from the perceptions of managers of business organizations toward ideal organizational behavior. As part of this first objective. an analysis was made of the relationship and effect of selected organizational struc- tural and technological variables on individual values. The secon' :tilize values 1371:: within b tiszs‘iio betwee if job satisfac Vii-Al variable The organ tr: ;:h the ad: :hmaire to a 3:1 firms. Th! awilficiikti'on 767 Ara "*4 by the '6! 4 vus‘ ‘33- The ;:31% Ct will “5“ " inaihfia “~* by t 8 The second purpose of this research project is to utilize values to aid in the prediction of individual be- havior within business organizations by analyzing the rela- tionship between value scores and the individual variables of job satisfaction and propensity to leave. These indi- vidual variables are described in Chapter II. The organizational value dimensions were developed through the administration of an organizational value ques— tionnaire to a sample of managers in selected industries and firms. The value instrument used in this research is a modification of an organization value questionnaire de- veloped by the Personnel Research Board at Ohio State Uni- versity. The Ohio State questionnaire was administered to college students. The third objective of this research project will be an attempt to replicate the value factors produced by the Ohio State studies. In the next section. the concept of values will be defined and distinguished from those terms which are at times used interchangeably with it in the literature. The Concept of Values Definition of values. There has been a considerable increase in interest in the study of values and their rami- fications. This is reflected in the increasing amount and satiety °f lite Zioations rirr fifteen years 4 :othe study 0' 'ihile thl use. to the hi' 22:11 the i92C me seriously :tilosophical Accordin .1terature on 5531)” 'school | 7.. "we. in can resulted in a 9 variety of literature onvalues.16 This diversity of pub- lications mirrors the trend in value research over the last fifteen years toward a growing interdisciplinary approach to the study of values.17 While the philosophical study of values can be traced back to the historical beginning of philosophy, it was not until the 1920's and 1930's that behavioral scientists be- came seriously interested in the descriptive, non- philosophical study of values.18 According to William Dukes, in his review of the literature on the psychological studies of values, the early "schools of psychology" were concerned with fact, not value, in carrying out psychological investigations. This resulted in a scarcity of research on values. It was not 16Some idea of the diversity of recent research can be seen by the following: Milton Rokeach, "A Theory of Organization and Change Within‘Value-Attitude Systems,” The Journal of Social Issues, January. 1968, pp. 13-33: EEorge W. England, "Personal Value Systems of American Managers,” Academ of Management Journal. 10, March, 1967, pp. 53-68: arren . chmid", Or anizational Frontiers and Human Values (Belmont. Cal.: Wassworth Publishing Company. 1975): Robert P. Beech, Value 8 stems, Attitudes and Inter- rsonal Attraction (East Lansing, Michigan: Unpublished . . es s. i 3 other references will be given through- out Chapter I. 17Ethc1 M. Albert and Clyde Kluckhohn. A Selected Biblio ra oanalues. Ethics and Esthetics (Clencoe: The Free Pgess. 1939). 18Ibid.. Preface. mu the 1930' were applied t. In addit‘ of and the no research has ‘t titles. The d ' need differ 39,318. The t the literature titer intendsl fierinition wn 10 until the 1930's that applications of the scientific method were applied to various aspects of the value question.19 In addition to the relatively late start in the study of and the recognition of the importance of values, value research has been hampered by a lack of consensus on a defi- nition. The discussion of values is made difficult by pro- nounced differences in what the term means to different people. The term is frequently given different meanings in the literature and it is not always clear which meaning a writer intends.20 There is often little consensus over a definition within the particular disciplines themselves that are most frequently associated with value research, such as, philosophy. sociology, psychology and anthropology.21 Kluckhohn regards values as a point of convergence for these various specialized social sciences and a key concept for their integration with studies in the humanities. As such. values are potentially a bridging concept which can serve to link together many diverse specialized studies.22 The idea of values serving as a linking concept was 19William F. Dukes, "Psychological Studies of Values," Psychological Bulletin. 1955. fig. pp. Zh-SO. 2oFranz Adler. "The'Value Concept in Sociology." American Journal of Sociologz.-November, i956.‘§g. pp. 272- 21Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value-Orientations in The Theory of Action,” in Toward A General Theor of Action, F. Parsons and E. A. Shils. (éds.). (New York: fiarper and’ Row, 1951). pp. 388-103. ' 22Ibid.. p. 389. iiscussed in t. minted out ti? 1eg integer) in models at £1328. Hikes ix; :3 concepts Bu needs used to km! to be t 'ltfine Values " Elantltiesfih ‘7“. . ".55. motives 5' «I .5 value . m ah! Vie en ieVeloni K111 (:th We ‘ whiCh 1‘. 3.4 nus (goals) in tfiae ‘ O ‘\ 1‘31 'o h a “. It 91: at. a». ”Prov 31 11 discussed in the introduction of this chapter. It was pointed out that values have in recent years been increas- ingly integrated into the various theoretical and predic- tive models advanced by different researchers of organiza- tions. |Dukes in his review of the literature. found a number of concepts such as attitude. interest, sentiment, and needs used to refer to values.23 Kluckhohn found the fol- lowing to be the most frequently employed terms used to define values: attitudes, motives, objects, and measurable quantities.2“ [These and other reviews indicate that atti- tudes. motives. sentiments and opinions are the terms most often used in place of or interchangeably with the concept of value. These terms must be taken into consideration when developing an overall definition of value. These items will be discussed further in the next section. Kluckhohn defines a value as a concept of the desir- able which influences a person's selection of means and ends (goals) of behavior.25.4He believes that values imply a 2223 or a standard which has some persistence through time. It places things, acts, ways of behaving or goals on an approval-disapproval continuum. A value is thus regarded 23Dukes._qp. 233.. pp. 24-50. 2“Kluckhohn,qu. cit.. p. 390. ZSIbido. PP. 395’3960 as SOt JuSt 8 altered to be :tetic 3313:“ values are 0‘ tens or flat get-mat . 01‘ a wet-353 33 the 3:3: among alt value to be a Eeitave, or a fifth or not The co: the common a :ussed. A V zensiders de Ibi his 27Roa a»: Zistemé a one K 4,8‘ J‘and c; 29 ‘Ibs \ e 29 .5“ .k 31““:ng ‘11 12 as not Just a preference. but a preference which is con- sidered to be Justified morally. by reasoning, or by aes- thetic Judgment.2q Williams. like Kluckhohn, believes that values are or act as standards of desirability. phrased in terms of what is considered as good or bad. pleasant or un- pleasant. or appropriate or unappropriate.27 He regards values as the criteria by which goals and means are chosen from among alternatives.28 Milton Rokeach considers a value to be a belief about how one ought or ought not to behave. or a belief about some end—state of existence (goal) worth or not worth attaining.29 The concept of value used in this study incorporates the common aspects of all three definitions previously dis- cussed. A value is regarded as a belief about what one considers desirable. As such. it represents a preference for some act, condition. thing or goal, and is phrased in terms'of what is good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant. ap- propriate or unappropriate.g 26Ibid. 27Roger M. Williams, ”Analyst of Social Institutions and Systems," in Modern.Social TheoriesL Charles P. Loomis and Zone K. Loomis (ed§.7.*TP?Tnceton. New Jersey: D.‘Van Nostrand Company. 1965). pp. #99-502. ZBIbid. 29Milton Rokeach. ggliefs, Attitudes and Values (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Incompany. 19687: p. i . Differen sentiments an] he iifferentia interzhamesbl mansion in t iistinction an 212953. sent12e these ideas fu IValues 353933.“. howevl I _ , we: 81 belief u. "51‘, u ‘ ‘Srosing C is M "3 Value 13 Differentiation between values, attitudes, needs, sentiments, and opinions. This conception of value should be differentiated from concepts which are often utilized interchangeably with values. Since the greatest amount of confusion in the literature appears to be concerning the distinction and relationship between values, attitudes, needs, sentiments, and opinions, it is necessary to explore these ideas further. [Values are most often used synonymously with attitude. Bokeach, however, regards an attitude as an organization of several beliefs focused on a specific obJect or situation, predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner.30 He views values as having to do primarily with modes of conduct and end-states (goals). As such, values differ from attitudes in being a single belief, guiding action and Judgment across specific obJects and situations.31 In addi- tion, he regards a value as being more fundamental to a person in that. ‘ once internalized, it becomes consciously or uncon- sciously. a standard or criterion for guiding action. for developing and maintaining attitudes toward rele- vant objects and situations, for Justifying one's own and other's actions and fgr morally Judging and com— paring self with others.3 3 ”221.4" pp. 157-160. 3¥£2i2.. p. 127. 321b1d.. p. 160. He thus roger. and sewing as believes that values in the Kluckh ear-is an att a: influenc‘ Situat10ns . at? than x 511 att 1 t‘i’i \ ma\‘d8.\fi \mg 5:: t 10p. \3 5*:0 14 He thus regards values as being more lasting than attitudes and serving as a standard to influence attitudes. Rokeach believes that attitudes have received more attention than values in the past for three reasons: (1) a more rapid development of methods to measure attitudes, (2) more consensus on the meaning of attitudes, (3) the belief that a titudes were better suited to experimentation. Kluckhohn is in basic agreement with Rokeach. He re- gards an attitude as a mental state of readiness, exerting an influence upon an individual's response to obJects and situations. He also views attitudes as being more tempo- rary than values.3u )The primary_distinction then, between an attitude and a value, is that values are not directed toward a specific object or situation, are more enduring over time, and serve as a yardstick or standard to guide actions, attitudes, evaluations and Justifications, for one's self and others. The relationship between values and needs or motives is a complex one. Some define value synonymously with needs.35 However. it would appear that values can both 33Ib1dgg Do 1580 BuxluCkhOhn. 220 23-20. D. “‘23. 35Robert P. Beech. ”Value Systems. Attitudes, and Interpersonal Attraction,” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Micnigan State University, East Lansing. Michigan. 1966), P. o create the st} existing need i:- the motive inciting an i. the direction given act is need. the Bit tins. and a 1 issue regards trier conditi satisfied, at 151'. in impori Wild not :11. considered t be capable c is Such. the Vith the tie: 15 create the stimulus for need arousal and develop from existing needs. \Kluckhohn regards values as being a factor in the motivational process in that they can play a part in inciting an individual to action as well as in governing the direction of the resulting act.36 He believes that any given act is a result of interaction between a motive or need. the situational conditions. the available alterna- tives, and a person's values.33 Beech, in discussing this issue regards needs as becoming increasingly important under conditions of deprivation. until they are eventually satisfied. at which time they. at least. temporarily dimin- ish in importance. He believes, however. that a value would not diminish in importance.38 ‘Values, then, can be considered to have an effect on need arousal. but also to be capable of existence after a need has been satisfied. As such. the motivational process of needs is not congruent with the definition of values used in this research. )xluokhohn states that the history of thought has more or less clearly distinguished values from sentiments and opinions.39 Sentiments can be regarded as expressions of feeling or emotion, while opinions are viewed as verbal 36Kluckhohn. 22. 213., pp. h2h-h25. 37;2i§.. p. #03. 38Bosch. gp.'git.. p. u. 39Kluokhohn. 22. 213,. p. 396. 16 expressions of some attitude or value.“0 Values, then, can be clearly distinguished from the concepts of sentiment or opinion. Research on Values and Behavior Values and non-organizational behavior. In the pre- vious section, the concept of value was defined. Prior to discussing values and organization behavior, it would be helpful to review the literature on the relationship be- tween values and behavior in general. Hokeach believes that a person's belief system, in which values play the central role, can be organized into patterns or systems whose characteristics and behavioral outcomes can be described and measured.41 Kluckhohn also believes that values can be organized into a system. He views certain values as having more of a central role in an individuals' or groups' value system, and he terms these priorityvaluem“2 [A value is regarded as a standard that endures through time, and which serves to organize behavior through the formulation of action commitments. These com- mitments become manifest in ideas, expressional symbols, and in the development of behavioral norms.n3 Williams, uoRokeach,‘gp. cit.. pp. 12h-132. “libid.. p. 160. uzKluckhohn,lgp.lg;§.. p. #20. “31bid.. pp. 39h-395. like Hokeach organizing ac determinants by thick this eitemtives. the key eleme action in 0T8 iziivmual 0' Choice betwe 1“norms ‘h‘ 5333;) Value Of the 1:16.- Vithm e. E ale sszei th 17 like Hokeach and Kluckhohn, regards values as methods of organizing action. He believes that they are the real determinants of behavior, because they serve as the criteria by which ends or goals, and means are selected from among “a Parsons"views an individual's values as alternatives. the key element behind the development of norms to guide action in organizations.u5 He believes that, whenever any individual or group is in a situation which requires a choice between alternatives, their values will commit them to norms which serve to guide their choices.“6 To Parsons, group values grow or develop from the plurality of values of the individuals making up the group. As individuals within a group interact, their values become institution- alized through their mutual desires and expectations and as a result. become standards or norms.u7 Values thus deter- mine through the establishment of norms, an individual's commitment toward group goals and means. They also deter- mine the sanctions on behavior employed within the group."8 iValues then, once they are internalized, either by an individual or group, consequently serve as standards to ““Williams, op. cit.. p. 502. “5Talcott Parsons, Toward a General Theor of Action (New York: Harper and How, 1§31), pp. 5 - , “61bid. “7Ioid. “Bible. guide behavi leans. In a personal rel of people to effects of v tion. found Shiite Ihic other and p Values and a 5m” then. standard for taking coupe 3581a: term Value for the r01: (1) (2) (3) (a) 18 guide behavior in selecting between alternative goals and means. In addition, they appear to guide behavior in inter— personal relationships through influencing the compatibility of people toward each other. Beech, in investigating the effects of value system similarity on interpersonal attrac- tion, found in his review of the literature a number of studies which demonstrated that people are attracted to each other and prefer to associate with others who hold similar values and attitudes.“9 iAn individual's or group's value system then, can be regarded as a conscious or unconscious standard for developing and maintaining attitudes and for making comparisons between self and others.50 _ England in a study of the relationship between mana- gerial values and behavior, regards values as significant for the following reasons: (1) Personal value systems influence the way a manager looks at other individuals and groups of individuals, thus influencing interpersonal relationships; (2) Personal value systems influence a manager's perceptions of situations and problems he faces; (3) Personal value systems influence a manager's decisions and solutions to problems; (h) Personal value systems set the limits for the determination of what is and what is not ethi- cal behavior by a manager: “9Beech, op. cit.. p. i. SOROkBGCh. 22. cits. p0 1600 (6) Fe Deaoit fluencing an sniies have tive, with fl for exarole, Withology c 19 (5) Personal value systems influence the extent to which a manager will accept or will resist or- ganizational pressures and goals; (6) Personal value systems influence the perceptions of individual and organizational success as well as their achievement; (7) Personal value systems provide a meaningful level of analysis for comparative studies among organizational groupings and/or national groupings of managers. 1 Despite the apparent importance of values in in- fluencing and directing behavior, most of the research studies have been predominately descriptive and compara- tive, with few relating to the prediction of performance.52 For example, Dukes, in his review of the literature in psychology on values, found that most of the studies dealt with examining values as a function of individual differ- ences such as age, sex, religion, etc. Studies connecting values to performance were scarce and largely related to. organizing cognitive processes that dealt primarily with perceptions.53 Values and organizational behavior. Organizations have been viewed as social institutions having cultural, 516eorge w. England, "Personal‘Value Systems of American Managers," Academy of Management Journal, March, 1967. £99 PP- 53-68. 52John Rizzo, Value Dimensions Value Commitments and In-Basket Performance of Business Students (Columbus: io a e n vers y, . . hesis, 156“): p. h. 53Dukes,‘22. 2i£,, pp. Zh-SO. social. and b e exponents . 5 5%! the one mated to o: schei: 5:;- 1315-1711111! 20 social, and personality, as well as structural-technical components.54 As organizations themselves are a subculture of the larger cultural system, members of organizations may be expected to reflect in their behavior patterns many of the values and attitudes existing in the society at large. Organizations in turn, have expected patterns of conduct, values, and norms, which they consider right and proper for the organization and within which all members are ex- pected to operate.55 Schein has conducted research on the process by which an individual influences and, in turn, is influenced by an organization's value system. He regards the process by which a new member learns the values, norms, and conse- quently, the required behavior patterns of the organization and group to which he is entering, as a socialization process.56 He states that these values, norms and re- sulting behavior patterns usually involve: (1) The basic goals of the organization: (2) The preferred means by which these goals should be attained: 5“Talcott Parsons, "Social Theory,” in Modern Social Theories, Charles P. Loomis and Zona K. Loomis, (eds.), 3Ewe on, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co.. Inc.. 1965), p. 00 55Dalton E. McFarland, Management: Principles and Practices (New York: Macmillan Company, 1963), pp. 605: 612. 563dgar H. Schein, ”Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management," Industrial Management Be- View, Winter, 1968. 2' pp. 1-60 21 (3) The basic responsibilities of the member in the role given him: (h) The behavior patterns which are required for effective performance in the role: (5) A set of rules or principles which pertain to the maintenance of the identit§7and integrity of the organization and group. Organization values then, can be considered as a re- flection of and in turn, reflected in, the organizations goals and methods of achieving them, and in the managerial philosophy of its major executives. Organizational values can be learned from the direct instruction of superiors, the observation of reference groups and peers, by observing examples of key executives, through reading the official literature of the organization, and from experiences with the organizations reward and sanction system.58 Thus, the behavior of individuals within an organization can be in- fluenced in part, by the value system of society, the or- ganizations values, and the individuals personal values. A review of the literature on values and organiza- tional behavior indicates that the personal value system of managers has a major influence on their leadership ap- proaches, communication processes, decision-making, deter- mination of strategy, recruitment and socialization into groups, and on their interpersonal relations. 57Ibid.. p. 6. 581bld.. pp. 6-7. Also check, Alvar Elbing and Carol Elbing, The Value Issue of Business (New York: McGraw Hill Company. 1537;. pp. 197-251. 22 Fleishman and Peters used a questionnaire on inter- personal values developed by Gordon to obtain information about the interpersonal values of business managers from four plants of a leading soap manufacturer. They found evidence that differences in leadership ideology are re- lated to managerial level. Lower level managers were found to exert more stress on their subordinates toward goal attainment, than did higher level managers. Higher level managers in turn, were found to show more consider- ation in their relations with their subordinates. They argue that the kinds of values dominant in an organization may determine the existing leadership styles. ,This can occur through the establishment of norms, by which leader behavior is evaluated and through determining the goals toward which leadership acts are directed.59 McFarland and Wickert found in their review of re- search on executive effectiveness that one of the major reasons individuals who were predicted for success failed was because they often were placed in situations where their background or managerial style was incompatible with the existing values in the situation.60 Numerous studies 59Edwin A. Fleishman and David R. Peters, "Inter- personal Values, Leadership Attitudes and Managerial Success,” Personnel Psychology. 1962, pp. 127-128. 6oFrederic R. Wickert and Dalton E. McFarland, Measurin Executive Effectiveness (New York: Appleton- en ury- ro s. i 7. P. 68: 23 have been conducted that relate to the role of personal values in influencing selection and in the filtering and interpretation of what a person perceives.61 Guth and Tagiuri used the Allport-Vernon—Lindzey "Scale of‘Values,“ to measure the personal values of busi- ness managers. They administered the scale to high-level executives attending the Advanced Management Program at the Harvard Business School. They point out through ex- amples and case studies how personal values are important 62 Most mana- determinants of corporate strategy choices. gers are unaware of their own values and ofter misjudge the values of others. The executive who will take steps to gain a better understanding of his own and other mana- gers' and employees' values can gain an important advan- tage in developing workable and supportable policies.63 Collier used personal observations and interviews with various business executives in an attempt to identify the major premises, or values by which decisions in business organizations are made. He found that the business managers 61For an excellent review of the role of values in perception see, John Rizzo, Value Dimensions, Value Com- mitments and In-Basket Performance of_Business Students 0 umbus: The 0510 State University, Ph.D. Thesis, 1961+)! pp. 7-130 52wllliam D. Guth and Renato Tagiuri, ”Personal Values and Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, September-October, 1965, pp. 123-152. 631b1d.. pp. 123-12n. he studied it making their lated to he . Values that Values" and referred to mm vale Learns places him . ”“1“; him Beticn, T}. Sistem of ‘ Earnthal c: 51°“ 3 man Brionty C 300% 2“ he studied were guided by consistent, specific values in making their decisions. He called those values that re- lated to hard work and self teaching as 'Volition‘Values." Values that related to survival were termed "Capability Values“ and values that related to interests in others, he referred to as "Other Values.” These were found to be the primary value groups influencing decisions.6l+ Learned, Dooley and Katz relate how a managers role places him constantly in a position of conflict through causing him to choose between alternative courses of action. They express the belief that a manager's priority system of values aid him in determining his choices.65 Bernthal concludes similarly, that implied in every deci- sion a managers makes, there is a judgment in terms of his a priority of values.66 Scott, in a field study of ten fraternities and sororities, attempted to determine how personal values enter into various organizational processes. He found that organizations tend to recruit new members with values similar to those of the current members and expect the new 6“Abram T. Collier. Mana ement Men and Values (New York: Harper and How, 1962), pp. 223-228. 65Edmund P. Learned, Arch Dooley and Robert L. Katz, ”Personal Values and Business Decisions,” Harvard Business Review, Marchquril, 1959.,21. pp. 111-120. 66Wilmar P. Bernthal, ”Value Perspectives in Manage- ment Decisions." The Journal of the Academy of Management, December, 1962, 5, pp. 150-156. embers to a, :ost satisfi iniividuals values of th- difference 1. 30 be one of these 0:33:11“ T381111- o w ‘ 0- 51‘ths. 25 members to abide by established values and norms.67 The most satisfied members of these organizations were those individuals whose values were most compatible with the values of the dominant group within the organization. A difference in personal values from group values was found to be one of the primary reasons for attrition within these organizations.68 Tagiuri is another researcher who studied the values of groups. He found that the personal values of scien- tists, executives, and research managers as determined by the AllportAVernon-Lindzey Value Scale, were different be- tween these groups.69 England also believes that the personal values of managers are important in understanding managerial be- havior. His studies have been aimed at the description, measurement, and understanding of the personal value systems of managers and the impact of these values on their behavior. England developed a ”Personal Value Questionnaire" based on concepts dealing with organizational, individual, and group behavior. He hypothesized that the meanings 67willieun A. Scott, Values and Or anizations (Chicago: Rand McNally. 1953). pp. 225-225. 68Ibid.. p. 190. 698enato Tagiuri, "Value Orientations and the Rela- tionship of Managers and Scientists," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1965, pp. 39-51. attached to useful descr muse of E 5ch valuesy Situations. characterist M which t trans the f c A N V - (n _|_‘l _ (5) Host 72I,,F 26 attached to a concept by an individual would provide a useful description of his personal value system.70 The purpose of England's research was to determine the per- sonal values of managers toward the goals of business or- ganizations, the goals of individuals, their ideas on characteristics of people, and their views toward groups with which they associated.71 From his research, England draws the following conclusions about values and managers: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Personal value systems of managers can be mean- ingfully measured even though they are complex in nature: There is a general value pattern that is char- acteristic of American managers, which is sub- ject to a great deal of individual variation: Personal values operate at the level of corpor- ate strategy and goals as well as at the level of day-to-day decisions: The personal value systems of individual man- agers influence the organization in both an indirect and direct manner at the same time that personal values are influenced by organi- zation life: Differences in perceived value systems help to explain the nature of conflict between individ— uals in an organization, while similarity of value patterns is probably responsible for most accommodation among individuals.7 Most of the research efforts cited to this point have been generally descriptive and mainly directed toward 7°England. 22. 313.. p. 56. 711bid.. pp. 62-6u. 721bid.. pp. 67-68. 27 establishing the value of and need for further research on managerial values and organizational behavior. Some research efforts have found specific relation- ships existing between certain managerial values, organi- zational characteristics, and behavior within organiza- tions. Wickert and McFarland in summarizing a review of the literature on executive effectiveness state that marked differences exist between executives in different functions and at different levels. They view line foremen as having heavily product-oriented kinds of values and state that these, in turn, differ from the values of middle and top managers.73 They found that the more ef- fective executives were characterized by a desire for in- dependence, were risk takers, had a sense of dominance, and were not necessarily humanitarian oriented.7“ Porter and Ghiselli also found differences between managers at different levels and in diverse functional activities. They identified top managers as being daring, gamblers and risk takers, while middle and lower managers were described as being more cautious and less daring than top managers.75 73Nickert and McFarland, op. cit., pp. ion-105. 7“Ibid.. p. 18. 75L. w. Porter and E. E. Ghiselli, "The Self Percep- tions of Top and Middle Management Personnel," Personnel Psychology. 19. 195?. PP. 97-99- Ear-rel wagers f on tween manage that sales sites that centrols, d‘ terian intei Lauren! rascal-Ch ref they regard Mine to 1 mm to can They found 4 1 7! $491, tas‘, “find t0 be: “one.” 8‘. ‘mncfint 3:: are in 11 fit: \ 7 . 6m, Q 59".“ .31 \itl ( ‘ in»: 773's. . fir,» 28 Harrell in studying the performance of successful managers found different personality characteristics be- tween managers in different functional areas. He found that sales managers were highly verbal and aggressive. He writes that production managers are more defensive, stress controls, dislike competition, and are lacking in humani- tarian interests.76 Lawrence and Lorsch also have carried out extensive research relating to structural variables and performance. They regard the functional activity of manufacturing as needing to rely more on formal rules, procedures, and con- trols to carry out activities than other functional areas. They found manufacturing and production personnel to be largely task-oriented. Marketing and sales personnel were found to be more relationship-oriented and concerned with people.77 Vroom, in his research. found basically the same significant differences as those cited above between man— agers in line-staff positions, in different levels and in different functional areas.78 Porter found that there are 76Thomas V. Harrell, Mana ers Performance and Per- sonalitz (Cincinnati: South-Western, 1961). pp. 153-133. 77Paul 3. Lawrence and Jay w. Lorsch, Or anization and Environment (Boston: Harvard University, givisionof fiSsearch, 1§575. PP. 11-49. 78Victor H. Vroom, Motivation in Management (New York;3 American Foundation for Management’Research, 1965), pp. " 10 distinct dif temperament , I578 more SC wagers . :cre force? cant influer tional char! Hines. In th 30 :easuri: velament C 9-” e ..' m 29 distinct differences between line and staff managers in temperament, training, and orientation. Staff managers were more social and relationship-oriented than were line managers. In addition, the line managers were found to be more forceful and decisive than staff personnel.79 The literature on values and behavior within organi- zations, therefore, indicates that values exert a signifi- cant influenoe on managerial behavior and that organiza- tional characteristics can also influence managerial values. In the next section, some of the general approaches to measuring values will be discussed along with the de- velopment of the value instrument used in this study. The Measurement of Values General approaches. There are a number of different approaches available for measuring or describing the values of individuals or groups. McCurdy identifies four general techniques by which values can be measured. He describes these as: (1) self-report types, including a wide variety of paper and pencil techniques: (2) observing the intensity of emotional reactions: 79Lyman w. Porter, Or anizational Patterns of Man- agerial Job Attitudes (New ork: American Foundation—for Management Research, 1964), pp. 27-bh. (3) ‘ (3) she thich are c (1) (2) (3) 3O (3) variations in observed moral judgment: (4) observing the choice of fealty.80 Barton lists four types of paper and pencil measures which are commonly used to measure values: (1) forced-choice interest types: (2) self-prediction of one's probable behavior in a hypothetical situation: (3) analysis of verbal reports in different situa- tions: (4) direct ranking of values.81 The majority of the approaches utilized in measuring values use the paper-pen, straight-answer questionnaire technique, in which an individual is asked to state his preference for or the degree of his agreement or disagree- ment with various ideas, words, or statements.82 BOJ. T. MacCurdy, "Psychopathology and Social Psy- chology Part III: Hierarchies of Interest," British Journal of Psychology. 