ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND, AND VALUES AND PERSONAL I08 GOALS IN A ”SAMPLE 0f SCANLON PLAN. PLANTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES CLIFFORD MORRISON 1970 III “III“ I I I I II TIMI I I, This is to certify that the thesis entitled ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND AND VALUES AND PERSONAL JOB GOALS IN A SAMPLE OF SCANLON PLAN PLANTS presented by James Clifford Morrison has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in PSYCh010gy A)" Major professor Date July 31 , 1970 0-169 amoma av " IIDAB & SIINS' BIIDII BINDERY INC LIIRARY BINDE RS I C ' am DEC} £1999 OOH 2 4 19;? s , ‘ . ’ ‘I. "i)> .‘ ‘r 35¢: 1.5.3"? _ ,- .. fi— ‘2 a u ‘_ (5." . \. ‘ J : FEB 1 019x53 04 6 a __ 4..-- W ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND, AND VALUES AND PERSONAL JOB GOALS IN A SAMPLE OF SCANLON PLAN PLANTS BY James Clifford Morrison The purpose of this study was to explore the nature of measured personal job goals (PJGs) in relation to each other and in relation to three broadly defined sets of poten- tially "explanatory" variables: organizational "climate," individual background, and individual values. The data were obtained from 1990 respondents from all job levels by means of a questionnaire survey conducted in seventeen plants in six corporations. The plants were all operated under the Scanlon Plan and were also relatively homogeneous with res- pect to geographical location (American midwest), size, and technology. The six PJG measures used were constructed on the basis of a factor analysis of responses to specific job goal items derived from the literature, especially that reflecting Herzberg's concepts. These six measures were labeled Ad- vancement, Achievement, Helping the Company, Broad Social Concern, Trust, and Security. With respect to the three classes of "explanatory" variables organizational "climate" measures included size of work force and five indices of plant-wide "morale." The self-report measures of personal background included James Clifford Morrison categories covering urban-rural background, community sta- bility, socio-economic status, religion and ascetic outlook, age, sex, and length of service with the company. Values were measured through the Rokeach Value Survey. The results showed no significant, systematic pat- terms of relationships between the indices of organizational "climate" and plant-wide averages of PJGs which could not also be accounted for by the varying proportion of white collar to blue collar respondents across the plants in the sample. Managers and white collar workers across all plants in the sample rated the first three PJGs of Advancement, Achievement, and Helping the Company higher and the remain- ing PJGs of Broad Social Concern, Trust, and Security lower than did blue collar workers. The relationships among personal background vari- ables and PJGs also revealed a pattern for the first three PJGs to form relationships with a given variable opposite to those formed by the other three PJGs. This pattern was especially clear for sex, size of community where raised, and the variables concerned with socialization patterns associa- ted with socio-economic status. For example, those whose own education was lower and whose fathers were unskilled workers tended to rate lower the PJGs of Advancement, Achieve- ment, and Helping the Company and higher the PJGs Broad So- cial Concern, Trust, and Security. Such evidence of a rela- tionship between social class and PJGs in general but not in every particular supported the model developed by Hulin and James Clifford Morrison Blood (1968) which sets in opposition to each other "alien- ation from middle class norms" and "the Protestant Ethic." Exceptions in this present study were (1) those workers raised on farms or in small towns unexpectedly showed an "alienated" pattern of ratings of PJGs, and (2) the varia- bility of religious identification and activities, so logi- cally tied to the notion of the "Protestant Ethic," showed no systematic relationship with PJGs. The relationships between the Rokeach Values and PJGs revealed that for each PJG there was a pattern of rela- tionships with values that was distinguishable from the pat- tern of relationships for other PJGs. This finding lends support and further meaning to the differences among the six PJGs developed by the factor analysis of the PJG items which, in a sense, are similar to values. Overall, the relationships among the variables of job status, individual background and values on the one hand and PJGs on the other are complex in nature and suggest sup- port for a "complex man" model for understanding the orien- tations of industrial workers toward work rather than the simpler models so commonly utilized. ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE, INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND, AND VALUES AND PERSONAL JOB GOALS IN A SAMPLE OF SCANLON PLAN PLANTS BY James Clifford Morrison A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The members of my guidance committee were not only instrumental in shaping this dissertation but also in shaping my entire graduate education. I wish to express my profound appreciation to those committee members: to Frederic R. Wickert, chairman, particularly for the many hours of patient review that was necessary to provide whatever perspec- tive and clarity this thesis may have; to Carl F. Frost, from whom I learned that the practice of idealism need not stop at the campus edge; to Eugene Jacobson, for an apprecia- tion of multiple determinism and the sense of excitement that can be found in organizational research; and to Milton Rokeach, for concepts which, once apprehended, forever change one's view of the world. This study is but one small product of a large sur- vey conducted under the joint sponsorship of the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University and the Mid-West Scanlon Associates. The survey could not have been completed without the active participation and cooperation of a very great number of people. Space allows brief mention of only a few. The members of the 1968 Associates program committee, Richard Ruch of Herman Miller, and John Krause and Maurice Wertenberger of Wolverine World-Wide had the original idea ii for a survey and did so much to promote it. The survey, however, required the active support of many others within the companies surveyed, persons such as E. Leonard of WWW and John Donnelly of Donnelly Mirrors, Inc. The author is proud to have been a member of the M.S.U. survey team which was headed by Drs. Carl F. Frost and John Wakeley, and which also included Drs. Robert Ruh and Wallace Berger, and Steve Heinen and Douglas Little. While the research team labored long and hard, it was ap- parent from the beginning that the success of the survey was based upon the trust and respect developed by Carl Frost's twenty years dedication to the concepts of human dignity and worth in the industrial work force. Finally, I must try to express in some way apprecia- tion to my wife, Sheila, not only for the endless hours of work put into this project, but also for what no one else could provide: love, faith, and hope. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l A. Summary Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . l B. Postulates about Needs and Goals in Theories in Organizational Psychology . . . . . . . 3 C. Organizational Research Based on Theoretical Assumptions about Needs . . . . . . . . . 15 D. Organizational Research Using Direct Measures of Job Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 E. Survey of Research: Questions in Need of Answers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 A. Initial Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 B. Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . . 52 C. Plant Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 D. Respondent Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 E. Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 F. Specific Hypotheses to be Tested and Proce- dure for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 A. Organizational Climate and Personal Job Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 B. Individual Background and Personal Job Goals 78 iv Page C. Values and Personal Job Goals . . . . . . . 93 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 A. Review of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 B. Interpretations and Implications , , , , , , 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 APPENDIX A Return Rates, Personal Job Goal Means by Individual Background Items . . . . . 123 APPENDIX B Preliminary Analysis Tables , , , , , , 135 APPENDIX C Summary Tables of Median Tests for Rokeach Values by Personal Job Goals . . . . . 140 APPENDIX D You and Your Job Questionnaire . . . . . 153 10. 11. Al. LIST OF TABLES Number of Respondents Classified by Rank, Sex, and JOb Type O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 Means and Standard Deviations for Six Personal Job Goals for Total Sample . . . . . . . . . . Means and Ranks of Means of Six Personal Job Goals in Seventeen Scanlon Plan Plants . . . . Means and Ranks of Means of Six Personal Job Goals Categorized by Size of Community of Plant Site 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Means and Ranks of Means of Five Measures of Plant-wide Morale in Seventeen Scanlon Plan Plants 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Rank—order Correlations for Plant Size, Com- munity Size, and Six Personal Job Goals . . . Rank-order Correlations for Five Measures of Plant-wide Morale with Six Personal Job Goals Rank-order Correlations for Five Measures of Plant-wide Morale with Six Personal Job Goals for 793 Female and 633 Male Blue-collar Wor- kers and 564 White-collar Workers . . . . . . Correlation Between Plants Ranked by Propor- tion of White Collar Workers and Ranks of Averages of Six Personal Job Goals . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Six Personal Job Goals by Hierarchical Level and Collar COlor O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 Proportion of Variation in Personal Job Goals Accounted for by Personal Background Char- acteristics O O O O O O O O O O C O O O I O 0 Number of Employees, Questionnaires Returned, and Proportion of White Collar workers by Plant 0 O O O I O O I O O O O I O O O O I O 0 vi Page 54 58 67 68 69 70 72 74 76 77 84 123 Table A2. B1. B2. B3. B4. B5. C1. C2. C3. C4. C5. C6. C7. C8. C9. C10. C11. Mean Ratings of Six Personal Job Goals Clas- sified by Personal Background Items . . . . . Correlation Matrix for Twenty-four Personal Job Goal Items for 997 Respondents . . . . . . Rotated Factor Loadings for Twenty-four Per- sonal Job Goal Items . . . . Intercorrelations for Items in Five Scales of Morale (N = 997) . . . . . . Abbreviated Factor Analysis of "Job Involve- ment" Items Intercorrelations Among Six Personal Job Goals and Five Indices of Morale . Medians and Ranks of Medians for Rank-order Distributions of Thirty-six Values on the Rokeach Value Survey for 1990 Industrial Workers . . Median Tests Values . . . Median Tests Values . . . Median Tests Values . . . Median Tests Values . . . Median Tests for Advancement for Advancement for Achievement for Achievement for Helping the Terminal Values . . . . . . Median Tests for Helping the Instrumental Values . . . . and Terminal and Instrumental and Terminal and Instrumental Company and Company and Median Tests for Broad Social Concern and Terminal Values . . . . . . Median Tests for Broad Social Concern and Instrumental Values . . . . Median Tests for Security and Terminal Values Median Tests for Security and Instrumental Values . . . vii Page 124 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Table C12. C13. Page Median Tests for Interpersonal Trust and Terminal Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Median Tests for Interpersonal Trust and Instrumental Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Ad- vancement" by All Employees . . . . . . . . . 86 2. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Achievement" by All Employees . . . . . . . . 88 3. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Helping the Company" by All Employees . . . . . . . . 89 4. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Broad Social Concern" by All Employees . . . . . . . 91 5. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Interpersonal Trust" by All Employees . . . . 92 6. Average Ratings of Personal Job Goal "Secu- rity" by All Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 7. Summary of Significant Relationships between Value Rankings on the Rokeach Value Survey and Ratings of Personal Job Goals for 1990 Industrial Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 8. Conceptual Model for the Study of Industrial Workers 114 ix INTRODUCTION A. Summary Introduction The literature of organizational or social-industrial psychology reveals a history of debate over various theore- tical positions which have generated proposals for manage- ment policies and designs of organizational structure and job content all of which are assumed to affect satisfaction, ego-involvement, and productivity. Each of the theoretical positions base their arguments in a large part on sets of prOpositions or assumptions about the true nature of man. These "models of man" vary not only as to the kinds of "needs" or motives that are emphasized, but also as to whether these needs are universals or show significant indi- vidual differences, and as to the extent to which they are amenable to change as a function of on-the-job experiences. Empirical research findings on the effect of the various policies on the dependent factors of satisfaction, productivity, and the like have been in total more perplex- ing than illuminating. Because of this state of affairs there has been a recent shift in concern away from theore- tical constructs toward the operationalization of potential explanatory variables. For example, there has been a shift from analytical sets of inferred need classifications to- ward direct measurement of personal job goals (PJGs) as they are phenomenologically important to the individual worker (e.g. Friedlander, 1966). Using survey data from 1990 members of seventeen industrial plants in the American midwest which have a common wage-incentive system, the Scanlon Plan, this study attempts to deal with the etiology of PJGs, the extent to which they can be seen as affected by variables commonly grouped together under the broad label of organizational "climate,' and the extent to which they are embedded in past experiences and off the job social roles (biographical variables) and broader value systems. It is hoped that the study of these factors simul- taneously at the individual as well as the group level will help provide a base line of empirical results to evaluate theoretical assumptions about job goals and values made by various theorists in their discussions of such concepts as the alienation of members of organizations. Further, it is hoped that the results will add to what should be central social-psychological ideas about the intimate relationships among personal background, value systems, and current atti- tudes. B. Postulates about Needs and Goals in Theories in Organiza- tional Psychology No matter what the background (sociology, psychology, economics, etc.) of any particular theorist all theoretical treatments of the relationships between the individual and the organization have concerned notions about the important aspects of the nature of man. Whether these ideas have been stated in explicit, axiomatic or propositional form or have been implicit, "suppressed premises,’ they have had important effects on the subsequent positions taken as to the "proper" design and/or conduct of organizations. Which particular aspect of organizational life, e.g. job content design, super- visory practices, incentive systems, work group formation, etc., a theorist has emphasized as being most relevant to the "outcome" variables (productivity, satisfaction, ego- involvement, and the like) has been largely determined by that theorist's notions of the basic needs of man, whether they are universal or show wide individual differences, and whether they can be manipulated by on-the-job experiences. The following review does not attempt to be exhaus- tive either as to theorists or their ideas about organizations. .More thorough summary reviews may be found in Schein (1965), Pugh, Hickson, and Hinings (1963), and Pugh (1966). Here the concern will be limited to more representative theorists pre- senting contrasting views of important human needs and how these views affect resultant proposals for organizational con- ciuct. The general scheme is borrowed from Schein (1965) who lists the following four "models of man" in order of their historical appearance in theories relevant to organizations: rational-economic man, social man, self-actualizing man, and complex man. Economic Man The notion of man as a kind of simple, passive econo- mic gains-lose calculator is well known in the philOSOphical roots of social psychology (Allport, 1954) and had a good deal of popularity in industrial management philOSOphy, es- pecially during the early part of this century. The self- professed founder of "scientific management" (Taylor, e.g. 1947) held the "firm conviction" that the underlying interest of all people was the same; that his system of management could make possible both what the worker wanted most—-high wages--and what the employer wanted most--low labor costs (higher profit margins). While this sort of thinking un- doubtedly held sway in large sections of industrial thinking, the systematic theorizing and resultant research has been meager. For the most part it has served as a "whipping boy" for the "human relations" movement. McGregor (1960) has char- acterized the basic need postulates and resultant rules for management in what he called "Theory X." 1. Man is primarily motivated by economic incentives and will do that which gets him the greatest economic gain. 2. Since economic incentives are under the control of the organization, man is essentially a passive agent to be manipulated, motivated, and controlled by the organization. 3. Man's feelings are essentially irrational and must be prevented from interfering with his rational calcula- tion of self-interest. 4. Organizations can and must be designed in such a way as to neutralize and control man's feelings and there- fore his unpredictable traits. 5. Man is inherently lazy and must therefore be motiva- ted by outside incentives. 6. Man's natural goals run counter to those of the organization, hence man must be controlled by external forces to insure his working toward organizational goals. 7. Because of his irrational feelings, man is basically incapable of self-discipline and self-control. 8. But, all men are divided roughly into two groups-- those who fit the assumptions outlined above and those who are self-motivated, self-controlled, and less dominated by their feelings. This latter group must assume the management responsibilities for all the others. 'Thus, the needs of at least the broad mass of organizational Imembers were seen as simple, universal, and impervious to change. Management was to trade money for work toward organ- Iizational objectives. Social Man The notion of social interaction on the job being at least as important as, if not more important than, economic incentives formed the base of the first theories of the "Human Relations" movement. The idea and the movement were boosted into prominence by the well-known studies at Hawthorne Electric plant of Western Electric (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). The best known treatment of these new ideas is that of Mayo (1945) whose basic tenets may be summarized as follows: 1. Man is basically motivated by social needs and obtains his basic sense of identity through relation- ships with others. 2. As a result of the industrial revolution and the rationalization of work, meaning has gone out of work itself and must therefore be sought in the social relationships on the job. 3. Man is more responsive to the social forces of the peer group than to the incentives and controls of management. 4. Man is responsive to management to the extent that a supervisor can meet a subordinate's social needs and needs for acceptance. Thus, if the need to be accepted and liked by one's fellow workers is ignored the worker will be frustrated and alienated, and is likely to form informal social groups whose norms run counter to the organizational objectives. Procedures geared toward gaining member loyalty and moral involvement in organ- izational goals may include the showing of consideration and sympathy on the part of management toward workers (e.g. Fleishman and Berniger, 1960), the supervisor becoming a facilitator and co-ordinator of group effort (Likert, 1961), and emphasis on group incentives rather than individual in- centive plans (Lesieur, 1958). In sum, the general View of "social man" emphasized the need to be liked and accepted as of central importance to all individuals and that other needs, desires, aspirations could be manipulated in part on the basis of the on-the-job fulfillment of this social need. Self-actualizing Man More recent writers in the human relations movement have in varying degrees become less concerned with social needs alone and more concerned with ego or self-esteem and self-actualizing needs as well. The principal authors, .McGregor, Argyris, and Herzberg, have all based their theo- ries in at least a loose way on the need theory of Maslow (1943, 1954). Maslow classifies human needs into five broad categories: 1. Physiological needs: Basic needs of the organism, i.e. food, water, oxygen, and sleep as well as sex and activity. 2. Safety needs: Need for a stable environment; an ordered existence free of threats to life and limb. 3. Love needs: Affectionate relations with others, need to be accepted by one's peers. 4. Esteem needs: Stable self-evaluation, self-respect, self-esteem, esteem for others. 