RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE INFORMAL
ORGANIZATION AND THE EFFECTIVENESS
0F FORMAL LEADERS

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

A. THOMAS HOLLINGSWORTH
1969

NTTTTTTTQTTTTIWWTNT\ T m m;

345 551 9
s Michigan State
New University

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE INFORMAL
ORGANIZATION AND'THE EFFECTIVENESS
'OF FORMAL LEADERS

presented by
A. THOMAS HOLLINGSNORTH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
oi the requirements for

_EL1...D_.___ degree in WT

V Major professor

Date August 8, 1969

 

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE INFORMAL
ORGANIZATION AND THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF FORMAL LEADERS

By

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

This study was designed to examine the relationships
between a formal leader‘s perceptions of the informal
organization within his work group and his effectiveness
as a formal leader. The study was primarily concerned
with the leader's perceptions of the existence and the
cohesiveness of the informal organization, his perceived
degree of control over the informal organization and
whether he perceived himself as a member of the informal
organization within his work group.

The major hypothesis of this study was that the
most effective leaders have an accurate perception of
the "actual" informal organization, and the least
effective leaders have an inaccurate perception of the
"actual" informal organization within their work groups.
It was also hypothesized that the most effective leaders
perceive themselves as maintaining a high degree of con-

trol over the informal organization and that they do not

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

perceive themselves as members of the informal organization
within their work group.

The field work was conducted in two divisions of
a public utility company. The sample consisted of thirty-
six foremen and the work groups that they supervised.

Each of the foremen in thissample was under the authority
of a distribution superintendent. The foremen were ordin—
ally ranked by their distribution superintendents as:
excellent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

The study initially attempted to determine the
structure and cohesiveness of the informal organization
within each work group through questionnaires distributed
to all of the work group members. These questionnaires
would have yielded a composite index of group cohesiveness
for each group. However, only twelve of the groups had
a majority of their members responding to the question—
naire. Since at least a fifty percent response from each
group was believed to be necessary to determine a valid
composite index of group cohesiveness, the study was
modified. Each distribution superintendent was asked to
rank the cohesiveness of each of his foremen's work groups
on a scale comparable to the groups' composite indexes.
The rankings of the distribution superintendents showed
a high correlation with the composite indexes of the
twelve groups with a majority of their members responding.
Thus, the distribution superintendents' perceptions were

utilized to identify the actual informal organization.

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

Questionnaires were distributed to the foremen
to elicit their perceptions concerning the cohesiveness
of the informal organization, their control over it and
whether or not they perceived themselves as members.

The study did demonstrate an association between
an accurate perception of the informal organization and
a high level of formal effectiveness. Thus, an aware—
ness of the informal organization was associated with a
highly effective leader.

There was no significant association between a
perception of a high degree of control over the informal
organization and a highly effective leader. It was noted
that the majority of "excellent" leaders did perceive
themselves as having some control over the informal organ—
ization but not necessarily a high degree of control.

This was not the case for less effective leaders, the
majority of whom perceived themselves as having no con—
trol over the informal organization. The excellent

leader apparently does not perceive himself as relinquish—
ing all control over this sector of the group, whereas

the less effective leader may.

There was no significant association between member-
ship in the informal organization and a highly effective
leader. The relationship that did exist demonstrated
that the more effective leaders were likely to be members

of the informal organization. Again, the majority of the

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

"excellent" leaders perceived themselves as members of
the informal organization. This was not the case with

the less effective leaders.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE INFORMAL
ORGANIZATION AND THE EFFECTIVENESS

OF FORMAL LEADERS

By.

T

‘\ I

_“~:
A: Thomas Hollingsworth

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Management

1969

Géf/é/

"C... "’7 x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people helped in the completion of this research
project. In particular the author wishes to thank Dr. B. P.
Coleman and Dr. S. E. Bryan for their time and their
suggestions concerning this research. My sincerest thanks
to Dr. D. E. McFarland. His criticisms, suggestions and
encouragement were invaluable in the completion of this
project.

The author is very grateful to the people connected
with the utility company studied. They gave their time
and assistance most freely.

The work was supported by a fellowship from the
Institute of Public Utilities, and the author is most
appreciative of this financial support.

Thanks also to Jack, Mike and Doc.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
LISrl‘ OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I. GROUP COHESIVENESS, LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS,

AND THE GENERAL MODEL OF THE STUDY. . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Group Map. . . . . . . . .
The Importance of the .Leaders' Perceptions
of the Informal Organizations.
The General Model and the Hypotheses
of this Study. . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . .

II. OPERATIONALIZING THE VARIABLES IN THE
GENERAL MODEL . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Group Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leader's Effectiveness . . . . . . . . .
Leaders' Perceptions

Summary. . . . . . . .

III. GENERAL METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . .
The Pilot Study. . . . . . . . .

Changes After the Pilot Study. . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

12

12
13

25

32
36

Chapter Page
IV. DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . TA

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7“
The General Sample. . . . . . . . . 75
Hypotheses I, II, III: Perceptions

and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Hypotheses IV, V: Degree of Control. . . . . . 89
Hypothesis VI: Membership in

the Informal Organization . . . . . . . . . . 96
Hypotheses VI and VII: Informal Leaders. . . . 102
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IOU

V. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . 106
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Validation of the Distribution Superintendents'

Rankings of Cohesiveness. . . . . . . . . . . 106

Problems in Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . 11A

Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2O

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13A
B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A8

iv

N.

10.

ll.

13.

1A.

15.

LIST OF TABLES

Questionnaire Items Measuring Work
Group Cohesiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sociometric Choice Items.

Questionnaire Items Measuring Informal
Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Questionnaire Items Measuring Foremen's
Relationships to the Informal Organization. .

Questionnaire Items Measuring Foremen's
Perceptions of Informal Organizations . . . .

Items Measuring Perceived Degree of Control

Items Measuring Informal Membership
and Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau
Sociometric Choice Items: Final Questionnaire.

Item l.-—Modifications of Alternatives.

. Modification of Item 7. . . . . . . .

Additional Items in the Final Questionnaire .

Quantification of the Questionnaire Items
Composing the Foremen's Composite Indexes
of Cohesiveness . . . . . . . . . . .

Foremen Effectiveness as Related to their

Disparity Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quantification of the Questionnaire Items
Composing the Foreman's Composite Indexes

of Perceived Degree of Control. . . . . . . .

Page

41
O2

“3

AA

A8
50

51
62
66
66
67
68

81

85

91

Table

B—

B—

U—

B-

16.

17.

18.

19.

90.

N.

TO

N.

Foremen's Effectiveness as Related to
Their Perceived Degree of Control. . .

Items Measuring Foremen's Perceived
Membership in the Informal Organization. .

Foremen's Effectiveness as Related to
Their Perceived Membership in the Informal
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quantification of the Questionnaire Items
Composing the Groups' Composite Indexes
of Cohesiveness. . . . . . . . . . .

Quantification of the Questionnaire Items
Measuring the Groups' Perceptions of
Their Foreman's Membership in the
Informal Organization. . . . . . . . . . .

Cover Letter for All Questionnaires. . . .
Foreman Questionnaire. . .

Worker Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . .
Follow—Up Letter . . . . . . . . . . .

Original Sample, Effectiveness Rankings,
and Division . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background Data of Respondents . . . .

Comparison of the Distribution Superin—
tendents' Perceptions of the Work
Groups' Cohesiveness with the Work
Groups' Perceptions of their Cohesiveness.

Correlation (rs) Between the Distribution

Superintendents' Perceptions of the Work
Groups' Cohesiveness and the Work Groups'
Perceptions of Their Cohesiveness. . . .

Comparison of the Distribution Superinten—
dents' Perceptions of the Foremen's
Membership in the Informal Organization
with the Work Groups' Perceptions of the
Foremen's Membership . . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

92

98

99

108

110

135
136
1A2

1A7

1A9

150

151

152

15“

Table

B—6.

B-ll.

8—12.

Correlation (rs) Between the Distribution
Superintendents' Perceptions of the
Foremen's Membership in the Informal
Organization and the Work Groups'
Perceptions of the Foremen's Membership

Disparity Indexes

Correlation (rs) Between a Foreman's

Effectiveness Ranking and His Disparity
Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Measurement of the Control Variable
as Perceived by the Foremen . . . .

Correlation (rs) Between a Foreman's
Effectiveness Ranking and His Perceived
Degree of Control over the Informal

Organization. . . . . . . . . . .

Foremen's Perceived Membership in the
Informal Organization . . . . . . .

Correlation (rs) Between a Foreman's

Effectiveness Ranking and His Perceived
Membership in the Informal Organization

Correlation (rs) Between Item 12 and the

Groups' Composite Indexes of Cohesiveness

vii

Page

155
157

159

161

162

16“

165

167

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Partial Organization Chart of the
Company Studied. . . . . . . .

A Paradigm of the Variables in a Group

Map and Resultant Group Actions
and/or Attitudes . . . . . . .

Leadership Continuums. . . .

The General Model of this Study.

viii

Page
. 9
. 1A

31
. 33

INTRODUCTION

"If men define situations as real,
they are real in their consequences"

The Object of the Study

 

Organization theory is concerned with explaining and
predicting the behavior of organization members and thus,
of organizations themselves. But at the present time, many
of the theoretical concepts are too subjective to be utilized
by either practitioners or researchers. Behavioral models
have been constructed to eXplain and predict behavior within
organizations, but these models have lacked pragmatic signi-
ficance due to their lack of quantification. This lack of
quantification has made the empirical testing of these models
impossible.

Organization theory must now move in the direction of
both isolating strategic variables and quantifying these

variables so that causal relationships can be identified. A

 

1w. I. Thomas and Dorothy s. Thomas, The Child In
America: Behavior Problems and Programs (New York, Alfred
A. Knopf, 19287, p. 572.

 

combination of both a general and a specific approach to
multivalent models is required. A general approach is needed
to define all the variables within the system, and a specific
approach is needed so that the variables can be quantified
and their relationships in the total system can be positively
determined. Future behavioral models will prove more useful
when they can be quantified, tested for validity and the
tests reproduced by other theoreticians.

There are many research projects reported in the liter—
ature in both the area of leadership effectiveness and in
the area of informal organizations, but there have been
very few attempts to combine these concepts. The object of
this study is to"operationalize"these concepts and to deter-
mine what relationships, if any, exist between leadership

effectiveness and informal organizations.

The Basic Study

 

This study was designed to investigate the associations
between a leader's perception of the informal organization
and a leader's effectiveness in the formal organization. This

was accomplished in two stages.

 

First, the interrelationships which existed within the

constraints of formal organizationswandmwhiehmhayembegnfih

.— _._._____..-.-—

 

referred to as informal or social organizations were identified

 

_.—

 

 

and quantified.

Second, the study ascertained the degree to which there

fl.--“ . . .——_... _...- ___,_,,_ ..-.—- -’ "‘

existed an association between a leader's accuracy of

\ ._..

LA}

pe r59 gap t i 0 n Ofthelnf ormdlorsani .2 at ion.--_ari§1_hisefilslgtivene s s
in big EQPTfiliiolS- An association between two variables
does not signify a causal relationship. A strong causal
relationship may or may not exist when variables are

associated. An association refers to the fact that both

variables exist in the sample population simultaneously.

The Concept of the Informal Organization

 

The concept of the informal organization has been the
subject of criticism in recent literature. This study in-
tends to rectify some of the causes of these criticisms and
to develop a methodology by which this concept can be applied
to the explanation of organizational behavior.

One of the main reasons for criticism of the informal
organization concept is that it is thought to be too nebulous
to be of any pragmatic or theoretical use. Statements such

"2

as, "every organization creates an informal structure and

"informal organization is indefinite and rather structure—

"3 suffer from a lack

less, and has no definite subdivisions
of precision. Statements such as, "a more positive function
of the informal, in relation to the informal structure is to

encourage the development of the latter along constructive

 

2Phillip Selznick, "The Informal Organization,"
Organizations: Structure and Behavior, Joseph A. Litterer,
editor (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963), p. 1A6.

3Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1938),
p. 115.

 

‘ ‘

lines,"u give little direction to either the practitioner
or the researcher. It is evident that such statements must
be quantified and thus made operative if they are to have
any validity in future theories.

In order to avoid the criticism that the concept of
'the informal organization is too nebulous, a precise defini-

tion is utilized in this study. The working definition of

 

the informal organization is that it is the set of inter- :#E

i

personal relations that are present in the formal organiza—

 

tion but are either omitted from or are not consistent with

5

the formal organization. The informal organization speci—

 

fies norms of behavior, leader-follower relations, communi-
cation channels, shared values, and status ranking of
members0 and non-members. This working definition allows
the informal organization to be studied as a segment or the
total organization. It allows the quantification of the
interpersonal relationships which are not precisely
"(\specified by the formal structure.

PW“ The second major criticism of the concept of the
informal organization is that it simply does not exist. Some
writers feel that the average worker's need for affiliation

is satisfied outside the job situation, and therefore, the

 

“Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior, 2nd
Edition (New York: The Free Press, 1957), p. 1A9.

5
6Joseph A. Litterer, editor, Organizations: Structure

and Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963),

 

Ibid., p. 1A8.

 

b".

7

job is not the central life interest for the average worker.
When work is not a central life interest for the worker, his
participation in his work organization is limited to a
superficial arrangement in which the worker's only interest
in the organization is the monetary compensation that he
derives from it.

This criticism, that the informal organization does
not exist in many organizations, is based on the assumption
that informal organization evolves only to satisfy the
worker's need for affiliation. However, the working defini-
tion in this study views the informal organization in a
broader context. The formal organization specifies the

interdependency of work roles, the social distance between

jobs, the work flow, the initiation of work processes, and

some of the interactions required to fulfill the formal work

role. The formal organization, in the latter case, specifies

,_.._..,.- .m. _, --

certain interactions that must occur as the formal work role

..—---

is performed. It is very probable that these specific

_-....

interactions are not all the interactions needed to perform

[—-

 

 

 

_..—r

 

”WW—‘1
.1... _.....— --—-——~-—. _.—-———-—

the formal role successfully. When this is the case, more

F...”

 

 

,F
“_.....—

interactiono are needed than are specified by the formal

 

organization; and the informal organization emerges to
correct this deficiency in the formal structure. It is un-

likely that the formal organization could specify all

 

 

interactions needed to fulfill organizational goals, and the

I; _..-_..-

 

 

 

 

MM.....,.-«___M.~._ .

 

7Robert Dubin, "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study
of the Central Life Interest of Industrial Workers," Social
Problems, III (1956), pp. 131-142.

 

informal organization is, therefore,not only a means through

2......wa

”_ ”WW-ea“. -. ”-

’w—O’ .‘I ._

which workers may fulfill affiliation needs but it is also

~omm Wm“. u—w-w

,hwa means of enhancing the performance of the formal work

role.

“W The informal organization may also exist to provide
security for the workers. By doing so, it may severely
hamper the formal organization's attempts to initiate changes
in the work situation.8 The informal organization exists in
such instances to protect the livelihood of the workers and

not to fulfill their affiliation needs.

The informal organization may be defined away, as some

—_

 

 

 

I ‘————.~‘. -~W‘ M"

writers have done by stating that it is solely an outlet

_.

 

 

 

 

‘w-m—n

for the social needs of workers and by then stating that the

”.0... ..-..—...... .m- N. m...~... v..- -m... .

 

 

.H—“d—

r”-

workers no longer satisfy these needs at their place of work.

-_'—i

 

 

,___.—o0""

However, this definition is too limited. Defining the infor-
mal organization as strictly a social or affiliation need
satisfier does not yield a complete definition of the inter—
aCtions that occur within the job situation but that are not
specified by the formal structure. It is more realistic to
define all the interactions that occur "on the job" and are
not specified by the formal organization as constituting

the informal organization.
The informal organization in this study was limited to

the interactions which occurred within the work group as

 

8Donald Roy, "Selections From Quota Restriction and
Goldbricking in a Machine Shop," Organizations: Structure
and Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963),
pp. IOU-ISI}

 

defined by the formal organization. This is essentially
the same approach which was utilized in the Bank Wiring Room
of the Hawthorne Studies.9 The main difference is that in
this study the specific norms of the group, that is, whether
they aided or detracted from formal goals, were not as im-
portant as the strength of the normative structure of the
group. The normative structure refers to the set of values
and beliefs that a particular group feels are important.

It is evident that if the "total" organization is to
be understood, the informal organization as defined in this

study must be understood. As previously stated, this study

. _—.... H.000..-
_. “WW- "_H‘

 

looked at only one effect of the informal organization:

’flm—I -._ ._...—.——. _

_r.__.‘——»' 'W u- --a Mm “__ -__
_»_.-“~-.—' ._._

....._......

how a formal leader's perception of the informaIMorganization

raw—-

\. ," """ - ~—.- *4

 

\N...
> —\._1. ~- .._.. ,, fl

affects his formal role performance

 

 

-..-———---—- . .‘

The Leadership Concept

 

This study is concerned with the association between a
leader's accuracy of perception of the informal organization
and his effectiveness as a formal leader. The style of
leadership, that is, autocratic, democratic, or laissez-faire,
is_not a determinant factor in this study. I: is assumed

that the most effective leader is one who utilizes that style

M

———.—-_

of leadership which enhances Whis effectiveness The less

WWW « ”_.. _..—
_....- -

effective leader is either inflexible in his leadership style

 

9Fritz A. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson,
Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1939), pp. 508-10.

 

or is unable to make the correct adaptation of style due to
an incorrect perception of the situation.

The leader of any_ group.mustoconform.tomsome minimum

._,_..-- ~—.———'--—

level of group norms if he is to be an effective leader.

 

_..—F- -.__.__ .pr-O

 

"on—- -~—-~

This level will be determined situationally, and it will

vary with the strength of the group's normative structure.

If the leader does not conform to this minimum set of group
norms, friction will increase between the leader and the
group, and the effectiveness of both will diminish.

Caudill10 found that the failure of a mental institution to
recognize the informal organization Operative within it
created friction between the formal and informal organiza~
tions, emphasizing that a formal leader's failure to recognize
the informal organization will tend to hamper his formal role

performance.

The Locus of the Study ,Y
r"

 

The study was concerned with the~£ncemea—£n two diviwhavebf
sions (A and B) of a large, decentralized public utility
company in Michigan. The company is divided into fifteen
separate divisions. The division structure is represented
by the partial organization chart in Figure l. The Division
Manager is responsible for carrying out company policies

within his division.

 

10William A. Caudill, The Psychiatric Hospital as a
Small Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1958), pp. 231-265.

 

 

I

I

I

l
VICE-PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

MANAGER - DIVISIONS

 

 

 

 

I DIVISION MANAGER

 

 

 

ASSISTANT

DIVISION MANAGER

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(_"—"_~—l I l""""‘7
ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION I GAS DISTRIBUTION I
Superintendent l Superintendent I
I
ASSISTANT ELECTRIC ASSISTANT GAS
Distribution Distribution
Superintendent Superintendent
«— FOREMEN ——-—> {—-— FOREMEN ——D

Figure l.--Partial Organization Chart of the Company Studied.

10

The study was conducted in a single company since this

F—u—a—w“

fi/,,,
allowed the formal orkisituation to be held constant

throughout the study. This would not be poSSIble if differ-
ent companies supplying different products or services were
used.

The work groups in this study performed the majority
of their formal tasks outside the physical boundaries of the
company. Thus, the primary effect that the formal organiza—
tion had on the informal organization was initial assignment
of workers to specific work groups. It was virtually

yr“. .

impossible for the formal organization to control the physi-
cal work environment. A utility company is unique in the
sense that its workers are rarely controlled by a factory or
assembly-line situation. This study attempts to isolate each

informal organization and to determine the strength of these

informal organizations within each work group.

The Structure of the Research

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I
presents a review of the literature relevant to the concepts
of group cohesiveness and leadership effectiveness.‘ This
chapter also explains the general model of this study and the
major hypotheses utilized to test the model.

The second chapter is concerned with defining the con—
cepts used in the research. These include informal organi—
zation, group cohesiveness, leadership effectiveness and

leaders' perceptions regarding the informal organization.

11

Chapter III eXplains the methodology that was utilized
to test the hypotheses of the study. It also discusses the
pilot study that was conducted prior to the major research.
Both the manner in which the pilot study was conducted and
the results of the pilot study are shown.

Chapter IV presents the major findings of this research.
The empirical data and the statistical analysis of the data
are presented. Conclusions regarding the hypotheses are then
drawn based on the statistical analysis.

The final chapter presents findings that were not
directly applicable to the major hypotheses. It also points
out problems that were encountered during the research. The

implications for future research are also explained.

CHAPTER I

GROUP COHESIVENESS, LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS

AND THE GENERAL MODEL OF THE STUDY

' \
"The small group is a convenient locus wherein to\fik
assay one of man's more baffling qualities-—his
ability to get along with his fellow creatures."

I:
i

Introduction

 

The purpose of this chapter is to acquaint the reader
with the literature relevant to the study of small groups
and leadership. The concept of the "total group environment"
is explained,and how a leader's perception of it can affect
his performance is demonstrated. The chapter is divided
into three sections.

The first section introduces the variables present in
a group map. This section examines these variables with a
particular emphasis on how they can affect the group's
cohesiveness.

The second section presents the rationale for this

study, that is, the reasons that effective leaders were

A

1Michael S. Olmstead, The Small Group (New York:
Random House, 1959), p. 1A5.

 

l2

13

thought to have an accurate perception of the informal organ—
ization. It also presents the assumption made concerning
leadership "style."

The last section introduces the general model under—
lying this study and the hypotheses that were designed to

test the model.

The Group Map

 

Figure 2 presents the variables that exist in an
organizational group map. The variables affect the group and,
in turn, affect the resultant group actions and/or attitudes.
The interrelationships between the resultant group actions
and attitudes are eXplained in the following text.

