THE ROLE or SPEC’IALiSTS IN ORGANIZATIONS-- A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY . Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. DONALD JOSEPH WILLIS 197 4 Vk IULHHIIIIIILIL‘IIlllLllfljlflIlflllllljlwlzllfllnll ; Lg! If; 5}“ Mi} thesis entitled . .~ 1' J; .- This is to certify that the ._ v '4 1 THE ROLE OF SPECIALISTS IN ORGANIZATIONS-- I: 'U A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY _ .3; presented by ' ‘ Donald Joseph Willis :9 ' has been accepted tom’fillment '3. of the requiremen _or i I __P_h.._D.._degree in Sodal Science A 1: ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF SPECIALISTS IN ORGANIZATIONS-- A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY By Donald J. Willis This dissertation examines the relationships between special- ists and hierarchical authority and other specialists in a large pub- lic agency. A number of researchers have identified cleavages between specialists and the bureaucracy. This research explores the notion that as the degree of skill of the specialist increases, there is a decrease in respect for hierarchical authority, specialists in other substantive areas, and specialists with fewer skills. The research was also concerned with the idea that as specialists succeed hierar- chically, there is a positive association with respect for hierarchical authority. Finally, the research explored the relationships between the specialists'respect for hierarchical authority and commitment to organizational goals. The research methodology used in this study included a scaled response questionnaire and individual interviews as instruments for data collection. The questionnaire was distributed to 405 engineers in three divisions of a public agency. A smaller sample of engineers were interviewed, both respondents and non-respondents, to complement the information provided in the questionnaire. W if ,{n I) \ Donald J. Willis Data presented in this research tends to support the obser- vation that as the level of education increases, there is a decrease in respect for hierarchical authority and specialists in other sub- stantive areas. Data testing the relationship between an increase in level of education and decrease in respect for specialists with lesser skills was not supported. As specialists become supervisors and managers, there tends to be a positive association with respect for hierarchical authority. Finally, specialists'respect for hierarchical authority is positively associated with commitment to organization goals. THE ROLE OF SPECIALISTS IN ORGANIZATIONS-- A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLIC AGENCY By Donald Joseph Willis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is rare when a person can claim accomplishments, espe- cially those which occur over an extended period of time, without seeking the wisdom of others. There are a number of people I would like to acknowledge who have contributed in different ways to the completion of this work. I am indebted to John Woodford for making this research possible. I also wish to thank Orville Emery for providing me with demographic information concerning the subjects involved in this research. To my advisor, Dr. Donald Olmsted, I am deeply grateful for his counsel and guidance, support and encouragement of my work and providing an atmosphere conducive to optimum learning. I am also indebted to Dr. Christopher Sower and Dr. Baljit Singh for serving on my committee, encouraging me along the way, read- ing the draft of this dissertation and offering their comments. I am also grateful to Dr. Eugene Jacobson for his comments and sugges- tions on this research effort. I am fortunate to have the encouragement of two close friends, Fr. Francis Martin and Sidney Singer, who in different ways provided moral support and intellectual stimulation during the crucial period of this study. 11' Finally, to the most important person in my life, Delores, for her constant support, unending patience, understanding, and wisdom during the past 12 years of this doctoral program, I wish to express my love and gratitude. Acknowledgements would not be complete, however, without recognition of the author's cheering section; Joan, Mark, Carol, Greg, Tim, and Sue, who were frequently more interested in dad's accomplish- ments than their own scholarly pursuits. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................ LIST OF TABLES ........................ CHAPTER INTRODUCTION: SPECIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM ....... II THE SPECIALIST, ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS, AND BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITY ................. Definition of terms .................. Scientific Management Movement ............. Durkheim's Division of Labor .............. Weber's Bureaucratic Organization ........... Specialists—-Bureaucratic.Authority Relationship . . . . Specialist vs. Specialist ............... Specialists'Respect for Hierarchical Authority ..... Specialists'Commitment to Organization Goals ...... Hypotheses ....................... III RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF CONCEPTS . . . . Operationalization of Concepts ............. Context of Data: Description of the Organization Research Design .................... Questionnaire ..................... Interview ....................... IV ANALYSES OF RESULTS ................... Background of Specialists ............... Results of Survey ................... Summary ........................ V DILEMMAS OF FORMAL ORGANIZATION ............. The Role of Specialists in Organization ........ Comments on Methodology ....... 2 ......... Suggestions for Future Research ............ iv Page ii Page REFERENCES .......................... 107 APPENDICES A ORGANIZATION CHART--DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION .................. 112 B DISTRICT ORGANIZATION CHART ............... 113 C ORGANIZATION CHART--DESIGN DIVISION Chart 15 ....................... 114 Chart 17 ....................... 115 Chart 19 ....................... 115 D ORGANIZATION CHART--CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Chart 31 ....................... 