5. Self-actualization needs: Self-fulfillment, to achi— eve one's full capacity for doing. A more popular version (e.g. Porter, 1961) speaks of (1) security needs (physiological and safety needs combined), (2) social needs, (3) esteem needs, (4) autonomy needs, (5) self-actualization. The classes of needs are hierarchi- cally arranged so that higher order needs become stronger as lower order needs are satisfied. Those who base organization research on this system often take the view that industry tends to "pay" the worker in physical and/or security needs satisfactions entirely, neglecting the higher order needs. This neglect leaves the individual frustrated as a mature adult who thus remains only partially committed to his organization in general and his job in particular (Golembiewski, 1965). Argyris (1957) makes liberal use of the ideas of the .Maslow hierarchy. He asserts that there is an inherent con- flict between organization goals and individual needs; that formal organizations create situations in which individual members are forced to become dependent, subordinate, and pas- sive, and are prevented from using their full capabilities. Argyris suggests that these difficulties can only be overcome by fostering an organizational atmosphere in which self- fulfillment and organizational fulfillment are given equal emphasis. More recently (1964) Argyris concerns himself with the effects of job content and control systems at the lower organizational levels and with the effects of leadership practices and interpersonal relations at the higher levels of the organization as these factors might affect "psycholo- gical success,‘ a term he treats as synonymous with self- esteem. McGregor's (1960) Theory Y uses the Maslow hierarchy as a take off point. He asserts that work may be a source of satisfaction, that man will exercise self-direction in the service of objectives to which he is really committed, that self-actualization can directly relate to organizational ob- jectives, that the average person can learn to seek responsi— bility, and that the average man at work has capacities which are only partially utilized. While McGregor stresses the individual working in active independence with initiative as an innovator, with self-control, and especially with commitment to a work goal, he sees the individual actively participating in the organization, determining final action by consensus. One of McGregor's favorite management devices to pro- mote worker self-actualization is that of the Scanlon Plan (Scanlon, 1948) which attempts to involve the worker by re- warding suggestions (and group decisions on suggestions) for cost reduction with bonuses in pay. The bonus is to be a percentage of the base pay, with all workers receiving the 10 same percentage. As such, it is a cost reduction, rather than a profit-sharing plan. Lesieur (1958) has reported great successes in terms of productivity and growth among companies which have adopted the plan. vSChein (1965), how- ever, points out that in terms of need theory the plan may be only tapping security (money) and social (group co-operation) needs and has no necessary relation to autonomy and self- actualization. Strauss (1963) notes the lack of recent re— ports on the plan and that only relatively small companies have successfully experimented with it. The work of Likert (1961, 1967) is often cited in discussions of a self-actualizing model of man. The problem in confidently classifying him here is that he has made no systematic presentation of his theoretical framework. He has stated, however: Both the behavior of the superior and the employee's perceptions of the situation must be such that the sub- ordinate, in the light of his background, values, and expectations, sees the experience as one which contrib- utes to his sense of personal worth and importance, one which increases and maintains his sense of significance and human dignity. This is essentially a repeat of an earlier statement (1961, p. 103) in which he also states: "Each of us wants apprecia- tion, recognition, influence, a feeling of accomplishment, a feeling that the people who are important to us believe in us and respect us." (1961, p. 102) However, the same comment that Schein made (above) concerning McGregor and the Scanlon Plan seems apprOpriate to Likert's "management systems"; translated into management policy they may bear no necessary 11 relation to the notions of self-actualization and might derive equally well from the theories of Mayo as outlined above. Herzberg's two-factor theory of work motivation has often been cited as supporting in a loose way the need hier- archy theory (Herzberg, et. al. 1959). In brief, it was found that one set of "hygiene" or "extrinsic" factors such as physical conditions, salary, company policies, security, and interpersonal relations were necessary for an individual not to be dissatisfied with his work, but that for him to be truly satisfied he needed self-realization, recognition, achievement, and meaningfulness and purpose in his work. Thus, Herzberg views the job itself, not supervisory prac- tices, incentive plans, participation, etc. to be the impor- tant determining factor in how the individual relates to the organization. The above theories based on need satisfaction have not attempted to generate ways of directly testing the basic assumption of the universality of these needs. Strauss (1963) has attacked the self-actualization approach in that implicit in the prescriptions for organizational policy are potent value judgments which, with their strong emphasis on indi- vidual dignity, creative freedom, and self-development bear all the earmarks of an academic-cum-middle class origin. The most cogent criticism of the needs theory is not that it can be refuted on empirical grounds but that it may be impossible to confirm or reject it. It has a "heads I win, tails I also win" quality that places it, in its present 12 formulation, beyond the realm of testability. For example, if a worker is found not to rate autonomy and self-actualiza- tion as important but security as most important, the ortho- dox need theorist will tend to say that that is because the coercive environment has "stunted his growth" and makes him incapable of considering higher order needs. Needs, at best, have been higher order constructs in an explanatory network and have an unclear relationship to the phenomenal world of the individual. Complex Man Just as the self-actualization or ego needs models of man were created in part as a reaction to the felt over- simplification of the "social man" theories, there has been a small, but growing, stated feeling that there is yet to be a theory in organizational psychology based on needs that allows a view of man in his full complexity. While there has been nothing resembling a systematic theory yet developed, Schein has abstracted the ideas of several writers who stress one or more of the following: 1. Man is not only complex in needs and motives, but highly variable. Each may have his own idiosyncra- tic hierarchy of needs which are satisfied in various ways. 2. Man is capable of learning new motives through organ- izational and extra-organizational experiences. 3. Man's motives may differ in different parts of an organization. l3 4. Man can be productively involved with organizations on the basis of many different kinds of needs or mo- tives; alternately, he may be alienated from organi- zations for many different reasons. 5. Therefore, there is no one management strategy (participation in decision making, incentive systems, supervisor conduct, job content, etc.) which will be equally correct for all people, and all times. Many of the proponents of such views stress the vari- able effects of personal background in determining individual differences in needs or motives. Strauss (1963) states, for example, that various sub-cultures differentially stress achievement; if persons vary as to need for achievement, the organizational programs designed to fulfill that need (parti- cipation 5 la McGregor, Arygris, and Likert, and challenging job content 5 1a Herzberg) should have variable results (e.g. French, et. al., 1960). While Strauss deals primarily with the possible dif- ferential reactions to programs directed toward involving members in participative decision making, Hulin and Blood (1968) have stressed the possible interaction of value systems on the effects of job complexity and satisfaction. Their model is limited to the three conceptual variables of satis- faction, job complexity, and "alienation from middle class norns." They see this alienation from middle class norms as synonymous with a value system developed from certain past experiences. For example, a higher degree of alienation In n: 4') 14 should be found among blue collar workers in large urban areas where families show more than one generation of lack of attainment of the "American Dream." Persons from small town America should be heavily imbued with the "Protestant ethic" (Weber, 1958) and react favorably to challenging or complex job content. Both Hulin and Blood and Strauss would tend to stress the need for different, flexible management strategies to gain worker satisfaction, involvement, and higher producti- vity. Some, e.g. Dubin (l958),would have it that the growing differentiation of modern life has led the worker from lower status levels to seek goal attainment outside the job and consider any attempt to involve him more in a job as an im- proper intrusion on his life. This type of alienated or "disinterested" worker has been seen by Ginsberg (1963) to be a product of a process of growing conflict between values gained by education and what the individual finds on the job. Thus all but "economic man" theorists would agree that alienation has been a natural result of the usual ap- proach of industrialized societies to cope with growing com- plexity and change. But the advocates of "complex man" reject other theoretical positions because of their postula- tion of specific but universal basic human needs which are not being fulfilled. For example, the demands for "democracy in the work place" seem to rest on the assumption that the twin values of freedom and equality are a fundamental part of "human dignity." But these "needs" could equally well be 15 considered as learned values or expectations that individuals living in a society bring to the organization. C. Organizational Research Based on Theoretical Assumptions about Needs Most studies based on the theoretical positions cited above have been designed to test the effects of certain stim— ulus variables, such as wage compensation, work group struc- ture, supervisory practices, and job complexity, which are hypothesized to provide need gratification, upon employee responses such as satisfaction, ego-involvement, commitment, and productivity. Relatively few studies have attempted to assess need level or need gratification directly. The research reviewed in this section will be that which provides only indirect evidence of need or goal structure; those which attempt more direct measurement will be reviewed in the following section. This review will not attempt to be exhaustive but only to highlight the major studies which either support or contradict the various theoretical models. While perhaps a complete treatment would call for all possible comparisons, among the four models, this review will be roughly organized around two comparisons which seem to have generated the most research; economic versus social man and self-actualizing man versus complex man. 16 1. Economic Man versus Social Man Very little substantive research has been done to collect evidence in favor of the notion that man is primarily motivated by opportunities for economic gain. However, sur- veys have shown that management philosophy has been based primarily on this notion. In a survey by the Opinion Re- search Corporation (1947) of manufacturing executives, forty- four per cent reported that "money" was the 9nly_way of gaining worker productivity. A study by Mahoney (1964) suggests that this notion is still in vogue among managers. As Blum and Naylor (1968) have pointed out, ever since Taylor's time "experts" have concocted one wage incen- tive system after another, until there are literally hundreds of them. Viteles (1954) reviewed the evidence from a govern- ment survey of 514 such plans in the United States and concluded that the data were inadequate for determining the effect of the plans on motivation. Since the introduction of an incentive system is usually accompanied by changes in facilities, work methods, and organizations, it is difficult to separate the effect of the incentive plans from the other changes in the work environment. This difficulty is particu- larly true when considering such systems as the Scanlon Plan which is specifically designed to draw upon and facilitate group interaction factors. A study by Lawler (1965) provides evidence that pay can be an effective incentive because it is able to provide satisfaction at all levels of needs, e.g. for one, pay may provide security; for another, it serves as a 17 yardstick for measuring success or recognition of achieve- ment. There seems to be ample evidence to question the assumptions of the universality and singular importance of an economic "need." Filley and House (1969) have reviewed evidence that the effects of pay plans vary with such factors as attitudes and backgrounds of employees, informal work norms, and the size of the work group. The classic "Hawthorne studies" (e.g. Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939) demonstrated the effects of social rela- tionships on the productivity of female production workers. Homans'(1950) report of the study of the bank—wiring room, where workers were all males, showed that the effects of in- formal group norms were stronger in determining the produc- tion rate than the type of pay incentive used. Zalesnik, et. a1. (1958) studied a department of fifty workers in a medium-sized manufacturing plant and found that both produc- tivity and satisfaction were unrelated to pay or job status level, but related to group membership; "regular" group members tended to be satisfied and conform to group norms of production (which in this case met management expectations) while "isolates" tended to be less satisfied and violated group norms. Whyte (1955) asserts that perhaps as few as ten per cent of workers respond to individual incentive schemes while the rest restrict output. He also found in an observational study that "rate-busters," those who produce above the group 18 norms, differ in their background and personality from the "restrictors" who conform to group norms. Rate—busters were individualistic, came from farm families, and did not seem to have strong social needs, while restrictors came from urban working class families, valued co-operation and were "joiners" of outside social groups. Whyte's principal evidence comes from the work of Dalton (1948) who found restrictors to be Democrats, sons of unskilled industrial workers, to have grown up in large cities, and have been ac- tive in "boys'games." Rate-busters, on the other hand, tended to be Republicans, to have grown up either on farms or in urban lower-middle class families. They tended to be social isolates inside and outside the work situation, would shun social activities that cost money, and would instead build up a savings or invest in property. Restrictors, in contrast, led active social lives, "lived in the present," spending money freely on themselves and others while social- izing. While the research is impressionistic and involves small numbers of workers, it does provide not only evidence against the notion of economic man, but also complicates the picture of the "social man" model. It raises questions about the universality assumption of both economic and social needs and suggests that personal background as a molder of basic 'values may be much more important than on-the-job experience <3f pay or social interaction. A key notion in the social man model as outlined by 19 Mayo (above) is that involvement of workers, their moral commitment to organizational goals, may be gained by super- visory practices which take the feelings of the worker into account. The Ohio State leadership group (e.g. Stogdill and Coons, 1957) have conducted several studies aimed at asses- sing the effects of this kind of supervisory practice. They developed a "consideration" index intended to measure the human-relations oriented behavior a supervisor should exhibit toward his subordinates. The questionnaire measure was empirically derived from survey research conducted in various industrial, military, and educational organizations and con- tains questions dealing with friendship, mutual trust, respect, and warmth between the leader and his group. Several studies have found the relationships between measured supervisor con- sideration and employee responses that are predicted by the social man model; e.g. high consideration supervisors had groups with low turnover and grievance rate (Fleishman and Harris, 1962), less intragroup stress and more co-Operation (Oaklander and Fleishman, 1964) and higher subordinate satis- faction (Korman, 1966). Fleishman (1953) reports both in- creased satisfaction and production with increases in con- sideration on the part of supervisors. However, Korman (1966) in reviewing all of the research through 1964 concluded that the relationships between the consideration index and measures of performance and satisfaction were generally weak and some- what inconsistent. However, Likert (1961), in reviewing the studies carried out by the Institute of Social Research 20 reports that in the majority of studies, supervisors of high- production departments exhibited more supportive leadership ("employee-centered") while those of low-production depart- ments tended to be "production-oriented." Similar results have been reported by Comrey, et. a1. (1954). On the other hand, Fiedler (1967) in reviewing a large number of studies done by his research group concludes that "employee-centered" supervision leads to high satisfaction and productivity only under conditions where the leader's position power and the task structure are such that they give him a "moderately favorable" situation. Under conditions of "extreme favora- bility" and unfavorability, directive, controlling leadership should be more effective. Somewhat parallel to the ideas of Fiedler there has been a growing concern for the study of differing technolo- gies as a possible limiting factor on the effectiveness of various leadership practices (e.g. Dubin, 1965). Much of the concern has been sparked by the work of Woodward (1958) relating control structures and technology in over eighty English industrial firms. 2. Self-actualizing Man versus Complex Man Discussions of supervisory practices and leadership usually lump together the notions of "considerate,' suppor- tive and "participative" leadership (e.g. Gibb, 1954; Jennings, 1958; Filley and House, 1969). However, a distinc- tion between consideration (showing warmth, respect, mutual 21 trust, etc.) and encouraging participation in decision— making (what Leavitt (1963) has called "power equalization") may be made as to the psychological needs each is intended to fulfill. Consideration may be seen as a kind of emotional salve aimed at fulfilling the workers social-emotional need to be liked and trusted. Power-equalization, on the other hand, is more often envisioned as providing the Opportunities for "higher order" needs expression (e.g. challenge, autonomy) as outlined by Likert, McGregor, and Argyris above. The separation of consideration and participation seems reflected in the conceptual distinction made by Bowers and Seashore (1966) between "support" or behavior that en- hances another's feeling of personal worth and importance, and "interaction facilitation" or behavior that encourages the development of close, mutually satisfying relationships. The main body of research on participation has been generated and/or stimulated by the "Michigan Group" at the Institute for Social Research under Rensis Likert. The studies have been vast in sc0pe as well as number of research reports. The most comprehensive review of these studies appears in Katz and Kahn (1966) with some more recent work appearing in Tannenbaum (1968). A consistent thread running through these studies asserts that democratic or participa- tive practices in organizations lead to improved satisfaction and productivity; by providing a climate of "power— equalization" individuals come to make organizational goals their own personal goals. This thinking is rooted in the 22 work of Kurt Lewin and his search for practical applications of democratic ideals. Two studies reported by Coch and French (1948) and Morse and Reimer (1956) are considered landmarks. Coch and French report the first attempt to apply participative methods to industrial groups. The study took place in a Virginia clothing manufacturing plant (Harwood) which employed a predominantly female work force. The employees averaged twenty-three years of age, eight years of education, usually had no previous work experience at time of employ- ment, and came from the rural mountain areas of the state. Individual productivity (and income) was based on a piece rate system with each job set to a standard of sixty units per hour. Above a certain minimum, pay received was directly proportional to the weekly average efficiency_rating received. Prior to the experiment it had been observed in over several hundred cases that the operators showed a great deal of resis- tance to change from one job to a new one. Only thirty- eight per cent of transfers to a new job ever recovered to a standard unit rating of productivity while sixty-two per cent became either chronically sub-standard or quit during retraining, even though a "transfer bonus" was given during the first eight weeks of retraining. The key consideration in terms of the experimental method adopted was that there were strong group pressures to keep rates uniform. It was decided that, because of the strong group pressures involved, any change must involve the 23 Operators as a group. Four groups were studied: I. II. III. Control Group or "no participation"; eighteen hand pressers--job change involved the method Of stacking the finished goods (pajamas). The change followed the usual factory routine. The production depart- ment modified the job, and a new piece rate was set. The workers were told in a group meeting that the change was necessary because Of competetive condi- tions and that the new piece rate had been set. Experimental group 1 or "representative participation" --thirteen pajama folders--change in method of folding. Before change a meeting was held where the need for change was "presented as dramatically as possible" which shared with the group the entire problem of the necessity of cost reduction. The management then presented a plan to set the new job and piece rate. Experimental groups 2 and 3 or "total participation" --seven and eight examiners-~change involving exami- nation and correction procedures. The method was much the same as with group 1 except that all Opera— tors were chosen as "special" operators; all were to participate directly in the designing of the new jobs and piece rate would be set by a study of all of the Operators. Results showed dramatic differences between the groups in terms of production rates and attitudinal indicators of 24 resistance. For the control group resistance developed al- most immediately in marked "aggression," i.e. conflict with the time-study man, hostility toward supervisors. A number of grievances were filed and five of eighteen quit during the first forty days. Production rates dropped to below fifty units and never recovered after thirty-two days, at which time the group was broken up. For experimental group 1 there was an initial drOp in production but had recovered to sixty-one units after fourteen days. Relations were good, no grievances, etc., and no quits. The initial drop in production was confounded with a material shortage during the first week. Groups 2 and 3, the "total participation" groups, after a slight drop in production the first day, rap- idly improved to a steady level of approximately fourteen per cent over standard. Again relations were good, no turn- over. While the Coch and French study with its strict group dynamics orientation concentrated on the small group (irrespective of its organizational dependence), the Morse and Reimer (1956) study attempted to manipulate an entire and.truly organizational variable: the authority structure, (Ir the degree of organizational decision-making at various levels of a company. The research was conducted to test two «general hypotheses, namely, increased role in the decision- Inaking processes for rank-and-file groups (1) increases their satisfaction and (2) increases their productivity. Conver- selyn a decrease in decision-making power will lead to a 25 decrease in both of these dependent variables. The experiment was conducted in a non—unionized in- dustrial organization which had parallel divisions engaged in relatively routine clerical work. The design involved increasing rank-and-file (clerks who were women, mostly urban and young, single, with a high school education) decision- making in two of the divisions and increasing upper-level decision-making in two of the divisions. The two conditions were labeled: 1. Autonomy group where there was a shift of its locus of control downward; 2. Hierarchically controlled program in which authority was delegated to higher line Of— ficials who took on an increased role in the actual running of the divisions. The entire study lasted eighteen months, the first six of which involved planning and setting up the proper conditions of the reorganization. This included training programs for supervisors to insure that the changes actually took place. This period was followed by a one year period during which the programs were actually in effect. Measure- ments, consisting mostly of attitude questionnaires and analysis of company records of costs, etc., were taken prior to and immediately after this one year period. Data from observations of routine and questionnaires measuring the clerks' perceptions as to who was deciding what indicated that the attempted changes in the authority struc- tures had in fact taken place as planned. The predicted in- crease in satisfaction for the autonomy group and decreased 26 satisfaction for the hierarchical group was confirmed. The second hypothesis concerning the relationship between level of control and productivity was not supported in that both programs showed a significant increase in productivity in terms of "clerical costs." The problem for confirmation seems to rest mostly on the fact that the work flow of the departments was not under their own control but depended upon outside departments. Hence, the only index of produc- tivity was the reduction Of "clerical costs" based on the number of clerks needed per standard volume of work. The two different bases of power reduced costs about the same, although in different