The total group environment is shown in the center as
consisting of two separate but interrelated segments. The
formal segment is the formal organization structure WhiCh
exists to fulfill the objectives of the formal organization.
The informal segment is a result of the interactions of the
formal group members and may exist for many purposes as
shown in the Introduction. The variables which are shown
as acting on the total group environment may, in reality,
affect one segment more than the other. However, the major

concern of this model is the effect on the total group

\f’ - {Ad f ‘Ql‘, W
environment. OIM ‘0: .g I m, [399W
The informal leader is shown as part of the informal
segment of the total group environment. The informal leader

was found by Zaleznik to be strictly a "social" phenomenon

1A

.moosufiuud 90\Ucm
mcofiuo¢ muons ucmuHSmmm pew am: dzopo m CH mmfinwfipm> on» mo swficmnmm <11.m mmswam

 

 

 

 

_ was
coapmfiafimua “mpmm mumm Huston mo
moans “pang . mocm>mflpo ucmssmfiaasooo<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

./ w, u m

“Mk _ sfiflnmmstm

 

A;

 

 

unbecopfi>cm dsopu Hmuoe

fimemcm>Hmmcoo
r Ari/ll, . \\a _ fl/

 

 

 

noomoq awesomcH

 

_ _ asono

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cofipmuficmmpo HmEnomcH Haemom Emdmoucmmn<
spfififipmpm \\\\\\\\xv

IMmMMM soapmspfim
-- _ xuos
amenom

manuHSQnsm . _ moa>mnwm

AO\ocm ozonm mumnEmz Hm>mq nmommq

caspaso mo mufim mo ow< soapMozcm w Hmshom

1] .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l5

and, as such, was not officially recognized by the formal
organization. The informal leader fulfilled a "big brother"
role within the informal organization; that is, the group
members gravitated to the informal leader when they felt
that their problems, if presented to the formal leader,
would cause them to lose prestige in terms of the formal
organization. Thus, the informal 1eader_kept group members
from committing errors that would have damaged their rela—
tionship to the formal organization. His leadership role
was more a helping role than a directing role. This led to
a feeling of insecurity on the part of the informal leader
since it made his position dependent on the group's percep-
tions of his actions.2 The informal leader is important in
some actions of the group, but he is a result rather than a
cause of a cohesive informal organization.

The basic concern of this study was how the variables
operative in Figure 2 did or did not affect group cohesive-
ness and group effectiveness (since this affects leader's
effectiveness). Other group resultant behavior is shown in
Figure25 but since it was beyond the scope of this study, it

was included only for completeness.

 

2A. Zaleznik, Worker Satisfaction and Development
(Norwood, Massachusetts: The Plimpton Press, 1956), pp. 65,
99-101. ”I“,

v _

l6

Variables in the Group Map

The variables in the group map shown in Figure 2 are
explained in the following section. The explanation of the
variables is particularly concerned with their effect on the
group's cohesiveness.

Culture.-—The most basic variable affecting the
cohesiveness of any group is the culture and/or sub—culture
from which group members are drawn. Crozier found that
French cultural patterns emphasized isolation of the individual.
These led to few societal groups being formed other than the
family and the church. The French found face-to-face contact
difficult and uncomfortable. They attempted to maintain
their independence (defined as non-dependence on others)
in the work situation by a strict adherence to the written
rules. This kept them free from the whims of supervisors.

As would be predicted, Crozier found little evidence of
informal organizations within French bureaucracies.3
The American cultural setting has a more gregarious
nature than the French, and informal organizations are more

likely to appear in our society. It should be noted that

due to informal relationships, the American institution is

Inore flexible than the French.LI

 

3Michel Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Chicago:
'The University of Chicago Press, 1963), pp. 216—233.

“Ibid.

17

The sub—cultural setting from which workers are drawn
also affects the informal organizations to which they belong
or do not belong. Blauner found that Southern textile
workers had informal ties, whereas in relatively similar
circumstances, Northern automobile workers had few informal
ties. One reason for this being that the Southern textile
mill was simply an extension of the community. The auto-
mobile plant drew its workers from a diversified community

5 There were other factors

rather than a one—plant town.
present in the automobile plant disruptive to the emergence
of informal organizations, and these will be explained later
in this chapter.

Whyte has pointed out that "rate—busters" have differ—
ent backgrounds than group members. They are either from
rural or middle class backgrounds, whereas group members
are drawn from mainly lower class,urban areas.

Ethnic relationships may also influence the informal
organization. This was the case with many Negro cliques in

the Marine Corps stationed at Da Nang, Viet Nam. They had

formed a separatist—type clique, and in this case, ethnic

 

5Robert Blauner, Alienation and Freedom (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 196“), pp. 7“, 75, 109, 110.

6William F. Whyte, Men at Work (Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc. and the Dorsey Press, Inc., 1961),
p. 100.

 

18

group membership was a prerequisite for informal organiza—
tion membership.7
The above cases demonstrate the importance of under—
standing the cultural environment from which workers are
drawn. Without such an understanding, the total group

environment cannot be fully comprehended.

Stability of the Formal Work Group,-—The stability of

 

the formal work group affects the formation of interpersonal
ties within the group. A constant shifting of personnel
would not be conducive to the formation of a highly cohesive
informal organization within a work group,since it would not
allow a set of interactions to be built up and would con-
stantly disrupt social ties.

Size of the Formal Work Group.-—The size of the formal

 

work group was found by Seashore to be inversely related to
the group's cohesiveness.8 As size increased, the possible
face-to-face interaction between members decreased and

therefore the cohesion of the group decreased. However, he
did not investigate the possible formation of cliques with

increases in size. Stogdill found that members of small

 

7Interview with Lance Corporal Andrew Manning, U.S.
.Marine Corp., just returned from twelve months duty at
Da Nang, Viet Nam, Lansing, Michigan, June 25, 1969.

8Stanley E. Seashore, Grogp Cohesiveness in the
Industrial Work Group (Ann Arbor: Institute for Social
Research, University of Michigan, 195“), p. 99.

19

departments had a tendency to interact outside their formal
group.9

Thus, size of the work group may be a determinant of
the cohesiveness of the informal organization within that
work group, but it is not a simple one to one variable, and
the proximity of other work groups and the formation of
cliques may affect cohesiveness regardless of the size of

the work group.

Age and Educational Level.—-Seashore also found that

 

the ages and the educational levels of work group members

were not determinant factors in the group's cohesiveness.10

Formal Work Situation.--The formal work situation is

 

controlled by the formal organization. It encompasses
division of labor, plant layout, formal job status, and the
pace of work. Walker and Guest found that in a large, auto—
mobile manufacturing plant, the formal organization had
established a work situation which exemplified the following
characteristics: mechanical pacing of work, repetitiveness
of jobs, minimum skill requirements, predetermined use of
tools, minute subdivision of the product being handled by

each worker, and the jobs requiring only surface mental

 

9Ralph M. Stogdill, Leadership and Structures of
Personal Interaction, Research Monograph Number 8H
(Cqumbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State
University, 1957), p. 26.

10Seashore, loc. cit.

2O

attention.ll There was also a high noise level in the

12 The above conditions resulted in less than one half

plant.
of the workers having frequent social contact with those
persons working near them, and few workers felt that they
belonged to an identifiable social group on the job. Another
determinant factor in this lack of informal organization was
the fact that workers were related by proximity, not by

13

interdependent action. This is an example of a formal work
situation that is so structured as to preclude the emergence
of a cohesive informal organization. The above case is not
typical of the majority of work situations. It is an example
of the assembly-line type industry.

Zaleznik found definite social cliques operative within
a machine shop work situation. The workers in the machine
shop had a high degree of freedom of movement which enabled
them to interact both on the job and during breaks. Although
the formal organization specified formal job interactions,
tools were not predetermined by the formal organization, and
this led to borrowing of tools and hence, more interaction

patterns.lu

 

11Charles R. Walker and Robert H. Guest, The Man on the

 

Assembly Line (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1952), p. 12.

12

 

Ibid., p. 68.

13Ibid., p. 79.

l“Zaleznik, 0p. cit., pp. 30-62.

\v.

21

These two examples of formal work situations are used
to demonstrate that the formal work situation has a definite
influence on determining the total group environment and
must be considered in gaining an understanding of the group.

Formal Leader Behavior.--Leadership behavior is another
variable that can influence the total group environment.

This study was concerned primarily with whether a foreman's
perception of the total group environment as it existed was
accurate or inaccurate and how this perception related to his
effectiveness in his formal role. The study was not concerned
with the emergence of a particular situation. However, the
formal leader's behavior does affect the total group environ—
ment, and this study would have been remiss if this variable
were not explained.

Lippitt and White found in a study of boys clubs that
there were fewer sub-groups (informal organizations) formed
under authoritarian leaders than there were under democra-
tically led groups. The democratically controlled groups
were also able to work more productively in the absence of
the leader than were the authoritatively controlled groups.
The reason for this was the fact that the democratically con-
trolled groups were able to develop more interpersonal rela—

15

tions in their groups than were the authoritarian groups.

 

15Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White, "An Experimental
Study of Leadership and Group Life,"Readings in Social
Psycholggy, Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and
Eugene L. Hartley, editors (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1958), pp. 503-50“.

 

22

Stogdill, in a study of naval officers and their crews,
found less active leaders' crews interacting outside their
department to a greater extent than crews whose leaders were
more active. Active leaders were those who interacted fre-
quently outside their own department. The failure of the
leader to interact outside his department caused his crew
to compensate by broadening their patterns of interacting16
and thus, fulfilling formal requirements. This is an example
of the informal organization compensating for a deficiency
in the formal organization.

The above are illustrations of the fact that leaders

.‘\

do affect the emergence of the total group environment. It

..

is also logical to assume that the formal leader affects the

_.....— . -—..-,_...-.-»-.

emerging role of the informal leader.. Being in a position
p.1fl‘»-—~~ ., .1 .
of formal authority the formal leader may remove or leave

figseEWSEEISAs to the informal leader and thus affect his role
by constraining his actions.

The main contention is that the leader and his group
are in constant interaction and, as such, neither can be
fully examined apart from the other.

The preceding section demonstrates that many variables
determine the cohesiveness of the group and/or segments

within the work group. The list of variables is not com-

plete, but it is sufficient to demonstrate that one or two

 

16Stogdill, op. cit., p. 29.

23

variables are not responsible for the resultant total group
environment in an industrial work group.

This study was concerned with the cohesiveness of the
informal organization at the time of the study, and the
leader's perception of it. Groups were selected or rejected
based on how the above variables were thought to influence
them. If it were felt that due to the presence of certain
variables, an informal organization could not emerge, the
group was not utilized in this study. Only groups that were
felt to exist in an environment conducive to the formation

of an informal organization were used in this study.

Cohesiveness: Good or Bad?

 

Blau (1955) found that a comparison between two depart—

ments in a State Employment Agency revealed that the most
17

cohesive department was the most efficient.

Whyte found that quits and absenteeism increase as

internal friction in an organization increases.18 Blauner

has shown quit rates in the automobile industry, which

has been shown to have no cohesive informal organization, to

19

be higher than in any other manual industry. Research has

 

1{Peter M. Blau, The Dynamics of Bureaucrapy (Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 62.

ldWhyte, op. cit., pp. 125—135.

19Blauner, op. cit., p. 120.

2M

has also demonstrated that highly cohesive groups are more
uniform in productivity than less cohesive groups.20’21

Thus far the answer begs the question. Cohesion may
be good or had for management depending on the groups'

22,23 A

idenficiations with organizational objectives.
cohesive group that produces at consistently low levels may
decrease turnover, but it may not enhance formal objectives
when viewed in total. Seashore pointed out that management
should develop cohesive teams that have confidence in the
organization?!4 It was the incompleteness of these types

of ideas that prompted this study. A foreman must be aware

of the total group environment before he can elicit the
support of the group in the attainment of organization objec—
tives. Understanding must precede action. This study moves
in the direction of operationalizing the idea of understanding

total group environments so as to enhance the attainment of

formal organization objectives.

 

’)

“OSeashore, op. cit., p. 98.

')

“lAbraham Zaleznik and David Moment, The Dynamics of
Interpersonal Behavior (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 196HT, p0 1090

 

 

22Seashore, op. cit., p. 99.

23Whyte, op. cit., p. 5A7.

'1
a‘Seashore, op. cit., p. 102.

25
The Importance of the Leaders' Perceptions
of the Informal Organizations
This section presents research findings that demonstrated
the importance of a formal leader's awareness of the total
group environment. These findings demonstrated that such an

awareness enhanced a leader's formal role performance.

A Dynamic Versus a Static Approach
X.

///‘ Carter, using a sample of NROTC teams at the University
’ of Rochester, found that due to differing personality charac-
teristics, a person could be an effective leader with one
group and quite ineffective if placed in charge of a differ-
ent group.25 Hence, the leader's effectiveness becomes a
function of his "fit" with a particular group.

This trait approach to leadership would require a
matching of leaders to groups until the two meshed and formed
an effective team. The assumption underlying this approach

is that leaders and groupslareistatierrather than dynamic

..‘_.

f T H.‘ M,

entities. A more realistic approach would be to sensitize a

leader to diagnose a total group environment and modify his

behavior in terms of his diagnosis. This does not imply that
the total group environment cannot be altered. The previous

paradigm of group variables demonstrates that it can, but

change should only occur when coupled with understanding.

 

25Launor Carter, "Some Research on Leadership in Small
Groups," Groups, Leadership and Men, Harold Guetzkow, editor
(New York: Russell & RusseIl, Inc., 1963), p. 153.

26

Altering leader behavior and/or the total group environment
seems a better way of gaining leadership effectiveness than

by looking for a "lucky fit" between leader and group.

The Importance of Awareness

 

Hawron and McGrath found that in small military units
(squads) the leader's job knowledge and his intelligence
were the variables that most highly correlated with his
unit's effectiveness. They found that the next most impor—
tant leader variable related to unit effectiveness was the
leader's knowledge concerning his men and their interrela—
tionships.26

Roff found, in a study of Air Force combat officers,
that the most effective officers were perceived by their men
as sincere, impartial and lacking concern for personal advan-
tage. The latter point was interpreted as showing that these
leaders were concerned more with group welfare than with

personal glory. The less effective leaders did not exhibit

this quality.27

 

26Dean M. Hawron and Joseph E. McGrath, "The Contribu—
tion of the Leader to the Effectiveness of Small Military
Groups," Leadership and Inteppersonal Behavior, Luigi
Petrullo and Bernard M. Bass, editors (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), pp. 168-169.

 

27Merrill Roff, "A Study of Combat Leadership in the
Air Force by Means of a Rating Scale: Group Differences,"
The Study of Leadership, C. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn,
editors (DanvilIe, IlIinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc., 1958), pp. 165-168.

 

27

Fiedler, in developinthis "contingency modeliimfound

.W —-—-—-

that leadership effectiveness was contingent on the leader's

_.....— ... “_.....- .u .. _... .........-
0....--»w...

style of interacting with his group (defined by Fiedler as

 

 

 

m..«... _..-M

 

 

the leader being highly acceptable, moderately acceptable or

.————"- _.....- .-..
..._.—.._,———._ _-." “_.....

unacceptable to his group) and the favorableness of the

\.-r " “WI—N“ n...

 

m --4-n 0-. .n— ..—.._ -m— H. M
“a .-..
hm- -W H“ "—" "‘ ~~——.~___

grpup's task situation. An example would be a situation in
i- _11._-~a1

 

which a group was faced with an unstructured task and the
leader was not accepted by the group. Fiedler found that
this situation was best handled by a "task-oriented" leader,
whereas in different situations a more group-oriented style
may be required. The "contingency model" points out that
leadership style may need to be altered as the situation
changes.29 It was the contention of this study that the
"contingency model" was correct but thatmleaders must have_a

, ,..-....—-

correct perception of the total group environment before they

_‘_____ 1 M"\ _ ..
M

can modify their behavior to meet thewsituation.

_.., ""_-\-.__.._i...-u........._._-_V . M

 

 

Likert, in a study of thirty-one managers of a national
company, found that the more effective managers had a sup—

portive attitude toward their workers and endeavored to

 

2RKamla Chowdhry and Theodore M. Newcomb, "The Rela—
tive Abilities of Leaders and Non-Leaders to Estimate
Opinions of their Groups," Small Groupp, A. Paul Hare,
Edgar F. Borgatta and Robert F. Bales, editors (New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 367, 373, 378.

29Fred E. Fiedler, "Personality and Situational
Determinants of Leadership Effectiveness," Groupprnamics,
3rd Edition, Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, editors
(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968), pp. 362- 380.

28

establish closely-knit groups. The less effective managers
displayed a threatening attitude toward workers and
depended on man-to-man relationships in their supervisory

activities.30

Problems Due to a Lack of Awareness

 

Gouldner has demonstrated the problems encountered
when a new leader does not recognize the historical back—
ground of a group. His study concerned the replacement of
a "personal" type leader with a "bureaucratic" type leader.
A great deal of resistance to the new leader's programs were
generated within the group. The new leader did not recog—
nize "informal" status nor did he recognize the past leader's

31

"informal" obligations. The new leader was not cognizant
of the total group environment.

Whyte found that when formal pressure caused a foreman
to increase his initiation of work for his work group and
caused him to decrease the time spent in responding to the

group's problems that the result was a covert pact in the

work group, and they no longer "saved" the foreman from

 

30Rensis Likert, "An Emerging Theory of Organization,
Leadership and Management," Leadership and Interpersonal
Behavior, Luigi Petrullo and Bernard M. Bass, editors (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), p. 300.

31Alvin W. Gouldner, "The Problem of Succession and
Bureaucracy," Studies in Leadership, Alvin W. Gouldner,
editor (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1950),

p. 651.

29

mistakes as they had done in the past.32

This is an example
of how a lack of awareness on the foreman's part caused him
to lose effectiveness.

Homans pointed out that the interviews with the girls
in the Relay Assembly test room at Hawthorne Electric showed
that management knew little concerning worker attitudes.

This was not extremely detrimental since the girls were
company—oriented. However, this lack of knowledge was detri-
mental in the Bank Wiring Room where workers were not so
company-oriented and tended to restrict output.33

Trist and Bamforth also found that management's_lack,
of knowledge concerning worker attitudes proved disastrous
when the informal organization thwarted management's
attempts to introduce technological change. The change was
resisted by the workers because it disrupted their social
interrelationships.3u Walker and Marriott also found that
workers resisted change that disrupted their social interre-

lationships even when the change was in their best interests.35

 

’)
3“Whyte, 0p. cit., p. 1H7.

33George C. Homans, "Group Factors in Worker Produc-
tivity," Readings in Social Psychology, Eleanor E. Maccoby,
Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley, editors (New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958), pp. 587, 595.

3uE. L. Trist and R. W. Bamforth, "Some Psychological
Consequences of the Long-Wall Method of Coal-Getting,"
Human Relations, 1951, A, pp. 3-38.

 

35J. Walker and R. A. Marriott, "A Study of Some
Attitudes to Factory Work," Occppational Psychology, 1951,
25, pp. 181‘1910

 

30

The above studies have been cited to demonstrate that
the behavior of organization members can only be understood

in the context of the total group environment. In order for

a leader to be effective, he should understand the total

-group environment in which he operates , It was assumed for

 

:-_—'4 uncl- --M-m.-‘.s.
.—..—

the purpose of this study that the foremen understood the

formal aspects oi their work groups. Therefore, to judge
the accuracy of their assessment of the total group environ-
ment, the study was concerned with their perception of the

informal segment of the total group environment.

 

of
EKTTypes of Leadership

Basic to this study was the assumption that the most
effective foremen operate on a dual continuum. (Refer to
Figure 3.)

The first continuum in Figure 3 was devised by Tannen—
baum and Schmidt, and it demonstrates that a leader may
operate with either an autocratic style, a democratic style
or some combination of the two as represented on the con—

36

tinuum. The second continuum represents a leader's aware-

ness of the total group environment in which he operates.

lt_was assumed in this study that an effective leader

sou. “M
.. Wm“... H...— -W-m

 

,. _.. wt...- 1.0-. .wm
- .1 "on”... u—W

who was aware of the total group environment would utilize

that style of leadership that best fitted the situation.

 

36Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt, "How to
Choose a Leadership Pattern," Organizations: Structure and
Behavior, Joseph A. Litterer, editor (New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1963), p. 12“.

 

31

.mESSCHpcoo dfinmpoomoqll.m ohswfim

 

 

: “cmEcopfiEm A I llullllv = pcogopflwcm 9..th

snows fiance: " I fiance: no .N

mo mmmcmmmz< mmmcmnmzmcn
maumhmommq ofipmpooEmm Alllllll. Illlllllv afinmpmcmmq caumnoops<

_ .
q H

I.
mmmmwumo mpmcfionopsm , . I. omhmpcmoummom

32

An example would be a fully aware leader adopting an auto—
cratic leadership style when the group began to splinter
because of friction between members. Granted this is a
temporary solution,but without autocratic behavior by the
leader, the group could disintegrate into chaos. This goes
beyond the concept that democratic leadership is superior

. to autocratic leadership or vice versa. The assumption

....,.., "- .M“ :17

. _.--u. .

made in this study is that the "best" style of leadership

is that which fulfills formal objectives most effectively.

. ._..._,..

The General Model and the
Hypotheses of this Study

 

 

The general model represents the variables that were
examined in this study (Refer to Figure h). This section
presents each variable and its hypothesized relationship to

leadership effectiveness.

Perceptions of the informal Organization

 

The main purpose of this study was to determine whether
a relationship existed between the accuracy of a leader‘s
perceptions regarding the informal organization and his
effectiveness as a formal leader. The importance of a

leader' 5 awareness of the total group environment as related

___ _'____ W-..—._. . ~—

to his effectiveness was explained earlier in this chapter.
v i..- HM“

It was felt that as a foreman' s perceptions of the informal

 

 

 

._... ......—~- ’ —‘—‘ ‘ “"'" “—' ““" -m.- . z-»
w-thn— . k» v \ _

organization became more accurate, he would be more aware

 

of the total group environment Therefore accuracy of

33

Perception of the
Informal Org.

I
l
Perceived Degree
of Control
over

Informal
I
l
6

Leader Membership in effectiveness

__i ____—____.
*—- Informal
I
[nformal
Leader

+

Compatibility
with Informal
Leader

Figure N.--The General Model of This Study.