117 Chart 33 ....................... 118 Chart 35 ....................... 119 Chart 37 ....................... 120 E ORGANIZATION CHART--MAINTENANCE DIVISION Chart 39 ....................... 121 Chart 41 ....................... 122 Chart 42 ....................... 123 F DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE--CLASS SPECIFICATIONS Civil Engineer 07 ................... 124 Civil Engineer 09 ................... 125 Civil Engineer 10 ................... 129 Civil Engineer 11, 12 ................. 131 Civil Engineer 13, 14, 15 ............... 134 Highway Designing Engineer 11, 12 ........... 133 Highway Designing Engineer 13 ............. 141 Highway Designing Engineer 14, 15 ........... 144 Highway Designing Supervisor 14 ............ 148 Bridge Designing Engineer 11, 12 ........... 150 Bridge Designing Engineer 13 ............. 153 Bridge Designing Engineer 14, 15 ........... 155 Highway Construction Engineer 11, 12 ......... 159 Highway Construction Engineer 13, 14, 15 ....... 153 Highway Maintenance Engineer 12 ............ 157 Highway Maintenance Engineer 13, 14, 15 ........ 170 Highway Administrative Engineer 16-21 175 Page G QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 182 H COVER LETTER FOR QUESTIONNAIRE ............. 135 I INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ................... 135 vi LIST OF TABLES Summary--Design, Construction, and Maintenance Division ........ -- .1. . . . ......... Sample size by class level and division ........ Comparison of respondents by age, experience, education and division ............... Comparison of respondents by engineering specialty and work station .............. t . . . Comparison of respondents by age, education, and ' class level ..................... Comparison of respondents by age, experience, and class level ..................... Arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for hierarchical authority . . . . Arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for engineers in other specialties ..................... Arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for engineers with fewer skills . . . Average arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for hierarchical authority 4.10 Spearman rank correlation coefficients--respect for authority and organizational goals ......... vii Page 51 72 73 76 77 8O 82 85 87 89 91 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: SPECIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM We live in a world of large scale organizations, a world in which organizations are becoming increasingly complex for the attain- ment of social, political, and economic goals. This complexity stems in part from the arrangement of people in patterns of working relation- ships so their efforts may be related more effectively to accomplishing the multiple purposes of the organizations. During the past few years, considerable emphasis has been given to the study of organizations by students from various disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, sociology, political science, economics, business administration, and so on. This emphasis is not unjustified. As Etzioni puts it, "we are born in organizations, educated by organizations, work for organiza- 1 Charles Perrow suggests that "No matter what you have to do tions." with an organization--whether you are going to study it, work in it, consult for it, subvert it, or use it in the interest of another organ- ization, you must have some view of the beast with which you are deal- ing. This constitutes a perspective on organizations."2 1Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organization, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1964) p. 1. 2Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological Pers ective, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., |9701 p. 2. The growing concern with organizations as a major new dimen- sion of society has accelerated in recent years. There has been a widespread shift in systems of living from an individualistic, family existence where eighty percent of the workers were self employed enter- prisers in the early nineteenth century to the present where it is calculated that 200 corporations own over half the industrial wealth of the nation.3 In short, most of us are employees and we can expect to spend our working lives as members of large organizations. Organizations then, are extremely complex systems. As one observes them, they seem to be composed of human activities on many different levels of analysis. Personalities, small groups, norms, values, attitudes, all appear to exist in extremely complex multi- dimensional patterns. The complexity may at times be almost beyond comprehension. Yet it is this very complexity that is, on the one hand, the basis for understanding organizational phenomena, and on the other, that makes life difficult for an administrator. In order, then, to appreciate how organizations behave, we must have some understanding of the large, faceless bureaucratic machines that surround us. 4 There have been a number of things said and written.about organizations by those who have worked in and studied them. Many exec- utives and administrators have written about their experiences in bio- graphical form appearing in books and articles. The scientific management movement has been concerned with organization theory and 3John M. Pfiffner and Frank P. Sherwood, Administrative Or anization, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19601 p. 441. from this comes statements of good organization principles. Sociolo- gists, many of them influenced by Max Weber's analyses of "bureaucracy", have theorized about organizations and carried out systematic obser- vations. Social psychologists have been particularly interested in two aspects of organization behavior: in leadership and supervision on the one hand, and in morale and employee attitudes on the other. They have also undertaken studies of the effects of communication pat- terns upon organizational behavior. Political scientists have been interested in problems parallel to those of the scientific management group--the efficient operation of