ways. Analysis of terminations showed that of nine workers who quit because of dissatisfaction with the company, eight were in the hierarchically controlled pro- gram. Much of the experimental effect and subsequent analy- sis seems blunted by the nature Of the work force studied. While around 130 clerks were used in the study, these consti- tuted only about fifty per cent of the work force at any one time. There was a high turnover rate due to marriage, pregnancy, and other factors unrelated (presumedly) to the job. While the results of such studies as the two above have been dramatic, the Michigan studies also include results which greatly complicate the picture. French, et. a1. (1960) attempted a replication of the Coch and French study in a Norwegian shoe factory. The results were negative for 27 productivity and changes. The authors see the failure as in part due to the fact that many workers did not see the pro- cedure as relevant or their participation in discussions as legitimate. This has been widely interpreted as due to the differences in cultural background and attitudes between Norwegian, unionized male workers and rural Virginian, non- union, female workers. Using data from the Morse and Reimer study, Tannen- baum and Allport (1956) indicate that there were personality factors existing prior to the change which moderated the ef- fects of both programs on the reactions of the office workers. Marrow et. a1. (1967) report an experimental change program designed to apply Likert's 1961 participative manage- ment paradigm to an entire firm, the Weldon Manufacturing Company purchased in 1962 by the Harwood owners. The changes made at that time were, however, far more inclusive than management "techniques" e.g. new machines were added and jobs and work flow were redesigned, new technical personnel were hired, all members of management went through "sensitivity training," a new earnings program and a "tougher" policy to- wards absenteeism and low producers was implemented. While productivity greatly improved over the two year period of the study, measured attitudes improved only slightly. Be- cause of the many, interlocking changes it is impossible to determine which changes singly or in combination account for the changes in productivity. Vroom (1959) showed that among a group of supervisors 28 the "degree of participation" (defined as the influence any individual felt he had on the decisions and plans agreed upon by the work group) was related to authoritarianism, need for independence and job satisfaction. In general, the higher the need for independence and/or the lower the auth- oritarianism, the greater the satisfaction for increasing amounts of participation. The lower the need for indepen- dence and/or the higher the authoritarianism, the less the relationship between amount of participation and job satis- faction. Differences on job performance were not signifi- cant in all cases. Indik (1965) using the data from the same package delivery company studied by Vroom, found that superior- subordinate relationships and member participation were all affected by the size of the local organization. This vari- able has been often cited in past research but seldom, if ever, has it been separated from size of community. For example, the largest stations in the above study were in Chicago and Detroit. Thus size of organization with its implications for communication networks, etc., has often been confounded with community characteristics of urbaniza- tion with its implications for differential socialization processes in determining personal values and expectations Of workers. Herzberg (e.g. 1966) has tended to be skeptical, if not thoroughly critical, of the thesis that supervisory practices, be they "consideration" or "participative," 29 have strong effects on the satisfaction of workers. He feels that the higher-order needs (ego-esteem, self—actualization) can only be fulfilled by sufficient challenge and complexity Of the job itself. His two-factor theory of work motivation was inferred originally from a study of need satisfactions and the reported motivational effects of these on two hun— dred engineers and accountants (Herzberg, et. al., 1959). The respondents were interviewed using a critical incidents technique, i.e. each was asked to recall a time when he had felt very good about his job and then, through probe ques- tions, was asked to give the reasons why he had felt this way and how this feeling had affected his performance, per- sonal relationships, and feelings of well-being. A second set of interviews repeated the procedure for feelings when he felt very negative about his job. On the basis of con- tent analysis Of these interviews the following two conclu- sions were drawn: 1. The satisfiers--achievement, recognition, work it- self, responsibility, and opportunities for advance- ment--are mainly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dissatisfiers--company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working condi- tions, and salary--are also unipolar; they contribute very little to job satisfaction, but their absence contributes to dissatisfaction. 2. Motivation to work results from satisfying the 30 individual's needs for the satisfiers—-achievement, recognition, interesting and challenging work, responsibility, and advancement—-and not from elim- ination of the dissatisfiers. Herzberg (1966) later reports the results of ten studies designed to test his theory. Within the studies seventeen different populations of employees were inter- viewed, using a retrospective critical incidents technique. Of fifty-one significant differences reported from six satis- fiers every one was in the predicted direction. However, studies based on methods other than the original critical incidents method yielded inconsistent results. Dunnette, et. a1. (1967) reported a study of their own and reviewed ten other studies that showed that the satisfier-dissatisfier dichotomy does not hold: the satisfiers are by no means universal but vary widely, depending upon the specific sub- jects used. House and Wigdor (1967) reanalyzed the data reported by Herzberg (1966) and also reviewed thirty-two other studies dealing with the two-factor theory. Their conclusions were much the same as Dunnette, et. a1. (1967). Other critical reviews include Smith and Cranny (1968) and Ruh (1970). In sum, the conclusions drawn by these reviews tend to support the complex man model in that the variable results indicate the possibility of variability in needs or goals which can be satisfied in a variety of ways. The position taken by Hulin and Blood (1968) that 31 worker reactions to job complexity are a function of the de- gree of "alienation from middle class norms" which is in turn a function of personal background is based on a small number of empirical studies. They place major emphasis on the findings of Turner and Lawrence (1965) whose original inten- tion was to study the simple effects Of task attitudes such as complexity, responsibility, variety, and autonomy upon worker responses such as satisfaction and attendance. The study was based on responses of 470 blue-collar workers in forty-seven different job classifications in eleven indus- tries. While they found a significant relationship between job level (complexity, etc.) and attendance, none was found between job level and satisfaction. In the process of re- analysis in attempts to explain this failure they discovered from their data that workers from plants in rural areas or small towns were more satisfied when their jobs were more autonomous, required more skill, were more varied, and con- tained more social interaction and responsibility. In essence, the most satisfying jobs demanded greater per- sonal involvement. In contrast to this, workers from urban plant sites were more likely to be satisfied when their jobs were less personally involving. This latter finding squares with results from four other studies (Kennedy and O'Neill, 1958; Kilbridge, 1960; Turner and Miclette, 1962; Katzell et. a1. , 1961). The Kilbridge (1960) study found that the majority of some two hundred assembly line workers in an electronics 32 assembly plant in Chicago reported they would prefer a "smaller,' less demanding job. Kennedy and O'Neill (1958) present data showing no differences in satisfaction between assembly Operators performing highly routine jobs and utility workers on jobs requiring much more varied tasks. Turner and Miclette (1962) found that the majority of 115 female assembly workers were "basically satisfied" with highly rou- tine and repetitive jobs. Katzell, et. a1. (1961) found that the most satisfied and productive of a sample of ware- house workers were from plants located in small towns with non-unionized work forces. Hulin and Blood (1968) also reanalyzed data from the Cornell study for 1,300 blue-collar workers in twenty-one plants and found support for their predictions that workers from plants located in large, industrialized communities with large slum areas would respond with lower satisfaction to complex jobs while workers in plants in small towns with uniformly lower living standards would respond with greater satisfaction. This reanalysis is based on research data reported earlier by the authors (Blood and Hulin, 1967) which found no relationships between community factors and job at- titudes when both white-collar and blue-collar workers were grouped together. Presumedly the difference in such back- ground factors as education between white-collar and blue- collar workers leads white-collar to be more uniform in their reactions to jobs, but there is no evidence cited to support this notion. The major problem with all of the above studies 33 is the use of plant site as an index of personal background factors: it is thoroughly confounded with such factors as plant size. Also we have no way of knowing whether it is individual background which determines job attitudes directly or that a majority of people of a particular background as a group create an organizational climate which is conducive to particular kinds Of job attitudes. In summary, the research dealing with the relation- ships between "stimulus" factors in organizations and worker responses predicted from the various models Of man leaves little information about the basic postulates of these models. The once hoped-for simple relationships between leadership practices and job design and productivity and satisfaction are in doubt. The research, taken as a whole, raises doubts about the utility of theories postulating "simple and sovereign" sets of universal needs and therefore tends to support the various notions held by those who advocate the idea of "complex man." However, as previously noted, this is not a systematic theory but more a hodge-podge of "it depends." Some of the more promising notions are those at- tempting to explain worker attitudes on the basis of differ- ences in enduring value systems which are used to evaluate experiences on and off the job. But the evidence is presump- tive. There has been too much resort to high-order abstractions in search of explanations. There has been a growing realization of the necessity of obtaining direct measures of need or goal strength independently of other 34 measures, for translating categorical abstractions which seldom have meaning in the life space of individuals into phenomenologically important goals-—those things for which the individual can report he desires. D. Organizational Research Using Direct Measures of Job Goals One of the more thorough attempts to assess the viability of the Maslow conception of needs has been that Of Porter and his associates (Porter, 1964, is a summary of a series of separately published reports). He developed a thirteen item questionnaire based on the need hierarchy. For example, "Social Needs" was represented by the item "The opportunity to develop close friendships in my manage- ment positions." A group of seventy-five management level people were asked to rate each item in three ways: 1. How much of the characteristic is there now? 2. How much should there be? 3. How important is this to you? He found that higher level managers placed more emphasis upon self-actualization and autonomy characteristics than did lower level managers. There were no significant differences in the other needs. However, the higher order needs were rated most important by all levels of management. These findings are generally interpreted as supporting the Maslow need conception. However, Hall and Nougaim (1968) argue that situational or cultural factors as well as pre- selection may be affecting the results Of the Porter studies. 35 They designed a rather elaborate five year study following forty-nine management level employees of American Telephone and Telegraph through the progress of their careers. Util- izing measures not greatly different from Porter's, they found no pattern of need gratification at one level leading to pre-potency of need strength at the next level as was predicted from the Maslow theory. They suggest that both their data and Porter's do not indicate so much about basic psychological needs as they do about situational concerns of management people caught in the "success syndrome." Their suggestion is that the climate of the situation affects not only the satisfaction of needs but the rated importance of a need. Friedlander (1965) developed a fifteen item question- naire similar in format to Porter's but the content of which was based on Herzberg's list of satisfier—dissatisfiers. Using the importance ratings of some 1500 government employees at China Lake, California, he obtained through factor analy- sis three principal factors: Factor I. "Social and technical environment" (good supervision, work group, security) Factor II. ”Intrinsic work aspects" (e.g. achievement, challenge) Factor III. "Recognition through advancement" (e.g. gaining recognition, responsibility) Thus the "intrinsic versus extrinsic" distinction among job goals which has been a favorite distinction since Super (1949) 36 tends to break down in that Factor III is already both extrin— sic and intrinsic by the usual definitions. This factor structure was found to hold in replication for a group of mid-west engineers (Friedlander, 1964). Friedlander found differences between blue-collar and white-collar workers in his sample (1965). White-collar workers rated intrinsic factors highest in importance; blue— collar workers chose social-technical environmental factors. Centers and Bugental (1966) interviewed a random sample of 692 employees concerning importance of factors on the present job. Intrinsic factors were rated higher by high occupational levels and extrinsic by lower; pay was highest for all except professional and managerial groups, where it was about the same as intrinsic factors. Intrin- sic factors were clearly more important than extrinsic only for professional and managerial groups. The strongest moderator effect of occupational level was on the relation— ship Of security rewards to satisfaction: occupational level was negatively related to need security. Smith and Cranny (1968) infer that the above results support the "complex man" view in that it is futile to attempt to formulate "laws" which apply to all men and all times. Schwartz et. al. (1966) compared the ranked prefer- ences of manufacturing and utility company employees for ten "job-needs" with a study reported in 1946 (Foreman Facts, Dec. 5). The 1946 sample of workers ranked "Full appreciation of work done," "Feeling of belonging," and "Help with 37 personal problems" as l, 2, 3 in importance. The Schwartz sample, however, ranked these close to the bottom and chose "Job security," "WOrking conditions," and "High wages" as most important. The results raise many questions but few answers since the sample sources are not explicated. Thus the results may reflect basic changes in work orientations over time or may be the result of differences in plants. The Schwartz data are comparable with the results for blue- collar workers in the Friedlander study cited above. Blum and Naylor (1968, pp. 345-352) have reviewed several studies similar to that of Schwartz done over a per- iod of twenty-five years (Blum and Russ, 1942; Jurgensen, 1947; Stagner, 1950; Jones and Jeffery, 1964; Nealey, 1964), all of which show a good deal of variation in results as to rated importance of job goals. Since item format varied from study to study and samples differed but Often in un- specified ways, very little in the way of systematic con- clusions can be drawn from them. An earlier review by Haire and Gottsdanker (1951) arrived at similar conclusions. While the idea of differential value systems has been used by various authors as an explanation of differ— ences in job goals, research directed towards assessing values has been meager. Zurcher, et. a1. (1965) administered the Stauffer-Tobey Role Conflict Scale to 230 Mexican, Mexican- American, and Anglo-American bank employees in thirteen bank branches in Mexico and.the United States. The results sup-' ported the hypothesis that the value orientation of 38 "Particularism" is influenced by cultural background. Par- ticularism as used here is a value orientation toward Obli- gations to friendship while universalism is an orientation toward institutionalized obligations to society in general. Since the bank is a universalistically oriented work organ- ization, employee particularism should contribute to aliena- tion from work. The results indicated that longevity, level Of position, expressed satisfaction with position, and plans to continue working in the bank are negatively related to both particularism and alienation. Tagiuri (1965) has found different groups in manage- ment not only hold slightly different sets of values but perceive the differences to be greater than they are. England (1967) has found differences in values within status levels of management. E. Summary of Research: Questions in Need of Answers The less than satisfactory results of studies done in organizational settings attempting to test relationships between variables predicted from basic theoretical models has led to a perceptible shift in concern in favor of more direct study of individual differences in personal job goals (PJGs) where PJGs are loosely defined as aspects of a job that an individual considers desirable and/or important. How- ever, this second body of research has yet tO clarify what, if any, systematic relationships there may be among PJGs and other variables. 39 While studies have suggested various "causal" fac- tors for differences in PJGs, the predominant use of single independent variable studies has left apparent conflicts among results. The various alternative explanations for the etiology of PJGs may be outlined in the form of general hypotheses. l. PJGs are a function Of organizational "climate." a. PJGs are a function of the size of work force. PJGs in big, impersonal bureaucracies are dif- ferent from those in small, friendly companies where everyone knows everyone else. The Indik (1965) study suggests that workers from large plants would value security and inter- personal relations and those from smaller plants would value achievement and advancement. b. PJGs are a function of the size of community of plant site. Hulin and Blood (1968) suggest Indik's finding is due to the size of the larger community in which the plant is located. c. PJGs are a function of general plant "morale." While the Observations of Dalton (1948) and Whyte (1955) emphasize the personal backgrounds of "rate-busters" and "restrictors,' group theorists would suggest that it is the effect of predominant group "mood" that is the critical factor. It is im- plicit in the human relations theories reviewed above 40 that certain management policies should lead to in- crease in importance attached to such goals as achievement and a decrease in emphasis on "pallia- tive" aspects such as pay. If large plants are more often run on a "TheoryJC'basis (which presumedly leads to lower trust, involvement, and commitment), then the relationships between plant size and PJGs or urban-rural differences in personal background PJGs may be seen as artifactual. Argyris (1964) con- tends that individuals who attach little importance to "ego-needs" do so not because of differences in "real" needs but because of the stultification of needs in the plant environment. d. PJGs are a function of specific job "climate." Differences in rated importance of PJGs as- sociated with white versus blue collar jobs and with hierarchical level are seen by Friedlander (1966), Porter (1964), and Hall and Nougaim (1968) as due at least in part to differences in climate of these jobs. However, no attempt has been made to relate these differences to probable differences in per- sonal background, e.g. education, socio-economic status of parents, that existed prior to any job ex- perience. 2. PJGs are a function of personal background factors. The conclusions of Hulin and Blood (1968) and Turner and Lawrence (1965) as outlined previously 41 emphasize the possible effect of differences in urban versus rural upbringing; religious training and belief, ethnic background, and other socialization patterns as- sociated with socio-economic status. However, these differences are more presumptive than empirically estab- lished because of the use of plant site as an index of all these background variables. As Hulin and Blood ad- mit, "On the basis of the data, we have no way of disen- tangling the effects of plant location from the effects of the backgrounds of the workers." (1968, p. 53) 3. PJGs are a function of value systems of individual organization members. Hulin and Blood (1968) also concede that their attributing the inferred relationship of personal back— ground and job orientations to another inferred variable of value systems ("alienation from versus integration with middle class norms and values") may not be warranted. Certainly their inference is in need of empirical evi- dence. What work has been done on measures of value systems has not been directed toward the question at hand. Each of these general hypotheses are, if terms are operationally defined, capable of empirical test. Further, they are capable of being simultaneously compared. The following study was directed toward that end. METHOD A. Initial Measures The majority of measures used in this study were based on voluntary self-reports Obtained through an atti- tude and information questionnaire given to all employees in seventeen plants of six manufacturing organizations. A copy of that questionnaire appears in Appendix D. Measures Ob- tained from other sources, such as company records, will be so noted as they are listed and described below. The self-report items initially selected to measure personal job goals and the five indices of "morale" were subjected to further analysis which is described in the pre- liminary analysis section of this chapter. 1. Personal Job Goals On the basis of previous research by Friedlander (1965), Herzberg (1966), and Super (1949) a list of twenty-four job goals was constructed. Each respondent was asked to rate them on a five point Likert scale as to the importance he attached to each. These items and the full instructions appear as items 73-96 on page 9 of the original questionnaire in Appendix D. The items used in this study are listed below, grouped in six clusters as determined by a factor analysis reported in the 42 43 preliminary analysis section starting on page 55 below. Numbers refer to item numbers in the original question— naire. "Advancement" 89 having responsibility on your job 94 being able to learn new skills and gain experience on your job 85 having good chances for promotion 87 being recognized and appreciated for doing good work "Achievement" 74 having a challenging job 95 a sense of achievement in the work you are doing 93 a feeling that the work you are doing is important 92 being able to decide how to do your job "Helping the Company" 86 helping the company grow and expand 82 helping the company be prepared for change 76 helping the company make high profits 88 helping the company build and maintain customer confidence and good will "Interpersonal Trust" 77 being trusted by the people you work with 75 having relations of trust and confidence between superiors and subordinates 84 being liked by the pe0ple you work with "Broad Social Concern" 96 not having to work too hard 90 doing work which helps the welfare of others 80 working for a socially responsible company (one that helps make your community a better place to live) 79 everyone in the company, no matter how low his status level, having a say in the decisions af— fecting his job "Security" 78 receiving fair pay 81 steady work and steady wages 83 73 2. 