A STUDY OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS . BETWEEN ORGAN|ZAT|0NAL VARIABLES ' " AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE VARIABLES- DURING THE IMPLEMENTATLON OF A SCANLON PLAN ' ‘ Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UMWERSI‘W GERRY S. BURTNEIT ' 1973 F: LIBIK/iRY &' ’llulllllsll lllllllllljll will ~ 15: . C3, m L :1 ——w-I'-P \c “Vii‘ _ .\.v.‘- v‘ This is_ to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE VARIABLES DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF i" ASCANLON PLAN presented by Gerry S. Burtnett has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Psychology (H1 / Major professor . Date February 22, 1973 0-7 639 ‘3 magma By ? HUAG & SUNS' BUUK BWUERY INC. LIBRARY amosns IL LEWIS"!!! mews“ ,n '8, - 1' V‘ MSU LIBRARIES ‘ ‘v RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. r ‘y 7:. f; art _ , .Ir '-‘ _ Z‘ . l -.3 :he I causal conrec variables and rev-ration of tested in thi zational varie ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE VARIABLES DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCANLON PLAN By Gerry S. Burtnett The purpose of the research reported here was to discover causal connections between a set of five organizational climate variables and four personal influence variables during the imple- mentation of the Scanlon Plan in a small firm. The basic proposition tested in this research was that the perceived level of an organi- zational variable at one point in time was a contributing cause of the perceived level of a personal influence variable at a subsequent point in time as the firm implemented the Scanlon Plan. In order to test this basic proposition, twenty hypotheses were formulated as independent statements of its veracity. Logically, these hypotheses were derived in four stages. First, the nature of personal influence was defined and a model of actual influence, ideal influence, the felt importance of influence, and the congruence between actual and ideal influence was constructed. Second, the con- cept of participative decision-making was developed, along with a set of five environmental variables affecting the organizational change fry! 5 hie?" it was 5"9'“ taffetised pé hC'eised i! was?” hi9; the basic P“ {Ms study “ ron of a C3 hiiuence V5 A qu: interest and corpany's sec month. Apre showed that t measuring env Rent to the P‘ were valid. As a l 0Hgl'inal twen I. The p point ceive Gerry S. Burtnett from a hierarchical to a participative system of management. Third, it was argued that any change to a more participative system involved increased personal influence throughout an organization and that such increased influence enhanced the effectiveness of the organization through higher quality decision-making and implementation. Fourth, the basic proposition of the study was framed and the hypotheses of this study were generated by independently considering each combina- tion of a causative environmental variable and a resulting personal influence variable. A questionnaire was devised to measure the variables of interest and administered at two points in time: (l) during the company's second month with the Plan, and (2) during its seventh month. A preliminary statistical analysis of the questionnaire scales showed that three scales measuring actual influence and two scales measuring environmental variables (perceived organizational commit- ment to the Plan and perceived linkage between bonuses and suggestions) were valid. As a result of this preliminary finding, only two of the original twenty hypotheses could be tested: l. The perceived level of commitment to the Scanlon Plan at one point in time is the predominant cause of the level of per- ceived actual influence at a subsequent point in time. 2. The perception of an explicit link between suggestions and bonus payments at one point in time is the predominant cause of the point i They were teste Partial support urfiy supporte athvities of t ‘cr either hypc Two pr nature of the llpot‘neses and Second, this c variables in a Pétive mode 0‘ [Omittee NEF Dr, Carl Frosl Dr. Jack Nakel Dr. Frank So: Dr' MIChae] I. Gerry S. Burtnett of the level of perceived actual influence at a subsequent point in time. They were tested with the cross-lagged panel correlation technique. Partial support was found for both hypotheses. They were signifi- cantly supported with reference to the respondents' own jobs and the activities of their departments. There were no significant findings for either hypothesis with regard to the activities of the company. Two primary conclusions were reached. First, the causative nature of the two organizational variables specified in these hypotheses and actual personal influence had been demonstrated. Second, this causative connection highlighted the importance of these variables in any attempt to shift an organization to a more partici- pative mode of operations. Committee Members: Approved: CHAIRMAN Dr. Carl Frost Date: Dr. Jack Nakeley Dr. Frank Schmidt Dr. Michael Moore hr.- l- ‘u-l I'\J/ r A STUDY OF CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AND PERSONAL INFLUENCE VARIABLES DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCANLON PLAN By 4.;1 Gerry ST Burtnett A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1973 "Hallo!" said Piglet, “what are you doing?" "Hunting," said Pooh. "Hunting what?" "Tracking something," said Winnie-the-Pooh very mysteriously. "Tracking what?" said Piglet, coming closer. “That's just what I ask myself. 1 65k myself, what?" "What do you think you'll answer?" "I shall have to wait until I catch up with it." __ A. A. Milne T0 KIM I wish trainers of my d centribution to Dr. Ca sterile Dr. Ja involv Dr. Fr never Dr. P be fu I dis 333wa Of my ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the professional aid of the four members of my dissertation committee. Each man has made a distinct contribution to both my research efforts and my career. Dr. Carl Frost showed me that data without context is sterile. Dr. Jack Wakeley showed me that meaningful research involves close attention to detail. Dr. Frank Schmidt showed me that hasty analyses are never valid. Dr. Mike Moore showed me that a researchable idea can be fun in itself. I also want to acknowledge the very special aid of the "fifth" member of my committee. The years of graduate school and this thesis are dedicated to her. iv LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CTAPIER 1. INT 3:: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................... l Influence ..................... 2 Agent Exerting Influence ............ 3 Methods of Influence .............. 4 Agent Subjected to Influence .......... 5 Participative Decision-Making ............ 6 Large Scale Field Experiments .......... 9 Small Scale Field Experiments .......... l7 Laboratory Experiments ............. 24 Survey Studies ................. 26 Limits to PDM .................. 4O Scanlon Plan .................... 41 Influence and Effectiveness ............. 48 Hypotheses ..................... 54 II. METHODOLOGY ...................... 64 Questionnaire Construction . . . . . . ....... 64 Site ........................ 68 Survey ....................... 69 Data Coding ..................... 70 Data Analysis .................... 71 III. RESULTS ........................ 78 Sample Characteristics ............... 78 Scale Validation .................. 79 Mean Differences .................. 92 Hypotheses Testing ................. 93 IV. DISCUSSION ....................... lOl IFIREYCES 1.355913” A ”PEICIX B 59:53” C IFEIICIX D iriEiCiX E ,'??:.‘i:iX F APPENDIX C REFERENCES ........................... 115 APPENDIX A ........................... 122 APPENDIX B ............... , ............ 140 APPENDIX c ........................... 144 APPENDIX D ........................... 147 APPENDIX E ........................... 149 APPENDIX F ........................... 163 APPENDIX 6 ........................... 164 vi "T the Correla Organiz Attitud A Synth Sample Hierarc Scales Inter- DiagOn- Inter- Uldgon H1'Qhes CODDari HIgheS CODDar Remain Aneunt Scale CFOSS. [FOSS COOVQ QUESt IIEm. Item_ Table II. 12. 13. I4. IS. LIST OF TABLES Correlation of Aspects of Control with Organizational Effectiveness and Member Attitudes ...................... A Synthetic Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix ...... Sample Characteristics of Ethnicity, Hierarchical Position, Sex, Age, and Tenure . . . . Scales and Questionnaire Items ........... Inter-Scale Correlation Matrix with Alpha in Diagonal (Sample at t]) .............. Inter-Scale Correlation Matrix with Alpha in Diagonal (Sample at t2) .............. Highest Inter-Scale Correlations at t] (bmpared with Lowest Alpha Coefficients ....... Highest Inter—Scale Correlations at t Compared with Lowest Alpha Coefficients ....... Remaining Valid Questionnaire Scales ........ Amount and Direction of Change in Mean Scale Values .................... Cross-Legged Correlations Testing Hypothesis One Cross-Lagged Correlations Testing Hypothesis Five . . . . Conversion Scale from Matrix Item Numbers to Questionnaire Item Location Code .......... Item-Scale Correlations for Sample t1 ........ Item-Scale Correlations for Sample t2 ........ vii Page 33 73 8O 82 83 84 85 86 91 93 98 99 . . 157 Sore P. Model 1 Hypothi Cross-l Commit: Infiue Cross- Commit IanUE Depart Cross- Commit IanhE CTOSS. BONUS. Over Cross BONUS OVQr Cross BODUS OVEr Figure #00“) LIST OF FIGURES Page Some Hypothetical Distributions of Control ....... 30 Model of Actual and Ideal Influence ........... 52 Hypothetical Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel ....... 76 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over One's Own Job .............. 94 Cross-Legged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over the Activities of One's Own Department ...................... 94 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over the Activities of the Company ...... 95 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over One's Own Job ................... 95 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over the Activities of One's Own Department ....... 96 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over the Activities of the Company ........... 96 viii Persona organizational ‘Arcluded in tr: authority (Bar Ilannenbaun, l is difficult : which does not 39% that the the in struc ”Silllzatione hall fin“. The t be deVEIOped the major, DC Wing, and invegtjgatec CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Personal influence has been a topic of central concern to organizational theorists and researchers for some time. It has been included in the treatment of topics of such apparent diversity as authority (Barnard, 1938), power (French and Raven, l959), control (Tannenbaum, l96l), and job enlargement (Hertzberg et al., l959). It is difficult to conceive of an organizational structure of function which does not involve personal influence. For this reason, it would seem that the pattern of personal influence within an organization would be central to the consideration of organizational change over time in structure and/or function. In the case considered here, the organizational change is the implementation of a Scanlon Plan in a small firm. The theme of organizational change and personal influence will be developed in three stages. First, a literature review will summarize the major points regarding influence in general, participative decision- making, and the Scanlon Plan. Second, the relationships between (a) influence and organizational effectiveness and (b) the type of influence investigated here will be delineated to demonstrate the theoretical and practical relevance of this study. Third, after a discussion of the :asses of PETS“ Scanlon Plan. D: at causal links variables. As the cf interdepende to the whole. {I} the formula specialized up. asystem of a. U0" (Tannenba assumed to has. accomplishment influence, whe than his own One 0 u I Briefly COlltr McBregor (l 9‘. threaljstjc, I causes of personal influence in an organization implementing the Scanlon Plan, hypotheses will be generated regarding the establishment of causal links between organizational variables and personal influence variables. Influence As the term is commonly used, an organization is an arrangement of interdependent parts, each having a separate function with respect to the whole. Thus, the major characteristics of an organization are (l) the formulation of a purpose, (2) the coordination of replaceable, specialized units to achieve this purpose, and (3) the establishment of a system of authority, or legitimatized influence, to enhance coordina- tion (Tannenbaum, 1966). In a nutshell, every organization is commonly assumed to have a basic objective and a control system to guarantee accomplishment of that objective. As Gilman (l962) puts it, "positive control of performance down the line is possible only because one can influence, when and if necessary, the behavior of the subordinate in such a way that he acts on the basis of his superior‘s judgment rather than his own [p. l06-l07]." One of the most important criticisms of the common, or "classical," view of organizations is directed to the assumption that the accomplishment of organizational goals requires the exercise of one-way control, or influence, from the top of the organization downward. McGregor (1960) has criticized this assumption on the grounds that it is unrealistic, given the nature of man. Argyris (l957) has argued that a figns predic Ech of the er;.irlCaIIy II Deactively ' influence up a CartWI isquite germa (a) Bee: denoted g; the aGErit agent, 0, another ag 3” the fOIIOWl Tethod of exer Examined, ice: Exertipc \ Most t Influence aris IKEIIy, 1959) my, CORSigi etc.--that he [D 203] n F actions predicated on this assumptions are injurious to the mental health of the organization's members. Likert (l96l) has shown empirically that the most effective organization is one whose parts are actively interdependent and which provides avenues for reciprocal influence up and down the "line." Cartwright (l965) has presented a definition of influence which is quite germane to the research proposed here. (a) The agent exerting influence, who for convenience is denoted 9, (b) the method of exerting influence, and (c) the agent subjected to influence, denoted P. When an agent, 0, performs an act resulting in some'change in another agent, P, we say that O has power over P [p. 4]. In the following discussion, this trichotomy of agent exerting influence, method of exerting influence, and agent subject to influence will be examined. Agent Exerting Influence Most theorists assert that the ability of an agent to exert influence arises from the possession of valued resources (e.g., Thibaut & Kelly, l959). Dahl (l957) refers to these as the "base'I of an actor's power, consisting of "all the resources--opportunities, acts, objects, etc.--that he can exploit in order to effect the behavior of another [p. 203]." For example, a supervisor can obtain compliance with his directives because his position gives him the ability to reward or punish his subordinates by controlling promotions, salary increases, suspensions, and so on. Likert (l96l), among others, has pointed out that the supervisor's ability to influence rests on a much broader base: that which can meet the subordinate's "ego needs." As Likert puts it, "Each of us war accnpl ishment. :elieve in us a (ESDUI‘CES Cdnn: by specific PE" influence thrc acting with a AIIDOC capacity to ex. attempt to ext; Mihted out t' engages in in‘ expectations l motivation, t ham, ThEOr leer), It m Thug, Dahl Oi AbEtWEen A‘i Carr, "Each of us wants appreciation, recognition, influence, a feeling of accomplishment, and a feeling that people who are important to us believe in us and respect us [p. l02]." It is obvious that these resources cannot be owned by an impersonal agent, but are possessed by specific persons. Thus, the occupant of a position may exert influence through his "personal power" as a unique individual inter- acting with a given role. Although the control of valued resources gives the agent the capacity to exert influence, it does not necessarily follow that he will attempt to exert influence under all circumstances. Stogdill (l959) has pointed out that most typically an occupant of a particular position engages in influence attempts because they conform to his view of the expectations that others attach to his position. The agent's basic motivation, then, is not simply to exercise influence, but rather to gain the rewards contingent upon fulfilling these expectations. Methods of Influence Theoretically, an influence base is inert or passive (Dahl, 1957). It must be exploited if the behavior of others is to be altered. Thus, Dahl defines the means of influencing as "a mediating activity by A between A's base of power and 8's response [p. 203]." Cartwright (l965) has identified what he feels are the most significant features of different means of influencing. He argues that since a means can be conceived of as a mediating activity on the part of 0 between his base and P's behavior, the attributes of the means are properties of 0's actions. He postulates five such properties. First, 3s means for fsflays a conce attezpt. Secor: an exert influe 'hs,the media: eesfially Dar; aia base of iri :CJIIl, temDOl’é' Iii rest Hittite SCIUF prior to ‘Iiilty and tr'u J JIIanUQnCe Ur rhinqujsmng 't . ‘ ‘5 DOSSIDIEI II) Iiiustrated Hhen s1 a3!“:011 0f 0 FE edneation 0‘ it .. . eweCIfICdt Frehcr III] 1 e l baSES D? r.. ‘33 the abfl1‘ an: S . beIlef 0's reasons for exerting influence: for example, the degree to which 0 displays a concern for P's needs conditions the outcome of the influence attempt. Second, the exchange relationship between 0 and P: an agent can exert influence because he can use a resource as an inducement. Thus, the mediating activity between O's base and P's behavior is essentially bargaining. Third, contingency in use of a base: the use of a base of influence by 0 may be made contingent upon P's behavior. Fourth, temporal features: even though an agent's ability to influence may rest ultimately upon the resources he can exploit, influence can occur prior to any transmission of resources. For this reason, cred- ibility and trust between 0 and P is essential for the actualization of influence under these conditions. Fifth, change in distribution of resources: in some situations, the exercise of influence does involve relinquishing ownership of resources, as when money is paid for services. It is possible, however, to exert influence without giving up a resource, as illustrated by behavioral contagion. Agent Subjected to Influence When it is said that O influences P, what is meant is that an action of 0 results in a change in some “state" of P. A complete delineation of the general nature of influence requires, therefore, the specification of the state of P that is affected. French and Raven (l959) deal with this problem in identifying five "bases of power." (l) Rewardgpower is based on P's belief that 0 has the ability to mediate rewards for him. (2) Coercive power is based on P's belief that O has the ability to mediate punishments for him. ii: IeFerent pct. rectification, 3, ma desire stars from the is influence P 9339- Ih sun, can take some 3 shits to 0' g ii’uhlshhent, . her his 91le Influe the theoretica decision-nah“ has not bee'l A tag largely bi dartiClDeI-We the major Bit Low. h social her ~psychc ens PDM lhticipatior orientation - (3) Referent power is based on P's identification with 0. By identification, French and Raven mean a ”feeling of oneness of P with 0, or a desire for such an identity [p. l58]." (4) Legitimate power stems from the internalized values of P which dictate that O has a right to influence P and that P has an obligation to accept this influence. (5) Expert power is based on P's belief that O has some special knowl- edge. In sum, French and Raven state that O can influence P because 0 can take some action that has significance for P's needs or values: P submits to 0'5 wishes because he hopes thereby to gain a reward, avoid a punishment, become more like 0, do what is right, or have more control over his environment. Participative Decision-Making Influence, as discussed above, is an important consideration in the theoretical and empirical work done to date on participative decision-making (PDM). It should be emphasized that influence, per se, has not been the major focus of the studies done thus far. Rather, it has largely been treated as an implicit ingredient in the process of participative decision-making; the results of this process have received the major attention. Lowin (l968) has presented an illuminating analysis of the social-psychological dynamics of the participative process. Basically, he views PDM in terms of the interaction between individual needs and participation. His focus is therefore similar to the theoretical orientation of the research reported here, in that it emphasizes the necessity i0r “we actual participati Lowin defi in which decisions no are to execute with the conventic decision and actir structure. Final to PM tends to s SPECIIICflIy TT‘OI‘.