governmental organizations--and also the problem of securing effective control over governmental adminis-~ tration. Economists have been involved with the operation of markets and the pricing and allocative mechanisms of organization. And so it goes, each discipline looking at different aspects of organizational phenomena. The scattered and diverse body of writing leaves one with the impression that not only is there a great body of knowledge yet to be acquired about organizations but there is a significant disparity be- tween hypotheses and evidence. Much of what we know or believe about organizations has been distilled from common sense and from the prac- tical experience of executives. The.great bulk of this wisdom and lore has never been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of scientific methods. In short, the literature contains many assertions but little evidence to determine whether these assertions really hold up in fact. There has been, however, in the past several years an increasingly large number of empirical studies exploring different elements found in organizations. Organizations, then, are ubiquitous in our society; everyone is familiar with them. Despite this familiarity, the understanding of them is not sufficient to allow people in organizations to realize their own desires, to allow the organization to achieve its goals nor to allow organizations to accomplish all they could for society. There are many different approaches to the study of organi- zations. The psychologist, for example, is concerned primarily with trying to change human behavior within an organizational context. The social psychologist is interested in small groups and their relation- ships with heavy emphasis on leadership problems and human relations. In working within a variety of organizations, it has been the writer's experience that manipulating the structure, analyzing the goals, and grasping the nature of the relationships within the system are more practical, efficient, and fruitful ways of dealing with an understand- ing of organizational phenomena than looking at processes. If organizations are to be studied, rather than individuals or group processes then the emphasis on structure appears to be supe- rior. Furthermore, this emphasis provides a more economical approach to organizational change, problem solving, and provides a convenient tool for analyzing differences among and within organizations. This study then, will focus primarily on social structure, perhaps the best developed area in the sociology of organizations.4 The study of social structure reflects the great influence of Max 4Koya Ozmui and Jerald Hage, Organizational Systems, (Lex- ington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1972), p. 213. Weber, who, during the first World War in Vienna, came away from mili-” tary service with a conception of what he called bureaucracy. This model of organization, which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter II, is based on a rational-legal system of authority arranged in a hierarchy of offices filled by technical experts. He felt his model would be the dominant form because of its superior efficiency. This was a new way of thinking about social structure.5 A necessary ingredient of social structure is the idea of patterned action, that is, diverse individuals performing diverse tasks while interacting with diverse individuals. These tasks are called jobs in an organization or positions in a more generic sense. The arrangement of these jobs or positions into some rational system is the essence of social structure.6 The models of organization structure contain a number of critical properties. As expressed in Weber's terms, they are the hier- archy of authority or the distribution of power; the utilization of rules; and the role of the technical expert within the division of labor. Although the bulk of the research on structure has focused on these properties, another one has been equally important; the problem of configuration or shape of the organization. Although not strictly a Weberian conceptualization, it articulates in various ways with other properties, because it is frequently seen as a way of inferring these other characteristics.7 51 id. 0‘! 0—. U' a. O. \l 0—0 0' .a D. ., 214, 224-226. This research will be concerned with one structural aspect of the organization, the role of the specialist and his relationship with other specialists and hierarchical authority. In our well developed industrial society of today, the pre- dominant form of organization is a highly rationalized and impersonal integration of a large number of specialists cooperating to achieve some announced specific objective. Superimposed upon the division of work in such organizations is also an elaborate hierarchy of authority. This form of organization is what Max Weber calls "bureaucracy."8 As the bureaucratic form has developed, associated as it is with the advance of specialization, one of the most difficult problems has proved to be the securing of cooperation among individual special- ists and hierarchical authority. Increasingly large amounts of time, effort and thought are expended on securing cooperation. In large organizations, most people spend much of their time as small cogs in the bureaucratic machinery. It is thrdugh these structures that the individual must find success and earn his liveli— hood. Being a cog in the machinery, the individual loses much of the control over his own destiny. Many people feel powerless, alienated, and respond with various kinds of behavior. Some are able to manipu- late the organization sufficiently well to achieve important aims of their own. Others submit to bureaucratic standards of achievement and find bureaucracy comfortable. There are others, however, who deplore 8Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Egonomic Organization, Trans. A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, ed. Talcott Parson, (New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1947). the loss of individual freedom and initiative, and perhaps more im- portantly, the bureaucratization of the organization with its attend- ant autocratic, steeply