44 working under good (safe, clean, pleasant) con- ditions having a supervisor who really knows his job Organizational Climate a. Plant Size: Rank order of seventeen plants with respect to total number of employees carried on com- pany records as of July, 1968. (range = 32 to 521). b. Community Size: Rank order of eleven different communities by total population based on 1960 census (range = 2,100 to 190,000). c. Plant-wide "Morale" Differences in climate among plants may be in- dexed in terms of differences among aVerages of "morale" or attitude responses of the individual mem- bers within each plant. The following five sets of items were constructed in an effort to measure job attitudes as discussed and used in the literature. Item analyses for these measures are discussed in the preliminary analysis section, starting on page 55 below. All items were scored on five point Likert- type scales. As before, numbers refer to item num- bers in the original questionnaire in Appendix D where the specific response categories may be found. Items which were reflected in scoring are denoted by a minus sign in parentheses following the item as listed below. 1. Satisfaction: Average of responses to the following three items: 45 (24) For me, the first few hours at work really fly by. (58) How much do you actually enjoy performing the day to day activities that make up your job? (68) How much do you look forward to coming to work each day? 2. Confidence: Average Of responses to the fol- lowing five items: (27) How much trust and confidence do you have in your supervisor? (33) How much of an effort does the company make to help employees maintain a good income? (37) How much does the company try to provide good working conditions? (55) How much trust and confidence do you have in the people in your work group? (65) How much of a real interest does the company (top management) have in the welfare and happiness of those who work here? 3. Ego-involvement: Average of responses to the following six items: (28) My job means a lot more to me than just money. (42) TO me, my work is only a small part of who I am. (-) (56) I would probably keep working even if I didn't need the money. (57) Most things in life are more important than work. (-) (60) The major satisfactions in my life come from my job. (63) The most important things that happen to me involve my work. 4. Commitment: Average of responses to the fol- lowing seven items: (35) I feel bad when I make mistakes in my work. (38) I avoid taking on extra duties and respon- sibilities in my work. (-) (44) How often do you really want to work hard at your job? (50) I show up for work a little early to get things ready. (64) How much do you really want to do a good job? (70) I'll stay overtime to finish a job, even if I'm not paid for it. 46 (71) I'm really a perfectionist about my work. 5. Attitudes toward Scanlon Plan: Average of responses to the following four items: (132) How much does the Scanlon Plan provide you with an opportunity to really influence decisions which affect your job? (134) The Scanlon Plan helps me to do my job bet- (135) Thercanlon Plan helps my work group to do a better job. (138) The Scanlon Plan is a nice idea but it really doesn't accomplish much of anything. (-) d. Job "Climate": 1. White collar--blue collar: Each respondent's job was classified as either white or blue collar on the basis of reported job title and company records. 2. Hierarchical level: Based on respondent's report of supervisor's name and company records, each res- pondent was classified management, first line super- visor, or rank and file. 3. Personal Background The following items were used to measure variables suggested in previous literature that might explain per- sonal job goals. As before, the numbers in parentheses denote the original item number. a. Urban-rural background and orientation: PB - 1 (196) The place in which you spent the most time during your early life was a: 1. Farm 2. Town of less than 2,000 3. Town of 2,000 or more, but less than 10,000 4. 5. 47 City of 10,000 to 100,000 City larger than 100,000 PB - 2 (199) In what type of community are you now living? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. In the country Town of less than 2,000 Town of 3,000 or more but less than 10,000 City of 10,000 to 100,000 City larger than 100,000 PB - 3 (201) In what size city would you prefer to live? 1. 2. 3. 4 Rural or country 5,000 or less 5,000 to 50,000 50,000 or over b. Community stability: PB - 4 (215) To what extent are you still friendly with the people you knew in school? 1. 2 3. 4. PB - 5 When Not at all Friendly with some, but see them irregu- larly See some regularly Close friends to quite a few (223) you were in school (grade or high), where did your friends most often get together? 3. 4. At a friend's home At a club, dance hall, or public buil- ding, at the corner At your home At church activities c. Socio-economic status PB - 6 (229) What was your father's chief occupation? 48 l. Unskilled worker 2. Semi-skilled or skilled worker 3. Sales or Office work, sub-professional 4. Supervisory work 5. Professional (lawyer, physician, teacher, scientist, etc.) 6. Businessman, executive of large business or industry PB - 7 (230) How many years of school have you completed? . Eighth grade or less Some high school High school graduate . Some college bWNI-J PB - 8 (231) How many years of school did your father com- plete? Eighth grade or less Some high school High school graduate . Some college DNNH PB - 9 (232) How many years of school did your mother com- plete? Eighth grade or less Some high school High school graduate Some college uwaI-J 0. PB — 10 (225) What is your total family income (annual)? $4,500 or under $4,501 — $6,000 $6,001 - $7,500 $7,501 - $9,500 $9,501 - $11,500 $11,501 or over O‘LflubLONH oo o 000 49 d. Religion and ascetic outlooks PB - 11 (206) Under usual conditions how Often do you at- tend religious services? 1. Twice or more a week . Every week . Once or twice a month . On special occasions (such as Easter) . DO not attend services U'l-bWN PB-13 What is your religious preference? 1. Protestant 2. Other 3. None PB-14 Protestant Denomination Fundamentalist (Church of God, etc.) Baptist, Christian Christian (Dutch) Reformed Lutheran Methodist Presbyterian "Elitists" (Episcopal, Congregationalist) Non-denominational Not Protestant \DmxlmU'lanNH 0 PB - 15 (214) What is your attitude toward gambling? . It is morally wrong. It is stupid. You can take it or leave it. It is exciting, good recreation ubUJNI-J 0 PB - 16 (212) How often do you drink beer, wine or liquor? 1. Daily 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. Very few times a year 5. Never 50 PB — 17 (210) How much life insurance, other than company group insurance do you carry on your life? None $1,000 to $7,500 1 2 3 $7,500 or over PB - 18 (211) How much do you save per month? 1. Under $20 2. $20 to $49 3. $50 to $100 4. $100 or over Other PB - 19 Age 1. Under 25 2. 25 — 29 3. 3O - 39 4. 40 - 49 5. 50 or over PB - 20 Length of Service Less than one year One to two years Two to three years Four to six years Seven to ten years Eleven to fifteen years Sixteen to twenty years Over twenty years \lO‘U‘luwaI-‘O PB - 21 (203) What is your present marital status? 1. Single 2. Married, no children 3. Married, one or more children 4. Widowed 5. Separated or divorced 51 PB — 22 Sex 1. Male 2. Female 4. Values All disciplines within the social sciences have ex— perienced an increasing concern for the concept of value. A recent, systematic yet representative formulation has been that of Rokeach (1968). A value refers to an "enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (in- strumental value) or an end state of existence (terminal value) is personally and socially preferable to alterna— tive modes of conduct or end-states of existence." A value system refers to a pattern or hierarchy of values from most to least preferred. The "Value Survey" developed by Rokeach is an instrument for the ranking Of eighteen terminal and eighteen instrumental values. An individual's value system is defined here as the rank- order he gives to these values. The Rokeach Value Sur- vey is reproduced on pages 21-22 of the questionnaire in Appendix D. B. Data Collection Procedures The questionnaire, as reproduced in Appendix D, was passed out to employees at all levels of seventeen plants in six corporations. The companies involved were all members of the Mid-west Scanlon Associates, an organization of ( as of 52 1968) fifteen companies whose common interest was the Scanlon Plan--a method of cost reduction via group processes. A description Of this plan may be found in McGregor (1960) and Lesieur (1958). The survey was conducted as a project of the Division of Organizational Research, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, with co-sponsorship by the Mid—west Scanlon Associates. An introduction to, and approval for the survey was gained through meetings with groups from management, supervision, and employee committees at least one month in advance of the data gathering. All employees were given advance information through notices in company newsletters and a special letter from the company president. On the day of the survey at a given plant, employees were called in groups to a brief (ten to fifteen minute) meeting wherein the survey was explained and their responses were solicited. Care was taken to point out that their in- dividual responses would be kept in strictest confidence, for while their name was not asked for, enough detailed personal background questions were asked that identification might be possible. Feedback on group responses was promised for a later date. They were asked to take a survey questionnaire to be passed out at the end of their work day and fill it out at home, to be returned the following day. They were asked to place it in a manila envelope addressed to the De- partment of Psychology and hand it sealed to a member of the survey team. Those not returning the survey the following 53 day were offered an alternate pick-up date and/or an enve- lope with postage for direct mailing to the East Lansing campus. Upon return of the questionnaires to the campus, they were indexed by plant and the responses coded on IBM' score sheets for conversion to data cards and tape. Random checking found an average of less than 0.1% error rate in coding; the work of those coders who showed the greatest error rate was automatically recoded. C. Plant Sites The seventeen plants ranged in size from 30 to 518 employees as listed on company records. They were located in three mid-western states in eleven separate communities. The products involved in these manufacturing plants included shoes, gloves, automobile rear view mirrors, display items, office furniture, beauty salon furniture and fixtures, boat prOpellors, and special glass products. None of the plants was highly automated and ranged from standard assembly line to job-shOp in the nature of the work organization. D. Respondent Sample Company records listed a total of 4298 employees for the seventeen plants; 4108 questionnaires were passed out at plant exits of which 2649 (64%) were returned. Not all 2649 questionnaires, however, could be used. This study required that certain data be included in each questionnaire to be included in the analysis. Therefore questionnaires which 54 provided no identification as to job level or type or sex were excluded, as were those on which less than 50% of the personal job goal items were responded to and/or those leaving the Rokeach Value Survey blank. Applying these ex— clusion rules left a sample of 1990 respondents or 75% of the returned questionnaires or 48.4% of the total distributed. Of the 1990 included in this study exactly half (995) were female and half were male. Approximately seven per cent (136) of the total sample were management level, nine per cent (185) were holding first-line supervisor positions, with the remaining eighty-four per cent being "rank-and-file" employees. Including management and super- visors, approximately twenty-eight per cent were classified as holders of white collar jobs. Table 1 lists these break- downs. TABLE 1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS CLASSIFIED BY RANK, SEX, AND JOB TYPE Management Male 129 Management Female 7 Supervisors Male 153 Supervisors Female 32 Employees White-collar Male 80 Employees White-collar Female 163 Employees Blue-collar Male 633 Employees Blue-collar Female 793 1990 The median age is 25-30 years, median education is twelfth grade. A complete sample listing by each of the 55 twenty—two biographical items appears in Appendix A. E. Preliminary Analysis 1. Personal Job Goals The list of twenty-four personal job goal items was constructed following the research Of Herzberg and Friedlander and with the addition Of items referring to more company oriented goals such as high profits, growth and ex— pansion. The work of Herzberg and his students, as discussed above, has been centered on the notion that these goals form two basic factors. Friedlander's research revealed three general factors. In order to determine what basic dimensions, if any, existed among these items a factor analysis was performed on the items using intercorrelations of responses from a sample of 997 reSpondents drawn from the original data pool so as to represent all corporations, white collar as well as blue collar jobs and both male and female. The intercorrelation matrix (Pearson product-moment coefficients) was obtained using a program adapted for the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer which allows for missing data (Kline, 1968). The resultant matrix appears as Table B1 in the appendix. The matrix was submitted to factor analysis by use of a program which yields principal components as an initial analysis with subsequent orthogonal rotations by the Varimax method (Williams, 1967). The seven factor rotation is shown in Table B2 in the appendix. Only one item (#91 "Turning out high quality work") 56 has its principal loading on factor six. This item yielded responses with a restricted variance which probably accounts for its "uniqueness" in the factor structure. The remain- ing twenty-three items for a six factor structure are as follows: Factor 1 "Advancement" Item number Item Factor Loading 89 having responsibility on your job .62 94 being able to learn new skills and gain experience on your job .61 85 having good chances for promotion .73 87 being recognized and appreciated for doing good work .58 Factor 2 "Security" 78 receiving fair pay -.77 81 steady work and steady wages -.63 83 working under good (safe, clean, plea- sant conditions -.57 73 having a supervisor who really knows his job -.50 Factor 3 "Helping the Company" 86 helping the company grow and expand -.78 82 helping the company be prepared for change -.69 76 helping the company make high profits -.69 88 helping the company build and main- tain customer confidence and good will -.63 Factor 4 "Interpersonal Trust" 77 being trusted by the peOple you work with -.76 75 having relations of trust and confi- dence between superiors and subor- dinates -.68 84 being liked by the people you work with -.55 57 Item number Item Factor Loading Factor S "Broad Social Concern" 96 not having to work too hard .68 90 doing work which helps the welfare of others .56 80 working for a socially responsible com— pany (one that helps make your commu— nity a better place to live) .52 79 everyone in the company, no matter how low his status level, having a say in the decisions affecting his job .49 Factor 7 "Achievement" 74 having a challenging job -.68 95 a sense of achievement in the work you are doing -.56 93 a feeling that the work you are doing is important -.51 92 being able to decide how to do your job -.48 Since the items tend to rather clearly cluster into these six categories it was decided to use groups of items to form indices of six personal job goals. For each indi- vidual, scores on the six PJGs were obtained totaling the item responses in each category and dividing by the number of responses. Thus the maximum range for these indices re- mains as with the original items as 1.0 to 5.0, with in- creasing magnitude denoting increasing importance attached to a goal. Results for the 1990 respondents used in this study appear in Table 2. The PJGs of Advancement and Achievement include most Of the items generally classified as intrinsic or "motiva- tors" by Herzberg and "ego-needs" by the needs theorists. The present data suggest two separate concerns: one for social status within the organization and the other for 58 TABLE 2. MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR SIX PERSONAL JOB GOALS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE PJG Items Mean Standard N Dev1ation 1. Advancement 85, 87, 3.67 0.82 1983 89, 94 2. Achievement 74, 92, 3.70 0.78 1987 93, 95 3. Helping the Company 76, 82, 3.47 0.90 1988 86, 88 4. Broad Social Concern 79, 80, 3.08 0.84 1988 90, 96 5. Interpersonal Trust 75, 77, 4.05 0.70 1987 84 6. Security 73, 78, 4.28 0.62 1989 81, 83 59 success in terms of the job itself. Likewise, the "social" goal items ("hygienic") tend to form two separate factor clusters: one concerned with more immediate interpersonal re- lations within the plant and the other with much broader re- lationships including the role of the company in the total community. Within this context it appears that the item "Not having to work too hard" was interpreted as an issue of "social justice." The PJG "Security" is for the most part comparable to the notion of safety in the Maslow need hierarchy and the economic need of the economic man model. It is interesting to note that for this large sample of workers the item concer- ning good supervision was considered, in line with Herzberg's ideas, more as a security and safety factor than a social or interpersonal factor. The items included in the PJG "Helping the Company" are "textbook" company goals; presumedly the ex- tent to which a worker endorses these would be an indication of his positive attitude toward the company. It should be remembered that the use of averages of item scores to construct indices of PJGs does not eliminate the existence of possible intercorrelation among these indices. Table BS in the appendix lists the intercorrelations among the PJGs. It can be seen from the data that there are posi- tive intercorrelations ranging from a high of .48 between "Advancement" and "Achievement" to a low of .13 between "Advancement" and "Security." Thus the six measures of PJGs may be best viewed as empirically correlated but factorially 60 distinguishable. 2. Measures of Company "Morale" The items proposed for the five scales Of "morale" (Satisfaction, Confidence, Ego—involvement, Commitment, and Attitude toward the Scanlon Plan) were subjected to prelimi- nary analysis using the responses for the sample Of 997 em- ployees as outlined above. Table B3 in the appendix lists the intercorrelations among items for each group. Factor analysis of the total matrix suggested the items did in fact cluster together and hence are usable as scales. The items listed under the title "Ego-involvement" and "Commitment" above were taken from the work of Lodahl and Kejner (1965) on a single scale of job involvement. However, the analysis for this study suggests two distinct sets of items (see Table B4 in the appendix for an abbreviated fac- tor analysis). Those labeled "Ego-involvement" seem to meas- ure the extent to which a job is a "central life interest" (Dubin, 1958) or the extent to which work is used as an index of self—esteem. Those labeled "Commitment" here seem more specific to the particular job; the extent to which a person feels obligated for whatever reason to fulfill his "contract" with the company. The items in all of these scales refer to the indi— vidual's attitude toward his job. Each may be used as an index of the "morale" of a group by taking the average scale scores of all members of that group, and as an index across 61 groups as the rank-order of these averages. The intercorrelations among the five indices of morale at the individual level for all 1990 respondents ap- pears in Table B5 in the appendix. It can be seen from the entries that the indices show moderately high relationships ranging from .21 to .65. It can also be seen from Table B5 that the five indices of morale show low relationships with at least five of the six PJGs. Thus, with the possible ex— ception of the relationship between the measures of morale and PJG "Helping the Company," the two sets of measures may be seen as independent of each other. F. Specific Hypotheses to be Tested and Procedures for Analysis In a preceding section general alternative hypotheses about the relationships between various concepts and PJGs were proposed as they were found to exist or could be derived from the current literature. We can now state these hypo- theses in terms of the Specific measurements as developed above. 1. PJGs as some function of organizational "climate" 1 - a. PJGs and Plant Size Following Indik in part, the larger the plant work force, the greater the average rated importance of the PJGs of Security, Interpersonal Trust, and Broad Social Concern and the lower the average rated importance of Advancement, Achievement, and Helping the Company. Alternatively, there will be a 62 significant positive correlation between the rank order of plants by size and the rank of averages for Security, Interpersonal Trust, and Broad Social Concern and a negative correlation between the rank order of size and the rank orders of the averages for Advancement, Achievement, and Helping the Company. 1 - b. PJGs and Size of the Community of Plant Site From Blood and Hulin we deduce the same relation- ship as in 1 - a above substituting rank order of community size for plant size. 1 - c. PJGs as some function of general plant "morale" The greater the average morale in a plant the higher the average rated importance of Advancement, Achievement, and Helping the Company and the lower the average rated importance of Security, Interper- sonal Trust, and Broad Social Concern. There were five indices of plant-wide morale: Satisfaction, Confidence, Ego-involvement, Commitment, and Attitude toward the Scanlon Plan. For each of these indices Of "morale" there will be a positive correlation be- tween the rank order of the averages for plants by the rating and the rank order of the mean rated im- portance of Advancement, Achievement, and Helping the Company, and a negative correlation with the mean rated importance of Security, Interpersonal Trust, and Broad Social Concern. These first three hypotheses refer to differences 63 across plants in average ratings of PJGs and differences across plants in size, size of community and morale. Each of these may be viewed as a rank-ordering of plants or plant sites and tested by use of the Spearman rank-order correla- tion coefficient (rho). We might summarize the predictions as follows: PJGs Ach. Adv. HC BSC S Trust Plant Size - - — + + + Plant Site Size - — — + + + Satisfaction + + + — - _ Confidence + + + — - _ Ego-involvement + + + — _ _ Commitment + + + — _ - Scanlon Plant + + + — _ - l - d. PJGs as some function of job climate 1. The greater the hierarchical level, the grea- ter the average importance of Achievement, Advan- cement, and Helping the Company and the lower the average rated importance of Security, Inter- personal Trust, and Broad Social Concern. Test--Analysis of variance, one-way test for overall effects and subsequent test for linear trends. 2. For white-collar workers as compared to blue- collar workers there will be a higher rating of Advancement, Achievement, Helping the Company, and a lower average rating of Security, Broad Social Concern, and Interpersonal Trust. Test--Analysis of variance for differences 64 between means. 