1950, 3;. pp. 1-13. 81A. Barton, "Measuring the Values of Individuals," Religious Education. 1962, 51, pp. 62-97. 82For example, see: G. N. Allport, P. Vernon and G. Lindzey, A Stud of Values. Revised ed. (Boston: Hough- ton, MiffIIn, 1550): 3. 5. Cohen, "A Scale for the Measure- ment of Attitude Toward the Aesthetic Value,“ Journal of P8 cholo . 1941. 12, pp. 75-79: E. J. Chave, “I New Type of Scale ¥or Measuring Attitudes," Reli ious Education, 1928, g2. pp. 364-369: George V. Eng an , "Persona alue Systems of American Managers,” Journal of Academg of Man- a ement. March. 1967. Pp. 53‘68’ E0 M0 H3831. an J. o MaIIer, “The Measurement of Interest Values," Charac. and Pers.. 1940.,2. pp. 67-81: Leonard V. Gordon, Manual for Surve of Inter rsonal‘Values (Chicago: Science Research ssoc a es, no.. 1 : . . Harding, "A Value-Type Gen- eralization Test," Journal of Social Ps cholo , 1944, 12, pp. 53-79: W. A. Lurie, “I Study of Spranger's Value Types by the Method of Factor Analysis," Journal of Social Ps - chology. 193?. Q. pp. 17-37: E. Spranser. Types 0? Men ranslation of 5th German ed. by P. J. W. Pigors) (Hallo: Niemeyer, 1928): L. L. Thurstone, "The Method of Paired- Comparisons for Social Values," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1927, 3;, pp. 335-505. The a had the ros Allport-Ver introduced i vised and u ester or s 3508! major '3“! or V kflmger's each of six mic, thee Choice ques be“? teste Fidel-en“. Sued to re Other 1%! or 'hich 9J1 1 31 The approach to value measurement that has probably had the most widespread application and acceptance is the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey “Study of Values." This scale was introduced by Allport and‘Vernon in 1931 and was later re- vised and updated.83 Dukes indicates that, "even though a number of standardized tests of values are available, the large majority of investigators employ the Allport4Vernon ”Study of‘Values."8u The Allport-Vernon test was based on Spranger's typology of men.85 It was designed to measure each of six values: aesthetic, political, social, eco- nomic, theoretical, and religious. It utilizes multiple- choice questions with alternative answers. The person being tested is asked to rank the questions in order of preference, and each of the alternative responses is as- sumed to represent one of the six value types.86 'Other measures that are currently used with some degree of frequency are ranking approaches (Rokeach), in which an individual states his preference for some concept, 836. w. Allport and P. E. Vernon, A Stud of Values (Boston. Houghton-Mifflin, 1931): G. H.7I1p0"%. P.""'"s."" Vernon and G. Lindzey, A Stud of Values, revised ed. (Boston: Houghton, MiffIIn, 1955). 8“makes, 92. cit.. p. 26. 85E. Spranger, T s of Men (Translation of the 5th German ed. by P. J. . igors), (Halle: Niemeyer, i928). 86Allport, Vernon and Lindzey, 22. cit.. i960. tori, etc., the content M In this stt consider it 'The Organ! cazposed oi havior. It the items, talues as 3 51125, TM in the WM :53: of 1nd Patterns. The c '3». (“8131688 F 31‘! Valu e S ’ 32 word, etc.. and content analysis (R. K. White), in which the content of the data is analyzed to determine values.87 Development of the organizational value questionnaire. In this study, the perceptions of managers toward what they consider ideal organizational behavior will be measured by "The Organizational Value Questionnaire” (OVQ) which is composed of selected statements about organizational be- havior. It is assumed that a subject, in responding to the items, gives an indirect expression of his personal values as well as his value judgments about the business firms. This allows for the projection of personal values in the business organization setting and for the develop- ment of individual, group, and organizational value patterns. The Organizational Value Dimension Questionnaire (Business Form), which will be used in this study to meas- ure values, was originally developed at the Personnel Re- search Board of Ohio State University, under the direction of Dr. Carroll L. Shartle. The research leading to the development of the questionnaire followed a model which used the complex organization as the basic unit of study and developed from the ten-year Ohio State Leadership 87For example, see: Milton Rokeach, ”A Theory of Organization and Change Within Value-Attitude Systems, " Journal of Social Issues, 1968,14, pp. 13- 33: R. K. White, ‘Value-Analysis, The Nature and Use of the Method (Glen Gardner, N. J.: Libertarian Press, 1931). Studies. T individual Ind educati directed ati detemining' flexibility In th linensions I if the lite 'Lhese dime: “d t0 rep: Eanizatlona Vere (1) 81 quality, (3 (5) ”Writ 3“ (12) ca The t lithe dig} 7910mm“ ( thausafld St 33 Studies. These studies were oriented toward the study of individual leader and group behavior in military. business. and educational organizations. They were primarily directed at describing individual and group behavior by determining dimensions of behavior such as, stability. flexibility. autonomy, and control. etc.88 In the development of the OVQ, a number of value dimensions were initially hypothesized. based on a survey of the literature relating to organizational behavior.89 These dimensions were assumed to be culturally determined and to represent measures that have significance for or- ganizational behavior. The hypothesized value dimensions were (1) size, (2) achievement, (3) work tempo, (#) quality, (5) effort, (6) satisfaction. (7) efficiency, (8) security. (9) newness, (10) change. (11) independence. and (12) competition.90 The business firm, the military service, and the public high school were selected as vehicles for the de- velopment of the scales. With this as a framework, several thousand statements about behavior in organizations were 88Carroll L. Shartle. "A Theoretical Framework for the Study of Behavior in Organizations.” in Administrative Theor in Education, A. Halpin. ed. (Chicago: Midwest Ad- m s ration Center-University of Chicago, 1958). p. 73. 89Carroll L. Shartle, Gary Brumback and John R. Rizzo, ”An.Approach to Dimensions of Value," The Journal Of PazchOIng. 196“, i?" p. 1030 90Shartle, 22. gig.. p. 8“. collected 1“ taff membe ravior that sitar differ ride varietl statements ' staff :embe. order to Se' Seated thes ite:s . 91 34 collected from previous studies. In addition. selected staff members were asked to develop expressions about be- havior that they thought were good or poor. or that would show differences in evaluation by others, relating to a wide variety of organizational characteristics. These statements were edited and then grouped by Ohio State staff members according to the hypothesized dimensions, in order to select a final list of items which best repre- sented these dimensions. The items selected were combined into a separate questionnaire for each of the three organi- zational settings; the Business Firm Questionnaire had 250 items.91 Each organizational questionnaire was separately ad- ministered. employing approximately BOO-#00 subjects on each administration. College students from a cross-section of academic areas were used as subjects. The subjects . were instructed to evaluate the behavior described in each item. in accordance with their own point of view as to the degree that they thought the behavior was good or poor. A nine-point rating scale ranging from "extremely poor" through "neutral" to "excellent" was provided for judging these items. The subjects were asked to think of organi- zations in general in assigning ratings. They were in- structed to select the scale value which best represented 91Shartle, Brumback and Rizzo. 22. cit.. p. 103. their evalus‘ so that a p‘ 1:339:31 ' c that items After analIisis oi leaninzful 1'15 {laud i; any Stacial St: title.93 "Te 2 (3) (u) (5) (6) (7) 35 their evaluation of each item. The scale was constructed so that a person with a score less than "neutral" would be in general disagreement with the behavior described by that item.92 After the questionnaire was administered. a factor analysis of the Business Firm Questionnaire yielded nine meaningful factors. These factors were first interpreted and named by individual staff members at Ohio State, and then a special study was undertaken using twenty-eight persons from the fields of psychology and sociology. These individuals indicated the degree of appropriateness of the titles selected for the factors. The results of the special study were considered in giving each factor a final title.93 The value dimensions in order of their extraction were: (1) Degree of organizational magnitude. expansion and structure; (2) Degree of internal consideration for welfare. health. and comfort; (3) Degree of competition. strategy, and shrewdness; (a) Degree of ethical and social reaponsibility; (5) Degree of quality of products and services; (6) Degree of change; (7) Degree of organizational control over member identification; 921bid. 931bid., p. 10a. wane! factor stz these ite: enseverai Sueing sc men fact 15 the Sn: rePresent he can be Etiors de the indivi “th the b 3122 an“! of Studies Ne Studedits f assume the tc ei’aluat 36 (8) Degree of external political participation: (9) Degree of member equality and recognition.94 Some of the initially hypothesized value dimensions, such as efficiency and newness, failed to appear in the factor structure. Instead of forming a single factor. these items either failed to load on any factor or loaded on several factors. Dimension scores were obtained by summing scale responses to those items loading high on a given factor and low on other factors.95 A factor score is the sum of a person's ratings of the items selected to represent a factor. If a person has a high factor score, he can be said to be in general agreement with the be- haviors described by the items, and if the score is low, the individual can be said to be in general disagreement with the behaviors described by the items. 31220. in a special study, administered the OVQ to a sample of 269 Ohio State business students.96 The earlier studies were conducted with samples that were a mixture of students from several disciplines. Students were asked to assume that each item in the questionnaire was true. then to evaluate whether it was good or bad, using the nine-point 9“Ibid. 951bid.. pp. 107-109. 96John Rizzo. Value Dimensions, Value Commitments and In-Basket Performance of Business Students (Columbus: OhIo State University. Ph.D. Thesis. 1963). p. 3“. scale. as t was a desir. The r tcrs were e tars. listi lwdkue, 1 tcrs were: Facto Patto Facto l7 37 scale. as to the degree to which they felt that each item was a desirable or undesirable condition.97 The responses were factor analyzed and fourteen fac- tors were extracted. The complete description of the fac- tors, listing the items making up the factors and their loadings. is presented in Appendix II. The fourteen fac- tors were: Factor A: Organizational Supervision and Structure Factor B: Competition and Exploitation Factor C: External Community Relations Factor D: Attitude Toward Unionization Factor E: Change vs. Conservatism Factor F: Member Equality and Freedom From Control Factor G: Consideration Factor H: Social Responsibility Factor I: Quality of Products and Personnel Factor J: Executive Treatment Factor K: Organizational Risk-Taking Factor L: Political Activities, Employee Pay. and Retirement Factor M: Work Emphasis and Initiative Factor N: Paternalism and Internal Control.98 Rizzo's research produced a meaningful set of value dimensions. His analysis yielded a number of factors which 97Ibid. 981bid.. p. 79. lere Slclla several viii dialysis pr These mire. we: the earliez Momence to relate 1 0! their o: inflation tmtor. w Study, it the CT: ca 38393:... Int: 38 were similar to those extracted in the earlier research and several which were improved versions. In addition. his analysis produced several new factors.99 These fourteen factors, after identification and naming. were employed, along with the factors derived from the earlier study as descriptive predictors of criterion performance.100 The purpose of his research was to attempt to relate the value commitments of individuals to measures of their performance, as given by scores on an in-basket simulation test designed to simulate the job of an adminis- trator. While only moderate success was achieved in his study. it did indicate that the values deve10ped through the OVQ can be meaningfully associated with behavior.101 Research Objectives and Rypotheses Introduction. As previously mentioned. very little research has been carried out in an attempt to determine values that are relevant to describing. understanding or predicting behavior in organizations. Most value research to-date has been directed toward identifying the general, personal values of managers, utilizing the Allport-Vernon- Lindzey value instrument. England's study. one of the few 99Ibid. looIblde . po 35' lollbid.. pp. 1&6-1h9. to look at * :rirarily t tcnrd vari screlity ti One describe c arterizati it, 01‘ um teha'rior if: TESpo: his WIS: the bust the busi tion Va] Values ( Wadi z: 39 to look at values in an organization setting. was directed primarily toward determining the personal values of managers toward various organizational goals, and toward various per- sonality traits. One of the purposes of this study is to determine and describe organizational values by asking managers in the organizational setting to indicate the degree of desirabil- ity or undesirability of a wide variety of statements about behavior within organizations. It is assumed that a manager in responding to the items, gives an indirect expression of his personal values as well as his value judgments about the business firm. This projection of personal values in the business setting allows for the development of organiza- tion values. Organization values then. refers to the values derived from the perceptions of managers of business organizations towards various organizational behaviors. Organizational value factors. To this point in time, the OVQ has not been applied to managers from business or- ganizations. To accomplish the first objective of deve10p- ing general organizational value factors, the OVQ was ad- ministered to managers representing all levels of managerial responsibility. from first-line supervisors to company presidents. The subjects represented a cross-section of managers from twelve companies. representing the three in- dustrial classifications of manufacturing. retailing. and services. In addition to these firms. the OVQ was adrinistere incitement participant sis produce The relatio aid the val 3.“! 8 Factor 1. This zeta cerz Sup h1g1 ell lea ~lid Tn in e: "c Cc Easter *4 m m n— no administered to a number of executives in the Advanced Management Program at Michigan State University. and to participants in a Purchasing Management Workshop held at Michigan State. The responses were factor analyzed. The factor analy- sis produced ten organizational value dimensions or factors. The relationships between selected organizational variables and the value factors were examined. These value factors are I Factor 1. Consideration This factor describes general supervisory and organi- zational policies and practices which indicate a con- cern for member needs and welfare as well as a supportive-employee centered leadership style. A high score would, in general, be an indication of a climate tending toward a supportive-employee centered leadership approach. with a high concern for indi- vidual welfare and needs. Factor 2. Competition and Egploitation This factor describes activities of organizations and individuals which indicate highly competitive and/or exploitive strategy and behavior. A high score would. in general, be an indication of a stress on competition and exploitation of opportunities. Factor 3. Managerial Climate This factor relates to general leadership and organi- zational practices with regard to the use of hier- archical management rights, controls and formal authority. to influence individual attitudes, actions, and job performance. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a climate which puts a stress on hierarchial rights, controls and the use of formal authority to influence individuals and carry out activities. .Ov v 6% a: m. 5.. N... #1 Factor h. Risk Taking - Conservatism This factor describes organizational policies and in- dividual and organizational practices which serve to indicate an organization's or individual's values toward risk taking or conservative behavior. A high score would. in general. indicate a preference for conservatism. Factor 5. Unionization This factor describes practices of organizations re- lating to unions. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a negative or unfavorable orienta- tion toward unions. Factor 6. Paternalism This factor describes organizational policies and practices relating to the concern for and control over. member housing. working conditions. personal loans. and pay and hours. that is paternalistic in nature. A high score would. in general. be an indi- cation of a favorable orientation toward the behavior described in this factor. Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel This factor describes organizational activities and policies relating to beliefs about product quality and the excellence of employees and employee ser- vices. A high score would. in general. be an indi- cation of a high degree of concern for quality and excellence in these items. Factor 8. Social Responsibility This factor describes organizational policies and practices relating to involvement in local. national. and international affairs. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a high degree of concern for social responsibility. Factor 9. Member quality This factor describes general organizational and man- agerial practices relating to treating employees as equals. A high score would. in general. be an 1T 1 TH-‘n‘a‘ lndi: tend‘ 333:0! 10: This 35this st Scores and ballet it To E MOlied :. ‘v‘ne two c 11331 mes must"ere (2953mm #2 indication of an equalitarian climate. perhaps tending toward a permissive leadership philosophy. Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority This factor describes the existence of status distinc- tions for executive positions and executive preroga- tives which stress the accomplishment of the job to be done. A high score. in general. would reflect a preference for executive status distinctions and the stress on getting the job done through the establish- ment of standards of performance. Individual attitudinal measures. The second purpose <>f this study is to analyze the relationship between value I'm”. 2“": .— w‘frfj w“ scores and selected individual variables in an attempt to predict individual attitudes toward the job and firm. To accomplish this. a separate instrument was de- veloped to measure Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. the two criterion variables selected as individual attitu- dinal measures toward the job and firm. This scale was ad- ulnistered to all subjects. along with a Personal Data Questionnaire. at the same time as the OVQ. The specific characteristics of the sample. factor a354334818. predictor variables and criterion measures will 13‘3’ (SXplained in more detail in Chapter II. The research plan summarized. In general. the plan or the research was as follows: (1) Administration of the Organizational Value Ques- tionnaire. Attitudinal Scale. and Personal Data Questionnaire to a sample of managers from selected industries and firms. (3) (Li) killing or; me to an. aIStem of The :3“ Quest ‘oility' (2 “Uri-r, and 30% Often M8 {13 7311153 andI 11. “at“ tzr Sic: : 8 Val l eCWer Tana (+3 (2) A factor analysis of the managers responses to the value scale in an attempt to develop value dimens ions . (3) Analysis of the relationship between value factor scores and selected organizational struc- tural characteristics taken from the Personal Data Questionnaire. and the system of production technology utilized. (14) Analysis of the relationship between particular value factors and individual attitudinal vari- ables. . :r *m‘ ———.---?f Hypptheses relating to values and structural and tech- fret-774w -= riological factors. As part of the first objective of deter- mining organizational value factors. an attempt will be made to analyze the relationship and effect on values of selected organizational structural characteristics. and the system of production technology utilized. The structural variables selected from the Personal Data Questionnaire were: (1) line or staff work responsi- b111ty. (2) managerial level. (3) the functional area of work, and (4) firm size. These are variables which seem In'=>13t: often encountered in the literature. Mamggl'ia; levelandjob position. The literature on Va-1\:les and organizational behavior previously reviewed in- dicated that marked differences exist between managers in a‘11“.li‘erent functions and at different levels.102 Top man- aSQx-s' values differed greatly from those of middle and lower management. Top managers were generally identified 1°2Wickert and McFarland. 22. 0115-. DP. ion-105. as being 3: u zanaigers.1 line and Si rare social were more invalues fingers at trols, and flamers w oriented.1 J h 106 rdhaee‘ 0.35 t, ‘4‘; an as being greater risk takers than middle or lower level managers.103 Differences were also found to exist between line and staff managers. Staff managers were found to be more social and relationship oriented. while line managers were more forceful.1°‘+ It was also found that differences in values exist between functional work areas. Production managers were found to be more defensive. stressing con- trols. and lacking in humanistic interests. while marketing mu. h—T_ _._. fi‘i'l I managers were found to be more aggressive and social u ‘ .IA. oriented . 1 05 Production technology. Woodward. in studying the ef- fects of technology on organizations. identified eleven different systems of production used in manufacturing organ- izations. She found that the first nine of these categories formed a scale in terms of chronological development and technical complexity.106 Woodward states that the produc- tion technology of a firm influences the roles defined by the formal organization and must therefore influence be- ha‘? ior. because how a person behaves depends as much on the demands of his role and the circumstances in which he finds 1“linself as on his personality.107 \_ 1°3Perter and Ghiselli. 22. cit.. pp. 97-99- 1O“Porter. pp. cit.. PP- 27-“4- 105Lawrence and Lorsch. 22. cit.. pp. 11-49. 1°6Joan Woodward. Industrial organizations Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press. 1963). pp. - . 1°7Itid.. p. 79. She ' systems tr tions were hatch and ( 'dso’iuerd { Sisters 0: 181little; :laced 1e EMite relations 1‘“ ”Tetra and lass antstic tBaez-1y llaced a Q‘IO‘ e .._‘e ‘8 2055118: 581383“ 11 l+5 She developed three classifications of production systems from the nine categories. The three classifica- tions were (1) unit and small-batch production. (2) large- batch and mass production. and (3) process production.108 Woodward found that there were differences between firms in each category. but that these differences were not as great ' as those existing between categories.”09 She also found the process production firms to be operating under organic i systems of management. Firms in this category had more i delegation and decentralization of decision making. They L— placed less emphasis on controls and formal authority. Employee relationships. in general. were good. as were relationships between departments or functional areas.110 In contrast to this. she found that firms in large-batch and mass production industries largely operated under mech- anistic systems of management. Firms in this category c3—early defined duties and responsibilities. and they pla ced a greater stress on controls and formal authority. There was less concern with social relationships and member consideration. The organization structure was much more BeS‘uzented'and the management group was found to be less \ 1°31bid.. pp. 38-u2. 1°9Ibid.. p. 50. llolbideo ppe 50-60! 129-153. horogeneoe‘ tion syste sore organ so than 1‘ i my utili tility f or Participet industries itl’ and st Ereater e1 Sev: Telesam . havior Dr ill hm: bet"‘3eh v V . er. 11: 11: homogeneous.111 #6 Firms in the unit and small-batch produc- tion system category were. in general. found to be operating more organicly than those in the middle category. but less so than firms in process industries. Firms in this cate- gory utilized more delegation of authority and responsi- bility for decision making and were more permissive and participative than those in large-batch and mass production ‘ industries. However. the strong use of control and author- ‘1ty'and stress on quality were found to exist to a much egreater extent than in process industries.112 a "n- u—‘- ‘_———.—_-—_~‘m h 1.; Seven of the value factors. considered to be the most relevant to the literature on values and organizational be- .errvior previously reviewed. were used in the hypotheses. 4a;1.1.hypotheses are the null hypotheses of no relationship between value factor scores and an organization's structural characteristics and system of production technology. hypothesis A-i through A-6 There is no significant relationship between line or staff managers or the production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A1 A2 Factor 1. (Factor 2. Factor 3 FBCtor l4 0 Factor 8. FactoriO. Consideration Competition and Exploitation Managerial Climate Risk Taking - Conservatism Social Responsibility Executive Status and Authority Tenn-c u... 4? Hypothesis A-7 through A-12 There is no significant relationship between the managerial level or production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A? Factor . Consideration A8 Factor . Competition and Exploitation A9 Factor . Managerial Climate A10 Factor . Risk Taking - Conservatism A11 Factor . Social Responsibility 3 A12 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority , 03?me '—‘I Hypothesis A-13 through A-18 There is no significant relationship between the functional areas or production technology of an organization and the following value factors: .‘fl—m. . i ‘H In-.. ..... A13 Factor 1. Consideration A1“ Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation A15 Factor 3. Managerial Climate A16 Factor a. Risk Taking - Conservatism A17 Factor 8. Social Responsibility A18 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority H otheses A-i throu h A-2 There is no significant relationship between the size or production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A19 Factor 1. Consideration A20 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation A21 Factor 3. Managerial Climate A22 Factor h. Risk Taking - Conservatism A23 Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel Azu Factor 8. Social Responsibility A25 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority Hypotheses relating to values and attitudes toward the 315232_and the firm. The second purpose of this study relates ‘0 analyzing the relationship between value scores and in- dividual variables. Job Satisfaction and propen81ty T0 Leave wer. distal mea 'u'hl there is values ant view of s. maceria For limiters 11 11 #8 Leave were the two variables selected as individual attitu- dinal measures toward the job and firm. While the literature on job satisfaction is extensive. there is currently in existence no research on managerial values and satisfaction. Because of this. only a brief re- view of some of the major research findings relating to managerial job satisfaction will be presented. ' than}: sacs-I. Porter in his research into the need fulfillment of managers found that the level of a manager's job is a key ‘9“: element in his job satisfaction. He states that the higher the management level. the greater is the relative opportun- jscy for a manager to fulfill needs. He also found that. eailthough small organizations more than large ones have ad- 1vh£3ntages for managers at lower levels to achieve greater .Jvcab satisfaction. this advantage is greatly reduced at higher levels. At the upper management levels. the large c=<>znpany executive is conscious of greater need fulfillment and job satisfaction.113 Vroom in a review of the literature on job satisfac- t 1 on reported that there was little evidence regarding the I"a-Iliationship between the nature of the function performed and job satisfactionfilu Porter. however. found that there 113Porter. 39. cit.. pp. 18-30. 11“Vroom. pp. 313.. p. 56. was s sli. setisi'act‘ tcrhover Leave. re acozpletel raises on ”13 a hr finAl nu “etck In Filter 8. $33712 cc Satisfac: :th V01; timov er “9 was a slight tendency for line managers to report more need satisfaction than staff members at the same level.115 There is also a scarcity of research. in general. on turnover (the second additional measure. Propensity To Moreover. there is VM‘ i on. .nr. 1 i Leave. relates to potential turnover). a complete lack of research dealing with the effects of For this reason. values on turnover. or potential turnover. only a brief reporting of some of the major research VA:— ‘findings relating to turnover will be presented. In a review of the literature on job satisfaction. Ifiorter and Lawler point out that there appears to be a £31:rong correlation between absenteeism. turnover. and job In their opinion. focusing on job satisfac- areatisfaction. 1::1.on would be an important element in any program to reduce tztzsrnover and absenteeism.116 They also found that absence rates and turnover were less in small organization units or However. none of Work groups than they were in large ones. the studies they reviewed compared turnover for managerial ID€31‘sonnel or for different size organizations.“-7 _________ 115Porter. pp. cit.. pp. 18-30. 116Edward E. Lawler and Lyman w. Porter. "The Effect formance on Job Satisfaction." in Readings in Organi- 2:1? Fer Eltional Behavior and Human Performance. L. Cummings and ii ‘ Scott. eds. (Homewood. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. Inc.. 1969). pp. 283-290. 117Edward E. Lawler and Lyman W. Porter. ”Properties 0? Organization Structure in Relation to Job Attitudes and Job Behavior." in Ibid.. Readings in Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance. PP. “02-432} mg? the lates timover studies d there was zational existed f Dal that stat ‘ r: fair t$1h 50 Ingham. in a later survey. analyzed the results of the latest research findings on the relationship between turnover and organization size. He found that the few studies dealing with the topic were inconsistent.118 While there was a strong statistical relationship between organi- zational size and absenteeism. no significant relationship existed for turnover.11 9 A‘rufl-L-‘a‘Nr Dalton. in a study of managers in three plants. found that staff managers had a turnover rate that was two to swat . .4 “ four times as high as the turnover rate of line managers.120 The hypotheses in this section were developed to earmalyze the relationship between values and attitudinal measures for the aggregate sample of managers. All hy- j;><>theses involve testing the null hypothesis of no relation- ship between the values of managers whose values differ from the sample of managers as a whole. and the attitudinal Variables of Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. All ten values are used to test the hypotheses relating to this relationship. \ a. 118Geoffrey K. Ingham. Size of Industrial Organization “<1 Worker Behavior (Oxford: The Cambridge University re 880 1 9 pp. 3'25! 119Ibid. 120M. Dalton. "Conflicts Between Staff and Line Man- a“Serial Officers.” American Sociological Review. 1950. 12. 913- %2‘351 e «an. 51 Hypgthesis B-i through B-10 There is no significant relationship between man- agers whose value scores differ from other managers and Job Satisfaction for each of the following value factors: B1 Factor 1. Consideration B2 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation B3 Factor 3. Managerial Climate Bu Factor h. Risk Taking - Conservatism B5 Factor 5. Unionization B6 Factor 6. Paternalism B7 Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel B8 Factor 8. Social Responsibility B9 Factor 9. Member Equality B10 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority Hypothesis B-ii through B-20 There is no significant relationship between man- agers whose value scores differ from other managers and Propensity To Leave for each of the following value factors: B11 Factor 1. Consideration B12 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation B13 Factor 3. Managerial Climate Bin Factor #. Risk Taking - Conservatism B15 Factor 5. Unionization B16 Factor . Paternalism B17 Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel B18 Factor 8. Social ReSponsibility B19 Factor 9. Member Enuality B20 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority LAmitation of the Study In reviewing the results of this study. it must be remembered that a limited number of firms. largely from the midwest. served as the sample. No attempt was made to ex- Plore value differences in different sections of the coun- ‘try. In addition. while the response to the OVQ was gener- all? good. results may not be representative of all managers ‘ va‘hfl-n---1q‘ I r' ‘t. n In. Gal‘s-k- in the or classific: of this s 52 in the organization categories studied. or of the industry classifications in general. For these reasons. the results of this study should be regarded with caution. ml..