‘ Lowin goe DEIIErn, UDderF constructive. Tr relevant lSSDes ‘ WWW feedba. ihhtains 9mm 0y Suggestion. Su Of the organizat Ill IUrn’ this St SubordinateS. eg 9' . .ialuatyon pro“ mm are met, 1 Lomn 1.1 t . hel d by organi 2‘ necessity for investigating the determinants of attitudes which bolster actual participation. Lowin defines PDM as a ". . . mode of organizational operations in which decisions as to activities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those decisions [p. 69]." Lowin contrasts PDM with the conventional hierarchical (HIER) mode of operations in which decision and action functions are segregated in the formal authority structure. Finally, he notes that an organizational change from HIER to PDM tends to shift the locus of many decisions in the organization, specifically from superior to subordinate. Lowin goes on to describe the "ideal case" of a PDM managerial pattern. Under PDM, participation by subordinates is frequent and constructive. The manager, in turn, is willing and prepared to discuss relevant issues with subordinates and to respect their suggestions. Continual feedback of suggestion evaluations from decision points maintains employee PDM motivation, and enhances the quality of future suggestions. Subordinates become more closely identified with the goals of the organization, and increase their efforts to achieve these goals. In turn, this state of affairs reinforces management's pro-PDM attitudes. Subordinates' ego motives are met as well through the suggestion- evaluation process. Thus, because the needs of both management and labor are met, the PDM structure is able to perpetuate itself. Lowin is quick to note that the perpetuation of any PDM struc- ture is dependent upon the negative or positive attitudes toward PDM held by organizational members. These attitudes may either abort or short a PDM Str :‘es'ee to ”MC“ t grganizationai me e’tironment- FinalIy. afFEM is success the determinants parts of both man other and the new about the effecti' serratively in eve Subordinates' bel‘ 1W for nothing. tceard the impleme :reoare a SUDDOFt‘ "i change to a P: Srly if the Change SICCQSSIUI in thei to permit the deve Jumble, FeclUires support a PDM structure, and they are in turn determined by the degree to which the PDM structure satisfies the overall needs of all organizational members within a given inter- and intra-organizational environment. Finally, any organizational change involving the introduction of PDM is successful mainly to the degree that it adequately copes with the determinants of pro-HIER attitudes. Ideological beliefs on the parts of both management and labor may make them suspicious of each other and the new PDM structure. For example, preconceived expectations about the effectiveness of PDM may cause managers to proceed very con- servatively in evaluating suggestions from subordinates, thus confirming subordinates' beliefs that PDM is a ruse solely intended to get some- thing for nothing. In order to overcome this systematic antagonism toward the implementation of PDM, the change agent or agents must prepare a supportive environment in which PDM acts are not aborted. The change to a PDM structure from a HIER structure can be successful only if the change agents within and outside the organization are successful in their attempts to alter people's attitudes sufficiently to permit the development of PDM. Such attitude change, if it is indeed possible, requires that the PDM structure satisfy the needs of both unnager and subordinate to a greater extent than did the HIER structure. Thus, Lowin concludes, "the final success of a PDM program hinges on (a) the ability of the experimenter to neutralize the hostile environ- ment, and (b) the extent to which the new environment meets organiza- tional goals (manager's motives) and subordinate's motives [p. 74]." The PDM stu for clarity of P”?S used in the various il'; large scale fie organization studic snail sections of 1 and (4) survey stu< organizations. Wh stcdy‘s finding is Stoop-ed under the the investigation T m ““199 are n tlZdtioha] Ievel iii (2) col j'oLhESlS was th The PDM studies reviewed below are divided into four sections for clarity of presentation. This division is based on the methodology used in the various studies. The four methodological divisions are: (1) large scale field experiments, involving large sections of the organization studied, (2) small scale field experiments, involving small sections of the organization studied, (3) laboratory experiments, and (4) survey studies involving persons at various levels of various organizations. Whenever possible, an index of the magnitude of a study's finding is reported. It should be noted that those studies grouped under the first heading are most similar in methodology to the investigation proposed here, while the studies grouped under the last heading are most similar in content. Large Scale Field Experiments Morse and Reimer (1956) conducted an experiment at the orga- nizational level to test two hypotheses: (1) an increased role in decision-making on the part of workers would increase their satisfaction, and (2) an increased role in decision-making on the part of workers would increase their productivity. The rationale underlying the first hypothesis was that more ego needs would be satisfied by decisions reached by workers than by decisions imposed upon them from others higher in the organizational hierarchy. The second hypothesis was advanced on the grounds that shifting the locus of decision-making downward would increase work motivation by increasing commitment to the decisions reached. The experiment was conducted in one department of an industrial organization. This department had four parallel i11‘lSIOn5 each enga' ostea point of th as conpletely depe :ir'ity could only b :wision. Two lel the other two were actonory program, a 'erels in the hiera Eaeit to the wort ielegated up the 1‘ running the two de; “VAUUDQ Programs tilHorrial changes We In. 121]," in; to QUEStionnai fliers Ill the OUT, I mt Se'f-actua their supervision , IO divisions each engaged in the same type of work. The authors make quite a point of the fact that the amount of work done by the divisions was completely dependent upon the flow of work to them. Thus, produc- tivity could only be increased by reducing the number of persons in a division. Two divisions were assigned to an “autonomy program," while the other two were assigned to an "hierarchical program." In the autonomy program, authority was delegated by upper management to lower levels in the hierarchy with the understanding that they would redele- gate it to the work groups. In the hierarchy program, authority was delegated up the line to increase the role of higher company officials running the two departments. The authors only state that there were "training programs for the supervisors of the divisions to insure that the formal changes would result in actual changes in relations between people [p. 121]." The first hypothesis was clearly supported. Accord- ing to questionnaire data collected before and after the experiment, workers in the autonomy program (1) experienced a significant increase in felt self-actualization, (2) were significantly more satisfied with their supervision, and (3) experienced an increase in liking for the company. The workers in the hierarchy program showed no changes on these variables. The productivity hypothesis was not supported. The measure of productivity was a measure of clerical costs, and the divi- sions under the autonomy program. The authors point out that the methods of cost reduction varied between programs, however. In the hierarchical program, employees were simply dropped from the payroll. In the autonomy program, group decision determined the number of people .novould remain ir :roved superior du authors expressed 1 area longer peril French et reragement in imPl conpany studied wa irtroduced involv vork station to 6" iron. a centrally l racks and a more I benefits derived ' coange. First, t he! be brought to 'esarding these p g‘vlng the "Orke' he 0'96h'izationg “it be exoecced . h ,i Huts Whi Ch WEr the prODDSed Cha iIEly RICE!“ this were solved on t they arose. Afr GDEra - “”9 Shootv ll who would remain in the departments. While the hierarchical method proved superior during the tenure of the experiment (one year), the authors expressed doubt that the effect would not have been reversed over a longer period. French et al. (1958) relate a case history of participative management in implementing a company-wide production change. The company studied was a clothing manufacturer, and the major innovation introduced involved the transport of each batch of garments from one work station to another. Previously, each worker had obtained her work from a centrally located rack. The proposed change involved several racks and a more rapid movement of material. The authors point up two benefits derived from involving the employees in implementing such a change. First, technical problems become apparent more rapidly and may be brought to management's attention. Second, employee suggestions regarding these problems may be incorporated into their solutions, giving the workers a sense of pride and accomplishment. In essence, the organizational change becomes partly their own project, and they may be expected to take responsibility for its success. The proposed change was introduced in a series of group meetings throughout the plants which were to be affected. At the first meeting, the need for the proposed change in methods was explained to the workers. Immedi- ately after this meeting the change was put into effect. Problems were solved on the floor between managers, engineers, and workers as they arose. After the new system had been in effect long enough to be operating smoothly, a second series of meetings were called to discuss med wage rates sevelooihg the nan at now wage rates cf this meeting “5 t'yl'lg to hide any "333th to the cl exceeded the pre-< as m‘ght be EXPEC 'hird, there was con:luded that e'“ is highly desira: Seashore Darticipative mar ’31" in the Harwoc vidual counseling Pp. ~ Iit IIrIe Supe'm at in e organizat , "'3 “he" deDart e'er “ELY increase J'll t M the Orga $1: . I: l2 revised wage rates. After the workers were thanked for their help in developing the new production system, they were given an explanation of how wage rates had been fixed on their jobs. The primary purpose of this meeting was to show the employees that management was not trying to hide anything. The authors used three indices to gauge the reaction to the change. First, production soon either returned to or exceeded the pre-change norm. Second, there was no increase in turnover, as might be expected if the employees felt antipathy for the change. Third, there was no apparent increase in grievance rates. The authors concluded that employee participation in implementing production changes is highly desirable from the standpoint of both labor and management. Seashore and Bowers (l963) utilized Likert's (l96l) theory of participative management in a field experiment in the installation of PDM in the Harwood organization. Through supervisory seminars, indi- vidual counseling sessions, and meetings with employees conducted by first line supervisors, an attempt was made to bring three departments of the organization closer to Likert's ”participative groups" model. Two other departments served as controls. Four variables were delib- erately increased: (l) the emphasis on the work group as a functioning unit of the organization, (2) the amount of supportive behavior by supervisor and peers, (3) the participation by employees in decision- making processes, and (4) the amount of interaction and influence among work group members. The expected changes in organizational effective- ness as the result of these increases were (l) increase in employee satisfaction, (2) increase in productivity rate, (3) decrease in waste rate, and (4) dec Eta-t they did, in variables which t departments over verges in the ti- inferences were tests of signific Criteria of orgar W3 Predicted div he controls. TI U'WOSltlon that 1liaatl‘on and that Mary-0w 6' :Ctpany to bring model. The Chan. ‘r-nouations. Te Hammery. reeng Sic‘al innovatio jaint problem-so n'ganization-wid {Caliban}! in decis Derfr J'manCe impr 3 "ar -. 231° increaSe QVEr 13 rate, and (4) decrease in absenteeism. The authors present evidence that they did, in fact, significantly increase the four organizational variables which they had set out to change in the three experimental departments over a period of three years. There were no significant changes in the two control departments. Similarly, the predicted differences were found with regard to employee satisfaction. No tests of significance were possible on the data from the other three criteria of organizational effectiveness, but trends were clearly in the predicted direction in the experimental departments as opposed to the controls. The authors conclude that this research supports the proposition that organizations can be changed toward greater partic- ipation and that such a change enhances organizational effectiveness. Marrow et al. (l967) initiated a change program in the Weldon Company to bring it more into line with Likert's (196]) participative model. The change program involved both "technical" and ”social" innovations. Technical innovations included the purchase of new machinery, reengineering some jobs, and reorganizing total work flow. Social innovations included sensitivity training for all managers, joint problem-solving meetings between foremen and workers, and an organization-wide emphasis on involving the lower echelons in the company in decisions directly affecting their jobs. The company's performance improved greatly over the two-year period. Some of these improvements included: a 32% increase in return of capital investment, a 25% increase in production efficiency, a 6% decrease in monthly turn- over, and a 3% decrease in daily absenteeism. It should be pointed out, rowel/er, that it organizational ch brought about the treasure changes i aslight improvem poiicy, and fello visors supervisin nth production , people. These ra revs of manageme P'Ogram made then. participative org Seashore . attempt to assess earlier. They fo rth their Jobs 3 so unambiguous’ h mployees report‘i increase in the r The authors Vite nmber of new. r their potential ' the complaints t vision had disap. 63 a valuable as l4 however, that it is virtually impossible to ascertain which organizational changes, or combinations of organizational changes, brought about these improvements in effectiveness. The authors also measure changes in attitudes throughout the company. There was only a slight improvement in attitudes toward the organization, compensation policy, and fellow employees. Further, while the workers saw the super- visors supervising less closely and being less exclusively concerned with production, they also saw them as being more inept in dealing with people. These rank and file reviews were in striking contrast to the views of management who almost universally felt that the two-year change program made them "more effective" managers within an increasingly participative organizational climate. Seashore and Bowers (l969) returned to the Harwood Company to attempt to assess the permanence of the changes they had helped initiate earlier. They found that the firm's employees were even more satisfied with their jobs and with the company. Productivity data was not quite so unambiguous, however, in that there was a decline in the number of employees reporting that they were producing at a high rate and an increase in the number expecting a future rise in their productivity. The authors interpret this finding to mean that there are an increaSing number of new, relatively unskilled employees who have not yet reached their potential level of performance. Further, the authors found that the complaints the workers had about the quality and quantity of super- vision had disappeared. They felt the workers now saw their supervisors as a valuable asset in aiding them to do a better job. Finally, some significant chang oczurred in the 0 total influence w accruing to the h racked decrease b charge in the sta statistical analy 9'th they preser to the suspicion effect was of a f influence between (1) the organizat assessed its Char even further in t A Study J of those reviewec tM «Rhors Teang EXDErlment’ bUt ( O'ganizatjon.s 1| iTnn+ "--at‘. on. The b r- eaIng mOSt dir enwaged by tr (1) SUpe a group, rather N‘- G) ENCOUraged . l 9 PS attempted t C 15 significant changes in the amount and distribution of influence had occurred in the organization. After four and one half years, more total influence was being exercised, with the greatest increases accruing to the headquarters staff and first line supervisors, a marked decrease being observed among plant managers, and virtually no change in the status of the workers. Although the authors make no statistical analysis of any of their findings, an inspection of the graph they present showing changes in influence over time leads one to the suspicion that total influence increased very little and this effect was of a far lesser magnitude than the differential shifts in influence between hierarchical levels. The authors conclude that: (l) the organization has definitely not regressed since they last assessed its change program, and (2) it has on the whole progressed even further in the direction of the desired changes. A study by Smith and Jones (l968) is probably the most relevant of those reviewed thus far in the research reported here. Essentially, the authors reanalyzed the data from the Seashore and Bowers (l963) experiment, but concentrated more explicitly upon the changes in the organization's interaction-influence system over the period of exper- imentation. There were four general areas of organizational change bearing most directly upon the hypotheses of Smith and Jones which were encouraged by the experimenters. (l) Supervisors were encouraged to direct their subordinates as a group, rather than on an individual basis. (2) High mutual influence was encouraged in superior-subordinate group meetings. The experiment- ers attempted to shift the views of persons throughout the organization such that influe’ (3) Psychological gerfonnance and l to confine influe include influence the group. The a shifted in the er influence system large flow of mul influence, and a nization that fos structure [p_ 17' 1 As time passed f‘ .“ore two-way C0" greater total am influence for pe in the organizat group deciSion-r. nizational funct The find was clear suppor 1. e' 9 HOW mUCh 16 such that influence was accepted on its merits, regardless of its source. (3) Psychological support was provided in terms of encouraging high performance and recognition for good work. (4) An attempt was made not to confine influence to eliciting conformity to goals but rather to include influence over changes in the goals, activities, and norms of the group. The authors hypothesized that as people in the organization shifted in the encouraged direction in these four areas, an interaction- influence system would result which would ". . . be characterized by a large flow of multidirectional communication, a high rate of mutual influence, and a pattern of group decision-making throughout the orga- nization that fosters, and in turn is supported by, a strong normative structure [p. l72]." More specifically, they made seven predictions. As time passed for the experimental departments, there would be: (1) More two-way communication; (2) More adequate communication; (3) A greater total amount of influence or control; (4) Greater changes in influence for persons at lower, as opposed to those at higher levels, in the organization; (5) More decentralized decision-making; (6) More group decision-making; (7) More perceptual uniformity regarding orga- nizational functioning. The findings of this study were far from unambiguous. There was clear support for both communication hypotheses. On both "general" (i.e., How much influence do you have in the company) and "specific" (i.e., How much influence do you have over how pay raises are made) influence measures, total control increased in the experimental depart- ments over the control departments. However, the differential effect predicted for hie ceasure of influe hierarchical leve the experimental influence on the these results as sent my work out even more than th diction were inco raking had become decisions were mar ”either proven no Prediction was (:01 0f Perception to I ence, and decisio "mm" as these Strum”? f0r org increase‘l Product to. l8l].n Stall Scale Fielc COCh and F is ..0ndl]y faced a freQuent methods ms regarding . 17 predicted for hierarchical levels was found only for the specific measure of influence. An analysis of changes in influence at each hierarchical level revealed that the increases in total control for the experimental departments were primarily due to increases in influence on the part of middle management. The authors interpret these results as supporting the contention that participative manage- ment may work out to be a means of increasing management's influence even more than that of the rank-and-file. Results on the fifth pre- diction were inconclusive in that while managers felt that decision- making had become more decentralized, workers still felt that most decisions were made by the foremen. The sixth prediction could be neither proven nor disproven with the data collected. The seventh prediction was confirmed. The authors saw this increased uniformity of perception to be the consequence of increased communication, influ- ence, and decision-making in the experimental groups. They conclude: "Insofar as these uniformities represent norms, we see them as providing structure for organizational processes and as partly underlying the increased productivity and satisfaction in the experimental departments [p. lBl]." Small Scale Field Experiments Coch and French (1948) conducted a classic study in the PDM literature in the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, which had tradi- tionally faced a high degree of employee "resistance" to necessarily frequent methods changes. This resistance expressed itself in griev- ances regarding the new methods, high turnover, and restriction of A‘i b‘l“ "it: output. The at in overcoming t espioyees. In usual (from the sertation” grou the change, and serted quite fo recessary, this determining the sane for the twc anratOrg in eac Change was inc-pie Tty. After a re i'Gups, The no— Eificlency IBVel dumng the flrSt Draught their D"( n° mehbers, and tital. . , partmlpar l8 output. The authors decided to test the effectiveness of participation in overcoming this resistance. Their design included four groups of employees. In the "no-participation" group, change was implemented as usual (from the top downward). In the "participation through repre- sentation" group, a group meeting was held of all persons effected by the change, and the need for the change in operating methods was pre- sented quite forcibly. After agreement was reached that the change was necessary, this group chose several operators to aid management in determining the nature of the new methods. The procedure was much the same for the two "total-participation" groups, except that all of the operators in each group helped determine the new methods. After the change was implemented, all four groups abruptly declined in productiv- ity. After a few days, however, marked differences appeared between the groups. The no—participation group remained at its post-change low efficiency level, suffered a 17% turnover, and filed several grievances during the first 32 days. The representative-participation group brought their production to slightly above standard after l4 days, lost no members, and filed no grievances during the first 40 days. The total-participation group achieved production slightly better than standard after two days, and eventually outstripped the other two groups by achieving an efficiency level 14% above standard, with no turnover and no grievances filed in the first 40 days. The authors interpreted these results as supporting the contention that involving employees in change-decisions enhances their subsequent satisfaction and productivity. Lawreni the effects of eneriment was Two groups, of only non-produc sizes engaged t work goals for of groups was c of the study. ital-setting gr: that the produc ment» age. dextt discussion of n( 510“ 0" Produci French 5 and ”Will stud; °f pa'tlcipatio. ‘nfluence jn a I ”mm have f disti ”QUlSh bet em, and "Obje Dredicted that I between Objecp 19 Lawrence and Smith (1955) conducted an experiment to explore the effects of the nature of group discussion upon productivity. The experiment was conducted in a Midwestern garment manufacturing company. Two groups, of five and six employees each, engaged in discussion of only non-productive matters. An additional two groups of the same sizes engaged themselves in similar discussions, but also set weekly work goals for themselves. After five weeks, performance of both sets of groups was compared with the five week period prior to the initiation of the study. Both groups increased their performance, but only the goal-setting group did so significantly. In addition, it was shown that the production increases did not correlate with length of employ- ment, age, dexterity, or intelligence. The authors conclude that group discussion of non-production topics must be accompanied by group deci- sions on production related matters in order to enhance production. French et a1. (1960) attempted to replicate the original Coch and French study in a different culture and using a more precise theory of participation. The authors defined participation as inter-personal influence in a mutual decision-making paradigm when the decisions involved have future effects on the participants. Further, the authors distinguish between "psychological participation," or perceived influ- ence, and "objective participation,“ or actual influence. It was predicted that significant positive relationships would be found between objective participation and (l) productivity, (2) management- worker relations, and (3) job satisfaction. The authors argued that increases in objective participation should result in increased p'cc'ucti'Vi't)i concmltant 1 certation. F to an improve influence inv heightened mu related to 3'0. job in ways wl in an assert—bl) four workers e allowed “moder of tools. The Of these decis QFOupg Wlth reg differences in heasures 0f lab authors attrlbu to pmductivity Further, - 20 productivity because of an increase in decision quality and a concomitant increase in worker motivation toward decision imple- mentation. Further, increased participation should relate positively to an improvement in worker-management relations because the mutual influence involved in PDM would lead to a communality of goals and heightened mutual respect. Finally, participation should be positively related to job satisfaction because the workers would be improving their job in ways which are most relevant to them. The study was conducted in an assembly department of a shoe factory in Norway. Nine groups of four workers each were employed in the experiment. Two groups were allowed “moderate" participation in decisions involving the allocation of tools. The remaining four control groups did not participate in any of these decisions. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to production. Slight and generally nonsignificant differences in the predicted direction were found for the questionnaire measures of labor-management relations and job satisfaction. The authors attribute their results to the low relevance of the decisions to productivity and their general lack of importance to the workers. Further, it should be pointed out that this study was performed in a different culture from the PDM studies reviewed thus far and that it is possible that the expectations regarding the possibilities of participa- tion may be far lower in Norway than in the United States. Fleishman (1965) reported significant production increases as the result of participative decision-making in a clothing manufacturer. This firm had a long history of fairly predictable style changes. It '5: been Corr-On 3:19? the jntr‘OC week “learning C This cycle OCCUr theirjobs. 006 zg worsen in the fliers in each performed, their working hypothes workers in the e decrenent. The was coming and t bundling procedt standard for the group to decide to each individ; drip ”1 Product the D'EVTQUS St during Style c‘ f‘n‘ShEd in the 9r0up 5h0wed a h be" Drociuctr Concludes that 21 had been common that a marked drop would occur in production shortly after the introduction of a style change, followed by a seven or eight week “learning curve” which brought production back up to standard. This cycle occurred despite the fact that few workers actually changed their jobs. One experimental and one control group was selected, with 20 women in the experimental group and 40 in the control group. The workers in each group were matched according to the operations they performed, their average experience, and their average earnings. The working hypothesis was that increased participation on the part of the workers in the experimental group would result in less of a production decrement. The experimental group was informed that a new style change was coming and that they would determine the operational sequence, the bundling procedures, the piece rates for each operation, etc. A standard for the finished product was set, but it was left up to the group to decide on both the methods and rewards of production accruing to each individual. The results indicated that there was little initial drop in production, the plateau of the production curve matched that of the previous style three times sooner than had previously occurred during style changes with the same group, and the entire lot was finished in three instead of the expected eight days. The control group showed a marked production drop during the style change, but their production did not drop as far as it usually did. The author concludes that the control group benefited from a "transfer" of the participation effect because they perceived it was possible for the workers in the experimental group to influence their work methods. Lale! be affected 1:; is to be effe pitted to it. participation would be most irposed upon ' Janitors in a films. Nineg their own ince W0 aired grie five plans Cha series of meet Md the timing attendance. TI Uponthern. The pa"Urinating c dhErage attenda aftor gem,“ m for “1659 rest)? the "Orkerg to WkErg Who par: indwledgmme _ EfiPiOyeesl t”. the plan. 22 Lawler and Hackman (1969) found evidence that attendance can be affected by participation. The authors argued that if a pay plan is to be effective, all participants must understand it and be com- mitted to it. Understanding and commitment may be brought about through participation. Therefore, they predicted ‘that a pay incentive program would be most effective if it was participatively developed rather than imposed upon the group of employees by management. The subjects were janitors in a small company which provided cleaning services to larger firms. Nine work groups were involved in the experiment; three designed their own incentive plans, two had plans imposed on them by management, two aired grievances with the researchers but did not have their incen- tive plans changed, and two received no treatment at all. Through a series of meetings, the participative groups decided on both the amount and the timing of the incentive payments they would receive for perfect attendance. Two other groups had these resulting pay formulas imposed upon them. The results were both pronounced and significant in the participative groups. Before the incentive plans went into effect, the average attendance rate in these groups was 88%. It moved up to 94% after several months and leveled off. There was no improvement in attendance in any of the non-participative groups. Possible reasons for these results were discussed: (1) participation may have caused the workers to become more committed to the incentive plan, (2) the workers who participated in the development of their own plan were more knowledgeable about it, and (3) participation may have increased the employees' trust of the good intentions of management with respect to the plan. Schefle study using the data one year a 'hey set out to attendance resu ipation, rather and (2) Is it p( but its results factor entered i W system agree The authors‘ res P'OCESSES W‘Oduc orga'll‘zational e which the pay p1 ~fear, the “Brag: to the 88°; attem in the imposed w for the 12 Week I “‘1 Plan. Thus, in the 1mpOSed w EdrthlpathE 91' unilateraiiy dis 23 Scheflen et al. (1971) followed up the Lawler and Hackman study using the same organization and sample, but collecting their data one year after the installation of the participative pay program. They set out to answer two questions: (1) Did the initial increase in attendance result from an immediate, short-term enthusiasm over partic- ipation, rather from the processes inherent in participation per se?, and (2) Is it possible that the imposed program is just as effective, but its results take longer to manifest themselves? An unexpected factor entered into their research when management discontinued the pay system agreed upon by two out of the three participative groups. The authors' results supported the position that participative processes produce long-term changes in the direction of increased organizational effectiveness. In the single participative group in which the pay plan arrived at through PDM was still in force after one year, the average employee worked 93% of his scheduled hours, as opposed to the 88% attendance he had evidenced before the new plan was installed, In the imposed work groups, attendance averaged 87%, as opposed to 83% for the 12 week period immediately preceding the installation of the new pay plan. Thus, there was a significant increase (p <.05) in attendance in the imposed work group, but this increase was still below that of the participative groups. The most dramatic result was the marked drop in attendance in the two participative work groups whose pay programs were unilaterally discontinued by management six months and eleven months after their inception. In the nine weeks immediately prior to discon- tinuation, these two groups had averaged 92% attendance. This rate dropped to 82% two major concl ussignificani groups over a < eeobership. Tl work norms as a mceincrease ' who discontinue were not involi an expressed, wreinclined 1 curlude, there Effective OVEr‘ CO”IT-threat fror possible, II I a democratic“ Other_ In the EKDOSEd to f0. EXDOSed to 6 Th 24 dropped to 82% four weeks after discontinuance. The authors point up two major conclusions drawn from their study. First, they felt it was significant that attendance remained high in the participative groups over a considerable period of time, despite change in group membership. They hypothesized that the groups developed long-term work norms as a result of participation, which made the initial attend- ance increase last over time. Second, they noted that the managers who discontinued the pay program for two of the participative groups were not involved in the participation process. They therefore felt, and expressed, little identification with the program and apparently were inclined to discontinue it at the first opportunity. The authors conclude, therefore, that for a program based upon participation to be effective over a considerable period of time, it must involve and obtain commitment from as many hierarchical levels of the organization as possible. Laboratory Experiments The classic laboratory experiment bearing on PDM was that conducted by Lewin et al. (1939) as reported in White and Lippit (1960). Actually, two experiments were performed. In the first study, two groups of eleven-year-old boys were led by the same person, playing a "democratic" role with one group and an "autocratic" role with the other. In the second experiment, four groups of five boys each were exposed to four different leaders. Every six weeks each group was exposed to a different leader employing a different leadership style. The three leadership styles were: (1) Democratic-low goal and means *—K "W ""“J' - control, high 51 gal and means r Laissez-faireu' experiments yie' leadership can I work done under and originality autocratic lead! exPeriments the scapegoats, mor to stop work wh Shaw (1 four‘ma” groups and democratic and I""ldellrender argon: of fr‘ee: lion refers to The a“ Ship style anc leadership Shel hence deCreasel members (and Show increa Wale) and s. l We" DErmeé‘ 25 control, high stimulation of group processes; (2) Autocratic--high goal and means control, high stimulation of group processes; (3) Laissez-faire--low on both dimensions. Taken together, the two experiments yielded two primary conclusions. First, democratic leadership can be efficient. Both work, although the quantity of work done under autocratic leadership was greater, and motivation and originality were greater under democratic leadership. Second, autocratic leadership can create hostility and aggression. In both experiments the "autocratic groups" showed more hostility toward scapegoats, more destruction of property, and had a greater tendency to stop work when the leader left the room. Shaw (1955) investigated the performance and satisfaction of four-man groups in different communications nets under authoritarian and democratic leadership. Shaw introduced two concepts, "saturation" and “independence," to predict his results. Independence refers to the amount of freedom with which a group member may operate, while satura- tion refers to the communication requirements placed upon him. The author then goes on to relate these two concepts to leader- ship style and its effect upon group performance. Authoritarian leadership should decrease independence for most of its members (and hence decrease morale), and should decrease saturation for all group members (and hence improve performance). Non-authoritarian leadership should increase independence for all group members (and hence increase morale) and should increase saturation for all group members (and hence lower performance). As predicted, problems presented to the experimental QY‘OUPS were SC leadership, bu leadership. Day an in a laborator closeness of 5 given to the SI the closely sup Egenerally“ suc coworkers and Surve Studies One of conducted by Ka (ll Employee at l'aCtices relate geyed in a large tlally the same and nonsupervisc lill-roaming s M 0f thEir Si mtemewer as ': as OPPOSed t0 ti 26 groups were solved faster and with fewer errors under autocratic leadership, but expressed satisfaction was higher under democratic leadership. Day and Hamblin (1964) investigated the closeness of supervision in a laboratory simulation of an assembly line. They manipulated the closeness of supervision by varying the amount of detail in instructions given to the subjects by their supervisors. The average productivity in the closely supervised groups was 25% less than those which were more "generally" supervised. In addition, aggressive feelings toward both co-workers and supervisors were higher in the closely supervised groups. Survey Studies One of the classic surveys on the effects of participation was conducted by Katz et al. (1950). The investigators set out to determine: (1) Employee attitudes related to productivity, and (2) Supervisory practices related to productivity. Twelve work group pairs were sur- veyed in a large insurance company. Each member of a pair did essen- tially the same work, but differed in productivity. All supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel were interviewed. The supervisors of the high-producing groups reported spending more of their time planning the work of their Subordinates. These supervisors were also coded by the interviewer as being employee-oriented and employing general supervision, as opposed to the supervisors of the low-producing groups who were coded as being primarily production-oriented and employing close supervision. Vroom (l oarticipation ar participation wc persons with Stl data were collec independence Han and Allport (195 California F SC, with QUEStlonna- ratings, part1- De"formance (.2 however, fer SU WpeerSOrg 10“ tion between p a Vroom was able 27 Vroom (1959) set out to examine the interaction between participation and personality. Specifically, Vroom hypothesized that participation would be more positively related to performance for persons with strong independence needs and low authoritarianism. The data were collected from two sections of a delivery company. Need for independence was measured with a questionnaire developed by Tannenbaum and Allport (1956), while authoritarianism was measured with the California F scale (Adorno et al., l950). Participation was measured with questionnaire items, and performance was assessed through superior ratings. Participation was correlated positively and significantly with performance (.20) for the entire sample. The correlation was higher, however, for supervisors high in need for independence (.25), than for supervisors low in need for independence (.01). Further, the correla- tion between participation and performance were lower for high author- itarian supervisors (.06) than for low authoritarian supervisors (.27). Vroom was able to explain his results by postulating a motive for independence and power-equality. Assuming that some persons derive satisfaction from participating in joint decision-making and that the more these people influence a joint decision, the more satisfaction they obtain from its execution, then the more they can satisfy their need for independence and power-equality through participation. Ritchie and Miles (l970) tried to separate the effects of the quantity and quality of participation upon subordinate satisfaction. Arguing from the human resources (Miles, l965) standpoint, the authors point out that a superior may weigh his concept and practice of PDM according to hi That is, superl mate but lack innit participa ordinates with superiors who h will tend to in contributions. effects of the satisfaction, 0 ordinates' abil Their two major mediate Super they feel they Which their Cali Miles found Sup fire 19Vels of evidence that 1 Practically inc statisticany ‘ faction, an ex. dm'lltely add Presented “0 d the Opinion tlrII 28 according to his basic assumption about his subordinate's abilities. That is, superiors who believe that their subordinates wish to partic- ipate but lack the capability to contribute effectively will tend to limit participation to peripheral issues or consult with their sub- ordinates with no real intentions of utilizing their inputs. Conversely, superiors who have a higher evaluation of their subordinates' abilities will tend to involve them in more important issues and utilize their contributions. Thus, the authors designed their study to measure the effects of the quantity and quality of participation upon subordinates, satisfaction, utilizing the superior's basic assumptions about his sub- ordinates' abilities as an indicator of the quality of participation. Their two major hypotheses were: A subordinate's satisfaction with his immediate superiors will vary directly with: (l) The extent to which they feel they are consulted by their superiors, and (2) The extent to which their capabilities are valued by their superiors. Ritchie and Miles found support for both hypotheses in a sample of 330 managers from five levels of a large organization. In addition, they found indirect evidence that the quantity and quality dimensions of participation are practically indistinct. That is, while these two dimensions did not statistically interact to produce the highest overall level of satis- faction, an examination of pattern scores suggested that they were definitely additive. Finally, the qualitative dimension of participa- tion seemed to be prepotent over the quantitative. Although they presented no data directly bearing on the question the authors expressed the Opinion that if quantity of participation were held constant, subordinates wou prenium on their Tannenba neasuring contro The meaning with the int influence at acts in some in. 5]. The relation bet is essentially i ence activities. him to make an ' fulfills A's in' Tannenbaum uses Tannenb in an organizat of how much car, and then Plot t ”umber 0f CUr decreased COHtr lllustrateS thcl Curl/ES may not nizations may ( h Lhe (‘QIati VS a; 29 subordinates would rather be involved in activities which placed a premium on their most relevant abilities. Tannenbaum (1968) has presented a definition and method of measuring control which is quite relevant to the consideration of PDM: The meaning of control, as we define it, [begins] . . . with the intent on the part of one person, followed by an influence attempt addressed to another person, who then acts in some way that fulfills the intent of the first [p. 5]. The relation between control and influence as Tannenbaum uses the terms, is essentially that of a control process incorporating necessary influ- ence activities. In the simplest case, the intent of person A leads him to make an influence attempt resulting in behavior of person B that fulfills A's intent. This cycle is the control process. In practice, Tannenbaum uses the concepts of control and influence interchangeably. Tannenbaum's method of measuring the total amount of control in an organization is to survey members of each echelon on the issue of how much control they exercise at all levels in the organization, and then plot the combined results on a “control graph." A hypothetical control graph is shown in Figure 1. It is clear from this graph that a number of curves are possible. Curve A represents the case of decreased control as one moves down the organization hierarchy. Curve B illustrates the opposite case. Tannenbaum's major point is that control curves may not only differ in slope, but also in average height, as curve X differs from curve A. In other words, he contends that orga- nizations may differ in their total amount of control, as well as in the relative amount exercised by each hierarchical echelon. He thus challenges the "i wagers and worl and thereby enhai A Very j Great Deal I / Little _ or None _ Mar: 30 challenges the "fixed pie" assumption of control and asserts that both managers and workers can increase their control within the organization and thereby enhance its effectiveness. A Very Great -- \\ Deal A Greatd_ Deal Quite _' .a Bit Some -— Little __ or None 1 1 1 1 1 l I T 1 ‘r Top Managers Second First Rank Manage- Line Line and ment Super- Super- File vision vision Hierarchical Echelons Figure 1 Some Hypothetical Distributions of Control [p. 13]. A study gianple of the conception of 0 between a numbe organizations 5 32 separate Out ships, and 4 un tions were aske 0i’ganization. that each of se organization's Questions conce should have. T EdCh hie'aY‘Chic reSliondents reg 9W“ was dem between the arm SUCCESSlve 16V! extent to Wh ic effectiVeneSS 01:29 eXperts 0f the d9] 1 VEr to accomp] is h to be effeth 31 A study by Smith and Tannenbaum (1963) is a fairly typical example of the kind of research which has been done in Tannenbaum's conception of organizational control. This study presents comparisons between a number of organizations in terms of the control graph. The organizations studied were 112 chapters of a voluntary organization, 32 separate outlets of a delivery company, 33 automobile sales dealer- ships, and 4 union locals. Employing the survey method, similar ques- tions were asked of members in different hierarchical levels in each organization. Respondents were asked to rate the amount of influence that each of several hierarchical groups (or persons) has upon the organization's activities. The same respondents were asked parallel questions concerning how much influence each of these groups or persons should have. The amounts of "actual" and "ideal" control exercised by each hierarchical level was computed by averaging the judgments of the respondents regarding each level. The slope of the resulting control graph was derived by computing the average of the algebraic differences between the amounts of influence reported to be exercised by each successive level. Organizational effectiveness was defined as the extent to which an organization achieves its goals. Measures of effectiveness in the voluntary organization were based on the ratings of 29 experts who were familiar with its activities. The effectiveness of the delivery company was assessed in terms of the total time required to accomplish standard units of work. The sales organization was judged to be effective to the extent that its actual sales volume met assigned quotas. The effectiveness of the four unions was measured in terms of the judgments C of the unionS' malty and mO" oft-Destlonna1r The aut tions studiEd- stumture 0f th control was To“ control was to“ control tendeCl control tended wanted to "Hire This resulted l a l ctual curve be of the Organize the organizatio DOSlt‘vely slot G'ganizations c curve, althouc‘ The rel cl'e‘ariizatioris I iDosm‘ve rel 0i‘9c‘ir1129 nmmo—ucm we mpmcm_cu nogmeOcmpmc-pwmcpocmpm; comm .mcwp UWFOm m >2 ammo—ucm mp mchmwcw nocwmeo:oeipwmcpocmcms zoom .mmmmgpcmcma :. mmaFm> mo mcmm mmcgp on“ mcm mpmcommwu szFwnm_Pmc one .mmapm> umcwpcmucz we mumm moccu mnu mcm mpmcommwv zpwnw_m> ms» "myoz mu mm m uocowz m < Aem.v mm. mm. .mm..nr,/r . _~. ” Nu . . a 7/0 IWV/ o _ N N va mo “2 //m /m _ m 8fi§ S: $1.1 INMVI/lmvz N< _Q _ _ m eogpmz F< mu mm m< No mm N< _o _m P< mocach m nogpaz N conga: _ cocoa: xpcoaz nogpmewp_=z-pmacp_pF:z uwomguczm < N mpnmh 74 and Fiske criteria of discriminant validity cannot be met. Some discriminant validity can be demonstrated within the solid rectangle, however, because the values on the reliability diagonal should exceed those in the monomethod-multitrait triangle. The argument here is if a scale purporting to measure a given trait shares as much variance with a scale purporting to measure a different trait as the "true" variance estimated by the appropriate reliability coefficient, the scales do, in fact, measure the same construct. The null hypothesis under this model is that any pair of scales and the appropriate reliability coefficient for one of them are conceptually identical in the parallel test sense. In order to reject this null hypothesis, a significant and meaningful difference must be found between the inter-scale correlations and the appropriate reli- ability estimate. It was felt that the appropriate reliability estimate would be the lowest internal reliability coefficient of the two scales because any comparison between inter-scale correlations and the lowest reliability coefficient would be the most conservative test of the null hypothesis. A further test of the construct validity of the scales used in this study was carried out through a cross validation procedure. Since data had been collected at two points in time, the findings made on the data available from the first questionnaire administration could be validated against those of the second administration. The construct validation procedure outlined above was, therefore, carried out on both sets of data. It was expected that although the numerical values of 75 interscale correlations and their reliabilities would change between data bases, the significant and meaningful differences should hold for the same scales on both administrations, provided the sample sizes were reasonably comparable. Only those scales surviving both construct validity tests were used in hypothesis testing. A multivariate analysis followed by a univariate analysis of simple main effects (Hummel & Sligo, 1971; Bock & Haggard, 1968) was conducted. The multivariate analysis served the purpose of controlling alpha levels during the univariate tests. Put simply, a significant multivariate test indicates that the subsequent univariate tests are not spuriously significant due to inflated alpha levels resulting from intercorrelated dependent variables. The univariate tests indicate, of course, both direction and significance of change in the mean scores of the remaining valid scales over time. Hypothesis testing utilized a two-wave cross-lagged panel correlation technique (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Pelz & Andrews, 1964). This technique allows one to infer the preponderance of causality. This inference is based on the assumption that if a given even con- sistently precedes another either: (a) The first event is the cause of the second, or (b) Both events are the result of some more general cause. Thus if the correlation between event 1 at time 1 and event 2 at time 2 exceeded the complimentary correlation between event 2 at time 1 and event 1 at time 2, it is possible to infer that the state 0f event 1 at time 1 is the preponderant cause of the state of event 2 at time 2. 