2. PJGs are some function of personal background. There are significant relationships between res- ponses on the biographical data items and ratings on PJGs. The attempt here is to study for the first time the simultaneous effects of such biographical factors as sex, length of service, age, education, family background such as urban-rural, community stability, religious ac- tivity, and ascetic beliefs on the ratings of importance of PJGs. These biographical factors are seen to be the most promising from a theoretical point of view, e.g. Dubin, Hulin and Blood, and Weber. Test--The task is one of exploring both the simple and interactive effects. While the biographical items may be considered "predictors" and PJGs dependent variables, the metrics of the items do not fit the traditional mul- tiple regression models. The "predictors" in this case are a mixed collection of nominal, ordinal, and coded in- tervals of equal interval scales, so the usual require— ments of the assumption of linearity and absence-of- interaction do not apply. A procedure presented by Sonquist and Morgan (1969) called Automatic Interaction Detection (AID) has been developed for just such occurences. Based on an analysis of variance model the analysis procedure applied to the problem at hand operates on the question: Of the given N biographical items, which single item (predictor 65 variable) will give the maximum improvement in predicta- bility of the values of a given PJG (a dependent vari- able)? The process follows an interactive scheme so that the total sample is divided through a series of binary splits, into a mutually exclusive series of sub- groups. Each split is chosen so that at each step of the procedure, their means account for more of the total sum of squares (reduce the predictive error) than the means of any other equal member of the sub-groups. 3. PJGs are some function of personal values There will be significant relationships between the ratings of PJGs and the rankings of certain values on the Rokeach Value Survey. While the purpose Of this analysis is primarily heuristic there are certain values included in the Survey which seem related to the notions of the "Protestant Ethic" such as A Sense of Accomplishment, Freedom, Salvation, Ambitious, Independent, Responsible, and low Pleasure that should be related to PJGs if the various theoretical speculations as outlined above are correct. Test--A Chi-Square analysis of contingency tables pre- pared by cross-tabulating the ranks of a given value divided at the median and the ratings of a given PJG divided at the mean has been constructed by Hollen (1969) for use on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer system. RESULTS A. Organizational Climate and Personal Job Goals The average ratings on the six PJGs for each plant are presented in Table 3 which also shows the rank orderings of the averages as well as the rank order by size of work force (rank 1 = largest). One—way analysis of variance tests on the data show significant differences between plants for all but the PJG "Interpersonal Trust." Given these differ- ences across plants it is reasonable to eXplore the extent to which these differences can be accounted for by the hypo- thesized variables of organizational "climate." Table 4 presents the PJGs classified by community of plant site (ordered by size) and Table 5 provides the data for the five indices of plant "morale" where each entry is the mean of scores on a given scale for all respondents in a given plant in the total sample. 1. Plant Size and PJGs Spearman rhos were computed for the ranks of plants by size and each set of values of plants by average PJG. The results are presented in the first line of Table 6; none are significantly different from zero (Guilford, 1965). Thus hypothesis 1 - a is not supported by the data. 66 A“: OOOO.V ON. OOOO.V OOOO. V OOOO.V OOOO.V um O0.0H OH.H N0.0 O0.0 NH.O H0.0 Hmm3mcovm OOOH ON.O O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 O0.0 musmHm HHH OO HH ON.O O OH.O OH OO.N HH O0.0 OH O0.0 O O0.0 OH o OO O O0.0 OH O0.0 OH O0.0 OH ON.O OH H0.0 OH O0.0 HH O OO O O0.0 O O0.0 O OH.O O O0.0 OH H0.0 NH O0.0 OH o OON O O0.0 O OH.O H ON.O OH O0.0 O O0.0 HH H0.0 H 2 OO N O0.0 O HH.O N ON.O O O0.0 OH O0.0 OH O0.0 OH 2 OH O O0.0 H ON.O HH O0.0 O N0.0 O O0.0 O H0.0 OH H OO O N0.0 O HH.O O OH.O OH O0.0 HH O0.0 OH O0.0 NH M .IOOH O O0.0 OH O0.0 O ON.O OH OH.O OH O0.0 OH O0.0 N O 6OO OH H0.0 O HH.O O OH.O O O0.0 H O0.0 N H0.0 OH H OOH OH HH.O N OH.O OH OO.N O O0.0 N O0.0 O O0.0 O m ONH H H0.0 HH O0.0 O O0.0 OH ON.O OH O0.0 OH O0.0 O O ONH O N0.0 O OH.O O ON.O O O0.0 O O0.0 O O0.0 O m OHH NH ON.O OH H0.0 O HH.O H N0.0 O O0.0 OH O0.0 O m ONN OH O0.0 NH N0.0 OH NO.N NH H0.0 O O0.0 O O0.0 O 0 OO OH OH.O OH O0.0 OH HO.N OH O0.0 NH O0.0 O O0.0 OH 0 OOH OH O0.0 OH O0.0 NH N0.0 N O0.0 O O0.0 O O0.0 O m HNH OH OH.O OH O0.0 OH H0.0 O O0.0 O O0.0 H O0.0 O < Mcmm COOS xsmm cmmz xcmm COOS xcmm GOO: xsmm COOS xcmm GOO: pmsuu ONHm mucwvcommmm HOCOOHOQ cumocou Ocmmeoo On Omxsmu (mo HOQEDZ, muHusomm IHODCH .HwHoom OOOMmemeOchHOm HCOEO>OH£04 wcmamocm>mm chmHm O92mm zH mHOH£om OCOEOUGO>O¢ ODHGDEEOU mBHm BZfiHm m0 VBHZDS I200 m0 mNHm wm QmNHmOUMBHO>CHIOOM OOCOOHOCOU COHHOOOOHDOO mgOmoz mezmHm ZOHZOOO zmmazm>mm 2H mHsmoz moHs-ezaHN mo mmmOmOmz O>HN mo OZONE mo ONZON O24 OZOmz .m mHmOe 70 TABLE 6. RANK-ORDER CORRELATIONS FOR PLANT SIZE, COMMUNITY SIZE, AND SIX PERSONAL JOB GOALS C m H u C O O O o C 0.: c: H E o B o U U H H O u u O O C C C C -H o O O u o m E E o H > O O ow O O u 0 > C Q -H C O -H U H H O a a. O O 5 g a .3 e 2 0 O fl d m m H m Plant Size .07 -.25 -.06 .16 -.38 .01 Community Size .46 .46 .46 -.44 -.58* -.59* * = Significant at .05 level 71 2. Size of Community of Plant Site and PJGs The same analysis was conducted in comparing the eleven different“communities ranked by size and the six PJGs. The results appear in the second line of Table 6. Only the PJGs of "Interpersonal Trust" and "Security" show significant relationship with size of community. Furthermore, the correlations are in the op- posite direction from that predicted from the Hulin and Blood model. That is, the larger the community, the higher the ratings for "Security" and "Interpersonal Trust." 3. Plant-wide "Morale" and PJGs Spearman rhos were computed for the rank—order of means for each PJG by the rank-order of means for each of the five proposed indices of plant "morale." The results are presented in Table 7. For the first three indices of plant "morale," "Satisfaction," "Con- fidence,‘ and "Ego-involvement,‘ the relationships with PJGs are in the predicted direction and, except for the relationships with PJG "Interpersonal Trust," are mostly significant and thus support hypothesis 1 - c, as stated. However, "Commitment" as an index of plant-wide morale yields only two significant correlations, one with "Advancement" in the predicted direction, and another with "Helping the Company" in the Opposite direction from that predicted. Thus the indices of "Ego-involvement" and "Commitment" composed of items in the Lodahl and 72 TABLE 7. RANK-ORDER CORRELATIONS FOR FIVE MEASURES OF PLANT- Satisfaction Confidence Ego-involvement Commitment Scanlon Plan WIDE MORALE WITH SIX PERSONAL JOB GOALS g S H p C O O O o C m C H E o B o U U H H O u p O O C C C C H o O O u o m E E o H S O O m O O u U > C 04 -a C O -H O H H m -H O O O C > C O4 0 u o O o O H C O ¢ m m m H m .42* .51* .44* -.56* -.18 -.74 .61** .28 .47* -.45* -.27 -.81** 054* 048* .40 -.66** -028 -081** .64** -.32 -.74** -.39 .37 -.28 .30 .19 .63** .02 .28 -.46* * = Significant at .05 level ** = Significant at .01 level 73 Kejner (1965) single scale of job-involvement are not only factorially distinct as noted above but also form different patterns of relationships with PJGs. "Atti- tude toward the Scanlon Plan" is related only to "Helping the Company" and "Security." Overall, the analysis to this point lends support to the notion that PJGs are some function of the in- plant environment. However, it must be kept in mind that this overall analysis uses within—plant means calculated on all respondents. Since the proportion of white collar to blue collar workers varies greatly from plant to plant and since there are great differences in these measures of "morale" between white and blue collar workers, it was decided to reanalyze the relationships . separately for white collar workers, and for male and female blue collar workers. Table 8 shows the Spearman rhos calculated for each of these groups for each of the five measures of morale and each of the six PJGs. Of the ninety correlations only eleven are significant at the .05 level. While most of the correlations that are significant involve relationships with "Helping the Com- pany" and "Security", there are no systematic relation- ships between the indices of plant morale and PJGs when white collar workers and male and female blue collar workers are considered separately. Thus the overall re- lationship between these attitudinal measures of morale and PJGs seem to be mostly accountable for by the 74 Hm>mH HO. um OOOOHOHOOHO HO>OH mo. uO CCOOHMHCmHm II 'K NH. mN.I «mv.l mH.I «0.: ma. mm. mo.l SH.I COHm COHCOom mm. mo. mo. NH.I mm. 00. mo.l mo.l ma. uCOEOHEEOU mm.n OmO.I «mm.| mo.| mm.u Ha. mo.| mm.| «OO.I CCOEO>H0>Cfllomm hm.l mm.l ««om.l NH. NH.I v0. no.l om.l «Hm.l OOCOUHMCOU «mm.l Nv.l ov.l Ha. mo.| NH. mo.| NN.I mN.I , CofluomwmfluOm SBHmDUmm BmDmB AflzommmmmMBZH ZSMUZOU AdHUOm afiomm OH. *«wm. mm.l mm. hH.I mo. mm. ma. no. COHm COHCOUm Hm. mm. mm. No. mm. av. wo.l *mm. mm. uCOEpHEEOU «Hm. mm. om. 0H. mm.l Ho.| mo. OH. 00.: uCOEO>HO>CHI0mm No.l «kvw. mo. Hm. mH.I mo. Ho.l SH. No.1 OUCOUHmCOU mm. mm. mm. mm. HN.I om. no. Om. mo.l COHuUOmmHuOm HOHHOO HOHHOU COHHOU HOHHOU COHHOU MOHHOO COHHOU HOHHOO HOHHOU OuflCz OCHm OCHm OCOCK OCHm OCHm OuOCz OCHm OCHm OHOS OHOEOm OHOS OHOEOm OHOS OHOEOC SZ¢QEOU OZHmAmm BZWSH>MHSU¢ BZMEMUZd>Q< mmmxmoz mdquUImBHSB Som 02¢ mmmxmoz mHm mom mZOHfimqmmmOU mmomOIMZSm .m m4m<8 75 differential proportion of white collar workers among the various plants. Data presented in Appendix A pro- vide a breakdown by plants of the proportion of white collar workers in the sample. Table 9 shows the rank- order correlations between the ranks of proportions of white collar workers and the ranks of plant averages for each of the six PJGs as they appear in Table 3 above. It can be seen by comparing the results in Table 9 with those in Table 7 that the non-attitudinal measure of "climate," i.e. the proportion of white collar workers in a plant, shows as high or higher correlations with PJGs than do the five attitudinal measures of "morale." 4. Job "climate" and PJGs While the tests of the first three hypotheses, l - a, l - b, l - c, involve differences among plants, hypothe- sis l - d involves potential differences in PJGs related to differences in job level and type within or across plants. Table 10 presents the ratings of PJGs by hier- archical level and by white versus blue collar job hol- ders across all seventeen plants. Except for the differ— ences between white and blue collar workers with respect to PJG "Interpersonal Trust" all the differences are highly significant and in the predicted direction follow- ing hypothesis 1 - d. To what extent these differences may be accounted for by differences in background (e.g. education) and what seems purely situational (due to job experiences and rewards) will be explored in the next section. 76 TABLE 9. CORRELATION BETWEEN PLANTS RANKED BY PROPORTION OF WHITE COLLAR WORKERS AND RANKS OF AVERAGES OF SIX PERSONAL JOB GOALS C S H u C O O O 0 C m C H E O B 0 U o H H O u C O O C C C C -H o O O u o m E E O H S O O U» O O u 0 > C a. -H C O -H U H H O a O O O D > C H o u o O o O H C O S < in m P! m Proportion of White Collar .68** .79** .44* -.60** -.21 -.90** Workers Significant at the .05 level Significant at the .Ol level » » NH 77 OOOO. V NO. . OOOO.v OOOO.v OOOO.v OOOO.V Emamcovmum OO.ONN OO.H N0.00 OO.OH HH.ON OO.OH Imm3mcovm ONOH OO. HO.O OO. OO.O NO. OH.O OO. NO.O OO. OO.O OO. NO.O HOHHOO msHm OOO OO. OO.O OO. NO.O OO. HO.N OO. OO.O NO. OO.O NO. O0.0 HmHHou mafia; OOOO. V OOO. OOOO.V OOOO.v OOOO.V HOO. GOOOHHEE O.OOH OO.O O.OO ON.OO OO.OH O0.0H AHOOOHHOO OOOO. OOO. OOOO. OOOO. OOOO. NOO. Ammsmcocmum OO.OOH ON.O OO.Nm OO.ON OO.O OH.O ramsmcocm OOOH OO. OO.O OO. O0.0 OO. OH.O HO. HO.O OO. OO.O OO. OO.O OHHO can xcmm OOH OO. O0.0 OO. O0.0 OO. OO.N OO. OO.O OO. OO.O OO. NO.O OuomH>umasO OOH OO. OO.O OO. OO.O OO. OO.N NO. HO.O HO. O0.0 HO. H0.0 newsmmmamz b m 5 m 5 m s m b m b m umsue CHOOCOO SCOQEOO HOCOOCOQ HOHoom OCC uCOE uCOE HO>OA z SuHHDUOm IHOUCH UOOHm mCHQHOm IO>OHC0¢ IOOCO>©¢ HOUHCUHOHOHS mOHOU mddqou QZfl Hm>mH HSUHSUMSmmHm Sm deOU moo Adzommmm XHm m0 mZOHB¢H>mQ Qm4QZ¢Bm QZd mZOH .Om moH. Hoo. mOo. Ooo. OHo. moo. HOHHoo OCHCIOCHCS .mm Omo. Hoo. ooo. mmo. mHo. OHo. xOm .mm HHo. Ooo. moo. mHo. moo. moo. mCuOum HOuHHOS .Hm Ooo. moo. moo. mHo. moo. OHo. OHCCOB .om moo. moo. moo. HOo. Ooo. mHo. OmO .mH OHo. ooo. Hoo. moo. moo. Hoo. CuCoE COQ O>Om .mH mmo. Ooo. mHo. moo. moo. moo. OOCOHCOCH OMHH .uEd .PH OHO. NOO. OOO. OOO. OOO. OOO. mcchHHo .OH moo. moo. moo. Hoo. moo. moo. mCHHCEOmquOCuHuCC .mH OHo. moo. moo. woo. woo. woo. CoHuOCHEOCOo CCOumOuoum .OH HOO. OOO. HOO. HOO. NOO. NOO. coHOHHmm .OH moo. moo. moo. moo. Ooo. Hoo. ConHHOH mo OUCOCHOQEH .mH oHo. Hoo. Ooo. moo. moo. Ooo. mOUH>HOm mConHHOH OCOqu .vOHm1.HH Hvo. moo. mHo. moo. mHo. moo. OEOUCH SHHEOM HOuoe .oH moo. Hoo. moo. moo. Ooo. moo. COHCOUCOO m.COCu0S .m oHo. ooo. moo. Hoo. moo. moo. COHCOOCOO m.HOCuOm .m mmo. Hoo. Omo. mHo. mHo. moo. COHCOOCOO C30 .5 mmo. moo. moo. moo. Hmo. moo. CoHuOmCooo O.HOCuOm .m Hoo. Hoo. Ooo. moo. moo. moo. mOuOEHOOCom COE OHOCz .m Hoo. moo. moo. moo. moo. moo. mOuOEHOOCom 30Cx HHHum .O HOo. moo. mHo. moo. oHo. Ooo. HOMOHQ SuHCCEEoo ONHm .m mmo. moo. Ooo. mHo. mHo. moo. 30C SuHCCEEoo ONHm .m Hmo. Ooo. Ooo. moo. Ooo. moo. OMHH SHHOO I C309 ONHm .H SCHHCOOO umsue CHOOCOU SCOQEOU uCOE uCOE EOuH HOCoqum HOHoom OC» IO>OHCUC IOOCO>©¢ CCCOHmSOOm IHOuCH OOoum mCHmHOm HOCOOHOC mq mo onBmomomm .HH mHmde 85 as single effects on PJG "Advancement." The largest effects are in order: Age, Length of Service, Sex, Size of town in which raised, White-blue collar, and Father's occupation. Figure 1 shows the end process of analysis of "Advancement" for these twenty-four PB items. The criterion for making any split was that it reduce the total variance (TSS for the entire sample of 1990) by .004 or the level of significance. This cri- terion insures that all splits will form groups that account for a significant amount of variance, thus eliminating the necessity of performing a posteriori tests of significance on final groups; a procedure in hot dispute by statisticians at this writing. The results in Figure 1 show that the greatest dif- ference in the ratings of "Advancement" is between those respondents under forty years of age and those forty or over. While advancement is shown to be more important for younger men than for younger women, there is no dif- ference between the sexes on advancement for the older age group. Whether one was raised on a farm or in a very small town or whether one was raised in a larger community does, however, make a difference for this older age group as it does for younger men. There is no significant difference in PJG "Advancement" for younger women as to where they were raised but there is for father's occupation; with those whose fathers were un— skilled laborers lower on "Advancement" than the rest. 86 WMMSOHmSm HHS Sm .OHO3 muOCuOm Amy OOH HO. OO.O u OOHHmecs 2 IO .N mCzou CH OOOHOO AoHo =92m2m02¢>a¢= can» mmv mm. mv.m ooo~m mmOH C30» CH COOHOm AOV u b¢ .H mmDUHm OO. n.uu O0.0 u.m OOOH u z Hmuoa HHO HOO u z. //x nmmmnmnmui ”F. "b FF. "lb Nwo .II OO.O u.m / OO.O u m O0.0 u.m COHHHCO oo©.m HO>0 C30» HO>0 I 0“ OHOz muOCuOm Amy ,» CH OOmHOm Amy Oma “mm mm H z mm. u.b mm. H mm.m u M .O OO. "O mh.m u.m - COED? Amy mh.m n x ooo.m COCu OOOH ow HOOCm mqsou OH OOOHOO HHHO OO. ".0 OOO HNO .OO.O u_m mom u z CO OO. "lb 2 HO. mm.m u.m ooo.m HO>0 87 b. PJG "Achievement" Table 11 reveals that the greatest effects between Personal Background and the PJG "Achievement" are for Father's occupation, Sex, Total family income, and Edu- cation. Figure 2 displays the final interaction analy- sis for this goal. The greatest single difference is between those whose fathers were unskilled workers and those whose fathers were at least semi-skilled. Sex shows a parallel significance; men score higher than women for both groups with women whose fathers were semi-skilled or higher averaging non-significantly higher than men whose fathers were unskilled. Differences in educational level achieved are only important for men whose fathers were semi-skilled or higher in occupa- tional level. The original main effects of white versus blue collar and total family income are absorbed by dif- ferences in the more "efficient" prediction by father's occupation. The differences in size of community remain a non-significant trend for all five of the final sub- groups in analysis. c. PJG "Helping the Company" Figure 3 reveals that the bulk of the variance in ratings of "Helping the Company" which is explainable by Personal Background variables can be done so with only two variables, Age and Sex. The most important variable is age with persons over thirty years of age rating "Helping the Company" higher than those younger in age. 88 mmmSOHmZm Add Sm :BZMSH>HHSU<= H400 mOb Hfizommmm m0 meHBdm mu¢ .N mmDOHm NO. u b O0.0 u m OOO. u z GOEO3 «my OO. ":6 O0.0 u M. OO. ub NmN II- 2 mm.m " m _ o cm: 8. OOHHHxOsO $053 12 mm.m m wu OO. 1.6 OOOH u z . I O 0 OO O u m OOO u z OO.O uluw wwmeou swaps HOV umuumn no OOHHHCM _ COC» mqu Amy r r IHEOO OHOCuOm Amy OO. ub O0.0 n m mm. nub CO OO.O n O F 2 E ONN u z OOOHHoO COO 89 mmmSOAmSm Add Sm :SdeSOU M39 UZHmHmmz HSOU mOb Adzommmm m0 mOZHBSM mwdmm>¢ .m mmDUHh .3 x mme mm. HH.m Hum—=03 As. v OOO OO. O0.0 :Oz HOV .31 z OO. ON.O u OO ummco OOH OOO .NO OO O u OOOH u HOuoa HHS :0 _M u u IxE>z \/ /// OOO OO. O0.0 swaps HOV z .xé' OO. O0.0 HO>0 OCO om Omm HOV to .m u Ixt>z Hmm mm. mO.m :Oz COO 90 A parallel effect is accountable for by sex with the dif- ferences between men and women being identical for each of the age groups. It is of interest that age itself is a much more "efficient" predictor for this goal than is length of service. d. PJG "Broad Social Concern" Figure 4 shows the AID analysis for PJG "Broad Social Concern." The greatest difference was between white and blue collar workers. Educational level shows a nearly parallel effect with preference for living in a rural area versus a larger community of significance only for the white collar workers with less than a college educa- tion. e. PJG "Interpersonal Trust" A review of Table 11 reveals that only a few of the Personal Background variables show significant effects for the PJG "Interpersonal Trust." Figure 5 shows that the greatest differences are between those who count many of their former schoolmates among their closer friends and those who do not with the latter group scor- ing lower on "Interpersonal Trust." It should be noted that this variable is also related slightly to age and small town background. For those still close friends with their schoolmates whether religion was an important part of their home life and whether it was "left out" makes a significant difference in their ratings of trust, while for those who do not have as many close ties with 91 mMMSOHmzm HHS Sm :meuzou HflHUOm aflommz Hflow mOb Hdzommmm m0 mUZHBSm m0¢mm>¢ .v HMDUHW OON u z. OOH u 2 OH ub mO. unb mm m u m OO.N u m 3330 COO C30» uOmHOH CH O>HH HOmOHm Amy Hm. "shy V¢oN " MM mm. "lb NOH u z .OOHO OE . . HO.N u m . .b om. nib COCOHCB Amy HOHHoo OuHCz Amy mo.m n m OOOM mOu M mmmH u Z M H HCH 1 O o HOMOCC Amy ovm u 2 mm. nub H u a HHV q WHO Wm OH.O u m OmOHqu HOHHoo OCHm Amy ..UOHm .m.m HOV vmm Hm. Om.m .m.m OEom Amy 2 .0 m mmmSOHmSM HHS Sm 92 «Hv mm. mm.m OUCOHCOCH OMHH CH oom.hw HO>O Amv lxg z mmNH H mm. M mo.O u OOCOMCOCH OHHH oom.Om COCu mmOH HOV nz om. u mo.v u mOuOEHOOCom CuH3 OCCOHHM OmoHo mmOH Amy =EmDMB HSZOmmmmmmBZH: HSOU mOh HSZOmmmm m0 mOZHBSm WOSMH>S .m HMDGHM OO OO. NO.O OOHH mean no guso uOmHg coHOHHmO COO 2 Lu Am mmm u 2 mm. nfLu mN.¢ "AM OEOC CH .HCOCMOCEH ConHHOm Amy OO. .uku ON.O m mOuOEHOOCom CuH3 OUCOHHM OOOHU Amy on. mo.v hmmH Hmuoa HHO (b .m z 93 schoolmates the amount of life insurance carried is im- portant. This latter variable absorbs differences due to status level and total family income. f. PJG "Security” Table 11 reveals that several strong effects exist among some of the PB items and the PJG "Security." How- ever, Figure 6 shows that none of these is a parallel effect. Instead, Figure 6 results suggest a kind of "successive hurdles" effect operating to determine a respondent's concern for security. The greatest differ— ence appears between blue and white collar workers. For the former group, total family income is the only signi— ficant difference. For white collar workers, education (which is itself related to income and status level) is the key effect with preference for rural versus urban living a factor only for those with less than a college education. Differences in sex are significant only for white collar workers with a college education. This latter effect masks a difference in status level since there are more men than women in management positions in this group. For these men there is a significant dif- ference in the rated importance of "Security" according to their fathers' occupation. Values and Personal Job Goals The median rank orderings of the eighteen terminal and eighteen instrumental values in the Rokeach Value Survey mmmSOHmSm HHS Sm =SBHmDUMm: HSOU mow HSZOmmmm m0 mUZHBSm mwSmm>S .m mmDOHm H Sb. Hub OOHO u z OO.O n m mo.m n M HOConmOmonm i COCmo Ho mmOCHmCC SCHHQ AHHV .UOHHHCOCS H a. IIOHOCCOE Am: mm. HID OO u 2 O u OOO.O u m OO. u \ OmmH H 2 cm: COO OO.O u m OO.O m.m SHOHOH . m . I A om u z xCHHo 85 .HO 5m mOHOm mm. "to OO. nb L OOHHmeuHsmO OH.O u x OO.O n x M mm H z - / OO. ub OO. ub HO.‘ III M . “How u m I ooo.m HO>0 .COHm .m.m on” m.b C30“ HOmOHm AmHo CmCOHCB AOV OmHMqum u Oanz HOV .O "O n z a. VNofi H X ¢Qo "lb mNo¢ " M . CO mmwl i Hm.m u.m i mmmH n z oom3wu HMWOHO “OHO oom.>m HO>0 , HOHOB HHS OEooCH SHHEOm HmHo mm. ":0 H¢.¢ H mm HHO ".2 HOHHoo OCHm Amy mm. "b .11 mv.