- 0-. A r. .eneral ' —-.__ Study re statezen Felicies Hating t Eeluvi o] CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY fineral Overview of Procedure The Organizational Value Questionnaire used in this study required participants to respond to a series of statements describing various organizational practices and policies. A nine-point rating scale was provided for eval- uating the degree of desirability or undesirability of the behavior described in each statement. The OVQ was administered to managers from twelve firms. In addition. it was also administered to a group of managers participating in a continuing education program at Michigan State University. and to graduates of the Advanced Management (MBA) Program in Detroit. Michigan. A factor amail-Isis of the questionnaire responses yielded ten value factors. The first objective of this study was to attempt to analyze the relationship between the value factors. and an organization's structural characteristics. and system of Production technology. Seven of the ten value factors. along with four structural variables. and three technology ”Sterne. were used in this phase of the study. This served as the descriptive aspect of the research. A two-way 53 analysis tionships mm vs between ‘ 54 analysis of variance was carried out to analyze these rela- tionships.1 All ten of the value factors served as pre- dictor variables in an attempt to analyze the relationship between value scores. and an individual's attitude toward the Job and firm. The two attitudinal criterion measures used in the study were: Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. This part of the research was carried out using a one-way analysis of variance.2 In the following sections. the characteristics of the sample. the pilot study. the measures. the factor analysis. the analysis of variance. and the descriptive and predictive studies will be discussed in detail. The Sample The Organizational Value Questionnaire. Personal Data Questionnaire. and Attitudinal Scale. along with a letter of explanation was sent to each manager involved in the study. In most cases. a letter from a tOp management offi- cial supporting the study was included. A complete de- scription of all items sent to each manager is presented in Appendix I . 1Jeremy D. Finn. Multivariance - Univariate and _: {multivariate Anal sis of‘Variance. Covariance and REgres- BIon (Buffalo: Department of Educational Psychology. State tiniversity of New York at Buffalo. 1968). pp. 1-109. 21bid. 2?}; thirty cor: as possibl These fir: local rem eaieavors Director and a per stare of 91.21am: Out .3338 in t 152, "Ml the 39TH ”Sonnel firsnnn literals stated 3 55 The subJects. In the initial stages of the study. thirty companies. largely from the midwest. were contacted as possible candidates to participate in this project. These firms were selected because of their national or local reputations. and past interest in supporting research endeavors. A top executive. usually the Vice President or Director of Industrial Relations. was contacted by phone and a personal interview arranged. at which time. the nature of the research project and company involvement were explained. Out of these contacts. twelve firms chose to partici- pate in this study. Nine of the firms were in manufactur- ing. while two were involved in retailing. and one was in the service industry. Each firm supplied a list of all personnel who were considered members of management. from first-line supervisors to top management officials. All materials previously discussed were mailed. along with a stamped self-addressed return envelope. to each manager on the list. In addition. this material was also sent to all graduates of the Michigan State University Advanced Manage- ment Program (MBA Program) in Detroit. Michigan. and to participants in a Michigan State University Purchasing ‘Management Workshop held for the National Association of Purchasing Agents. 8 Because of the number of managers involved in the study. and the limitations of time and cost. no attempt was made to use individual interviews to gather information. or send a fol the first Tab‘. in the sa: this tau. and also. if ins tion the “$11 of 5 '4? Sallln‘ One Va lHes, 56 send a follow up letter to all those who did not respond to the first mailing. Table 1 indicates the responses of all the managers in the sample to the material sent out. An inspection of this table reveals that the majority of managers surveyed. and also. the largest number to return data. were members of firms in the manufacturing category. In this classifica- tion the responses ranged from a low of 33.1 per cent to a high of 56.3 per cent. In view of the fact that no follow up mailing was undertaken. the total managerial response of 39.5 per cent was considered to be a favorable reply. Table 2 describes the composition of the total sample of managers according to the four organizational structural variables used in this study. These variables were taken from the Personal Data Questionnaire. The table indicates that most of the managers responding were from medium. and large size firms. The respondents appear to be fairly diversified with respect to the other organizational vari- ables. One of the main purposes of this research effort was to explore the effects of structure and technology on ‘values. In view of this. only responses of managers from firms in the manufacturing classification were utilized in the descriptive aspect of the study. Table 3 illustrates the responses of the sample of managers. according to the four organizational structural variables. and three systems of production technology used Catego: Firm I Rise. Tota Retailln Firm J Firm K Tota SeWises HlSc Tote 57 Table 1 Categorical Frequencies of Responses for the Sample of Managers by Industry and Firm Managers Number Percentage Category Surveyed Responding Responding Manufacturing Firm A 12 6 50.0% Firm B 28 1a 50.0% Firm 0 12a #1 33.1% Firm D 320 132 01.3% Firm E 152 51 33.6% Firm F 183 70 33.3% Firm G 136 ug 36.0% Firm H 50 18 36.0% Firm I 190 107 56.3% Misc. Mfg.* 191 _81’ #2.h% Total 1.386 569 #1.1% Retailing Firm J 21” #8 22.4% Firm K 7” #6 62.1% Total 288 94 32.6% Services Firm L 105 39 37.1% Misc. Services** 90 36 “0.0% Total 195 75 38-5% Grand Total 1.869 738 39.5% *This category includes responses of managers from the continuing education and advanced management programs Michigan State. ‘**This category includes managers from banking. C.P.A.. and food service firms. at Categaz of Fame Crganizai ‘- Slze of 1 Small Hedi“ large 30 Lift Totai E‘rntq - It... i. .om Produc' Xarket ACCoun' Parson Flirting Aimini 2nzine late p ifiSear Cther 2‘0 Inf Tota T7439 0? Line Staff 30th 30 In! Tota 58 Table 2 Categorical Frequencies of Responses for the Sample of Managers According to Structural Characteristics Organizational Structural Number in Percentage Variable Category in Category Size of Firm (No. of Employees) Small 0 - 250 22 3.0 Medium 251 - 1.000 262 35.5 Large 1.000 and over 352 47.7 No Information 102 13.8 Total 738 100.0% Functional Area Production* 160 21.7 Marketing** 116 15.7 Accounting-Finance 9h 12.? Personnel 29 3-9 Purchasing 62 8.0 Administration*** 60 8.? Engineering 5“ 7.3 Data Processing 21 2.8 Research and Development #9 6.7 Other 66 9.0 No Information 23 3.1 Total 738 100.0% Type of Position Line 230 31.1 Staff 290 39.3 Both 169 22.9 No Information #9 6.7 Total 738 100.0% Organizational Level Top Management (President. Vice Presidents. Upper Management) 89 12.1 Middle Management 224 30.h Supervision (Lower Manage- ment and First Line Management) #02 5n.u 'No Information 23 3.1 Total 738 100.0% "This ma; ”This and “This 59 Table 2 (cont'd.) *This category includes production control and scheduling managers. ”*This category includes advertising. marketing research. and sales managers. ***This category includes office and clerical managers. a: (Caurk‘uk ruxi : l a“- OHhflith. 60 mooa nma «ooa oaa mooa moa oaopoa :.oa ma N.m an w.m ma GOapmshowsH oz d.w m m.aa cu :.m« 3N vacanoaoboo can schoonom 3.N m m.a m o.« N wsdmmooonm mama :.o« ma :.m 0H n.m 0H wsaaoosdwsm o.: m e.~ e m.n ea tatsoapoapoasaso< m. a n.o Ha a.m o wsammsohsm #.N m Hod N. don 0 Hméomhom o.~H n« H.: m n.m we oososamnmndvcsooo< o.« N m.m ma a.m~ a: atweapoaaoz o.oa mo o.ma me n.- ma escapoaeoaa mend Hmcoapossm .N Road nma mood cud mood nod cameos o o o o o o coaumshomsH oz o o o.ooa oaa e.mo «ma owaoq o.ooa mwa o o m.m~ mm asset: o o o o a.m 0 Hanan sham ho swam .a usoonom nonssz astound Ampssz psooaom nonssz mmooona sodposoOHa new: nopom oapmdaopomnmno can nopmm swung Hamem ens pass Hmhsposaum hwoaosgooa soauoseonm mo aopmam wsaasoao HooamOHOQSoos ens caumanopooaono Honsuoshpm on wsaeaoood anemone: msaaspomussoz ho aflasdm as» you momsoamom no moaososuoam Hsoahowouoo n canoe 61 .mhowssma Hmcdhoao ens scammo moosHosa anowopso manattt .mhowmcoa modem can .soumonon wcapoxhsa .msamauuoseo moosaosd ahowopao manatt .maowsssa wsdflsoonom sodposoona use Hahunoo scauosooha moosaosd showcase ease: aooa mma aooa oaa ROOH moa masses 2.0a ma v.5 ma m.m 0H sodpsshomsH oz m.mo ow m.am mm 0.0m :aa sodmashoasm ~.oa am n.0m me a.n~ as ocoaomaeoz oHooaz o.a m 5.: m m.m :« psosowmso: ace Hoboq Hmcoapsuasmmno .2 moo” mNH nooa omH nooa mod manpos ~.HH 2H N.m ea m.w 0H sodposnomsH oz m.pa HN m.ma mm m.mm ma spom p.5m a: m.mm om m.am Na ceopm a.em me a.am so a.mm mm osaq scapfiwoa mo maaa .m psooaom nopssz patched sopasz unooaoa hopssz mmocoam godposeohm woo: sopsm udumdaopoohogo one nopom swung Hanan one pass Hmhsposhum awoaosnooa soaposooaa mo sopmam A.U.vnoov m OHQOB 62 in the descriptive study. An examination of this table re- veals that the sample of managers. with the exception of the categories of firm size. and organizational level. and the functional areas of production and marketing. are fairly representative across the three technology classifi- cations. The three firms making up the large batch and mass production classification were all large-size com- panies. On the other hand. the two firms comprising the process production group were both medium—sized firms. The responses of the managers from the two process firms were almost solely composed of middle and lower level management members. This is in contrast with the other two classifications. where the distribution of responses by or- ganizational level was fairly representative. In the functional classification. except for produc- tion and marketing managers. all responses were fairly distributed across technological levels. Production man- agers were predominately found in the large-batch and mass production categories. while the majority of marketing man- agers were located in the unit and small batch category. The firms. Table h describes the manufacturing firms according to their system of production technology. The table follows the classification system established by Joan Woodward in which she identified three primary technological 63 Table 4 Categorical Responses of Manufacturing Managers According to Firm and System of Production Technology Production Technology Category Unit and Small Batch Firm A 6 Firm B in Firm C 141 Firm D 132 Total 193 Large Batch and Mass Production Firm E 51 Firm F 70 Firm G #9 Total 170 Process Production Firm H 18 Firm I 107 Total 125 Grand Total 3:01 I} ‘0 RS ‘- syste was i S c ‘s P. i \he ‘ 6h systems of production.3 It also includes the total re- sponses of managers from each firm and category. A top executive of each firm in the manufacturing sample was contacted and asked to determine according to the Woodward classification. which category of technology was the primary one utilized by his company. This informa- tion was used to place the following firms in one of the three primary technological categories. Firm A. located in a large midwestern city. is a modern. high production. creative stamper and manufacturer of pressed metal parts and assemblies. It provides engi- neering and creative design services. as well as precision stamping. Firm B is also located in a large midwestern city. It manufactures suspension springs for the automotive in- dustry from raw steel. Its primary products are springs. stabilizer bars and torsion bars. Firm C. located in the same city. is one of the coun- try's leading designers and builders of vertical transpor- tation equipment. It designs. engineers. builds and in- stalls both traction and hydraulic elevators. Firm D. located in the midwest. is a large. modern firm. that manufactures actuator and control products. It 3Joan Woodward. Industrial Organization: Theor and Practice (London: Oxford University Press. 1935). PP. - TRY—— ’v.‘ 3.4 ‘0‘ SCI '1 (I) I" {I 65 produces electronic. hydraulic and pneumatic controls. in- strumentation and weighing systems. Firms E and F are two midwestern plants of a large. national. home appliance manufacturer. These firms are located in different cities and manufacture different product lines. The primary products of Firm E are stoves. refrigerators. and dishwashers. Firm F manufactures home and commercial air conditioners. and home and coin operated clothes dryers. Firm G is a large firm located in the eastern United States. It is one of the leading firms in the design and manufacturing of home and industrial power tools. Firms H and I are both petroleum refineries. repre- senting different national companies. Firm H is located in the eastern part of the country. Firm I is located in a large midwestern city. The pilot study. A pilot administration of the materials discussed in the previous chapter was carried out using the six managers from Firm A. These managers. as a group. were told the purpose and scope of the study. and were given an explanation of all material presented to them. Those managers who chose to participate in the project were individually interviewed after they had completed and returned all material. In the interview. the instructions. form. and content of the ques- tionnaires were discussed. The sole purpose of this pilot sndy center azers ,0 00:}: 66 study was to determine the clarity of the instructions. and content of the questionnaires. The interview with the man- agers brought to light the fact that the original instruc- tions were not clear on the OVQ. As originally stated. the instructions asked each manager to evaluate a list of items describing behavior within organizations. in terms of what was poor or good. Through the pilot study. it was found that managers looked at the questions in terms of whether the statement was true for their firm or not. In the re- vised instructions. the managers were told not to evaluate whether or not the statement was true for their company. but to assume it was a true statement about behavior or conditions existing within some organization. They were also asked to evaluate the degree to which they felt the behavior or condition was desirable or undesirable. The revised OVQ and all other materials were then sent to the sample of managers previously identified. The Measures The measures used in this study were the ten values extracted from the factor analysis of the Organizational Value Questionnaire. and the two attitude variables of Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. taken from responses to the Attitudinal Scale. The ten values were: 1. Consideration 2. Competition and Exploitation the SC we: 1‘41 0““ 3. U. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. The 6? Managerial Climate Risk Taking - Conservatism Unionization Paternalism Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel Social Reaponsibility Member Equality Executive Status and Authority attitude measures used in this study consisted of the scores of managers to two attitudinal scales. They were Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. The three following items were used as a measure of all individual's job satisfaction: 1. 2. 3. Two How well do you like your job: How much chance does your job give you to do the things you like best: How good a job does your immediate superior do in dealing with people. items were used to measure the likelihood that an 1rudividual might leave an organization. These were: 1. 2. A five-point rating scale was developed for each ques- Which of the following statements best represents your general attitude about staying with your present company: What are your plans in regard to staying with your company. t1on. Each reapondent was asked to place a check mark next 't:c> one of the five statements ranging from very little to §z'y much. Individual scores for the two measures were obtain. itezs ‘ b . at»! tux: W‘1v! (7 (I: .‘H’ r) DJI- 68 obtained by totaling the subjects responses to all the items in each subscale. A complete description of the Attitudinal Scale is presented in Appendix I. Analytical Techniques The factor analysis. Factor analysis is one of a , - r '- d," I number of statistical techniques which have been developed to handle problems involving a large number of variables.“ Basically. it is an approach which can be used to locate a Ff...- ‘ : l w“ ;, smaller number of dimensions. or factors (both terms are used synonomously in this study) contained in a larger set of independent items or variables. Underlying the use of factor analysis is the concept that. when there are a large number of items or variables which are intercorrelated. there may be one or more under- lying variables or factors which cause measures to be corre- lated.5 One of the purposes of factor analysis then. is to enable a researcher to see whether some underlying pattern of relationships exists such that the data under study may be reduced or rearranged to a smaller set of factors. which may account for the observed interrelations in the data.6 “Hubert M. Blalock. Social Statistics (New York: McGraw—Hill Company. 1960). pp. 333-391. 5Jum C. Nunnally. Ps chometric Theor (New York: McGraw-Hill Company. Inc.. 1 . pp. - 90. Also check. H. H. Harman. Modern Factor Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1967). 61b1de. pp. 301-3060 are a atteu stud: DORE} \llg) 3—4 I 1! (7‘ LI’ 69 Several different types of factor analysis programs are available.7 The factor analysis program used. in an attempt to match as closely as possible the factor analysis study of Rizzo previously discussed. was a principal com- ponents solution with an attached varimax rotation.8 The purpose of rotation is "to obtain a set of factors which _ .‘ah' have the property that any given factor will be fairly highly correlated with some of the items but uncorrelated with the rest.”9 This enables one to identify a factor II, 1... m-u‘muemflu-m‘ .mq-‘i . I 4 l with one of the clusters of items making up the set of factors. In the program used. the researcher has a choice of specifying the initial communality estimates. It was «decided to use squared multiple correlations as the initial communality estimates.10 The intercorrelations of item re- sbonses yielded a 1’43 x 1143 matrix. The factor analysis of the OVQ responses yielded ten meaningful factors. A complete description of the factors. ‘ 7W. J. Dixon. Biomedical Computer Programs x-series Su lement (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1 9 . pp. 90-99. 8Nunnally. 22. 313.. pp. 308-355. 9Bla1ock. 22. 313.. pp. Ban-386. loNunnally. 22. 315.. pp. 3&8-355. In addition. this manner of estimating initial communalities was recommended by Dr. R. Tucker. from the Department of Communication. at Bowling Green State University. ltezs Aft-n1 deMfi m t '3‘: t O . .ech MN i.‘ . ‘Is' I) p. \l ) 70 items. and factor loadings is presented in Table 5. The complete results of the factor analysis are presented in Chapter III. Analysis of variance. Analysis of variance is a technique by which we can measure the significance of the difference between several means at once. It enables one to determine whether two or more samples are taken from the same or different populations.11 The concept underlying the analysis of variance test is the idea that part of the total variation in any sample is a result of variation Within category means (referred to as unexplained variance). and part is due to variation between category means (re- fexmed to as explained variance).12 In general. the usual hypotheses is the null hypotheses of no difference or re- lationship between sample means. that is. all means are eQual. This is usually expressed as. Ho:u1=u2=-°°=uk.13 Ir! a two variable or factor model. we must also be con- cerned with interaction between the factors. In this situ- 3tion. we must test three hypotheses of equal means: for 001umn means. row means. and interaction means.1u 11Blalock. pp. cit.. pp. 202-246. 12Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Anal sis (New York: McGraw-Rill Company. 9 pp. 1 -1 e 13Ya-Lun Chou. Statistical Analysis (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc.. 1966). pp. h01-u05. luBlalock. pp. ppp.. pp. 257-258. 71 The estimation of the significance of the difference between the various means was carried out by means of the F ratio. This test is the ratio of the between mean vari- ance to the within mean variance and is the test used in an analysis of variance study.15 When there was a significant difference and the null hypothesis of no relationship could be rejected. the Scheffe test for multiple comparisons was used to determine which contrasts were responsible. This statistical procedure tests the equality of the category means and reveals whether there are significant differences between them.16 .The>Descriptive Study The purpose of the descriptive study was to analyze tdle relationship between value factor scores. and an organ- ization's structural characteristics. and system of produc- tion technology. Seven of the ten value factors resulting from the factor analysis were used as dependent variables in the f'Ormulation of null hypotheses relating to this relation- Sltip. The four organizational structural variables used as independent variables were: size. managerial level. line 15Ibid.. pp. 158-160. 16George Ferguson. Statistical Anal sis in P8 cholo and Education (New York: McCraw-HIII Company. I956i. pp. S96- . an i iam C. Guenther. Analysis of Variance (Engle- wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 196E). pp. 5&559. A ”-H'q .‘ and It? 72 and staff positions. and functional work area. These items were taken from responses to the Personal Data Question- naire. The technological variables used as independent variables in this study were Woodward's three types of pro- duction technology (unit and small-batch. large-batch and mass production. and process) previously discussed. The above relationships were analyzed through the application of a two-classification analysis of variance method. In this approach. managers were categorized on the basis of the two characteristics of structure and tech- nolcgy. The Specific program employed to carry out the de- scriptive study was the Finn: Univariate and Multivariate Asualysis of Variance. Covariance. and Regression.17 The results of the descriptive study are presented in Chapter III. 215g Predictive Study The purpose of the predictive study was to analyze the relationship between the value scores of managers and a1:‘t:itudinal measures toward the job and firm. in an attempt ‘to utilize values to aid in the prediction of individual attitudes in organizations. In an attempt to achieve this objective. the rela- tionship between the value scores of managers whose values ¥ 17Finn. pp. cit.. pp. 1-109. '77—- I; ‘ ,-. ““1 ‘et 4 73 differed from the aggregate sample of managers. and their scores on the two attitudinal variables. was analyzed. The attitude variables were separated into three categories. These classifications were determined by first computing the means and standard deviations for the aggregate sample of managers for each attitude variable. and then determining the high and low groups as those that were greater than. plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. All of the ten values resulting from the factor analy- sis were used as predictor variables in testing the hypoth- eses developed in this phase of the research. These relationships were analyzed through the method of analysis of variance. which was described in the section dealing with the analytical techniques. As was previously discussed. a two—way analysis of variance design was uti- lized in the descriptive study. In carrying out the pre- d1<>mponents solution with an attached varimax rotation.1 SQJlared multiple correlations were used as initial commu- Iuility estimates.2 1W. J. Dixon. Biomedical Computer Programs X-series 3“ lement (Berkeley: ’University of California Press. 0 pp. 90-990 2This method of estimating initial communality esti- mates was recommended by Dr. Raymond Tucker. from the De- Dartment of Communication at Bowling Green State University. See also: Jum C. Nunnally. Ps chometric Theor (New York: McGraw-Hill Company. Inc.. 1 . pp. - . 7n ._ I. 71.11“ 5' .. 75 The factor analysis yielded ten dimensions. which ac- counted for 25.“ per cent of the variance. These ten factors are presented in the order of their extraction in Table 5. along with their high loading items. Table 5 also indicates the final items selected to score factors from along all the high loading items. The complete factor structure. along with the final communalities. is presented in Appendix III. Factor scorigg. The items selected to represent a factor served as the basis for the computation of factor scores. A factor score is the sum of an individual's re- sponses to the items selected to represent a factor. They are taken from the individual's responses on the OVQ rating scale for each item in question.3 A high factor score wcnuld be an indication of general agreement with the be- hevvior described by each factor's items. while a low factor score is an indication of general disagreement. The following procedure was utilized to determine the 1-tems used to represent and score the ten value factors: 1. All items that were not complex in nature and having a loading size equal to or greater than .28 were determined. A complex item was con- sidered to be an item that either loaded high on 3John Rizzo. Value Dimensions. Value Commitments and In-Basket Performance of Business Students (Columbus: Ohio State University. Ph.D. Thesis. 1964). p. 28. Also see Nunnally. 220 21—20. ppe 355-3610 76 Table 5 The Ten Value Factors With Their Headings. Items Used to Score Them and Item Size Item Loading Item Description Factor 1: Consideration 88 .513 Ezecutives look out for the welfare of the individual employees. 115 .“85 Executives make employees feel at ease when talking to them. 67 .“66 The firm realizes that all workers have occasional bad days. 50 .“5“ The firm is sympathetic with the per- sonal worries of its employees. 89 .“50 The firm's policies are based on the belief that happy employees are pro- ductive employees. 127* .“06 Executives put suggestions by em- ployees into Operation. 11.6 .396 Executives get approval from their assistants on important matters before going ahead. 7’5** .376 Executives find a good deal of time to listen to employees. 129 .352 The firm helps the employee plan his future. Factor 2: Competition and Egploitation 61 .580 The firm takes advantage of loopholes in laws which restrict it. 80 .“79 Because of Special favors they have received. the police force gives the firm extra protection. 93 .“39 The firm uses high pressure marketing tactics. 77 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 25 .“3“ The firm has the right political con- nection. 105 .“32 The firm will absorb a competitor if it can. 128 .“29 The firm makes it rough for competi- tors. '91 .398 The firm uses every means to avoid paying taxes. 12“ .391 The firm's advertising policy is: if it's legal. it's ethical. 66 .366 The firm capitalizes on the conditions of the economy in times of distress. 85* .360 In order to compete effectively. the firm violates some anti-trust laws. 13“ .329 The firm tries to recruit top per- sonnel from its competitors. 52 .321 Executives use firm-owned cars for personal business. 82“ .31“ The firm takes big risks to beat its competitors. 1233 .285 The firm is managed by a small group who own most of the stock. F. atctor :2: Managerial Climate 101 .“73 Employees feel that the way the firm is run is no concern of theirs. 17 .“70 Executives sometimes pad their expense accounts. 78 .“60 The firm has occasionally violated some state laws. “1‘; "" 78 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 13? .“36 The executive in the firm who is a smart manipulator is more likely to get ahead. 28 .“2“ The workers in the firm consider management uncooperative. 106 .“05 Older employees discourage new ideas. 63 .“01 Executives refuse to explain their actions. 72 .392 The wives of executives are influen- tial in the firm. 120 .386 Lower level executives really run the firm. 118 .383 Occasionally an employee has to cover up for the actions of his superior. 119*** .376 The firm has a narrow profit margin. “8 .36“ A firm does what is best for itself regardless of whom or what it hurts. 1“3 .35“ Managers openly criticize poor work of employees. 37 .325 Executives openly criticize poor work to lower level managers. ““ .323 The union in the firm limits the number of workers allowed on the job. 1“0 .320 Executives speak in a manner not to be questioned. 77 .319 The firm gets rid of undesirables by putting them in jobs they cannot do. “2 .317 The firm will keep almost any employee who puts in a full day's work. “5 .317 The firm has a noisy plant that disturbs local residents. _ ' .. ; Min-.3." 79 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 8 .316 Length of service in the firm is the principal qualification for promotion. 30*** .300 Many unnecessary free services are given to customers. r. 33 .282 Many ideas of top management differ from those of middle management. Factor “: Risk Taking — Conservatism “O .“68 The firm takes big chances and some- times makes the wrong decision. “ 110 .“52 The firm urges everyone to follow the organization chart. 92 .“12 The firm is always very cautious in making changes. . 82** .“O“ The firm takes big risks to beat its competitors. 126 .365 The firm will not promote an employee who neglects his family. 13 .363 The firm has all employees punch a time clock. “7 .360 A firm does not hire individuals who are radical in their beliefs. 26 .312 The firm insists that each employee carry hOSpitalization insurance. Factor 5: Unionization 65 .579 The firm uses all legal means to weaken unions. 142 .505 The firm's management is opposed to a closed shop. 12 .50“ Workers in the firm have never unionized. 80 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 58 -.“11 The firm urges all employees to join the union. 53* .283 The firm often blames the union for declining profits. Factor 6: Paternalism 6“ -.“11 The firm transfers few executives to minimize moving established homes. 57 -.367 When work is slack. hours and weekly pay are reduced rather than lay off anyone. “9* .359 The firm forces retirement on those over 650 112 -.359 The firm is lenient in lending money to its employees. 6* -.302 The firm would like to provide em- ployees with company housing. 132 -.283 The firm emphasizes individual achieve- ment rather than achievement as a team member. Factor 2: Concern for Qualit of Products and ersonne 39 .577 The firm employs full time medical personnel. 136 .5“2 The firm has a scholarship plan for the employees' children. 117*** .5“1 The firm has representatives in all states soliciting business. 16 .“78 High quality of product is emphasized. 11“ .“53 The firm has an elaborate quality control system. 81 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 35 .““6 The firm has a recreational program for its employees and their families. 130*** .“27 The firm is attempting to become the largest in its field. 29 .“O“ The firm has a system whereby pay fluctuates according to the cost of living index. “1 .389 The firm pays the highest wages in the community. 71 .375 The firm pushes research even though it may have no immediate practical benefit. “6 .371 The firm is constantly trying to raise the employee's pride in the firm. 107*** .369 The firm solicits contracts from all sources. government included. 15 .335 The firm makes a continuing heavy investment in employee training. 2“ .321 The firm is extremely particular in checking every detail of the finished product. Factor 8: Social Responsibility 21 .“98 The firm attempts to aid in solving international problems. 11 .“16 The firm backs aid to foreign coun- tries. 10“* .299 The firm frequently sponsors programs to raise the cultural level of the community. 8“* .275 Many managers are very active in civic activities. 82 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description Factorp9: Member Eguality 32*** .“72 Executives are frequently transferred from one position to another. “*** .“61 Executives in the firm are rotated from one job to another. 19 .“36 Executives avoid any display of authority. 18 .“22 Executives treat all the employees as their equals. 125* .300 Employees are on a first name basis with their superiors. 75** .293 Executives find a good deal of time to listen to employees. 1 .275 Each employee is put on his own. Factor 10: Executive Status and Authority 97 -.391 Executives receive bonuses. 55 -.385 Executives are required to set definite standards of performance for subordinates. 111* -.3““ Executives emphasize meeting deadlines. 51*** -.3“3 The firm prefers hiring college grad- uates rather than persons with less education. 100 -.331 The executives of the firm have more comfortable working conditions than the office staff. 59*** -.31“ The firm's management is composed of a group of upperclass families in the community. 