pyramidal structure. In short we find special- ization, a relatively modern phenomenon, occuring with hierarchy which is characteristic of older organizational forms in an earlier age. As organizations grow in size and complexity, hierarchical authority become less and less able to master the knowledge and tech- niques necessary to make decisions. A great structure of specialized competences has grown in order that organizations may achieve the multiple purposes of their existence. With the proliferation of sci- ence and technology, then, the superior loses to experts the ability to command in one field after another but he retains the right_as part of his role. Organizations, then, have had to depend upon highly trained specialists to accomplish their goals. Victor Thompson makes a very careful distinction between two dimensions of specialization, person and task. Person specialization is usually the product of extended education and training where individuals are employed for their tech- nical expertise as it relates to the accomplishments of certain organ- ization goals. Task specialization, on the other hand, involves the division of labor associated with the completion of a particular task.9 This study is concerned with person specialization. The specialization of persons, a social process, takes place under the guiding influence of certain personal and social needs. 9Victor Thompson, Modern Organization, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961). Durkheim said that the individual specializes in order to survive sat- isfactorily within altered conditions of existence.10 One of the conditioning forces, therefore, is individual welfare. But person specialization also contributes to social cohesion by creating a feel- ing of mutual interdependence. In organizational terms we would say that these two sets of needs, personal and social, simply reflect the fact that organizational arrangements must meet the personal goals of the participants and the formal, objective, external goals of the organization. The organization in this context is viewed as a means to the participants'goals and the participants as means to the organi- zational goals. Since specialization creates interdependence, it creates a need for coordination. At the higher levels of organizations, where both external and internal relations are highly varied, administrators can never hope to master all the details of the problems with which they deal. The responsibility of keeping track of what goes on in many fields makes it impossible for the administrator to become, or remain an up-to-date specialist in any field. If the rules and regu- lations, characteristic of modern bureaucracy, are consistent with the personal goals of the specialists, they may reduce tension because they meet an apparent operational need. 0n the other hand, the rules and regulations may increase tensions if they constitute an imposed (iivision of work emphasizing jurisdictions or rights rather than abilities. 10Emile Durkheim, Division of Labor in Society, translated QY' George Simpson, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1947). The relationships between specialists and hierarchical roles in accomplishing organizational and personal goals provides a basis for analyzing tensions and strains. Research in this area suggests that there are built-in strains between organizational and professional values involving disagreement over goals, control over specialists work, kinds of incentives sought, and who has ultimate power in decision making. These pressure points provide severe constraints to effective cooperation between specialists on the one hand and occupants of hier- archical positions on the other. With the movement toward specialization in modern organiza- tions, then, it is becoming increasingly difficult to coordinate the various organizational interests into the older hierarchical framework which requires a bureaucratic authority structure. As a result of this phenomenon, Thompson argues there is a growing gap between the right to decide, which is authority, and the power to do so which is specialized ability.11 This gap is growing because technological change is bringing about a more rapid increase in specialization than the change in cultural definitions of hierar- chical roles. This rapid growth produces not only tensions but strains the willingness of the specialist to cooperate with members of his peer group as well as hierarchical authority. In short, the most sympto- matic characteristic of modern bureaucracy is the growing imbalance between technical specialists (ability) on the one hand and the incum- 12 bents of hierarchical positions (authority) on the other. It is in 11 12 Thompson, op. cit. Thompson, op. cit., p. 6. 10 the struggle between these elements that we find much that interests us in our analysis. To understand fully the bureaucratic organization and be- havior we find in it, this study deals with aspects of specialization, the hierarchy of authority, and the relationship between specializa- tion and hierarchy. The tensions peculiar to the specialist role in large scale organizations frequently results in conflict. It should be noted, however, that all conflict should not be regarded as dis- 1.13 Yet much of it in large organizations seems to be the functiona specialist relations with those in other professional fields and his authority relations with those in hierarchical positions are areas which produce strains between the assumptions and demands of organiza- tion logic and professional technical ethics of the specialist. It will be argued then, that a proliferation of occupational specialties--person specialization--results in conflict not only with hierarchical authority but with other specialists as well. In addi- tion, it will also be argued that the success of the specialist is positively associated with respect for hierarchical authority and his commitment to organization goals. 