76 t r t 1 E], E1 2 E1 E] r Y‘ E], 52 £1, £2 r E. (£7: \ E]: [2 E r E 2 E2, E2 2 Figure 3 Hypothetical Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel It should be noted that such a finding does not eliminate the possibility that event 2 is partially the cause of event 1, but it does argue that the preponderance of causality runs from event 1 to event 2. Further, such a finding does not rule out the possibility that both events are the result of some more general cause. Rather, it provides evidence of only one determinant of event 2. It should be noted that changes in reliability and/or factor specificity over time in the scales used in hypothesis testing can produce a significant difference between cross-lagged correlations in the complete absence of any causal relationship (Crano et al., 1972). Suppose, for example, that over time the reliability of the measure of event 1 increased (or its specificity decreased), while the reliability 77 of the measure of event 2 decreased (or its specificity increased). The result of such shifts would be to reduce r5],52 and concomitantly increase rEZ,E], regardless of the true predominant direction of causal relationship. Crano et al. have described a method which corrects for such shifts in reliability and/or specificity. A ratio of the syn- chronous correlations (rE],EZ) for each variable pair at each point in time is computed. The total set of these ratios is then factor analyzed to determine the communalities for each measure at each point in time. The fourth root of a complex ratio of these communalities is then taken and multiplied by each of the two cross-lagged correlations. The corrected cross-lagged correlations are then tested for significance of difference to determine the preponderant direction of causality. CHAPTER III RESULTS Sample Characteristics The population of interest was the work force of the entire company, which was sampled at two points in time, six months apart. At t], 189 questionnaires were distributed, of which 170 were returned or 90%. A subset of 139 questionnaires were suitable for coding, yielding a usable return rate of 74%. At t2, 203 questionnaires were distributed, of which 149 were returned or 73%. A subset of 88 ques- tionnaires were suitable for coding, yielding a usable rate of 43%. It may be noted in passing that the single greatest cause of sample shrinkage amongst returned questionnaires at both points in time was caused by the refusal of the respondents to fill out any portion of the instrument. A third sample of matched respondents was constructed. Although questionnaires were anonymous, it was possible to match respondents according to four criteria: (1) Age, (2) Tenure, (3) Sex, (4) Plant location. The first two criteria were considered the most definitive because they were expressed in both years and months. The six month increment in these values between t1 and t2 was, of course, included in the matching process. The second two criteria acted mainly as checks 78 79 on possible matching errors resulting from the use of the first two. A total of 47 respondents were matched and their questionnaire responses therfore provided the data for hypothesis testing. Assuming that the average employment at the company could be estimated by the simple average of the numbers of questionnaires given out at the two points in time (196), the matched sample return rate was 24%. Considering the low matched sample return rate reported above, the obvious question comes to mind regarding its representativeness. The data bearing on this question is presented in Table 3. Table 3 shows a remarkable stability with regards to ethnicity, hierarchical position and sex. Systematic differences were found between the t1 sample and the matched sample. The respondents in the matched sample tended to be older (t =2.57, p‘<.Ol) and to have greater tenure (t =2.0l, p:<.05) than the respondents in the t1 sample. Consid- ering that the sample at t1 represented a 74% return rate, it is reason- able to assume that its sample characteristics are most representative of the population characteristics of the company's employees. It appears, therefore, that the matched sample shows a definite bias toward older, more tenured employees. Scale Validation The scale validation procedure followed the discriminant valid- ity strategy outlined in the previous chapter. A total of 18 scales were designed into the questionnaire instrument. The particular items designated to measure a theoretical dimension were included originally 80 wawuucmuxcmm &ow FF ”om m. "cm mmFmEmu xom cmamcou xmp smegmam xm vaUpmz NF ”cum: me "cum: mmpmz Now mcmmmcmz em gmwpmcu xmm mpwmnucmixcmm gmw N op "om m_ “cm mm_msmm &mp cmsmcom xm gmwcmnm am a NP ”cam: Ne “:mmz mmpmz flpw mcmmmcmz wm cmWchm NNm mpwcnncmixcmm aNm F a “am 0, "am mm_aeaa emu cosmcoa a“ ;m_=aam em a m ”cum: mm ”cam: mm_mz am“ mcmmmcmz xm cmWPmcm gmm Amcmmxv Amcmmxv Aucmocmqv Apcmucmgv Aucmucmav u acacmh mm< xmm cowammom Apmumczuw m_qemm mczcmp new .mm< .xmm .cowuwmoa quwsucmcmw: .xwawcguu mo muwpmwcmgumcmcu mFQEmm m mpnwk 81 on the basis of apparent content validity. Table 4 details all 18 scales and the items which defined them on an a priori basis. A cluster analysis (Tryon and Bailey, 1970) was performed on both t1 and t2 samples. Thus, the findings of the analysis on the t] sample were cross-validated on the t2 sample. An examination of the item-scale correlation matrix (Appendix E) for both samples led to the conclusion that item-scale correlations were sufficiently high so as to preclude the reassignment of items to different scales. The results of the cluster analysis which had a primary bearing on scale validation were, therefore, the inter-scale correlations. These correlations for the sample at t1 are shown in Table 5, while the comparable correlations for the sample at t2 are shown in Table 6. A comparison between the highest inter-scale correlations and the lowest of the two relevant alpha coefficients was made for each scale at both points in time. It was felt that this particular compar- ison would be the most conservative test of discriminant validity. An inferential approach was also taken to these inter-correlation and alpha differences by applying a t-test appropriate for the differences between two variables which have a third variable in common (Guilford, 1965). In this case, the third variable was, of course, the higher of the two relevant alpha coefficients. These two sets of comparisons are detailed in Tables 7 and 8. 82 Table 4 Scale and Questionnaire Items Scale No Scale Name Questionnaire Items* 1 Perceived actual influence over 2-1A, 2-2A, 2—3A, 2-4A, 2-5A one's own job. 2 Perceived actual influence over 2-6A, 2-7A, 2-8A, 2-9A, activities of one's department. 2-lOA, 2-11A 3 Perceived actual influence over 2-12A, 2-13A, 2-14A, 2-15A, activities of company. 2-16A, 2-17A, 2-18A, 2-19A 4 Perceived ideal influence over 2-18, 2-28, 2-38, 2-48, 2-58 one's own job. 5 Perceived ideal influence over 2-68, 2-78, 2-88, 2-98, activities of one's department. 2-108, 2-118 6 Perceived ideal influence over 2-128, 2-13B, 2-148, 2-158, activities of company. 2-168, 2-178, 2-188, 2-198 7 Perceived importance of influence 2-1C, 2-2C, 2-3C, 2-4C, 2-5C over one's own job. 8 Perceived importance of influence 2-6C, 2-7C, 2-8C, 2-9C, over activities in one's depart- 2—10C, 2-llC ment. . 9 Perceived importance of influence 2-12C, 2-13C, 2-14C, 2—15C, over activities of company. 2-l6C, 2-17C, 2-18C, 2-19C lO Perceived commitment to the 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4 Scanlon Plan. 11 Perceived public feedback. 3-5, 3-6 12 Perceived frequency of difficult 3-7 issue settlement through par- ticipation l3 Perceived goal clarity. 3—8, 3-9 14 Linkage between bonuses and 3-10, 3-11 suggestions. 15 Instrumentality of job behaviors 4-P1-A-l, 4-Pl-A-2, 4-Pl-A-3, 4-P1-A-4, 4-P1-A-5 l6 Valence of job outcome. 4-P1-B-l, 4-P1-B-2, 4-P1-B-3, 4-Pl-B-4, 4-P1-B-5, 4—Pl-B-6 17** Job motivation. 18 Identification with company. 4-P2-1, 4-P2-2, 4-P2-3, 4-P2-4, 4—P2-5, 4-P2-6, 4-P2-7, 4-P2-8 appear in the questionnaire according to the following format: *Questionnaire items are identified according to where they SectiOn- Part-Subpart-Question Number, where a section number and a question number are always designated. **Scale 17 is a composite of scores on Scales 15 and 16 and therefore has no unique questionnaire items. 83 m_. \L 2. m_ 3 mp NF 3 op m w \r o m c m N F mm. mm. —m. mm. mm. Nd. om. Pm. mm. mo. mp. mm. co. m_. m—. um. Fm. mm. _m. mm. mm. _¢. om. ¢N. m—. mm. Fm. mm. mm. mm. mm. —m. mm. mm. mm. mm. ow. Km. mm. mF. w—. om. mm. om. mm. Fm. mm. mm. NF. mm. mm. mm. mm. em. mm. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. —m. mm. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. mm. my. mp. F_. NF. mp. 00. wm. mp. mo. mm. mfi. vm. mm. mo.u mo. mo. mo. mo. No. mo. mo. mp. o.P cm. om. mo. mp. Pm. op. pm. Fm. mm. mm. _N. we. we. mm. mm. NP. KN. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. ow. Fm. mm. m_. «N. om. m—. mm. Fe. KN. mm. mm. mm. mm. ¢©. me. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. om. cm. mm. on. qv. mm. mm. mm. 05. mv. Ne. mm. mm. mm. wv. mm. mm. Nq. mm. om. mm. em. em. mm. mw. «m. mm. mm. mm. Fm. mm. mm. mm. AF“ um mPaEmmv chommwo cm m;a_< cum: chumz cowpmpmccou mFmomicmacH m mpnmh @— up o_ m? wp m— N_ PF op .o .m F-Nm 84 m: t 0—. m: 3 m_. N_. I o— m m \r o m w m N P om. _m. mm. om. pm. me. me. mq. Fm. NF. mN. KM. KN. mm. mm. um. Nv. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. 50. Ne. ov. mm. «N. am. ow. qN. ow. me. Nm. Pv. m¢. mm. mm. um. Nm. _m. mN. ow. mm. .m. mm. NN. we. mN. mN. me. mm. mm. mm. mm. cw. mm. cm. mp. wN. mm, MN. pm. we. mm. vm. mu. _m. mm. om. mm. nm. 0—. 0N. Nm. mF. Fm. om. _N. Nm. mm. me. No. ow. om. mo. RN. wm. mp. «m. ma. Nm. ov. me. o.F we. we. mp. 0N. mN. mN. .mm. mm. mm. ma. ow. mo. N©., wp. MN. KN. mN. Nm. «N. oN. qm. 0N. cm. VP. mN. cm. m_. Km. mm. mm. mu. we. Fm. on. ow. Pm. om. mN. mm. em. RN. mm. No. em. mm. ow. mm. mm. me. Nm. m¢. mm. mm. mm. me. mm. mm. mm. _¢. Nm. Km. mm. mm. Fm. mo. Km. mm. mm. we. em. ow. mm. Cu. Nm. om. _m. Nw. Amp om m_a5amv chommwo cw asap< saw; chpmz cowprmccou mfimumucmch o mpnmh NF u_ m_ m— ¢— mp Np FF 0— r—NM'Q'LDKONw 85 _oo. ¢_._m NF\_m. mN. mp\om. mm. mp a m_ _oo. ”N.¢ n_\Pm. mo. mp\¢w. mm. mm w up .m.c mm._ N_\_m. mo. op\mm- No. N” w on Foo. PN.¢ N_\_m. mo. m~\mm. mm. m_ a mp _oo. NP.Fm N_\_m. we. ¢P\Nm_ _¢. n_ a up _oo. No.0- m_\om. om. m_\N~. Ne. m_ w m_ _oo. «N.m- N_\ o.F 0.. _P\¢o, am. _p a NP .m.c o.o o_\ow. oo. Fp\qm. we. 0— a _p .m.c o.o o_\om. oo. _p\¢o. we. _F a oF .m.: on. - m\Nm. _o. o\mm. mm. o a m mo. mm.N m\mm. mo. m\Nw. om. m w w .m.: _m. N\mm. Po. «\mm. an. e a N .m.: on. . m\Nm. _o, m\mw. mm. m a 0 mo. mm. m\mm. mo. m\um. om. m a m .m.: Pm. N\mn. _o. ¢\mk. ox. N a q _oo. mm.m- m\mm. OP. m\om. on. o a m mo. No.N- N\mm. mo. m\wm. am. m a N .m.: Pm. _\mm. Po. «\mk. mN. a w P a p m_mom\mcap< mucmcmcwpo m_mum\m;ap< corpm—mccou mmpmum saw: . 304 . . mp:m_uwcmoou aca_< ummzoo saw: umcmagou Pu um cowampwccou mpmumicmucH pmmcmw: N mpnmh 86 Foo. Nm.m wF\om. NF. NF\mw. FF. FF w mF .m.: mN.F FF\ww. mo. mF\mm. mm. mF a FF .m.: ww. i NF\ww. No. mF\wm. ow. NF w oF .m.c mm.F NF\wm. mo. mF\ww.. mm, NF a mF Fo. no.N wF\Fm. oF. FF\mo. mm. FF w wF .m.c mF. mF\wm. Fo. mwao. mm. mF w mF .m.: N@. 1 NF\ o.F mo. FF\mo. mo. FF w NF .m.c mm. 1 oF\wm. No. FF\mo. Fm. OF N FF .m.: mm. 1 oF\wm. No. FFxmo. no. FF a CF Fo. Fw.Nn m\Fm. mo. o\mw. Fm. o w m .m.c NN. w\ww. Fo. m\©m. mm. m w m .m.: NN. N\Nm. Fo. w\om. Rm. w w m .m.: wm F- m\mm. mo. m\mm. Nm. m w m .m.: Fm. N\om. Fo. m\©w. Fm. N a m .m.: mm. F\Nw. wo. w\w~. ow. F a w .m.c wm.Fu ©\mw. mo. m\mw. Nm. m a m .m.: Fm. N\om. Fo. m\om. um. .m w N .m.: mm. F\Nw. wo. w\ou. ow. w a F a p mqum\m;qF< mucmcmFFFo mqum\m;aF< :onmchcou mqum c :3: . 33 . N mpcmFuFFFmou mzaF< “maze; zqu umcmaeoo a pm :oFFmchcou mFmomucmucF ummsmF: m anwF 87 Given the data shown in Tables 7 and 8, three decision rules were set up to determine which scale would be retained for further analysis. A scale was retained if it (1) showed a significant differ- ence between its highest inter-scale correlation and the lowest alpha coefficient in b93h_samples; (2) showed an absolute difference of five or more correlation units between its highest inter-scale correlation and the lowest alpha coefficient in both_samples; or (3) was the most psychologically meaningful scale of a set of theoretically and empir- ically related scales. Decision criteria (1) and (2) are, of course, operational definitions of discriminant validity. The difference between them is that (1) is entirely an inferential approach, while (2) involves practical considerations. In essence, to show discrim- inant validity a scale must not only show statistical significance, but must also show sufficient absolute difference to support the con- tention that it is usefully distinctive. According to these decision rules, seven out of the original eighteen scales were retained for further analyses. It was decided to retain scale one (perceived actual influence over one's own job). This scale failed to meet the first two criteria listed above, as did the two scales which are theoretically related to it; scale four (ideal influence over one's own job) and scale seven (importance of influence over one's own job). There is a marked clus- tering of these three scales in both samples. Scales one and four correlated .79 at t1 and .80 at t2, scales seven and four correlated .79 at t1 and .77 at t2. 88 It seems likely, therefore, that all three scales are measuring the same construct at both points in time. If it is assumed that actual influence is likely to be most psychologically salient in everyday activity, it may be asserted that the subjects were responding to all three scales in terms of their actual influence. Thus, it was decided to retain scale one as a valid measure of actual influence over one's own job. Scale two (perceived actual influence over the activities of one's own department) was also retained for further analysis. Again, this scale failed to meet the first two decision criteria, as did scales five (ideal influence over activities of one's department) and eight (importance of influence over activities of one's department), which are logically related. There was, however, marked clustering amongst these three scales, in both samples. Scales two and five correlated .84 at t1 and .87 at t2. Scales eight and five correlated .90 at t1 and .85 at t2. As in the case of scale one, it seems likely that all three scales are measuring the same construct at both points in time. Further, the same argument can be made that actual influence is the most psycho- logically salient, and therefore the subjects were responding to all three scales in terms of the actual influence. It was decided, there- fore, to retain scale two as a valid measure of actual influence over the activities of one's own department. Scale three (perceived actual influence over activities of company) was retained. Like scales one and two, both scale three and its logically related scales, six (ideal influence over activities of company) and nine (importance of influence over actiVities of company), 89 failed to meet the first two decision criteria. Scales three and six correlated .76 at t1 and .82 at t2. Scales nine and six correlated .88 at t1 and .81 at t2. As in the previous two cases, it seems likely that all three of these scales are measuring the same construct. In addition, the same argument for retaining the actual influence scale over the others may be applied. Thus, it was decided to retain scale three as a valid measure of actual influence over the activities of the company. Scale ten (commitment to the Scanlon Plan) was retained. This scale failed to meet the first two decision criteria, as did scales eleven (public feedback) and twelve (frequency of difficult issue settlement through participation). Scales ten and eleven correlated .64 at t] and .67 at t2. Scales twelve and eleven correlated .54 at t1 and .66 at t2. Again, it appears these three scales are measuring the same construct. An examination of the item content of scales revealed that they all dealt with the communication of suggestion and/or the communication of actions taken on suggestions. Thus, it seems likely that the psychological dimension being tapped by these three scales is the commitment of the company to the Scanlon Plan as reflected in per- ceived communications relationships in the suggestion-implementation process. It was felt that the content of scale ten best reflected this notion of commitment to the Scanlon Plan and the scale was retained for further analysis. Scale fourteen (linkage between suggestions and bonuses) was retained. It showed discriminant validity according to both decision criteria. 90 Scale seventeen (job motivation) was retained. This scale met both discriminant validity criteria with respect to scale eighteen (identification with the company). It did not, however, meet either criteria with respect to scale fifteen (instrumentality of job behav- iors) or scale sixteen (valence of job outcomes). This finding is to be expected because scale seventeen is the product of scores on scales fifteen and sixteen. Further, it should be noted that although scale thirteen (goal clarity) showed discriminant validity at t], its second highest correlation was with scale fifteen at t], and that it failed to show discriminant validity with scale fifteen at t2. An examination of the items on each scale indicates that scale thirteen most likely tapped the same psychological dimension as scale fifteen. The rela- tively high correlation (r==.67) between scale thirteen and scale seventeen at t2 supports this interpretation. Scale eighteen (identification with the company) was retained. It showed discriminant validity according to both decision criteria. The net result of the foregoing scale validation procedure is a marked reduction in the number of scales available for further analysis. Out of an original set of eighteen scales, seven have man- aged to demonstrate sufficient validity according to the three decision rules utilized above to be retained. These seven scales are listed in Table 9 below. 91 Table 9 Remaining Valid Questionnaire Scales Scale No. Scale Name 1 Perceived actual influence over one's own job. 2 Perceived actual influence over activities of one's own dept. 3 Perceived actual influence over activities of the company. 10 Perceived commitment to the Scanlon Plan. 14 Perceived linkage between bonuses and suggestions. 17 Job motivation. 18 Identification with company A further result of the scale validation procedure is to reduce the number of testable hypotheses from twenty to two. The hypotheses put forth in Chapter I may be divided into four groups: (1) Five deal- ing with actual influence; (2) Five dealing with ideal influence; (3) Five dealing with the importance of influence, and (4) Five dealing with influence congruence. None of the hypotheses made in group two and three may be tested because no valid scales were found for perceived ideal influence or for the judged importance of influence. None of the hypotheses in group four may be tested because no valid measure of ideal influence was found. At first it would appear that the five remaining hypotheses in group one may be tested because three valid scales of perceived actual influence were found. All five of these hypotheses dealt with a causal relationship between five organizational variables and one actual influence variable, however, and only two scales (ten 92 and fourteen) were found to be valid measures of two out of the five organizational variables. Since only two valid measures of organiza- tional variable were found, only two hypotheses out of the first group of five may be tested. Specifically, hypothesis 1 may be tested using scales one, two, three, and ten, while hypothesis 5 may be tested using scales one, two, three, and fourteen. All other hypotheses are untestable. Mean Differences While they do not bear directly upon the hypotheses to be tested, changes in the mean values of the remaining valid scales are of interest. The question being asked here is: what significant changes took place in the variables measured by the remaining seven scales between t1 and t2? The amount and direction of change in each of the seven vari- ables of interest is shown in Table 10. A multivariate F-ratio was computed for all seven scales and was considered significant (F =3.44, de=7 and 40, p<<.006). The univariate tests which were subsequently conducted are shown in Table 10. Two conclusions may be drawn from the consideration of the results presented in Table 10. First, there were significant changes in the means of scales fourteen, seventeen and eighteen between t1 and t2. Second, all three changes were decreases. In other words, to the extent that these three scales have construct validity, it appears that there were decreases in the perceived explicitness of the linkage 93 Table 10 Amount and Direction of Change in Mean Scale Values Scale Mean t1 Mean t2 Difference F 1 3.38 3.53 +0.14 0.92 2 2.69 2.92 +0.23 2.56 ‘ 3 1.97 1.92 -0.05 0.13 10 3.48 3.25 -O.23 2.44 14 2.81 2.23 -O 58 6.61* 17 18.65 16.33 --2.32 13.45** 18 3.75 3.51 -O.24 7.l9* *p‘<.01 **p < .001 between the suggestions and bonuses, job motivation, and identification with the company during the lapse between questionnaire administrations. Hypothesis Testing As was noted in Chapter I, all cross-lagged panel analyses involve four competing interpretations. It was asserted that three of these relationships are patently implausible. Thus, the analyses pre- sented below may be assumed to be testing the one of the two "congruent" interpretations. These two interpretations are: (a) The state of event 1 at time 1 causes the state of event 2 at time 2 gr_(b) The state of event 2 at time 1 causes the state of event 1 at time 2. Figures 2 through 9 present the results of the cross-lagged panel analysis. 