3U

perceptions and high leadership effectiveness were felt to
be associated,and this led to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis I: The most effective leaders are those
who accurately perceive the "actual"
informal organization operative
within their work group.

Hypothesis II: The least effective leaders are those
who have an inaccurate perception of
the informal organization operative
within their work group.

Hypothesis Ill: A decrease in the difference between
a leader's perception of the informal
organization and the "actual" informal
organization is associated with an
increase in effectiveness of role
performance.

Perceived Degree of Control

 

The most effective leaders were felt to be those who

exercised a high degree of control over all areas of the total

 

group environment, that is, both the formal and informal seg—
ments. For this reason, it was felt that a direct association
existed between perceived degree of control and a leader's
effectiveness. This led to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis IV: The most effective leaders are those

who perceive themselves as being capable

of exerting a high degree of control

over the informal organization.

Hypothesis V: A decrease in a leader's perceived degree
of control over the informal organization
is associated with a decrease in his
effectiveness.

MembershipAin the Informal Organization

It was felt that if a formal leader were a member of the

informal organization, he could be faced with a conflicting

35

set of role eXpectations. The formal organization could
demand certain behavior contrary to the informal organiza—
tion's norms. When the formal leader settled the conflict
in favor of either, he would satisfy one but alienate the
other. The leader who was not an informal member would not
he faced with such a strong conflict in expectations, and
he could settle the conflict in terms of the formal organi—
zation. It was felt that this settlement would be easier
for the non-member since he would not be concerned about
being ostracized from the informal organization. The non—
member, formal leader was felt to be more likely to behave
in terms of formal expectations and therefore be a more
effective formal leader. This led to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis VI: The leader who perceives himself as
a member of the informal organization
is less effective than the leader who

does not perceive himself as a member
of the informal organization.

Informal Leader

 

It was felt that the most effective leaders, who were
also members of the informal organization, would be those
who were informal leaders. Thus, in this case, the leader
assumes a dual role of formal and informal leadership, and
he has a high degree of control over both segments of total
group environment. This led to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis VII: The leader who is also the informal
leader is more effective than the

leader who is merely a member of the
informal organization.

36

Compatibility with the Informal Leader

 

It was felt that the formal leader could perform his
role more effectively if he had the support of the informal
leader. This would decrease the probability of both men
attempting to lead the group in different directions. There
would also be fewer "personality clashes" when both leaders
were compatible. These assumptions led to the following
hypothesis:

Hypothesis VIII: The leader who is not a member of the
informal organization and who has a
high degree of compatibility with the
informal leader(s) is more effective
than the leader who is not a member of
the informal organization and who has

a low degree of compatibility with the
informal leader (3).

W

This chapter has presented the variables which affect
the total group environment. The importance of a leader's
awareness of this total group environment was demonstrated.
The general model of this study was presented as were the
hypotheses that were designed to test the variables in the
model.

The next chapter demonstrates how the variables in the
general model were operationalized for use in the field

study.

CHAPTER II

OPERATIONALIZING THE VARIABLES IN

THE GENERAL MODEL

Introduction

 

This chapter presents the working definitions of the
variables that were introduced in the general model of this
study. The chapter is divided into three sections: group
variables, leaders' effectiveness and leaders' perceptions.

The group variables section discusses the operational
definitions and the measurement of the variables associated
with the informal organization, particularly those associated
with the cohesiveness of the informal organization.

The leaders' effectiveness section is concerned with
the manner in which the formal leaders in this study were
ranked in terms of formal effectiveness.

The third section, leaders' perceptions, explains how
the leaders' perceptions regarding the informal organization
were defined and measured.

The questionnaire items in this chapter are introduced
solely to demonstrate why the items were utilized in the study.

These items were all on the original questionnaire. However,

37

38

a pilot study conducted to validate the questionnaires demon—

strated the need for some minor modifications in the question—
naire items. Both the pilot study and the modifications of

the questionnaires are presented in Chapter III.

Group Variables

 

This section presents the working definitions of this
study related to the work groups. The informal organization
and its cohesiveness are defined, and sociometric choice
items related to determining cliques and informal leaders
are presented. The measurement of the leader's relationships
to the informal organization and to the informal leader, as
perceived by the group and the informal leader, are also

shown.

The Informal Organization

.’

 

The informal organization was defined for this study
as a group or a clique containing at least three members of
a particular work group. The strength of the informal
organization was measured by the cohesiveness of the work
group or the clique(s) within the work group. Such a defini-
tion lacks validity in a large work group where many cliques
-of varying cohesiveness are found. This problem was not felt
to be relevant to the groups in this study since they were
\ relatively small.
‘\.
The work groups in this study were ranked as being

highly cohesive, moderately cohesive or showing little or no

39

cohesiveness. The ranking was dependent on either the entire
work group cohesiveness or the cohesiveness of a clique

within the work group.

Cohesiveness of the Informal Organization

 

Cohesiveness of the informal organization was defined
for this study as the average resultant forces acting on
group members causing them to retain their membership in the
group.

Cartwright has shown five approaches to the measurement
of the concept of cohesiveness. The first was "interpersonal
attraction among members." This required the use of socio-
metric choice questions, such as, in-group friendship items
on a questionnaire. The second method, "evaluation of the
group as a whole," required gaining information concerning
each group member's perception of the entire group. The third
method was "closeness of identification with a group."

Group members were asked questions concerning how strongly
they felt that they were personally involved with a group.

A fourth method was "an expressed desire to remain in the
group." This method required information concerning how
strongly each group member desired to remain in the group.
The final approach is the utilization of a "composite index"

of cohesiveness.l This was the approach that was utilized in

 

lDorwin Cartwright, "The Nature of Group Cohesiveness,"
Group Dynamics, 3rd Edition, Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin
Zander, editors (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968),

PP- 92-95.

 

“0

this study coupled with some sociometric choice items. The
composite index consists of combining a number of items

which are felt to be indicators of a group's cohesiveness to
yield a single measure of cohesiveness. Thus, the group's
cohesiveness was defined by its composite index of cohesive—
ness. The next section presents the questionnaire items that

were utilized to measure each group's cohesiveness.

Measurement of Cohesiveness

 

The questionnaire items in Table l were used in the
initial questionnaire of this study to measure group cohe-
siveness. These items were found by Seashore to be indicators
of phenomena which were the result of group cohesiveness.

The average responses to these items were utilized to obtain
an average composite index of cohesiveness for the work groups
in this study. The numerical indexes are presented in
Chapter IV. The strength of the group's cohesiveness was
represented by its composite index or the composite index of

a clique within the group.

Determining Cliques and Informal Leaders

 

The initial questionnaire utilized sociometric choice
items to elicit the clique(s) within a work group. These
items are presented in Table 2. The items were intended to
form a matrix of social choice among group members and thus

identify the group's patterns of interaction.

 

')
“Seashore, op. cit., pp. 36—38.

Al

TABLE l.--Questionnaire Items Measuring Work Group Cohesive-

ness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Do you feel that you are really a part of your work
group? (Check one)
Really a part of the work group
Included in most ways
Included in some but not in all ways
Don't feel that I really belong
5. If you had a chance to do the same type of work for the
same pay in another work group, how would you feel about
moving? (Check one)
Would want very much to move
Would rather move than stay where I am
Would not make any difference
Would rather stay where I am than move
Would want very much to stay where I am
6. How does your work group compare with other work groups
in each of the following areas? (Check one for each
area)
Better than About the same Not as good
most as most as most
The way the
men get along
together ,
i .
i E
The way the 3
men stick 9
together j i
The way the E ‘
men help each 3
other on the g ‘
Job

 

 

 

'42

TABLE 2.--Sociometric Choice Items.

9. Which members of your work group do you associate with most often on the
Job? (List in order of frequent contact, that is, the person that you

associate with most often first, etc.)

 

 

 

(If you require more space, please use the back of this page)

Which members of your work group do you associate with most often off the
Job? (List in order of frequent contact)

 

 

 

 

(If you require more space, please use the back of this page)

10. List the member(s) of your work group that you would most like to work with
and the member(s) that you would least like to work with. This list need
not include all members of your work group since you may not care one way
or the other about certain members.

Most like to work with (List in order of preference)

 

 

 

(If you require more space, please use the back of this page)

Least like to work with (List in order of dislike, that is, list the person
that you would least like to work with first, etc.)

 

 

 

 

(If you require more space, please use the back of this page)

11. If you had a choice, which member of your work group would you least like to
see as its_leader? ‘“”“’

 

“3

The items in Table 3 were designed to identify informal
leaders as perceived by the work groups and to ascertain
whether an individual perceived himself as an informal
leader. If a person were mentioned in items 7 and 12 by two
or more members of the work group, he was identified as an

informal leader.

TABLE 3.--Questionnaire Items Measuring Informal Leadership.

 

7. Are there one or two members of your work group that
exert more influence on the group than other members?
(Include yourself in answering) Yes No.

If yes, what are their names?

 

 

 

8. What influence do you have in your work group? (Check
one)

Members always follow my example

Members frequently ask me for advice

Sometimes I set the example and sometimes I don't
I frequently follow others in the group

I always wait for someone else to make the first
move

12. If you had a choice, which member of your work group
would you most like to see as its leader?

 

 

Relationship of the Leader
to the Group

 

 

The items in Table A were designed to determine the fore—

man's relationship to the informal organization and whether

AM

he was a member of the informal organization as perceived by

the group. These items could also be used to determine the

relationship between the informal leader and the foreman.

The results of the pilot study showed a need to modify

some of the above items. These modifications are explained

in Chapter III.

TABLE A.—-Questionnaire Items Measuring Foremen's Relation—

ships to the Informal Organization.

 

What is your relationship to your supervisor? (Check
one)

Highly personal and very friendly
Friendly

We get along all right

Unfriendly

Hostile

Do you consider your supervisor part of your group, that
is, does he go to coffee with members of the group, does
he have lunch with them, does he associate with them off
the Job, etc.? (Check one)

Very often he is part of the group
Frequently he is part of the group

Once in a while he is part of the group
Rarely is he part of the group

Never is part of the group

How close is your supervisor to the men in the work
group? (Check one)

Much closer to the men than to management

Somewhat closer to the men than to management
About in the middle between the men and management
Somewhat closer to management than to the men
Much closer to management than to the men

 

'45

Leader's Effectiveness

 

The method used to Judge the effectiveness of the
leader's in this study was a ranking of foremen by their
distribution superintendents. This method was implemented
through structured interviews. The distribution superin—
tendents were asked to rank the foremen in their departments
in terms of potential for promotion and general over-all
performance. The latter was a difficult term to define
precisely, and since this was a personal evaluation, over-all
performance would be defined by each distribution superin-
tendent--re1ative to his personal value system. This made
comparisons between foreman effectiveness in different
departments impossible.

During the interviews the distribution superintendents
were asked to place their foremen into one of three ordinal

categories, and this led to the following ordinal ranking

scale:
I = excellent promotable over anyone else in his
area of specialization
2 = average this individual had the potential
to be promoted with improvement.
3 = below average this individual had attained the

highest point in his career——he
would not be promoted under any
circumstances. It was noted that

some individuals could fall into

1:6

this number three category because
of their age. In order to overcome
this problem, the superintendents
were asked to hold age constant
in their rankings (this was only
significant in one case).
This ranking scale was used to segment all the foremen
in this study into one of the three effectiveness categories.
As stated previously, these rankings may not hold under
different circumstances; that is, a highly ranked foreman
under one distribution superintendent may not be as highly
ranked if placed under another distribution superintendent
due to differing value systems of the evaluators. These value
systems may cause different distribution superintendents to
Judge over-all performance differently and hence, to rank their
foremen differently. However, this study was concerned with
the effectiveness of foremen, at the time of the study, as
measured by the formal organization. The distribution super-
intendents' rankings represented the effectiveness of the
foremen as measured by the formal organization.
It was noted that the final, ordinal ranking of the
foremen in this study is only transitive within the group
of foremen under a particular distribution superintendent;
that is, a first level foreman is more effective than a
second level foreman in his department. The final measure
is not transitive on an individual basis; that is, a foreman

that is ranked at the first level in a gas department may

117

or may not be as effective as a foreman ranked at the

first level in an electric department. The foreman

cannot be cross compared. Highly effective may or may

not have carried the same meaning to all distribution
superintendents. Again, this study was concerned with a
foreman's effectiveness at the time of the study and not
with Judging effectiveness ratings,and it is felt that the
above ordinal scale measures effectiveness in terms of

the formal organization.

Leaders' Perceptions

 

This section represents the questionnaire items that
were used to measure each leader's perceptions concerning
the informal organization operative within his work group.

Leaders' Perceptions of the Existence
of the Informal Organization

 

 

The questionnaire items in Table 5 were used to elicit
each leader's perceptions of informal organizations within
his work group. The items were preceded by the statement
in Table 5 explaining the term social group.

These and other items on the foremen's questionnaire
were validated through interviews with the foremen during
the pilot study, and this is explained in Chapter III.

The items in Table 5 were used to form a composite
index of the foreman's perception of the cohesiveness of the

informal organization. This index represented the foremen's

L18

TABLE 5.—-Questionnaire Items Measuring Foremen's Perceptions of Informal
Organizations.

 

In the following questions, the term "social group” refers to the informal
groups that people sometimes form, such as, people who usually have coffee
together, etc. The term work group refers to the group of workers that you
personally supervise. A single work group may contain no ”social groups" or
it may contain many "social groups."

7. I find that "social group(s)" in my work group are: (Check one)

Rare

Not very long-lived

Are not unusual, but change often

Not unusual and are part of the group
Strong determinants of the group's actions

8. My work group is best described as consisting of: (Check one)

No stable "social groups"

A single all encompassing 'social group"
A large number of ”social groups"

A few "social groups"

Members that stick to themselves

9. My work group is best controlled through the use of: ‘(Check one)

"Social groups" and their leaders

"Social groups" and the formal rules

Formal rules remembering the "social groups"
Formal rules since there are no "social groups"
Formal rules since the "social groups" are hard
to control "

15. The "social group(s)" in my work group: (Check one)
Can always be made to help group performance
Can usually be made to help group performance
Can frequently be made to help group performance
Can rarely be made to help group performance
Can never to made to help group performance
Cannot help group performance since they do not exist

' (Check one)

18. "Social groups:'
Are important to the work of my group
Affect the work of my group
Rarely have an effect on the work of my group
Are not important to the work of my group
Do not exist within my group

12. List the people that you feel are the leaders of the various "social group(s)"
that exist within your work group (include yourself as a possible leader of a
"social group"). If no "social groups" exist within your work group, please
answer none. '

 

Leader Group A

 

Leader Group B

 

Leader Group C

 

Leader Group D

 

Leader Group E

 

 

H9

perceptions of the informal organizations that existed (or

did not exist) within their work groups.

Leaders' Degree of Control
Over the Informal Organization

 

 

Control, in this study, was defined as the degree of
influence a foreman felt that he had over the informal organi-
zation within his work group. Degree of influence was defined
as how well the foreman felt that he could guide or utilize
the informal organization in the achievement of formal objec—
tives. The items in Table 6 were used to form a composite
index of the perceived degree of control that a foreman per-
ceived having over the informal organization within his work
group. This index therefore defines degree of control. It
was noted that these items only were applicable to the foremen
who perceived an informal organization within their work
group. A lack of perception of the informal organization was
assumed to establish a lack of perceived control.

Leaders' Relationships to
the Informal Organization

 

 

Items 11 and 13 in Table 7 defined whether a foreman
perceived himself as a member of an informal organization
within his work group. Items 12 and 1A were designed to
determine whether the foreman perceived himself as an infor-
mal leader and his perceived relationship(s) with other

informal leader(s). It was again noted that these items were

TABLE 6.-—Items Measuring Perceived Degree of Control.

 

9. My work group is best controlled through the use of:
(Check one)

"Social groups" and their leaders

"Social groups" and the formal rules

Formal rules remembering the "social groups"
Formal rules since there are no "social groups"
Formal rules since the "social groups" are hard
to control

10. In decisions concerning the assignment of work in my
work group: (Check one)

always consider the "social groups"
frequently consider the "social groups"
rarely consider the "social groups"
never consider the "social groups"

HHHH

15. The "social group(s)" in my work group: (Check one)

Can always be made to help group performance

Can usually be made to help group performance
Can frequently be made to help group performance
Can rarely be made to help group performance

Can never be made to help group performance
Cannot help group performance since they do not
exist

17. I consider myself to be influential in: (Check one)

All actions of the "social groups" in my work

group

Most actions of the "social groups" in my work
group

Some actions of the "social groups" in my work
group

Few actions of the "social groups" in my work

group

None of the actions of the "social groups" in

my work group

 

51

TABLE 7.--Items Measuring Informal Membership and Leadership.

 

ll.

12.

13.

1“.

Are you a member of a "social group" that consists of members of your
work group? (Check one)

Yes, a strong member

Usually I am a member

Most times I am not
No, never a member

a member

List the people that you feel are the leaders of the various "social
group(s)" that exist within your work group (include yourself as a
possible leader of a "social group"). If no "social groups” exist
within your work group, please answer none.

 

Leader
Leader
Leader
Leader
Leader

If you
do you

Group A

 

Group B

 

Group C

 

Group D

 

Group E

 

are a member of a "social group," to which of the above groups
belong, that is, Group A, Group B, etc.?

 

How would you classify your relationship with the leaders of the

above groups?

Group A

Warm and friendly
Pleasant

Limited strictly to
Unpleasant
Antagonistic

Group B

Warm and friendly
Pleasant

Limited strictly-to
Unpleasant
Antagonistic

Group C

Warm and friendly
Pleasant

Limited strictly to
Unpleasant
Antagonistic

Group D

Warm and friendly
Pleasant

Limited strictly to
Unpleasant
Antagonistic

Group E

Warm and friendly
Pleasant

Limited strictly to

Unpleasant
Antagonistic

(Check one for each group)

the job

the job

the Job

the Job

the Job

 

52

only applicable to those foremen who did in fact perceive an
informal organization within their work group.

Again, a lack of perception of the informal organiza—
tion was assumed to signify a lack of perceived relationships

with the informal organization.

Summary
This chapter has presented the working definitions of

this study and the questionnaire items and interviews that
were used to measure the concepts.
The following chapter presents the general methodology

of the study and a discussion of the pilot study.

CHAPTER III

GENERAL METHODOLOGY

Introduction

 

This chapter has a threefold purpose. First, it presents
the general methodology that was proposed for the field study
of the previously stated hypotheses. This section also pre—
sents the statistical tools that were used to analyze the
empirical data.

The second purpose of the chapter is to discuss
the pilot study. This section explains how the pilot study
was conducted and the results of it.

The last purpose of the chapter is to present the
minor changes made in the questionnaire items based on the

results of the pilot study.

General Methodology

 

Three main sources of data were used in this study.
Questionnaires were distributed to foremen, to members of
their work groups,and structured interviews were conducted
with distribution superintendents and their assistants.
Prior to the distribution of the questionnaires, a pilot

study was conducted, and it is explained later in this

chapter.

53

5A

The questionnaires distributed to the foremen were
designed to determine whether they perceived an informal organ-
ization operative within their work group. If they did, the
questionnaire elicited their perception of the strength of the
normative structure of the informal organization and the de-
gree of control which the foremen felt they had over the

informal organizatioppwwlgmwasmalsomascertained,whether the

-1 ”AM".—

 

foremen were members of the informal organization within their

___..H._-

 

 

work groups and whether they perceived themselves as being both

the formal and the informal leader. If they did not perceive

-~-"OM~A« “~—

........- _.. _..—_.....

themselves as the informal leader, the questionnaire deter-

 

 

mined their relationship to the person or persons that they

.1... _.. »- “W --_.. .“l
,...-..-—r- Mu..." W

did perceive as the informal leader(s). The questionnaire

u...

also provided information on the background of the foremen,
such as age, education level, length of time as a foreman,
and so forth, as well as information on the aspiration level
of the foremen. (Refer to Appendix B, Table 8—2).

The questionnaires that were distributed to the workers
under each foreman were designed to discover whether an
informal organization existed in a particular work group,and
if it did, the questionnaire elicited work group members'
perceptions as to the strength of the informal organization's
normative structure. These questionnaires were designed to
provide a measure of the "actual" total group environment
that existed in each work group. The questionnaires also

provided background information on the workers of the same

type as the foremen's questionnaires. The workers were asked
to identify their work group by specifying their foremen and
to state how long they had been a member of that particular
work group. The workers were to identify themselves by name,
and each questionnaire was also number coded so that although
unnamed questionnaires could not be identified individually,
they could be identified by work group.

The foremen's questionnaires and the workers' question-
naires were given out through the distribution superintendents'
offices. The distribution superintendents distributed the
questionnaires to their foremen who in turn gave the worker
questionnaires to the members of their work groups. It was
stressed to the distribution superintendents that there could
be no formal pressure on the work groups to complete the
questionnaires. They reported that, during distribution,
they had stressed this to their foremen and instructed the
foremen to advise their work groups of this when they distri-
buted the questionnaires.

The distribution superintendents all eXpressed a
willingness to have the questionnaires collected by the fore-
men and thus, assure a 100% response. However, it was felt
that this would bias the study and would produce distorted
responses that would ppp be representative of the "actual"
situation. The respondents, both foremen and workers, were
supplied with stamped envelopes addressed to this researcher

(at Michigan State University) in which they were to return

56

the completed questionnaires. There was a cover letter also
distributed with each questionnaire which specified that the
questionnaire was part of a study at Michigan State UniverSity
and that responses were to be returned to this researcher dir-
ectly and such responses would be considered confidential.
(Refer to Appendix A.) Prior to the study,the company's
management had been told and agreed to the fact that the com—
pany would receive only general results from the study and that
they would not be allowed to check the response of any parti-
cular individual. This was done before the study to main-
tain the integrity of the research and to avoid future problems
concerning confidential data.