9“ -.31“ Executives see to it that everyone is working at capacity. 33 Table 5 (cont'd.) Item Loading Item Description 2 -.295 The board of directors holds the presi- dent solely responsible for the success of the firm. 73 -.269 The firm stresses the importance of the job to be done more than the person who does it. *This indicates an item that was a complex item. that is. it loaded high on two factors. It normally would not be used to describe a factor. but because of its special value in relating to the behavior described by the other items on the factor in question. it was used only on that fB-Ctor o *‘This is a special situation. like the above. but where the item is used on two factors because its meaning contributes to both equally well. ***This indicates an item that was deleted from the list of items used to score the factor in question because of its divergence from the general behavior described by the other items. All other items were used to score the factor in question. 8“ two or more factors. or was not at least .10 greater than its next highest value. if it had a value greater than .28 and only loaded high on “ The item cutoff size of .28 was one factor. chosen because at this point there was a sharp drop in the loading size of the remaining items. 2. These selected items along with their loading size and description were listed in columns cor- responding to the factors. 3. The complete factor structure was then reviewed once more. and. in a few special situations. a complex item (as defined above) was added to the list of items for a particular factor or factors. This occurred where an item either contributed significantly to the interpretation of two factors and was listed under both. or where it was listed only under one factor even though it loaded on several because of its relevance to the behaviors described by the other items making up that factor. “. Items with signs opposing the predominant sign of a factor were reflected. Reflection involves l"This method of eliminating or reducing factor com- plexity was recommended by Dr. Raymond Tucker. from the De- partment of Communication at Bowling Green State University. For additional information on factor loadings. see: Nunnally. 22. 2133.. pp. 355-361. sul the the size int 88.1 f8: 50 Th 85 subtracting the actual rating given an item from the number of scale steps plus one.5 In terms of this study. each item whose loading on a factor bore a sign opposite to the predominant sign of the other items on that factor was subtracted from ten. This procedure enables one to treat complete disagreement with a negative statement. the same as complete agreement with a positive statement.6 This technique serves to clarify the interpretation of a factor score as a measure of agreement or disagreement with the content of the factors.7 5. The final step consisted of algebraically summing the responses for each subject on the items selected for each factor. The means and standard deviations of the 1“3 items Ikactor analyzed using the sample of 738 business managers is presented in Appendix IV. Theyprocedure for identifying factors. After the list of items corresponding to each factor was determined. a study was undertaken to identify the behaviors described by the items and to develop factor headings. Ten faculty k 5uunn311y, Ibid.. pp. 532-5330 61bid.. p. 533. 7Rizzo. pp. cit.. p. 29. 86 members from Bowling Green State University and Michigan State University representing the areas of Production Man- agement. Organizational Development. Industrial Psychology. Organization Theory. and Communication took part in this study. Their comments were taken into consideration in determining final factor headings and descriptions of be- havior described by each factor. Comparison of the factor analysis results with those of the earlier study. One of the purposes of this research effort was to compare the results of the factor analysis of business manager responses to the OVQ with those achieved by Rizzo in his earlier study. In Rizzo's study. which was previously discussed in Chapter I. the original OVQ was ad- lninistered to a sample of college students and yielded fourteen value factors. Factor 1. named Consideration. appears to be a com- lxination of Rizzo's Factor A (Organization Supervision and Structure) and Factor G (Consideration). Five of the first 81:: high loading items on Factor 1 (items 88. 115. 67. 89 and 12?) load relatively high on Factor A. All of these items. along with item 116 from Factor G and the remaining items of Factor 1. describe general supervisory and organi- zational policies and practices which indicate a concern for member needs and welfare. They also indicate a sup- Portive. employee centered leadership style. A8 such. 87 Factor 1 appears to be a purer factor relating to member consideration than the previous factors. A or G. Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation. is clearly reflective of Factor B (also called Competition and Ex- ploitation). Six of the fourteen items making up Factor 1 (61. 25. 105. 128. 91 and 66) are high loading items on Factor B. The items comprising this factor describe a series of activities of organizations and individuals which indicate highly competitive or exploitive behavior. They appear to be a purer and stronger measure of these behaviors than the original Factor. Managerial Climate. the third factor. seems to result from a combination of items originally loading on Factors A. B. F. G and N. These items relate to general leadership and organizational practices relative to the use of formal authority and control. along with a stress on management rights. to influence behavior. This appears to be a new dimension since none of the original factors clearly measured the behaviors described by this factor. Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism. seems to be a combination of Factors E (Change vs Conservatism) and K (Organizational Risk Taking). Items “0 and 92 from Factor E. and 82 and “7 from Factor K. load high on this dimension. These. and the other items making up Factor “. describe or- ganizational practices and policies which indicate risk taking or conservative behavior tendencies. 88 Unionization. Factor 5. looks to be a stronger and clearer indicator of values toward unionization than the original Factor D (Attitude Toward Unionization). Three of the five items making up this factor (65. 12 and 53) loaded relatively high on Factor D. The inclusion of the other two items (1“2 and 58) make this factor a more positive indication of practices of organizations towards unions that would be considered negative in general. The Sixth Factor. Paternalism. describes organiza- tional practices and policies that are highly paternalistic in nature. The items making up this factor did not load on the original Paternalism factor but were found to be scattered over several other factors. This dimension ap- pears to be a more lucid measure of paternalistic behavior than the original factor. Concern for Qualipy of Products and Personnel. the seventh Factor. is a good reproduction of Factor I (Quality of Products and Personnel). There is a great deal of over- lap between the items making up the factor. Seven of the eleven items comprising Factor 7 (136. 117. 16. 11“. 15 and 2“) were high loading items on Factor I. The items as a whole describe activities of firms relating to a concern for product quality and quality in personnel services. Social Reaponsibilipy. Factor 8. describes organiza- tional policies and practices relating to involvement in local. national. and international affairs. Two of the items making up this factor (21 and 10“) load high on 89 Factor H (also named Social Responsibility). The items in general appear to be a purer measure of this value than the original factor. Factor 9. Member Enuality. has many of the character- istics of Factor F (Member Equality and Freedom From Con- trol). The five items making up this factor are all high loading items on Factor F. These items describe organiza- tional and managerial practices relating to treating em- ployees as equals. It seems to be a better expression of these behaviors than the earlier dimension in that it is free of items pertaining to control or authority over em- ployee lives or performance. Executive Status and Authority. the tenth Factor. closely relates to those aspects of Factor A (Organization Supervision and Structure) that pertain to a stress on standards and meeting deadlines (items 55 and 111). and those aspects of Factor M (Work Emphasis and Initiative) that appertain to a stress on the job being done (items 97 and 73). The remaining items pertain to the status given executive positions. This factor thus describes general organizational and managerial work practices which largely refer to a stress on the task and performance standards. and indicates special status distinctions for executives. In general. the factor structure resulting from this study appears to be a meaningful one. Many of the factors which emerged were replications of the factors developed in 90 the Rizzo study. and in most cases could be considered to be clearer versions of most of them. In addition. the analysis yielded several factors which were combinations of previous factors. These new factors were clearly inter- pretable and appear to be meaningful measures of the be- haviors described. Factor intercorrelations. The intercorrelation of the value factors yielded a 10 x 10 correlation matrix. These intercorrelations are presented in Table 6. In general. the factor dimensions appear to have maintained excellent factor score independence with each other as the number of correlations between factors was low. The highest correlation in the matrix was between Consideration and Factor 7. Concern For Quality of Products and Personnel (.“9). Factors 8 and 9 (Social Responsibil- l5! and Member Enuality). along with Factor 7. tend to form a positive cluster with Consideration. Since Factors 1. 7 and 9 all deal with the concern for and treatment of organ- ization members. this positive relationship is understand- able. However. the association between Factor 1 and Social Responsibility is less clear. It appears that individuals scoring high on the value of Consideration toward members tend to have a high concern for Social Responsibility. The relationship between Consideration and Factor 3 (Managerial Climate) is noteworthy. Factor 3 is negatively correlated (-.29) with Factor 1. It seems that managers who score 91 Table 6 Intercorrelations of Factor Scores W Factor Title Factor 1 3 u 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. 9. 10. Consid- oration Competi- tion and Exploi- tation Manage— rial Climate Risk Tak- ing - Conser- vatism Unioni- zation Paternal— ism Concern for Quality of Prod- ucts and Personnel Social Responsi- bility Member Enuality Executive Status and Author- ity -.29 .111: .16 .25 .21 .07 .39 .18 .19 .1“ .2“ .26 .“9 -.12 -.23 .03 .07 .33 -003 -.22 .17 .02 .10 .37 .37 -.03 -.0“ .03 -.02 .12 .18 .07 .11 .2“ -.05 .16 .18 .01 .20 .19 .01 92 high on the Consideration dimension tend to disfavor a climate which stresses the use of authority and controls to influence behavior. Factor 2 (Competition and Exploitation) correlates positively with Factors 3 and 5. Managers who score high on Factor 2 thus appear to be favorably disposed toward the use of authority and controls to influence behavior. In addition. they tend to disfavor unionization (a high score on Factor 5 indicates a negative orientation toward unions). One other relationship appears to be meaningful. al- though difficult to explain. There is a fairly positive correlation (.37) between Factor 7 (Concern For Quality_g§ Products and Personnel) and Factor 8. All of the other factors kept relatively good independence between each other. In the next section. the ten values described in this section will be used to test hypotheses relating to the de- scriptive and predictive studies. Results of the Descriptive Study Overview. Because of the number of hypotheses to be tested. and the overall length of this chapter. a brief re- view of the purpose and design of the descriptive study is included here. The objective of the descriptive study was to analyze the relationship between value factor scores on selected 93 factors. four organizational structural characteristics. and three systems of production technology. Seven of the ten value factors were used to formulate hypotheses. Those values chosen were selected because they appeared to be most relevant to the literature on values and behavior. For some of the structural characteristics. six values are used instead of seven in the formulation of hypotheses. In any case. even though a value may not have been used to formulate a hypothesis. it was still included in the analy- sis of variance test. The four organizational structural characteristics selected for analysis were: (1) job position. (2) manage- rial level. (3) functional work area. and (“) firm size. Each of these structural characteristics. the hypotheses relating to them. and the results of the analysis are pre- sented as a separate subsection of the descriptive study. In addition. the main effect for the technology factor is presented as a separate subsection. The hypotheses in the descriptive study are tested by the method of analysis of variance. The following subsec- tion will briefly review the main asoects of this statisti- cal technique. Analysis of variance. The basic concepts of the analysis of variance approach were discussed in Chapter II. .Briefly. the descriptive study is undertaken using the two 9“ factors of structure and technology. As was pointed out in Chapter II. in any factorial experiment (a design with two or more factors) there are three hypotheses which must be tested. For each individual hypothesis in the descriptive study. then.the following three null hypotheses will be tested: (1)Hol : No relationship between the means of the various levels of Factor A (Structure) (2)Ho11 : No relationship between the means of the various levels of Factor B (Technology) (3)H0111: No interaction effects between Factors A and B. The results of the analysis of variance are given in 8 The the generally accepted analysis of variance table. resulting F test only enables us to determine whether or not a relationship exists between the variables under study; it does not reveal where the difference is. In order to determine which mean or means account for the significance. the Scheffe test for multiple comparisons was used through- out this study. This statistical procedure tests the equality of the category means and reveals whether there are significant differences between them.9 8Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Anal sis (New York: McGraw-HiII Company. I9397. PP. 1 -1 . so see: Hubert M. Blalock. Social Egatistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Company. 1960). pp. 252- 71. 9George Ferguson. Statistical Analysis in P8 cholo and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Company. 1966). pp. 290-2580 95 The organizational_§ystem of production technology utilized. The systems of production technology analyzed were: (1) unit and small batch production. (2) large batch and mass production. and (3) process production. A note of explanation is necessary at this point in order to clarify why the main effect for technology is being analyzed first. While there are four structural characteristics being analyzed as separate subsections. the technology factor does not change for any of them. This means that the effects of technology. once analyzed for the first structural characteristic (job position). need not be analyzed again. except in the Special case where a value that bordered on being significant in the original analysis becomes significant because of changed sample size. or. in the situation where interaction between factors is present. Because of this. a discussion of the main effects for tech- nology appeared to be the best way to help the reader follow the overall analysis. The hypotheses for the first structural characteris- tic (Job Position) and Technology are presented in the sub- section dealing with the main effects for Job Position: they will not be repeated here. In the analysis of the relationship between Job Posi- tion. Technology and values. we can reject the null hy- pothesis of no relationship between Consideration and Tech- nology. Table 7 indicates that the relationship between 96 Consideration and Technology is highly significant at the .0001 level. Table 8 indicates that a highly significant relation- ship exists between managers from the large batch and mass production group. and Consideration. The comparison be- tween the unit and small batch group. and the large batch and mass production group was highly significant at the significance level of .001. The comparison between the large batch and mass production group. and the process group was also highly significant. but at the level of .01. The results explicitly indicate that the large batch and mass production group of managers scored significantly higher on the value of Consideration than either process. or unit and small batch managers. The outcome of the F test for the value of Comppti- tion and Exploitation is given in Table 9. We can reject the hypothesis of no relationship between Competition and Exploitation and Technology. There is a highly significant relationship at the level of .005 between the value of 2227 petition and Exploitation and Technology. The outcome of the comparisons test given in Table 10 signifies that there is a highly significant relationship between the unit and small batch group of managers and Egg- petition and Exploitation. The comparison between the unit and small batch and process groups was highly significant at the significance level of .01. This denotes that 97 managers from the unit and small batch technology group score significantly higher on the value of Competition and Exploitation than do managers from the process production group. While we cannot reject the hypothesis relating to the value of Managerial Climate. we can reject the hypothesis for the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism. Table 11 shows that there is a highly significant relationship at the level of .019 between Technology and this value. Table 12 discloses that there is a significant rela- tionship between large batch and mass production managers and the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism. The compari- son between the large batch and mass production. and process production groups was significant at the signifi- cance level of .05. The findings show that large batch and mass production managers score significantly higher on this dimension than do managers from process production. Hypothesis number five. for Social Reaponsibilipy. can not be rejected. However. the last hypothesis for Position and Technology dealing with the value of Executive Status and Authority can be rejected for the hypothesis of no interaction and for technology. However. when inter- actions are present in a factorial experiment. usually the best factor combinations. rather than the best levels of a factor become the primary concern.10 For this reason the 10Dixon and Massey. pp. cit.. pp. 17“-180. 98 main effect for technology will not be discussed under position. but will be discussed under Management Level where no interaction is present. Inspection of Table 13 indicates that the interaction between Position and Tech- nology. and the value of Executive Status and Authority is highly significant at a level of .006. Table 1“ identifies the significant outcomes of the test of cell means. Inspection of this table reveals that there were thirteen significant interactions between cell means. There was significant interaction between the group of unit and small batch managers. and all three position groups of managers. Interaction was significant for the group of large batch and mass production managers. and both the staff group and combined line and staff group. No interaction was present between the process group of man- agers and the three job position groups. No particular ex- planation can be offered at this time for these interaction effects. The values discussed to this point were the six values around which the position and technology hypotheses were developed. In addition to these hypotheses. the analy- sis of variance was also carried out for the four values not involved in the generation of hypotheses. Three of these values. Unionization. Paternalism. and Member Equal- ;py. were found to have significant main effects on the Technology factor. These results will be discussed in the following paragraphs. 99 Table 15 reveals the findings of the F test on the value of Unionization. It shows that there is a highly significant relationship at the level of .0001 between 'Unionization and Technology. In the comparison of category means as pointed out in Table 16. there is a highly significant relationship be- tween the managers from the large batch and mass production group and Unionization. The relationship between the small batch group and Unionization is also highly significant. The comparison between large batch and mass production man- agers. and process managers. was highly significant at a level of .001. as was the comparison between that group and unit and small batch managers. In addition. the comparison between unit and small batch managers and process produc- tion managers was highly significant at the level of .01. The results clearly indicate that large batch and mass production managers score significantly higher on the value of Unionization than either of the other two groups. The unit and small batch group of managers also scored significantly higher than the process production group on this value. The results of the F test on the value of Paternalism. as given in Table 1?. denote that the relationship between the value and Technology is highly significant at the level of .0002. In the comparisons as shown in Table 18. there is a highly significant relationship between both process 100 production. and unit and small batch managers. and the value of Paternalism. The comparison between process pro- duction and large batch and mass production managers was highly significant at the significance level of .001. The comparison between unit and small batch managers and large batch and mass production managers was also significant. but at the .05 level. These outcomes distinctly indicate that process pro- duction managers score significantly higher on the value of Paternalism than do managers from large batch and mass pro- duction systems. In addition. the managers from the unit and small batch technology group also scored significantly higher than managers from the large batch and mass produc- tion group. Table 19 Presents the findings with regard to the F test on the value of Member Egualipy. An analysis of this table points out that there is a highly significant rela- tionship. at the significance level of .0001. between tech- nology and the value of Member Equality. Examination of the comparisons illustrated in Table 20 reveal that there is a highly significant relationship between the large batch and mass production group of man- agers and Member Eguality. A significant relationship also exists between the process production group and this value dimension. The comparison between the unit and small batch and large batch mass production groups was highly significant 101 at the .001 level. The contrast between large batch and process production managers was also significant but at the significance level of .05. The process production group when compared to the unit and small batch group was signif- icant at the .10 significance level. The outcome of this analysis shows that the large batch and mass production managers scored significantly higher on the value of Member Equality than either of the other two groups. In addition. the group of managers from the process production group scored significantly higher than the managers from the unit and small batch group on this value. In the prior analysis of organizational position and technology. it was found that interaction prevented the in- vestigation of main effects on the value of Executive Status and Authority. As Table 23 reveals. there are no inter- action effects for Management Level and Technology on this value. so the null hypothesis for interaction cannot be re- jected. Investigation of Table 23 points out that there is a highly significant relationship between Executive Status and Authority and Technology at the significance level of .002. Table 2“ points out that the comparison between unit and small batch and process managers was highly significant at the significance level of .001. It further shows that the comparison between large batch and mass production 102 managers. and process production managers was also highly significant. but at the .01 level. These findings then. clearly show that both unit and small batch and large batch and mass production managers score significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authority than do process managers. One additional technological effect resulted from the analysis of Managerial Level and Technology. Observation of Table 27 indicates that Technology has a significant re- lationship to the value of Quality of Products and Personnel at the significance level of .0““. This main effect bor- dered on being significant in the first analysis carried out on the Position variable. In that situation. the sig- nificance level was .07. In the present case. a larger sample size and increased degrees of freedom appear to be responsible for the significant relationship between this value and Technology. The contrasts exhibited in Table 28 show that the comparison between managers from the large batch and mass production group. and the unit and small batch group was significant at the significance level of .10. This outcome illustrates that managers from large batch and mass pro- duction technology systems score significantly higher on the value of Qpality of Products and Personnel than do man- agers from unit and small batch systems. The analysis of values and Organization Size and Technology yielded one interaction effect. The value of 103 Member Enuality was highly significant on interaction. as shown in Table #2. Table #3 shows the cells that were significant on the Scheffe test for interaction. Observation of this table reveals that there were seven significant interactions be- tween cell means. There was significant interaction be- tween the group of managers from unit and small batch tech- nology and the small size and large size groups. There was significant interaction for the large batch and mass pro- duction group and large size group. Interaction was also significant for the process production group and both medium and large organization size groups. No explanation can be given at this time for these interactions. Because of the slight change in sample size over the four structural-technological samples. a test of means was undertaken for all technology means. Only a slight dif- ference in mean scores and no deviation in direction was nOted e The organizational structural characteristic of 122 position. The first structural characteristic selected for analysis was the type of position responsibility held by a manager. Three categories of Job position were utilized in this study. They were: (1) line responsibility. (2) staff responsibility. and combined line and staff responsibility referred to as "both.” 10a Since the main effects for technology and interaction effects were discussed in the previous subsection. only main effects for Job Position will be presented in this subsection. The hypotheses listed below. relating to position and technology. were proposed in Chapter I. 'gypothesis A-i through A-6 There is no significant relationship between line or staff managers or the production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A1 Factor 1. Consideration A2 Factor 2. Competition and EXploitation A3 Factor 3. Managerial Climate Ah Factor h. Risk Taking - Conservatism A5 Factor 8 . Social Responsibility . Executive Status and Authority A6 Factor 10 The results of the test of the hypothesis for the value of Consideration are presented in Table 7. Inspec- tion of Table 7 indicates that we can reject the null hy- pothesis of no relationship between Consideration and Posi- tion. There is a significant relationship at the level of .0“ between the value of Consideration and type of Position. Table 8 gives the results of the test for comparisons. It reveals that the group of managers having both line and staff Job responsibility (both group) were significantly related to the value of Consideration. The comparison be- tween the line managers and the both group was significant at the significance level of .10. The comparison between the both group and staff managers was also significant at the significance level of .10. The results clearly indicate 105 Table 7 Analysis of Variance Table With Computations on the Value of Consideration for Position and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 23657.78 #03 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 335.9“ 2 167.97 3.31 .037 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 1079.02 2 539.51 10.6n .0001 Interaction 188.32 h h7.08 .93 .bh7 Error 2205h.50 #35 50.70 Table 8 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Position and Technology a_, _ __~ _ —. ‘-, ._ Significance Comparison Category Means F Level PL. Position Line vs staff 63.06 vs 62.85 .07 NS* Line vs both 63.06 vs 65.05 “.77 .10 Staff vs both 62.85 vs 65.05 5.98 .10 Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production 62.23 vs 65.50 17.52 .001' Unit and small batch vs process 62.23 vs 62.33 .01 NS Large batch and mass production vs process 65.50 vs 62.33 12.88 .01 *Indicates results were not significant. This notation will be used throughout the descriptive and predictive studies. 106 that managers having both line and staff job responsibility score significantly higher on the value dimension of gong sideration than do either line or staff managers. The outcome of the F test for the value of Competition and Exeloitation is given in Table 9. The results show that there are no main effects for Position. and the null hypothesis can not be rejected. The hypothesis relating to the value of Managerial Climate can not be rejected. Since there are no signifi— cant relationships for Managerial Climate. no analysis of variance table of computations will be shown. This proce- dure of only presenting an analysis of variance table when one of the three null hypotheses relating to each factor can be rejected will be followed throughout the rest of this chapter. Hypothesis number four can be rejected for Position. Table 11 shows that there is a highly significant relation- ship. at the level of .009. between Position and the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism. It was found. as pointed out in Table 12. that one comparison of Position means was significant. The contrast between the group of line managers and staff managers was significant at the significance level of .05. This indi- cates that line managers as a group scored significantly higher on the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism than did staff managers. 107 Table 9 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Position and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 65022.54 0&3 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 607.16 2 323.58 2.26 .106 Between rows . (Technol- ogy) 1558.8 2 779.00 5.00 .005 Interaction u98.h8 h 12h.62 .87 .h82 Error 62318.1 #35 193.26 Table 10 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Position and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production 57.86 vs 55.95 2.11 NS Unit and small batch vs process production 57.86 vs 53.23 10.21 .01 Large batch and mass production vs process production 55.95 vs 53.23 3.35 NS 108 Table 11 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Position and Technology Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4. Total 18822.12 #03 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 393.52 2 196.76 9.73 .009 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 334.8 2 167.u0 0.03 .019 Interaction 15.2 h 3.80 0.09 .985 Error 18078.6 “35 “1.56 Table 12 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Position and Technology - —-.--.—.——____— _- .— _. , —___.. Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Position Line vs staff “1.93 vs 39.88 8.77 .05 Line vs both “1.93 vs h0.25 4.15 NS Staff vs both 39.88 vs “0.25 0.21 NS Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production “0.58 vs h1.81 3.02 NS Unit and small batch vs process “0.58 vs 39.50 1.92 NS Large batch and mass production vs process 91.81 vs 39.50 8.39 .05 109 Table 13 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Position and Technology Sum of * *~rbA—-_ _.... DOSIOOB Of " “H J Squares Freedom Square F Level P4, Total 19707.49 #43 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 159.76 2 79.88 1.93 .1u6 Between rows Technol- ogy) 901.62 2 £70.81 11.38 .0001 Interaction 610.16 4 152.5“ 3.69 .006 Error 17995.95 #35 91.37 110 Table i“ Scheffe Test for Comparison of Cell Means with Significant Interaction Effects for Position and Technology on the Value of Executive Status and Authority Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Position and Tech- nology USE-Line vs LBMP- Line “6.18 vs “2.20 12.09 .01 USE-Line vs PP- Line “6.18 vs “2.1“ 10.01 .01 USE-Line vs PP- Staff 46.18 V8 “1000 17031 001 USB-Staff'vs LBMP-Line “5.7“ vs “2.20 10.27 .01 USB-Staff vs PP- Line “5.7“ vs “2.1“ 8.