94 A.I. (Job) A.I. (Job) .369 t = —l.98 p < 005, one-tailed .433 .304 all" ” 088 .413 Commitment Commitment Figure 4 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over One's Own Job A.I. (Department) A.I. (Department) .652 t = -l.93 p < .05, one-tailed .435 .216 .0 ° 092 .413 Commitment Commitment Figure 5 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over the Activities of One's Own Department 95 A.I. (Company) ' A.I. (Company) .576 t = -.86 n.s. .134 .015 \gbr ° 033 .413 Commitment Commitment Figure 6 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for Organizational Commitment to the Scanlon Plan and Actual Influence over the Activities of the Company A.I. (Job) A.I. (Job) .369 t = -l 98 p < .05, one-tailed .069 .330 .356 ° 002 .392 Linkage Linkage Figure 7 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over One's Own Job F 96 A.I. (Department) A.I. (Department) .652 t = -3.13 p < .005, one-tailed .296 .299 .392 Linkage Linkage Figure 8 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over the Activities of One's Own Department A.I. (Company) A.I. (Company) .576 t = 1.14 n.s. .268 .103 301 I “70.9 0392 Linkage Linkage Figure 9 Cross-Lagged Correlation Panel for the Organizational Bonus-Suggestion Linkage and Actual Influence over the Activities of the Company 97 Figures 4, 5, and 6 display the results of the three separate tests of hypothesis 1. Figures 7, 8, and 9 display the results of the three tests of hypothesis 5. All six sets of cross-lagged correlations have been corrected utilizing the method described by Crano, Kenny and Campbell (1970). As may be seen in the figures above, the correlation coeffi- cients between scales measuring organizational variables at t1 and the scales measuring the influence variable at t2 were significantly larger than their complimentary cross-lagged correlations in four out of six cases. The remaining two comparisons were not significantly different, although the correlations between the organizational variables and the influence variables were consistently greater than the complimentary cross-lagged correlations. These findings are summarized in Tables 11 and 12. Support was found for both hypotheses l and 5. Apparently the level of organizational commitment to the Scanlon Plan at t] is the predominant cause of the level of perceived actual influence at t2 with respect to both the respondents' own job and the activities of their own department. This finding does not hold for the activities of the com- pany. Secondly, an explicit link between the suggestion process and bonus payments at t1 is the predominant cause of the level of perceived actual influence at t2 with respect to the respondents' own jobs and the activities of their departments. Again this finding does not hold for the activities of the company. 98 .ommo uchap-mco. mmo. NF FemEuFEEoo a FF mocmaFFcF Fmsuu< xcmasou .m.c mmm. - me. No mucmchcF Fasou< a F“ seasoFEEou mmc. Np peaspFEEOQ a Fp mucszccH Fmspo< N F pcmEuLmamo mo. omm.F- ewe. o mucmchcH Fmsou< a o pewsoFeeou “mo. No “gasoFEEOU a Fp moemchcF Fasoo< N F now :20 mo. mNm.F- FFw. p mocszFcF Fasoo< a o “cmEoFesou an a conmchcou manmFLm> mmc< mucmachF mco mmezuoqxz mcFummF mcoFFmchcoo wmmmmoimmocu FF anmF 99 .omoo ooFFoo-ooo. NoF. No oooono o Fo oooooFooN Fooooo Acooeou .m.o ooF.F- Nom. No oooooFcoH Fooooo o Fo oooxooo Noo. No oooxooo o Fo oooooFcoH _oooo< N F ucmsucoamo moo. mmF.m- mom. o oooooFcoH Fooooo o o oooxooo Noo. No oooono o F» oooooFcoH Foooo< N F ooo ozo mo. ooo.F- mom. o oooooFcoH Foooo< o o oooono . so u conochcou manoFco> omc< mucmaFFcF m>Fm mmecuooxz mcFummF mconochcou womaoqummoco NF anmF 100 In sum, out of six possible tests of the two remaining hypotheses, each hypothesis was significantly supported twice. All significant results were derived from the same areas of possible influence--an employee's own job and the activities of his department. Both non-significant results were derived from possible influence over activities of the company. Even in the latter cases, however, the direction of difference supported the hypotheses. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The central variable of this study is personal influence, and it is quite logical to wonder why the study of personal influence should be undertaken at all. In essence, the reason is simply that the exer- cise of personal influence in the work situation is an antidote to the feelings alienation brought about by the fractionation effect of modern technology. One of the tendencies of current technology is to isolate the worker from the total organizational effort. In today's parlance, he is becoming irrelevant. The fundamental contention here is that all members of an organization are highly relevant to its success in the market place and that this success can only be assured by creating organizational environments which enhance their dignity and personal integrity. A critical component in promoting the self-respect of organizational members is to maximize their Opportunities and abilities to exert personal influence over those aspects of the work situation which are important to them. In recent years, a prominent means of enhancing personal influ- ence has been through promotion of participative managerial styles. The contention of those theorists and investigators advocating participation is that enhancing a person's influence over those aspects of organiza- tional activities which are most salient to him will increase his own 101 nlfl In“ .H ; 102 effectiveness and thereby contribute to the effectiveness of the entire organization. There has been, therefore, considerable research into the dynamics and results of participation in general and participative decision-making (PDM) systems in particular. The Scanlon Plan is an example of participation in action. From a participative philosophy, a set of PDM mechanics has been devised which hinge on the increased exertion of personal influence throughout the organization. The fundamental objective in implementing a Scanlon Plan is to charge everyone in the firm with greater mutual responsibil- ity for the organization's welfare. If the Plan is to be successfully E- implemented, therefore, everyone in the organization must exert personal influence in order to achieve this objective. Thus, the exercise of personal influence is central to the implementation of a Scanlon Plan in particular and PDM in general. Given this central importance of personal influence, it seems quite appropriate to study it during the implementation of a Scanlon Plan. It should be pointed out that the exercise of personal influence called for by the Scanlon Plan is typically not found in most organiza- tions and therefore the people at all levels in a firm implementing the Plan must learn appropriate influence styles. This principle holds true regardless of organizational rank. So long as influence is work-related and basically intended to enhance the organization's effectiveness, it must flow upward and downward as well as laterally in the firm's hierarchy. With regards to operations, there can be no sacred cows taking shelter under managerial prerogatives. Naturally, during the 103 implementation of a Scanlon Plan, there are likely to be sharp confrontations within the company as its personnel redefine their roles under a highly participative system. Thus, there is a strong need in any company implementing a Scanlon Plan for periodic program evaluation to gain insight into the ongoing organizational dynamics as the Plan is implemented. The logical focus of this study is the set of hypotheses generated in Chapter I, and it seems appropriate to review the assump- tions and assertions which lead to them. First, a model of personal influence was generated based on Cartwright's (1965) theoretical work and Tannenbaum's (l968) empirical studies. It was assumed that there are at least two types of personal influence, actual and ideal. As corollaries, it was asserted that: (a) Personal influence may be more or less important to an individual, and (b) Actual and ideal influence may be more or less congruent. Secondly, the social-psychological nature of participative decision-making was explicated through the theoretical analysis presented by Lowin (1968) and the numerous field, laboratory and survey studies reviewed in Chapter I. Following Lowin, it was assumed that PDM was a mode of organizational operations in which decisions are made by those persons who are most likely to execute them. Three corollaries follow: (1) It is generally asserted by pro-PDM theorists and investigators that a highly participative organization tends to be a highly effective organization, (2) Partic- ipation necessarily involves personal influence, and (3) The Scanlon Plan is a specific case of PDM. Thirdly, a logical extension of the 104 corollary that participation necessarily involves personal influence is that any causes of a successful PDM program are also causes of personal influence. Thus a list of five organizational causes of a successful PDM program was generated from Lowin's discussion and applied to the model of personal influence. Finally, on the assumption that the Scanlon Plan is a special case of PDM, twenty hypotheses were generated regarding the causal relationships between the perceived level of the five organizational variables described by Lowin and the subse- quent perceived level of the personal influence variables drawn from the influence model. The basic proposition underlying all twenty hypotheses is really quite simple. It is that the perceived level of an organizational variable of theoretical importance to the implementation of a Scanlon Plan is a contributing cause of the subsequent perceived level of a personal influence variable. Implicit in this statement is the assump- tion that there may be a set of co-acting causes of perceived personal influence which are not specified here. Each of the twenty hypotheses listed in Chapter I amounted to a separate and highly specific statement of this proposition. Support for any or all of these hypotheses amounts to support for the basic proposition of this study. It was found in Chapter III that two hypotheses out of the original twenty could actually be tested. The reason for this reduction was that the scales needed to measure the variables specified by these hypotheses were invalid. This finding should not be too surprising, however, in light of the fact no previous scales had been constructed 105 to measure the causal variables postulated by Lowin and no attempt has been made to validate the influence scales used by Tannenbaum. Enough scales were found to be valid, however, to test the following hypotheses: 1. The level of perceived commitment to the Scanlon Plan at one point in time is the predominant cause of the level of perceived actual influence at a subsequent point in time. 2. The perception of an explicit link between suggestions and bonus payments at one point in time is the pre- dominant cause of the level of perceived actual influence at a subsequent point in time. It should be noted with respect to hypothesis 1 that the perceived commitment of the organization to the Scanlon Plan was Operationalized in terms of the perceptions of how committed management was to the Plan. Three tests of each of these two hypotheses were made. First, each hypothesis was tested with regards to actual influence over one's own job. Second, it was tested regarding actual influence over the activities of one's own department. Third, it was tested regarding actual influence over the activities of the entire company. All six tested utilized the cross-lagged panel correlation technique. The first hypothesis listed above, delineating the causal relationship between perceived organizational commitment to the Scanlon Plan and perceived actual influence, was supported with regards to the respondents' own jobs and their own departments. It was not supported regarding the activities of the company. The predominant cause of the level of subsequent perceived actual influence over one's own job and the activities of one's own department was the previous level of per- ceived managerial commitment to the Scanlon Plan. — "w - Inn—m 106 The second hypothesis, dealing with the causal relationship between the explicitness of the link between suggestion and bonus payments on the one hand and perceived actual influence on the other was also supported with regards to the respondent's own jobs and the activities of their own departments. Again, this hypothesis was not supported with regards to the activities of the entire company. Thus, the explicitness of the link between suggestions and bonuses was the predominant cause of the level of subsequent perceived actual influence over one's own job and the activities of one's own department. Although neither hypothesis was supported with regards to the activities of the company, it should be pointed out that the difference between the cross-lagged correlations were found to be in the predicted direction. The cross-lagged correlation between commitment and actual influence was .184, while the complimentary correlation between actual influence and commitment was .033. The cross-lagged correlation between suggestion-bonus linkage and actual influence was .307, while the com- plimentary correlation between actual influence and suggestion-bonus linkage was .108. As was pointed out in Chapter I, causation is con- ceived of here as a matter of degree, and to the extent that this conception is a meaningful interpretation of the "real world," it seems plausible to argue that in regard to the activities of the company the trend of causation is from organizational variable to influence variable, rather than vice versa. Thus, all of the findings reviewed here support the basic contention of this study. Positive evidence has been found that an 107 organizational variable of presumed importance to the implementation of a Scanlon Plan is a contributing cause of subsequent perceived personal influence. In fact, no evidence to the contrary was found. There are implications in this finding for Lowin's theoretical work on PDM. As was discussed in Chapter I, Lowin visualizes greater participation resulting from a shift in attitudes throughout the orga- nization fromanihierarchical (HIER) to a participative decision-making (PDM) mode. Such a shift must occur at all levels and in all areas of I the organization. The findings of this study have two important impli- cations for Lowin's argument. First, they Openly assert the validity i of the causative nature of the parameters of PDM which he discusses. His treatment seems to imply that these parameter conditions must be satisfied, at least to some extent before meaningful HIER-PDM shift can occur. The basic proposition supported in this study is that at least two of his parameters are actually causes. Lowin's logic can therefore be revised such that an organizational parameter variable is a cause of personal influence and thereby a cause of a successful HIER-PDM shift. Second, the causative nature of Lowin's parameters has cense- quence for an external change agent. In essence, to the extent that he can effect a parameter variable, he will cause the organization to shift in a PDM direction. Lowin's discussion and the research reported here should give him a better idea of the organizational variables to which he might most profitably devote his energies. There are further implications for the Scanlon Plan. As was pointed out in Chapter I, the Scanlon Plan is an example of PDM. It 108 acts as a vehicle to foster participation and personal influence, thereby shifting an organization from an HIER mode to a PDM mode of operations. Thus, as was the case for Lowin's discussion of PDM, the causative nature of the variables investigated here are of central importance to the successful implementation of a Scanlon Plan. It appears that a company's perceived commitment to the philosophy and practices of the Scanlon Plan is a contributing cause of an important aspect of its implementation—-the level of perceived personal influence enjoyed by its members. Further, the linkage between suggestions and bonuses is a contributing cause of this same variable of perceived personal influence. Finally, there is a clear implication here for Tannenbaum's work on influence in organizations. Tannenbaum has demonStrated a correla- tional linkage between perceived personal influence and such variables as job satisfaction, motivation and organizational efficiency. This study has demonstrated a causal linkage between two organizational states and perceived personal influence. In effect, the results of this study point up two areas of organizational climate which effect personal influence and thereby effect the outcomes which Tannenbaum has demonstrated. It should be mentioned that the findings reported in Chapter III must be treated with some caution. There was a wage disagreement between the president of the company and some of the employees the day before the second questionnaire was sent out. This disagreement prompted the president to draft a letter to all employees regarding this disagree- ment (Appendix F). This letter was attached to the questionnaires that 109 were mailed out. The attitudes reported above could have resulted partially from temporary feelings on the part of the employees toward the letter, rather than toward the Scanlon Plan. Although they were tangential to the main concern of this research, mean differences on the seven valid scales did occur and three of them were significant. Specifically (1) There was a significant decrease of .58 points on a five point scale measuring the linkage between suggestions and bonueses; (2) There was a significant decrease of 2.32 points on a twenty-five point scale measuring job motivation; and (3) There was a significant decrease of .24 points on a five point scale measuring identification with the company. It seems likely that the only one bonus being paid during the period between surveys may have had a considerable effect upon the employees' attitudes. As was shown above, employees felt it was less likely that their suggestions would result in a Scanlon bonus at the time of the second survey than they did at the time of the first survey. These employees may have lost confidence in their ability to generate bonuses through the Scanlon suggestion procedure. The more negative attitude toward the job may have a similar basis. Job motivation was defined in terms of getting certain rewards, including a Scanlon bonus, for working more efficiently. Employees may have begun to doubt that working more efficiently would actually result in a Scanlon bonus. Finally, the decrease in positive attitude toward the degree to which the goals of the company are also the goals of its employees may reflect a heightened mistrust in management's intentions regarding the Scanlon _;-'._ "Ir. :"'\..." ’3‘: ) 110 Plan. Although only one bonus had been paid, many employees may have felt that they have been giving the plan a "good try." It is possible, therefore, that some employees feel that management had manipulated the Plan so that it would not "pay off" as frequently as expected. All three of the attitudes which showed a decrease may also have been effected by the changes in employee expectations of how well F" they could make the Plan work. It is likely that at the beginning of g the implementation of the Plan, many employees expected that they would ' begin producing financial benefits for themselves in a short period. j As time passed between surveys, these expectations were probably not E realized. Some employees may have become disillusioned with the Scanlon Plan in general, and with their ability to exert influence in particular. This disillusionment could be reflected in the decrease in positive attitudes reported above. Support for both these avenues of interpretation can be found in the employees' written comments in Appendix G. Many employees in the matched sample chose to include notes or essays along with their completed questionnaires. All the comments reported in Appendix G are from the August survey; there were no written comments in the February survey. A casual content analysis of these comments reveals disappoint- ment with the lack of bonus payments and a generalized suspicion of management's intentions. In reviewing the comments, it seems that much of the complaining about wages can also be attributed to a disappoint- ment with the lack of bonus payments. Further, many of the complaints about "poor management" are linked to inuendos or outright statements 111 that the Scanlon Plan was instituted by management to trip off? the employees. Also, it is apparent that many employee expectations regarding the success of the Plan were dashed. Invidious comparisons between the financial outcomes of the Plan in the company studied and at other companies in the area are made. Several employees seem to feel that the Plan is strictly "for management," in contrast to what they had been told when the Plan was first introduced. The implementation of any PDM program takes time, often a long period of time. As Lowin (1968) has pointed out, not only must the PDM structure be fostered, but the HIER structure must be altered. A PDM program will not be fully implemented until it meets the needs of all members of the organization. In the case of the company studied, it seems likely that not enough time has passed, and possibly not enough effort has been exerted, to replace the HIER structure with a PDM structure. Lawler (1968) has clearly pointed up the criticality of measuring variables at optimal points in time to accurately gauge their causal relations. The contention here is that, provided valid scales can be constructed, another survey at a later time would support the causal relationships hypothesized above because of the lengthy time delay inherent in an HIER-PDM organizational change. In particular, during the application of the Scanlon Plan in changing from HIER system to PDM system, the management of a company implementing the Plan should be perceived as being committed to the philosophy and practices of the Plan if it is to work properly. Further, effective screening committee meetings should give all employees concrete evidence of the suggestion- bonus linkage. These meetings should be aimed at two other goals: If. 112 (1) Providing all participants with feedback regarding the levels of actual influence they exert in the organization; and (2) Giving a clear indication of management's commitment to the Plan by their willingness to take cooperative action. Production committee meetings should result in action at levels most immediate to the rank-and-file. In this way, employees can experiment with constructive innovations in those aspects of their jobs with which they are most familiar. Acceptance and trust should be demonstrated by the openness of exchanges and influence among all hierarchical levels. Task-oriented communications channels should be established throughout the organization as vehicles for employees to express their ideas on how to improve operations. The experiences of employees should confirm the linkage between their suggestions to improve efficiency and bonuses. These experiences are important because they fulfill the employees' expectancy of equitable treatment. If they feel they have cooperated with the Scanlon Plan system, they feel they should receive the financial rewards resulting from their efforts. This point is logically parallel to Lawler's (1971) notion that an important component of organizational effectiveness is the subjective certainty of