The initial response to the workers questionnaire was
deemed inadequate, and two weeks after the initial distribution
of the questionnaires a follow-up letter was distributed
through the same channels to workers and foremen. (Refer to
Appendix A.) The distribution superintendents agreed to ask
their foremen to remind their workers to return the question-
naires now if they were going to return them at all. The
distribution superintendents also reminded their foremen to
return their questionnaires. The responses are discussed in
Chapter IV.

The interviews with the distribution superintendents
were conducted to gain insight into the general management-
worker relationships within each division and to obtain a

rating of effectiveness for the foremen in this study. The

57

interviews were structured and very helpful in providing
information for this study. They were conducted in an Open
and cordial atmosphere. The distribution superintendents were
always willing to supply any information or help that was at
their disposal.

After utilizing the above instruments to gather the data
for this study, the informal organizations, as perceived by
the work group, were ranked from weak to strong; and this
ranking was compared with the foremen's perceptions of the
informal organization within their work groups. The agreement
or disagreement between these perceptions was then compared
to the foreman's effectiveness. This was done to determine
whether the foreman's accuracy of perception of the informal
organization was related to his effectiveness as a formal
leader. However, due to lack of response, certain modifica-
tions were made in the study, and these are eXplained fully
in the following chapter.

The following section explains the statistical analyses

that were applied to the above data.

Choice of Statistical Tests

Only nonparametric tests were used to analyze the data
in this study. Too often in the behavioral sciences there
is an attempt to apply parametric statistical tools to data
that are not suited to these tests. For parametric tests to
be validly applied, the data must be normally distributed and

must be measured on at least an interval scale. An interval

scale is a scale that is "unique up to a linear transforma-
tion"; that is, the scale is not affected when its values
are multiplied by a positive constant and a constant added
to the product. Each item on the scale has a unique value,
and the exact difference between items can be calculated.
Thus, the scale may be subjected to arithmetic operations
such as addition or subtraction without affecting the
validity of its measurements. When the above qualifications
are met by empirical data, parametric statistics can and
should be applied since nonparametric tools would not fully
utilize all information. However, the researcher feels
that in behavioral research these qualifications are rarely
met by the empirical data, and therefore the majority of be-
havioral research requires the use of nonparametric tools.
The data in this study, as in most behavioral studies,
consisted of ordinally ranked measures. These measures were
of effectiveness and perceptions. The characteristic of an
ordinal scale is that it classified items on a greater than
or less than basis, but it does not show by how much the
items differ. An ordinal scale is transitive, irreflexive
and asymmetrical.l Both the effectiveness scale and the
perceptual scales in this study exhibited these characteris-

tics,and therefore, arithmetic Operations could not be

 

1Transitive - if x > y and y > 2, then x > z
Irreflexive - it is not true for any x that x > x
Asymmetrical — if x > y then y + x

59

performed on this data.2 Hence, parametric statistics were
not applied in this study.

A further word on the transitivity of the scales used
in this study is needed. The final measure of the foremen's
effectiveness was an ordinal ranking of all foremen under
all of the distribution superintendents, and the main classes
of effectiveness: high, moderate and low fulfill the proper-

ties of transitivity. However, individual foremen cannot be

 

cross compared; that is, a foreman under one distribution

 

superintendent may not be ranked the same if he were placed
under another distribution superintendent as was explained
earlier in the study. The main point is that the foremen in
three categories of foremen effectiveness were all considered
of equal effectiveness; all foremen in the number one category
are considered equal, and so forth. The final measure of
effectiveness was therefore an ordinal ranking representing
the formal organization's measure of foremen's effectiveness.
This study utilized nonparametric statistical tests to
analyze relationships between ordinally ranked variables.
It would have been preferable to have had an interval scaling
of the variables in this study; however, the behavioral tools
available were not felt to be precise enough to yield such a

scale. Therefore any attempt at establishing such a scale

 

2Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Campany,
1956), pp. EULZS.

 

 

60

could not have been validly defended. The ordinal scales
in this study were felt to measure, as specifically as possi—

ble, the variables that they purported to measure.

The Specific Statistical Tests

 

 

The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient.-—The Spearman

Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS was used to measure the

association between the ordinally ranked variables in this
study. This test measures association, not cause and effect

relationships. A highly significant rS shows a high associa-

tion between the variables being correlated; that is, the
variables occur in the sample simultaneously with a high
degree of frequency. This does not imply a causal relationship
between variables. A causal relationship could only be deter-
mined in a more controlled environment, that is, an environ—
ment in which the researcher could control the variables. In
the type of field study that was performed in this study only
observation of the variables took place. There was no attempt
to control the variables in this study. A high association
between variables would Justify further research into cause
and effect relationships. This would entail control of the
variables in this study so that experimental and control
groups of foremen could be established. Further discussion

of this is reserved for Chapter V.

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau.-—Another measure of associa—

 

tion that was applied to the data was the Goodman and Kruskal's

61

Tau. The test concerns the effect of knowledge of the indepen-
dent variable on the predictions of the dependent variables.
This test was utilized to calculate the percentage reduction
in errors when assigning individuals to B categories when A
was not known and then when A was known. (Refer to Table 8).
The test first requires computation of the probable errors in
randomly assigning individuals to B categories, such as, ran—
domly assigning foremen to effectiveness categories. The
test then requires the computation of the probable errors of
assigning individuals to B categories when the A variable is
known, such as, assigning foremen to effectiveness categories

when their disparity indexes are known. Tau is computed as

 

 

follows:
Number of errors _ Number of errors
A unknown A known
Tb = ‘ — _ '
Number of errors
A unknown
Tb is a measure of the percentage reduction in errors in

assigning individuals to various B categories when A is known.

Therefore a Tb of 0.5 indicates that the knowledge of A has

decreased our assignment errors by one half.3

 

3Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York:
Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, 1960), pp. 233-235.

62

TABLE 8.--Goodman and Kruskal's Tau.

 

Independent Variable

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al A2 A3

a) B1 A1 B1 A2 B1 A3 B1
H

D

m

I: B A B A B A B
m 2 l 2 2 2 3 2
>

4.)

S

'p .B3 A1 B3 A2 B3 A3 B3
Q

a, ..

c;

 

This again does not denote cause and effect rela—
tionships, but only an association between two variables
the population. The test is of interest because it demon-
strates to some degree the pragmatic usefulness or lack of
usefulness of increased knowledge of the variables under study.

These two tests were applied to the data collected in
this study, and these tests were the bases for the statis-

tical acceptance or reJection of the hypotheses in this study.

The Pilot Study
Before the questionnaires were distributed to
workers and foremen, a pilot study was conducted. The purpose
of the pilot study was to validate the questionnaires, that
is, to determine whether they measured what they purported to
measure and to insure that respondents understood the phrasing

of the items.

63

The pilot study utilized three foremen and their work
groups. The general atmosphere during the pilot study was
cordial with a few wisecracks. The three groups were all
within Division A. Two groups were composed of members of
the electric distribution department and one group was from .
the gas distribution department. These groups and their
foremen were administered questionnaires in the divisional
conference room prior to their going out on the Job in the
morning. The gas department group consisted of eleven mem-
bers and a foreman,and the electric groups consisted of one
of seven members and one of six members and two foremen.

The researcher was introduced to the groups and their
foremen by their distribution superintendents, who also gave
a brief explanation of the fact that the study was being
conducted at Michigan State University and that the specific
response of any one individual was not to be released to the
company. After these introductory comments,the distribution
superintendents left the room. The researcher then explained
to the groups that this study was intended to aid in improving
foreman-worker relationships, and their help would hopefully
lead to a more pleasant working atmosphere within the com-
pany. It was reiterated that the results were confidential
and that individual results would not be revealed to anyone.
However, it was pointed out that the general results of the

study would be made available to both the union and the

company .

6A

The groups were instructed that apy comments or sugges-
tions that they had regarding the questionnaires would be
welcomed. These comments were invited during the time that
they filled out the questionnaire and/or when they returned
it. It was pointed out that the study would be greatly
improved if the workers would point out items that they either
did not understand or that they were reluctant to complete.
The groups all expressed concern, during the time they were
completing the questionnaires, about the confidential nature
of the results. It was reiterated that individual results
would not be revealed, and this seemed acceptable to the
groups. Many workers made significant comments as they
returned the questionnaire, and these are discussed later since
they led to the modification of some questionnaire items.

The foremen were all asked to remain for personal inter-

views after they had completed their questionnaires.

Changes After the Pilot Study

 

The Worker's Questionnaire

During the interviews which followed their completion of
the questionnaires, the workers were very disturbed with the
sociometric choice items as shown in Table 2, Chapter II.
They seemed to feel it was an attempt to find "poor" workers.
As one person said, "I won't write anybody's name." They were
particularly hesitant about answering items 10 and 11 concern—

ing least-like choices. Although it was pointed out that this

65

information was used only to determine cliques and not effi—
cient or inefficient workers, the researcher felt that the
workers were not completely convinced. Few of the questions
regarding sociometric choices were answered on the question-
naires, and none of the least-like items were answered.

Items 10 and 11 were therefore dropped and replaced
by items 9 and 10 in Table 9 in the final questionnaire. The
reason for the utilization of these items was that if both
"off the Job" associations and "on the Job" associations
could be obtained, some insight into the cliques in a work
group could be gained. If an individual reported working
most often with two individuals, but associating most often
off the Job with two other individuals, he would not be
classified as belonging to an identifiable clique within his
work group. An on the Job and off the Job set of associa-
tions would be interpreted as constituting a clique or an
informal organization within a particular work group. It
was heped that items 9 and 10 would not be perceived with
apprehension by the workers and would be completed since the
least-like items had been dropped.

Comments concerning the first alternative in item 7
generally represented the feeling that a person was "queer"
if he selected it, and it was felt to be impossible for
things to be bad as the last alternative in item 1. The

alternatives were modified as shown in Table 10.

66

TABLE 9.--Sociometric Choice Items: Final Questionnaire.

9. Which members of your work group do you work with most
often? (List in order of frequent contact, that is,
the person that you work with most often first, etc.)

 

 

 

 

(If you require more space, please use the back of this
page)

10. Which members of your work group do you associate with
most often off the Job? (List in order of frequent
contact)

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 10.—-Item l.--Modifications of Alternatives.

 

1. What is your relationship to your supervisor? (Check
one)
Warm and friendly
Pleasant
Limited strictly to the Job
Unpleasant

Antagonistic

67

Item 7 caused difficulty; some group members inter-
preted this item as asking for the formal leader. Since
the item was directed at revealing the informal leader, it
was reworded as shown in Table 11. The new phrasing was
felt to apply to all group members rather than Just to the

foreman.

TABLE 11.--Modification of Item 7.

 

7. Are there one or two members of your work group that
tend to set the example for the others? (Include
yourself in answering) Yes No. If yes,
what are their names?

 

 

 

 

Item 11, shown in Table 12, was added to the group
questionnaire to gain an understanding of the group's formal
structure and formal tasks, that is, did group member work
mostly alone or mostly as a group. This information was not
actually needed in the final analysis since it was supplied
by the distribution superintendents prior to administering
the questionnaires. As previously noted, those groups whose
members worked alone were not utilized in this study. How—
ever, item 11 was used as a check, and the average response
to item 11 by all work group with a maJority of their mem-

bers responding was within the range of the first two

68

alternatives. Thus, all the groups with a maJority of
members responding perceived themselves as working mostly as
a team. Almost one half of these groups perceived them-
selves as having little or no cohesion, and, as stated above,
all these groups perceived themselves as working as a team.
Item 11 was therefore a measure of formal structure and task
as it was intended to be and not a measure of group cohe—

siveness.

TABLE l2.--Additional Items in the Final Questionnaire.

 

11. My work group is best described as consisting of:

Members that work as a team

Members that mostly work as a team but sometimes
work alone

Members that sometimes work as a team but mostly
work alone

Members that mostly work alone

12. The thing that I like best about my work group is:

The feeling of a team spirit

That the group works well together except for

a few members

That I don't have to depend on the others to do
my Job

That I am able to work alone

 

Item 12 in Table 12 was added to the final questionnaire
as a supplement to the other items concerning cohesiveness.
It was added with the other items regarding cohesiveness to
form the group's composite index of cohesiveness. This item

was intended to be a measure of an indicator of cohesiveness.

69

The average result on item 12 of all work groups with a
majority of their members responding to the questionnaire

had a +0.667 (rs) correlation with each group's composite

index of cohesiveness. A correlation of +0.667 is signifi-
cant at the 0.05 level. This item was then validated as a
measure of cohesiveness. The computations are shown in
Appendix B,TABLE B-13.

The cover letter, final group questionnaire, and the
follow-up letter which were distributed to the work group

members are shown in Appendix A.

The Foreman's Questionnaire

 

Questionnaires were administered to the three groups'
foremen involved in the pilot study at the same time as
they were administered to the groups. Each foreman was
interviewed in private at the conclusion of each group study.
The foremen were asked about the following items:

1.) Generally, did you understand both the questions
and the instructions on the questionnaire? A11 stated that
they understood them.

2.) Did you understand the term "social group"? If
the foremen answered yes, but did not offer his explanation
of the term, he was asked to define the term. In all three
cases the foremen stated that they understood the term
social group,and their definitions coincided with the infor-

mal organization as operationally defined in this study.

7O

3.) The foremen were asked to describe the cohesive—
ness of their work groups. In all the cases the foremen's
verbal descriptions corresponded with their composite indexes
of perceived cohesiveness as represented by the items in
Table 5, Chapter 11., Two foremen stated that their work
groups were highly cohesive,and one stated that his work
group had little or no cohesion. These verbal descrip—
tions corresponded with each forman's composite index of
perceived cohesiveness.

A.) The foremen were asked to define control of the
social group, and they all defined it as being able to
influence the social groups toward desired ends. This was
very similar to the Operational definition in this study.
Their verbal description of the degree of control which they
felt they had over social groups in their work group corres-
ponded to the composite index of perceived degree of control.
Refer to Table 6, Chapter II, for items composing this index.
The one foreman who did not perceive any cohesion within his
work group understood the term control, but described him-
self both verbally and in his composite index as not exer—
cising any control over the social group since it did not
exist. Of the other two foremen, one perceived that he had
moderate control and the other no control over the social
groups. Again, their composite indexes represented identi—

cal perceptions.

71

5.) The foremen were asked if they understood items
11, 12 and 13 (refer to Table 7, Chapter II) concerning
membership in the social groups and social group leadership.
They all felt that they did and they all volunteered infor—
mation as to whether or not they perceived themselves as
being accepted by the group. Two of the foremen did not
perceive themselves as being part of the group. The other
foreman stated that he was part of the group, and he felt
that this was important to his being a "good" foreman.

All three understood item 12 which required identi-
fying the informal leader, but they had difficulty identify-
ing the informal leaders. As one stated the problem was one
of differentiating between "leaders" and "loud-mouths." In
many cases, they felt as though the informal leadership role
was performed by different group members in different cir—
cumstances which made informal leaders difficult to identify.
The items were used on the final questionnaire to check the
correspondence between foremen perceptions of informal
leaders and the work group perceptions of the informal
leaders. The results are discussed in the following chapters.

The above interviews with the foremen demonstrated a
close correspondence between their verbal interpretations
of the work situation and their composite indexes resulting
from their questionnaires. The foremen's composite indexes
did represent their perceptions of the concepts as they were

operationally defined for this study, and the questionnaires

72

are therefore felt to measure correctly the concepts described
in this study.
The final questionnaire that was administered to the

foremen is shown in Appendix A.

Other Results of the Pilot Study

The pilot study allowed the researcher to gain a more
complete understanding of the physical work situation. This
understanding was invaluable in later interviews with the
distribution superintendents since we both understood at
least the physical aspect of the work situation. It also
helped to know what questions to ask during the interviews,
such as why certain individuals reacted to the questionnaire
in the way they did and what was their formal status in the
group?

Since the researcher had been separated from an indus-
trial setting for almost four years, a communication gap
had developed. The pilot study helped to bridge the gap.
The researcher found that he did not speak the language
of the industrial work group. Relearning this language
aided in redesigning the questionnaires. The items were
redesigned to correspond to the workers' perceptions of the
items rather than to management's or to a student's
perception of the items.

The pilot study also allowed insight into worker—

management relationships. The opportunity was opened to
Observe the relationships between distribution superinten-

dents, foremen and workers. The relationship between

73
distribution superintendents and the workers was reserved.
The relationship between the work group and the foremen was
personal and not always pleasant. The gas foreman perceived.
himself as a member of the informal organization,and during
the pilot study, his work group directed few comments to him,
and these were information seeking comments. With the elec-
tric foremen who did not perceive themselves as members of
the informal organization, the comments were more sarcastic,
such as "who la the leader of the group?"

A study's usefulness is dependent on the fact that it
measures what it purports to measure. The pilot study
Offered a unique opportunity to validate the indexes used
in the research. From the pilot study and from personal
interviews, it was strongly felt that the concepts in this

study were measured as they were operationally defined.

Summary
This chapter has presented the general methodological

approach used in this research, and it has discussed the
statistical analysis of the data. This chapter has shown
the manner in which the pilot study was conducted and how
the results of the pilot study validated and/or modified
the questionnaires.

The next chapter presents the quantification of
questionnaire items, the analysis of the data collected

in this research and the conclusions of the study.

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

 

This chapter presents the majority of the empirical
data that were collected to test the major hypotheses of
this study. The data, as previously described, were gathered
through the use of interviews and questionnaires. The admin-
istration of these instruments was explained in Chapter III.
Since the lack of response to the workers' questionnaires was
a problem, the study was modified to allow the distribution
superintendents to describe work group cohesiveness. This
modification is explained in this chapter.

This chapter is divided into three sections. First, the
general sample that was utilized in the study is described.
The second section contains the statistical tests of each set
of hypotheses and the conclusions drawn as a result of these
tests. The third section describes the hypotheses that were
not testable due to type of empirical evidence that was

collected.

7”

75

The General Sample

 

This section discusses the foremen, their work groups
and the modification in measuring the "actual" informal organ-

ization that was necessary due to a lack of worker response.

Foremen

The sample in this study consisted of thirty-six foremen
and the work groups that they supervised. The foremen were
drawn from the two divisions of the public utility company
which was described in the Introduction. The backgrounds of
the foremen are shown in Appendix B, Table B-2. These thirty-
six foremen constituted all operating foremen under each dis-
tribution superintendent with the exception of tree trimming
foremen and meter reading foremen. The exclusion of these
foremen was caused by the formal tasks of their groups and by
their groups' instability. The tree-trimming groups were
composed of young men who were interested in moving to better
positions. This tended to mark the groups as unstable with a
high rate of turnover. The meter—reading group, in almost
all instances, performed their formal task alonewith no group
interaction required. Because of these factors and the descrip-
tions in Chapter I of how these variables affect the formation
of informal organizations within work groups, the foremen of
these groups were not utilized in the study since the groups
did not operate in an atmosphere conducive to the formation

of an informal organization.

76

The Groups

 

The thirty-six groups studied were responsible for all
divisional work outside the division headquarters. Their
duties included installations of new facilities, repair of
facilities and customer service. Large installations were
usually subcontracted so that the divisional work groups were
responsible for work, such as laying cable, but not for build-
ing a new warehouse. For some larger jobs, two divisional
work groups could be assigned to work together; however, this
was an infrequent occurrence and the two groups were again
separated after the specific Job was completed. The member-
ship of the work groups studied was controlled by the distri-
bution superintendents. They were responsible for assigning
men and foremen to work groups. Thus, foremen had little
control over the membership of their work groups. The dis-
tribution superintendents also controlled promotions from the
worker to the foreman level. The membership of all groups
utilized in this study had remained relatively constant for
at least six months. The average work group ranged in size
between eight and twelve workers.

Twenty-one foremen and their work groups were drawn from
Division A, and fifteen foremen and their work groups were
drawn from Division B. Division A had a recent history of
good union-management relations and was considered one of the
company's best divisions in this reSpect. Division B had a

recent history of hostility between union and management and

77

was considered one of the worst divisions in the company in
this respect.

During the period of this study, contract negotiations
between the union and management were in progress. The nego—
tiations ended in a stalemate about six weeks after the com-
pletion of this study, and an eighty—three day strike ensued.
This strike was long and, in some areas, bitter as represented
by some destruction of company property. The implications of
the negotiations that were being conducted at the time of this

study are covered in Chapter V.

Group Response

 

A total of three hundred and eleven questionnaires were
distributed to the workers in this study. Only eighty ques-
tionnaires were returned. The absolute number is not as
important as was obtaining responses from a majority of mem—
bers within each work group. It was felt that at least a
fifty percent response by group members was necessary to
complete a valid composite index of cohesiveness for the group.
This requirement was met by only twelve groups. This lack of
response led to a modification in the measurement of the

cohesiveness of the informal organization.

Tpa Modification

 

The distribution superintendents were interviewed and
asked to indicate their perceptions of the informal organiza—

tion or lack of informal organization operative within each

78

work group in their department. They were asked the following
questions: How cohesive is each work group? Is there a seg—
ment within the work group composed of at least three workers?
How cohesive is this segment? Cohesiveness was defined for the
distribution superintendents as the actions or interactions
that take place within the work situation, but that are not
Specified by the formal organization, such as men helping
each other, generally sticking together in their actions,
working with a team spirit, going to coffee breaks together
and/or socially interacting off the job, such as on bowling
teams and at picnics.

The distribution superintendents were cautioned to
Judge the group's cohesiveness and not whether they perceived
cohesiveness as helping or hindering formal objectives. The
reason for this was to try to keep the distribution superin—
tendents' answers to the above questions as objective as
possible. The Judgments required were not of a subjective,
good or bad nature but rather of a more factual nature regard-
ing cohesiveness. During the interviews, this approach
seemed to keep personal bias at a minimum and therefore, it
was felt, yielded a more objective appraisal of each group's
cohesiveness. The distribution superintendents were asked
to rank the cohesiveness of the groups or segments within the

groups by utilizing the following ranking scale:

1 = a highly cohesive group or segment
2 = a moderately cohesive group or segment
3 = little or no cohesion within the group

79

The perceptions of the distribution superintendents as ranked
above were felt to represent the informal organization as
Operationally defined in this study, and the cohesiveness
rankings of the distribution superintendents were felt to be
very similar to the composite index Of cohesiveness as per—
ceived by the work group.