“2 .05 USB-Staff vs PP- Staff “5.7“ vs “1.00 15.65 .01 USB-Both vs PP- Staff ““.8“ vs “1.00 8.02 .05 LBMP-Line‘vs LBMP.Staff “2.20 vs “5.63 8.78 .05 LBMP-Line vs LBMP-Both “2.20 vs “6.91 11.“3 .01 LBMP-Staff vs PP-Line “5.63 vs “2.1“ 7.38 .05 LBMP-Staff vs PP—Staff - “5.63 vs “1.00 13.“ .01 LBMPéBoth‘vs PP-Line “6.91 vs “2.1“ 10.1 .01 LBMP-Both vs “6.91 vs “1.00 16.10 .01 PP-Staff 111 Table 15 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Position and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level PL. Total 11263.67 ““3 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) “.96 2 2.“8 .11“H .892 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 1680.8“ 2 8“0.“2 38.61 .0001 Interaction 107.92 1+ 26.9 1.2“ .29“ Error 9“69.95 “35 21.7 Table 16 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Unionization for Position and Technology W Comparison Category Means Significance Level PL Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production Unit and small batch vs process production Large batch and mass production vs process production 22.63 vs 25.75 22.63 vs 20.85 25.75 vs 20.85 “7.“2 9.91 70.62 .001 .01 .001 112 Table 17 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Position and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 12““0.56 ““3 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 111.02 2 55.51 2.06 .128 Between rows (Technol- ogy) “76.00 2 238.00 8.85 .0002 Interaction 152.0“ “ 38.01 1.“1 .229 Error 11701.50 “35 26.90 Table 18 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Paternalism for Position and Technology Comparison Category Means "111‘— Level P4, Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production Unit and small batch vs process Large batch and mass production vs process 27.0? vs 25.“0 27.07 vs 28.03 25.150 V8 28003 8.72 2.36 i6.“8 .05 NS .001 113 Table 19 Aanlysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Position and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level PL Total 1“5“8.85 ““3 Between col- umns (Posi- tion) 29.52 2 1“.76 .“79i .620 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 918.86 2 “59.113 1“.89 .0001 Interaction 180.72 “ “5.18 1.“7' .212 Error 13“i9.75 “35 30.85 Table 20 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Member Equality for Position and Technology m?“ : Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Technology ‘Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production 26.60 vs 29.91 29.62 .001 Unit and small batch vs process production 26.60 vs 28.21 5.76 .10 Large batch and mass production vs process production 29.91 vs 28.21 6.02 .05 H can not to this X m: 11%.? have an Positic Em 1¥ZEd 1 tion. in this and (3) rent 16 A, two 0th 1323,: 11“ Hypothesis number five. for §22231 Responsibility. can not be rejected for any of the three hypotheses relating to this factor. Neither the last hypothesis for the value of E53237 tive Status and Authority. nor the three values of Unioniza- tion. Paternalism. and Member Equality (which were found to have main effects on Technology) could be rejected for Job Position. The organizational structural characteristic of man- agerial level. The second structural characteristic ana- lyzed was the level of a manager's job within the organiza- tion. The following three categories of job level were used in this study: (1) top management. (2) middle management. and (3) lower management. The hypotheses presented below. relating to manage- ment level and technology. were proposed in Chapter I. gypothesis A-7 through A:;g There is no significant relationship between the managerial level or production technOIOgy of an organization and the following value factors: A7 Factor 1. Consideration A8 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation A9 Factor 3. Managerial Climate A10 Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism A11 Factor 8. Social Responsibility A12 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority As previously pointed out. for this variable and the two other structural characteristics remaining to be ana- lyzed. only main effects will be presented. 115 The two null hypothesis of no relationship for man- agerial level can not be rejected for the first two hypoth- esized values of Consideration and Competition and Exploi- tation. The third hypothesized value. Managerial Climate. comes close to being significant (.067): however. it can not be statistically rejected. The null hypothesis for the value of §1sk Taking - Conservatism. also. can not be re- jected. Table 21 presents the results of the F test for the value of Social Responsibility. It indicates that the null hypothesis of no column effects (managerial level) can be rejected. The relationship between the value of Social Re- sponsibility and Managerial Level is significant at the significance level of .02“. The comparison between the group of tap level managers and middle level managers. shown in Table 22. was signifi- cant at the .05 level. as was the comparison of top level with lower level managers. These results clearly indicate that top level managers score significantly higher than either middle or lower level managers on the value of Social Responsibility. In the prior analysis of organizational position and technology. it was found that interaction prevented the in- vestigation of main effects for both factors on the value of Executive Status and Authority. As Table 23 reveals. there are no interaction effects for Management Level. so the null hypothesis for interaction can not be rejected. 116 Table 21 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Managerial Level and Technology Sum of Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Tetal 8002 o 7 M5 Between col- umns (Levelfl 132.78 2 66.39 3.75 .02“ Between rows (Technol- osy) 69.0 2 3n.5o 1.95 .1uu Interaction 57.28 “ 1“.32 .81 .521 Error 77“3.6“ “37 17.72 Table 22 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Social Responsibility for Managerial Level and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P<_ Managerial Level Top management vs middle management 27.00 vs 2“.“8 7.30 .05 Tap management vs lower management 27.00 vs 2“.68 6.73 .05 Middle management vs lower management 2“.“8 vs 2“.68 .21 NS 117 Since the hypothesis for Level can be rejected. it will be analyzed. There is a highly significant relationship be- tween Executive Status and Authority and Managerial Level. at the significance level of .0001. The contrasts denoted in Table 2“ reveal that the comparison of top level managers to lower level managers was highly significant at the .01 level. The comparison of the middle level managers to lower level managers was also highly significant. but at the significance level of .001. These results clearly illustrate that both top and middle level managers score significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authority than do lower level managers. One other significant relationship not originally hy- pothesized was found to exist and is presented in Table 25. ' Inspection of Table 25 reveals that a relationship exists between the level of managers and the organizational value of Paternalism. that is highly significant at the level of .008. The comparisons found in Table 26 point out that the contrast between the group of middle level managers and lower level ones was significant at the .05 level of sig- nificance. The results of the comparison test thus indicate that lower level managers score significantly higher on the value of Paternalism than do middle level managers. The organizational structural characteristic of func- tional area of work. The third structural characteristic 118 Table 23 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the ‘Value of Executive Status and Authority for Managerial Level and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 19728.8 ““5 Between col- umns (Level) 1316.6“ 2 658.32 16.33 .0001 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 722.16 2 361.08 8.96 .0002 Interaction 70.16 “ 17.5“ . .783 Error 17619.8“ “37 “0.32 Table 2“ Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for W Compari son Category Managerial Level and Technology Means S ignificance Level P4 Managerial Level Top management vs middle management Top management vs lower management Middle management vs lower management Technology Unit and small batch.vs large batch and mass production Unit and small batch,vs process Large batch and mass production vs process production “7.96 vs “7.96 vs “6.35 vs “5.67 vs “5.67 vs ““.51 vs “6.35 “3.08 “3.08 ““.51 “1.96 “1.96 1.31 13.1 2“.3 2.76 23.32 10.“8 .01 .001 .001 .01 119 Table 25 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Managerial Level and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 12“75.55 ““5 Between col- umns (Level) 262.00 2 131.00 “.88 .008 Between rows (Technol- ogy) “0305“ 2 201077 7052 .0007 Interaction 76.56 “ 19.1“ .71 .58“ Error 11733.“5 “37 26.85 Table 26 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Paternalism for Managerial Level and Technology _ ._._.__.._.. __ ._._ .__-..___..______ -_____._._.__. .___-_-————____.._—_- Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Managerial Level Top management vs middle management 25.0“ vs 25.83 .“7 NS Top management vs lower management 25.0“ vs 27.2? “.11 NS Middle management vs lower management 25.83 vs 27.2? 7.1“ .05 120 Table 27 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Managerial Level and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4, Total 32033.0“ ““5 Between col- umns (Level) 127.12 2 63.56 .89 .“12 Between rows (Technol- ogy) ““9.22 2 22“.61 3.1“ .08“ Interaction 211.2 “ 52.80 .7“ .566 Error 312“5.5 “37 71.50 Table 28 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Managerial Level and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level PL Technology Unit and small batch vs large batch and mass production 80.00 vs 82.20 5.63 .10 Unit and small batch vs process production 80.00 vs 81.10 1.16 NS Large batch and mass production vs process 82.20 vs 81.10 1.11 NS 121 analyzed was the Functional Work Area of managers. The following nine categories of Functional Areas were used in this study: (1) Production. (2) Marketing. (3) Accounting- Finance. (“) Personnel. (5) Purchasing. (6) Administration. (7) Engineering. (8) Data Processing. and (9) Research and Development. The hypotheses presented below. relating to Func- tional Areas. were presented in Chapter I. gypothesis Ag;3 through A-18 There is no significant relationship between the functional areas or production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A13 Factor 1. Consideration A1“ Factor 2. Competition and EXploitation A15 Factor 3. Managerial Climate A16 Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism A17 Factor 8. Social Responsibility A18 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority As explained in the preceding analysis on Managerial Level. all Technology main effects and interaction effects have been discussed. and only the main effects for Func- tional Area will be presented. The null hypothesis of no relationship could not be rejected for main effects on Functional Area for the first three hypotheses relating to the values of: Consideration. Competition and Exploitation. and Managerial Climate. The fourth hypothesis dealing with Risk Taking - Conservatism can be rejected. As indicated in Table 29. the relation- ship between the value of Risk Takiggg- Conservatism and Functional Area is highly significant at the .0003 level. 122 Table 29 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Functional Area and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 191“2.66 ““3 Between col- umns (Func- tional Area» 12““.0 8 155.50 3.79 .0003 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 378.62 2 189.31 “.62 .010 Interaction “23.0“ 16 26.““ .65 .8“? Error 17097.0 “17 “1.00 123 Table 30 reveals that only one contrast was signifi- cant. The comparison between managers from the production. and research and development groups. was significant at the .10 level. This finding denotes that production managers scored significantly higher on the value of Risk Takipg - Conservatppp than did research and development managers. Hypothesis number five. relating to the value of Social Responsibility. can be rejected. Investigation of Table 31 points out that there is a highly significant re- lationship at the .007 level between Social Responsibility and Functional Area. The analysis of category means. however. did not re- veal any significant relationships between the means at a significance level of .10 or lower. For this reason. the computations are not shown. The last hypothesis dealing with the value or'm- ppve Status and Authorppy can be rejected. It was found, as Table 32 indicates. that there is a highly significant relationship at the .0006 level between this value and Functional Area. Table 33 lists the comparisons of category means. Only one significant relationship was found to exist. The comparison between managers from the production and mar- keting groups was significant at the significance level of .05. The outcome thus denotes that marketing managers scored significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authority than did production managers. 12“ Table 30 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Functional Area and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Functional Area Prod. vs Per. “2.01 vs 38.06 5.59 NS Prod. vs Mkt. “2.01 vs “0.18 3.9“ NS Prod. vs Fin. 2 Acct. “2.01 vs “1.37 0.03 NS Prod. vs Purch. “2.01 vs “3.67 1.10 NS Prod. vs R. a D. “2.01 vs 38.08 5.1“ .10 Prod. vs Adm. & Cler. “2.01 vs “1.65 0.07 N3 Prod. vs Eng. “2.01 vs “0.13 3.10 NS Prod. vs Data Proc. “2.01 vs 35.12. 8.86 NS Per. vs Mkt. 38.06 vs “0.18 1.“1 NB Per. vs Fin. 1 Acct. 38.06 vs “1.37 3.01 NS Per. vs Purch. 38.06 vs “3.67 6.50 NS Per. vs R. d D. 38.06 vs 38.08 0.00 NS Per. vs Adm. 2 Cler. 38.06 vs “1.65 2.96 NS Per. vs Eng. 38.06 vs “0.13 1.23 NS Per. V3 Data Proc. 38.06 vs 35.12 1.12 NS Mkt. vs Fin. & Acct. “0.18 vs “1.37 0.8“ NS Mkt. vs Purch. “0.18 vs “3.67 “.20 NS Mkt. vs R. a D. “0.18 vs 38.08 3.13 NS Mkt. vs Adm. s Cler. “0.18 vs “1.65 0.90 NS Mkt. vs Eng. “0.18 vs “0.13 0.00 NS Mkt. vs Data H06. “0018 V8 35012 “.“5 NS Fin. 2 Acct. vs Purch. “1.37 vs “3.67 1.57 NS Fin. & Acct. vs no & Do “1037 V8 38008 5079 NS Fin. & Acct. vs Adm. & Cler. “1.37 vs “1.65 0.03 NS Fin. & Acct. vs Ens. “1.37 vs “0.13 0.77 NS 125 Table 30 (cont'd.) Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P( Fin. & Acct. vs Data Proc. “1.37 vs 35.12 6.30 NS Purch. vs R. & D. “3.67 vs 38.08 10.18 NS Purch. vs Adm. & Cler. “3.67 vs “1.65 1.01 NS Purch. vs Eng. “3.67 vs “0.13 3.93 NS Purch. vs Data Proc. “3.67 vs 35.12 9.88 NS R.&D. vs Adm. & Cler. 38.08 vs “1.65 “.96 NS R.&D. vs Eng. 38.08 vs “0.13 2.“? NS R.&D. vs Data Proc. 38.08 vs 35.12 1.“8 NS Adm. & Cler. vs . “1.65 vs “0.13 0.86 NS Adm. & Cler. vs Data Free. “1.65 vs 35.12 6.17 NS Eng. vs Data Proc. “0.13 vs 35.12 “.16 NS 126 Table 31 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Functional Area and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 797“.83 ““3 Between col- umns (Func- tional Area) 370.2“ 8 “6.28 2.70 .007 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 79.6 2 39.80 2.32 .10 Interaction 373.““ 16 23.3“ 1.36 .157 Error 7151.55 “17 17.15 Table 32 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the ‘Value of Work Emphasis for Functional Area and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F level P4 Total 19723.85 ““3 Between col- umns (Func- tional Area) 1162.“ 8 1“5.30 3.53 .0006 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 530.72 2 265.36 6.“5 .002 Interaction 879.52 16 5“.97 1.3“ .171 Error 17151.21 “17 “1.13 127 Table 33 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Work Emphasis for Functional Area and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level PL Functional Area Prod. vs Per. “2.52 vs ““.62 1.57 NS Prod. vs Mkt. “2.52 vs “6.“8 18.“5 .05 Prod. vs Fin. & Acct. “2.52 vs ““.82 “.0“ NS Prod. vs Purch. “2.52 vs “5.28 3.0“ NS Prod. Vs B. & D. “2.52 vs “5.08 6.“2 NS Prod. vs Adm. & Cler. “2.52 vs “6.26 6.93 NS Prod. vs Eng. “2.52 vs “5.91 10.08 NS Prod. vs Data Proc. “2.52 vs “2.87 0.02 NS Per. vs Mkt. ““.62 vs “6.“8 1.10 NS Per. vs Fin. & Acct. ““.62 vs ““.82 0.0“ NS Per. vs Purch. ““.62 vs “5.28 0.09 NS Per. vs R. d D. ““.62 vs “5.08 0.06 NS 7 Per. vs Adm. & Cler. ““.62 vs “6.26 0.62 NS Per. vs Eng. ““.62 vs “5.91 0.“8 NS Per. vs Data Proc. ““.62 vs “2.87 0.“0 NS Mkt. vs Fin. & . Acct. “6.“8 vs ““.82 1.62 NS Mkt. vs Purch. “6.“8 vs “5.28 0.“9 NS Mkt. vs R. & D. “6.“8 vs “5.08 1.39 NS Mkt. vs Adm. & Cler. “6.“8 vs “6.26 0.0“ NS Mkt. vs Eng. “6.“8 vs “5.91 0.21 NS Mkt. vs Data Proc. “6.“8 vs “2.87 2.27 NS Fine & Acct. VS Purch. ““.82 vs “5.28 0.06 NS Fin. & Acct. vs R. & D. ““.82 vs “5.08 0.0“ NS Fin. & Acct. vs Adm. & Cler. ““.82 vs “6.26 0.72 NS ____________________T__L___________.__1 128 Table 33 (cont'd.) Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P2. Fin. & Acct. vs Eng. ““.82 vs “5.91 0.60 NS Fin. & Acct. vs Data Proc. ““.82 vs “2.87 0.71 NS Purch. vs R. & D. “5.28 vs “5.08 0.0“ NS Purch. vs Adm. & Cler. “5.28 vs “6.26 0.2“ NS Purch. vs Eng. “5.28 vs “5.91 0.12 NS Purch. vs Data Proc. “5.28 vs “2.87 0.78 NS R. & D. vs Adm. & Cler. “5.08 vs “6.26 0.5“ NS R. & D. vs Eng. “5.08 vs “5.91 0.“1 NS R. & D. vs Data Proc. “5.08 vs “2.87 0.82 NS Adm. & Cler. vs Eng. “6.26 vs “5.91 0.0“ NS Adm. & Cler. vs Data Proc. “6.26 vs “2.87 1.66 NS Eng. vs Data Proc. “5.91 vs “2.87 1.53 NS‘ 129 The organizational structural characteristic of size. The last structural characteristic analyzed was the size of organizations. The following three categories of size were utilized in this study: (1) small size. (2) medium size, and (3) large size. The hypotheses presented below. relating to the size of organizations. were presented in Chapter I. Hypothesis A-19 through A-25 There is no significant relationship between the size or production technology of an organization and the following value factors: A19 Factor 1. Consideration A20 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation A21 Factor 3. Managerial Climate A22 Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism A23 Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel A2“ Factor 8. Social Reaponsibility A25 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority The hypothesis of no relationship concerning the factor of Consideration can be rejected. Examination of Table 3“ indicates that a significant relationship at the level of .0““ exists between the size of an organization and the value of Consideration. In the comparisons table. Table 35. large size firms were found to be significantly related to Consideration. The contrast between the medium size firm group and the large size firm group was significant at the .10 signifi- cance level. These findings thus show. that. managers from large size firms score significantly higher on this value than do managers from medium size firms. 130 Table 3“ Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Size and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4, Total 25706.“1 “87 Between col- umns (Size) 323.3“ 2 161.67 3.15 .0““ Between rows (Technol- ogy) 780.52 2 390.26 7.60 .0006 Interaction 30.96 “ 7.7“ .15 .860 Error 2“587.07 “79 51.33 Table 35 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Size and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4, Organization size Small vs Medium 60.1“ vs 62.67 .8“ NS Small vs Large 60.1“ vs 6“.1“ 2.13 NS Medium vs Large 62.67 vs 6“.1“ “.70 .10 131 The next five hypotheses dealing with the values of: Competition and Exploitation. Managerial Climate. Eli! Tgkppg_- Conservatism. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel. and §22231 Responsibility could not be rejected for the main ”column" effect of size. However. hypothesis number 25. the last of the descriptive hypotheses. relating a to Executive Status and Authority. can be rejected. As ' pointed out in Table 36. there is a highly significant re- lationship at the .005 level between the value of Executive Status and Authority. and an organization's size. The category comparisons as illustrated in Table 37 denote that the contrast between the group of managers from medium and large size firms was highly significant at the significance level of .01. This clearly signifies that managers from large size firms score significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authorit . than man- agers from medium size firms. - In addition to the previously stated hypotheses. ana- lyzed for Size. several other significant relationships were found to exist. It was found.as exemplified in Table 38.that a highly significant (.0001) relationship exists between an organi- zation's size and the value of Unionization. An examination of Table 39 indicates that two rela- tionships are significant. The comparison between the group of managers from large size firms and medium size firms was highly significant at the significance level of 132 Table 36 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Size and Technology Sum of Squares Freedom Square F Level P<, Total 21“38.3“ “87 Between col- umns (Size) “50.96 2 225.“8 5.“1 .005 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 612.3“ 2 306.17 7.3“ .0008 Interaction 391.16 “ 97.79 2.3“ .097 Error 19983.88 “79 “1.72 Table 37 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Size and Technology - “—.____, w- Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Organization size Small vs Medium “7.1“ vs “3.10 2.6“ NS Small vs Large “7.1“ vs ““.98 0.77 NS Medium vs Large “3.10 vs ““.98 9.5“ .01 133 Table 38 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Size and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 12280.6“ “87 Between col- umns (Size) 1307.0“ 2 653.52 30.65 .0001 Between rows (Technol- osy) 7“5.8“ 2 372.92 17.“9 .0001 Interaction 15.“8 “ 3.87 0.18 .83“ Error 10218.28 “79 21.32 Table 39 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Unionization for Size and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P( Organization Size . Small vs Medium 25.86 vs 21.12 7.01 .05 Small vs Large 25.86 vs 2“.“8 0.61 NS Medium vs Large 21.12 vs 2“.“8 59.“2 .001 1 3“ .001. In addition. the comparison between managers from small size firms and medium size firms was also significant. but at the .05 level. These results indicate that both the managers from large size. as well as those from small size firms. scored significantly higher on the value of Unioni- zation than did managers from medium sized firms. Table “0 points out that the relationship between or- ganization size and the value of Paternalism is highly sig- nificant at the .001 level of significance. As presented in Table “1. the outcome of the analysis of category means reveals that the comparison between the group of managers from medium and large size firms was highly significant (.01). The results indicate that man- agers from medium size firms score significantly higher on the value of Paternalism than do managers from large size firms. The analysis of values yielded one other relationship that was significant. The value of Member Equality was significant for both main effects and interaction. Table “2 shows the results of the analysis. Since interaction effects were discussed in the subsection dealing with Tech- nology. only the main effect for Size will be presented in this section. Inspection of Table “2 reveals that there is a sig- .n1ficant relationship between the value of Member EQuality and Organization size. at the .037 significance level. 135 Table “0 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Size and Technology Sum of Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 13606.01 “87 Between col- \ umns (Size) 375.““ 2 187.72 6.97 .001 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 2“6.00 2 123.00 “.57 .011 Interaction 9“.68 “ 23.67 .88 .“16 Error 12889.89 “79 26.91 Table “1 Scheffe Test for Comparisons of Category Means on the Value of Paternalism for Size and Technology Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4, Organization Size Small vs Medium 28.71 vs 27.79 .21 NS Small vs Large 28.71 vs 26.03 1.83 NS Medium vs Large 27.79 vs 26.03 12.92 .01 136 The comparison of category means shown in Table “3 indicates that one contrast was significant. The compari- son between managers from medium size firms and large size firms was significant at the .10 level. This result indi- cates that the managers from large size firms scored sig- nificantly higher on the value of Member Equa;;ty than did managers from medium size firms. The preceding presentation of the results of the Descriptive Study will be explained and summarized in the Conclusions Chapter. The last section of this chapter deals with the out- come of the analysis of the predictive study. Results of the Predictive Study Overview. The purpose of the predictive study was to analyze the relationship between the value scores of man- agers and attitudinal measures toward the job and firm. This objective was carried out by analyzing the relation- ship between value scores and the attitudinal variables of Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave. These attitude variables were classified into three levels: (1) £152. (2) Moderate. and (3) L23. The groups were determined by going plus and minus one standard devia- tion from the mean for each variable and placing all scores greater than this into the respective high or low group. For the attitudinal-variable of Propensity To Leave. the 137 Table “2 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Size and Technology Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Total 163“1.68 “87 Between col- umns (Size) 206.1 2 103.05 3.33 .037 Between rows (Technol- ogy) 685.8“ 2 3“2.92 11.07 .0001 Interaction 610.32 “ 152.58 “.93 .008 Error 1“839.“2 “79 30.98 Table “3 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Cell Means with Significant Interaction Effects for Size and Technology on the Value of Member Equality I Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Size and Technology USE-Small vs PP- Small 27.67 vs 12.0 7.90 .05 USB-Medium.vs LBMP- Large 25.78 vs 29.9“ 23.07 .01 USB-Medium vs PP- Medium 25.78 vs 28.51 9.09 .05 USB-Large vs LBMP- Large 27.39 vs 29.9“ 15.“8 .01 USB-Large vs PP- Small 27.39 vs 12.00 7.59 .05 LBMP-Large vs PP- Small 29.9“ vs 12.00 10.30 .01 PP-Small vs PP- Large 12.00 vs 25.00 8.71 .05 Organization Size Small vs Medium 25.“3 vs 27.67 1.09 NS Small vs Large 25.“3 vs 28.81 2.52 NS Medium.vs Large 27.6? vs 28.81 “.6“ .10 138 group that was greater than plus one standard deviation from the mean became the low group. and correspondingly. the group that was greater than minus one standard devia- tion from the mean became the high group. These relation- ships were analyzed through a one-way analysis of variance. All 738 managers making up the aggregate managerial group were included in the predictive study. Job satisfaction. The null hypotheses listed below were presented in Chapter I. ‘gypothesis B-ppthrough thg There is no significant relationship between man- agers whose value scores differ from other man- agers and Job Satisfaction for each of the fol- lowing values: B1 Factor 1. Consideration B2 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation B3 Factor 3. Managerial Climate B“ Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism B5 Factor 5. Unionization B6 Factor 6. Paternalism B7 Factor 7. Quality of Products and Personnel B8 Factor 8. Social Responsibility B9 Factor 9. Member Equality 810 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority Examination of the one—way analysis of variance tables for the ten‘value factors indicates that hypothesis B-i through B-io can not be rejected at the .05 significance level. Tables ““ through 53 reveal the results of the F tests for these hypotheses. Three of the values. however. are significant at the .10 level. and border on being significant at the .05 level. Even though the null hypothesis for these values can not be 139 Table ““ Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- } umns (Job Satisfaction 3“3.3 2 171 .65 2.80 .062 Within col- umns (Error) 37“60.“1 611 61.31 Total 37803.71 613 Table “5 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Job Satisfaction‘ Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4, Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction “08.“8 2 20“.2“ 1.28 .279 Within.col- umns (Error) 97““2.28 611 159.“8 Total 97850.76 613 1“0 Table “6 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Managerial Climate for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction! 1126.26 2 563.13 2.56 .078 Within col- umns (Error)13“66“.“ 611 220.“0 Total 135790.66 613 Table “7 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction) 188.2 2 9“.10 2.2“ .107 Within col- umns (Error) 25662.0 611 “2.0 Total 25850.2 613 1“1 Table “8 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean 1 Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfactiod 32.52 2 16.26 .6“ .528 Within col- umns (Error) 155“9.95 611 25.“5 Total 15582.“? 613 Table “9 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction) 7“.“2 2 37.21 1 .22 .29? Within col- umns (Error) 18678.27 611 30.57 Total 18752.69 613 1“2 Table 50 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction) 261.6 2 108.30 1.19 .305 Within col- umns (Error) 5570“.87 611 91.17 Total 55921.“? 613 Table 51 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction) 56.?“ 2 28.37 1 .““ .23? Within col- umns (Error) 12012.26 611 19.66 Total 12069.0 613 1“3 Table 52 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfaction “2.9“ 2 21.“? .61 .5“3 Within col- umns (Error) 21“76.65 611 35.15 Total 21519.59 613 Table 53 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Job Satisfaction Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Job Satisfactionh 2““.1“ 2 122.07 2.7“ .066 Within col- umns (Error) 27262.82 611 ““.62 Total 27506.96 613 1““ rejected at the .05 significance level. it appears valuable to discuss the relationships existing for these values. The three values that are significant between .05 and .10 are: (1) Consideration. (2) Managerial Climate. and (3) Executive Status and Authority. Investigation of Table ““ shows that there is a sig- nificant relationship at the level of .062 between the value of Consideration and Job Satisfaction. The outcome of the comparisons test presented in Table 5“ indicates that there is a significant relationship between the group of managers with high job satisfaction and Consideration. The contrast between the high job satisfaction group and the low satisfaction group was sig- nificant at the .10 level. The group of managers with high job satisfaction scored significantly higher on the value of gppglderation than did the low satisfaction group. The results of the F test on the value of Managerial Climate are presented in Table “6. An examination of this table points out that there is a significant relationship between the value of Managerial Climate and Job Satisfac- tion at the .078 level. Table 55 indicates that one comparison was signifi- cant. The contrast between the group of managers with high job satisfaction and the group with moderate job satisfac- tion was significant at the .10 level. The outcome of the comparisons test thus indicates that managers with moderate 1“5 Table 5“ Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Consideration for Job Satisfaction Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4, Job Satisfaction High vs Moderate 6“.15 vs 62.7“ 3.“3 NS High vs Low 6“.15 vs 62.00 5.08 .10 Moderate vs Low 62.7“ vs 62.00 .80 NS Table 55 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Managerial Climate for Job Satisfaction Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Job Satisfaction High vs Moderate 59.81 vs 63.02 “.90 .10 High vs Low 59.81 vs 61.36 .73 NS Moderate vs Low 63.02 vs 61.36 1.12 NS Table 56 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Job Satisfaction ‘ Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4. Job Satisfaction High vs Moderate “5.38 vs ““.70 1.10 NS High vs Low “5.38 vs “3.“9 5.“1 .10 Moderate vs Low ““.70 vs “3.“9 2.92 NS 1“6 job satisfaction scored significantly higher on the value of Managerial Climate than did managers in the high job satisfaction group. The last value. Executive Status and Authority. as shown in Table 53. has a significant relationship to Job Satisfaction at the .066 level. As illustrated in Table 56. one contrast was found to be significant. The comparison between managers in the high satisfaction group and those in the low satisfaction group was significant at the .10 level. This outcome re- veals that the group of high satisfaction managers scored significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authority than those managers in the low job satisfaction group. Propensity to leave. The null hypotheses listed below were discussed in Chapter I. Hypothesis B-Ltthrough B-20 There is no significant relationship between man- agers whose value scores differ from other man- agers and Propensity To Leave for each of the fol- lowing value factors: B11 Factor 1. Consideration B12 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation B13 Factor 3. Managerial Climate B1“ Factor “. Risk Taking - Conservatism B15 Factor 5. Unionization B16 Factor 6. Paternalism Bi? Factor 7. Quality of Products and Per- sonnel 318 Factor 8. Social Responsibility B19 Factor 9. Member Equality B20 Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority 1“? As shown in Table 57. the null hypotheses of no rela- tionship between the value of Consideration and Propensity To Leave can not be rejected at the .05 significance level. Table 58 presents the results of the F test for the value of Competition and Exploitation. It indicates that _the null hypothesis can be rejected. The relationship be- tween the value of Competition and Exploitation is highly significant at the .003 level. The Scheffe test of category means. presented in Table 59. points out that the contrast between the group of managers having a low propensity to leave and the group of managers with a moderate propensity to leave was highly significant at the level of .01. In addition. the compari- son between the low prepensity to leave and high propensity groups was also significant. but at the .05 level. These results clearly indicate that both the moderate and high propensity to leave groups of managers scored significantly higher on the value dimension of Competition and Exploita- ‘tipp. than did the low propensity to leave group. Table 60 illustrates that we can not reject the null hypothesis for the value of Managerial Climate at the .05 significance level. However. because this value borders so closely on being significant (.053). it was analyzed. As shown in Table 60. the relationship between Managerial Climate and Propensity To Leave is significant at the .053 197610 1“8 Table 57 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Consideration for Propensity To Leave Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P( Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 280.38 2 i“0.19 2.28 .103 Within col- umns (Error) 37527.62 611 61.