receiving financial rewards for a higher level and/or quality of effort. The most important contribution of this study has been the identification of the gausgl_importance of managerial commitment and suggestion-bonus linkage to the implementation of the Scanlon Plan. It can now be asserted with reasonable confidence that both these variables are contributing causes to the success of the Plan and should therefore be attended to in any attempt to implement it. 113 This line of correlational-causal research should be pursued in order to identify further contributing causes of successful Scanlon Plan installation. There are at least three steps involved in this continuing research: (1) More valid scales of presumed cause and effect variables should be constructed; (2) More sophisticated research methods should be applied. A more sophisticated approach might be modeled after the thoughts and efforts of Sandel (1971) and Vroom (1966). Two objec- tives of such research would be to partially eliminate the possibility of a third causal variable determining the levels of both Specified variables and discovering the optimal time lag between cause and effect. (3) To the degree that more valid scales are devised and applied in more revealing research paradigms, the student and practitioner of organiza- tional change, would have a far better idea of what issues are most important in bring about an HIER-PDM shift in conjunction with the efforts of all members of the organization. Some final comments on organizational change and research are in order. Whenever a change agent enters an organization, he is faced with an ongoing situation with both an intrinsic and an extrinsic his- tory. At first, both the organization and the change agent are only vaguely aware of the dimensions of this social-psychological situation. This situation is, nevertheless, highly important to the effectiveness of any proposed change. An assessment of the present situation is therefore highly desirable from both the organization's and change agent's standpoints. Thus, the question to which the organizational researcher must address himself arises: What is the current social- 114 psychological milieu in this organization which is pertinent to the proposed organizational change? Of particular importance is variability expectations in the organizational members concerning changes. This variability arises from the different perspectives of organizational members. Management, for example, typically has a broader array of information relevant to the organizational change than does the rank-and-file. It is quite possible, therefore, that management's expectations regarding change may differ sharply from those of the line workers. The process of becoming aware of these differences in expectation and accommodating them is a necessary discipline for any viable organizational change. As the efforts toward organizational change proceed, the researcher has the opportunity to repeatedly assess the fulfillment of these expectations and to measure the degree and type of change which has occurred. It is in this role of "assessment agent" that the organizational researcher can make considerable contributions to the change program. He can provide both the organization and the external change agent with a reasonably accurate picture of what the change effort had produced up to a given point in time. More specifically, he can give all members of the organization a better idea of what their expectations of the change program were and to what degree they have been fulfilled. On the basis of this objective assessment, appropriate decisions can be made to guide future change efforts. In sum, the functions of organizational change and research are complimentary. A change effort brings about excellent opportunities for research, while accurate research findings, properly fed back, provide the basis for further constructive change. REFERENCES 1' w :- - 1; REFERENCES Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, 0., and Sanford, R. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1950. Argeris, C. Personality and organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Barnard, C. The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,’l938. Bock, A., and Haggard, R. The use of multivariate analyses of variance in behavioral research. In D. Whitla, Handbook of_measurement and asgessment in behavioral sciences. Reading, Mass.:' Addiso-Wésley, 9 8. Bowers, 0. Organizational control in an insurance company. Sociometry, 1964. 32, 230-244. Campbell, D., and Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81-105. Campbell, D., and Stanley, J. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. Gage (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963. Campbell, J., Dunnette, M., Lawler, E., and Weick, K. Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Cartwright, D. Influence, leadership, and control. In J. March (Ed.) Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965, pp. 1-47. Coch, L., and French, J. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-532. Crano, W., Kenny, D., Campbell, 0. Does intelligence cause achievement?:. A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972. 63, 258-275. Cronbach, L., and Meehl, P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 283-303. 115 "I b 116 Dahl, R. The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 1957, 2, 201-218. Davenport, R. Enterprise for everyone. In F. Lesieur (Ed.), 115; Scanlon Plan: A frontier in labor-management cooperation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1958, pp. 17-33. Day, R., and Hamblin, R. Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 69, 499-510. Dunnette, M. Personnel selection and placement. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub., 1966. Flanagan, J. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327-358. Fleishman, E. Attitude versus skill factors in work group productivity. Personnel Psychology. 1965, 18, 253-266. French, J., Israel, A., and As, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 3-19. French, J., and Raven, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies_jn social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1959, pp. 150-167. French, J., Ross, C., Kirby, 5., Nelson, J., and Smith, P. Employee participation in a program of industrial change. Personnel, 1958, 35, 16-29. French, J., and Snyder, R. Leadership and interpersonal power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1959, pp. 118-149. Ghiselli, E. Moderating effects and differential reliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 42, 81-86. Gilman, G. An inquiry into the nature and use of authority. In M. Haire (Ed.), Organization theory and industrial practice. Gilson, T., and Lefcowitz, M. A plant-wide productivity bonus in a small factory: Study of an unsuccessful case. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1957, 19, No. 2, 284-296. Graen, G. Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimental results and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, g, No. 2, Part 2, 1-25. 117 Guilford, J. Fundamental statistics in s cholo and education. New York: McGraw-Rill BooR Company, 1565. Helfgott, R. Group wage incentives: Experience with the Scanlon Plan. Industrial relations Memo No. 141, New York: Industrial Relations Counselors, Inc.:Tl962. Hertzberg, D., Mausner, R., and Snyderman, B. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley, 1959. Howard, K., and Krause, M. Some comments on "Techniques for estimating the source and direction of influence in panel data." Psychological Bulletin, 1970, _7__4_, 219-224. Hummel, T., and Sligo, J. Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate: Analyses of variance procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, Z5, 49-57. Indik, B., Georgopoulous, 8., and Seashore, S. Superior-subordinate relationships and performance. Personnel Psychology, 1961, 15, 357-374. Katz, D., and Kahn, R. The social_psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966. Katz, D., Macoby, N., and Morse, N. Productivity supervision and morale in an office situation. Surbey Research Center, University of MiEhigan, 1950. King, 0. A multiplant factor and analysis of employee's attitudes toward their company. Journal of_Applied P§ychology, 1960, 59, 241-243. Lawler, E. A correlation-causal analysis of the relationship between expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 462-468. Lawler, E. Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lawrence, L., and Smith, P. Group decision and employee participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 55, 334-337. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Lesieur, F., and Puckett, E. The Scanlon Plan has proved itself. Harvard Business Review, 1969, 51, 109-118. 118 Lesieur, F. The Scanlon Plan: A frontier in labor-management cooperation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1958. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., and White, R. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Lowin, A. Participative decision making: A model, literature critique and prescription for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 5, 68-106. Marrow, A., Bowers, D., and Seashore, S. Management by participation. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Maslow, A. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. McGregor, D. The significance of Scanlon's contribution. In F. Lesieur (Ed.), The Scanlon Plan: A frontier in labor-management cooperation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1958, pp. 7-16. Miles, R. Human relations or human resources? Harvard Business Review, 1965, fl§, 148-163. Morse, N., and Reimer, E. The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 120-129. Patchen, M. Some questionnaire measures of employee motivation and morale: A report on their reliability_and validity. Monograph #41, Ann Arbor, Mich., Institute for Social Research, 1965. Peak, H. Attitude and motivation. In M. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1955, pp. 149-T88. Peltz, D., and Andrews, F. Detecting causal priorities in panel study data. American Sociological Review, 1964, 25, 836-848. Porter, L. Job attitudes in management: 1. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 55, 375-384. Porter, L., and Lawler, E. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968. Puckett, E. Measuring performance under the Scanlon Plan. In F. Lesieur (Ed.), The Scanlon Plan: A frontier in labor-management cooperation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1958. 119 Ritchie, J., and Miles, R. An analysis of quantity and quality of participation and mediating variables in the participative decision making process. Personnel Psychology, 1970, 25, 347-359. Rozzelle, R., and Campbell, D. More plausible rival hypotheses in the cross-lagged panel correlation technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 11, 74-80. Sandell, R. A note on choosing between competing interpretations of cross-lagged panel correlations. Eoychological Bulletin, 1971, 75, 367-368. Scheflen, K., Lawler, E., and Hackman, J. Long-term impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans: A field experiment revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 182-186. I "M “N “TI" . Seashore, S., and Bowers, 0. Changing the structure and functioning of an organization: Report 0f7a field experiment. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1963. Seashore, S., and Bowers, D. Durability of organizational change. American Beychologist, 1969, 25, 227-234. Shaw, M. A comparison of two types of leadership in various communica- tion nets. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 59, 127-134. Shultz, G. Worker participation on production problems. In F. Lesieur (Ed.), The Scanlon Plan: A frontier in labor-management cooperation. Cambridge, Mass.: *MIT Press,Tl958, pp. 50-64. Simon, H. Administrative behavior. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Smith, C., and Jones, G. The role of the interaction-influence system in a planned organizational change. InéA. Tannenbaum (Ed.), Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1968, pp. 165-184. Smith, C., and Tannenbaum, A. Organizational control structure: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 1963, 15, 299-316. Smith, C., and Ari, 0. Organizational control structure and member consensus. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 43, 623-638. Smith, P. The development of a method of measuring job satisfaction: The Cornell studies. In E. Fleishman (Ed.), Studies in personnel and industrial psychology. Homewood, 111.: Dersey Press, 1967. 120 Stagner, R., Chalmers, W., and Derber, M. Guttmen-type scales for union and management attitudes toward each other.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 293-300. Stogdill, R. Individual behavior and group achievement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Strauss, G. Some notes on power-equalization. In H. Leavitt (Ed.), The social science of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Strauss, G., and Sayles, L. The Scanlon Plan: Some organizational i problems. Human Organization, 1957, 15, 15-22. _ , Tait, R. Some experiences with a union-management cooperation plan. 1 Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Industrial RElations Research Association, 1952:7167-173. Tannenbaum, A. Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Tannenbaum, A. Control and effectiveness in a voluntary organization. American Journal of Sociology, 1961, 51, 33-46. Tannenbaum, A. Social psychology of the work organization. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1966. Tannenbaum, A., and Smith, C. Effects of member influence in an organization: Phenomenology versus organization structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 55, 401-410. Tannenbaum, A., and Allport, F. Personality structure and group structure: An interpretative study of their relationship through an event structure hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 55, 401-411. Thibaut, J., and Kelly, H. The socia1_p§ychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Tryon, R., and Bailey, D. Cluster analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Vroom, V. A comparison study of static and dynamic correlation methods in the study of organizations. Organizational BehaVior and HUman Performance, 1966, 1, 55-70. Vroom, V. Some personality determinates of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Eeychology, 1959, 55, 322-327. 121 Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. White, R., and Lippitt, R. Autocracy_and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Whyte, W. Money and motivation. New York: Harper, 1955. Yee, A., and Gage, N. Techniques for estimating the source and direction of causal influence in panel data. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 29, 115-126. "1 APPENDIX A bflIfiflIHXN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology YOUR JOB AND THE COMPANY The purpose of this study is to learn more about how the people in the Company work together and influence each other's decisions and actions. JMore specifically, the aim is to learn hOW'the Scanlon plan can.make working in the company even more rewarding. If this study is to be helpful, it is important that you answer each question as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. The important thing is that you answer the questions the way you really see things or the way you really feel about them. Your responses to these questions are completely confidential. None of the questionnaires, once they are filled out, will ever be seen by anyone in the company. When you have completed your questionnaire, put it in the envelope marked CONFIDENTIAL. Seal this envelope and turn it in to your foreman or supervisor on Monday. A researcher from Michigan State University, Mr. Gerry Burtnett, will pick up the envelopes that day. PLEASE ANSWER EACH QUESTION COMPLETELY. SECTION I . In this section of the questionnaire, a few quations are asked about where you work and what your position is at the Company. 1 . Which plant do you work in? (Please check one) Cl C: E] E: 2. Which department do you work in? (Please check one) a . b . c . d . O ffi ce Rough mill Machine Machine __Machine Cab inet __ Tr1m Quonset hut __ Cab inet Packing C ab inet Fini shing ___Fini shing F ini shing __ Trim T rim 3 . Your sex: Male Female Lt. Your age: years, months . 5. The term "supervisor" is used in several places in this questionnaire. This term refers to the person to whom you directly report. For example, if you are a production employee, your supervisor would be your foreman. If you are a foreman, your supervisor would be the plant manager. Please write in the name of your supervisor: ' --—- ‘1 6 . How long have your worked at the Company years, months. 7. Are you an elected member of a Production Committee? Yes No 8. Are you a member of the Screening Committee? Yes No SECTION II . Each question in this section can be answered by filling in the circle which most closely corresponds to what you think. The questions ask you about how much in- fluence you have in your ,job over your own work, over the activities of your department, or over the actions of the company. Each question is divided into three parts: (a) How much influence you have now, (b) how nmch influence you think you should have, and (c) how important each action or activity is to you in your job. FILL IN 3 CIRCLES PER QUESTION, 1 EACH FOR a, b, AND c. To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent 1. I decide how much I am going to turn out. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: @863 ©6969 @@@ @6969 @@@ c. This part of my job is important to me: 2. I determine the quality level of my output. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: @698 ©6969 @6969 @6369 @@@ c. This part of my job is important to me: 3. I determine how much effort I will exert. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: eee ooo ooo see see c. This part of my job is important to me: ‘w‘ ‘ . -3- I have a say in deciding who I will work with. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: (9 ® @Toaverylittleextent ® ® ® is . um. mm @ ® @ To some at... C9 C9 C9 r. a 3...: extent @ @ @ Toavery great exten c. This part of my ,job is important to me: I determine the methods I use to do my job. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: @699 @6969 @@® @6909 @@@ c. This part of my job is important to me: I influence how much my department turns out. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: ‘ @969 @6969 @@@ @6969 @@@ c. This part of my job is important to me: I determine the quality of my department's output. (969 a. This is the way it is now: (D b. This is the way it should be: 6) ® ® @6969 @6969 c. This part of my ,job is important to me: ® ® ® I influence the mmber of suggestions coming out of m department. a. This is the way it is now: CD (2) @ b. This is the way it should be: CD @ @ @6969 @@@ c. This part of my job is important to me: Q) ® ® I influence the order in which m department takes on its tasks. a. This is the way it is now: (D ® ® @ (:5) b. This is the way it should be: 0) ® C3) @ (‘9 c. This part of my job is important to me: Q) C2) C3) @ @ I help determine which people are assigned to certain jobs in my department. a. This is the way it is now: (D Q) @ @ @ b. This is the way it should be: C3) @ C3) @ G) G) ® (2) c. This part of my job is important to me: (D Q) Ill >_ ll. 12. 13. 11+. 15e l6. 17. I influence how machines are used in my department. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: 9 9 9 Toe very little exten ® ('9 @To a little extent c. This part of my job is important to me: I influence how much the company produces. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: 696969 @6969 c. This part of my job is important to me: I help determine the quality of the company's products. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: 696969 696969 c. This part of my job is important to me: I help choose what machines the company will buy. a. This is the way it is now: G) b. This is the way it should be: (D c. This part of my job is important to me: Q) I have a say in determining what raw materials the company '11 osooo oogooo a. This is the way it is now: ® b. This is the way it should be: CD @ c. This part of my job is important to me: (D (9 I have a say in how well the company maintains production machinery. a. This is the way it is now: ® C?) b. This is the way it should be: CD 6?) 69 c. This part of my job is important to me: C’- I influence the way work is scheduled through the plan . a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: 696969 @6969 c. This part of my job is important to 'me: @ @ @To some extent @6969 696969 @6969 696969 696969 @6969 C9 ® ® ® @6969 696969 @6969 <9 <9 C9 To a great extent 696969 @6969 69 69 69 696969 @6969 @ @ @ To a very great extel @6969 P ”in- 18. I help determine what products the company produces. a. This is the way it is now: b. This is the way it should be: 69 69 69 Toaverylittleextent 69 69 69 human... 69 69 69 To some .sent 69 69 69 r. a 3...: mm 69 69 69 Toavery great extent c. This part of my job is important to me: 19. I have control over the way this company trains its people on their jobs. a. This is the way it is now: 69 69 69 69 b. This is the way it should be: 6969 6969 6969 6969 696969 c. This part of'my job is important to me: SECTION III. an: In this section, there are several questions regarding the Scanlon plan in the Company. Place an "X" in the blank which corresponds to your answer. 1. My immediate supervisor is receptive to my ideas and suggestions on important matters. ___To a very little.__To a little ___To some.___To a great ___To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 2. Management is receptive to my suggestions and ideas on important matters. ___To a very little___To a little ___To some.___To a great ___To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 3. How seriously do you think your suggestions on important matters are taken by the Production Committee? .__Not very seriously____A little____Somewhat____Seriously.___Very seriously h. HOw seriously do you think your suggestions on important matters are taken by the Screening Committee? ___Not very seriously;___A little____Somewhat.___Seriously ___Very seriously 5. How often do you find out what action has been taken on your suggestions? Rarely Seldom. Sometimes Often Very Often 6. How often do other peOple around you know that you thought of a particular suggestion? Rarely Seldom Sometimes Often Very often 7. How often are difficult problems settled by suggestions? Rarely Seldom. Sometimes Often very often 8. How clear are your own performance goals to you? Not clear Not very Somewhat Clear very at all clear clear ‘ clear -6- 9. How clear are the performance goals of the people in your department? th clear th very Somewhat Clear very at all clear clear clear 10. To what extent do ideas and suggestions help bring about bonus payments? .___Tb a very little__.To a little___.To some.__.To a great.___To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 11. To what extent do your suggestions and ideas help bring about bonus payments? ___To a very little___To a little To some.___To a great.___To a very great extent extent extent extent extent SECTION IV. In this section, there are two sets of questions. The two areas covered are (1) how you feel about your job, and (2) how you feel about the Company. Part 1. The following set of questions askes you about the consequences you 'would expect to result from doing your job well. Please rate the chances of each consequence coming about if you do your Job well. To a very little extent To a very great extent ('9 6’) © 6’) ® ® To a little extent 1. Doing my job well increases my job security. 2. Doing my job well increases my chances of getting a Scanlon bonus. 