The validation of the distribution superintendents'
perceptions concerning the informal organization is presented
in Chapter IV.

The next section presents the analysis of the empirical
data relevant to each set of hypotheses of this study and the
conclusions of the research based on this analysis.

Hypotheses I, IllIII:
Perceptions and Effectiveness

 

 

The first hypotheses were the major hypotheses of this
study. They were concerned with the association between the

accuracy of the leaders' perceptions and their effectiveness.

The Hypotheses to be Tested

 

H1: There is a high degree of association between a foreman's

ability to accurately perceive the informal organization
within his work group and his effectiveness as a supervisor.
Operationally stated:

H A decrease in a foreman's disparity index is associated

l:
with an increase in his effectiveness as a supervisor.

80

The Null Hypothesis:
HO: There is no association between a foreman's disparity

index and his effectiveness as a supervisor.

Measurements of Cohesiveness

 

The measurement of the cohesiveness of the informal
organization as perceived by the division superintendents
has already been stated, that is, they were asked to rank
group cohesiveness (or segment cohesiveness) on the basis

of a three-point scale:

1 = highly cohesive group or segment
2 = moderately cohesive group or segment
3 = little or no cohesion and no cohesive segments

The perceptions of the foremen concerning the informal
organization within their work groups were measured by the
questionnaire items in Table 13.

The analysis of these questions consists of adding the
answers (values are shown next to each alternative) and

dividing by N = 5. Thus:

C:

 

2 Items 7, 8, 9, 15, 18
N = 5

where Q is equal to the foreman's composite index of perceived
work group cohesiveness.

If the respondent answered papa to item 12, he did not
perceive an informal organization Operative within his work

group, and C was given a value of 3 on the following scale.

TABLE 13.--Quantification of the Questionnaire Items Composing the Foremen's

81

Composite Indexes of Cohesiveness.

 

15.

18.

12.

I find that "social group(s)" in my work group are:

5 Rare

5 Not very long-lived

3 Are not unusual, but change often

2 Not unusual and are part of the group

I Strong determinants of the group's actions

(Check one)

My work group is best described as consisting of: (Check one)

u No stable "social groups"

3 A single all encompassing "social group"
1 A large number of "social groups"
2 A few "social groups”

5 Members that stick to themselves

My work group is best controlled through the use of:

(Check one)

1 "Social groups" and their leaders
2 "Social groups" and the formal rules
3 Formal rules remembering the "social groups"
5 Formal rules since there are no "social groups"
5 Formal rules since the "social groups" are hard
to control
The "social group(s)" in my work group: (Check one)
1 Can always be made to help group performance
2 Can usually be made to help group performance
3 Car frequently be made to help group performance

5 Can rarely be made to help group performance
5 Can never be made to help group performance

6 Cannot help group performance since they do not exist

"Social groups": (Check one)

1 Are important to the work of my group

2 Affect the work of my group

3 Rarely have an effect on the work of my group
5 Are not important to the work of my group

5 Do not exist within my group

List the people that you feel are the leaders of the
group(s)" that exist within your work group (include
possible leader of a "social group"). If no "social
within your work group, please answer none.

various "social
yourself as a
groups" exist

 

 

82

The following scale was used to analyze the items in

Table 13:

C Interpretation Scaled for Comparison
With Distribution Super-
intendent Responses

1.0-2.0 Highly cohesive l
2.1-3.“ Moderately cohesive 2
3.5 -— Little or no cohesion 3

The Disparity Index

 

The foremen's composite indexes of perceived group
cohesiveness (C) were calculated using the preceding formula.
These indexes (C) were then compared with the distribution
superintendents' rankings of the cohesiveness of the work
groups. The difference between these sets of rankings was

defined, for this study, as the disparity index and was

 

calculated for each foreman.

Since both the foremen's rankings of cohesiveness and
the distribution superintendents' rankings may take on
values from +1 to +3, the disparity index may take on values
from +2 to —2. However, in this study, only absolute values
of the disparity index were used; that is, the indexes had
values of either 0, l or 2. The reason for utilizing only
absolute values was that the direction of the perceptual
difference was not felt to be the determinant factor but
rather the perceptual difference itself. Therefore, when

the foreman perceived the informal organization as the

83

"actual" informal organization, now defined as the distri-
bution superintendent's perception, the disparity index was
zero. Values of the disparity index other than zero denoted
a difference between the actual informal organization and
the foreman's perception of it.

The disparity index is an ordinal ranking. The
difference between an index of zero and an index of one may
or may not be the same as the difference between an index
of one and an index of two. The only statement that could
be made regarding a large index relative to a smaller index
is that the former represents a greater difference between
perceptions of the informal organization than does the

latter. How much greater cannot be said.

The Sample Used to Test
The Hypotheses

The data collected for this segment of the study is
shown in Table 1A. The 3 x 3 contingency table represents
foremen's effectiveness relative to their disparity indexes.

The sample used to test statistically this hypothesis
consisted of twenty-seven of the thirty-six foremen to whom
quesionnaires were originally distributed. Seven of the
thirty—six did not return the questionnaire. They were
given another questionnaire during the distribution of the
follow-up letter. This succeeded in gaining one more
response. The distribution superintendents applied some

pressure on the foremen, and two more questionnaires were

84

returned blank. One foreman had a broken leg, and another
was described by his distribution superintendent as being
apprehensive concerning anything written since he had little
formal education. Neither of these foremen returned their
questionnaires. The reasons for the other four not return—
ing the completed questionnaires could not be ascertained.
Two other foremen of the thirty—six were in a company train—
ing program and were only temporarily in the position of
foremen. They were not included in this study. Finally, one
foreman had just been promoted to foreman, and his distribi-
tion superintendent could not rank him in terms of effective—
ness. He was not included in the final sample for this
reason. Thus, the twenty—seven foremen used to test statisti-
cally'this hypothesis all returned their questionnaires and
were all ranked in effectiveness by their distribution super-
intendents. This data are shown in Appendix B, Table B-1-
Table 1A shows the number of foremen in each category
and the percentage of foremen in each effectiveness category

according to their disparity index.

Statistical Analysis

 

rS = 0.302
t = 1.576
df = 25

The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rs was used

to analyze the data presented in Table A. The results of

this analysis are shown above.

85

TABLE lA.--Foremen Effectiveness as Related to their
Disparity Indexes.

 

 

 

 

 

Disparity Index

a) 0 l 2

If)

(D

t

> 5 2 1

g 1 (62.5%) (25%) (12.5%)
5’:

f3 2 2 10 o

C (16.7%) (83.3%) (0%)

,3;

s 2 3 2

8 3 (28.6%) (u2.8%) (28.6%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This result rS = 0.302 is significant at the 0.1 level
for a one—tailed test. This test is one—tailed since the
hypothesis states that a decrease in the disparity index is
associated with an increase in effectiveness. Thus, the
hypothesis predicts the direction of the difference and
allows a one—tailed test.

This result allows the rejection of the null hypothesis
at the 0.1 level. This means that rs 3_0.302 has a proba—
bility Of occurrence under HO of 0.1 to 0.05, that is, when
the null hypothesis is true. The conclusion is that at the
0.1 level, the effectiveness of foremen and their perceptions

of the informal organization are associated in this sample.

86

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau is another measure of
association between two variables as explained in Chapter
III. This measure can be used to show the association
between a leader's effectiveness and a leader's disparity
index.

To illustrate, we are given a sample of twenty—
seven foremen and told to arrange them in the same order
as shown in Table 1“, that is, in such a way as to allocate
eight foremen to Number 1 effectiveness, twelve to Number 2
effectiveness and seven to Number 3 effectiveness. Suppose
that the foremen are given to us at random and we have no
other information regarding them. We would expect to make
17.5 errors in ranking these foremen according to effective—
ness. However, if we had known the disparity index of each
foreman before placing him in an effectiveness category, we
would expect to make 1U.15 errors. We would thus reduce
our errors by 20%.

Thus, knowledge of a foreman's disparity index allows
us to judge his level of effectiveness with 20% more accur—
acy than if we were not aware of his disparity index, and
this test shows an association between the variables.

These computations are presented in Appendix B, Table

B-8.

Conclusions Based on Hypothesis I, 11,111
The findings in the above sample supported the conten—

tion that leadership effectiveness and the leader's accuracy

87

of perception of the informal organization were associated.
Thus a leader's awareness of the interrelations occurring
within his grOUp was related to his effectiveness as a
formal leader.

This finding supported Hawron and McGrath's conclusion
that a leader's cognizance of his group's interrelationships
was related to his effectiveness.l Chowdhry and Newcomb
also concluded that leaders were more highly aware of the
groups' attitudes than were non-leaders.2 Likert has also
shown the importance of utilizing a knowledge of the group

to become a more effective leader.3

Thus, the above
research findings and the findings in the present study
demonstrated how important a leader's accuracy of perception
concerning the total group environment is to his formal

effectiveness.

Utilization of the Findings.--This study offers manage—

 

ment a set of instruments that can be used to measure a
group's interactions and the strength of these interactions.
The leader's accuracy of perception regarding these inter-
actions can also be measured.

This allows an organization to determine the "type" of

informal organizations present in its work groups. This

 

lHawron and McGrath, op. cit., pp. 168-169.

2Chowdhry and Newcomb, Op. cit., pp. 367, 373, 378.

3Likert, op. cit., p. 300.

88

applies not only to the type of formal work groups in this
study but also to any organization that sets definite

formal parameters on its work groups. This would not, for
example, be applicable in the case of an assembly—line type
of operation since there are no definite formal work groups.
The group leader's perceptions could be ascertained to
measure his perceptual accuracy concerning the group's
interactions.

The above findings would aid a company in the deter-
mination of training objectives. Since low disparity
indexes have already been shown to be associated with
highly effective leaders, the training programs could be
designed to improve a leader's perceptual accuracy of the
total group environment and thereby decrease his disparity
index.

If the results of questionnaires demonstrated that in
a particular organization highly cohesive work groups were
more effective than weakly cohesive work groups, individual
foremen could be instructed to build more cohesive work
groups. The direction of this instruction would be given
by the group's questionnaires which would yield a fuller
understanding of the total group environment.

The results of the present research will aid in setting
training objectives as shown above, and the instruments

shown can also be used to check on the effectiveness of such

89

training. Thus, if disparity indexes were shown as unaltered
following training, a change in training methods would cer-
tainly be needed.

The disparity indexes could also be used as one factor
to determine whether a foreman should be promoted to a
higher position. A low disparity index would be a plus
factor for promotion,whereas a high disparity index would
require a careful screening of all factors and would make
immediate promotion questionable.

Hypotheses IV, V:
Degree of Control

 

 

These hypotheses were concerned with the association
between a leader's perceived degree of control over the

informal organization and his effectiveness.

The Hypotheses to be Tested

 

H1: The foremen who perceive themselves as being able to
control the informal organization within their work groups
are more effective than the foremen who perceive themselves
as having little or no control over the informal organization
in their work group.

Operationally stated:

H The most effective foremen perceive themselves as having

1:
a high degree of control over the informal organization.

90

The Null Hypothesis:
HO: There is no relationship between the degree of perceived
control over the informal organization and a foreman's

effectiveness.

~Measurement of the Control Variable

 

The perceptions of the foremen regarding their control
over the informal organization were measured by questionnaire
items in Table 15.

The analysis of these items consisted of adding the
answers (values are shown next to each alternative) and

dividing by N = A. Thus:

= 2 Items 9, 10, 15, 17

 

where Z is equal to the foreman's composite index of perceived

degree of control. The following scale is used to interpret
Z:

Z Interpretation Scale
1.0—2.0 Strong control 1
2.1-2.5 Moderate control 2
2.6 -- No control 3

The results of this segment of the study are represented

by Table 16.

91

TABLE 15.—-Quantification of the Questionnaire Items

Composing the Foreman's Composite Indexes of
Perceived Degree of Control.

 

9.

10.

17.

My work group is best controlled through the use of:
(Check one)

1 "Social groups" and their leaders

2 "Social groups" and the formal rules

3 Formal rules remembering the "social groups"

5 Formal rules since there are no "social groups"

5 Formal rules since the "social groups" are hard
to control

In decisions concerning the assignment of work in my
work group: (Check one)

always consider the "social groups"
frequently consider the "social groups"
rarely consider the "social groups"
never consider the "social groups"

HHHPdH

l

2

3
___£___
The "social group(s)" in my work group: (Check one)

1 Can always be made to help group performance

2 Can usually be made to help group performance

3 Can frequently be made to help group performance

5 Can rarely be made to help group performance

5 Can never be made to help group performance

6 Cannot help group performance since they do not
exist

I consider myself to be influential in: (Check one)

1 All actions of the "social groups" in my work

group
2 Most actions of the "social groups" in my work
group
3 Some actions of the "social groups" in my work
group
A Few actions of the "social groups" in my work
group
5 None of the actions of the "social groups" in

my work group

 

92

The following table shows the number of foremen in

each category.

TABLE l6.-—Foremen's Effectiveness as Related to Their
Perceived Degree of Control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree of Control

1 2 3
m l 3 1
Z (20%) (60%) (20%)
t
.‘2
a 2 2 2 S
‘1' (22.2%) (22.2%) (55.6%)
g 3 l 0 1
g (50%) (0%) (50%)

 

The Sample Used to Test the Hypptheses

 

The sample used to test statistically these hypotheses
consisted of sixteen foremen. Eight of the twenty-seven
foremen in the previous sample had no perception of an
informal organization within their work group, and therefore
did not perceive themselves as exerting any informal control.
Three of these foremen did complete at least one of the
control items in the questionnaire as if they perceived an
informal organization. However, their composite indexes of
perceived degree of control still indicated a lack of per-

ceived control, that is, Z = 3 over the informal organization.

93

The incorrect completions Of these items were assumed to be
the result of either not reading the entire list of alter—
natives or lapses of attention at that point of completing
the questionnaire. Three foremen who did perceive an
informal organization did not complete the items concerning
perceived degree of control and could not be utilized in
testing these hypotheses. The results were consistent. If
a foreman did not perceive an informal organization, his
responses to the control items, in all cases, showed a
composite index of perceived control in the three category,
that is, little or no perceived control. This was felt to

be a positive check on the composite indexes.

Statistical Analysis

 

rS = 0.119
t = 0.952
df = l“

The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS was used
to determine whether there was a significant association
between a foreman's perceived degree of control over the
informal organization in his work group and his effectiveness
as a formal leader. The results are represented above.

An rS of 0.119 yields a t of 0.u52. This value of t
is not shown in the standard t tables which only show t
values significant for one-tailed tests at the 0.1 level.

Therefore, a 2 value was computed relative to rS = 0.119,

9“

r — 0
where z = —§————. For rS = 0.119, 2 = 0.960. Therefore

l//IT—_l'
using a normal table, rS = 0.119 has a 32% probability of
occurrence when the null hypothesis is true, that is, when
there is no association between the variables. This did
not show a strong relationship between perceived degree of
control and foreman effectiveness.

The Goodman and Kruskal's Tau was applied to this data,
and it indicated that knowledge of a foreman's composite
index of perceived degree of control over the informal or-
ganization within his work group would decrease errors in
placing foremen in effectiveness categories by 11% over
randomly placing them in effectiveness categories. This
would not be a strong indication of association between per-
ceived degree of control and effectiveness as a formal
leader.

Neither of these tests demonstrated results that were
at a level Of significance at which the null hypothesis
could be rejected and the proposition that there is an

association between these two variables accepted.

Conclusions Based on Hypotheses IV, V

This hypothesis was based on the assumption that in
order for a formal leader to be highly effective, he must
exercise a high degree of control over both the formal and
the informal actions of his work group. The empirical

evidence did not support this assumption.

95

However, the sample for this test was small: N = 16,
and there were only two foremen in the number three effec-
tiveness category included in the sample. This was due to
the fact that A of the 7 foremen in the number three effec-
tiveness category in the previous sample of twenty-seven
had no perception of an informal organization operative
within their work groups,and one failed to complete the
control items. No perception of an informal organization
does not necessitate a disparity index Of zero. The dis—
parity index describes similarity between perceptions,not
the perceptions themselves. With such a small number of
foremen in the number three effectiveness category included
in this sample, the results were obviously affected. This
contingency was unavoidable since the composite index of
control depended on perceptions that were simply not evi-
denced by this group.

The results of this test did show that 80% of the
foremen in the number one effectiveness category did per-
ceive themselves as having some control over the informal
organization, while only A“% of the number two ranked fore—
men perceived themselves as having some control. The
majority Of the number three ranked foremen simply did not
perceive an informal organization. Thus, while the highly
effective leader may not have felt a need to exercise a high

degree Of control over the informal segment of his work

96

group, he was not willing to relinquish all control over
this part of the group.

It was felt that in this study the formal leader's
control role may be constrained by the informal organization
but not defined by it. This simply means that while he must
be aware of the total group environment,his effectiveness
was not dependent on total control over this environment.
The formal variables that the foreman does control, such as
work assignments, performance ratings, and overtime assign-
ments,should be utilized with cognizance of the total group
environment to keep relationships as harmonious as possible.
Before a leader can Operate effectively, it was contended
and supported by the data in this study that he must be
aware of the total group environment. His behavior, without
this awareness, is on a hit or miss basis and cannot be as
effective as that behavior coupled with awareness.

The high percentage of excellent leaders who perceived
themselves as having some control over this area supports
the contention that future research is warranted on the
concept of informal control. More precise measures of per-
ceived control are needed. The future research aspect is
discussed fully in Chapter V.

Hypothesis Vlgleembership
in the Informal

 

 

This hypothesis was concerned with determining the
association or lack of association between a leader's effec—

tiveness and his membership in the informal organization.

97

The Hypothesis to be Tested

 

H1: The foreman who perceives himself as a member of the
informal organization is less effective than the foreman

who does not perceive himself a member of the informal
organization.

Operationally stated:

H1: The most effective foremen will not be members of the
informal organization.

The Null Hypothesis:

HO: There is no relationship between a foreman's effective-
ness and his perceived membership in the informal organization.

Measurement of the Informal
Organization Membershingariable

 

 

The perceptions of the foremen regarding their member-
ship in the informal organization were measured by the
questionnaire items in Table 17.

The analysis of these items consisted of regarding an
answer (values are shown next to each alternative) Of either
one or two as signifying membership in the informal organi-
zation. A three or four answer signified that the foreman
was not a member of the informal organization.

Item 12 allowed the foreman to signify himself as an
informal leader and thus a member Of the informal organiza—
tion. Item 13 allowed the foreman to specify the segment(s)

of the informal organization to which he belonged.

98

TABLE l7.--Items Measuring Foremen's Perceived Membership
in the Informal Organization.

 

11. Are you a member of a "social group" that consists of
members of your work group? (Check one)

1 Yes, a strong member

2 Usually I am a member

3 Most times I am not a member
No, never a member

12. List the people that you feel are the leaders of the
various "social group(s)" that exist within your work
group (include yourself as a possible leader of a
"social group"). If no "social groups" exist within
your work group, please answer none.

 

Leader Group

 

Leader Group

 

Leader Group

 

COCC'ID

Leader Group

 

Leader Group E

 

13. If you are a memberof a "social group," to which of
the above groups do you belong, that is, Group A,
Group B, etc.?

 

 

The Sample Used to Test the Hypothesis

 

The sample used to test statistically this hypothesis
consisted of nineteen foremen. Eight of the sample of
twenty—seven did not perceive an informal organization and

therefore did not perceive themselves as members.

Thus, the results were consistent; that is, all fore—
men who did not perceive an informal organization did not

complete the membership items as if they were informal

99

members. This was felt to be a positive check on the com-

posite indexes.

The results of this segment of the study are shown in

Table 18.

TABLE l8.-—Foremen's Effectiveness as Related to Their
Perceived Membership in the Informal Organization.

 

Membership in the

Informal Organization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes NO
3’.
3
m A l
53 1 (80%) (20%)
4.)
O
3
m 5 6
m 2 (u5.5%) (5U.5%)
E
m 2 1
$4
3 3 (67%) (33%)

 

This table shows the number of foremen in each cate-

gory and the percentage of foremen in each effectiveness

category according to their membership in the informal

organization.

Statistical Analysis

rS = -0.1A9
t = 0.621
df = 17

 

100

The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient: rS was
used to determine whether there was a significant relation-
ship between a foreman's membership or non-membership in
the informal organization and his effectiveness as a formal
leader. The results are represented above.

An rS of -0.199 yields a t of 0.621. This value of
t is not significant at the 0.1 level. A 2 value of 0.632
was calculated and found to be significant at the 0.26
level. Thus in 26% of all cases an rS = —0.109 may occur
when the null hypothesis is in fact true, that is, when
there is no association between a foreman's effectiveness
and his perceived membership in the informal organization.

The Goodman and Kruskal's Tau was calculated and
indicated that knowledge of a foreman's perceived membership
in the informal organization improved predicting his effec-
tiveness by 6% over a random prediction.

Neither of these tests demonstrated results that were
at a level of significance at which the null hypothesis

could be rejected and the proposition that there is an

association between the variables accepted.

Conclusions Based on Hypothesis VI

The above results indicated a weak association between
leadership effectiveness and membership in the informal
organization. The negative value of the correlation coeffi—

cient (rs) did indicate an inverse relationship. Contrary

101

to the original hypothesis, the more effective leaders were
members of the informal organization.

Referring to Table 18, it is obvious that there is
little differentiation between the two and three levels of
effectiveness based on membership in the informal organiza—
tion. However, 80% of the number one ranked foremen per—
ceived themselves as members of the informal organization.
It is apparent that the most effective leaders are members
of the informal organization, but this phenomenon is not
shown at the two and three effectiveness levels. Thus, per-
ceived informal membership, as some perceived control, may
be a necessary but not a sufficient cause to be a highly
effective leader. An individual may perceive himself as
a member of the informal organization and be ranked at the
two or three level of effectiveness, but, in this sample,
it was unlikely that any leader would be ranked in the num—
ber one effectiveness category if he did not perceive himself
as a member of the informal organization.