“2 Total 37808.0 613 Table 58 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Propensity To Leave t Sum of tDegrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4. Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 1885.1“ 2 9“2.57 6.00 .003 Within col- umns (Error) 95963.66 611 157.06 Total 978“8.8 613 1“9 Table 59 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Competition and Exploitation for Propensity To Leave S ignificance Comparison Category Means F Level P( Propensity To Leave Low vs Moderate 52.95 vs 57.56 11.68 .01 Low vs High 52.95 vs 57.23 6.57 .05 Moderate vs High 57.56 vs 57.23 .06 NS Table 60 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Managerial Climate for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 1300.52 2 650.26 2.95 .053 Within col- umns (Error) 13““87.21 611 220.11 Total 135787.? 613 150 The comparison of category means given in.Table 61 reveal that the contrast between the group of managers with a low propensity to leave and those with a high propensity to leave was significant at the .10 level. This outcome points out that those managers with a low propensity to leave score significantly higher on the value of Managprial Climate. than do those managers with a high propensity to leave. Inspection of Table 62 shows that the null hypothesis for the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism can be rejected. The relationship between this value and Propensity To Leave is highly significant at the significance level of .0003. Investigation of Table 63 indicates that two contrasts are significant. The comparison between the low propensity to leave group of managers. and the moderate propensity to leave group. was highly significant at the .01 level. as was the comparison between the low propensity to leave group and the high propensity to leave group. These re- sults point out that the group of managers with a low pro- pensity to leave scored significantly higher on the value of Risk Takipg - Conservatppp. than either the moderate or high propensity to leave groups. Tables 6“ through 6? reveal that the null hypotheses for the values of gp1onizaticn. Paternalism. Quality of 'Prcducts and Personnel. and Social Responsibility can not be rejected. 151 Table 61 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Managerial Climate for Propensity To Leave Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Propensity To Leave Low vs Moderate 6“.73 vs 61.62 3.79 NS LOW VS High 6’4073 VS 60.07 5055 .10 Moderate vs High 61.62 vs 60.07 .96 NS Table 62 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 701.96 2 350.98 8.53 .0003 Within col- umns (Error) 251“2.65 611 “1.15 Total 258““.61 613 152 Table 63 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the ‘Value of Risk Taking - Conservatism for Propensity To Leave Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Propensity To Leave E} Low vs Moderate “2.92 vs “0.75 9.81 .01 fig" Low vs High “2.92 vs 39.“5 16.“9 .01 E Moderate vs High “0.75 vs 39.“5 3.60 NS F E Table 6“ Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Unionization for Propensity To Leave S um of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 66.16 2 33008 1030 0273 Within col- umns (Error) 15513.29 611 25.39 Total 15579.“5 613 153 Table 65 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Paternalism for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 99.96 2 “9.98 1.6“ .195 Within col- umns (Error) 18653.83 611 30.53 Total 18753.79 613 Table 66 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Quality of Products and Personnel for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 32“.6 2 162.30 1.78 .169 Within col- umns (Error) 5559“.89 611 90.99 Total 55919.“9 613 15“ We can. however. reject the null hypothesis for the value of Member Egualgpy. Table 68 points out that the re- lationship between the value of Member Eqpality and Propen- sity To Leave is significant at the level of .025. Observation of the comparisons as illustrated in Table 69 indicates that one contrast is significant.- The comparison between the low propensity to leave group of managers and the high propensity to leave group was signif- icant at the .05 level of significance. This outcome points out that the group of managers with a low propensity to leave score significantly higher on the value of Member Eguality than do managers with a high propensity to leave. The last null hypothesis. as shown in Table 70. for the value of Executive Status and Authortty. can not be re- jected. However. like the value of Managerial Climate. it borders on being significant at the .05 level and is sig- nificant at the level of .059. Table 71 reveals that one contrast was significant in this comparison. The comparison between managers with a low propensity to leave. and those with a moderate propen- sity to leave. was significant at the .10 level. This in- dicates that those managers with a moderate propensity to leave scored significantly higher on the value dimension of Executive Status and Authority than did those managers with a low propensity to leave. an. 155 Table 67 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Social Responsibility for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) “9.5 2 2“.75 1.26 .285 Within col- umns (Error) 1202“.“8 611 19.68 Table 68 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Member Equality for Propensity To Leave Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 258.86 2 129.“3 3.72 .025 Within col- umns (Error) 21262.80 611 3“.80 Total 21521.66 613 156 Table 69 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Member Equality for Propensity To Leave Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Propensity To Leave Low vs Moderate 28.“1 vs 27.18 3.78 NS Low vs High 28.“1 vs 26.27 7.39 .05 Moderate vs High 27.18 vs 26.2? 2.13 NS Table 70 Analysis of Variance Table with Computations on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Propensity To Leave } Sum of [Degrees of Mean Significance Squares Freedom Square F Level P4 Between col- umns (Pro- pensity To Leave) 25“.3“ 2 127.17 2.85 .059 Within col- umns (Error) 27250.60 611 ““.60 Total 2750“.9“ 613 1 15? Table 71 Scheffe Test for Comparison of Category Means on the Value of Executive Status and Authority for Propensity To Leave , _._._ _-._._—_l_.._‘—._..__. _..—_—~___.-_.__.—.-.._.._ *.__.-.____.__.. -k- ._—._._ _._.—.—._ Significance Comparison Category Means F Level P4 Propensity To Leave Low vs Moderate “3.27 vs ““.98 5.62 .10 Low vs High “3.27 vs ““.77 2.85 NS Moderate vs High ““.98 vs ““.77 .08 NS :- '¢..‘ uh.- n.!’ mafia-mule! r. .090! 4 : 2' 158 The conclusions drawn from the results of the de- scriptive and predictive studies. along with implications for future research. will be presented in the next chapter. ,1 VV-LVI ‘ I ;_ .1 mint lxfibl‘n.mor.a ‘h-.-n1- ._ . 1 I' f CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS General Summary The general purpose of this study was to identify and describe values of individuals that could be relevant to the description and prediction of performance and behavior within organizations. This research project had three specific objectives. The first objective was to attempt to replicate the value factors produced in earlier research studies using the value scale. The second objective was to analyze the relationship between individual values. four organizational structural characteristics. and three systems of production technology. The four structural variables studied were: (1) Job Posi- tion. (2) Managerial Level. (3) Functional Work Area. and (“) Organization Size. The three production systems used in this study follow Joan Woodward's classification of: (1) Unit and Small Batch Production. (2) Large Batch and Mass Production. and (3) Process Production. This aspect of the research constituted the Descriptive Study. The final objective was to utilize values in an at- tempt to predict individual attitudes within business or- ganizations by analyzing the relationship between value 159 - ‘3 ‘ 72'“? fi'j Asian -v,‘\r -q‘ t". I: Jails" 160 scores and two attitudinal measures toward the firm and job. The two attitude measures used in this study were: (1) Job Satisfaction and (2) Propensity To Leave. This part of the research made up the Predictive Study. The value instrument used in this research. called the Organizational Value Questionnaire (OVQ). was a modifi- cation of an organization value questionnaire originally -q developed by the Personnel Research Board at The Ohio State University. It contained a series of statements describing business practices relating to behavior within organiza- tions. Managers participating in the study were asked to rate each questionnaire item as to the degree to which they believed the practices were desirable or undesirable. It was assumed that a manager in an indirect expression of his his value judgments about the member. This allowed for the in the organizational setting individual and organizational responding to the items gives personal values. as well as organization of which he is a projection of personal values and for the development of value patterns. The concept of organizational values then. as used in this study. refers to the values derived from the perceptions of managers toward organizational behavior. The OVQ was administered to 738 managers from 12 firms. The responses to the Organizational Value Question- naire were factor analyzed and ten meaningful value factors were identified. These factors were substantially similar 161 to the earlier Ohio State studies and in several cases new dimensions were developed.1 The ten organizational values resulting from the factor analysis were used as variables in the Descriptive and Predictive Studies. All ten of the organizational values were found to have at least one sig- nificant relationship with one or more of the structural. technological. or attitudinal variables. The Value Scale Factor Analysis The ten organ1§ational value factors. The factor analysis of managers' responses to the Organizational Value Questionnaire produced ten meaningful and interpretable value dimensions. Faculty members from Bowling Green State University and Michigan State University participated in a special study to identify the behaviors described by the items correSponding to each factor. and to develop factor headings. These value factors and an explanation of their meanings are: Factor 1. Consideration This factor describes general supervisory and organi- zational policies and practices which indicate a con- cern for member needs and welfare as well as a sup- portive - employee centered leadership style. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a climate tending toward a supportive - employee cen- tered leadership approach. with a high concern for individual welfare and needs. 1John Rizzo. Value Dimensions Value Commitments and In-Basket Performance of Business tudents (Columbus: Ohio State University. Ph.D. Thesis. 196“). pp. 66—79. 162 Factor 2. Competition and Exploitation This factor describes activities of organizations and individuals which indicate highly competitive and/or exploitative strategy and behavior. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a stress on competition and exploitation of opportunities. Factor 3. Manager1al Climate This factor relates to general leadership and organi- zational practices with regard to the use of hier- archical management rights. controls and formal author- ity. to influence individual attitudes. actions. and job performance. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a climate which puts a stress on hierarchical rights. controls and the use of formal authority to influence individuals and carry out activities. Factor “. §1sk Taking - Conservatism This factor describes organizational policies and in- dividual and organizational practices which serve to indicate an organization's or individual's values toward risk taking or conservative behavior. A high score would. in general. indicate a preference for conservatism. Fractor 5. Unionization This factor describes practices of organizations re- lating to unions. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a negative or unfavorable orienta- tion toward unions. Factor 6. Paternalism This factor describes organizational policies and practices relating to the concern for and control over. member housing. working conditions. personal loans. and pay and hours. that is paternalistic in nature. A high score would. in general. be an indi- cation of a favorable orientation toward the behavior described in this factor. 163 Factor 7. Concern for Quality of Products and Personnel This factor describes organizational activities and policies relating to beliefs about product quality and the excellence of employees and employee ser- vices. A high score would. in general. be an indi- cation of a high degree of concern for quality and excellence in these items. Factor 8. Social Responsibility This factor describes organizational policies and practices relating to involvement in local. national. and international affairs. A high score would. in general. be an indication of a high degree of concern for social responsibility. Factor 9. Member Equal1py This factor describes general organizational and man- agerial practices relating to treating employees as equals. A high score would. in general. be an indi- cation of an equalitarian climate. perhaps tending toward a permissive leadership philosophy. Factor 10. Executive Status and Authority This factor describes the existence of status distinc- tions for executive positions and executive preroga- tives which stress the accomplishment of the job to be done. A high score. in general. would reflect a preference for executive status distinctions and the stress on getting the job done through the establish- ment of standards of performance. The replication of the earlier research. The results of the factor analysis yielded factors similar to those ex- tracted in the earlier research conducted by Rizzo using a longer version of the value scale.2 Analysis of the re- sulting factors indicated that a number of them were 21bid.. pp. 66-79. 16“ extensions and clearer expressions of the factors extracted in Rizzo's study. Several meaningful new factors resulting from a combination of the earlier factors were developed. In addition. one unique new dimension was identified through the present study. The earlier competition and exploitation factor seems like an improved expression in this analysis and is also titled Competition and Exploitation. Similarly. the values of Unionization. Quality of Products and Personnel. and Social Responsibility are similar to the original factors of the same name. and can be considered to be less con- founded measures of them. ‘ Factor 1. named Consideration. is largely composed of items from the two earlier factors of Organization Super- vision and Structure. and Consideration. This factor is a clearer description of general supervisory and organiza- tional policies and practices. which show a concern for member needs and welfare. than either of the original fac- tors. ggsk Taking - Conservatism. Factor “. also results from a combination of two earlier factors: Factor E (Change vs Conservatism) and Factor K (Organizational Risk Taking). In Rizzo's study, a Paternalism and Internal Control factor was extracted. None of the items on the original factor appeared in Factor 6 also titled Paternalism. How- ever. the items describing this dimension. which were found 165 on several earlier factors. appear to be clearer measures of paternalistic behavior than the original factors. Factor 9. Member Equality. closely resembles the original Member Equality and Freedom from Control dimension. This factor. however. seems to be a better expression of organization and managerial practices relating to treating employees as equals than the original dimension. because it is free of items pertaining to control or authority. Executive Status and Authority is another factor that results largely from a combination of items taken from the two previous factors of Organization Supervision and Struc- ture. and Work Emphasis. The items comprising this factor relate to a stress on standards and the task to be done. This dimension also identifies status distinctions for executive positions over other organizational members. One factor. Managerial Climate. was unique to the present study. This dimension is composed of items that loaded on five of the original factors. The items in this new dimension clearly relate to behaviors which indicate a climate stressing management rights. and the use of author- ity and control to influence behavior. Summary of the Descriptive Study As previously pointed out. the purpose of the Descrip- tive Study was to analyze the relationship between and ef- fect on values of selected Organizational Structural char- acteristics and Production Technology. In order to study 166 this relationship. thirty-two null hypotheses were formu- lated. fourteen of which were subsequently rejected and the alternative hypotheses accepted. The conclusions for each of the four Organizational Structural characteristics and three systems of Production Technology will be discussed as separate subsections. The relat1onship between job position and values. The following three categories of Job Position were used in this study: (1) line responsibility. (2) staff reSponsi- bility. and (3) combined line and staff responsibility. Various research studies dealing with the line-staff relationship found staff managers to be more social and relationship oriented. and line managers to be largely task-oriented.3 However. as pointed out in Table 72. no significant relationship was found to exist between line or staff managers on the value of Consideration. However. managers having both line and staff job responsibility were found to score significantly higher on this value than either line or staff managers. 3For example. see: Thomas W. Harrell. Managers Per- formance and Personalit (Cincinnati: South-Wéstern.11961). pp. 1 -1 an R. wrence and Jay W. Lorsch. Or aniza- tion and Environment (Boston: Harvard University. Division o Research. 1967). pp. 11-“9. Victor H.‘Vroom. Motivation in Mana ement (New York: American Foundation for Manage- ment Research. 1965). pp. 23-“1: and Lyman W. Porter. Or- ganizational Patterns of Managerial Job Attitudes (New— orké7 fifierican Foundation for Management Research. 196“). PP- - 167 aoo. smo. aeaaanaocoao :em Hsdeom .m 33o. Housemaom one muospOHm co sedans: .a Nooo. goo. moo. anaamsaepmm .0 aooo. Hooo. soapmuaso«so .m mooo. ado. mooo. moo. smapoSNomsou ..msdxma seam .: mmo. mno. oposaao Hsdaemmsmz .m moo. moo. sod» :mpaoaawm one soapavoasoo .m moo. sooo. sec. sumo. soapmacodmsoo .a spoon cs scavemm hwoaoc ouam mead chmq soapamom mesam> hpamsoaoam :mapsm :noca codpmuasmmao descapocom amancwmcms poo poo moanmanm> compapp< one awoaocnooa .easvosuum monsoon: eespaupe one hwoaosnooa .oaspeshpm one mosas>.soozpom maanmsodpmacm assoaaaswdm mo somansasoo aumsssm Nu OHDMB 1"} 168 .maanmsoHpmHoa on» ad someone he: sodpocacpsa use» noncoaesd wanes: .adnmsoapmaoa on» you oosseamaswam mo Hoboa Hooves exp moposce mans: *a. one. moo. Hooo. moo. oooo. Hooo. apaaonpsa one mopmpm o>apsooam .oH *8. mmo. aooo. emo. assassem sense: .0 comma o9 ceases“ Amado: swam send Hobeg soapdmoa menace hpamscaona :mdvmm :soca soapmuasmmao Hmsoapessm Hmdacwmcmz poo poo meanmdns> epspapa< use awoaosneoa .cnsposhpm % II 1" A.o.osooo ma canoe 169 A significant relationship was also found to exist between Job Position and the value of Risk Taking - Con- servatism. It was found that line managers scored signifi- cantly higher on this value than did staff managers. As was previously discussed. a high score on this value would, in general. indicate a preference for conservative behavior. This result is counter to research studies that have found line managers to be more forceful and decisive than staff managers.“ gte relationship between managerial level and values. The following three categories of job level were used in this study: (1) top management. (2) middle management. and (3) lower management. A significant relationship was found to exist between Managerial Level and the values of Paternalism. Social Re- sppnsibility and Executive Status and Authority. Lower level managers were found to score significantly higher on the value of Paternalism than middle level man- agers. The mean score of 27.27 for lower level managers. (see Table 26) is a neutral score on this value. This in- dicates that middle level managers are not favorably dis- posed toward the paternalistic behaviors indicgted by this factor. while lower level managers are. in general. neutral. “Porter. pp. c_i'_c_.. pp. 27-““. 170 On the value of Social Responsibilit . as might be expected. top level managers were found to score signifi- cantly higher than either middle or lower level managers. No significant relationship was found to exist between middle and lower level managers on this value. This out- come thus shows that top level business managers have a high concern for social responsibility. The last significant relationship between Managerial Level and Values deals with the value of Executive Status and Authority. This factor describes behaviors indicating a stress on the task to be performed and standards. In addition. it also stresses status distinctions between executives and other organization members. The analysis pointed out that while no distinction can be made between top and middle managers. both of these groups scored sig- nificantly higher on this value than lower level managers. This outcome indicates that the two higher level management groups view their positions as having status distinctions from lower level managers, and in addition. use their authority to stress meeting standards and getting the job done. This finding is similar to the results reported by Wickert and McFarland in a survey of the literature on execu- tive effectiveness. They found that marked differences in 171 values exist between executives in different functions and at different levels.5 The relationship between functional work area and values. The third structural characteristic analyzed was the functional work area of managers. The following nine categories of Functional Work Areas were used in this study: (1) Production. (2) Marketing. (3) Accounting-Finance. (“) Personnel. (5) Purchasing. (6) Administration. (7) Engi- neering. (8) Data Processing. and (9) Research and Develop- ment. Various research studies such as those of Tagiuri. Porter and Ghiselli. and Harrell have found differences existing between different functional groups.6 For example. sales managers were found to be highly verbal and aggres- sive. while production managers were characterized as being more defensive. stressing controls and being less humani- tarian oriented.7 Lawrence and Lorsch found similar results in their research studies.8 5Frederic R. Wickert and Dalton E. McFarland. Measuri Executive Effectiveness (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1 spp01‘1 e 6Renato Tagiuri. ”Value Orientations and the Relation- ship of Managers and Scientists." Administrative Science guarterly. June. 1965. pp. 39-51: L. W. Porter and E. E. hisel i. ”The Self Perceptions of Top and Middle Management Personnel.” Personnel Ps cholo . $2, 1957. pp. 97-991 and Harrell. pp. 215,. pp. 1 -1 . 7Harrell. Ibid. 8Lawrence and Lorsch. pp. cit.. pp. 11-“9. 172 Table 72 reveals that a significant relationship exists between Functional Work Area and the values of SEEK Taking_- Conservatism. Social Responsibility. and Executive Status and Authority. Production managers were found to score significantly higher on the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism than re- search and development managers. Since a high score on this value dimension indicates conservative behavior orien- tations. production managers can be considered to be more conservative than research and development managers. This outcome is similar to the results reported by Harrell.9 Even though Table 72 illustrates a highly significant relationship (.007) between Functional Area and the value of Social Responsibility. no significant relationships be- tween category means at a significance level of .10 or lower could be found. The only explanation that can be offered for this event is that. perhaps. because of the small category sample sizes and large number of levels. the variance was spread too finely over the analysis for indi- vidual categories to become statistically significant. Marketing managers were found to score significantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authority than production managers. Both groups of managers have high scores on this dimension. 9Harrell.pp. cit.. pp. 108-133. 173 The relationsh1p between orgattgation size and values. The last structural characteristic studied was the size of organizations. Three categories of size were used in this study: they were: (1) small size. (2) medium size. and (3) large size. The results of the analysis of this relationship. as tfi summarized in Table 72. show that there is a significant 1 relationship between Organization Size and the values of Consideration. Unionization. Paternalism. Member Equality. and Executive Status and Authority. The results of the analysis given in Table 35 show that managers from large size firms score significantly higher on the value of Consideration than do managers from medium size firms. As previously indicated. a high score on the Value of thgnization would indicate an unfavorable orientation toward unions. It was found that managers from large size firms. as well as those from small size firms. scored sig- nificantly higher on this value than did managers from medium sized firms. This result indicates that managers from small and large size firms have decidedly negative outlooks toward the idea of unions. while managers from medium size firms are favorably disposed toward unions. Managers from medium size firms were found to have a favorable orientation toward paternalistic practices. They scored significantly higher on the value of Paternalism 17“ than did managers from large size firms. whose mean score on this value indicates an unfavorable outlook toward paternalistic practices. The value of Member Equality describes practices in- dicating the treatment of organization members in an equal- itarian manner. Managers from large size firms were found to be favorably disposed toward this value. as they scored significantly higher on it than medium size firm managers whose value score also indicated a favorable orientation toward it. On the value of Executive Status and Authortty. the group of managers from small size firms had the highest mean score. However. no significant relationship between this group and medium and large size firm managers could be found. The managers from large size firms had a positive score on this factor. They scored significantly higher on this value than the medium size group of managers. The relationship between technology and values. The systems of production technology analyzed. following Joan Woodward's classification. were: (1) unit and small batch production. (2) large batch and mass production. and (3) process production. As previously stated. Woodward found that process production firms tended to operate under more organic systems of management than large batch or mass pro- duction firms. They placed less stress on controls. dele- gated more authority. and placed a greater stress on . 1! L ,5 '1"? 7" ’ifij’n an. "777" MC”? ‘17—. F7 175 decentralization of decision making. She also implies that there was greater member consideration in organic firms.10 In contrast. she found large batch and mass production firms tending to operate largely under mechanical systems of management. Firms in this category clearly defined duties. placed a greater stress on controls. formal author- ity. and the task more so than process or unit and small batch firme.11 We would expect. based on the preceding discussion. that managers from large batch and mass production firms would score lower on the value of Consideration than man- agers from the other two classifications. It was found. however. that all three technology groups scored high on this value. but the managers from large batch and mass pro- duction firms scored significantly higher than either process or unit and small batch managers. This implies that perhaps the general assumption that large batch and mass production organizations are less considerate of mem- ber needs and welfare is not true. However. the results here might be due to the fact. as was later discovered. that the three firms in this sample were not unionized and prided themselves on their high concerns for the welfare of 10Joan Woodward. Industrial 0r anization: Theor and Practice (London: Oxford University FFess. 1965). pp. 38- 80 and 129-233. 11Ibid. 176 their employees. This information reinforces the finding that the factor of Consideration is a good measure of prac- tices relating to a concern for employee welfare and needs. Managers from the unit and small batch technology group were found to score significantly higher on the value of Competition and Exploitation than managers from the process production group. However. the mean scores of all three groups indicates an unfavorable orientation toward competitive or exploitative behaviors. This result appears to support Woodward‘s observation that firms in the unit and small batch production category were. in general. placing a greater stress on the task and the use of formal authority and controls to achieve results, than were process firms.12 The process firm managers had the lowest mean score on this value. This implies, as would be expected following Woodward. that process managers have the least tendency toward the use of competitive or exploitative be- havior. Large batch and mass production managers scored sig- nificantly higher on the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism than did managers from process production firms. It will be recalled that a high score on this value indicates con- servative behavior orientations. Large batch and mass pro- duction managers. then. were found to be more conservative than process production managers. 121bid. 177 It was found that large batch and mass production managers scored significantly higher on the value of pplpp- ization than either unit and small batch or process produc- tion managers. Their high score on this value indicates a highly negative view toward unions. This fact was substan- tiated by the discovery that firms in this category were not unionized. It was also found that unit and small batch managers scored significantly higher on the Unionization factor than process managers. The process production man- agers mean value score indicates that they were favorably disposed toward unions. Woodward's observation that process firms. in general. tend to operate more organicly. while large batch and mass production firms tend to operate more mechanistically. ap- pears to be substantiated by the results on the value of Paterngttgp. Process production managers scored signifi- cantly higher on this value than did large batch and mass production managers. In addition. it was found that unit and small batch managers scored significantly higher on this value than large batch and mass production managers. However. the mean score of the unit and small batch man- agers indicates a neutral stand rather than a favorable orientation toward the value of Paternalism. This implies that the more organic a firm. the more paternalistic is its concern for the welfare of its members. 178 Managers from large batch and mass production firms scored significantly higher on the value of Quality of Products and Personnel than did managers from unit and small batch technology systems. This outcome appears to support Woodward's finding that large batch and mass production firms placed a greater stress on control of quality than unit or small batch firms.13 The outcome of the analysis on the value of Member Equality shows that large batch and mass production man- agers scored significantly higher on this value than either of the other two groups. Once again this finding rein- forces the outcome of the discussion with the top officials previously mentioned. In addition. process production man- agers were found to score significantly higher than unit and small batch managers on this value. This outcome sup- ports Woodward's observation that process production firms have a greater concern for their members and delegate more authority.