¢ .I.. M oom.hw HOUCC OEOO ICH SHHEOS ANHV 95 for the total sample appears in Table C1 in the appendix. These rankings were compared with the ratings of each of the PJGs by dividing each value distribution at the median and each PJG at the mean. Chi-square tests for non-independence were performed on the resultant 216 "2 x 2" contingency tables. Tables Cl through C7 in the appendix include the results of those tests. Figure 7 provides a summary of the significant effects found in these tables. A review of Figure 7 provides some comparisons of the PJGs in terms of similarities and differences in relationships with the Rokeach values. Those who score average on "Advance- ment" and those who score above average on "Achievement" both tend to rank the values Sense of Accomplishment, Ambi- tious, Imaginative, and Independent high and to rank low the values World of Peace, Inner Harmony, Honest, Loving, and Polite. Since the two PJGs of "Advancement" and "Achieve- ment" are correlated (r = .48) it is not surprising that they show some common relationships with values. However, just as the two PJGs were shown to be factorially distinct in the preliminary analysis, they can be distinguished from each other on the basis of their differences in relationships with several of the Rokeach Values. High ratings on "Advance- ment" are associated with higher rankings for A comfortable life, Social recognition, and Pleasure and low rankings for Equality, Salvation, and Forgiving. On the other hand, those who score above average on "Achievement" tend to rank the values An exciting life, Wisdom, and Intellectual high. 96 mmmmeB HSHmBmDQZH ommH mom mHSOO mow HSZOmmmm m0 mUZHBSm QZS Sm>mDm MDHS> SUSmxom mmB ZO mUZHMZSm mDHS> zmmzfimm mmHmmZOHESHmm BZSUHSHZOHm m0 SmSSZDm .h mmDUHh mCH>OH HOOHmoq HCHHOOCU O>0H OHCHOS SCOEHOC HOCCH mmOCHCCOm OOOHOOOO msoHansm SuHHCOOm HOCoHqu SuHHCOOm SHHEOm SuHHOnmm SZSQSOU mmB UszHmm OCHHom mCH>0H umOCom COOHU SCOECOC HOCCH OOOOm mo OHH03 S HOCOOOHHOHCH uCOCCOmOCCH O>HCOCHmOEH msoHpHnam Eoanz uCOECmHHCEOOOO mo OmCOm OMHH mCHuHUxO CS BZmSm>MHmUS mCH>0H meCom mCH>HmHom CoHuO>HOm SCOEHOC HOCCH SuHHOswm OOOOQ mo OHHO3 S CCOOCOQOOCH O>HuOCHmOEH OCOHuHCES COOCOOHIMHOO OHCOOOHO uCOECmHHmEoooO mo OOCOm OOHH mHnOuuomeoo < BZHSHUZS>QS "Dom Co COOE OCu O>OCO Ouoom 0C3 OOOCB "Co COHUOE may sonn OOO "Co COHOOE OCu O>0CO CCOH on OCOB 97 HOUHmOH HOCCOOHHOCCH O>HHOCHmOEH OHCOQOO EOOOHZ COOCOOHIHHOO SCOEHOC HOCCH uCOECmHH ICEOOOO m0 OmCOm OHHH mCHuHoxm OHHHom ucmHOOno COOHO Hsmummno OHCOOOHS SHHHCOOO HOCoHqu EOOOOMS OUOOQ m0 UHH03 S SBHmDumm HOOHOOH OHCOQOU OHCHmCommOm HOOOHOO GOOHU mmOCHmmOm OOOOQ m0 CHH03 S BmDMB HSZOmmmmmMBZH OHCHmCommOm HOUHmOH OHCOOOO EOCOHZ HOOQOOHIMHOO COHHO>HOm SCOEHOC HOCCH uCOECmHHCEOUOO mo OmCOm umOCom HOOOHOO mCH>HmH0m COOHO EOOOOHm SHHHOOOO SuCOOC m0 OHH03 S OUOOQ m0 OHH03 S 2mMUZOU HSHUOm QSOmm "Ohm C0 COOE OCH O>0CO Ouoom 0C3 OmOCB OOCCHCCOU .h mmDOHm "C0 COHOOE OOH onmn OCS "C0 COHCOE OCH O>0CO CCOH 0p OCOB 98 Thus some additional "meaning" to the factorial difference between the PJGs "Advancement" and "Achievement" is given by their relations to values. The PJGs "Broad Social Concern" and "Interpersonal Trust" may also be distinguished from each other in terms of the differences in values associated with each. For both PJGs above average scores are associated with high rankings for A World of Peace, Clean, and Helpful and low rankings for Capable and Logical. However, "Broad Social Concern" in distinction from "Interpersonal Trust" is positively re- lated to the "social" and "political" values of A world at peace, World of beauty, Equality, and Freedom and negatively related to the "inner-directed" values of Sense of accomplish- ment, Inner harmony, Salvation, Self-respect, and Responsible. "Security" as a Personal Job Goal is related to gen- eral values concerning security, stability, and passivity in life in general. Those who score higher on the PJG tend to place greater value on A world of peace and National security, Freedom, and Pleasure, and being Cheerful, Clean, Obedient, and Polite. Those who rate "Security" above average also tend to rank lower the values of An exciting life, A sense of accom- plishment, Wisdom, Capable, Imaginative, Intellectual and Logical. The values ranked 12wg£_by respondents rating "Security" high are those ranked high by those respondents rating "Achievement" and "Advancement" high. The value Inner harmony shows a consistent relation- 99 ship with five of the six PJGs; the higher the ranking of Inner harmony, the lower the rating of the PJGs. Thus those ranking this value highly tend to de-emphasize all job related goals. DISCUSSION A. Review of Results The purpose of the study was to explore the nature of measured personal job goals (PJGs) in relation to each other and in relation to three broadly defined sets of potential "explanatory" variables: organizational "climate," indivi- dual background, and individual values. The data were ob- tained from 1990 respondents in seventeen industrial plants of six corporations. These plants were all operated under the Scanlon Plan and were relatively homogeneous with res- pect to geographical area, size of community of plant site, size of work force, and technology. The six PJG measures used in this study were con- structed on the basis of a factor analysis of the responses to twenty-four Specific goal items in a sub-sample of 997 employees. These six measures were labeled "Advancement," "Achievement," "Helping the Company," "Broad Social Concern," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security." The items that made up the PJG of "Helping the Company" were "textbook" company goals (profits, growth, etc.) and presumedly measured the extent to which the respondent "internalized" these organi- zational goals. The remaining twenty goal items were similar to those used by Friedlander (1964, 1965) who adapted them from Herzberg's (1959) list of "motivators" and "hygienic" 100 101 variables. The items which were lumped together as intrin- sic or "motivator" by Herzberg or as "ego-needs" by the needs theorists were found in this study to form the two factors of "Advancement" and "Achievement." This finding is congruent with that of Friedlander and suggests two separable con- cerns within the "motivator" items: one for social status within the organization and the other for success and auto- nomy in terms of the job itself. Although Friedlander, like Herzberg, found only one factor within the so-called extrinsic or "hygienic" items, the present study found three. Of these, "Interpersonal Trust" included a respondent's concern with more immediate interpersonal relations within the plant, while "Broad Social Concern" involved wider relationships including the respon- dent's view of the roles of the company in the community. The third of these three PJGs, the PJG of "Security," which would also be considered "hygienic" by Herzberg, included concerns for fair pay, steady work and wages, good working conditions, and supervision, all of which are very close to the American union movement's formally declared View of the central concerns of workers. Among the six factors, "Se- curity" was the most closely related to the notion of safety in the Maslow need hierarchy. Although the measures of the PJGs were constructed on the basis of the factor clusterings of items, the indices themselves showed rather consistent moderate to low positive intercorrelations, without any further pronounced patterning. 102 In addition, the PJGs could also be compared in terms of their relationships with the other variables used in this study. In total, the nature of the relationships among the three sets of "independent" variables and the PJGs was one of complexity rather than any simple structure. Within the complexity of interrelationships, however, some important patterns emerged. One such pattern that emerged was the polarization of the PJGs of "Advancement," “Achievement," and "Helping the Company" at the one pole and the PJGs of "Broad Social Con- cern,’ "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security" at the other. In other words, some of the "independent" variables used in this study, when their relationships with the PJGs were ex- amined to find out the light they could throw on the PJGs themselves, clearly divided the PJGs into the two opposing types. Current literature frequently reports such a pattern. One example is the widespread notion of self-actualizing man with his motivations centered on the first three PJGs men- tioned rather than on the second three. Another is Herz- berg's two-factor theory, as well as theories by other human relationists. The pattern, with emphasis on those employees highly concerned with the first three ("Advancement," "Achievement," and "Helping the Company") again and not very concerned with the second three ("Broad Social Concern," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security"), can also be Viewed as the one that best describes the notion of adherence to 103 "middle class norms" or the "Protestant Ethic" in orienta- tion toward work as used by Hulin and Blood (1968). The reverse pattern fits Hulin and Blood's concept of "alienation from middle class norms," a pattern asserted to typify urban blue collar workers. It will be recalled that many of the hypotheses that guided the analysis in this study were stated in terms of the possible relationship between the three sets of "indepen- dent" variables and the above pattern of PJGs. With the actual emergence of this "three-three" pattern of PJGs in relation to the "independent" variables, there is a good chance of finding positive support for the hypotheses. So much for the moment concerning the overall pat- tern among the PJGs as revealed by the interrelationships among them and the three sets of "independent" variables. We now turn to considering each one of the sets of "inde- pendent" variables. The interrelationships of each one of them and the PJGs could throw special light on the internal structure of the PJGs, particularly the hypothesized aspects of that structure. With respect to the hypothesized relationships be- tween "organizational climate" and PJGs, no significant, systematic relationships between the indices of organization- wide "climate" and plant-wide averages of PJGs were found which could not also be accounted for by the varying propor- tion of white-collar to blue-collar respondents among the plants in the sample. At the individual level of analysis, 104 consistent relationships were found between "job climate" (white collar/blue collar and hierarchical level) and PJGs in the hypothesized direction, i.e., white collar workers and/or managers and supervisors rate "Advancement,' "Achieve- ment," and "Helping the Company" higher and "Broad Social Concern," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security," lower than blue collar and/or rank-and-file employees. The analysis of the relationships among personal background variables and PJGs also revealed the trend for the first three PJGs of "Advancement," "Achievement," and "Helping the Company" to form relationships with a given variable which were the opposite of those formed by the other three PJGs. This pattern is especially consistent for sex, size of community where raised, and those variables concerned with socialization patterns associated with socio- economic status. For example, those whose education is lower and whose fathers were unskilled workers rated lower the PJGs of "Advancement," "Achievement," and "Helping the Company" and higher the PJGs of "Broad Social Concern," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security." Such evidence of a relationship between social class and "alienation from middle class norms" generally fits the notions of the Hulin-Blood model. However, some of the speci- fic predictions derivable from their discussion of that model were 22; supported by this study. Hulin and Blood as- serted that the small town worker is rasied in a social system so imbued with the "Protestant Ethic" that he will 105 not suffer the "alienation" of the urban, socially "isola- ted" worker. All significant relationships in the present study, however, between the various indices of urban-rural background and PJGs show results Opposite to those predic- ted from the Hulin-BlOOd model. Thus, the results Of this study would raise doubts about the generality of the use Of size of community of plant site as a linear index of "alien- ation from middle class norms" and related concepts. The sample in this study is weighted toward smaller communities and restricted in range and therefore probably not comparable to the samples used in the findings reported by Hulin and Blood (1968). However, the results herein, when compared to the results Of previous studies in the literature, would suggest the relationship between community size and "aliena- tion" (in the limited sense as in Hulin and Blood) may be curvilinear with workers from both truly rural and from large, urban areas tending towards "alienation from middle class norms." In any event, the suggestion that small-town middle America is such a strong citadel Of the "Protestant Ethic" as to imbue all workers with middle class work value systems is not supported by the results from the sample of this study. Other indices of the so-called "Protestant Ethic" also do not necessarily show the predicted relationships with PJGs. There were no significant differences in PJGs by formal religious labels. The relationships between fre- quency Of religious activities and PJGs, as noted in the 106 results, suggest that, for this sample, high religious ac- tivity is as likely to be "escapist" or "other worldly" as it is to indicate the promotion of the idea Of doing God's work here on earth through the nobility of work. Where something like what is called the "Protestant Ethic" does appear is in the relationships between the third set of "independent" variables, the Rokeach Values, and PJGs, particularly in the differences in the values associated with "Achievement" on the one hand and "Security" on the other. For example, there is a reversal Of the relation- ship for these two PJGs and the values A Sense of Accomplish- ment, Wisdom, Ambitious, Imaginative, and Independent. This result should not be too surprising since such notions as the "Protestant Ethic" and "alienation from middle class norms,‘ as typically used, refer to inferred value systems. However, the patterns of relationships among the values and PJGs in this study suggest a more complex and wide-ranging set of specific relationships than could be accounted for by the single and overly simple notion of "the Ethic." So far, this disucssion has been devoted almost en- tirely to a single pattern Of relationships among the PJGs. It should not be forgotten that, in total, the nature of the relationships was one of complexity. The analysis Of "job climate" and personal background factors revealed results which could best be expressed in a multiple contingency- interaction context such as Sonquist and Morgan's AID analy- sis model. Further, the relationships among the Rokeach 107 values and PJGs revealed that each PJG showed a pattern Of relationships with values that is distinguishable from the patterns of relationships for other PJGs. Some of the pat- terns Of relationships would seem to support and give mean- ing to the factorial differences among the PJGs. A few illustrative examples can be given. "Advancement" and "Achievement" were the two PJGs most highly intercorrelated and showed many parallel relation- ships with the other variables. However, "Advancement" was the more strongly related to age. Presumedly for Older workers "Advancement" has either already been gained or must be realistically dropped as a goal that has any probability of fulfillment. Those who scored high on "Advancement" tended to be younger and to hold "hedonistic" values in that they tended to rank high A comfortable life, and Pleasure, but ranked lower the values Of Equality and the "religious" values of Forgiving and Salvation. In contrast, "Achieve- ment" was more related to father's occupation and own educa- tion and the associated values of Wisdom, Intellectual, and an Exciting life. The PJGs Of "Broad Social Concern" and "Interpersonal Trust" both involved "social" relationships. "Interpersonal Trust" showed comparatively little variation in responses across the sample. What relationships were found to exist between personal background and "Interpersonal Trust" ten- ded to focus on tendencies to maintain close ties with friends from school, and a closeness in family and religious 108 upbringing. The factorially distinct "Broad Social Concern" might seem to be an ill-defined conglomeration Of items ran- ging from "Not working too hard" to "Working for a socially responsible company" (see page 43 for the list Of items that make up the scale by which this PJG is measured). Neverthe- less, the relationships between this measure and the Rokeach values especially add support to its standing as an indepen- dent factor. Those rating "Broad Social Concern" highest also ranked higher the "humanist" values of World at peace, A world of beauty, Equality, and Freedom. However, they also ranked the value Wisdom low, and tended to reject those "hedonistic" values associated with persons rating high the "company oriented" PJG Of "Advancement." "Broad Social Concern" stood most clearly in "Opposition" to "Advancement" in terms of values. The PJG "Security" was strongly related to job status (collar color and hierarchical level). However, the relationship was not entirely one Of job "climate" alone. For blue collar workers only, total income was relevant to their rating of "Security"; on the other hand, for white collar workers, various background factors (e.g., education, father's occupation) affected their ability to ignore the importance of "Security." As previously noted in discussion of the "Protestant Ethic," the value pattern associated with "Security" was most clearly "Opposite" that of "Achievement." Thus, although the PJG measures used in this study 109 showed positive intercorrelations, their relationships with both the background variables and the measured values tended to point to "Opposing" sets of PJGs; e.g. "Advancement" is most sharply "Opposed" to "Broad Social Concern" and is some- what different from "Achievement." "Achievement" is most sharply "Opposed" to "Security" which is somewhat different from "Broad Social Concern." Thus, within the overall "three-three" pattern Of PJG scores Of high on "Advancement," "Achievement," and "Helping the Company" and low on "Broad Social Concern," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Security," which pattern defines the "motivated" worker or one in con- gruence with middle class norms, individual differences appeared among the PJGs which suggest distinct kinds Of "conflict" and different paths to "alienation" and related concepts. B. Interpretations and Implications The number of variables available in the data re- ported on in this study presented a unique Opportunity to explore in detail many of the major hypothesized relation~ ships, Often based on a relatively small number of variables, that appear in the literature concerning Personal Job Goals. The plants included in the sample, with their indicated simi- larity in management and wage policies as well as such organ- izational "demographics" as location and size, produced a relatively uniform "testing ground" for the complex inter- actions among variables. No attempt is made here to 110 generalize the Specific results from this "non- representative" sample to all industrial workers in all 10- cations. For example, the lack Of a significant relationship between plant size (since the variations in the sample were relatively small) and average ratings Of PJGs could hardly be considered a finding of any generality beyond this sample. However, the homogeneity of conditions within the sample tends to highlight the large number of and complexity of relationships that were found. The relationships might be much stronger and more sharply defined in a still more heter— ogeneous sample. The fact that there was variation among the ratings of PJGs and that at least part of that variation could be accounted for by differences in background and values sup- ports the general construction Of a "complex man" model of orientations Of industrial workers toward work. The more "simple and sovereign" models Of "Economic Man" and "Social Man," with their assertions of simple, universal needs are not supported by the findings. There is only limited support for a "Self-actualizing Man" model. The relationship between hierarchical level and PJGs found here are consistent with Porter (1964), Hall and Nougaim (1968), and Friedlander (1964) in that managers and supervisors rate the "lower order" PJGs such as "Inter- personal Trust" and "Security" lower than do the rank-and- file employees. This finding cannot, however, be unambig- iously applied to the notion of the single effect Of need 111 gratification upon the ratings of PJGs. The Observed rela- tionships between "job climate" (white-blue collar, status level) and PJGs are not to be explained in simple terms. The question remains one of probable causal effects. DO the differential experiences and rewards associated with dif- ferent job categories lead to differences in PJGs, or do differences in background and values shape both PJGs and the related likelihood of entering different job categories? The answer may depend on which variable is under discussion. The fact that Personal Background variables such as father's occupation, own education, sex, size Of community where raised, etc. are more clearly associated with "Advancement," "Achievement," "Interpersonal Trust," and "Helping the Com— pany" would seem to argue for the latter interpretation. However, the results for "Broad Social Concern" are not clear, while for "Security" a dual effect seems to be working as previously noted. This study tends to support the utility of seeking individual measures Of personal job goals and values as well as individual background factors in studying worker orienta- tions toward work, rather than depending solely upon infer- ring these characteristics from broad sociological factors such as size of community of plant site. Management, acting on the Hulin-Blood model, might seek workers from small com- munities in hOpe of finding "motivated" workers. The results of this study suggest such a strategy may run the risk Of selecting from communities in which the social norms are no 112 more supportive Of the_goals Of modern complex industrial organizations than are the norms Of so-called "inner-core" areas Of large cities. Further, by using individual meas- ures, this study yields results which suggest that such con- cepts as "alienation from middle class norms" may be tOO sim- plistic to cover all Of the possible conflicts of goals with— in an organization.. In light Of their relationships with values, the potential conflicts centering around "Achievement" versus "Security" seem qualitatively different from those which might center around "Advancement" versus "Broad Social Concern." However, any discussion of "alienation" based on the results of this study would have to be strongly quali- fied. The only partial return rate (the sample used here represents only 48% Of listed work force) presents a nagging problem since no procedures were available to check the repre- sentativeness of the respondents. It does not seem un- reasonable to suppose that those employees less "ego-involved" in their work might also be those less committed to comple- ting and returning a lengthy questionnaire. The criticism Of some (e.g. Argyris) that direct ratings of job goals or needs as they are phenomenologically important to the individual will only be a simple function of the prevailing organizational climate or the effects Of "socialization" of the individual by in-plant experiences is not supported by the results. The fact that there were no systematic simple relationships between "morale" and PJGs in the present study does not eliminate the possibility of a 113 large number Of interactive effects among such variables as PJGs, goal achievement, congruence of own goals and company Objectives and such notions as alienation, involvement, satis— faction, etc., nor that there are no relationships between PJGs and smaller group membership, supervisory practices, etc. In fact, if there were no relationships of these kinds there would be little reason to study PJGs in organizational settings at all. A generalized "complex man" model would place speci- fic PJGs "in the center" of a chain of complex causal rela- tionships as outlined in Figure 8. In general, the results of this study add support to the notions of the "complex man" theorists that PJGs should show wide, not narrow, var- iation among industrial workers and that they are a product Of enduring value structures embedded in cultural and sub- cultural background. Whether values may be properly viewed as causal fac- tors Of PJGs or whether both are merely concomitant can not, of course, be answered in a cross-sectional design as util- ized in this study. Recent work of Morse and Lorsch (1970) emphasized the importance of considering situational factors such as job content and climate, as well as "person" factors, in studying the effects of management policies upon basic ori- entations to work. Such considerations are inherent in the previOusly mentioned work on "technology" (e.g. Woodward, 1958). 114 mmmmmOB HSHMBWDQZH m0 SQDBm mmB mom HMQOZ HSDBQWUZOU uCOEuHEEOU coHumoHOHpcmOH coHuommmeOO .m> COHHMGOHHQ CH03 OHO30u mCOHuOuCOHHO OHmOm .ouO mCHCHOHB OuOEHH0 Coo OHOEHHO HOCOHCONHCOOHO OOHCHCCCHOCCO HCOEO>OHC0S OOCOHHOmxm CH03 A) w OHOOO Coo HOCOmHOm K I) .muCOHOm mCOOE OCO OCCO COHHOHOHQ m0 SCOHOHOHC UflfimHHO#UMHM£U mOCHO> \ A) .m mmDUHm .ouO m0 mCuOum SuHCCEEOU COHHOOCOm xOm OmS OCCOHOCOOO 115 There will undoubtedly be longitudinal studies in the future which will deal with the continuing reactions of individuals of varying background and value systems in a number of varying "mixes" of technology, Scanlon—Non-Scanlon wage policies, "value climates," and the like. Before such studies will begin we need more clues as to the most fruit- ful variables to deal with. This study was directed toward that goal. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. W. "The historical background of modern social psychology," in G. Lindzey (ed.) Handbook pf social psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Vol. I, 3-56. Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley, 1964. . Personality and organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Blood, M. R. and Hulin, C. L. "Alienation, environmental characteristics and worker responses." Journ. Applied Psychol., 1967, 51, 284-90. Blum, M. and Naylor, J. Industrial psychology: its theore- tical and social foundations. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. and Russ, J. "A study of employee attitudes towards various incentives," Personnel, 1942, 19, 438-44. Bowers, D. G. and Seashore, S. E. "Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory Of leadership," Admin. Sci. Quart., 11, 1966, 238-63. Centers, R. and Bugental, D. E. "Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1966, 59, 193-97. Coch, L. and French, J. R. "Overcoming resistance to change," Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-33. Comrey, A. L., Pfiffner, J., and High, W. S. Factors in- fluencing organizational effectiveness, University of Southern California Bookstore, 1954. Dalton, M. "The industrial rate buster, a characterization," Applied Anthropology, 1948, 1, 5-18. Dubin, R. Leadership and productivity: some facts 9£_indus- trial life. San Francisco: Chandler, 1965. Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P., and Hakel, M. D. "Factors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups," 953. Behav. and Human Perf., 1967, 2, 143-74. 116 117 England, G. W. "Personal value systems of American managers," Acad. pf Management Journ., 1967, 19, 53-68. Fiedler, F. E. A_theory pf leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Filley, A. and House, R. Managerial process and organiza- tional behavior. Glenvieny11.: Scott, Foresman, and Co., 1969. Fleishman, E. A. "Leadership climate, human relations train- ing, and supervisory behavior," Personnel Psychology, 1953, 6, 205-22. and Berniger, J. "One way to reduce office turn- over," Personnel, 1960, 31, 63-69. and Harris, E. "Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover," Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 43-56. French, J. R. Jr., Israel, J., and As, D. "An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory: interpersonal di- mensions of decision making," Human Relations, 1960, 13, 3-19. Friedlander, F. "Comparative work value systems," Personnel Psychol., 1965, 18, 1-20. "Importance of work versus nonwork among socially and occupationally stratified groups," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1966, 50, 437-41. .. "Job characteristics as satisfiers and dissatis— fiers," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1964, 48, 388-92. Gibb, C. "Leadership," in G. Lindzey (ed.), Handbook pf Social Psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954, Vol. 2. Ginzberg, E. Democratic values and rights p£_management. New York: Columbia Univ., 1963. Golembiewski, R. T. Men, management, and morality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-HiII, I965. Haire, M. and Gottsdanker, J. 8. "Factors influencing in- dustrial morale," Personnel, 1951, 21, 445-54. 118 Hall, D. T. and Nougaim, K. E. "An examination Of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organizational setting," Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 5, 12-35. Herzberg, F. Work and the nature g£_man. Cleveland: The World Pub., 1966. , Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. The motivation 39 work. New York: Wiley, 1959. Hollen, C. C. Program description and user's manual for: program valutest. East Lansing: M.S.U. Department Of Psychology, November, 1968. Homans, G. C. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1950. House, R. J. and Wigdor, L. A. "Herzberg's dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: a review Of the evidence and a criticism," Personnel Psychology, 1967, 39, 369-89. Hulin, C. L. and Blood, M. R. "Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker responses," Psych. Bulletin, 1968' _6_9' 41-550 Indik, B. P. "Organizational size and member participation," Human Relat., 1965, 18, 339-50. Jennings, E. E. "The democratic and authoritarian approaches: a comparative survey of research findings," in Problems and Practices 13 Industrial Relations, Report NO. 16, American Management Association, 1958. Jones, L. V. and Jeffery, T. E. "A quantitative analysis Of expressed preferences for compensation plans," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1964, 38, 201-10. Jurgensen, C. E. "Selected factors which influence job preferences," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1947, 11, 553-63. Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. The social psychology 91 organiza- tions. New York: Wiley, 1966. Katzell, R., Barrett, R., and Parker, T. "Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1961, 25, 65-72. Kay, K. "Automatic interaction detection: 'AID' translated into CDC 3600 fortran and compass," Technical Report 16, East Lansing: Michigan State University, Computer Insti- tute for Social Science Research, April 11, 1966. 119 Kennedy, J. E. and O'Neil, H. E. "Job content and worker's opinions," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1958, 11, 372-75. Kilbridge, M. D. "DO workers prefer larger jobs?", Personnel, 1960' 27-, 45-48. Kline, D. "IDCORR: incomplete data correlation program," Technical Report 5, East Lansing: Michigan State Univ- ersity Computer Institute for Social Science Research, June 28, 1968. Korman, A. K. "Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria--a review," Personnel Psychol., 1966, 19, 349-61. Lawler, E. E. "The mythology of management compensation," Mimeographed, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., 1965. Leavitt, H. J. (ed.) The social science orgapizap1ons: four perspectives. EngIéwood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall, 1963. Lesieur, F. The Scanlon Plan. New York: Wiley, 1958. Likert, R. New patterns 91 management. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. . The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Lodahl, T. M. and Kejner, M. "The definition and measure- ment Of job involvement," Journ. App1ied Psychol., 1965, 22, 24-33. Mahoney, T. A. "Compensation preference of managers," dustrial Relations, 1964, 1, 135-44. 21.- Marrow, A., Bowers, D., and Seashore, S. Managgment py_par- ticipation. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Maslow, A. "A theory of human motivation," Psychol. Rev., 1943, g9, 370-96. . Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954. Mayo, E. The social problems 91 pp industrial civilization. Boston: Harvard Univ. Grad. School Of Business, 1945. \/McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1960. Morse, J. J. and Lorsch, J. W. "Beyond theory Y, Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1970, 61-69. 120 Morse, N. C. and Reimer, E. "The experimental change of a major organizational variable," Journ. Abnorm. and Soc. Psych., 1956, 51, 120-29. Nealey, S. M. "Determining worker preferences among employee benefit programs," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1964, 18, 7-12. Oaklander, H. and Fleishman E. A. "Patterns Of leadership related to organizational stress in hospital settings," Admin. Sci. Quart., 1964, 8, 520-32. Opinion Research Corporation. Public opinion index for 1p- dustry, 1947. Porter, L. W. "A study of perceived need satisfaction in bottom and middle management jobs," Journ. Applied Psychol., 1961, 5;, 1-10. . Organizational patterns 91 managerial job atti- tude. New York: Amer. Foundation for Manage. Res., 1964. Pugh, O. S. "Modern organization theory: a psychological and sociological study," Psych. Bulle., 1966, 69, 235- 51. , Hickson, D. J. and Hinings, C. R. Writers pp ogganizations. London: Hutchinson, 1964. Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker. Boston: Harvard Univ. Press, 1939. Rokeach M. Beliefs, attitudes and values: §_theory pf organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss, 1968. Ruh, R. The effects of ego need gratification and extra work socialization on employees' responses to their jobs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Scanlon, J. N. "Profit sharing under collective bargaining: three case studies," Indust. Labor Rel. Rev., 1948, 1, 58-75. Schein, E. H. Organizgtional psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965. Schwartz, M., Jenusaitis, E., and Stark, H. A. "A compari- son of the perception of job-related needs in two in- dustry work groups," Personnel Psychol., 1966, 19, 185-94. 121 Smith, P. C. and Cranny, C. J. "Psychology of men at work," Annual Review pf Psychology, 1968, 19, 467-96. Sonquist, J. A. and Morgan, J. N. "The detection Of inter- action effects: a report on a computer program for the selection of Optimal combinations of explanatory vari- ables," Monograph gg, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1969. Stagner, R. "Psychological aspects of industrial conflict: II motivation," Personnel Psychology, 1950, 3, 1—16. Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A. E. Leader behavior: its des- cription and measurement. Research Monograph 33, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957. Strauss, G. "Some notes on power equalization," in H. G. Leavitt (ed.) The social science organizations: four parSpectives. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Super, D. E. Appraising vocational fitness py means 91 psychological tests. New York: Harper, 1949. Tagiuri, J. "Value orientations and the relationships of managers and scientists," Admin. Sci. Quart., 1965, 10, 39-51. Tannenbaum, A. S. Control 1p_organizations. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. and Allport, F. H. "Personality structure and group\/ structure," 1. Abnorm. and Soc. Psych., 1956, §;, 272-80. Taylor, F. Principles gf scientific management. New York: Harper and Row, 1947. Turner, A. N. and Lawrence, P. R. Industrial jobs and the workers. Boston: Harvard University, 1965. and Miclette, A. L. "Sources Of satisfaction in repetitive work." Occupational Psychology, 1962, 12, 215- 31. Viteles, M. S. Motivation and morale 1p industry. Norton, 1954. Vroom, V. "Some personality determinents Of the effects of participation," Journ. Abnorm. and Soc. Psych., 1959, 52, 322-27. Also same titel Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1950. Weber, M. The Protestant ethic and the spirit pf capitalism. New York: Scribner, 1958. Trans. by Talcott Parsons. 122 Williams, D. "Factor A: program for principal axis factor analysis," Technical Report 11, East Lansing: Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research, 1967. Whyte, W. F. Money and motivation: ap analysis 91 incen- tives 1p industry. New York: Harper, 1955. Woodward, J. Management and technology. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1958. Zaleznik, A., Christensen, C. R., and Roethlisberger, F. J. The motivation, productivity, and satisfaction 91 workers: a prediction study. Boston: Div. of Research, Harvard Business School, 1958. Zurcher, L. A., Meadow, A., and Zurcher, S. L. "Value orien- tation, role conflict, and alienation from work: a cross-cultural study," Amer. Soc. Rev., 1965, 19, 539-48. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Return Rates, Personal Job Goal Means by Individual Background Items 123 Omm ommH mOmm moHO mmmO mHOCOB mm. OH mm mm 0O mm 0 mmo. m OO OoH mmH m mmH. mH Om OOH mOm on o mmH. Hm mmm Omm mmO mHm 2 no. m .oO Hm oHH HmH S mmH. m mH mm mm om H oH. m mm HHH mmH mmH M Oo. mH OmH omm OHO mmv o va. m mm mm mmH mOH H o.H omH omH mmH va oom m mo. mH mmH omH mmm mmm O vm. mm mmH mmH mmm Oom m mm. mm mHH mmH mOm mmm m mm. mm mmm mmm mmm oHv o Om. mm mm mm mmH mvH 0 mm. mm mmH oom mmm mOO m mmv. Hm HmH mmH mmm mmm S mqunoz OHOCHOZ OHCEOm OOCHCHOS uso OOmmOm mOOSonEm uCOHm HOHHOO OCHCB HOHHOO CH OOHHOC mOHHOCCOHumOCO OOuwHH COHCHOQOHS OuHCz OOCHOuOm ICOHumOCO HOCECz mSHHOU MBHSB m0 ZOHBmOmomm QZS .szmDBmm mmmHSZZOHEmMDO BZSHm Sm mmmxmoz .mmmSOHmEm m0 mmmZDZ .HS WHmSB 124 mo.I mH.I mo.I 0H. mmo. no. AHOOCHHVH CmH; mz mooo. V moo. mooo.V mooo. V Hoo. AHOOCHHVSHS HmH; mz mooo. V Amzvmmo. mooo. V mooo. V Hoo. ASO3OCOVCHS on. mm.m Hm. mo.v om. Hm.m mm. mm.m mm. mm.m Om. Om.m mOH ooo.ooH HO>o on. mo.m Hm. mH.v mm. mo.m mm. mm.m mm. mm.m om. mm.m mmm ooo.o0HIooo.oH mm. N0.0 om. mm.v mm. mo.m mm. mm.m mm. vm.m om. vm.m mmv ooo.oHIooo.m mm. OH.O mm. mm.m mm. mo.m Hm. mv.m mm. mm.m mm. Hm.m OmH ooo.m COCH mmOH Hm. mo.O mm. mm.m Hm. OH.m mm. o¢.m om. Om.m mm. om.m omm HOHCHIEHOO mm. mH.O OO. mo.v mm. mo.m mm. Hv.m mm. om.m mm. mm.m mm .O.C AmCH>HH 3oz SMHCCEEOUV m I mm mo.I OH.I mo.I mo. mo. oH. AHOOCHHVH moo. mooo.v. mooo.v. moo. moo. mooo.v AHOOCHHVmHm OOO. OOOO..v NOO. OOO. NO. HOO. COO3OOOOOHO mm. mm.m mm. HH.O mm. om.m mm. mm.m mO. mm.m mm. mm.m mmH ooo.ooH HO>O Hm. mo.v Nb. OH.O mm. mm.m mm. mm.m or. mm.m no. mm.m mmm OOOOOOH I oooNOH mm. O0.0 Om. mN.¢ Om. NH.m Hm. m¢.m mm. mm.m Hm. mm.m mmm ooo.OH I ooo.m Nb. mo.v mm. mm.v em. mo.m mm. mm.m mm. Hh.m vm. vm.m Hmm ooo.~ COCH mmOH mm. oH.O Om. mm.O mm. OH.m om. mo.m mO. Om.m mm. om.m mmm EEOC mO. Oo.v om. ON.O Om. om.m OO. mm.m mm. mm.m mm. mm.m mm .O.C COOHH SHHOOO H I mm kw M k» .m L» m. kw .m 1b .M .b .M HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOO SCOCEOO HCOE HCOE mHCOOCommOm EOHH HOCOOHOC HOHOOO OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>OS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH OOOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOS mHSOO mOb HSZOmmmm mEmBH DZDomUMUSm HSZOmme Sm DmHmHmmSHU mHSOQ mOh HSZOmmmm me SO mOZHBSm ZSWS .NS mHmSB 125 mo.I Ooo. Oo. Ho.I Oo. mo. CHOOCHHVH Ho. Hmm.omz Amo.vmzt Cmm.vmz Amo.owz omo. CHOOCHHVCHS HOO. COO.OOz HO. COON.OOz IOOH.OOz NOO. HOmzmcoOOuO mm. om.O mm. mm.O mm. mm.m mm. mm.m mO. om.m om. mm.m mOm SCOE .OOOHO .O mm. Oo.O mm. mm.O mm. mo.m mm. oO.m mO. OO.m Om. Om.m oOm COHHO .OEom .m HO. Ho.O mm. Om.O mm. mo.m mm. mO.m mm. Om.m mm. om.m mmmHOHHHHH .OEom .m mm. mo.O Hm. om.O mm. mo.m mm. Om.m mO. mm.m om. mm.m OmH OCoz .H om. mH.O mm. mm.O om. mm.m mO. mm.m Hm. mO.m mO. mm.m mm .O.C .o AmOHOEHOOCom 30CS HHHHmv O I mm mo.I om.I oH.I mo. Oo. mo. AHOOCHHVH HmH.omz mooo.d. mooo.”v mmo. Hoo. mHo. AHOOCHHVCHS OO.OOz OOOO. v OOOO. v OO.OOz OOOO. v ONO. Enzmcoomum mm. mm.m Hm. mm.m om. mm.m mm. mm.m mO. mm.m mO. mm.m mvH ooo.om HO>O .O mm. mm.m mm. mH.O mm. mm.m om. OO.m HO. Hm.m om. mm.m mmm ooo.omIHoo.m .m mm. mH.O mm. mm.O om. mH.m mm. mm.m mO. mm.m om. mm.m HHmmmOH H0 ooo.m .m HO. Oo.v mm. mm.O mm. OH.m om. mH.m mO. mm.m mm. mm.m vaH HOHCS .H HO. Om.m mm. mm.v om. mH.m mm. mm.m mO. Om.m Om. OO.m Ow .O.C .o AO>HH 0H HOHOHNISHHCCEEOU ONHmv m I mm b .O b m b m L. m b m s m. HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOO SCOQEOO HCOE HCOE mHCOOCommOm EOHH HOCOmHOC HOHoom OCH IO>OHCOS IOOCO>OS Ho OCCOHOCOOm IHOHCH OOOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOm COCCHHCOU .NS MHmSB 126 Ammv.omz mooo.v. mo. mo. mooo.,v mooo..V ASO3OCOomHm O>HHCOOxm mO. mm.m OO. Ho.O mm. mm.m Hm. Hm.m mO. mm.m mO. mm.m mmH OCO mmOCHmCm .m mm. mo.O OO. mo.O Hm. Om.m mo.H mo.m ms. mm.m mm. mm.m Om HOCOHmmOHOHm .m Om. Oo.O mm. mm.O vm. mo.m om. mm.m mm. mm.m mm. mO.m mmH SHOOH>HOOCO .O mm. oo.O on. mo.v mO. mm.m Om. OO.m mO. mm.m mO. mO.m mm .mmOHOHCICCm .m mm. mo.O om. Hm.O mm. ,HH.m mm. OO.m OO. mO.m Hm. mm.m Omm OOHHHCOIHEOO .m on. Oo.O Om. mm.v mm. mo.m mm. mm.m Hm. mm.m mm. Om.m mom OOHHHCOCD .H mm. mH.O mm. mm.O Hm. mm.m mm. mm.m mO. mm.m Om. mm.m Om .O.C .o ACOHHOQCOOO m.HOCHOmV m I mm AHO.OOz OOO. OO. HOO. INH.OOz HOO. IOmzmcoOOuO Om. mo.¢ Om. Hm.O mm. mo.m mm. H0.0 mm. om.m om. mm.m omm COHCCO .O mm. mo.¢ om. mm.O mm. HH.m Om. mm.m mu. mm.m mm. mm.m mmO OEOC HCOS .m HO. mo.v mm. mm.v Om. mH.m om. O0.0 mm. OO.m Hm. mm.m mvm HOCHOU .CCHU .m HO. mo.v mm. mH.v mm. oo.m mm. oO.m Om. om.m mm. mm.m womOEOC m.OCOHHm .H Om. mo.O Om. mm.v mO. mH.m mm. om.m mm. mm.m om. mm.m OOH .O.C .o COOEOHHO HO: OHOCzO O I mm :0 x O x b x ,0 x 6 M .b x HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOO SCOCEOO HCOE HCOE mHCOOCOCmOm EOHH HOCOmHOm HOHoom OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>OS H0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH OOOHm OCHQHOC HOCECZ HOComHOm UODCHHCOU .NS mHmSB 127 HO.I OH.I OO.- NO.I OO. OO. HHOOOHHOH IOO.OOz OOOO.v NO. COO.OOz HOO. NOO. CHOOOHHOOHO OO.OOz OOOO. V OO. OO.OOz OOOO.V HOO. Emzmcovmum OO. OO.O OO. OO.O OO. NO.N OO. O0.0 OO. NO.O OO. O0.0 OOH OOOHHoO meom .O NO. OO.O OO. ON.O OO. OO.O OO. OO.O HO. OO.O NO. OO.O NON .OOHO .O.O .O OO. OO.O OO. ON.O HO. OH.O NO. OO.O HO. OO.O OO. OO.O OON .O.O maom .N OO. OO.O OO. NO.O OO. OH.O OO. OO.O OO. OO.O NO. HO.O OONHOOOHO EHOOHO .H ACOHHOOCOM m.HOCHOmo m I mm OO.- ON.I OH.I OH.I HH. OO. AHOOOHHOH ON.OOz OOOO.V OOOO.v OOOO.v OOOO.v OOOO.v COOOHHOOHO OO.OOz OOOO. V OOOO. v OOOO.v OOOO.V OOOO.v Emsmcoomum HO. HO.O OO. OO.O OO. NO.N HO. O0.0 OO. O0.0 OO. HO.O OOO OOOHHoO meow .O HO. OO.O OO. OO.O NO. O0.0 OO. O0.0 OO. O0.0 NO. OO.O OOO .OOHO .O.O .O OO. OO.O OO. OO.O NO. ON.O OO. OO.O OO. OO.O NO. O0.0 OOO .O.O meow .N OO. OO.O OO. O0.0 NO. NN.O OO. NO.O NO. OO.O OO. O0.0 HON OOOHO OHOOHm .H CcoHumosOmO O I mm b O. b m b m b m b m b m HOCHB SHHHCOOO CHOOCOO SCOmEOO HCOE HCOE wHCOCCommOm EOHH HOCOOHOC HOHOOm OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>OS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH UOOHm OCHQHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOS OOCCHHCOO .mS MHmSB 128 Oo.I Hm.I HH.I mmo. mmo. mo. CHOOCHHVH AoH.vmz mooo.v. mooo. V Ooo. mooo.v. Amm.omz CHOOCHHVEHS OOO. OOOO. v OOOO. v OO. OOOO. v OO. Emsmcoomum mm. mo.O mm. oH.O mm. Ho.m om. om.m mO. mm.m mm. mO.m Omm HO>O OCO Hom.HHm .m mO. oo.O mm. mH.O Om. mm.m Om. mo.m mO. HO.m mm. Om.m omm oom.HHw IHommm .m mm. mm.m mm. Om.O mm. mm.m mm. mO.m mO. mm.m mO. mm.m mmO oommmIHomOw .O oO. OH.O mm. Om.O mm. oH.m mm. mO.m om. Om.m om. Om.m mvm oommmIHoomm .m HO. OH.O mm. O0.0 Om. mm.m mm. mO.m mm. mm.m mm. Om.m OOm ooommIHom.Om .m mO. mo.O om. m0.0 mO. om.m mm. mm.m mm. mm.m Om. mm.m Oom mmOH H0 oom.Om .H mm. Oo.O mO. H0.0 mm. mH.m mm. HO.m OO. mm.m OO. Om.m mmH .O.C .o COEoocH OHHEOOO OH I ma mo.I Oo.I mo.I mo.I Oo. mo. AHOOCHHVH Cmm.omz Hoo. Ho. mHo. moo. Hoo. CHOOCHHVOHS COO.OOz HO. OO. COO.OOz OOO. HOO. IOmzmcoOOHO OO. Om.m OO. OH.O mm. mm.m Hm. mm.m OO. OO.m mm. OO.m mmH OmOHHOO OEom .O on. mo.O Om. mm.O mm. Oo.m mm. mO.m mm. mm.m mm. OO.m mmv .OOHO .O.C .m mO. mo.v mm. mm.O mm. mo.m om. mO.m mO. mO.m mO. mm.m 5mm .O.C OEom .m mm. mo.O mm. mm.O mm. HH.m mm. mm.m mO. om.m mm. mMum mmm OCOHO CHCmHm .H CcoHHOosmm O.HOCHon O I mm Ib m b m IO m IO M IO M ID .VIH HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOU SCOCEOO HCOE HCOE OHCOOCOQOOS EOHH HOCOmHOm HOHOOm OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>OS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH OOOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOCOmHOm OOOCHHOOO .NS OHOSO 129 COH.sz HOO. CHN.omz COH.OOz OO. CO0.00z HSmgmcoOOCO HO. Ho.O Om. mm.v mm. mH.m mm. OO.m Om. mm.m Om. mm.m HmO mmOCHmCm C30 .O mO. oo.O mm. mm.m mm. mm.m Hm. mH.m mm. mm.m mm. Hm.m Omm HCo HHOH .m mm. mo.m om. ON.O mm. mo.m Hm. Ho.m mO. OO.m Hm. mm.m mmm .HHOCEH OCo .m Om. oH.O mm. mm.m mm. mo.m om. mm.m mO. OO.m Hm. Om.m mmh HHOS .mmm .H OO. mm.m mO. mH.m Om. mm.m mm. Om.m mO. OO.m mm. mm.m OO .O.C .o AConHHOm m0 OOCOHHOQEHV mH I mm mo.I mo. Oo. Ho.I mo.I oo. CHOOCHHVH CNNJOZ OOOO.V OO. ANOSOZ O0.0mz “O0.00z COOCHHEHO CNOOOZ OOOO. v O0.00z O0.0mz O0.0mz HNHomz 3O3Oc3mum mm. Ho.v mm. Om.v mm. mH.m mm. Ho.m mp. mm.m Om. mm.m mov HO>Oz .m on. mo.v mm. Om.v Om. mo.m mm. Hm.m mm. mm.m om. om.m mmm OOEHH HOHOOmm .O mm. mo.O on. mm.v mm. mH.m vm. mO.m mO. OO.m mm. mm.m mHm CHCOE O OOCo .m mm. mo.m vm. mm.m mm. Ho.m Om. mo.m mu. Hm.m mu. Hm.m mom COO3 O OOCO .m mm. no.¢ om. mH.m Hm. mo.m vm. mO.m OO. mm.m mm. mm.m Hmm xOO3 O O0H3B .H mu. mo.H om. mm.v mm. mm.m OO. om.m mm. mO.m mm. Hm.m mm .O.C .o AmO0H>HOm msonHHOm HCOmwOHmV HH I mm b m b m IO m b .O b O .O .O HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOU SCOCEOU HCOE HCOE mHCOUCommOS EOHH HOCOOHOQ HOHoom OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>CS H0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH OOOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOComHOm HOOHHCHHCOU .NS mHmSB 130 Hmm.omz mooo..V Ho. Amm.omz Amo.omz Amm.omz CSO3OCOVCHS .O.C COCOS mO. Oo.O Om. mm.O Om. OH.m mm. Om.m Hm. mO.m mm. mm.m HOmHCOHmOHOHm Hoz .m mm. mo.O mm. OH.O Om. oH.m OO. mo.m mm. mo.m om. mo.m HH .EOCOOICOZ .m mO. mm.m mm. Om.O Om. om.m Om. mO.m mO. mm.m Om. mm.m mmH =mHmHHHHm= .O mO. mm.m mm. Oo.O Hm. om.m mm. mm.m OO. mm.m mm. mm.m mm COHHOHSCOOHS .m mm. mo.O Om. mm.O mm. HH.m Hm. mm.m OO. mm.m om. mm.m Hmm HmHOOCHOS .m Om. mH.O mm. m0.0 Om. oH.m Hm. om.m OO. HO.m mm. om.m OmH COHOCHCH .O mm. Oo.O mm. OH.O om. mm.m mm. m0.0 mm. mO.m OO. mm.m Hmm .HOS .HOHHCU .m mm. mo.O mm. m0.0 om. mo.m Om. mO.m mO. mm.m mm. mm.m mmm HOHHCOO .m Om. mH.O Hm. Om.O om. mm.m mm. mO.m mO. Om.m mO. mm.m Hm HmHH IOHCOEOOCCE .H CCOHHOCHEOCOO HCOHOOHOHO OH I mm COO.OO2 CON.OOz COH.OOz COO.OOz IOH.OOz HOH.OOz Cmmzmcoomum on. mo.O mO. mH.O om. mH.m Ho.H om.m Om. OO.m mm. mm.m mHH OCoz OO. mo.O mm. mm.v Om. mH.m om. mm.m mO. mO.m mm. mm.m on HOCHO mm. mo.v om. mm.m mm. mo.m om. mo.m OO. mm.m Hm. mm.m HmmH HCOHOOHOHM AcoHOHHOmo OH I mm b m b m b m b O .O m .o m HOCHB SHHHCOOm CHOOCOO SCOOEOO HCOE HCOE mHCOOCommOm EOHH HOCOOHOO HOHoom OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>OS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH COOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOm OOOCHHcoO .NS OHOSO 131 mo. HH. oo. mo.I mo.I mo.I AHOOCHHVH mo. mooo.v. Amo.omz moo. mooo. V Ho. AHOOCHHVOHS IOH.OOz OOOO.uO NOO. HO. HOO. HOH.OOz COmamcoOOHO Om. HH.O Om. Om.O om. mH.m mm. mO.m mO. mm.m mm. mm.m HOO HO>Oz .m Om. mo.O mm. mm.O mm. mH.m mm. mO.m om. Om.m Om. Om.m oOm wOEHH 3Om .O OO. Oo.v Hm. Hm.O Om. mo.m mm. OO.m on. om.m om. mm.m mOm SHCHCOS .m mm. mm.m OO. OH.O mm. Om.m mm. mO.m OO. mm.m OO. Om.m OOO SHCOOB .m mm. mo.v mm. mH.O Om. mH.m mm. mO.m mm. mm.m Om. Om.m oOH SHHOo .H OO. Oo.O Om. mm.O mm. mm.m OO. mm.m mm. mm.m Om. om.m mm .O.C .o CmachHuoo OH I ma mo.I mo.I Oo.I mo.I Oo. mo. AHOOCHHVH CN0.00z CNN.OOz ANO0.0mz CO0.00z CO0.00z HO. CHOOOHHOOCO Hmo.omz moo. COo.vmz HOm.vmz HmH.omz AOmH.omz ASO3OC0vam mm. mm.m OO. OH.O mm. mm.m mm. Om.m Om. mm.m mO. OO.m mm COCO .mCHHHoxm .O HO. mo.¢ mm. mm.m mm. oo.m om. mO.m mO. Hm.m mm. oO.m on O>OOH H0 OxOB .m mm. HH.O mm. mm.m mm. mH.m om. om.m mm. om.m Om. Om.m oom OHmCHm .m mm. mo.v mm. mm.m mm. mo.m Hm. mm.m mm. Om.m mm. mm.m mvm mC0H3 SHHOHOS .H om. Hm.m mm. mm.O Om. mo.m om. vm.m Hm. mm.m om. mm.m mm .O.C .o IOOHHHEOOIImOsuHHHOO OH I mm b .O. b .O b m .0 m b m b m HmCHB SHHHCOOO CHOOCOO SCOCEOU HCOE HCOE mHCOOCOCmOm EOHH HOCOOHOQ HOHoom OCH IO>OHC0S IO0CO>OS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH OOOHm OCHCHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOS UOCCHHCOU .mS mHmSB 132 mo. mH.I mo.I mo. Oo. mo. HHOOCHHVH Cmm.omz mooo. V Com.omz Amm.vmz Abo.vmz Com.omz CHOOCHHVEHS CO0.00z OOOO. v CO0.00z COH.oOz CO0.00z CHO.omz CszmcovOum mm. mo.m HO. mH.O mm. mo.m mm. Om.m mO. mm.m Om. mm.m mOm oon HO>O .O mm. mo.v Om. mm.O mm. Oo.m Hm. mO.m mm. mO.m om. om.m mHO oonIomm .m mO. mo.O mm. mm.O Om. mo.m mm. OO.m mh. HO.m om. Om.m mOO mOmIomm .m HO. mo.v mm. mm.v Om. mo.m mm. mO.m om. Om.m mm. Om.m mmm omm COCH mmOH .H mm. mo.O mm. om.O mm. mH.m mm. Om.m mm. OO.m mm. Hm.m OmH .O.C .o CmmCH>Omo OH I mm mo.I mm.I OH.I mo. mo. vo. AHOOCHHVH mooo. V mooo.V mooo. V mooo. V Ho. AmoJOZ AHOOCHHomHm Hoo. mooo.V mooo. V Hoo. mo. Hmosz ASO3OC0omHm mh. mm.m mu. mo.O mm. Hm.m mm. om.m HO. om.m om. mm.m mOOHO>0 OCO oomnw .m Om. mo.m mm. mm.m mm. mo.m mm. mv.m OO. mm.m mm. mm.m mmO oomOmIooon .m on. mH.v mm. mm.m mm. om.m mm. oo.m Hm. mm.m mm. Om.m Hob OCoz .H mm. mo.m om. H0.0 mm. mm.m vm. mm.m Om. mm.m mm. mm.m mm. .O.C .o HOOCOHCOCH OHHHV OH I mm b m b m b m b O O m b .O. HOCHB SHHHCUOm CHOOCOO SCOQEOU HCOE HCOE mHCOCCommOm EOHH HOCOOHOC HOHoom OCH IO>OHC0S IOOCO>CS m0 OCCOHOCOOO IHOHCH UOOHm mCHmHOC HOCECZ HOCOOHOS UODCHHCOU .NS mHHmSB 133 Oo.I mo.I vo.I oH. mo.I mH.I AnmmcHHoH. moo. moo. AOo.sz moootV HmH.omz mooo. V. HummcHHomum Amm.omz AoH.sz Amm.omz mooo.v. Aom.vmz mooo..V Ammzmcoomum mo. om.m mo. Hm.¢ om. mo.m Om. om.m oO. Oo.m «m. O¢.m Oo mummm om H0>o .O mo. mm.m No. om.v om. oo.m oo. OO.m mm. Oo.m mo. mm.m HvH mummm omIoH .o mo. oo.v mo. vm.v Oo. mm.m co. oo.m Ho. mo.m mo. mm.m va mumm» mHIHH .m oo. No.¢ oo. m~.v vo. oo.m mo. mm.m oo. Oo.m OO. wo.m mom mummm oHIO .v oO. oo.v mo. mm.v mO. mo.m om» oo.m mO. oo.m oo. Om.m mmm mumwm oIv .m mo. mo.v mo. m~.v oo. oo.m mo. oo.m oO. oO.m OO. oO.m mom mummm MIN .N oo. mo.¢ oo. Hm.v Ho. oo.m vm. om.m Ho. mo.m Ho. Oo.m mmm mummm NIH .H mO. HH.v oo. wm.¢ om. oH.m oo. Hm.m OO. mO.m mm. mem oeuhfimkH can» mmmq .o Amofi>uom «0 numcmqo cm I ma vo.I mo.I vo.I om. mo.I mH.I AnmmcHHoH AoH.vm OHo. AOo.vmz mooo.V mo. mooo.v. «HmmcHHomHm mo. So. So. mooo.v 23.52 38. v Emgocoomum em. oo.v mm. o~.v vo. oo.m vo. Oo.m oO. om.m mo. vv.m mmm Hm>o can om .m we. vo.v Hm. Om.v No. oo.m mo. oo.m oo. HO.m Hm. Hm.m mom av I ov .q NO. oo.v mo. mm.v mo. mm.m Om. om.m oO. oO.m oO. «O.m vHv on I on .m VO. oo.¢ mo. mm.v Om. mo.m Hm. vm.m mO. oO.m mo. MO.m oom mm I mm .m HO. MH.v Hm. mm.¢ mo. oH.m mo. Hm.m OO. NO.m om. oO.m mmm mm HmUCD .H oO. mo.v oo. o~.v vm. oH.m mm. mm.m Oo. OO.m om. mm.m mm .m.: .o Amway mH I mm b m Io m Io m b m b m b m umsne mpHusomm cnmocou acmmaoo acme puma mucmccommmm EmuH HmGOmHmm HmHoom may Im>mHno< Imocm>vm mo canoumxomm IHmucH cmoum maHmHmm Hmnfisz Hmcomnwm cmscwucou .N¢ mHm/HH. 134 Amm.omz mooo.v. Hov.vmz moooeV mooo:v mooo.v. A>m3mcoomum mo. Oo.v mm. mm.¢ oo. mo.m Hm. om.m oO. oo.m mo. Om.m mmm mHmEmm .N oO. mo.v oo. oH.v Ow. oo.m om. om.m mO. Hm.m oo. OO.m mmm mHm: .H Axmmo mm I mm :5. mooo. v mmo. mooo.v 2:sz S. Emzmcoomum Ho. mH.