The original hypothesis was based on the supposition
that there was only one type of group membership. This type
of membership would have required an individual to abide by
group norms in all cases. When these norms were at cross-
purposes with the formal organization's objectives, the
leader would follow informal norms and be considered ineffec—
tive in his formal role. However, there are many ways of

being a group member. A leader may perceive himself as a

102

member of the group but not as being totally controlled
by the informal organization. This was not considered in
this research,and therefore degree of membership was not
measured.

The formal leader who is a group member but not con-
trolled by the group may be highly effective since he may
have access to "in—group" information and his direc-
tives are more readily acceptable to the group than a non—
member leader's directives. The ability to gain membership
in the group may also denote an ability to gain acceptance
for one's ideas. These conclusions are tenative and must
be tested through future research. The type of future
research needed is discussed in the following chapter.

Hypotheses VII and VIII:
Informal Leaders

 

 

The hypothesis that the formal leader who is also the
informal leader is more effective than the formal leader
who is merely a member of the informal organization could
not be tested due to a lack of empirical evidence. There
was only one case where the formal leader perceived himself
as the informal leader, and this perception was not supported
by his distribution superintendent or by his work group,
which had a majority of its members responding.

The hypothesis that the formal leader who has a high
degree of compatibility with the informal leader is more

effective than the formal leader who has a low degree of

103

compatibility with the informal leader was not testable
since the compatibility factor was high in all but one
case. There was also a significant amount of disagreement
as to the identity of the informal leader by the work
group, the distribution superintendents and the foremen.

The data that were collected for this phase of the
study demonstrated that the informal leader's role was not
as clearly defined as the hypotheses assumed. The work
group members, distribution superintendents and the fore-
men all had different opinions as to the identity of the
informal leader(s) in the work groups. There was only one
case where each of these sources identified the same indi-
vidual as the informal leader. This individual was a task
specialist and as such, was in a leadership position. How-
ever, his position was more formally or task defined than
socially defined. Interviews with the distribution super—
intendents revealed that the group's members neither liked
nor respected this individual, but they did regard him as
an informal leader.

The above example points out that the questionnaire
items regarding the identity of the informal leader were
perceived by individuals in the context of ppaldeefinition
of the informal leader's role. In future research a more
precise definition of the informal leader is needed. This

will be discussed in the following chapter.

10“

Summary
This chapter has presented the majority of the empirical

data that were collected to test the general model of the
study.

The lack of group responses were noted, and the modi-
fication caused by this lack of response was shown.

The hypotheses were statistically analyzed. The
results showed an association between leadership effectiveness
and a leader's accuracy of perception regarding the informal
organization. Although no associations were found between
leadership effectiveness and either membership in the infor-
mal organization or a high degree of perceived control over
the informal organization, the majority of highly effective
leaders did perceive themselves as members and as having
some control over the informal organization. Thus, some
perceived control over the informal organization and member—
ship in the informal organization were necessary but not
sufficient causes to insure a leader as being highly
effective.

The hypotheses concerning the informal leaders were
not testable due to the type Of data that were collected.

A more specific definition of the informal leader's role is
needed.

The conclusions of this study are tentative and must

be regarded as such until further research is conducted in

105

this area. The types of future research studies that are

needed are presented in the following chapter.

CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Introduction

 

This chapter has a threefold purpose. First, it
presents the validation of the distribution superintendents'
perceptions as representing the "actual" informal organiza—
tions. The validation is supported by a similar research
study by Browne and Shore.

Second, some of the problems that were encountered
while collecting the data for this study are discussed.

The discussion of these problems is primarily concerned
with the manner in which they may have affected the results
of this research.

The third part of the chapter discusses the implica—
tions for future research that were shown by this study,
and the general direction that such research should take.

Validation of the Distribution Spperintendents'
Rankings of Cohesiveness

 

The use of the distribution superintendents' rankings
of cohesiveness as representing the "actual" or the groups'

perceptions of the informal organizations was validated by

106

107

determining the correlations between groups' perceptions
and distribution superintendents' perceptions, and through
the utilization of a similar study by Browne and Shore.
Correlations Between Grpups' and

Distribution SuperintendentsT
Perceptions

 

 

 

The first comparison between perceptions involved the
distribution superintendents' rankings of cohesiveness and
the work groups' composite indexes of cohesiveness. The
work groups used in these comparisons were those twelve
with 50% or more of their members responding to the ques-
tionnaire.

The group's composite index of cohesiveness, designated
U, was measured by the questionnaire items in Table 19.

The index is obtained by adding the average value of the
alternatives chosen for each question (the values are shown
next to each alternative) and dividing by N = 6. Thus:

2 Items A, 5, 61, 611, 6111,12
N = 6

U:

 

The results of this process were scaled as follows:

2 Interpretation Scaled for Comparison
With Distribution
Superintendents'

Responses
1.00-1.75 highly cohesive l
1.76-2.00 moderately cohesive 2

2.01 —- little to no cohesion 3

108

TABLE 19.-—Quantification of the Questionnaire Items Composing the Groups'

Composi

te Indexes of Cohesiveness.

 

A.

12.

Do you feel that you are really a part of your work group? (Check one)

1 Really
2 Includ

3 Includ
U Don't

a part of the work group

ed in most ways

ed in some but not in all ways
feel that I really belong

If you had a chance to do the same type of work for the same pay in another
ow would you feel about moving? (Check one)

work group, b

5 Would
5 Would
3 Would
2 Would
1 Would

want very much to move

rather move than stay where I am
not make any difference

rather stay where I am than move
want very much to stay where I am

How does your work group compare with other work groups in each of the

following are

as? (Check one for each area)

 

 

 

 

Better than About the same . Not as good
most as most ; as most
I. ‘
The way the ;
men get along 1 2 3
together
II.
The way the
men stick 1 2 3
together
III.
The way the
men help each 1 2 3

other on the
job

 

'The thing tha

1 The fe

2 That the group works well together except for a
3 That I don‘t have to depend on the others to do

U That I

t I like best about my work group is:

eling of a team spirit

_am able to work alone

few members
my Job

 

 

109

The above scaling process resulted in a composite
index of cohesiveness for each of the twelve work groups.
These indexes were compared to the distribution superin-
tendents' rankings of the groups' cohesiveness. The
results indicated that there was a +0.94 (rs) correlation
between the distribution superintendents' rankings of
cohesiveness and the groups' composite indexes of cohe—
siveness. This correlation coefficient is significant at
the 0.01 level. Thus, the two measures of cohesiveness
were closely associated in this sample. Computations are
shown in Appendix B TABLE B-ll.

The distribution superintendents were also asked
whether they felt that their foremen were members of the
informal organizations within the work groups that they
supervised. The work group members were asked to complete
items 2 and 3 as shown in Table 20 concerning their per-
ceptions of the foremen's memberships in the informal
organizations. These items were quantified by adding the
average value of the alternatives chosen for each question
(the values are shown next to each alternative) and

dividing by N = 2. Thus:

X = 2 Items 2 and 3
N = 2 ’

 

where X is equal to the group's perception of whether or not
the foreman is a member of the informal organization. The

results of this process were scaled as follows:

110

5 Interpretation Scaled for Comparison
With Distribution
Superintendents'
Responses
1 -3.0 Foreman is perceived
as a member of the 1.0 - Yes

informal organization.

3.1—5.0 Foremen is not perceived
as a member of the 2.0 - No
informal organization.

TABLE 20.-—Quantification of the Questionnaire Items Mea—
suring the Groups' Perceptions of Their Foreman's
Membership in the Informal Organization.

 

2. Do you consider your supervisor part of your group,
that is, does he go to coffee with members of the
group, does he have lunch with them, does he associate
with them off the Job, etc.? (Check one)

1 Very often he is part of the group

2 Frequently he is part of the group

3 Once in a while he is part of the group
H Rarely is he part of the group '

5 Never is he part of the group

3. How close is your supervisor to the men in the work
group? (Check one)

Much closer to the men than to management

Somewhat closer to the men than to management

About in the middle between the men and

management

Somewhat closer to management than to the men
5 Much closer to management than to the men

at? WNH

 

The results of the above scaling process were compared'
with the perceptions of the distribution superintendents
regarding the membership of their foremen in informal organi-

zation. This comparison yielded a +0.73 (rs) correlation

111

between the two perceptions, and this correlation coefficient
is significant at the0.01 level. Thus, these two measures

of the foremen's membership in the informal organizations
were closely associated in this sample. The computations

are shown in Appendix B TABLE B—6.

Similarity of the Above Correlations
to Other Research

 

 

The following study was found to support the use of
the distribution superintendents' perceptions as representa—
tive of the "actual" situations. It demonstrates the high
degree of accuracy shown by higher level managers in pre-
dicting group attitudes.

Browne and Shore, in a study conducted in a Detroit,
Michigan manufacturing plant, studied department managers',
foremen's and workers' abilities for "predictive abstract—

1 "Predictive abstracting" was defined by the researchers

irug."
as the ability to predict correctly the attitude of other
individuals, and they felt that such ability was largely

dependent on the extent to which an individual is able to

select pertinent data from the environment and utilize such

data as predictors.2 The general hypothesis of the study was

 

1C. G. Browne and Richard P. Shore, "Leadership and
Predictive Abstracting," The Study of Leadership, C. G.
Browne and Thomas S. Cohn, editors (Danville, Illinois:
The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958), p. 279.

2

 

Ibid., p. 276.

112

that the higher a person is in an organization (authority
level), the greater his ability for "predictive abstract-
ing" concerning his subordinates.

The results of the study indicated that the department
managers were in a more focal position (i.e., higher
echelon or authority position) and were able to predict
the attitudes of workers more accurately than were the fore-
men. This led Browne and Shore to the conclusions that
face-to-face relations were not necessary to being capable
of predicting the attitudes of others correctly and that
the department managers in the study were higher in their
ability for predictive abstracting concerning the workers
under them than the foremen.3

Although they did not offer any explanations for the
accuracy of the perceptions of the department managers, it
may be hypothesized that as individuals move up in an organ-
ization, they are able to perceive lower level situations
more completely. Browne and Shore pointed out that the
individuals in higher level positions may not be superior
to individuals in lower level positions in "predictive
abstracting," but they may be better informed as to

all variables present.“ Thus foremen simply are not

aware of as many variables affecting worker behavior

 

 

113

as are the department managers and therefore cannot predict
workers' attitudes as well as the department managers. It
may also be hypothesized that being removed from a face-to—
face situation may allow an individual more objectivity in
appraising a situation. Thus higher level individuals

base their situational assessments on factual data, where—
as the foremen with face-to-face contact may have their
judgments "colored" by personal considerations. Thus, being
too ”close" to a situation may lessen an individual's abili-
ty for objective assessment.

These hypotheses are presented as directives for
future research. Awareness of the total group environment
has already been shown to be related to leadership effective-
ness, and the empirical testing of the above hypotheses
would give insights into the reasons for leader's perceptual
accuracy.

The distribution superintendents in the present study
were responsible for assigning individuals to work groups,
and this responsibility led them to state that they had to
be aware of each individual's capabilities if they were to
properly assign men to work groups that would perform effec-
tively. Throughout the interviews they also showed a "feel"
for the attitudes of different work groups with statements
such as, “that's a close-knit bunch . . . used to be a sepa-

rate division . . . not too happy in this division." Their

11“

position gave them the perspective to perceive these varia-
bles, and this could conceivably improve their perceptions
of the total group environments.

The high correlations noted between the perceptions
of the work groups with over 50% of their members respond-
ing, the perceptions of the distribution superintendents,
and the results of the Browne and Shore study validated the
utilization of the distribution superintendents' observa-
tions as representative of the actual situation. The
actual situation had been previously defined by the groups'
composite indexes of cohesiveness. This study used the
distribution superintendent's rankings of cohesiveness as
representing the strength of the actual informal organiza—
tion. Thus, the foremen's composite indexes of cohesive-
ness were compared to the distribution superintendents‘
rankings of cohesiveness instead of the work groups' indexes
of cohesiveness in the statistical tests of the major hypo-

thesis of this study.

Problems In Data Collection

 

Work Grogp Response

 

Only twelve of the thirty—six work groups in the ori-
ginal sample had at least 50% of their members responding
to the questionnaire. Although, as previously shown, the
work group responses were not used to directly test any of

the hypotheses of this study, their responses and lack of

115

responses were part of the empirical evidence gathered for
this study, and the implications and probable causes of both
the responses and lack of responses should be investigated.
No definitive answers can be given as to why the maJority
of the groups responded poorly to the questionnaires, but
the factors in the situation can be analyzed to determine
their probable effects on the groups' responses.
An important factor in the situation was the fact that
contract negotiations between union and management were
being conducted at the time of the study. The contract
itself did not expire until two weeks after this study was
completed. The interviews with the distribution superin-
tendents following the distribution of the questionnaires
indicated that the workers were concerned with the confi—
dential nature of the questionnaires particularly during a
time of union—management bargaining. As an example, the
local union president in Division B stated to the distribu—
tion superintendent that he would be able to obtain specific
results of this study from Michigan State University for a
nominal fee. If only this were true. Although quite
obviously he was misinformed, the lack of response suggests
that he was able to influence many workers with his viewpoint.
This local union president was anti-company, and he made
his position quite clear to the distribution superintendent by
overtly sabotagingtkmrstudy which he felt was company spon-

sored. The term anti-company was the term used to describe

116

this individual by the distribution superintendents and
higher management. They felt that his antagonistic attitude
was exemplified when he grew a beard in direct violation of
company regulations. He also referred to the chief company
negotiator as a "smelly beast." These examples indicate
that union—management relations were far from harmonious,
and this was felt to definitely affect the returns from the
workers. The breakdown of negotiations finally led to an
eighty-three day strike with some company property destroyed
during the strike. Thus, this did not suggest an atmosphere
free of suspicion and conducive to a cooperative effort in
responding to questionnaires distributed with the permission
of the management.

It was also noted that individuals simply do not like
to fill out questionnaires particularly when they have been
bombarded with too many questionnaires. The latter was not
the case here as little research of this nature had been
done prior to this study. It was heped that the general
reluctance to respond to any questionnaire would be overcome
by offering the workers a chance to improve worker—manage—
ment relations and by the brevity of the questionnaire.
These points were not effective in overcoming either the
general reluctance to fill out a questionnaire and/or the
hostility directed at the company by not responding.

The sparse responses were not limited to Division B

but also occurred equally in Division A which was described

117

as having "good" union-management relations. Division A,
in the final analysis, failed to ratify the final contract
that had been negotiated following the strike. This is
significant, for it indicated that the company's manage-
ment may have been utilizing an improper measure of union—
management relations. The situation in Division A may have
appeared harmonious on the surface, but the lack of response
to a company sanctioned questionnaire and the failure to
win contract ratification showed less rapport between union
and management than was described to the researcher.
Apparently there were problems which were producing only
mild conflict at that time. However, these problems may
generate into more disruptive factors if not effectively
remedied, and they could lead to a hostile environment
similar to Division B.

The closeness of the strike vote and the lack of
response to this study indicated the need for renewed aware—
ness on the part of management regarding worker attitudes.
This awareness is needed now, for this is the only means to

prevent disruptive future problems.

Foremen's Effectiveness Measures

 

The effectiveness of the foremen in this study was
based on how they were evaluated by the formal organization.
The formal evaluation process consisted of two methods. An
evaluation form was utilized by the company, but it proved

more a wage guide than an actual evaluator of performance

118

and indicator of potential for promotion. The evaluation
form rated each individual on a five-point scale with level
I being "unsatisfactory" and level V being "far above satis-
factory." Level III was considered "satisfactory." Each
level also designated minimum and maximum wages that an
individual at that level could receive.

Due to budget constraints that faced each division,
they were allowed only so many people at the IV and V
levels. Most of the foremen were rated at the III level,
not because of performance but rather because of the wage
constraints. The IV and V ratings were reserved for posi-
tions above the foreman level. None of the foremen in this
sample were rated below the III level, and only two were
rated at the IV level.

Thus it was felt that this numerical evaluation was
NHL representative of u foreman's effectiveness. One distri-
bution superintendent expressed his feelings concerning the
evaluation form by stating that he did not consider the
rating important in evaluating his people, and he frankly
admitted rating everyone at one III level to avoid "hard
feelings" should one foreman be rated above another. He
felt that if he could not rate all foreman who deserved it at
the IV level then he would not rate anyone at that level, and
he pointed out that the budget constraint kept him from rat-
ing all the foreman at the IV level that he felt should be

so rated. This instrument did not discriminate significantly

119

between the foremen and therefore was not used to measure
effectiveness in this study.

The measure that was used was an ordinal ranking of:
excellent, satisfactory or unsatisfactory. This measure
was obtained by asking the distribution superintendents to
rank their foremen on a cardinal basis, that is, first,
second, etc., based on the question "Who is your best fore-
man . . . next best, etc.?" Although it was intended that
such a cardinal ranking would yield a cardinal scale of
foremen effectiveness, it did not. The distribution super-
intendents had difficulty separating their foremen into

tig

J

ht, cardinal categories. They finally grouped their
foremen into one of the above ordinal categories.

The difference between the first and second categories
was more distinct than the difference between the second and
third categories. The distribution superintendents were more
comfortable distinguishing between the first and second cate-
gories than they were distinguishing between the second and
third categories. There was a reluctance, noted during the
interviews, to assign an individual to the third category.
However, the proportion finally assigned this ranking was
large enough to demonstrate that even with this reluctance,

the scale did segment the foremen in terms of their effec-

tiveness. These results are shown in Appendix B, TABLE B-l.

120

Future Research

 

Disparity Indexes

 

As previously stated, the conclusions in this study
must be regarded as specific to the environment in which
the study was conducted. However, since there was an
association demonstrated between a low disparity index and
a high degree of effectiveness, the next step in this area
would be to set up a controlled eXperiment to determine
whether a causal relationship exists between these two
variables. The value of this type of future research is
also indicated by previous studies that have attested to
the importance of awareness of the total group environment,
as shown in the last chapter.

Research that replicates the present study could be
conducted by selecting foremen in similar work situations.
These foremen would be segmented by their disparity indexes.
Using these foremen with low disparity indexes, training
programs could be established to improve the disparity
indexes of one segment of these foremen. Changes in effec-
tiveness could then be compared in the experimental and
control groups to determine the effect of decreasing dispar—
ity indexes on formal effectiveness.

This type of study requires treating both sets of
foremen similarly in all respects except the lowering of one

set's disparity indexes. The study is longitudinal in

121

nature, but this is the direction that behavioral science

must move if valid causal relationships are to be revealed.

Control of the Informal Organization

 

This study also demonstrates the need for future
research in the area of the formal leaders' controls over
the informal organization. This study showed that some
control over the informal organization was retained by the
"excellent" leaders. This suggests that a more precise
instrument is needed to measure control so that more degrees
of control may be specified. Then more precise information
could be obtained regarding the amount of control separat-
ing excellent leaders from less effective leaders. A high
degree of control may not be as important as an individual
ngt_allowing the informal organization to control him.

This problem, that is, whether little perceived control
over the informal organization led to a leader's behavior
being strongly affected by the informal organization and
thus making him a less effective leader, could be
investigated.

Membership in the

Informal Organization

In the majority of cases, the "excellent" leaders
perceived themselves as members of the informal organization.
Although they were members, they acted effectively toward

company goals as evidenced by their excellent rankings as

122

formal leaders. The original hypothesis was based on the
idea that any group member would automatically be subject
to strict obedience to the group's norms. If these norms
were not in accord with formal goals, he would be a less
effective leader. However, there are degrees of group
membership that were not investigated in this study.
Apparently excellent formal leaders regard themselves as
group members, but their degree of membership was determined
by the correspondence between group norms and formal goals.
Group norms were apparently followed when they did not
seriously violate formal goals. More research is needed
into the degree to which an excellent formal leader con-
siders himself a group member as contrasted to the degrees

of membership of less effective leaders.

Informal Leaders

 

The hypotheses concerning informal leaders have been
previously mentioned as untestable due to results of the
data that were collected in this area. The informal leader's
identity was simply not clearly revealed in the data.
Zaleznik, in his study of a machine shop, apparently
had little difficulty in identifying the informal leader.
He felt that the informal leader performed a "big brother"
role for the members of the informal organization.5 In

the present study, foremen were asked to identify informal

 

SZaleznik, op. cit., pp. 65, 99-101.

123

leaders as were the work groups and the distribution super-
intendents. The results were inconclusive. Very few
individuals were identified by two of the above sources as
the informal 1eader,and only one individual was identified
by all three sources. The latter was a task specialists,
and his role as the informal leader seemed dependent on this
specialization.

Zaleznik's informal leader was task-role oriented,
but the results of the present study show that informal
leaders may have more than a task role and may be dependent
on situations. Future research should be undertaken to
identify informal leaders in the context of the leadership
role that they perform. This will entail a more precise

definition of the informal leader.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1214

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asch, S. E. "Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification
and Distortion of Judgments." Reading in Social
Psycholo . Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore MI Newcomb
and EugEne L. Hartley, editors. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1958. pp. 174-183.

 

 

Barnard, Chester 1. The Functions of the Executive. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts: HarvardIUniversity Press, 1938.

 

Bavelas, Alex and Strauss, George. "Group Dynamics and
Intergroup Relations." Organizations and Human Behavior.
Gerald D. Bell, editor. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. pp. 151—155.

 

Berne, Eric. The Structure and Dynamics of Organizations and
Groups. Philadelphia: 3: BI’LippinEott Company, 1963.

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw—Hill
Book Company, 1960.

 

Blau, Peter M. "Formal Organization: Dimensions of Analysis."
Readings in Organization Theory: A Behavioral Approach.
Walter A. Hill and Douglas Egan, editors. IBoston:’I
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. pp. 336-351.

 

Blau, Peter M. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1955:

 

Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations.
San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.

Blauner, Robert. Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of ChicagB'Press, 196H.