‘“ It was found. as would be expected according to the results of Woodward's study. that both unit and small batch and large batch and mass production managers scored sig- nificantly higher on the value of Executive Status and Authortty than did process managers. This implies that 131bid. 1"mm. W ' a.“ ' ‘ M I 179 they place a greater value on executive status distinctions and the use of authority to get the job done than do process managers. Interaction in the descriptive stugy. Interaction effects between structural characteristics and technology were found to exist for two values. There was interaction between Job Position and Technology on the value of Eggpp- tpve Status and Authority. It was found that there were thirteen significant relationships existing between cell means. There was significant interaction between the group of unit and small batch managers and all three position classifications. Significant interaction also occurred be— tween large batch and mass production managers and managers with staff and both line and staff job responsibility. No interaction was present between the process managers and the three position categories. At this time. no particular explanation can be offered to account for these interaction effects. Interaction was also found to exist between Organiza- tion Size and Technology for the value of Member Equality. In this situation. seven cases of significant interaction were discovered. Significant interaction was found to exist between managers from unit and small batch systems and managers from both small and large size organizations. There also was significant interaction between the managers from large batch and mass production groups and managers 0 b‘“ .v' LCV.§W‘§I~. . 1 .—‘=r'm:—v—«— ‘71:“ 'i 180 from large size firms. In addition. interaction was also significant for the process production group of managers and managers from both medium and large size firms. As in the previous situation of interaction. the interrelations are so complex that no explanation can be given for their occurrence at this time. Summary and Implications of The Predictive Study As previously pointed out. the purpose of the predic- tive study was to analyze the relationship between the value scores of managers and two attitude measures toward the job and firm. To achieve this objective. an analysis was made of the relationship between managers whose value scores differed from the aggregate group of managers. and the two attitude variables of Job Satisfaction and Propen- sity To Leave. The aggregate group was composed of all 738 managers who completed the Organizational Value Questionnaire. In order to study this relationship. the ten organi- zational value factors were used as independent variables in the formulation of hypotheses. with Job Satisfaction and Propensity To Leave serving as the dependent variables. In all. twenty hypotheses were formulated. eight of which were subsequently rejected. The summary and implications for each attitude vari- able will be discussed as separate subsections. at‘ .5. I! i'.-‘m) '- llr ‘df‘u'lLDQCCRI' an... m 181 The relationship between values andjgt satisfaction. This attitude variable was classified into the following three groups: (1) managers with png job satisfaction. (2) managers with moderate job satisfaction. and (3) managers with $2! job satisfaction. These groups were determined by computing the mean for this variable and placing all scores -- m “:5 ;‘ greater than plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean into the respective high or low group. , nu all—4n 2"” «‘1 ’ ‘c ' I As shown in Table 72. there are no significant rela— tionships between values and Job Satisfaction at the .05 level. However. there are three significant relationships between values and Job Satisfaction at the .10 level. They are: (1) Consideration. (2) Managerial Climate. and (3) Executive Status and Authority. The analysis of category means on the value of gppg ppderation revealed that managers in the high job satisfac- tion group scored significantly higher on this value than did managers in the low job satisfaction group. This out- come indicates that the higher the value a manager places on the value factor of Consideration. the more likely he is to find his job highly satisfying. CorreSponding. the lower the value placed on this factor. the greater are the prospects of the manager having low job satisfaction. A significant relationship was also found to exist between the value of Managerial Climate and Job Satisfac- tion. It was found that managers with moderate job satis- faction scored significantly higher on this value than did 182 managers with high job satisfaction. Those managers with the highest job satisfaction had the lowest category mean score on this value. while those managers with moderate job satisfaction had the highest mean score. The mean scores of all three groups would indicate a negative orientation toward the behaviors described by this factor. The value factor of Managerial Climate. as previously mentioned. de- scribes a climate which stresses hierarchical rights. and the use of controls and formal authority to influence in- dividuals. With this definition in mind. it appears that 'Ixmfiiuia’s "hi 'XI-JD‘ .59‘43' .T p. t 1 managers who place less of a value on the behaviors de- scribed by the value factor of Managerial Climate tend to have the highest job satisfaction. The last significant relationship found to exist was between Job Satisfaction and the value of Executive Status and Authortty. The analysis of this relationship revealed that managers with high job satisfaction score significantly higher on this value than do managers with low job satis- faction. As pointed out in the beginning of this chapter. the value dimension of Executive Status and Authority indi- cates the existence of status distinctions for the execu- tive role and describes various executive prerogatives that stress accomplishing the task to be done. This outcome, then. implies that those managers who place a high value on this factor tend to have greater job satisfaction than those managers who place a low value on this factor. 183 ’ The results of this analysis of the relationship be- tween values and the attitude measure of Job Satisfaction lead to some interesting implications for future research. Although no hypotheses were formulated concerning combina- tions of factors predicting Job Satisfaction. the analysis just summarized indicates that such a cluster may exist. As pointed out. the group of highly satisfied managers tended to place a greater value on the factors of Consider- gtlpp and Executive Status and Authority. and a lower value on Managerial Climate. than did those managers who had low job satisfaction. This outcome implies that those managers who view executive positions as having status distinctions and are concerned with the welfare and needs of their em- ployees. have greater job satisfaction than managers who do not hold these values. In addition. they stress getting the job done but not through a stress on the use of con- trols and formal authority to do so. This implication sug- gests the value of future research to determine if this combination of organizational values does indeed indicate an “open" organization climate and can serve as one indi- cator of managerial job satisfaction. The relationship between values and propensity_tg 12513. This attitude variable was also classified into three categories. These three groups were: (1) managers with lg! propensity to leave. (2) managers with moderate propensity to leave. and (3) managers with high propensity 18“ to leave. These groups were determined by computing the mean for this attitude variable and placing all scores greater than plus one standard deviation from the mean into the low propensity to leave group and all scores greater than minus one standard deviation from the mean into the high propensity to leave group. As shown in Table 72. the three values of Competition and EXploitation. Risk Taking - Conservatism. and Member Eguality are significant at the .05 level. In addition. two values. Managerial Climate and Executive Status and Authority. are significant at the .10 significance level.. A highly significant relationship was found to exist between the value of Competition and Exploitation. and Pro- pensity To Leave. It was found that both the moderate and high propensity to leave groups of managers scored signifi- cantly higher on the value dimension of Competition and Ex- ploitation. than did the low propensity to leave group. However. the mean scores of all three groups indicates an unfavorable orientation toward the behaviors described by this factor. This result implies that those managers who place less of a value on the value factor of Competition and Exploitation tend to have the lowest propensity to leave an organization. while those who place a higher value on this factor have the greatest propensity to leave. The analysis of category means for the value of £22? egerial Climate reveals that those managers with a low 185 propensity to leave a firm score significantly higher on the value of Managerial Climate. than do those managers with a high propensity to leave. However. the mean score of all three groups indicates a negative orientation toward this factor's behaviors. This outcome indicates that those managers who place a higher value on a climate stressing p the use of controls and formal authority to influence be- i havior are the most likely to remain with an organization. 9 while those managers who do not place a high value on this factor are most likely to leave an organization. A highly significant relationship was also found to exist between the value of Risk Taking - Conservatism and Propensity To Leave. As previously pointed out. a high score on this value is. in general. an indication of a con- servative orientation. It was found that managers with a low propensity to leave an organization scored signifi- cantly higher on the value of Risk Taking_- Conservatism. than either the moderate or high propensity to leave groups of managers. This result implies that those managers who place a greater value on conservative behavior are most likely to remain with a firm. while those who place less of a value on this factor are most likely to leave an organi- zation. One other highly significant relationship was found to exist between values and Propensity To Leave. The value of Member Eguality was highly significant in relation to 186 Propensity To Leave. Those managers with a low propensity to leave were found to score significantly higher on the value of Member Equality than those managers with a high propensity to leave. This indicates that those managers who place a high value on Member Equality tend to be the managers most likely to remain with an organization. Corre- spondingly. those managers who place a low value on this factor tend to be the most likely to leave an organization. The last significant relationship found to exist was between the value of Executive Status and Author;ty;and Propensity To Leave. It was found that managers who had a moderate propensity to leave scored significantly higher on the value dimension of Executive Status and Authority than did those managers with a low propensity to leave. This result implies that those managers most likely to remain with a firm place a lower value on this factor than those managers who have the greatest tendency to leave an organi- zation. Once again. as in the preceding section dealing with the analysis of Job Satisfaction. a definite pattern appears to exist. although such a combination of values was not hypothesized. The results just discussed indicates that the values as a group may be useful in predicting potential managerial turnover. As pointed out. the managers most likely to stay with an organization place a higher value on the value . I I . .1136" . 187 factors of Member Equality. Risk Taking - Conservatism. and ggpggerial Climate. and a lower value on the factors of Compgtition and Exploitation and Executive Status and Authority. than did those managers who are most likely to leave a firm. This implies that those managers who are least likely to leave an organization have a conservative orientation. and place less value on competitive behavior. In addition. while they favor an equalitarian climate. they place a higher value on getting the job done through the use of controls and formal authority than those managers most likely to leave. They also place a low‘value on execu- tive status distinctions. Correspondingly. managers who are less conservative in orientation and who place a higher value on competition appear to be the most likely to leave. These managers. in addition. tend not to value an equali- tarian climate. but stress a climate where there are execu- tive status distinctions and the task is accomplished with- out a stress on formal authority and control. The results of this analysis indicates that future research may take the form of followaup studies to see which managers have actually left the organizations studied would be very valuable in determining the worth of these values as predictors of managerial turnover. In addition. it would appear useful to identify the existing climate of an organization in an attempt to match the climate indi- cated by the values of the kinds of executives the organi- zation would wish to retain. In Enamels-cw. . area-1‘. up . m. 1 l 188 General Conclusions The purpose of this study was to attempt to develop a set of organizational value factors that could be used to: (1) describe the values of managers and organizations. (2) study the relationship between values and an organization's structural characteristics and system of technology. and I» __ y'tals' (3) be used to predict performance. These objectives were largely accomplished. Ten interpretable and meaningful value factors were developed. These values were found to have at least one or more significant relationships between the structural characteristics. technology system. or atti- tude variables used in this study. In addition. the re- sults of the predictive study indicate the usefulness of the values to predict performance and lead to several inter- esting implications for future research effort. APPENDICES APPENDIX I THE ORGANIZATIONAL VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH COVER LETTER AND THE ATTITUDINAL SCALE .11 in'Ft: 1.1.. .‘JJ n .‘il’vf '.-'_ 'TFT‘N'I ll ,1 APPENDIX I THE ORGANIZATIONAL VALUE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH COVER LETTER AND THE ATTITUDINAL SCALE Cover Letter g) I 1 Dear Industrial and academic leaders are becoming increasingly interested in Organization Theory and Organization Behavior research studies. Their aim has been to secure a better understanding of individual behavior within a business or- ganization. The belief that individual and group values play an impor- tant part in influencing managerial behavior in many areas including: supervision. motivation. communication. deci- sion making and executive development. has gained increas- ing strength in recent years. Little actual research. however. has been done in determining and describing man- agerial and executive values within an organizational setting. I am currently involved in such a research study. directed toward the determination. description and evalua- tion of these values. I need your help and cooperation in answering the enclosed questionnaire. Your assistance will help make this a suc- cessful project and you will be contributing toward advanc- ing research knowledge. There are no correct or incorrect responses. Your personal beliefs are the important answers. Information about you and your job will be helpful in com- paring responses from managers with similar backgrounds. I have enclosed two personal data sheets for this information. Personal identification for the purpose of followeup studies will increase the value of my research. However. if you prefer not to identify yourself or your company. please pro- vide all other information requested. as your help is vital for the overall success of this research project. 189 190 Information you supply will be held strictl confidential. Aggregate terms will be used in summarizing the research and no individual identities will be revealed. I have enclosed a pro-stamped. addressed envelope for your use in returning the enclosed materials. Thank you for your cooperation in this research. Sincerely. Ronald J. Hunady Assistant Professor Enclosure mg w.n—J; _.-I ‘1' . p- 9mm 191 ORGANIZATION VALUES DIMENSION QUESTIONNAIRE* INSTRUCTIONS: There is a great deal of variation among business organiza- tions in their characteristics. methods of operation and managerial behavior. On the following pages you will find a list of items. Each item in the questionnaire represents a statement about behavior or conditions which exist within some business organizations. We are interested in obtaining your personal beliefs as to the desirability or undesira- bility of these characteristics and methods of operation. ASSUME THAT EACH ITEM IS TRUE and that it represents a con- dition as it actuaIIy exIsEs within some organization. DO NOT EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE FOR YOUR COEPKNY. Remember that these statements pertainCEo behavior wiEhin some business organizations and are not statements about behavior or conditions within your company. For each item. evaluate in accordance with your own point of view. the degree to which you believe that the described practice or condition is desirable or undesirable. Please use the following scale in your evaluation of each item. Don't Ex- Care Ex- tremely Very Quite Slightly or Slightly Quite Very cel- Poor Poor Poor Poor Neutral Good Good Good lent 1 2 3 “ 5 6 7 8 9 EXAMPLE: Take item 1 as an example: In some business organizations. each employee is put on his own. Assume that this item is a true statement of fact and EVALUATE THE DEGREE TO WHICH rou FEEL THAT THIS IS A DESIRWmN. en. se ect the scale value which represents your beIie? toward the condition described in the item and record the scale number on the answer sheet. Do this for each item. flRevised and printed with permission from The Bureau of Business Research The Ohio State University Columbus. Ohio 1. LT“ '7 my .1. VAQMAfl—‘mnfl .1311"? 192 Do not write anything on the pages containing the items. Use only one scale number for each item and do not leave any items blank. 1. 2. 3. “. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1“. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2“. 25. 26. Each employee is put on his own. The board of directors holds the president solely re- sponsible for the success of the firm. The firm donates money only when such gifts appear to benefit the firm directly or indirectly. Executives in the firm are rotated from one job to another. Ff The firm prefers to sell more goods to its present customers rather than to increase the number of cus- tomers to increase sales volume. at VA;- _. ‘ The firm would like to provide employees with company housing. Political strategy is necessary for one to get promo- 1:10:18. Length of service in the firm is the principal quali- fication for promotion. ' The firm encourages the wives of executives to express their opinions about the firm. The basic objectives of the firm never change. The firm backs aid to foreign countries. Workers in the firm have never unionized. The firm has all employees punch a time clock. The firm's primary objective is large profit. The firm makes a continuing heavy investment in em- ployee training. High quality of product is emphasized. Executives sometimes pad their expense accounts. Executives treat all the employees as their equals. Executives avoid any display of authority. How well an employee gets along with others on the job is considered more important than his production. The firm attempts to aid in solving international problems. The firm places greater emphasis on quality than it does on quantity. The firm occasionally wages price “wars” with its com- petitors. The firm is extremely particular in checking every detail of the finished product. The firm has the right political connection. The firm insists that each employee carry hospitaliza- tion insurance. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. “0. “1. 1:2. £13. an. “5. “6. “7. “8. “9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 193 The firm asks its executives to keep quiet about polit- ical‘views. The workers in the firm consider management uncoopera- tive e The firm has a system whereby pay fluctuates according to cost of living index. Many unnecessary free services are given to customers. Employees are asked not to bring their personal worries to works Executives are frequently transferred from one posi- tion to another. Many ideas of top management differ from those of middle management. Executives act without consulting their subordinates. The firm has a recreational program for its employees and their families. Employees who volunteer to work extra hours are the ones more likely to get ahead. Executives openly criticize poor work to lower level managers. The firm always puts a larger advertisement in the media than its competitors. The firm employs full time medical personnel. The firm takes big chances and sometimes makes the wrong decision. The firm pays the highest wages in the community. The firm will keep almost any employee who puts in a full day's work. Promotion is slow but steady. The union in the firm limits the number of workers allowed on the job. aha firm has a noisy plant that disturbs local resi- enta e The firm is constantly trying to raise the employee's pride in the firm. A firm does not hire individuals who are radical in their beliefs. A firm does what is best for itself regardless of when or what it hurts. The firm forces retirement on those over 65. The firm is sympathetic with the personal worries of its employees. The firm prefers hiring college graduates rather than persons with less education. The firm encourages the employees to go to a church of their own choice. The firm often blames the union for declining profits. 55- 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7“. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 19“ The firm lobbies at all government levels. Executives are required to set definite standards of performance for subordinates. The firm rewards initiative at every opportunity. When work is slack. hours and weekly pay are reduced rather than lay off anyone. The firm urges all employees to join the union. The firm's management is composed of a group of upper- class families in the community. The firm encourages the employees and their families to join community activities that will help the firm. The firm takes advantage of loopholes in laws which restrict it. | Executives use firm-owned cars for personal business. Executives refuse to explain their actions. The firm transfers few executives to minimize moving established homes. The firm uses all legal means to weaken unions. The firm capitalizes on the conditions of the economy in times of distress. The firm realizes that all workers have occasional "bad" days. A new method is never adopted unless it earns money. Employees in the firm set their own speed of work. During economic recessions the firm gives customers special discounts in order to improve business. The firm pushes research even though it may have no immediate practical benefit. The wives of executives are influential in the firm. The firm stresses the importance of the job to be done more than the person who does it. The firm gives special considerations to its bigger customers. Executives find a good deal of time to listen to em- ployees. The firm never reduces the rate paid the worker per item produced. The firm gets rid of ”undesirables" by putting them in jobs they cannot do. The firm has occasionally violated some state laws. Eveiy employee must know the firm's objectives and gas 8. Because of special favors they have received. the police force gives the firm extra protection. The firm allows its name to be listed as one of the supporters of a political party. The firm takes big risks to beat its competitors. 83. 8“. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 9“. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 10“. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 11“. 195 Employees don't feel pressured by management. Many managers are very active in civic activities. In order to compete effectively. the firm violates some antitrust laws. The firm seems to spend money freely. The firm is strict about changing standard prices. Executives look out for the welfare of the individual employees. The firm's policies are based on the belief that happy employees are productive employees. The firm engages in open fights with union officers. The firm uses every means to avoid paying taxes. The firm is always very cautious in making changes. The firm uses high pressure marketing tactics. Executives see to it that everyone is working at capacity. The firm's compensation system is based upon individual productivity. Policy changes are the rule rather than the exception. Executives receive bonuses. Executives keep to themselves. Many of the firm's executives are active participants in political activities. The executives of the firm have more comfortable working conditions than the office staff. Employees feel the way the firm is run is no concern of theirs. The firm's departments are encouraged to compete with each other. The firm has very conservative political views. The firm frequently sponsors programs to raise the cultural level of the community. The firm will absorb a competitor if it can. Older employees discourage new ideas. The firm solicits contracts from all sources. govern- ment included. Eiecutives let the employees know what is expected of t ems The firm contributes to college athletic scholarships. Tge girm urges everyone to follow the organization c ar . Executives emphasize meeting deadlines. The firm is lenient in lending money to its employees. The firm pays executives higher salaries than research Beientiats e The firm has an elaborate quality control system. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 12“. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 13%: 133. 13“. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 1“0. 1“1. 1“2. 1“3. 196 Executives make employees feel at ease when talking to them. Executives get approval from their assistants on im- portant matters before going ahead. The firm has representatives in all states soliciting business. Occasionally an employee has to cover up for the actions of his superior. The firm has a narrow profit margin. Lower level executives really run the firm. The firm pushes hard to be first in introducing new products and services. . Employees are given standard vacation periods regard— less of the length of service. Employees act as if their lives belong to the firm. The firm's advertising policy is: if it's legal. it's ethical. Employees are on first name basis with their superiors. The firm will not promote an employee who neglects his family. Executives put suggestions by employees into opera- tion. 7 The firm makes it rough for competitors. The firm helps the employee plan his future. The girm is attempting to become the largest in its 191 e The firm has family-controlled management. The firm emphasizes individual achievement rather than achievement as a team member. The firm is managed by a small group who own most of the stock. The firm tries to recruit top personnel from its com- petitors e Executives do personal favors for the employees. The firm has a scholarship plan for the employee's children. The executive in the firm who is a smart manipulator is more likely to get ahead. The firm keeps the quality of its services high even when it's business is declining. The firm has a chaplain who leads devotional services for employees. Executives speak in a manner not to be questioned. The firm does not transfer or promote employees who desire to remain on their present job. The firm's management is opposed to a closed shop. Managers openly criticize poor work of employees. 197 ORGANIZATION VALUE DIMENSION’QUESTIONNAIRE Attitudinal Scale Please place a check mark next to the statement that most accurately describes your answer on each question. *fififiiiiifififiifl'fifififif“*fifi“”*”§§***§**“§§§§§*§fi{filiflfififiifi 1. How well do you like your Very Much work: Pretty Well Somewhat Not'Very Much Not at All 2. How much chance does your Very Good Chance job give you to do the Fairly Good Chance things you like best: Some Chance Very Little Chance _____ No Chance ____ 3. How good a job does your A Great Job immediate superior do in A Very Good Job dealing with people: A Fairly Good Job A Fairly Poor Job A Poor Job “. Which of the following statements best represents your general attitude about staying with your present com- pany: I would not consider leaving under any circumstances I would leave for a promotion and a 20% increase in pay I would leave for a similar kind of job and a 20% pay increase I would leave for a similar job and salary. which has more challenge I would leave for a similar kind of job and pay 5. What are your plans in regard to staying with your com- 8 I would like to stay all my working life I would leave only for an exceptional opportunity I will leave if something better turns up I hope for a chance to leave under favorable cir- cumstances I expect to leave as soon as possible NAME COMPANY IIHE APPENDIX II THE FOURTEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES WITH THEIR HIGH LOADING ITEMS FROM RIZZO'S STUDY APPENDIX II THE POURTEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES WITH THEIR HIGH LOADING ITEMS FROM RIZZO'S STUDY Load- Item ing Item Description Factor A Organizattenal Supervieton and Structure 1“8 .6“0 Executives let the employee know what is ex- pected of them. 75 .563 The firm recognizes and rewards initiative. 1“? .560 The firm solicits contracts from all sources. government as well as others. 1““ .551 The plant is equipped with the latest safety devices. 91 -.5“6 The firm has employees working at dangerous jobs without proper equipment. 169 .5““ The firm has the right to expect employees to work hard. to do the best they can. and to pro- duce a fair day's work. 152 .538 Executives emphasize meeting deadlines. 102 .527 Executives find time to listen to employees. 160 .520 Executives make sure their part in the firm is understood by employees. 88 -.516 One section of the firm has no respect for another section. 158 .515 Executives make employees feel at ease when talking to them. 8“ -.513 Executives refuse to explain their actions. 1“0 -.508 Employees feel the way the firm is run is no concern of theirs. 105 -.505 The firm gets rid of "undesirables" by putting them in jobs they cannot do. 165 -.“97 Occasionally. an employee has to cover up for the actions of his superior. 107 .“85 Every employee must learn what the objectives and goals of the firm are. 106 -.“69 The firm has occasionally violated some state laws. 7“ .“66 Executives require their subordinates to have definite standards of performance. 39 -.“66 The workers in the firm consider management uncooperative. 1971 198 Load- Item ing Item Description 17“ -.“6“ The firm has misleading advertising. 92 .“32 The firm realizes that all workers have occa- sional ”bad“ days. 23 -.“31 Executives sometimes pad their expense accounts. 1“9 .“30 A firm reviews salaries of professional em- ployees at least once a year. 62 .“28 The firm is constantly trying to raise the em- ployees' pride in the firm. 169 .“27 The firm pushes hard to be first in introducing new products and services. 117 .“21 Executives look out for the welfare of the in- dividual employees. 132 -.“10 Policies are changed quickly and often. 1“6 -.“07 Older employees discourage new ideas. 97 .“06 The firm pushes research even though it may have no immediate practical benefit. 83 .“00 Executives receive bonuses. 122 -.379 The firm engages in open fights with union officers. 178 .377 Executives put suggestions by employees into operation. 135 .372 Executives receive bonuses. 121 .367 The firm's policies are based on the belief that happy employees are productive employees. 130 .363 Top positions in the firm are highly valued by employees. 20 .326 The firm spends money on a training program to keep its employees up to date and well-informed. Factor B Competition and Exploitation 81 .5“3 The firm takes advantage of loopholes in laws which restrict it. 90 .5“3 The firm capitalizes on the conditions of the economy in times of distress. 1“5 .5“3 The firm will absorb a competitor if it can. 19 .5“1 The firm places large profits as a top objective. 63 .509 A firm does what is best for itself regardless of whom or what it hurts. 179 .“90 The firm makes it rough for competitors. 3 .“58 The firm donates money only when such gifts appear to benefit the firm directly or in- directly. 36. .“25 The firm has the right political connections. 123 .“20 The firm uses every legitimate means to avoid paying taxes. 23 .“07 Executives sometimes pad their expense accounts. 155 .