3. Doing my Job well benefits my co-workers. h. Doing my job well helps me to get along with my co-workers. 5. Doing my job well increases my chances of being recognized as a good worker. 69 69 69 69 69 69 ® @ @ © @ @ To some extent (9 <9 <9 (‘9 ® (‘9 To a great extent 69 69 69 69 69 69 6. Doing my job well gives me a feeling of accomplishment. Six consequences of doing your job well are listed below. Please rate each con- sequence according to how important it is to you in your job. .20 o o o “0 £2 at o2 ~2 32 -n =0 «e 80 5a e a 5 t. 1. Job security: 2. Scanlon bonus: 696969. 696969. 696969 696969 696969 3. Benefits to co-workers: 0' little immnfl (Mann importance (Mann importance Ol 69 69 69 m3": ooo‘mm’ ’4. Getting along with co-workers: ® ® ® 5. Being recognized as a good worker: ® ® ® 6. A feeling of accomplishment: ® (3) @ Part 2. Please describe how you feel about the Company by answer- :ing the questions below. Place an "X" in the blank which corresponds to your answer. 1. If you could begin working over again in the same occupation, what are the chances you would choose to work at the Company? Very low Low About even High Very high 2. To waht extent do both the company and the employees at the Company work together toward the same goals? .___To a very little___To a little____To some To a great To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 3. To what extent is the wellAbeing of the Company related to your own personal well-being? .___To a very little___To a little To some To a great To a very great extent extent extent extent extent h. To what extent are you bothered when you hear about someone criticizing the Company? ___To a very little___To a little____To some To a great To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 5. To what extent are you bothered when you hear about someone criticizing the products of the Company? ___To a very little___To a little____To some To a great To a very great extent extent extent extent extent 6. If a job were open at the Company and you knew a friend who could fill it, what are the chances that you'd advise him to apply? Very low Low About even High very high 7. How often do you tell somebody outside your immediate family about a product that is being made at the Company? _____Rarely Seldom. Sometimes Often_____Very often 8. HOw often do you discuss your job at the ‘ Company in your immedi ate family? Rarely Seldom Sometimes Often very often THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ‘35-".f'fl “w-'.‘. ‘\ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology SU TRABAJO Y "THE COMPANY" El propésito de este estudio es saber mas de c6mo los empleados de The Company trabajan y como se influyen. Especificamente, e1 proposito es saber como el plan "Scanlon" pueda mejorar las condiciones de su trabajo. Si este estudio va a ser fitil, es necesario que Ud. conteste cada t pregunta cuidadosamente. Lo mas importante es que Ud. conteste con toda sinceridad. Sus respuestas a estas preguntas son completamente confidenciales. Ningfin cuestionario, una vez contestada, llegara a manos de ninguna persona que trabaje para la compania. Cuando Ud. haya contestado su cuestionario, pongalo en el sobre t marcado "Confidential. " Cierre este sobre y devuélvalo a su "foreman" capataz 0 an supervisor "superintendiente" e1 lunes. Un investigador de la Universidad del Estado de Michigan, Sr. Gerry Burtnett, recogera los sobres ese dia. Haga e1 favor de contestar cada preflnta completamente. SECCION I. En esta seccion del cuestionario, se le pregunta donde trabaja y qué posicién Ud. tiene en la companfa 1. c'. En qué fabrica (plant) trabaja Ud. ? 2. 8. En qué departamento (department) trabaja Ud. ? a. ) b.) c.) __Oficina _ "Rough mill" Maquina (machine) (office) Maquina — Ebanisterfa (cabinet) Maquina — (machine) _— _ (machine) __ Ebanisterfa d ) Quonset hut (cabinet) . ' _ Ebanisterfa Finishing Trim —_ (cabinet) : Trim : Empaquetamiento (packing) __ Finishing __ Finishing Trim Pégina 2. 3. Su sexo: Masculino Femenino 4. Su edad: afios, meses 5. El término "supervisor" se usa en diversos lugares en este cuestionario. El término quiere decir 1a persona a quien Ud. debe una responsabilidad directa e inmediata. Por ejemplo, si Ud. fuera un obrero, an ll ' N f "f H S' Ud fu Hf ll superv1sor ser a su oreman. 1 . era oreman, su "supervisor" serfa director de la fabrica. Haga el favor de escribir aquf el nombre de su supervisor: l - $1.1" .“n-T' 6. <2 Cuantn tiempo hace que Ud. trabaja para Company ESL afios, meses 7. <1 Es Ud. miembro del "Production Committee" (comité de produccion)? Si No 8. & Es Ud. miembro del Screening Committee? Si No SECCION II. Se puede contestar cada pregunta en esta seccion por llenar e1 circulo que mas corresponds a lo que Ud. piense. Las preguntas tratan de su propio trabajo, otras actividades de su departamento y las acciones de la compania. Cada pregunta se divide en tres partes: (a) Cuanta influencia Ud. tiene, (b) Cuanta influencia Ud. cree Ud. debe tener y, (c) Cuan importante cada accién o actividad es para Ud. en su trabajo. Llene tres cfrculos para cada pregunta, uno para a, b, y c. 1 r. I. I c K. Iflrllvl . _ .. Pagina 3 . Yo determino cuanto voy a producir. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: 0. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: . Yo determino e1 nivel de calidad de mi produccion. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: . Yo determino cuanto voy a esforzarme en mi trabajo. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: . Yo puedo sugerir con quien yo prefirirfa trabajar. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: . Yo determino los métodos que emplearé en mi trabajo. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: @696 @@® @699 ®®® Muy rara vez 696969 Rara vez 696969 696969 696969 696969 @@69 696969 696969 696969 696969 696969 696969 696969 696969 A veces 69®69 696969 696969 A menudo @@@ © @@ Muy a menudo 696969 @6969 Pagina 4 10. . Yo influyo la produccién de mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: . Yo determino la calidad de la produccion de mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: Yo influyo el nfimero de sugerencias que salen de mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabaja me as importante: . Yo influyo e1 orden de la produccion de mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabaja me. es importante: Yo ayudo determinar cuales personas son asignados a cierto trabaja en mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: @696 @®® @696 @669 Muy rara vez ®®@ @® @ @® ® (969 ® Rara vez @@@ @®® @®® ®®® A veces ®@@ @®@ @@@ @®@ ®@@ ®®® @@@ ®®@ A menudo @696”) @@@ @@@ @6969 Muyamenudo @@@ '-.'—‘V..O'J|' Pagina 5 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Yo influyo c6mo se usan las maquinas en mi departamento. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabaja me es importante: Yo influyo la produccion de la companfa. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: Yo auyda determinar la calidad de los productos de la companfa. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: 0. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: Yo asisto en la seleccion de nuevas maquinas. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: Yo asisto en la determinacion de qué materias primas la companfa comprara. a. Esto es yel estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: Muy ra ra vez 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 Rara vez 999 999 999 A veces 999 999 999 999 A menudo @ ® @ G”) @ (”D Muy a menudo 999 999 999 Pagina 6 16. 17. 18. 19. Yo determino en parte la calidad de mantenimiento de la maquinaria. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: 0. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: Yo influyo la manera en que se fijan las horas del trabajo en la fabrica. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabaja me as importante: Yo determino en parte qué producto la companfa producira. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me as importante: Yo controlo e1 método de entrenamiento que esta companfa emplea para entrenar a sus empleados en la fabrica. a. Esto es el estado actual: b. Esto es como debe ser: c. Esta parte de mi trabajo me es importante: ®®® @699 @669 Muy rara vez 999 999 Rara vez 999 999 999 999 999 999 A veces 999 999 999 999 A menudo 999 @696") @@@ @@@ Muyamenudo 9699 Pagina 7 SECCION III. y En esta seccion, hay varias preguntas que tratan del plan "Scanlon" Company. Ponga una "X" en el espacio en blanco que corresponda a su respuesta. Mi capataz "supervisor" siempre escucha con sinceridad mis ideas y sugerencias sobre cosas importantes. Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo La administracion escucha mis ideas y sugerencias sobre cosas importantes . Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo i; USCJ éCuanta importancia tienen sus sugerencias sobre asuntos importantes discutidos por el comité de produccion (Production Committee)? Muy Poca Alguna Mucha Muchfsima poca éCuAnta importancia tienen sus sugerencias sobre asuntos importantes discutidos por "the Screening Committee"? Muy Poca Alguna Mucha Muchfs ima poca éCuantas veces se le informa de las reacciones a sus sugerencias? Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo éCuantas veces saben otras personas que trabajan con Ud. que Ud. inicio cierta idea? Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo éCuantas veces se resuelven problemas diffciles por medio de sugerencias ? Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo Pagina 8 8. c’. Con cuanta claridad ve Ud. los objetos, e1 proposito, de su trabaja? Muy Poca Alguna Hastante Mucha poca 9. of. Con cudnta claridad ve Ud. los objetos, los propositos, de su departamento ? Muy Poca Alguna Hastante Mucha poca 10. e. Cuantas veces recibe Ud. u otros "bonus payments" después de sugerir algo? Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo 11. d. Cuantas veces recibe Ud. "bonus payments" a causa de sus . sugerencias ? E Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo SECCION l'V. En esta seccion, hay dos partes. Las topicos tratados en la primera parte son: (1) Su actitud hacia su trabaja, y (2) Su actitud hacia Company. Parte 1. Las preguntas siguientes tratan de las consecuencias que Ud. espera después de hacer bien su trabajo. Haga e1 favor de calificar la posibilidad de cada consecuencia solamente si Ud. hace bien su trabajo. Poco Algo 1. El trabajar bien aumentara mi seguridad en mi 0 8 a. i? 2 puesto. ® (9 2. El trabajar bien me ayudara obtener un bonus "Scanlon. " 9 9 ® ® Mucho @ @ Muchfsimo 9 9 Pagina 9 3. El hacer bien mi trabajo ayuda a los otros labradores. G Muy poco @ Muchfsimo 4. El hacer bien mi trabajo me ayuda llevarlo bien con mis amigos en la fébrica. @ C2) (3) ® ® 5. El hacer bien mi trabajo aumenta la posibilidad de recibir reconocimiento como buen labrador. ® ® ® ® ® 6. El hacer bien mi trabajo me da la satisfaccion de haber cumplido algo. ® ® ® ® @ Seis consecuencias de hacer bien su trabajo. Haga e1 favor de indicar la importancia de cada una de las consecuencias en su trabajo. <6 8.9. .9. a .9. Es a0 0 0.60.930 t: caflgfi‘gg go as soil gs go ‘4 h ‘4 $4 ‘4 ”9.3.3533” as as as as as Seguridad en su puesto: "Bonus Scanlon": Beneficios a otros labradores: Llevarse bien con otros labradores: Ser reconocido como buen trabajador: 999999 999999 999999 99 99 99 999999 Satisfaccion de haber cumplido algo: " urea .znra ’I Pégina 10 Parte 2. Haga e1 favor de describir como Ud. siente acerca de ‘ Company por contestar lar siguientes preguntas. Ponga una "X" en el espacio en blanco que corresponda a su respuesta. 1. Si Ud. pudiera empezar de nuevo el mismo clase de trabajo, trabajarfa para Company ? Nunca Probable - Quiza Probable - Sf jamas mente no mente si 2. <3 Trabajan la companfa y los empleados para llevar a1 cabo los mismos fines ? Nunca Casi A A Casi nunca veces menudo siempre 3. é. Qué relacion hay entre el bienestar de y su propio bienestar? Ninguna Muy Poca Mucha Muchfsima poca 4. éHasta qué punto le molesta ofr otros criticar a Company? Muy Muy Poco Mucho Muchfsimo muy poco poco 5. dHasta que punto le molesta ofr otros criticar los productos de la companfa ? Muy Muy Poco Mucho Muchfsimo muy poco poco 6. Si hubiera nuevos puestos en Company, le aconsejarfa a un amigo pedir trabajo? De Probable - Quiza Probable - Seguramente ninguna mente no mente sf manera 7. éCuantas veces habla Ud. con personas que no son miembros de su familia acerca de los productos de Company? Muy Rara A A Muy a rara vez vez veces menudo menudo Tfr . .‘P Pagina 1 1 8. nc'. Cuantas veces habla de su trabajo en Company con los miembros de su familia? Muy Rara A A Muy a rare vez vez veces menudo menudo an: at: at: * MUCHISIMAS GRACIAS POR HABERNOS AYUDADO. **** -V.TJI . '.-_NT". '.‘. APPENDIX B T." 140 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY no? mo . marrow (8823 ovum or PSYCHOLOGY . oms tum. February 11, 1972 Dear Employee: One week from today you will be asked to participate in an attitude survey concerning the Company and the Scanlon plan. The survey will be sponsored jointly by the Midwest Scanlon Associates and Michigan State University. Both the Midwest Scanlon Associates and Michigan State University have been interested for many years in how the Scanlon plan helps make companies better places to work. The Company has recently installed the Scanlon plan and therefore offers an opportunity to study how the plan enables people to work together more effectively. The survey asks your opinions about your job, the Scanlon plan, and the Company. This information will be summarized and explained to everyone in the company. In this way, everybody will have a chance to reach a common understanding of what problems need to be solved to make the Company more effective under the Scanlon plan. The survey will be distributed at two separate times. The first time will be next Friday, and the second time will be about six months from now. In this way, changes in your attitudes between these two times will act as a barometer of how well thr Company is doing in implementing the Scanlon plan. If the results of this survey are going to be useful, it is important that you feel free to answer all questions frankly. Your answers will be kept strictly con- fidential. No one inside the company will ever see them. Next Friday you will receive a large envelope containing your paycheck, the survey questionnaire, and an envelope in which to return your completed questionnaire. When you have answered all the questions in the questionnaire, please put it in the return envelope, seal the envelope, and return it to your foreman or supervisor. On Monday, a researcher from Michigan State University, Mr. Gerry Burtnett, will pick up the sealed envelopes. We need your help and cooperation to make this survey a good barometer. Please answer all the questions and turn in your questionnaire. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Robert Ruh Executive Director, Midwest Scanlon Associates 143 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY um LANSING . mutton! «on ovum or monomer . ows mu. 11 de agosto de 1. 972 Estimado empleado: De hoy en ocho dfas se le pedira su participacion en nuestro estudio de actitudes. Este estudio esta patrocinado por Midwest Scanlon Associates y La Universidad del Estado de Michigan 103 cuales se han interesado muchos 5508 en la eficacia del Plan "Scanlon" en su mejoramiento de companias. Este estudio 1e pide su opinion acerca de su trabajo, e1 Plan "Scanlon,' 'y Company. Esta informacion sera resumida y explicada a todos Ios miembros de la compania. De esta manera, todos tendran 1a oportunidad de llegar a un acuerdo en cuanto a cuales son los problemas de la compania y como resolverlos para poner en practica el Plan "Scanlon. " Este es el segundo estudio que se ha hecho aquf. El primero se hizo en febrero. Los cambios en sus actitudes nos indicaran cuanto éxito la compania ha tenido en poner en practica e1 "Plan Scanlon. " Para que los resultados de este estudio sean fitiles, es necesario que Ud. se sienta libre para contestar las preguntas francamente. Sus respuestas serén confidenciales. Ningfin miembro de la compa'n'ia las vera. El viernes que viene Ud. recibira un sobre grande que contendra su cheque, el cuestionario del estudio y otro sobre en el cual lo devolvera. Cuando Ud. haya completado todo el cuestionario, haga el favor de ponerlé en el sobre especial, cerrarlo y devolverlo a su "foreman, " capataz. E1 lunes, un investigador de la Universidad del Estado de Michigan, Sr. Gerry Burtnett, recogerzi los sobre sellados. Cuando se haya terminado la analisis de los dos estudios, serén resumidos en un report de dos paginas el cual sera enviado a cada empleado. Ud. recibira este report antes del fin de octubre. Después de enviar e1 report, Sr. Burtnett les visitara varias veces para contestar cualquier pregunta que tenga en cuanto a1 estudio y sus resultados. NeceSitamos su ayuda y cooperacion para que esta investigacion s‘ea valida. Haga e1 favor de entregar su cuestionario. Mil gracias por todo. Sinceramente Gerry Burtnett La Universidad del Estado de Michigan APPENDIX C -‘."'-. ex'r- a!“ a Section and Questions I - 1,2 I - 3 I - 4 I - 5 I - 6 I - 7 APPENDIX C Questionnaire Coding Scheme Foils Office Machine Quonset Cabinet Finishing Trim Rough mill Machine Cabinet Finishing Trim Machine Cabinet Trim Packing Finishing Male Female No response Years, months Manager Foremen Line workers Years, months Yes No No response 144 Direct 1 2 3 Direct 1 2 0 ! 339.. I Section and Questions I - 8 II - 1 through 19 III - 1,2 III - 3,4 III - 5,6,7 III - 8,9 111 - 10,11 145 Foils Yes No No response To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a very great extent To a very great extent No response To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent No response Not very seriously A little Somewhat Seriously Very seriously No response Rarely Seldom Sometimes Often Very often No response Not clear at all Not very c1ear Somewhat c1ear Clear Very clear No response To a very little extent To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent No response Code OUT-DwN-H OUT-DOON-d OUT-wa-d' omth—a OUT-wad ON—‘ OW—hWNd tux: l-né-‘I‘V! e 1' v. Y v—u—F. _‘. 146 Section and Questions Foils Code IV - Part I, To a very great extent 1 both sets of To a little extent 2 six questions To some extent 3 To a great extent 4 To a very great extent 5 No response 0 IV - Part 2,1 Very low Low About even High Very high No response omwa—a IV - Part 2, To a very little extent 2,3,4,6 To a little extent To some extent To a great extent To a very great extent No response 06.71-5de IV - Part 2:6 Very low Low About even High Very high No response OU‘l-bWN-J IV - 2:7,8 Rarely Seldom Sometimes Often Very often No response OU‘l-wa-d Additional codes: Collection period: February (t1) = 1, August (t2) = 2 Questionnaire language: English = 1, Spanish = 2 APPENDIX D 147 Pa! .n m— 2. _— .: mmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmm mmm m mm mm mm m mmm mmmmm mm . I": mmm m mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm mmmmm mm mm mmm mmmmmmmmm mm mmm :mem -~2LL-ZLL ~LZL. N5 :. :LZL ----ZL~ s2; m mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmm mmmmm mm mm mmm mm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmm mmmmmm mm mm mmmmm m mmmm mm mm mm mm mm mm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmm v V V e Z we a v we v v e «a me 3 v v v v mow eeveevecevw mm mmmmmm mmmm mmm m mm mm mm mm mm mm mmmmm mm mmm mmmmmmmmmmmm NNN mm «N N NNN N «N «N «N NN mm mm ~N-N Nu mmm «mmm um «um N3 ‘ _—:_::: _—_: __ ::_ __ _:: : _— :—___—:_: z: ___———__.m 2. N _ mm“ mm . — _ D m— N— —e_ a a s m mmm mm mm m mmm m mm mmmmm mm mmmmm mm mmmmmm mmmmmmm mmm: mm mmm o a c o: «r o: a.» o o o n £5 amazofliflfizgrshowinwa 5.93s Hm ZO.._.omm H 20....wa uaaunu suluuum 13300 148 l—lomerNNNonNanNNN:onQO38338388335333833393399333338 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm aveeequeveevm«eve«emceeveevemmeevemeeevevm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ___—_________—__—_—____—__________________ NmNNNmNvaNMNNN_NmNmmmmNmommmvaNm—mommnmm$3333338333393333338 wmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmme 3 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmemmmmmmemm NmmmmmvmnmNmS mNmNNNmNva MNNNR—oNf—m—N—m—EST—N—:2oon.» mmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN mmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmammmm eseeeeeseaveseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmfi NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNW _—______________________________m 3 mm 8va 32481213 NNwNnN anNN—NaNfi—i— _flEn—v—fi—N— 2‘2 m m N. m 9 mm?mmmmmmmmmmWflmmmmmmmmmEmmmmmmEmg omens are“ m thmrnNd — m m N Pmcm :mc —52rmhonrnma m E 29 Tum _5 295mm ... co 6" * (one v0 93:) cal-131103 also an an» ' mmm NNN mmm mmm mmm BBGNON 3819 N NOLLS'BOD APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Item-Scale Intercorrelations In order to relate the item-scale correlation matrix to the . actual questionnaire items, a conversion scale has been constructed. This scale is displayed in the following table (Table 13). The first entry is the item number as it appears in the matrix. The second Veu' entry is a code locating that item in the questionnaire. The code is in the format: Section-Part-Subpart-Question Number where a section number and a question number are always designated. Tables 14 and 15 present the entire item-scale correlation matrices for both t1 and t2. These correlations which lie within the solid rectangles are the item-scale coefficients which were computed for the items designated for the specified scale on an a priori basis during questionnaire construction. 149 150 Table 13 Conversion Scale from Matrix Item Numbers to Questionnaire Item Location Code Matrix Location Matrix Location Matrix Location Number Code Number Code Number Code 1 2-1A 32- 2-138 64 3-7 2 2-2A 33 2-14B 65 3-8 3 2-3A 34 2—158 66 3-9 4 2-4A 35 2-16B 67 3-10 5 2-5A 36 2-178 68 3-11 6 2-6A 37 2-188 69 4-P1-A-1 7 2-7A 38 2-198 70 4-P1-A-2 8 2-8A 39 2-1C 71 4-P1-A-3 9 2-9A 4O 2-2C 72 4-P1-A-4 lO 2-10A 41 2-3C 73 4-P1-A-5 11 2-11A 42 2-4C 74 4-P1-A-6 12 2-12A 43 2-50 75 4-Pl-B-1 13 2-13A 44 2-6C 76 4-P1-B-2 14 2-14A 45 2-7C 77 4-P1-B-3 15 2-15A 46 2-8C 78 4-Pl-B-4 16 2-16A 47 2-9C 79 ' 4-P1-B-5 17 2-17A 48 2-1OC 80 4-P1-B-6 18 2-18A 49 2-11C *81 * . 19 2-19A SO 2-12C 82 20 2-18 51 2-13C 83 21 2-2B 52 2-14C 84 22 2-38 53 2-15C 85 23 2-48 54 2-16C 86 24 2-58 55 2-17C 87 25 2-68 56 2-18C 88 4-P2-2 26 2-7B 57 2-19C 89 4-P2-3 27 2-88 58 3-1 90 4-P2-4 28 2-98 59 3-2 91 4-P2-5 29 2-1OB 60 3-3 92 4-P2-6 30 2-118 61 3-4 93 4-P2-7 31 2-128 62 3-5 94 4-P2-8 63 3-6 151 0N. op. NN. mp. op. FF. mp. pp. mN. MN. PF. my. MN. mp. mN. mp mo. em. Fm. mm. mp. m—. FN. mp. mm. mN. ON. NP. NN. NN. Nm. N_ no.1 mo. PN. mN. mp. o—. N—. wF. mm. ON. «F. FF. mN. ON. mN. m_ NP. mp. mm. Nm. Np. m—. mN. mN. Nm. mN. mN. NN. _m. oN. mm. mp mN. mm. mp. mo. NF. om. mp. mm. No. No. mo. No. me. mo. Po. op co. mo. mo. mo. mF. mo. mo. mo. mo. mp. mo. om. 0N. mp. mp. mp mN. mp. mp. mo. ON. NN. mp. mN. _N. vN. FN. MN. o—. PP. No. NF mp. mN. NN. «F. «N. ov. mN. mm. mm. m_. mp. mm. ON. mp. mo. PF eN. om. NN. mp. mm. om. em. em. Nm. eN. NN. mN. mN. NF. up. op mm. mm. mm. mm. we. me. me. me. we. Nm. mN. Nm. om. mm. mm. m mm. me. me. No. mm. om. me. am. mm. mm. Fe. No. em. mp. cm. m MN. NN. mm. mm. Nm. Fm. oe. mm. we. mm. No. ,Ne. mm. me. me. N Fe. mm. mm. mm. Nm. Nm. me. me. No. mm. mm. Nm. om. FN. mm. o mm. me. me. me. Nm. mm. FN. No. mN. we. we. we. Ne. wN. mm. m mN. mN. mm. ow. mm. am. mm. mm. mm. Ne. mm. em. Nm. mm. mm. v mm. Fm. mN. N@. No. mm. mm. Pm. me. Ne. he. om. mm. NN. Nm. m Ne. Nm. Nm. mm. _mm. NN. em. ow. Nw. wN._ mm. Nm. om. Nm. Ne. N om. mm. om. me. me. we. mm. om. mm. mm. _loN. mm. em. mN. mN.L _ mp «F mp N— PF op m m N o m a m N F Pp mFQEom so; meowuepmssou optomleoum vF mpnmh 152 MO. MO. MN. MN. NN. MO. NO. MO. NN. NN. MN. MN. «N. «N. NN. MN ON. «N. MN. MN. «M. MN. «N. MN. «N. «N. NN. MN. NN. «N. NN. NF «N. MN. ON. ON. «M. NO. «N. MN. «N. NN. MN. MN. MO. MO. MN. MN MN. MN. «N. MN. «M. MN. MN. «N. «N. «N. NM. ON. NN. NN. MN. MN MN. MO. NN. MN. NN. NO. MO.l NO. MO.u NO. MO.l MO. NM. NN. NN. «— MO. «O.. NO. NO. OF. NO. MO.1 «O.1 NO. OO. «O. «N. NO. «O. OF. M— MN. MO. MO. NN. MN. MN. MN. ON. MN. MO. MN. ON. NN. NN. ON. NN NN. «M. «N. MN. NN. NN. MO. MN. NN. MN. NN. ON. ON. MN. MN. NP OM. ON. MN. NN. MN. NN. MN. ON. ON. NN. MO. MM. ON. ON. ON. O— OM. NM. MM. OM. N«. NM. MN. N«. ON. NN. MM. M«. NM. «M. M«. m OM. MM. MN. MN. OM. MM. N«. «M. MM. NN. m«. M«. PM. ««. N«. M m«. O«. NM. M«. NM. MM. MM. OM. OM. MM. MM. NN. NN. OM. MN. N OM. NM. NM. m«. M«. N«. NM. NM. MN. «N. MM. NM. N«. MM. MM. M —NN. «N. MM. OM. NM. «N._ MM. NM. N«. MN. ««. O«. MN. OM. OM. M M«. N«. MM. M«. NM. «M. _ NM. «M. OM. MN. OM.m MN. «N. NM. «N. « N«. OM. NM. N«. MM. NM. NM. NM. MN. «N. NM. _ON. «M. MN. mmw: M NM. NM. MN. ON. MM. OM. N«. O«. MM. OM. N«. MM. «M. N«. MM. N MM. MM. MM. M«. M«. «M. MM. ««. MM. NM. MM. MM. MN. MM. NM. N OM ON MN NN MN MN «N MN NN NN ON ON MN NF MN Nomacwpcoov «N mNnmN 153 ll... NN. «N. «N. MO. NO. OM. MN. «N. MO. MO. MO. MO.: MO. ON.1 MN. N—. M— «M. O«. NM. NN. MN. MM. OM. NN. ON. NN. MN. NN. ON. MN. MM. NM. NP MN. «M. «N. MN. NN. «M. OM. MN. NN. MN. NN. MO. MN. MN. ON. NN. M— MM. N«. MM. MN. MN. ON. NM. MN. _N. ON. ON. MN. «N. NN. OM. MM. MN MN. «N. MN. «O. NO. «N. MN. NO. NN. O«. ON. NO. MO. NO. NN. MO. «N MN. NN. NO. No.1 NO. MO. NN. OO. MO.