¢ mm. om.v om. mH.m mm. ov.m vO. «O.m No. om.m ooH vmumummmm .m oO. oO.m mo. om.v vo. mm.m mo. om.m oO. om.m Hm. om.m oc ©0306H3 .v mo. mo.¢ vo. ¢N.¢ «o. oo.m oo. om.m oO. oO.m mm. vo.m moNH UHHSU nuH3 .owHHHmz .m HO. oo.v om. Om.¢ oO. ¢H.m mm. mm.m MO. mm.m mO. oo.m mom omHHHmz .N HO. oH.v om. Om.¢ mm. mH.m mm. mm.m oO. oo.m No. oO.m mmm mHmch .H mm. mO.m vm. om.m oo.H mo.m oH.H oo.m vo. oo.m om. m¢.m OH .m.: .o Amsumum HmuHHMSV HN I mm .b M ID M ID .m IO M .b m IO M. umnna muwusomm cumocoo wqmmsou ucmfi puma mucmocommmm EmuH HMGOmHmm HMHoom may Im>mHno¢ Imocm>©< mo ccsonmxomm ImmucH umoum mchHmm Honasz Hmcomumm vmscflucoo .N¢ magma. APPENDIX B Preliminary Analysis Tables 135 H .l H MN I H ON o« I .Ummmmumm5m momma cam MHmEHomU MGvamH N HM MM OM I .nanmuwcsa ummummc on Umvcson mucmHonmmoo COHuMHwHHou« MH «N MN ON I N MN MN NM HM ON I H MM MN MM oM HM «M I N MM MN «M MM o« MN M« I H oH M HH M HI N HH oH I H NN oN «H oH M M NH MH NN I H M M N M OI H M OH NN MM I N oN MH MH MH o M MH HN «M «M MM I H «N MN «N ON O NN NM HM MN NN NN MM I H MH «H «H OH O OH NN MN MN MH MN ON N« I H N O NH M oH NH «H MH NN O HH MH NN NM I mH M NH MH MH MH M MH oN MH MH MH MH oH MH MN I MN oH MH oN MN MH MH MN MN HH M MH MN NN MH HN «M I OH OH NN MN MN MH MH MN MN M M NH MH MH NH «N m« M« I MH MH MN MN MN NN oN MN ON NH MH MH HN MN MN «N MM M« MM I N oN «H MH NH HI NH HN oM «H MN MH MN MN MH M NH oN MH oN I M MH MH MH NN NH MH oN ON MH HN NH MN MN OH HN HN MN NN MN MN I mH MH MH MN HN HH OH ON HM MN MH MN MM MN ON MH oM MM MM oM NM MM I MN MN MH «N MN MH ON MM NM oN «H MH «M MM HM MN OM o« «M NM oM MM M« I HM OM MM «M MM «O MM MM NM MO MO HM MM «M OO MO MO MM MM NM MM MO oM oM mmmZDz EMBH mBzmQZOmmmm OMM mom mEmBH Adow mow HdZOmmmm mDOMIweszB mom mede «ZOHBflAmmMOU Amwszmemoqo moeuHO>ZHIOOM BmomB ZOHBUHm ZH MEMBH mom mZOHfiéqmmmOUmMBZH EmuH .Mm mqmdfi 138 TABLE B4. ABBREVIATED FACTOR ANALYSIS OF "JOB INVOLVEMENT" ITEMS FACTORS ITEM NUMBER I II 28 .24 -.64 42 -.17 .35 56 .06 -.61 "Ego- 57 -.04 .37 involvement" 60 .09 -.68 63 .06 .64 35 .57 -.04 38 -.53 -.03 44 .61 -.31 "Commitment" SO .31 -.04 64 .61 -.16 70 .22 -.29 71 .56 -.09 Item numbers refer to original numbers of items in questionnaire as it appears in Appendix D. 139 mm. . HN. O«. OM. O«. «M. HM. MM. OM. MM. Ho. No.I «o. «0. M0. Oo.I MN.I NH.I MH.I MH.I MN. Mo. oH.I Mo. Mo.I Oo.I MN. NM. MN. ON. ON. HN. MN. «N. «H. MM Mo. oH. Mo. mo. HH. O0. O0. Mo. Mo. Mo. . 3 TM 3 mm m m m _ m an. “A; W I. .. s Iq+ T. I. I. s 1 3. a m w. m... UHnw. m a u D d a U 3 1. Imw w 3 e m. _ W. u D. I p OMMH u z mHmuoz MHHm 02¢ quow mow «N. OH. 0M MN. MH. HM I S 3 U a 0 1. D U 8 n D I I 8 d T: I 8 1. ..u 1 rA S O u E I monm Ieroos.peoxg Kuedmoa mrq eqq burdIeH Mrn co quemeAquov « usmEm>Ho>cHIomm pcmEuHEEou mocmoncoo :oHuommepmm pmsme HmCOmummHmucH muHusomm cumocou HMHoom omoum MGMQEOU map MGHmHmm ucmEm>mHno¢ ucmEmocm>pm HdZOmmmm me UZOE¢ mZOHBOA HmoHMOH HmsuomHHmucH ucmpcmmmch m>HamchmEH ummcom Hammamm MCH>HMHOM msommmuooo ommHU Homummnu mHnmmmU UmUsHEpmoum msoHuHQEd MDH¢> HHmm mHSMmmHm muHusomm HmsoHumz m>0H musumz MGOEHmz HmccH mmmchmmm Eopmmum MuHHsomm MHHEmm MuHHmsvm Manama Mo UHHO3 4 momma um oHHos < pcmEQMHHmEooom mo mmcmm M meH MGHuHoxm ad mMHH memuH0mEoo 4 MDH¢> HészmmB mmmxmog HdeBmDQZH OMMH mom wm>mDm MDH4> mudmmom mm& 20 mmDH¢> melwfimHmB m0 mZOHBDmHmbHD mMQmOIxZ¢m mom mZ¢H0m2 m0 mmzmm 92¢ mZ7 ‘0 HOW IMPORTANT TO YOUR COMPANY IS: gs ”a ”05° :3 of o A c 143. building and maintaining trustful relations between 143. a b c d e employees? 144. providing fair pay for all employees? 144. a b c d e 145. providing employees with responsibility on their jobs? 145. a b c d e 146. providing recognition for work well done? 146. a b c d e 147. providing employees with competent supervision? 147. a b c d e 148. building and maintaining customer confidence and good 148. a b c d e will? 149. building and maintaining relations of trust and 149. a b c d e confidence between superiors and subordinates? 150. making the community a better place to live? 150. a b c d e 151. growth and expansion? 151. a b c d e 152. providing steady work and steady wages? 152. a b c d e 153. providing employees with important work? 153. a b c d e 154. involving all employees, no matter how low their 154. a b c d e status level, in decisions affecting their jobs? 155. helping employees develop, grow, and become more 155. a b c d e competent? 156. providing employees with the freedom to decide how 156. a b c d e to do their jobs? 157. building and maintaining friendly relations 157. a b c d s between employees? 158. being prepared for change (technological change, 158. a b c d e product change, and improvement)? 159. providing good chances for promotion? 159. a b c d e 160. making the most profit possible? 160. a b c d e 161. providing good (safe, clean, pleasant) working 161. a b c d e conditions? 162. providing employees with challenging jobs? 162. a b c d e 163. providing employees with opportunities for achievement? 163. a b c d e 164. turning out high quality work? 164. a b c d e 165. improving the welfare of less advantaged individuals? 165. a b c d e 166. not requiring employees to work too hard? 166. a b c d e 14 Listed below are 14 questions. Each of these questions concerns a statement that your direct superior (the person to whom you are directly responsible) might make to you. we would like you to indicate how you feel best represents how you feel that 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. about your superior's statement. Please mark that alternative about what your superior said. L L Your superior suggests you break in a new employee. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior suggests that you work on an assignment with another superior (you feel that you are capable of doing the assignment alone). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior solves a problem that you have been working on for quite some time. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior suggests that you help him complete one of his assignments (you'will have to interrupt some work you are doing). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased You are reprimanded by your superior for an error in your work (the error was really your superior's). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased You are praised by your superior's boss for an idea that was really your superior's. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior suggests that you complete an assignment by working overtime (you have made other plans for that time which could be broken without hardship). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior makes no mention of an idea of yours which saved the company time and money. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased You are reprimanded by your superior for making an error in your work (the error could have been avoided'with sore care). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior suggests that you.work on an assignment with an associate (you feel that you are capable of doing the assignment alone). . a p1”..d b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Your superior suggests that you talk to your associate about his unsatisfactory performance. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased 178. 179. 180. 15 Your superior suggests you help an associate complete an assignment (assume you would have to interrupt something you were doing). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased You are reprimanded by your superior for making an error in your work (the error was really your associate's). a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased You are praised by your superior for an idea that was really your associate's. a. pleased b. neither pleased nor displeased c. displeased Listed below are 14 questions. These questions are the same as those you have just completed. This time we would like you to indicate what you would tell your superior, in response to his statement. Please mark that alternative that best represents what you would tell your superior. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. Your superior suggests you break in a new employee. a. state that you will do it b. state that you will do it (but explain why you would rather not) c. state that you will not do it (explain why) Your superior suggests that you work on an assignment with another superior (you feel that you are capable of doing the assignment alone). a. agree to work.with him b. agree to work with him (but explain why you would rather work alone) e. do not agree to work with him (explain why) Your superior solves a problem that you have been working on for quite some time. a. praise him b. casually mention it c. don't mention it Your superior suggests that you help him complete one of his assignments (you will have to interrupt some work you are doing). a. state that you will do it (without commenting about your work) b. state that you will do it (after commenting about your work) c. state that you will not do it (explain why) You are reprimanded by your superior for an error in your work (the error was really your superior's). a. accept the blame b. accept the blame (but explain that it was not all yours) c. do not accept the blame (explain why) You are praised by your superior's boss for an idea that was really your superior's. a. accept the praise b. accept the praise but play it down c. explain that it was not your idea Your superior suggests that you complete an assignment by working overtime (you have made other plans for that time which could be broken without hardship). a. state that you will do it (without commenting about these plans) b. state that you will do it (after commenting about these plans) c. state that you will not do it (explain why) Your superior makes no mention of an idea of yours which saved the company time and money. a. don't mention it b. drop a hint about the idea c. bring it up (ask what he thought about the idea) 16 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. You are reprimanded by your superior for making an error in your work (the error could have been avoided with more care). a. accept the blame b. accept the blame (but try to explain why it happened) c. deny the responsibility for the error Your superior suggests that you work on an assignment with an associate (you feel that you are capable of doing the assignment alone). a. agree to work with the associate b. agree to work with the associate (after commenting about being able to do it alone) c. state that you will do it by yourself (explain why) Your superior suggests that you talk to your associate about his unsatisfactory performance. a. indicate that you will do it b. indicate that you will do it (after commenting about this being his concern) c. indicate that you won't do it (explain why) Your superior suggests you help an associate complete an assignment (assume you would have to interrupt some work you were doing). a. state that you will do it b. state that you will do it (after commenting about your work) c. state that you will not do it (explain why) You are reprimanded by your superior for making an error in your work (the error was really your associate's). a. accept the blame b. accept the blame (but explain that it was not all yours) c. state that you didn't do it You are praised by your superior for an idea that was really your associate's. a. accept the praise b. accept the praise (play it down) c. don't accept the praise (explain that it was not your idea) BACKGROUND INFORMATION In what part of the country did you live most of the time before you were 18? a. The Northeast b. The South c. The Middle West d. The Pacific Coast e. Outside the United States The place in which you spent the most time during your early life was a: a. Farm b. Town of less that 2,000 c. Town of 2,000 or more, but less than 10,000 d. City of 10,000 to 100,000 e. City larger than 100,000 In what section of town did your family live longest while you were growing up? a. Lived in one of the most exclusive sections of town b. Lived in a good but not the best section c. Lived in an average section of town d. Lived in one of the poorer sections of town e. Lived in a rural area In how many different cities, towns, or townships have you lived? a. 1 to 3 b. 4 to 6 c. 7 to 9 d. 10 to 12 e. 13 or more 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. In what type of connamity are you now living? a. In the country b. Town of less than 2,000 c. Town of 2,000 or more but less than 10,000 d. City of 10,000 to 100,000 a. City larger than 100,000 In your home town what was the main source of income? a. Agriculture, dairy, etc. b. Industry or manufacturing c. Wholesale, retail, or tourist trade d. Petroleum or mining e. Diversified In what size city would you prefer to live? a. Rural or country b. 5,000 or less c. 5,000 to 50,000 d. 50,000 to 200,000 a. 200,000 or more What kind of school did you attend between the ages of 12 to 18? a. Military b. Private or Parochial c. Public d. Vocational and trade e. Did not attend school What is your present marital status? a. Single b. Married, no children c. Married, one or more children d. Widowed e. Separated or divorced How many persons (not including yourself) are dependent upon you for all or most of their support? a. None b. 1 c. 2 or 3 d. 4 or 5 e. More than 5 Did your parents live together all the time you were growing up? a. Yes b. No, because one died c. No, because they both died d. No, because they separated e. No, because they were divorced Under usual conditions how often do you attend religious services? a. Twice or more a week b. Every week c. Once or twice a month d. On special occasions (such as Easter) e. Do not attend services Religion in your home was considered as: a. An essential part of home life b. One of several factors which were important c. A relatively unimportant factor d. Something to be left out of our family life e. One's own business How did you and your parents feel on the matter of religion? a. Were in close agreement b. Usually felt the same on important matters c. Disagreed on most important matters d. Disagreed completely 209. As a young man, were you any of the following? a. A church member and active in church activities b. A nominal church member c. A religious rebel d. A non-churchmen without any great religious conviction e. None of the above 210. How much life insurance, other than company group insurance, do you carry on your life? a. None b. $1,000 to $7,500 c. $7,500 to $12,000 d. $12,000 to $25,000 a. Over $25,000 211. How much do you save per month? a. Under $20 b. $20 to $49 c. $50 to $100 d. $100 to $150 e. Over $150 212. How often do you drink beer, wine or liquor? a. Never b. Daily c. Weekly d. Monthly e. Very few times a year 213. What do you feel has been your major accomplishment, outside of work? a. Family activities b. Community activities c. Development of yourself d. Development of your social activities a. Something else 214. What is your attitude toward gambling? a. It is stupid b. It is morally wrong c. It is exciting d. It is a good recreation a. You can take it or leave it 215. To what extent are you still friendly with the people you knew in school? a. Not at all b. Friendly with a few of them, on rare occasions c. Friendly with some, but see them irregularly d. See some regularly a. Close friends to quite a few 216. Where do you and your friends get together most often? a. At your home b. At a friend's home c. At a church or club d. At a theater, restaurant, or other public place 217. When you were growing up, about how many books were around the house? a. A large library b. Several bookcases full c. One bookcase full d. A few books e. Only a few children's books 218. As a youngster, how did you "let off steam" when you were angry? a. By fighting b. By kicking or throwing something c. By swearing d. By talking it over with someone e. You didn't -- you tried to hide your feelings 219. What kind of an upbringing did you have? a. Strict but fair b. Strict but unfair c. Inconsistent d. Not very strict e. Almost no discipline 220. Who made the major decisions in your family? a. Your mother b. Your father c. Some other person d. Discussion and common agreement e. Some other method 221. During your teens, your parents encouraged you to: a. Choose friends carefully b. Continue your education c. Read good literature d. Save money e. None of these 222. During your grammar and/or high school days, in which type of activity did you participate the most? a. Sand-lot games b. Boy Scouts, 4-H clubs, PEA or YMCA c. Student government, school politics d. Student paper, science clubs e. Worked or studied most of the time and did not participate. 223. When you were in school (grade or high), where did your friends most often get together? a. At a friend's home b. At a club, dance hall, or public building c. At your home d. At the corner e. At church activities 224. What type of housing do you live in? a. Rented apartment b. Rented house c. Own house d. Co-op apartment e. Live with relatives, etc. 225. What is your total family income (annual)? a. under $3,500 b. $3,500 - $4,500 c. $4,501 - $6,000 d. $6,001 - $7,500 e. $7,501 - $9,500 f. $9.501 - $11,500 3. $11,501 - $13,500 h. $13,501 - $16,000 1. Over $16,000 226. Approximately what annual income do you think you will be earning ten years from now? a. $5,000 or below b. $7,000 c. $9,000 d. $12,000 e. $15,000 f. $17,500 g. $20,000 h. $25,000 or more 1. Will be retired by then 20 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. If you were to suddenly inherit $10,000 tax free, what would you do with the largest share of it? a. Pay off the mortgage on the house b. Put it in a savings account c. Buy a new car or a new house or make some other major purchase d. Take a vacation trip out of the country e. Invest in 'blue-chip' stocks or bonds f. Invest in more speculative stocks or bonds g. Some combination of the above h. Don't know What factors most influenced what you wanted to do as an occupation? a. Family b. Expected income c. Friends d. Job opportunities e. Training opportunities f. Counselors g. Desire to aid humanity h. Accomplishment of an ideal in work i. A person you admired What was your father's chief occupation? a. Unskilled worker b. Semi-skilled or skilled worker c. Sales or office work d. Supervisory work e. Sub-professional (bookkeeper, pharmacist, draftsman, etc.) f. Scientist (geologist, engineer, chemist, etc.) g. Professional (lawyer, physician, teacher, etc.) h. Businessman 1. Executive of large business or industry How many years of school have you completed? (circle the highest grade completed) 6 or less 7 8 9 10 11 12 Some college College Graduate work How many years of school did your father complete? (circle highest grade) 6 or less 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Some college College Graduate work How many years of school did your mother complete? (circle highest grade) 6 or less 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Some college College Graduate work VALUE SURVEY Items 233-250 Below is a list of 18 values arranged in alphabetical order. Your task is to arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life. Study the list carefully. Then place a 1 in front of the value which is most important for you ; place a 2 in front of the value which is second most important to you, etc. The value which is least important, relative to the others, should be ranked 18. Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to change your answers. The end result should truly show how you really feel. A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life) A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution) A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) _______A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) _______EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) .______ FAMILY SECURITY (taking care-of loved ones) FREEDOM (independence, free choice) HAPPINESS (contentedness) INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict) MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy) NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack) PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life) SALVATION (saved, eternal life) SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem) SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration) TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship) WISDOM (a mature understanding of life) 22 Items 251-268 Below is a list of another 18 values. Rank these in order of importance in the same way you ranked the first list on the preceding page. AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring) _______BROADMINDED (open-minded) CARABLE (competent, effective) CHEERFUL (lighthearted, joyful) CLEAN (neat, tidy) COURAGEOUS (standing up for your beliefs) FORGIVING (willing to pardon others) HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others) HONEST (sincere, truthful) IMAGINATIVE (daring, creative) INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient) INTELLECTUAL (intelligent, reflective) LOGICAL (consistent, rational) LOVING (affectionate, tender) OBEDIENT (dutiful, respectful) FOLITE (courteous, well-mannered) RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable) SELF-CONTROLLED (restrained, self-disciplined) 23 INSTRUCTIONS Some supervisors are more likely to handle certain situations in one way than in another way. We are interested in your opinions of how your own supervisor handles the following situations. Would you please rank order the alternatives for the following questions. Place a pl in front of the alternative which most accurately describes your own supervisor; a g in front of the alternative which next best describes your supervisor; a §.in front of the next best; and a 4,1n front of the statement which least accurately describes your supervisor. (NOTICE: "Supervisor” refers to the person to whom you report directly.) Example: My supervisor seems to be most interested in: 2 a. A neat, well-regulated department. 1 b. A friendly, well-integrated work group. 4 c. An efficient, well-controlled department. 3 d. An ambitious, competitive spirit among employees. The above example shows a possible way in which you may rank your own supervisor. When my supervisor finds someone disagreeing with him, he is most apt to: a. Refer to his own experience and know-how to back up his opinions. b. Get agreement on his ideas by influencing certain individuals. c. Refer to the company policy and procedures to back his opinions. d. Go along with the decision of the work group in deciding the issue. N 0‘ \O s N \l C a My supervisor seems most interested in developing his ability to: a. Properly make reports, handle paperwork, etc. b. Handle any problems of work flow, machine operation, etc. c. Understand employees' ideas, interests and standards. d. Deal with the individual employees "diplomatically." 271. My supervisor's idea of training seems to be: a. To try to get the person interested in the job by praising his progress. b. To explain what the job requires, then let the person develop his own methods. c. To make sure the person has a complete set of instructions and job requirements. d. To repeat instructions until he's satisfied that the person is really efficient. N 72. My supervisor is most apt to give out new orders and information by: a. Discussing them with the group, getting the group's comments and questions. b. Sending or posting a written notice for every employee. c. Explaining the orders to each one concerned individually. d. Telling each employee about them if he feels it is necessary. 273. If a major reorganization were necessary around here, my supervisor would probably: a. Notify us that we would be reassigned as fairly as possible. b. Try to persuade certain employees to take the new assignment. c. Ask the work group for suggestions on how the reassignments should be made. d. Tell employees they were being reassigned in the best way to get the work out. 274. My supervisor tries to get the work out by: a. Trying to get employees to work together as a team. b. Carefully directing and disciplining employees. c. Appealing to the individual's desire for self-improvement. d. Following plans for scheduling work in detail. 275. If we decided on a new way to handle part of our work, our supervisor would probably: a. Tell us to go ahead if he was sure it would be more efficient. b. Talk to us individually to see how each of us felt about it. c. Urge us to go ahead if no one had any questions about it. d. Insist that we wait until he had consulted his boss about it. HICH l IGQN 3‘12 smTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES WWWWWWWWWW 93102676446