 

Bogardus, Emory S. "Leadership and Social Situations." The
Study of Leadership. C. G. Browne and Thomas S. C355,
editors: IDanville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers
and Publishers, Inc., 1958. pp. 62-67.

 

Broom, Leonard, Editor. Leadership and Productivity. San
Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1965.

 

125

126

Browne, C. G. and Shore, Richard P. "Leadership and
Predictive Abstracting." The Study of Leadership,
C. G. Browne and Thomas S. coho, editors. 'Danville,
Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers,
Inc., 1958. pp. 275-283.

 

Bucklow, Maxine. "A New Role for The Work Group." Adminis-
trative Science Quarteply, June, 1966, 11, pp.59-78-

 

Campbell, Donald T. Leadership and Its Effects Upon The
Group. Research MonographINumber783. Columbus, Ohio:
Burgau of Business Research, The Ohio State University,
195 o

 

Carter, Launor. "Some Research on Leadership in Small Groups."
Groups, Leadership and Men. Harold Guetzkow, editor.
New‘York: PRussell E RusSEll, Inc., 1963. pp. 146-157.

 

Cartwright, Dorwin. "The Nature of Group Cohesiveness."
Group Dynamics. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander,
editorsif‘New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968.
pp. 91-109.

Caudill, William A. The Psychiatric Hospital as a Small
Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
9 O

 

Chowdhry, Kamla and Newcomb, Theodore M. "The Relative
Abilities of Leaders and Non-leaders to Estimate
Opinions of Their Groups." Small Groups. A. Paul
Hare, Edgar F. Borgatta and Robert F. Bales editors.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. pp. 235—2fi5.

 

Crozier, Michel. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press:“l963. If

Dalton, Melville. Men Who Manage. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1959.

 

Dubin, Robert. "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the
Central Life Interests of Industrial Workers." Social
Problems, III (1956), 131-1H2.

Dubin, Robert. The World of Work. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice+Hall, Inc., 1958.

 

Festinger, Leon. "Informal Social Communications." Group
D namics. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, e tors.
New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968. pp. 182—191.

127

Fiedler, Fred E. AxTheory of Leadership Effectiveness. New
York: McGraw—Hill Bbok Company, 1967.

 

Fiedler, Fred E. "Personality and Situational Determinants
of Leadership Effectiveness." Group Dynamics. Dorwin
Cartwright and Alvin Zander, editors. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968. pp. 362—380.

 

Geode, William J. and Hatt, Paul K. Methods in Social
Research. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc.,

I957."—

Gouldner, Alvin W. "The Problems of Succession and Bureau-
cracy." Studies in Leadership. Alvin W. Gouldner,
editor. New York} Harper EiBrothers, Publishers,
1950. pp. 646-66“.

 

 

Hare, A. Paul. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

 

Hare, A. Paul. "The Dimensions of Social Interaction."
Readings in Organization Theory: A Behavioral
A roach. WaIEEr A. Hill and Douglas Egan, editors.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. pp. 2A2-248.

 

Hemphill, John K. Group Dimensions A Manual For Their
Measurement. Research Monograph Nimber 87. Columbus,
Ohio: BuPEau of Business Research, The Ohio State
University, 1956.

 

 

Hollander, E. P. Leaders, Groups and Influence. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1964.

 

Homans, George C. "Group Factors in Worker Productivity."
Readings in Social Psycholggy. Eleanor E. Maccoby,
Thébdore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley, editors.
Neg York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. pp. 583—
59 .

 

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
New York: Harcourt BracéVE W6rld,‘Inc., 1961: I

Homans, George C. "Social Systems." Orgpnizations: Struc—
ture and Behavior. Joseph A. Litterer, editor.‘ New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963. pp. 178-199.

 

Homans, George C. The Human Gropp. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1950T'

 

128

Hopkins, Terence K. The Exercise of Influence in Small
Groups. Totowa, New‘JerseyE"The Bedminster Press,
19 0

House, Robert J. "Leadership Training: Some Dysfunctional
Consequences." Administrative Science Quarterly.
March, 1968, 12, pp. 556-5711 "‘I I

Hawron, M. Dean and McGrath, Joseph E. "The Contribution
of the Leader to the Effectiveness of Small Military
Groups." Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior, Luigi
Petrullo and Bernard M. Bass, editors. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961. pp. 165-172.

 

Kahn, Robert L., et a1. Organizational Stress: Studies in
Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 196“.

 

 

Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psyphology of
Organizations. New York: John Wiley‘& Sons, Inc.,
1966. 86"

 

 

Katz, Fred E. "EXplaining Informal Work Groups in Complex
Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly.
September, 196?, 10, ppi 2ofl-223.

 

Kemp, C. Gratton. Perspectives on the Groungrocess. Boston:

 

Houghton Mifflin Company, 196U.

Landsberger, Henry A. Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca, New York:

 

Cornell University, 1958.

Likert, Rensis. "An Emerging Theory of Organization, Leader—
ship and Management." Leadership and Interpersonal
Behavior. Luigi PetrulI6 and Beffiard M. Bass, editors.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961.
pp. 290-310.

 

Lippitt, Ronald and Cartwright, Dorwin. "Group Dynamics and
the Individual." Readings in Organization Theoryi A
Behavioral Approach.f waiter A. Hill and DougIas Egan,
efiétégs. Bogton: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. pp.

2 -2 l.

 

 

Lippitt, Ronald and White, Ralph K. "An Experimental Study
of Leadership and Group Life." Readings in Social
Psychology. Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb
and Eugene L. Hartley, editors. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1958. pp. 996-511.

 

 

129

Litterer, Joseph A., Editor. Organizations: Structure
and Behavior. New York: JohnIWiley & Sons, Inc.,
19630

Mann, Floyd C. and Hoffman, L. Richard. Automation and the
Worker. New York: Henry Holt and Company,‘l9661

 

Manning, Andrew. Lance Corporal, U. 8. Marine Corps., Just
returned from twelve months duty at Da Nang, Viet Nam,
Lansing, Michigan. Interview, June 25, 1969.

March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Mechanic, David. "Sources of Power of Lower Participants in
Complex Organizations." Readings in Organization
Theory: A Behavioral Approach. ‘Walter A. Hill and
Douglas Egan, editors. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1966. pp. 196-206.

 

Mosel, James N. "Why Training Programs Fail to Carry Over."
Management of the Personnel Function. I. L. Heckman
and S. G. Huneryager, editors. 'Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1962. pp. 317-331.

 

Olmsted, Michael S. The Small Group. New York: Random
House, 1959.

 

Pelz, Donald C. "Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership
in the First-Line Supervisor." The Study of Leadership.
C. G. Browne and Thomas S. Cohn, editors. Dantille,
Illinois: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.,
1958. pp. l8A-l95.

 

Porter, Lyman W. and Lawler, Edward E., III. Managerial
Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.

 

 

Roethlisberger, Fritz J. and Dickson, William J. Management
and the Worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Prdss,41939.

 

 

Roff, Merrill. "A Study of Combat Leadership in the Air
Force by Means of a Rating Scale: Group Differences."
The Study of Leadershi . C. G. Browne and Thomas S.
thn, editors. Danville, Illinois: The Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1958. pp. 158-169.

 

130

Hey, Donald. "Selections from Quota Restrictions and Gold—
bricking in a Machine Shop." Organizations: Struc-
ture and Behavior. Joseph A. Litterér, editor.f New
Yofk: John WiIey & Sons, Inc., 1963. pp. 1984151.

 

 

Schachter, Stanley, et al. "An Experimental Study of
Cohesiveness and Productivity." Group Dynamics.
Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, editors.‘ New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1968. pp. 192-198.

 

Schien, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology, Englewood
Cliffs, New JePsey: PrehticalHall, Inc., 1965.

 

Scott, Ellis L. Leadership and Perceptions of Organization.
Research Monograph Number 82. Columbus, Ohio: Bdreau
of Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1956.

 

Scott, William G. Organization Theory A Behavioral Analysis
for Management. 'Homewood, Illinois: IRichard D. Irwin,
Inc., 1967.

 

 

Seashore, Stanley E. Group Cohesivenessip the Industrial
Work Group. Ann Arbbr: Ihstitutévfor Social Research,
Unitersity of Michigan, 195“.

 

 

Selltiz, Claire, et al. Research Methods in Social Relations.
New York: HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959. I

Selznick, Philip. "The Informal Organization." Or aniza—
tions: Structure and Behavior. Joseph A. Litterer,
editor. NEW York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963.
pp. 1A6—1A8.

 

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956.

Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. New York: The
Free Press, 1957.

Simon, Herbert A. "On the Concept of Organizational Goal."
Readings in Organizational Theory: A Behavioral
Approach. Walter A. Hill and Dddglas Egan, editors.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1966. pp. 58-75.

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. "Intragroup-Intergroup Theory and
Research." Intergroup Relations and Leadership.
Muzafer Sherifjeditor. New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1962. pp. 98-67.

131

Stogdill, Ralph M. Leadership and Structures of Personal
Interaction. ReaearchwMdndgrapthumber 89. Columbus,
Ohio} Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State
University, 1957.

 

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. and Coons, Alvin E., editors. Leader
Behavior: Its Description and Measurement. Research
Monograph Number 88. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of
Business Research, The Ohio State University, 1957.

 

Tannenbaum, Robert and Schmidt, Warren H. "How to Choose a
Leadership Pattern." Organizations: Structure and
Behavior. Joseph A. Litterer, editor. New York}
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963. pp. 122-130.

 

 

Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, Dorothy S. The Child in aperica:
Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 19281

 

 

Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York:
McGraw—Hill Bodk‘Company, 1967.

 

Trist, E. L. and Bamforth, K. W. "Some Psychological
Consequences of the Long-Wall Method of Coal-Getting."
Human Relations, 1951, A, pp. 3-38.

 

Walker, Charles R. and Guest, Robert H. The Man on the
Assembly Line. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
UhiteraitylPress, 1952.

 

 

Walker, J. and Marriott, R. A. "A Study of Some Attitudes
to Factory Work." Occupational Psychology, 1951, 25,

Weber, Max. "Bureaucracy." Organizations: Structure and
Behavior. Joseph A. Litterer, editor. John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., 1963. pp. A0-A9.

 

White, Ralph and Lippitt, Ronald. "Leader Behavior and Member
Reaction in Three 'Social Climates'." Dorwin Cart-
wright and Alvin Zander, editors. New York: Harper
& Row, Publishers, 1968. pp. 318-335.

Whyte, William F. "An Interaction Approach to the Theory
of Organization." Modern Organization Theory. Mason
Haire, editor. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1959. pp. 155-183.

Whyte, William F. Men at Work. Homewood, Illinois: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., and The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1961.

 

132

Whyte, William F. The Street Corner Society. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press,ll9n3.

 

Zaleznik, A. Worker Satisfaction and Development. Norwood,
Massachusetts: The Plimptoanress, 1956.

Zaleznik, A. and Moment, David. The Dynamics of Interpersonal
Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969.

APPENDICES

133

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRES AND LETTERS

13“

135

TABLE A-1.--Cover Letter for All Questionnaires.

 

Your co-operation is requested in filling out the following
questionnaire.

The questionnaire is part of a study concerning small groups
and their leaders that is being conducted at the Michigan
State Graduate School of Business. The goal of this study
is to improve the relationship between workers and super-
visors. Your co-operation is needed if this goal is to be
achieved.

Since a 100% response is needed to complete this study, your

foreman will check to see that you have completed and mailed

your questionnaire. HE IS NOT TO COLLECT YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE.
pl; 1.1 pg pg RETURNED MEDLEY—ELVIS} TATE-D-Ifl-‘THETN'S'TR'U'C -
TIONS.

 

 

Thank you,

/ .
4. a... new

Michigan State University

 

136

TABLE A-2.--Foreman Questionnaire.

 

The following questionnaire is part of a major study
concerning small groups that is being conducted at the
Michigan State Graduate School of Business Administration.

YOUR RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE STRICTLY
CONFIDENTIAL. THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE SHOULD BE RE-
TURNED DIRECTLY TO THIS INTERVIEWER IN THE STAMPED,
ADDRESSED ENVELOPE SUPPLIED WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

Your responses and your co-Operation are vital to the
success of this project.
Thank you,

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:

 

NAME

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH CONSUMERS POWER?
YEARS MONTHS

YOUR AGE

 

NAME OI" YOUR SUPERVISOR

 

NAME OF YOUR DEPARTMENT

 

YOUR JOB TITLE

 

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN SUPERVISING YOUR PRESENT WORK GROUP?

YEARS MONTHS
HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE THERE IN THE WORK GROUP THAT YOU
SUPERVISE?

 

EDUCATION (CHECK ONE):
EIGHTH GRADE OR LESS
LEFT SCHOOL WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL
FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL
HAVE SOME COLLEGE
FINISHED COLLEGE

137
TABLE A-2.--Continued.

 

1. AS A MEMBER OF A GROUP, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING
ALTERNATIVES WOULD YOU PREFER? (CHECK ONE)

TOP LEADERSHIP POSITION

A LEADERSHIP POSITION

IMPORTANT MEMBERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES
SIMPLY A MEMBER OF THE GROUP

IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

2. IN MY PRESENT POSITION, I FEEL THAT I HAVE: (CHECK ONE)

TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY
ABOUT THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY
TOO LITTLE RESPONSIBILITY

3. IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD POSITIONS THAT:
(CHECK ONE)

HAVE MORE RESPONSIBILITY THAN MY PRESENT POSITION
HAVE ABOUT THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AS MY PRESENT
POSITION

HAVE LESS RESPONSIBILITY THAN MY PRESENT POSITION

A. I AM INTERESTED IN: (CHECK ONE)

MOVING TO A HIGHER MANAGEMENT POSITION
REMAINING IN MY PRESENT POSITION
MOVING BACK INTO THE WORK GROUP

5. HOW IMPORTANT IS IT FOR YOU TO FEEL THAT YOU CAN RUN THE
JOB WITHOUT DEPENDING ON OTHER PEOPLE? (CHECK ONE)

NOT AT ALL
SLIGHTLY
SOMEWHAT
VERY
EXTREMELY

6. I LIKE SUPERVISORY WORK: (CHECK ONE)

VERY MUCH
PRETTY MUCH
SOMEWHAT

NOT VERY MUCH
NOT AT ALL

138

TABLE A-2.--Continued.

 

IN THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, THE TERM "SOCIAL GROUP"
REFERS TO THE lNFORMAL GROUPS THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORM,
SUCH AS, PEOPLE WHO USUALLY EAT LUNCH TOGETHER, PEOPLE WHO
USUALLY HAVE COFFEE TOGETHER, ETC. THE TERM WORK GROUP
REFERS TO THE GROUP OF WORKERS THAT YOU PERSONALLY SUPER-
VISE. A SINGLE WORK GROUP MAY CONTAIN NO "SOCIAL GROUPS"
OR IT MAY CONTAIN MANY "SOCIAL GROUPS".

7. I FIND THAT "SOCIAL GROUP(S)" IN MY WORK GROUP ARE:
(CHECK ONE)

RARE

NOT VERY LONG-LIVED

ARE NOT UNUSUAL, BUT CHANGE OFTEN

NOT UNUSUAL AND ARE PART OF THE GROUP
STRONG DETERMINANTS OF THE GROUP'S ACTIONS

8. MY WORK GROUP IS BEST DESCRIBED AS CONSISTING OF:
(CHECK ONE)

NO STABLE "SOCIAL GROUPS"

A SINGLE ALL ENCOMPASSING "SOCIAL GROUP"
A LARGE NUMBER OF "SOCIAL GROUPS"

A FEW "SOCIAL GROUPS"

MEMBERS THAT STICK TO THEMSELVES

9. MY WORK GROUP IS BEST CONTROLLED THROUGH THE USE OF:
(CHECK ONE)

"SOCIAL GROUPS" AND THEIR LEADERS

"SOCIAL GROUPS" AND THE FORMAL RULES

FORMAL RULES REMEMBERING THE "SOCIAL GROUPS"
FORMAL RULES SINCE THERE ARE NO "SOCIAL GROUPS"
~FORMAL RULES SINCE THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" ARE HARD
TO CONTROL

10. IN DECISIONS CONCERNING THE ASSIGNMENT OF WORK IN MY
WORK GROUP: (CHECK ONE)

I ALWAYS CONSIDER THE "SOCIAL GROUPS"

1 FREQUENTLY CONSIDER THE "SOCIAL GROUPS"
I RARELY CONSIDER THE "SOCIAL GROUPS"

I NEVER CONSIDER THE "SOCIAL GROUPS"

139

TABLE A-2.--Continued.

 

ll.

12.

13.

l“.

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF A "SOCIAL GROUP" THAT CONSISTS OF
MEMBERS OF YOUR WORK GROUP? (CHECK ONE)

YES, A STRONG MEMBER
USUALLY I AM A MEMBER
_ MOST TIMES I AM NOT A MEMBER
"”“" NO, NEVER A MEMBER

LIST THE PEOPLE THAT YOU FEEL ARE THE LEADERS OF THE
VARIOUS "SOCIAL GROUP(S)" THAT EXIST WITHIN YOUR WORK
GROUP (INCLUDE YOURSELF AS A POSSIBLE LEADER OF A
"SOCIAL GROUP"). IF NO "SOCIAL GROUPS" EXIST WITHIN
YOUR WORK GROUP, PLEASE ANSWER NONE.

 

I.IC/\l)lfil< (3l{()l11”
LEADER GROUP
LEADER GROUP
LEADER GROUP
LEADER GROUP E

 

 

 

UOCJZD

 

 

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF A "SOCIAL GROUP", TO WHICH OF THE
ABOVE GROUPS DO YOU BELONG, THAT IS, GROUP A, GROUP B,
ETC."

 

HOW WOULD YOU CLASSIFY YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LEADERS
OF THE ABOVE GROUPS? (CHECK ONE FOR EACH GROUP)

GROUP A

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

GROUP B

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

1140

TABLE A-2.--Continued.

 

15.

lb.

17.

GROUP C

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

GROUP D

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

GROUP E

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

THE "SOCIAL GROUP(S)" IN MY WORK GROUP (CHECK ONE)

CAN ALWAYS BE MADE TO HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE

CAN USUALLY BE MADE TO HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE
CAN FREQUENTLY BE MADE TO HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE
CAN RARELY BE MADE TO HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE

CAN NEVER BE MADE TO HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE
CANNOT HELP GROUP PERFORMANCE SINCE THEY DO NOT
EXIST

THE MOST IMPORTANT "SOCIAL GROUP(S)" (THAT IS, GROUP A,
GROUP B, ETC. AS DESCRIBED IN QUESTION #12) IN TERMS OF
HELPING ME PERFORM MY JOB BETTER IS (ARE): (FILL IN)

 

I CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE INFLUENTIAL IN: (CHECK ONE)

ALL ACTIONS OF THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" IN MY WORK

GROUP

MOST ACTIONS OF THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" IN MY WORK
GROUP

SOME ACTIONS OF THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" IN MY WORK
GROUP

1’41

TABLE A-2.--Continued.

 

FEW ACTIONS OF THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" IN MY WORK
GROUP

NONE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE "SOCIAL GROUPS" IN
MY WORK GROUP

"SOCIAL GROUPS": (CHECK ONE)

ARE IMPORTANT TO THE WORK OF MY GROUP

AFFECT THE WORK OF MY GROUP

RARELY HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE WORK OF MY GROUP
ARE NOT IMPORTANT TO THE WORK OF MY GROUP

DO NOT EXIST WITHIN MY GROUP

 

1142

TABLE A-3.--Worker Questionnaire.

 

The following questionnaire is part of a major study
concerning small groups that is being conducted at the
Michigan State Graduate School of Business Administration.

, YOUR RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARE STRICTLY CON-
FIDENTIAL. THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE SHOULD BE RETURNED
DIRECTLY TO THIS INTERVIEWER IN THE STAMPED, ADDRESSED
ENVELOPE SUPPLIED WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

Your responses and your co-operation are vital to the
SUCCESS'Of this study.
Thank you,

A. Thomas Hollingsworth

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:

 

NAME

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH CONSUMERS POWER?
YEARS MONTHS

YOUR AGE

 

NAME OF YOUR IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR

 

NAME OF YOUR DEPARTMENT

 

YOUR JOB TITLE

 

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN YOUR PRESENT WORK GROUP?

 

YEARS MONTHS
HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE THERE IN YOUR WORK GROUP?
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE UNION? DO YOU HOLD A UNION
OFFICE?
HOW LONG HAS YOUR PRESEN” SUPERVISOR BEEN IN CHARGE OF YOUR
WORK GROUP? YEARS MONTHS

EDUCATION: (CHECK ONE)
EIGHTH GRADE OR LESS
LEFT SCHOOL WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL
FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL
HAVE SOME COLLEGE
FINISHED COLLEGE

1&3

TABLE A-3.--Continued.

 

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1.

WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR SUPERVISOR? (CHECK ONE)

WARM AND FRIENDLY

PLEASANT

LIMITED STRICTLY TO THE JOB
UNPLEASANT

ANTAGONISTIC

DO YOU CONSIDER YOUR SUPERVISOR PART OF YOUR GROUP, THAT
IS, DOES HE GO TO COFFEE WITH MEMBERS OF THE GROUP, DOES
HE HAVE LUNCH WITH THEM, DOES HE ASSOCIATE WITH THEM OFF
THE JOB, ETC.? (CHECK ONE)

VERY OFTEN HE IS PART OF THE GROUP
FREQUENTLY HE IS PART OF THE GROUP

ONCE IN A WHILE HE IS PART OF THE GROUP
RARELY IS HE PART OF THE GROUP

NEVER IS PART OF THE GROUP

HOW CLOSE IS YOUR SUPERVISOR TO THE MEN IN THE WORK
GROUP? (CHECK ONE)

MUCH CLOSER TO THE MEN THAN TO MANAGEMENT

SOMEWHAT CLOSER TO THE MEN THAN TO MANAGEMENT
ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE MEN AND MANAGEMENT
SOMEWHAT CLOSER TO MANAGEMENT THAN TO THE MEN

MUCH CLOSER TO MANAGEMENT THAN TO THE MEN

DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU ARE REALLY A PART OF YOUR WORK
GROUP? (CHECK ONE)

REALLY A PART OF THE WORK GROUP
INCLUDED IN MOST WAYS

INCLUDED IN SOME BUT NOT IN ALL WAYS
DON'T FEEL THAT I REALLY BELONG

IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO THE SAME TYPE OF WORK FOR THE
SAME PAY IN ANOTHER WORK GROUP, HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT
MOVING? (CHECK ONE)

WOULD WANT VERY MUCH TO MOVE

WOULD RATHER MOVE THAN STAY WHERE I AM
WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE '

WOULD RATHER STAY WHERE I AM THAN MOVE
WOULD WANT VERY MUCH TO STAY WHERE I AM

 

144

TABLE A—3.—-Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

6. HOW DOES YOUR WORK GROUP COMPARE WITH OTHER WORK GROUPS
IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS? ,(CHECK ONE FOR EACH
AREA)

BETTER THAN ABOUT THE SAME NOT AS GOOD
MOST As MOST As MOST

THE WAY THE

MEN GET ALONG

TOGETHER

THE WAY THE

MEN STLCK

TOGETHER

THE WAY THE

MEN HELP EACH

OTHER ON THE

JOB

 

 

 

 

V

ARE THERE ONE OR TWO MEMBERS OF YOUR WORK GROUP THAT
TEND TO SET THE EXAMPLE FOR THE OTHERS? (INCLUDE
YOURSELF IN ANSWERING) YES NO. IF YES,
WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES?

 

 

 

 

WHAT lNFLUENCE DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR WORK GROUP?
(CHECK ONE)

MEMBERS ALWAYS FOLLOW MY EXAMPLE

MEMBERS FREQUENTLY ASK ME FOR ADVICE

SOMETIMES I SET THE EXAMPLE AND SOMETIMES I DON'T
I FREQUENTLY FOLLOW OTHERS IN THE GROUP

I ALWAYS WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO MAKE THE FIRST
MOVE

 

1A5

TABLE A—3.--Continued

 

9.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

WHICH MEMBERS OF YOUR WORK GROUP DO YOU WORK WITH MOST
OFTEN? (LIST IN ORDER OF FREQUENT CONTACT, THAT IS,
THE PERSON THAT YOU WORK WITH MOST OFTEN FIRST, ETC.)

 

 

 

 

(IF YOU REQUIRE MORE SPACE, PLEASE USE THE BACK OF THIS
PAGE)

WHICH MEMBERS OF YOUR WORK GROUP DO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH
MOST OFTEN OFF THE JOB? (LIST IN ORDER OR FREQUENT
CONTACT)

 

 

 

 

 

MY WORK GROUP IS BEST DESCRIBED AS CONSISTING OF:

MEMBERS THAT WORK AS A TEAM

MEMBERS THAT MOSTLY WORK AS A TEAM BUT
SOMETIMES WORK ALONE

MEMBERS THAT SOMETIMES WORK AS A TEAM
BUT MOSTLY WORK ALONE

MEMBERS THAT MOSTLY WORK ALONE

THE THING THAT I LIKE BEST ABOUT MY WORK GROUP IS:

THE FEELING OF A TEAM SPIRIT

THAT THE GROUP WORKS WELL TOGETHER EXCEPT FOR
A FEW MEMBERS

THAT I DON'T HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE OTHERS TO
DO MY JOB

THAT I AM ABLE TO WORK ALONE

IF YOU HAD A CHOICE, WHICH MEMBER OF YOUR WORK GROUP
WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO SEE AS ITS LEADER?

 

1146

TABLE A—3.--Continued.

 

14. HOW MANY GRIEVANCES HAVE YOU INITIATED DURING THE PAST
SIX MONTHS?

NONE

1—2?

3-1:

')—I 0

MORE THAN 1 O

 

147

TABLE A-u.—-Eoiiow-Up Letter.

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing - Michigan A8823

 

Graduate School of Business Administration
Department of Management - Eppley Center

March 18, 1969

Recently you were given a questionnaire which is part
of a study being conducted at the Michigan State Graduate
School of Business.

I wish to thank all those who completed and returned
the questionnaires. If you have not as yet returned the
questionnaire, 1 would appreciate it if you would since the
key to the success of this study is YOUR response.

You should return your questionnaire directly to me
since your answers are strictly confidential.

 

Thanks again,

6?)j?/HQ6ZLAJHEHEEEHI

A. T. Hollingsworth
Instructor of Management

ATH:lJm

 

APPENDIX B

DATA AND COMPUTATIONS

1A8

149

TABLE B-l.--Original Sample, Effectiveness Ranking and
Division.

 

Foremen Effectiveness Division
Ranking or
EXplanation

 

Nfi<><£<CPSCDZJE'UOZZL—‘FCQHZEQ'ZJFJUOCUP
wwwwwwwmmmmmwmmmmmmr—‘HHHHHHH

AB No response

AC Unanswered Question-
naire returned

AD Unanswered Question-
naire returned

AE No response

AF No response

AG No response

AH Temporary

AI Temporary

AJ Recently Promoted

>3>3>3>3>3> 3> mwmw3>>u>a>z>wn>wwwn>>a>wz>wn>z>z>mwwwmm

 

 

150

 

 

 

mpmzcmnu mwOHHoo u m momOHHoo oEom u :
mmpmswmso Hoozom anm u m ”Odouopo Hoocom szm n m mmmmH Lo mumam now u H*
O m m m mm m on <<
O OH mm 3 mm N
m m O m OH m mm H
O m S OH m w: x
mH mm m mm H OO 3
m H m m m: >
O H O mm m m: O
O OH H mm m mm B
O m m S OH m Sm m
O OH H m mm m m: m
O m Hm m mm 3 mm O
O mH mm m OO E
O NH 2 mm m O: O
HH O m m OH m m: 2.
OH m mm m m: 3
HH mH m OH m mm H
m OH H H mm x
O H mm m an O
O O m w Hm : m: H
HH O H Hm : H: m
3H m H H mm m m: O
O OH H : mH m mm m
O O m mH m O: m
m HH O NH m om 9
OH O m O OH m pm 0
O m m mm m H: m
:H m m m Hm m m: ¢
.mofi .mpw .mofi .mnw
adopm xpoz EH mmopo HO>OH
mnmosms mo mmoesz no mmpmno :H OEHB Acmasoo anz CEHB *COHpmosnm mw< smsonom

 

.mpcmvcoqmmm mo mama Ocsonmxommnl.mumnmam<m

151

TABLE B-3.--Comparison of the Distribution Superintendents'
Perceptions of the Work Groups' Cohesiveness
With the Work Groups' Perceptions of Their
Cohesiveness.

 

 

Foremen Distribution Work Group'S* Perceptions
Superintendents' of its Cohesiveness
Perceptions of
Cohesiveness

ui‘}

raw data scaled
A 2 1.8 2
G 1 1.4 1
H l 1.7 l
I 1 I.“ I
K 1 1.6 1
N 3 2.21 3
P 1 1.3 1
R 2 2.7“ 3
U 3 1.8“ 2
V l 2.2“ 15*;
X 3 2.10 3
Z 3 2.10 3

 

*All of these work groups had a majority of their members
responding to the questionnaires.

, _ 2 Items H, 5,61, 611, 6111, 12
*U‘ N=6

***For group V, U showed no cohesiveness, however, there was
a highly cohesive four-man clique in this eight-man work
group. Therefore, U was given a value of one.

Scaled Values of u

 

U Interpretation Scaled for Comparison
with Distribution
Superintendents'
Responses

 

 

 

1.00-1.75 Highly cohesive 1
1.76-2.00 Moderately cohesive 2
2.01 -- Little or no cohesion 3

152

 

OH I mHOw
O O m.OH m m.OH m N
O O m.OH m m.OH m x
0.0 O.m m.w m m.OH m D
O O m.OH m m.OH m z
0.0 O.m m.OH m m.> m m
O O m.~ m m.m m <
O O m.m H m.m H >
O O m.m H m.m H E
O O m.m H m.m H x
O O m.m H m.m H H
O O m.m H m.m H m
O O m.m H m.m H O
mme mpwu mme
pom Umpoonpoo UmHmom mom venomppoo sumc 3mg
mmmcm>Hmo£oo mo mmmcm>Hmosoo mo mEOHuamonmm cmsosom
soHpqmopmm m.dsopo xpoz .mpcmccmucHsmdsm COHOSOHpumHQ
mHO HUWMIN » x

 

.mmmcm>Hmmnoo
EHOQB mo mQOHpqmosmm .mddonw xmoz map was mmocm>Hmonoo .mqsono xnoz one mo

mcoHpQOohmm .mpcmvcmchnmmsm :oHpanppmHQ map cmmzpmm Awhv COHumHmppooul.:Im mgmde

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH u z
m
no.0 u .H
Ammwv mewv m m
H 9H
«HUN m» w + mx w
m.OH " m m.OH " m
m.s u m m.» u m
m.m u H m.m u H
mOHB mom Ompompmoo wcchmm mOHB mom Ompomnpoo wcchmm
cononoo o: no mepHH u m EOHmmcoo oc.po mHuuHH n m
O>Hmmgoo szmemOoE u m O>Hmmcoo szpmmmooE u m
m>Hmogoo szmHn u H m>HmO£oo mHans u H
mmmcm>Hmm£oo mo mmmco>Hmm£oo mo mcoHmeommm
mEOdemonmm .mdsopo x903 .mpsovcmuchmasm COHpspprmHQ

mezHOCH HmOHpmewum pom mmHanpm> mo wcchmm HmOHposdz

 

15A

TABLE H-h.-—Compnrison of the Distribution Superintendents'
Perceptions of the Foremen's Membership in the
with the Work Groups'

Informal Organization

Perceptions of the Foremen's Membership.

 

 

 

Foremen Distribution Work Groups'*Perceptions

Superintendent of Foremen's Membership
Perception of
Foremen's Membership
X**

raw data scaled
A 2-No A.2 2—No
G 1—Yes 2.92 l-Yes
H l—Yes 2.61 1—Yes
I l-Yes 2.28 l—Yes
K l-Yes 2.25 l—Yes
N 2—No 3.12 2-No
P l-Yes 2.75 l-Yes
R l-Yes 3.A9 2-No
U l-Yes 3.62 2-No
V 2-No 3.57 2—No
X 2-No 3.25 2—No
Z l—Yes 2.4 l-Yes

 

*All of these work groups had a majority of their members
responding to the questionnaires.

 

**X = 2 Items 2 and 3

1.0-3.0

3.1-5.0

N

= 2

Scaled Values

of X

 

Interpretation

 

Foreman is perceived
as a member of the
informal organization

Foreman is not per-
ceived as a member of
the informal
organization

Scaled for Comparison

With Distribution
Superintendents'

Responses

 

1.0-Yes

2.0—No

 

 

0.00 n mHOw
O.H O.H m.m m m.OH m x
O.H O.H m.m m m.OH m >
O.H O.H m.O m m.OH m z
O.H O.H m.O m m.OH m ¢
mm. who m.m H 0.: H N
mm.Om m.m| m.O m O.: H a
mm.Om m.mn m.m N O.: H m
mm.O m.O m.m H O.: H m
mm.O m.O m.m H O.: H x
mm.O m.O m.m H O.: H H
mm.O m.O m.m H O.: H m
mm.O m.O m.m H O.: H O
mOHp mme
Low Omoomppoo «BOO 3mg Lou Omuomppoo mpmv 3mg
QHQmEmnsmfi mo QHEOEOQEOZ mo mEOHpamohmm cosmpom
mcoHmeommm .mmsosm Epoz .mpcmccmchpmozm coHpspHmpmHo
HO Huuwux x

(\j

 

.QHnmpmnEmS m.cmsmpom map mo mCOHudmohmm
mnomm Epox on» was COHpmNHcmmLO HmsnomcH on» :H dHcmsooEmfi m.:m§mpom on»

(I)

.

mo mEOHmeonmm .mpcOOCOOCHEmusm QOszpprmHn map smmzpmm Amuv COHpmHOEEOOII.OIm mqm<e

NH u z

 

 

 

 

 

 

mw.o u a
A wwv A xwv I m
m m L> I my
HOW I w w + x w I
,O m m m
C)
1 TOWN TSIN
m.m u H O.: u H
mmHB pom umpomnpoo wcchmm mmHB mom Umpommnoo mcchmm
NHOC NHOC
H H mm» H H mm»
QHnmmmnEmS
QHzmpmpsms m.cosmsom mo m.cmsmsom mo mCOHmeopmm
ECOdeoonmm .muzomo upon .mucmvcmchsmasm EOHpanmeHQ

mHmmHmcm HOOHpmHumum mom mmemem> mo mcchmm HOOHEOESZ

157

 

NMMHMHNHNNNNNNNNNNMNr—lmmmmmm
NCDONNO:ONNOOQONOMJONKONOLDOONKO
Nmmr—l:NNNMNMMNMMNNNmNHmmm-ZIN:

(\IMHHNHHHHHHHHmmHHNMHMHHmmmm
<moammomHI-axqzzomo‘mmscD>3><>+N<z

 

moxovcH
mqumeHo

DID

cmHmom mpmv 3mm

mmmsm>Hmmnoo @3090
no mmCchmm m.cmsmpom

*0

mmmcm>Hmmnoo adopo no mwcchmm cosmmom
.mpcmocmuchmasm COHuSDHpumHQ

m

.mmxmocH suHAmamHOII.~Im mam<u

158

Hmm

I P P

momcoammm .mpcmOCOECHpmdsm
COHpBOanmHQ
csz comHhdeoo pom OmHmom

COHmmnoo on no OprHH
O>menoo szpmpovo:
m>Hmmnoo anmHm

 

COHEMOOLQLOOCH

 

O mo mOSHm>-omHmom

 

0|

mnz

 

OH .H

.m .m .5 mampH w u 0*

159

TABLE B-8.--Correlation (rs) Between a Foreman's Effective-
ness Ranking and His Disparity Index.

 

 

X Y X-Y=di dii
Foremen Effectiveness Disparity
Ranking Cor— Index
rected for Corrected
ties for ties

A “.5 5 - 05 025
B “.5 5 - .5 .25
C “.5 5 - .5 .25
D “.5 5 - .5 .25
h “.5 5 " 05 025
F “.5 17 -12.5 156.25
G “.5 17 -12.5 156.25
R “.5 26 21.5 “62.25
I 1“.5 5 9.5 90.25
J 1“.5 5 9.5 90.25
K 1“.5 l7 - 2.5 6.25
L 1“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
M 1“.5 l7 — 2.5 6.25
N 1“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
O 1“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
P 1“.5 17 — 2.5 6.25
Q 1“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
R 1“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
s l“.5 17 - 2.5 6.25
T I“.5 17 — 2.5 6.25

U 2“ 5 19 361

v 2“ 5 19 361

W 2“ 17 7 “9

X 2“ 17 7 “9

Y 2“ 17 7 “9

Z 2“ 26 — 2 “

AA 2“ 26 — 2 “
zdi2 = 1896.00

 

160

TABLE B-8.-—Continued.

 

Numerical Ranking of Variables
for Statistical Analysis

Disparity Index Ranking Effectiveness Ranking

of Foremen

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 = 1 l = l
1 = 2 2 = 2
2 = 3 3 = 3
Ranking Corrected for Ranking Corrected for

ties ties
l = 5 1 a “05
3 = 26 3 = 2“

r = z x2 + E Y2 — £d12

s
2 Vsz2) (2Y2)
rS = 0.302
t = rs VIN-2 2
l-rS
t = 1.576
p = 0.1-0.05

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau

 

Selection errors — disparity index unknown
Selection errors - disparity index known
Percent decrease in selection errors

1705
l“.0
20%

161

TABLE B-9.--Measurement of the Control Variable as Perceived
by the Foremen

 

Foremen 2*

 

raw data scaled

 

H

1.5
No perception**
No perception
2.25
No perception
2.25
2.75
2.25

“

mmwcmw
NOUIUUUWO

. 5
3.
No response
No response
3.25
No perception
1.1
1.25
No perception
3.3“
No perception
No perception
No response
A No perception

lmewwmwmwmlml

lwWHlel

>N<xz<camwowozzrmemmmmcom>

 

2 Items 9, 10, 15, 17
N = “

“*No perception refers to the fact that this foreman did not
perceive an informal organization operative within his
work group.

 

*z a

Scaled Values of Z

 

 

 

Z Interpretation Scale
1.0-2.0 Strong control 1
2.1-2.5 Moderate control 2
2.6 —— No control 3

162

TABLE B—10.-—Correlation (rq) Between a Foreman's Effec-

tiveness Ranking and His Perceived Degree of
Control over the Informal Organization.

 

 

x Y X-Y=di d12
Foremen Effectiveness Perceived Degree
Ranking Cor- of Control Cor-
rected for rected for
ties ties

A 3 2.5 0.5 0.25
D 3 7.0 - “ 16.0
F 3 7.0 - “ 16.0
G 3 7.0 - “ 16.0
H 3 13.0 —10 100.0
I 10 2.5 7.5 56.25
J 10 2.5 7.5 56.25
K 10 7.0 3 9.0
L 10 7.0 3 9.0
M 10 13.0 — 3 9.0
N 10 13.0 - 3 9.0
O 10 13.0 - 3 9.0
R 10 13.0 - 3 9.0
T 10 13.0 - 3 9.0
V 15.5 2.5 13 169.0
W 15.5 13.0 2.5 6.25
2d12 = “99.0

 

Numerical Ranking of Variables
for Statiscal Analysis

Degree of Control

 

Ranking
High = 1
Moderate = 2
Low = 3

Ranking Corrected
for ties

 

High = 2.5
Moderate = 7.0
Low = 13.0

Effectiveness Ranking
of Foremen

 

1 1
2 2
3 3

Ranking Corrected for
ties

l = 3.0
2 = 10.0
3 = 15.5

 

163

TABLE B-10.--Continued.

 

 

 

 

r = z x2 + 2 Y2 - 2di2
S
2 \[(zx2) (2Y2)
r8 = 0.119
t — rs N-2
l-r 2
S

t = 0.452

rS - 0
Z =

1 / N-l
z = 0.“60
p = 0.32

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau

Selection errors - perceived degree of
control unknown

Selection errors - perceived degree of
control known

Percent decrease in selection errors

9.125

8.0“
11%

16“

TABLE B-ll.—-Foremen‘s Perceived Membership in the Informal
Organization.

 

Foremen Membership in the Informal
Organization

 

T

A Yes
B No perception*
C No perception
D No
B No perception
F Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No perception
Yes
Yes
No perception
No
No perception
No perception
Yes
A No perception

C)

>NP<XE<C€MIJOWOZZF><CHHZZ

 

if

*No perception refers to the fact that this foreman did not
perceive an informal organization Operative within his
work group.

165

TABLE B-l2.-—Correlation (rn) Between a Foreman's Effec-
O

tiveness Ranking and His Perceived Membership

in the Informal Organization.

 

 

 

x Y X-Y=di di2
Foremen Effectiveness Perceived Member-
Ranking Cor- ship Corrected
rected for for ties
ties
A 3 1“ —11 121.0
D 3 1“ -11 121.0
F 3 1“ —11 121.0
G 3 1“ -11 121.0
H 3 “.5 - 1.5 2.25
I 11 l“ — 3 9.0
J 11 1“ - 3 9.0
K 11 l“ - 3 9.0
L 11 l“ - 3 9.0
M 11 1“ — 3 9.0
N 11 “.5 6.5 “2.25
O 11 “.5 6.5 “2.25
P 11 “.5 6.5 “2.25
Q 11 “.5 6.5 “2.25
I ll “.5 6.5 “2.25
T 11 “.5 6.5 “2.25
U 18 1“ 6.5 16.0
W 18 l“ “ 16.0
H 18 “.5 13.5 182.25
2
Zdi = 999.0
Numerical Ranking of Variables
for Statistical Analysis
Foremen's Perceived Effectiveness Ranking
Membership in the of Foremen

Informal Organization

*—

 

 

No - 1 1 = 1
Yes — 2 2 = 2
3 = 3

166

TABLE B—12.-—Continued.

 

Ranking Corrected for Ties

 

Ranking Corrected for Ties

 

 

 

 

N0 = 1 = “.5 1
Yes = 2 = 1“.0 2
3
r = z x2 + Z Y2V- 2d12
S
2 VHSXB) (2Y2)
r0 = -0.1“9
t =rS —2
2
t = 0.621
r - 0
Z = S
1 / JN-l
z = 0.632
p = 0.26

Goodman and Kruskal's Tau

 

Selection errors - perceived membership
unknown

Selection errors - perceived membership
known

Percent decrease in selection errors

10.8

10.15

6%

16']

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.o u e A HNO A xwv 2 m
N N m
1.! H (H
HON I wmw + x w
m N N N
. u .H
»OO O O u 2
NH .HHHOAHHO “HO .m 4: msepH w n O s
O mm W NHON
0.0 O.m O.» N O.H 0.0H m
O.H O.H I O.HH m O.N 0.0H m
0.0 O.m O.» N :m.N 0.0H m
O.m O.m O.» N O.N 0.0H m
O.H O.H I O.HH m m».N 0.0H m
0.0H O.: m.N H m.H m.o N
mN.ON m.: I O.HH m O.m m.m N
mN.O m.O m.N H »O.H O.m H
0.0H O.: I O.» N O.N O.m H
mN.O m.O m.N H N.H O.m H
0.0H O.: I O.» N O.N O.m H
mN.O m.O m.N H O.H O.m H
mme pom
OmpoopnoO OmHmom span 3mg mmHu pom empomssoo OHmOm
II w x
- *NUUCH
IHO HOume NH EmpH Op mmmcoammm mmocm>Hmonoo anono ouHmoasoo

D

 

. mmmflmxrdmwflou

No mmxoccH mpHmogsoo .mmsopm map was NH EmpH comspmm Amsv COHpmHOLLOOII.mHIm mqm<9

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
1111111111“I11111111111111111111111|
31293103455519