- MO.u NN. NN.- MO.l MN.1 «O. OO.1 MN MN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. MN. NN. OF. NO. ON. ON. NN. NO. NN. NO. NP NN. MN. MN. MO. MN. NN. MN. MO. O«. NN. «N. MN. MN. MN. MN. NN. _— MN. MN. ON. NN. «O. MN. «N. «O. MN. «N. MN. MN. NN. NN. NN. MN. ON MM. MM. «M. MM. N«. N«. OM. N«. ON. NM. NN. ON. NM. OM. MM. «M. m OM. NM. «M.m NM. «M. M«. O«. M«. NM. N«. MM. M«. OM. «M. MM. MM. M «M. NM. MM. _IMM. .«M. OM. ON. .NN» _ N«. MM. N«. MM. MM. NM. M«. m«. N OM. MM. «M. O«. m«. MM. «M. O«. _WMN. NM. mM. NM. NN. ON. MN. ON. _ M NN. MN. MN. OM. M«. M«. MM. m«. NM. NM. OM. o«. N«. PM. MM. MM. M N«. OM. N«. OM. O«. OM. NM. NM. N«. MN. MM. NM. NM. MM. M«. N«. « M«. ««. M«. NM. MM. MN. NN. MM. OM. NM. MM. «M. NM. MM. MM. MM. M OM. NM. MM. OM. MN. OM. MM. MM. NM. OM. m«. ON. N«. N«. OM. NM. N MM. N«. MM. m«. OM. NM. MM. «M. MM. ON. MM. NN. MN. ON. M«. M«. N M« m« «« m« N« _« O« OM MM NM MM MM «M MM NM NM Aeosewoeeov e_ apnea 154 NN. NM. NM. MM. «N. No.1 NO. «O. No.1 NO. MN.- NN. «N. MO. NO. NN. M— MN. ON. «N. NN. MN. MN. ON. NN. NN. NN. MN. N«. O«. ON. NN. NN. NF MN. MN. NN. MN. «N. M_. MN. _N. NN. NN. MN. MM. O«. NN. NN. MP. MN «N. NNN NN. MN. MN. «N. NN. MN. MN. MN. MN. N«. NM. «N. NN. MN. MN O«. NM. MN. NM. MN. NN. OM. NO. MO. NN. NO. MN. MN. NN. MO. «N. «N NN. «N. MM. MM. MO. MO.: «O.- MN.u NN.- No.1 MN.l NN. MO. NO. MO.: OO.- M_ M«. MM. M«. o«. MM. ON. No.1 MO. MO. Mo. NO. MN. «O. MO. MO. NO. NP MM. PM. MM. M«. NM. MN. ON. MN. «N. MN. MN. MN. «N. MN. NM. MN. NF ON. _I«M. NM. MN. MN._ MN. MN. «N. MN. NN. MN. MN. MN. MN. MN. MN. ON MN. MN. MO. ON. MN. _|WM. «N. MM. MM. NM. MN. NN. NN._ MM. ON. MM. M ON. MN. ON. NN. «N. «N. MM. NM. NM. NM. «M. MM. MM. _ MN. MN. «M. MO. NN. NO. MO. «N. N«. N«. m«. MM. N«. NM. MM. M«. N«. m«. MM. ON. ON. MO. «N. MN. «N. «M. MN. MN. MM. NN. NN. MM. MM. MM. MM. «N. NN. NN. NN. MN. MM. MM. MM. N«. «M. ««. MM. MM. MM. MM. MN. NN. MN. MN. NN. MN. MM. MN. NM. NM. NM. NM. O«. MM. «M. O« «M. «N. MN. ON. MM. MN. MM. NM. MM. NM. M«. NM. MM. «M. N«. NM. NM. NM. NM. MN. «M. «M. NM. MM. M«. MM. N«. NM. MM. NM. «M. MM. MM. MN. NN. —N. ON. MN. MM. NN. OM. MN. NN. ON. O«. «M. MN. NN. N«. r—NMQLOLOINQJ NM NM OM MM MM NM MM MM «M MM NM NM OM M« M« N« Aeoseaoeeov e, o_neN 155 r r autumn .tilenilh...r: a... ON. as. NO. NO. Os. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. ON. ON. NO. NO. ON. ON. ON ON. ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. OO. ON. NN. NN. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN ON. ON. ON. ONMM _N. NO. Om. OO. NO. NO. ON. ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON OO. OO. OO. NO. _ON. NO. ON. OO. _O. NN.. NO. ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. _lOO. OO.O NO. _N. ON. ON. ON NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. _N. Om. NO. NN. ON. ON. ON. _.OO. OM44 ON. ON. ON 2. N_. O. 2. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. :. E3. N_ N_. NO. ON. O_. _N. O_. NN. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. Om. OO. NO ON. OO. ON. ON. NN. NN. ON. ON. NN. ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. OO. ON. ON ON. NN. NN. ON. ON. ON. NN. ON. ON. NN. ON. ON. OO. O_.- OO. ON. O ON. ON. m_. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. O_. OO. OO. ON. ON. O ON. ON. O_. NO. NO. NN. ON. NN. ON. NO. NN. O_. OO. OO. _N. NN. N O_. O_. OO. ON. ON. ON. NN. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. NO. ON.. ON. NN. O ON. O_. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. NO. _N. ON. O NN. ON. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. _O.- OO. _O. NO. NN. ON. O ON. O_. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. ON. O_. OO. NO. NN. NN. O ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. NN. ON. NN. ON. NN. ON. ON. OO. NN. ON. ON. N ON. O_. NO. _O. NO. ON. ON. ON. NN. Om. NO.- NO.- ON. NN. ON. ON. _ ON NN ON ON ON ON NN _N ON OO NO NO OO me so NO Neoseaseoov ON ONOON 156 “HMO. ON. NO. ON. OO. OO. OO. ON._ OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. OO. O_ ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NN. OO. _ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO._ ON. ON. NO ON. OO. NO. NO. OO. ON. ON. OO. NN. ON. ON. OO. ON. ON. _ON. NO. ON ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OF NO. ON. NO. OO. NO. OO. ON. ON. OO. NO. OO. OO. _O. OO. OO. ON. O_ O_. ON. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. ON. ON. NN. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. O_ OF. NO. NO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. _N. N_. ON. _N. N_. ON. ON0 O_. N_ O_. O_. NO. O_. OO. NN. ON. ON. NN. OO. ON. ON. OO. OO. ON. NO. __ N_. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. NN. NO. ON. ON. O_. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. O_ OO. NO. OO.- ON. OO. NO. OO.- OO.- OO. ON. ON. NN. NN. ON. OO. ON. O NO. OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. OO. OO.- OO. OO. ON. ON. _N. ON. OO. _O. OO. NN. OO. NN. OO. __. NO. __. OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. O_. OO. ON. OO.- OO.- ON. ON. ON. ON. NN. ON. ON. _N. O_. O_. OO. ON. O_. O_. OO. OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. ON. OF. N_. O_. OO. O_. OO. OO. O_. NO. NO. ON. ON. O_. ON. NO. NN. NO. _N. O_. NN. O_. ON. O_. OO. ON. _N. _N. ON. O.. ON. ON. NO. OO. OF. NO. OO. ON. ON. OO. NO. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. NN. OO. ON. O_. ON. ON. ON. OO. ON. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. NO. ON. r—NmQ'LDKDNm «M MM NM NM OM MM MM NM MM MM «M MM NM NM OM MN NOOOOOOOOOO O_ O_OOO 157 OO. OO. O_. ON. ON. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. ON. ON. ON. OO. OO. O, ON. ON. ON. O_. ON. ON. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. O_. _O. OO. OO. NO OF. ON. NN. ON. NO. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON. O_. NN. OO. _O. O_ ON. OF. ON. OO. O_. O_. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OF ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. O_. ON. OO. OO. _O. ON. OO. ON. _O. ON. OP OO. ON. ON. O_. NO. ON. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. NO. OO. O_ ON. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. ON. _O. OO. N_ OF. ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. ON. OO. O_. ON. _O. O_. O_. N_. PO OO. ON. OO. NN. OO. OO. NO. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. ON. NO. OO. ON OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NN. OO. NO. NO. ON. NO. ON. O OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. _O. OO. NN. OO. OO. O ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. _O. NO.. NO. N OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. _O. OO. OO. __. O_. _N. O OO. OO. _O. OO. NN. OO. ON. ON. OO. NO. NO. OO. ON. NO. OO. O ON. OO. OO. NN. NO. _O. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. _O. OO. ON. O NN. NN. OO. PO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. O OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .NN. OO. OO. ON. NN. ‘ NO. OO. PO. NO. OO. N OO. _O. NO. ON. _O. OO. NO. OO. NO. OO. _ OO. OO. NN. NO. OOmm _ O_ OO O_ N_ __ O_ O O N O O O O N O Np ONOEOM sow OcoOpOFwssou ONOoM-EmNH MN o—MON 158 up. mN. mm. Om. mm. mN. mp. mo. NO. PO. mm. mN. NN. ON. ON. @— FN. m—. mm. Om. mm. mm. Fm. OO.- wO. NO. Nm. ON. NN. NN. pm. NF ON. NN. mO. _m. mm. 0O. mN. mo. mN. NN. mp. m_. m_. Np. mN. op OF. MP. mN. om. wN. om. NN. No.u om. Fm. om. ON. NN. NN. mm. mp mo. mo. Fm. mm. NN. mN. mN. OO.: NN. mm. ON. PF. om. MN. mo. OF 0N. N_. —m. Om. mN. mN. _N. 00.: ow. mO. mm. Pm. afi. mp. mN. m— mN. ON. Nm. mN. Nm. NN. mN. 0F. mm. ON. mN. Om. NN. _N. NN. NP FN. Om. NN. ON. mN. NF. mF. ON. ON. N—. mp. ON. NF. mo. O—. FF mN. NN. Nm. mN. mN. ON. ON. op. mm. Nm. ON. mm. ON. ON. Nm. OF mm. mm. OO. _O. ON. NO. PO. mm. Oo. No. m_. om. mO. Om. mm. m mm. mm. ON. mm. pm. _N. Pm. MO. NF. mN. om. mO. mO. mO. NO. m mm. mN. Nm. mO. Fm. Nm. om. mO. NO. Pm. om. mN. om. NN. mN. n no. Om. om. mO. NO. OO. mO. oO. no. ON. 0N. mm. mm. Om. mm. m NN. Fm. mm. Om. mu. mn._ mm. MO. om. mO. mO. Nm. NO. OO. OO. m cm. Om. mm. Nm. om. om. om. Nm. ON. ON. mm. mm. Nm. mm. Nm. O mm. om. om. om. mm. MO. mm. mm. ON. mN. mm. mm. mm. Nm. on. m mm. mm. on. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. Fm. OO. OO. om. NO. NO. OO. N om. _m. mm. 0O. NO. mO. mm. Nm. mm. we. we. um. Nm. OO. mm. P om mN mN ON ON mN ON mN NN ON oN mF wF NP op NOOOOOOOOOO OF O_OOO 159 ON. ON. NN. O_. O_. OO. OO. OO. OP. ON. O_. OO. ON. ON. OO. N_. O_ NO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. O_. O_. ON. OF. N_. OO. NN. N_ OO. NO. OO. ON. NO. NO. PO. OO. OF. N_. N_. ON. O_. ON. O_. ON. OF ON. ON. NN. NN. .O. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. O_. _N. ON. NO. _O. NO. O_ ON. ON. NN. ON. OO. NO. OO. NN. OO. ON. O_. OO. O_. OO. OO. O_. O_ _O. NN. NN. NN. OO. OO. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. O_. NO. OO. O_. O_ OO. ON. N_. ON. OO. NO. ON. ON. O_. __. __. OO. O_. OO. OO. ON. N— O_. ON. NF. O.. ON. OO. ON. O_. O_. O_. ON. OO. O_. ON. OO. O_. __ ON. ON. O_. ON. OF. OO. OO. O_. ON. NO. NO. OO. OO. NO. ON. ON. O_ _O. NO. OO. OO. NO. O_. ON. OO. _N. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. O OO. OO. OO» OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. O OO. OO. OO. _.ON. NO. OO. OO. ON~_ NO. _O. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. NO. N OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. O_. OO. OO. _OO. ON. OO. ON. OO. _O. NO. ON. O NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. _O. OO. OO. OO. NO. _O. OO. PO. OO. OO. OO. O NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. _O. OO. OO. NO. ON. ON. NN. OO. OO. OO. NO. O _O. OO. OO. ON. ON. ON. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. PO. NO. NO. O NO. OO. NO. _O. NO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. NO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. N _O. OO. _O. _O. ON. OO. OO. OO. NO. ON. ON. O_. NN. ON. OO. OO. O OO OO OO OO NO PO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OO NO PO NOOOOOOOOOO O_ OFOOO 160 ON. _O. OO. OO. OO. PO. ON. OP. OO. NN. _N. __. OO. ON. ON. ON. O_ OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NN. O_. OO. ON. OF. ON. OP. ON. N_. NO. NO ON. NO. NO. OO. OO. ON. NO. O_. ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. _O. NN. OO. O_ ON. NO. OO. _O. OO. _O. NN. O_. N_. NN. OO. NN. OO. ON. OO. ON. OF NO. _O. NO. OO. OO. __. ON. O_. OO. NP. OO. O_. OO. O_. OO. OO. O. OO. _O. _O. OO. OO. OP. OO. OO. OO. ON. OO. OF. OO. ON. OO. ON. O_ NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. O_. _O. OO. OO. NN. _F. ON. N_ Huummn_ NN» OO. OO. NO. OO. OF. N.. OO. OO. OO. NN. OO. NO. ON. OF. P_ OO. _aOO. OO. NO. NN._ F_. OO. OO. OO. OF. N_. O_. N_. ON. OF. _N. O_ NO. OF. N_. NO. OO. _OO. ON. OO. ON. ON. OO. ON. NN. OO. OO. OO. O OO. ON. ON. OF. ON. PO. OO. OO. OO. PO. OO. OO. OO. _.ON. _NO OO. O OO. OO. OO. ON. NN. ON. OO. ON. ON. _O. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. N OO. OF. NO. _F. OF. OO. NO. ON. NO. OO. ON. OO. OO. PO. OO. OO. O ON. ON. NO. ON. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. ON. O ON. OO. NO. _N. OO. N_. ON. _N. OP. OO. ON. NN. OF. NO. NO. NO. O ON. NN. NN. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. O NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. .O. NO. ON. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. NO. ON. N ON. NO. PO. OO. OO. OF. _N. N_. _P. OO. _O. ON. O_. OO. ON. OO. _ NO PO OO OO OO NO OO OO OO OO NO _O OO OO OO NO Aumacwucoov mp m_amh 161 _O. NO. NO. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. O, OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. ON. PO. OO. NN. ON. NO. NO. OO. NO. NO. OO. N_ ON. OO. NN. NO. NO. _O. OO. _O. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. _O. OO. O_ _O. OO. OO. OO. _NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. O0.0 NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. O_ ON. OO. OO. ON. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO. OO..MOO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. O_ OO. _O. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. M NO. -NO. NO. _O. O_ O_. OO. 2. OO. ON. OO. NO. NO. OO. O. OO. OO. OO. OO. a OO. N. OP. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. NO. ON. OO. ON. _O. OO. PO. OO. NO. NO. P_ OO. NO. NN. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. NO. NO. OO. OO. OO. OO. O_ OO. ON. ON. NO. OF. __. NN. ON. NO. NO. O_. OO. N_. OO. OF. ON. O OO. OO. _O. NO. ON. NN. ON. ON. O_. O_. ON. ON. ON. N_. ON. ON. O ON. NN. OF. ON. OO. ON. ON. ON. ON. ON. OO. OO. NN. OO. ON. ON. N ON. NO. OO. O_. OO. NN. OO. ON. OO. O_. O_. OO. ON. OO. ON. NO. O _O. OO. OP. OO. ON. ON. OO. _N. NN. ON. _O. ON. OO. .N. OO. OO. O O_. _N. OO. O_. ON. OO. OO. _O. ON. OO. NN. OO. OO. NO. OO. O_. O NN. OF. __. ON. O_. NO. OO. ON. O_. ON. NN. OF. OO. OF. NO. ON. O NO. OO. ON. OO. NN. ON. NO. _O. OO. NN. OO. ON. OO. NN. OO. ON. N ON. NO. ON. ON. NN. OO. OO. _O. ON. NO. OO. OO. NO. OO. OO. NO. _ ON NN ON ON ON ON NN .N ON OO OO NO OO OO OO OO NOOOOOOOOOO OF O_OOO 1 1 11111111 1 162 _Jmo. ON. mN. mm. ON. ON. mN. mN. _ Nm. mm. mm. mm. om. Nm. Om. mO. @— mm. mm. Nm. mo. om. mm. Om. Om. _ mNM Ow. mm. mm. Nm. Nm.. mm. ON. NF mm. —O. mO. Nm. Nm. mO. Nm. —O. ON. ON. ON. mN. we. mN. _JwN. Nm. @— mm. Nm. Om. Nm. mm. mm. Nm. mm. mm. Nm. Nw. mN. NN. Nm. Nm. om. mN mN. mO. OO. Om. NO. mm. Nm. mm. mm. NO. OO. OO. Om. mO. mN. Nm. ON mm. mO. mm. mm. —m. mm. mm. mm. Pm. om. mm. mm. mm. mm. mO. mO. mp NN. Nm. Nm. mm. Om. mO. Nm. mm. mm. Nm. Nm. mm. mm. mm. Om. Nm. NO om. mN. Nm. mm. NO. mm. 0O. mN. Nm. om. Nm. Om. OO. mN. Nm. NN. NF mN. mm. mm. mm. 0O. mO. NO. NO. mO. _m. mm. mO. mO. mO. OO. OO. or NN. NN. mo. ON. mp. mo. op. mo. mO. NO. om. ON. ON. mN. mN. mN. m mN. mm. ON. om. NN. mp. mN. mp. NO. Om. mm. Nm. ON. Om. NO. NO. m 0O. Om. mN. om. mN. Nm. mp. ON. mm. om. Nm. Nm. NN. Nm. mm. mO. N NO. om. NF. mN. mN. NF. 2. NP. 2. ON. mm. 3. NT 3. ON. NN. o mN. mO. mN. Om. Om. mN. mN. NN. mm. mm. Nm. om. mN. Om. OO. _O. m mm. mm. mm. ON. mN. Fm. ON. ON. NO. om. mO. mm. mN. mm. mm. mN. O mN. om. NN. Om. _m. mN. mm. NN. NN. mm. mm. mN. ON. mN. mN. mN. m Pm. OO. mN. NO. 0O. om. Nm. m—. Nm. Om. 0O. NO. mN. Nm. mm. mm. N mO. NO. mN. ON. ON. mN. mN. mN. mm. Om. mm. NO° mN. mO. mm. om. _ Om mm Nm Fm om mm mm Nw mm mm Om mm Nm _m om mN NOOOOOOOOOO OF O_OOO APPENDIX F 163 August 17, 1972 MEMO TO ALL EMPLOYEES: SUBJECT: General Wage Increase This is to acknowledge having received a petition signed by many employees, asking for higher wages. The newer employees might not know that we last had a general wage increase less than a year ago, which became effective November l5, l97l. We have told you in the past and will repeat at this time that we do not intend to take a hind seat to other wood furniture manu- facturers in the areas, so far as wages and fringe benefits are concerned. On the other hand we cannot pay a lot higher than the others and hope to continue to sell our product against their competition and the competition of wood furniture manu- facturers in other areas of the country. We have been in the process of surveying wages in wood furniture manu- facturing plants in the areas and have received two. By the way, both plants happen to be unionized. We eliminated upholsterers and carvers and took an average in each of these plants. The average of these two plants is 3¢ per hour less than our average. In other words, we are continuing to stay ahead without a union, without union dues, and by working together as a team. We will continue to survey wage scales in these and other wood furniture manufacturing plants to be sure we do not fall behind. We recognize that although the rate of inflation has slowed down, it is still very much a concern to all of us. Our best hope of licking this is still the Scanlon Plan. By getting this going we can get farther out in front. This is evidenced by other successful Scanlon Plans in the area. We are disappointed not to have had results faster, but are confident that with the help of all we will end up with a successful plan. In summary: For all the above reasons there can be no general increase at this time. We will continue to survey and review to keep pace with any changes. We intend to stay ahead of the union shops, but we could certainly not hope to stay in business by being as far ahead of other area wood furniture manufacturing plants, as, for instance, fifty cents per hour. We feel the big majority of our employees see this as being impossible. Sincerely yours, President - MOO. APPENDIX G APPENDIX G Comments from Employees To the Scanlon Plan: Here's a few of my thoughts on the above. There's no cooperation between the Company and the employees. Why should the common worker and assistant foreman do all the work when foreman and men labeled as Quality Control walk around doin nothin . I was given to understand that all work and cooperate 15 the on1y way a bonus system pays off. There's too many employees loafing or working only part time. I can't see that it has improved one bit from the first paper we had to fill out. If anything it's worse. ************ Scanlon Plan will never work in this plant. Plant management is too poor. [The plant manager] cuts wages and he promises wages be same a year from now. It never happen!! How can we believe the management? We had promise's and promise's The management has driven the morale to rock bottom. I think your Scanlon Plan will work if we had good plant management. ************ This Scanlon Plan is absolutely for the Company only. We the employee have nothing to say how it is run or anything. Why do we always run behind when other company's pay a good bonus on this plan. 164 165 ************ and the Scanlon bonus plan do not seem to be made for each other. Many promises have been made by to its employees and very few have been kept. For example, I was a piece worker along with many others. We were promised that we would be making back the 10% that most of us lost most of last year and all of this year and we all can see this is nothing but a lie. Many of us wonder what does for us and Scanlon in his so called Quality Control department. I believe as do many others that I have talked to that Quality Control is very important and a full time job of it is done correctly. Quality Control should be investi- gating problems from start to finish and in our opinion is a waste of time and money and should be investigated by.the Company president namely. Many of us also wonder how important are Machine Room foreman job is. as he is seen most every day walking from one dept to another with his hands in his pockets. ************ This plan will never work, unless the foremans and manage- ment straighten out first. Some foreman do to much swearing and don't treat the employees equally. For instance, me. I've been trying to get a different job for 6 months, but they just keep putting me off. No more money, or different job. I'm not getting anywhere. Some guys been here 2 or 3 years and their income is more than some guys who have worked here l0 years or more and they don't work any harder. ************ I suggest be put on a production job, one that would be of more value to the company! The communication and coordination between plant manager, foreman and plants could be improved. . We would like to see more of management concern for production and human welfare. Management should be informed of the basic's of the Scanlon Plan. ************ 166 Dear Sir There is very poor supervision all over the plant. The Supertendent is a very poor man and we hardly ever see him. There is a man for Quality Control is no good at all and should be thrown out right away. .The foremen don't care what happens, the employee's come and go just the way they please. Some are only there two or three days a week. And in the Cabinet room there is a woman inspector that should be dismissed right away, the whole job is not necessary. There is a man that inspects and repairs and he has to handle every price and has a lot more experience then this woman has. You can put out 28 pieces a day or 40 and nobody pays any attention to it. This plan of yours could work but we need new supervision and better help that is willing to work and put out production. I have a big family and I sure would like more money. So please come in this plant and clean house once. Thank you ************ We were told when the Scanlon plan was installed that one of the real ways to make a bonus was to "work smarter not harder". This makes good sense and as a screening committee member in the Zeeland machine room. I have suggested several ideas on my set up work which has saved many hours of set up work plus many less hours of sanding sharp corners on furniture in the cabinet room. We also have had ideas which really saved time for several other men in the machine room which are being used on many jobs. The majority of thses ideas have been used for at least 4 months. It has now been about 8 months since we have had the plan and so far I have collected $22.00 before taxes. We were told that the bonus would start after we produced far less labor than 1971 labor costs verses value of goods produced. 50 with all the ideas for labor saving the least we should expect is at least no deficit and no bonus but all we hear is more deficit. The very strong feeling among the fellas is we have too much "brass" running around the plant not serving any real purpose. Number one is our quality control man . We say put him on production most of the time. Foreman and workers alike complain about him flirting with girls, etc., holding up production. I have come in the office several times and saw him smoking, drinking coffee with his feet on desk at 2 oclock which is not break time. I have been told to try to get the fellas' on production not to waste time, they laughed in my face they see all this going on as well as I. Also I have never worked in a plant where top foremen pass so much of responsibility unto assistant foreman. The company also seems to specialize in hiring peOple who have marriage problems, resulting in very much absenteeism among these people. Hiring should be left up to foreman who live in the area. For an example, a college graduate was hired recently for rough mill with a B.A. degree, he has no intentions of staying more than 4 weeks. 167 As far as I can see this Scanlon Plan is just a bunch of bull. Because no matter how hard we work we still don't get a thing. So I think you're just wasting your time and mine. And as for Company. It's OK if you don't mind low wages. ”1111111111111111111111“