“03 The firm is located in an area where labor can be obtained cheaply. Item 199 122 95 156 156 73 22 159 1 38 182 166 Fact 115 190 36 79 62 61 73 175 51 103 29 Load- ing Item Description .397 The firm engages in open fights with union officers. .379 A new method is never adopted unless it earns money. .365 The executive in the firm who is a smart manip- ulator is more likely to get ahead. .365 The firm is as big as a small city. .361 The firm lobbies in state and national capitals to influence legislation. .328 The firm pays women less than men for the same kind of work. .327 Executives of competing firms may be good friends but they do not trust each other. .322 Executives of the firm have more comfortable working conditions than does the office staff. .308 The firm is attempting to become the largest in its fialde -.296 The firm has a narrow profit margin. or C External Community Relations -.398 The firm is strict about changing standard prices. -.382 Executives do personal favors for employees. -.323 The firm has the right political connections. -.306 The firm's management is composed of a group of upper-class families in the community. -.306 The firm is constantly trying to raise the em- ployees' pride in the firm. .305 The firm has a noisy plant that disturbs resi- dents in the neighborhood. -.292 The firm lobbies in state and national capitals to influence legislation. -.269 The firm encourages employees and their families to join community activities that will help the irm. -.289 Executives criticize poor work. -.268 Because of special favors they have received. the police force gives the firm extra attention. -.267 The firm attempts to aid in solving inter- national problems. Factor D Attitude Toward Untonization 6O 1? .6“5 The union in the firm limits the number of workers allowed on the job. -.622 Workers in the firm have never unionized. 200 Load- Item ing Item Description 78 .516 The firm requires that all employees belong to the union. 87 -.“3“ The firm uses all legal means to weaken unions. 72 .368 The firm is losing profits because of union demands. 6“ -.306 - The firm is a leader in keeping taxes down. 192 .287 The executive in the firm who is a smart manip- ulator is more likely to get ahead. 1“2 -.281 The firm has very conservative political views. Factor E Change vs. Conservatism 15 -.373 The basic objectives of the firm never change. 85 -.370 The firm transfers few executives to minimize moving established homes. 170 -.369 Employees are given standard vacation periods regardless of the length of service they have had. 5 -.351 The firm prefers to sell more goods to its present customers than simply to increase the number of customers. 38 -.3“5 The firm asks its executives to keep quiet about political views. 10“ -.26“ The firm never reduces the rate paid the worker per item produced. 173 -.26“ The firm makes many of its products by hand rather than by machine to ensure highest quality. 12“ -.258 The firm is always very cautious in making changes. 56 .252 The firm takes big chances and sometimes gambles wrong. Factor F Member Equality and Freedom from Control 58 .527 The firm will keep most any employee who puts in a full day's work. 175 .511 The firm's officials are called by their first names. 25 .“63 Executives avoid any display of authority. 2“ .“56 Executives treat employees as their equals. 59 .383 Promotion is slow but steady. 190 .320 Executives do personal favors for employees. 110 .320 There is a carefree atmosphere in the firm. 96 .319 Employees in the firm set their own speed of works 83 -.291 Executives receive bonuses. 136 -.28“ Executives keep to themselves. 201 Load- Item ing Item Description 135 -.27“ Executives receive bonuses. 138 -.273 The executives of the firm have more comfortable working conditions than does the office staff. 111 .268 The firm attempts to hold production and sales at a constant rate regardless of what other firms dOe 26 .258 The firm holds back marketing new products until other firms have introduced them. Factor G Consideration 2 -.““0 The board of directors holds the president solely responsible for the firm. “7 -.“27 Executives act without consulting subordinates. 13“ .391 The firm tries to locate new branch plants near housing developments. 27 -.391 The workers in the firm dislike the president. 161 .3“5 Executives get approval from their assistants on important matters before going ahead. 183 .3“3 The firm has a family controlled management. 1“0 -.262 Employees feel the way the firm is run is no concern of theirs. 5“ -.258 The firm does not provide medical service for employees. Factor H Social Reeponsibility 181 .532 The firm helps the employee plan his future. “8 -.“36 The firm does not have a recreational program for its employees and their families. 28 .“35 How well an employee gets along with others on the job is considered more important than his production. 69 .“11 The firm is sympathetic with the personal worries of its employees. 98 .385 The wives of executives are influential in the firm. 1“ .372 The firm encourages the wives of employees to voice their opinions about the firm. 70 .356 The firm encourages the employees to go to a church of their own choice. 198 .3““ The firm has a chaplain that leads devotional services for employees. 76 .3“O The firm encourages employees and their families to join community activities that will help the firm. 1“3 .310 The firm frequently carries out programs to ”lift" the cultural level of its community. 202 Load- Item ing Item Description ““ -.302 Employees are asked to leave their personal worries at the door as they come to work. 112 .297 The firm's management is comprised mainly of civic leaders. 29 .287 The firm attempts to aid in solving inter- national problems. 15“ .286 The firm contributes to college athletic scholarships. 176 .281 The firm will not promote an employee who neglects his family. 139 .272 Wives of executives discuss affairs of the firm among themselves. 153 .268 The firm is lenient in lending money to its employees. Factor I Quality of Products and Personnel 52 .5“1 The firm always puts a larger advertisement in the media than its competitors. 21 .532 High quality of products is emphasized. 33 .“75 The firm places greater emphasis on quality than it does on quantity. 157 .“69 The firm has an elaborate system for inapecting the quality of its product. 163 .“51 The firm has a salesman in all states soliciting business. 35 .“39 The firm is extremely particular in checking every detail of the finished product. 57 .“37 The firm pays the highest wages in the commun- ty. 5“ -.39“ The firm does not provide medical service for employees. 193 .39“ The firm keeps the quality of its services high even when it loses business. 20 .375 The firm spends money on a training program to keep its employees up to date and well informed. 10“ .370 The firm never reduces the rate paid the worker per item produced. 191 .362 The firm has a scholarship plan for employees' children. 169 .361 The firm pushes hard to be first in introducing new products and services. 53 .3“1 The president knows everyone in the firm by name. 121 .335 The firm's policies are based on the belief that happy employees are productive employees. 189 .330 The firm believes that its employees can never learn too much about its organization and policies. 203 Load- Item ing Item Description 68 .325 Whenever possible. the firm hires college graduates rather than persons of less education. 15“ .31“ The firm contributes to college athletic scholarships. 37 .315 The firm insists that each employee carry hospitalization insurance. 9“ .309 In bad times during economic recessions the firm gives its employees special discounts in order to improve its business. 1““ .301 The plant is equipped with the latest safety dCVI. Q38 0 156 .300 The firm is as big as a large city. 55 .29“ The firm tends to overtrain its personnel. 9 .281 The firm emphasizes hiring office personnel who are dignified and responsible. 158 .277 Executives make employees feel at ease when talking to them. 6 .26“ The firm plans to set up many branch offices so that more customers can be conveniently reached. Factor J Executive Treatment “ .590 Executives in the firm are rotated from one job to another. “5 .533 Executives are transferred from one position to another more frequently than in other firms. 135 .3““ Executives receive bonuses. 108 .325 The firm allows its name to be listed as one of the supporters of a political party. 83 .32“ Executives receive bonuses. 82 .310 Executives drive firm-owned cars to conferences and other events related to its business. 18 -.2“5 The firm has all its employees punch a time clock. Factor X Organization Risk-Takipg 11“ .“82 The firm seems to spend money freely. 56 .“36 The firm takes big chances and sometimes gambles wrong. 166 .371 The firm has a narrow profit margin. 1 .355 Each employee is put on his own. “3 .328 Many unnecessary free services are given to customers. 109 .319 The firm takes big risks to beat its competitorS. 96 .317 Employees in the firm set their own speed of work. 110 .305 There is a carefree atmosphere in the firm. 20“ Load- Item ing Item Description 67 -.290 The firm does not hire individuals who are radical in their beliefs. 6 .272 The firm plans to set up many branch offices so that more customers can be conveniently reached. 16 .263 The firm backs aid to foreign countries. Factor L Political Acttzities1 Employee PayL and Retirement 137 .“30 Many of the firm's executives are active par- ticipators in political activities. “1 -.398 The firm has a system whereby employees are paid in relation to the cost of living. 65 -.372 The firm forces retirement on those over 65. 38 -.3“6 The firm asks its executives to keep quiet about political views. 66 -.330 Rate of pay in the firm automatically goes down as the cost of living decreases. 188 .319 The firm tries to recruit top personnel from its competitors. 3“ .303 The firm has occasionally waged price "wars" with its competitors. 31 -.261 The goals of the firm and the union are con- siderably different. “8 .25“ The firm does not have a recreational program for its employees and their families. Factor M Work Emphasis and Initiative 131 .388 The firm relies on piece work to retain as much individual initiative as possible. 99 .370 The firm stresses the importance of the job to be done more than the person who does it. 1“1 .3““ The firm has its major departments compete hegvily with each other for efficiency and out- Pu o 135 .326 Executives receive bonuses. 101 .322 Th: firm has its properties guarded by uniformed p0 1030 198 .319 The firm is managed by a small group who own most of the stock. 151 .303 The firm urges everyone to follow the organiza- tion chart. 186 .267 The firm emphasizes individual achievement rather than achievement as a team member. 205 Load- Item ing Item Description Factor N Paternalism and Internal Control 7 .“56 The firm prefers that its employees live in company housing. 12 .“39 Most of the employees are required to wear uniforms. 171 .382 Employees act as if their lives belonged to the firm. 125 .330 Employees of the firm must sell their stock in the company if they leave. 183 .320 The firm has a family controlled management. 39 .306 The workers in the firm consider management uncooperative. 32 .300 Activities of the firm frequently conflict with the planned activities of executive's families. 59 .295 Promotion is slow but steady. i3 .280 The firm is not vitally concerned with safety and safety programs for their workers. 18 .279 The firm has all employees punch a time clock. 178 -.278 Executives put suggestions by employees into operation. 61 .272 The firm has a noisy plant that disturbs resi- dents in the neighborhood. 71 .253 Children of the employees are encouraged to prepare for vocations in the firm. APPENDIX I I I COMPLETE FACTOR STRUCTURE OF VALUE SCALE ITEMS FOR THE SAMPLE OF MANAGERS COMPLETE APPENDIX III FACTOR STRUCTURE OF VALUE SCALE ITEMS FOR THE SAMPLE OF MANAGERS Factor Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1 .09929 -.05860 .11010 -.o671u -.01678 2 -.0u919 .08527 -.07691 -.11732 .02532 a .01709 .16220 —.06uz9 -.19832 -.Ohh77 5 .00783 .1529? .07u85 -.08225 .Ob783 6 .06915 .152h3 .ouou9 .1291u -.07#83 7 -.01583 .2576u .29595 -.05263 -.O31h8 8 -.01629 -.07131 .31551 .18H33 -.01739 9 .20279 .1h9h1 .04980 -.07558 -.07102 10 -.00375 .00612 .24293 .20106 .10989 11 .0szuu -.o6115 -.01185 -.01800 -.08846 12 .17605 .19502 -.132h1 .07188 .50386 13 -.06668 .00u53 .21103 .36380 .06101 in -.16345 .23980 .09590 .10692 .03577 16 .15512 -.15h16 -.07503 .03268 .09053 17 -.08019 .1538“ .47028 -.17136 -.0619h 18 .2825? -.12075 -.01557 .11566 .05630 19 .08026 -.01985 .08330 .02229 -.03129 20 .0u376 -.17015 .28532 .06711 -.00708 21 .0786? .01013 -.00u78 -.01928 -.06658 22 .18220 -.21057 -.05609 -.01050 .07980 23 .01299 .25935 .10370 -.0393? .05130 24 .15276 -.20533 -.01957 .19318 .08590 25 -.08051 .u3373 .10603 .00192 .0936? 26 .01501 .01825 .07543 .31179 -.08952 27 -.09u56 .0071» .11036 .21192 -.20687 28 -.2201u .1256? .42830 -.01900 -.11u63 29 -.01907 .01158 -.05853 .16496 -.18115 30 .0507? -.05958 .29969 -.01636 .0h688 31 -.ou373 .06876 .06768 .25857 -.00860 32 .00284 .15539 .03171 -.11201 -.05375 33 -.05510 .1083“ .28219 -.041u7 -.1Sh21 35 .17386 .01988 -.13162 .1805? .02h51 36 .00923 .05051 -.06240 .16968 -.03032 37 -.06938 .13511 .32518 .Oih86 .0u725 38 .01789 .17692 -.08200 .13681 .07710 39 .051uu -.0&212 -.03376 .03901 .05626 206 207 Factor Variable i 2 3 4 5 no .06665 .16366 .22273 -.u6801 .02542 #1 .13776 -.03u66 .01526 .08576 .26789 02 .07uu6 -.09hso .31731 .080u2 .06141 #3 .0560u -.16597 .21662 .23250 .01281 #4 .12695 .02075 .32291 .13339 .21395 as .21553 .15382 .31699 .11905 .071h8 #6 .25035 .06252 -.19366 .05722 .01661 a? .07292 .00859 -.05??5 .36001 .12251 as .16670 .19250 .36h32 .10663 .015h8 09 .007u8 .00263 .15982 .27188 .03600 50 .05038 .08706 -.08222 .09821 .03686 51 .06053 .12386 .03706 .02031 .01123 52 .1921u .05736 -.o1390 .33963 .0061h 53 .07288 .28418 .29700 .110h6 .28343 5“ .13196 .35660 .03716 .02399 .13u31 55 .07684 .12869 -.1665# .09118 .02058 56 .2920? .08976 -.33329 .08780 .00730 5? .08850 .03329 .00762 .0066u .07159 58 .0h320 .01196 .12000 .06129 .81101 59 .07105 .12659 .19781 .12538 .03199 60 .10590 .25h78 -.03286 .1915? .05682 61 .10996 .58009 .03771 .07802 .13930 62 .0689? .32090 .08866 .18061 .06922 63 .20551 .17981 .b0053 .09190 .01179 60 .00236 .03321 .1u606 .15565 .08308 65 .03636 .29002 .19391 .08820 .57926 66 .07068 .36621 .04480 .11366 .17780 67 .u66u5 .00096 -.11767 .10000 .00106 68 .06096 .2687u .0642? .1871? .03528 69 .05613 .056ou .37026 .1314? .0028? 70 .13721 .1655“ -.00813 .01893 .07964 71 .23800 .06075 .01522 .07102 .06388 72 .08200 .19016 .39151 .07708 .10785 73 .02019 .0085? .00378 .04692 .01988 79 .01022 .26386 .1959? .06623 .11371 75 .37600 .0194? -.18761 .0459? .08396 76 .13012 .01959 .20659 .231au .01373 7? .0796? .20372 .31999 .02935 .13189 78 .10915 .30973 .05980 .07570 .01535 79 .17356 .08726 -.22690 .09000 .0316u 80 .06210 .b79h1 .1665? .08028 .09664 81 .0939? .32219 .2599“ .0299? .07998 82 .03402 .31u13 .10710 .00356 .09000 83 .31275 -.19373 -.0126u .19519 .19508 an .37132 -.09815 -.17523 .1398“ .06231 85 .11629 .35956 .27630 .03691 .03373 86 .00296 .01056 .31928 .19572 .08233 8? .25230 -.09135 .07890 .1h861 .0217u 88 .5131? -.02028 -.19?66 .0701? .08288 89 .u501u -.16232 -.01065 .29028 .08h03 208 Factor Variable 1 2 3 0 5 90 .00768 .30221 .3215? .09516 .23361 92 .18 368 .00776 .07009 .01206 .00368 93 -.02795 .03913 .13950 .0381? .03108 90 .10235 .10059 -.15787 .16650 -.01096 95 .10071 .26698 -.29780 .01569 -.05967 96 .00085 .10265 .10220 .15155 -.01018 97 .12610 .15766 -.12558 -.05030 .15099 98 -.21761 .05908 .30896 -.02156 -.00833 99 .19350 .11006 .01638 -.10235 .1106? 100 -.07503 .20781 .13551 -.10970 -.02801 101 -.25683 .02863 .07321 .0715? -.00660 102 .13609 .1930? -.12005 .05022 -.02185 103 .11192 .12210 .0120? .25621 .02129 100 .36516 -.03931 -.20589 .15165 .0060? 105 .12230 .03188 -.09205 -.01o00 -.00685 106 -.090?0 .00270 .00502 -.03905 -.06729 10? .16052 .07011 -.o9679 .02571 -.00108 108 .30969 .1237? -.35?50 -.05?07 .00110 109 .16028 .05699 .10802 .2827? -.21502 110 .16928 .00123 .0200? .05220 -.12580 111 .28012 .10971 -.12963 .17859 -.09032 112 .11063 .19805 .13236 -.00996 -.08?01 113 .03700 .26555 -.13830 -.06968 -.00089 110 .20806 -.03105 -.12920 .13515 .00050 115 .08508 -.02850 -.28573 .05930 .10510 116 .39570 .00772 .12659 .0802? -.01762 11? .08579 .05591 -.03172 -.02681 -.09231 118 .06903 .22265 .38250 -.11786 -.00282 119 .11765 -.01550 .37608 -.03350 -.00399 120 .12296 .01928 .3860? .01010 .12830 121 .27778 .02015 -.130?? .0880? -.01125 122 -.09097 .09356 .25030 .07059 -.09369 123 -.02023 .20802 .07389 .17639 -.069?2 120 -.12650 .39110 .22210 .20200 -.00889 125 .21900 .01076 .10010 .00270 .09580 126 .17129 -.01930 .02098 .36506 .03596 12? ou0617 -0061‘977 '0211‘95 -.022‘+2 -00M09 128 .18902 .02916 -.16900 -.15011 -.08132 129 .35158 .17039 -.21616 .07079 -.09221 130 .1093? .22038 -.05182 -.010?7 -.05189 132 .03056 .11735 .1310? -.12109 .03078 1 .13109 .32885 .07508 -.11031 -.06131 135 .30930 .1769? .13800 -.06678 .00760 136 .20620 .00360 -.07609 .01871 .12330 137 .02785 .31066 .03569 .00880 -.01682 138 .29088 -.16852 -.00323 .01151 .15000 209 Factor Variable 1 2 3 9 5 139 .07099 .10090 .00303 .25058 -.02709 100 -.10163 .0915? .32021 .19960 -.02666 101 .2101? -.03752 .05219 .03500 .1123? 102 .12226 .12512 -.0269? -.05808 .50511 103 -.13296 .20296 .35030 .05056 .0055? 210 Factor Variable 6 7 8 9 10 1 -.13570 -.11669 .05565 .27522 .00929 2 .02799 -.07529 -.05808 -.02791 -.29055 3 -.10513 -.00533 -.10503 .02751 -.16735 0 .17613 .16193 .22120 .06076 -.00869 5 .01302 -.17026 .01120 .08053 -.1o906 6 -.30223 .08903 .06710 .00552 .20863 7 .10626 -.10805 .08731 -.00560 -.18337 8 -.08205 -.13601 -.10520 .10280 .1109? 9 -.06908 .02070 .20009 .1513? .10692 10 -.02786 -.08270 -.13061 .08289 -.06309 11 -.12515 .16661 .01565 -.035?? -.09069 12 .01200 .20172 .12616 -.01995 .05018 13 -.07200 .132 0 -.02238 .03768 .10026 10 -.05862 -.038 1 -.07902 .03512 -.2?131 16 .0061? . 7793 .08008 .00981 -.12509 17 .00722 -.12836 -.08323 -.10220 .0130? 18 -.09126 .05692 -.08028 .02208 .1320? 19 -.03057 -.00900 -.02259 .03633 .00895 20 -.12300 .00976 .10628 .22901 .07969 21 -.10006 .11750 .09811 .00570 -.05960 22 -.08630 .16069 .00920 -.00361 -.03169 23 -.09139 -.00305 .0300? -.o1571 .05151 20 -.12635 .3209? .00170 .16683 -.08111 25 .09666 -.00863 .10888 -.050?0 -.1088? 26 -.05808 .11018 .09060 .02706 .02670 2? -0131‘35 010750 “022000 -017132 01256“ 28 e 01‘591 " 0 23060 " c 07969 - c 00109 " c 07900 29 -.06659 .00005 .05230 .05200 .05183 30 -.10680 .0385? .11200 .08668 .10382 31 -013333 003u27 -021880 ’009607 -012790 30 -.0?090 -.03233 -.05385 -.06700 -.09502 35 -.00036 .00583 .20853 -.06?0? .27695 36 -.12333 .08355 .09253 .01120 -.17576 37 -.12068 -.03906 -.05780 -.00890 -.03578 38 -.25032 .32288 .10532 .02509 .02091 39 .05753 .57726 .10201 .08610 .1260? 00 -.01551 .02720 .02770 -.00285 -.06516 01 -.13998 .3889? .09005 .08535 .0720? 02 -.05878 .12669 -.00382 .07302 .03300 “3 “004562 0195““ ‘003179 ‘002343 003027 “4 -.06037 -.01106 .01075 .10896 .08779 “5 -003112 -005932 002306 009556 -00373u 06 -.00833 .37066 .0821? .00829 —.150?6 0? .06150 .02001 .01725 -.06o73 -.10809 08 .00506 -.09869 -.18819 .00619 -.22629 09 .35920 .00860 -.o3697 .11868 -.15637 x 50 .0250? .12291 .19692 .09101 -.00871 211 Factor Variable 6 7 8 9 10 51 e1u676 007322 008921 008310 ‘03u285 52 -.05281 .2060? .33365 -.01600 .01375 53 -.12801 -.00581 .0653? -.o3250 .02693 50 .05992 .00021 .3060? .0932? -.12000 , 55 .0307? .16125 .1137? -.02003 -.38510 56 -.10713 .3030? .17121 .00170 -.20297 57 -.36737 .08972 .1077? .05009 -.05277 58 -019628 ~60451u4 011889 00%8 -0071‘81 59 -.10072 -.05500 .11323 -.01203 -.31020 60 -000050 .115u0 019585 006860 “026373 61 .01090 .00100 -.02387 .00760 -.10309 62 -.06210 -.00755 .20106 .01600 -.13992 63 -.09652 -.12237 .02838 -.05858 -.13987 60 -.01082 -.01053 -.05756 -.10512 .02362 65 -.03089 -.07260 -.o0322 .03096 -.00005 66 -.00803 -.03081 -.03577 .08968 -.10036 67 -.02066 .20302 -.01850 -.0?525 .09926 68 -.12178 -.00097 -.15379 .17903 -.15886 69 -.3210? -.12981 -.11002 .16885 .08870 70 -018u01 .03u72 .05080 .09071 '008305 71 .05239 .37998 .14055 -.02033 -.11801 72 -.02102 -.00270 .1513? .06761 .00508 73 '008717 .08U12 -0086u2 -011808 “026891 70 .08021 -.o1312 -.oo922 -.15901 -.25056 75 -.15?98 .18285 .09981 .29271 .07265 76 -.1 899 .07601 -.13359 .10966 .12206 77 -01 132 .02122 002351 '001823 001139 78 .13555 -.13626 .0519? -.1028? .15082 79 -.01358 .10710 .0817? .2067? -.10902 80 “003700 -e03565 018027 “001305 ‘0063u6 81 -.16588 -.15390 .25575 .05359 -.o3196 82 -.08303 .06012 .05378 .0593? -.07305 83 -.06822 .13380 -.05013 .1370? .23379 80 .13069 .2565? .2700? .12018 -.11579 85 .06859 -.20168 .10258 -.06291 .17000 86 -.22505 .12531 .15121 .03790 -.00379 87 001715 010169 -.00 7 001601 '019698 88 -.16237 .16935 .16260 .10580 .02171 89 -.17072 .18160 .00781 .00950 .02076 90 -.19009 -.07852 .08809 .01001 .05803 91 -.02109 -.1o029 -.05090 .00053 -.08000 92 .03570 .00982 -.13036 -.03067 -.06278 93 -.13379 .05?21 -.03103 .02576 -.10008 90 -.10111 .0905? -.06780 .10690 -.31020 95 -.18597 .02380 .07938 .00371 -.28632 96 -.06796 -.o6010 .0929? .1851? -.00801 97 .11280 .05385 .19090 .05922 -.39105 98 -.03802 -.10852 .11539 -.18721 -.2?085 99 .00919 -.01670 .28931 .20013 -.22639 100 .17693 .1857? .08030 -.15207 -.33091 212 Factor Variable 6 7 8 9 10 101 -.02237 -.19506 -.07013 -.02971 .02623 102 .00806 .06875 .00665 -.06756 -.1376? 103 .02585 -.02673 -.01867 -.22020 -.09160 100 -.08881 .20036 .29938 -.02830 -.05160 105 .00109 .09129 -.06751 -.12386 -.0112? 106 .10012 -.28531 .02059 .02595 .02768 107 .0080? .36892 .02002 -.07052 -.19155 108 -.00073 .13006 .02731 -.08153 -.25217 109 -.0?860 .15068 .25070 -.08031 .06978 110 .01808 .19886 -.00275 -.09719 -.19325 111 .0770? .29555 -.00855 .0026? -.30360 112 -.35881 .12762 .12109 .03832 .05393 113 .10333 .18990 .00175 -.09998 -.2?997 110 -.00219 .05309 -.05178 .11076 -.19603 115 .03871 .28922 .00855 .06670 -.03502 116 -.03310 .00032 .01805 .10002 .10106 117 -.06500 .50119 -.05166 -.00981 -.01201 118 .08201 -.09858 .10378 -.03060 —.03168 119 -.0?690 -.25623 .00176 .02801 .06209 120 .16600 .00379 -.02572 .16700 .03161 121 -.00030 .31150 -.02005 -.10213 -.11?55 122 -.22857 -.08888 .01501 .11108 .05606 123 -.00399 .06690 —.00909 .17396 -.09278 120 -.13890 .05338 -.09373 .11656 .10176 125 .26112 .17839 -.07087 .29973 .01700 126 .08996 .06109 .11186 .09871 .00223 12? -.01380 .36603 -.02809 .00801 -.03098 128 .0386? .16568 -.11922 -.09013 -.16128 129 -.06018 .23058 .11500 .00801 -.02930 131 -.10216 -.03850 .08266 .01778 -.06o76 132 -.28318 -.00990 -.00078 .02861 -.03917 133 -.19370 -.13870 .11069 -.0756? -.10750 130 -.10906 .1207? -.06003 -.07690 .00036 135 -.22600 .02612 .16000 .12098 -.06283 136 .09695 .50169 .21302 .10696 .08288 13? .10078 .07152 .00062 .01832 .01170 138 -.02032 .31086 -.06553 -.05357 -.13105 139 -.2751? .12989 .32226 .08999 .19332 100 -.10393 .02331 -.0103? -.11515 -.10219 101 -.01032 .13162 -.06286 .09975 -.00335 102 -.02270 .03855 -.0010? -.03822 -.09315 103 -.11833 -.08318 -.08602 .02102 -.06008 APPENDIX IV MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF THE 193 ITEMS FACTOR ANALYZED APPENDIX IV MEANS AND STANDARD DEV IATIONS OF THE 1103 ITEMS Variable \OQVOWn-PUNP FACTOR ANALYZED Mean 0.737617 5.797651 3.608081 5.592269 3.181535 2.803960 2.326876 2.519606 3.860830 3.165750 0.955618 6.766000 3.037067 5.638083 7.602829 8.032710 2.008525 5.508000 3.088013 3.069051 0.808706 7.056730 0.383703 7.180692 0.805033 6.527503 0.065896 2.288963 6.138876 3.977703 5.097086 5.123075 0.200732 3.027979 6.780265 5.519600 3.309506 5.080110 7.118339 213 St. DOV. 2.522176 2.580962 2.295012 2.368981 2.036080 1.910018 1.703552 1.605931 2.351172 2.301660 1.909806 1.978387 1.681669 1.902180 2.162570 2.253086 1.366031 2.102076 1.989501 2.070031 2.089136 1.966079 1.787312 1.622819 1.885962 2.026023 1.601980 Variable 00 01 02 03 00 05 06 07 08 210 Mean,“ 0.32529 6.796063 0.598597 5 . 50 5385 2.589113 2.390810 8.096230 5.510863 3.012508 6.053578 6.505388 5.576070 6.105199 3.680700 0.516039 7.209061 7.691800 5.178383 2.876601 0.191009 5.683900 0.017238 3.295280 2.615971 0.391605 0.165735 0.533819 ”3833 0. 5 5.900562 7.108350 2.615978 5.736035 5.881371 6.952061 0.810283 2.830828 2.551197 7.209966 3.393222 2.789750 0.130137 5.862021 7.533825 2.255793 0.173635 5.851360 6.966678 7.020818 2.781856 St. Dev. 2.170313 1.753229 2.361307 1.753000 1.580710 1.300330 1.167233 1.953595 1.838330 2.197562 1.521000 1.750000 2.028091 1.531000 1.809578 1.558207 1.380701 2.263750 1.870958 1.910908 1.939206 2.005036 1.832203 1.028090 1.995500 2.115160 2.185778 1.219113 2.120932 1.602135 1.762396 1.600892 1.730062 1.939292 1.728013 1.529520 2.052008 1.650118 1.520300 1.708591 1.891037 1.788232 2.052100 1.876308 1.203500 1.508663 1.736073 1.767297 1.091663 1.618030 1.708060 Variable 91 92 93 90 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 100 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 110 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 120 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 130 135 136 137 138 139 100 101 102 103 215 Mean 2.993536 5.255783 0.036198 6.217861 6.081690 0.031055 6.950875 3.973001 5.630920 5.895588 2.538563 5.685072 5.302669 7.220196 5.87505? 2.617508 7.007030 $.182266 . 9 333 6.020086 7.083270 3.900330 6.153101 7.311076 8.130982 5.717073 7.017201 3.506968 3.092750 3.790487 7.702309 3.207883 0.002516 3.113605 6.030290 5.300760 7.090332 6.762887 6.797602 7.579638 3.081689 0.127830 3.785008 0.578056 0.535007 7.310239 3.909800 7.770780 3.677581 3.717069 5.996701 6.306330 2.900570 St. Dev. 2.203102 1.955381 1.775007 1.850352 1.980901 1.909053 1.730882 1.722198 1.780099 1.727051 1.208572 1.807160 1.510789 1.007532 1.725217 1.050712 1.562398 0.998379 2.116100 1.682997 1.197319 2.015230 1.677325 1.011767 1.115201 2.250091 1.808160 1.803631 1.656076 2.006625 1.323007 1.602970 2.000653 1.600900 1.873975 1.950015 1.250025 1.708316 1. 08220 . 9 57 1.580120 1.759501 1.577085 1.700855 1.836019 1.600128 1.863969 1.220686 2.063155 1.929207 1.695090 1.981915 1.811968 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adler. Franz. ”The Value Concept in Sociology." American Journal of Sociology. November. 1956. 272-279. Albert. Ethel M.. and Clyde Kluckhohn. A Selected Bibli- ography on Values. Ethics and Esthetics. GIencoe: The ree Press. 19 . Allport. G. H.. P. Vernon. and G. Lindsey. A StUdz of Values. Boston: Roughton-Mifflin. 1960. Barton. A. ”Measuring the Values of Individuals,” Religi- ous Education. 1962. 51. 62-97. Beckard. Richard. 0r ization Develo ent: Strate ice and Models. ReaHIng, fiass.: IEHIson-WesIey Company. Beech. Robert P. ‘Value S stems, Attitudes, and Inter er- sonal Attraction. East Lansing: Michigan a e n ver- sIEy. PR.U. Tfiesis. 1966. Dennis. Warren 0. Organization Develo ent: Its Nature. Qrigins and Prospects. Reaaing. Mgss.: AHEison-Wesley Company. 1%? Bernthal. Wilmar F. ”Value Perspectives in Management Decisions,” The Journal of the Academy of Management. December. 1962. 190-196. Blalock. Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw- Hill Company. 1965. Carzo. Rocco. "Organization Theory: Review of Research and Future Direction.” Management Research and Practice. Amherst. Mass.: Eastern Academy o? Management. 1975. 20-21. Chave, E. J. "A New Type of Scale for Measuring Attitudes.” Religious Education. 1928, 22. 360-369. Chou. Ya-Lun. Statistical Anal sis. New York: Holt. Rinehart ana Winston. 1966. 216 21? Cohen. J. B. ”A Scale for the Measurement of Attitude Toward the Aesthetic Value.” Journal of Psychology. 19“], O E! 75.79. Collier. Abram T. Mana ement, Men and Values. New York: Harper and Row. 1965. Dalton. M. "Conflicts Between Staff and Line Managerial Officers.” American Sociological Review. 1950. 302-351. Dixon. W. J. Biomedical Computer Pro rams x-series Su le- ment. BerEEIey: University of CaIiIornia Press. 1869. . and Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical 13311318. New York: McGraw-RiII Company. 1 . Dukes. William F. "Psychological Studies of Values.” Psy- chological Bulletin. 1955. 2. 20-50. Elbing. Alvar. and Carol Albing. The Value Issue of Business. New York: McGraw~Hill Company. 1967. England. George W. ”Personal Value Systems of American Managers." Academy of Management Journal. March. 1967. 53-68. Etzioni. Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 1960. Ferguson. George. Statistical Anal sis in P8 cholo and Education. New YorE: McCraw-HIII Company. 196%. Filley. Allen C. ”Some Major Issues in the Future of Management: Practice and Teaching." The Academ of Mana ement Proceedi s - Thirteenth AnnuaI MeetIng. San Diego. 1975. 7-3fi. Finn. Jeremy D. Multivariance - Uniavariate and Multi- variate Anal sis of Variance, Covariance and Re res- sion. Buffalo: State University of New YorE at 31717810 5 1 968 e Fleishman. Edwin A.. and David R. Peters. "Interpersonal Values. Leadership Attitudes and Managerial Success." Personnel Psychology. 1962. 127-103. Glaser, E. M.. and J. B. Maller. "The Measurement of gntgrest‘Values." Character and Personality. 1990.72. 7" 10 Gordon. Leonard'V. Manual for Surve of Interpersonal Values. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Ific.. 1950. 218 Guenther. William. Anal sis of Variance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- . nc.. 1 . Guth. William D.. and Renato Tagiuri. “Personal Values and Corporate Strategy." Harvard Business Review. Septem- ber-October. 1965. 125-132. Hairs. Mason. Modern Organization.Theory. New York: John Wiley. 1967. Harding. L. W. “A‘Value-Type Generalization.Test." Journal of Social Psychology. 1900.712. 53-79. Harman. R. R. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press. 1967. Harrell. Thomas W. Mana ers Performance and Personality. Cincinnati: SouER-Wesfern. I961. Ingham. Geoffrey K. Size of Industrial 0r anization and Worker Behavior. Oxfoid: The CHEErIdge University 888. 1 O Kluckhohn. Clyde. "Values and Value Orientations in the Theory of Action." Toward a General Theor of Action. Edited by T. Parsons and E. I. SEIIs. New York: Harper and Row. 1951. Lawler. Edward E.. and Lyman W. Porter. ”The Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction.“ Readings in Or ani- zational Behavior and Human Performance. EHIEed By L. CummIngs and W. Scott. Romewoad. IIlinois: Richard Irwin. Inc.. 1969. 283-290. . "Properties of Organization Structure in Relation to Job.Attitudes and Job Behavior." Readi s in Or ani- zational Behavior and Human Performance. Edited By L. Cummings and W. Scott.‘Ifiomewood.iIIlinois: Richard Irwin. Inc.. 1969. 002-032. Lawrence. Paul R.. and Jay W. Lorsch. Organization and Environment. Boston: Division of Research. Harvard University. 1967. Learned. Edmund P.. Arch Dooley. and Robert L. Katz. ”Per- sonal Values and Business Decisions." Harvard Business Review. March-April. 1959. 111-120. MacCurdy. J. T. "Psychopathology and Social Psychology - Part III: Hierarches of Interest." British Journal of Psychology. 1950. 3;. 1-13. 219 McFarland. Dalton E. Management: Principles and Practices. New York: Macmillan Company. 1960. Nunnally. Jum. Ps chometric Theory. New York: McGraw- Hill. Inc. . T967. Parsons. Talcott. Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper and Row. 1951. . ”Social Theory." Modern Social Theories. Edited By Charles Loomis and Zona Loomis. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company. 1965. 330-395. Porter. Lyman W. Or anizational Patterns of Managerial Job Attitudes. New ork: *American Foundation'for Manage- ment Research. 1960. . and E. E. Ghiselli. "The Self Perceptions of Top and Middle Management Personnel.” Personnel Psychology. 1 957 0 97'99 e Pugh. D. 8. ”Modern Organization Theory: A Psychological and Sociological Study." Psychological Bulletin. 1966. 235-251 0 Rizzo. John. Value Dimensions Value Commitments and In- Basket Performance of EEsIness Students. CquEfiEs: OhIo State University. PH.D. Thesis. 1960. Rokeach. Milton. Beliefs Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey- ss nc.. 1 68. . ”A Theory of Organization and Change Within Value- Attitude Systems." Journal of Social Issues. 1968. r0. 13-330 Schein. Edgar. Process Consultation: Its Role in Or aniza- tion Developmen . ea ng. ass.: son- es ey. 1 9. . ”Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management." Industrial Management Review. Winter. 1968. 1-60 Schmidt. Warren H. Or anizational Frontiers and Human Values. Belmont. EaIIf.: Wadswoftfi PEEIIsEIng Com- pany. 1970. Scott. William A. Values and Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1965:— Shartle. Carroll. "A Theoretical Framework for the Study of Behavior in Organizations." Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by A. Helpin. Chicago: Midwest - ministration Center. University of Chicago. 1958. 73-88. 220 . Gary Brumback. and John Rizzo. "An.Approach to Dimensions of Value.“ The Journal of Psychology. 1960. 52. 101-111. Spranger. E. Types of Men. Translated by P. J. W. Pigors. Halls: Niemeyer, 1928. Tagiuri. Renata. ”Value Orientations and the Relationship of Managers and Scientists." Administrative Science Quarterly. June. 1965. 39-51. Thurstone, L. L. ”The Method of Paired-Comparisons for Social Values." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy: chology. 1 927 . W. Viola. Richard H. ”0rganizat1on.Theory: A Review of Re- search and Future Direction.” Management Research and Practice. Amherst. Mass.: Eastern Academy of Manage- ment. I970. Vroom. Victor H. Motivation in Management. New York: American Foundation for Management Research. 1965. Wickert. Frederic. and Dalton E. McFarland. Measuri Executive Effectiveness. New York: Appleton-Ceneury- 1'0 8' 1 0 Williams. Roger M. "Analyst of Social Institutions and Systems.” Modern Social Theories. Edited by Charles Loomis and Zona Loomis. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company. 1965. 099-527. White. R. K. Value-Anal sis The Nature and Use of the Method. GIen Cafafier. New Jersey: 'Libertatarian Pfess. 1951. Woodward.Joan. Industrial Organization: Theor and Practice. London: Oxford-University Press. 1 5. HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES VllllllmlVHIIWIHWIINIHillH“\l‘llHlVlllUlHl‘Hl 31293102378589