13William G. Scott, The Management of Conflict, (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc. 1965); Theodore Caplow, Principles of Or anization, (New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1964), pp. 317-355. CHAPTER II THE SPECIALIST, ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS, AND BUREAUCRATIC AUTHORITY Considerable attention has recently been devoted to under- standing behavior in large organizations. Although some of this work has been based on research, it has more typically been general theoriz- ing with little support from research data. Definition of Terms Before reviewing the literature in the field, the writer feels it important to discuss some of the more basic concepts in order that there be some understanding of what we are talking about. Organization What is an organization? At first glance it would appear to be a rather clear cut question with a reasonably simple answer, and yet among students who have studied organizations, there has surfaced some very different statements of what constitutes and goes on in organi- zations. To some, organizations are arrangements of tasks and an authority structure; to others an organization is a set of relations in a face to face group. To some, it is a network of communications, to others, a network of interactions. Some points of view support one another,1others are in direct conflict and yet all profess to be talk- ing about organizations! 11 12 In defining organizations, Max Weber distinguishes the "corporate group" from other forms of social organizations--"a corpo- rate group is a social relationship which is either closed or limits the admission of outsiders by rules . . . so far as its order is en- forced by the actions of specific individuals whose regular function is of a chief or 'head' and usually an administrative staff."1 In addition to the social relationships, Weber also presents the notion that an organization has a boundary. The idea of order, a hierarchy of authority, and a division of labor are also component parts of the definition. Weber also argues that organizations carry out continuous purposive activities of a specific kind. In short, organizations are designed to do something. Barnard, on the other hand, defines an organization as "a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons."2 That is, activity accomplished through conscious, delib- erate, and purposeful coordination. Organizations require communica- tions, a willingness on the part of the members to contribute to the organization and a common purpose on the part of all the members. While Weber emphasizes the system, Barnard is concerned with members of the system. Blau and Scott deplore the fact that some writers use the term "large scale" or "complex“ organizations. They prefer the term ~ 1Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, edited with an in- troduction by Talcott Parsons, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947) pp. 145-146. _ 2Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, (Cam- bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966) p. 73. 13 3 It would appear the same criticism formal as a defining concept. of the prefix "formal" can also be made since it means different things to different people. Etzioni defines organizations as "social units or human groupings deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals."4 Scott suggests that organizations be defined as "collectivi- ties . . . that have been established for the pursuit of relatively "5 He carefully specific objectives on more or less continuous basis. points out, however, that organizations have distinctive features other than goal specificity and continuity. This includes relatively fixed boundaries, authority ranks, a communication system, and an in- centive system which enables various types of participants to work together in the pursuit of common goals. This writer would accept Scott's definition as being the most comprehensive since it describes what it is that organizations are all about. Bureaucracy One of the early theories of organization which continues to be regarded as the classic on the subject almost half a century after it was written is Max Weber's theoretical analysis of the 3Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations, (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962) p. 7. 4Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964) p. 3. 5W. Richard Scott, "Theory of Organization" in Robert E. L. Faris, editor, Handbook of Modern Sociology, (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1964) p. 488. 14 principles of bureaucracy. These concepts,which have had a profound influence on almost all subsequent thinking and research in the field, provide a framework for a systematic theory of formal organization. The fact that Weber analyzes bureaucratic organization not empirically, but as an ideal type,does not detract from this important achievement. Weber's bureaucracy can be dimensionalized in the following way: 1. A division of labor based on functionalization A well defined hierarchy of authority A system of rules covering the rights and duties of employees A system of procedures for dealing with work situations Impersonality of interpersonal relations 0101th Promotion and selection based on technical competence6 These six organizing principles describe the basic under- pinnings of bureaucracy, the pyramidal organization which dominates so much of our thinking and planning related to organizational behavior. Weber, in effect, defines the concept of bureaucracy by pointing to those characteristics. 1 Bureaucracy, to the average person, some practitioners, and some students of organization, is a dirty word. It suggests rigid rules and regulations, a hierarchy of offices, narrow specialization of personnel, an abundance of offices or units which can constrain those who want to get things done, impersonality, and resistance to change. Yet every organization of any significant size is 6Robert Hall, "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment" The American Journal of Sociology, 69:33, July, 1963. 15 bureaucratized to some degree or to put it differently, exhibits more or less stable patterns of behavior upon a structure of roles and specialized tasks. Bureaucracy, in this sense, is another word for structure. Hierarchy The term hierarchy in the Weberian sense, is viewed as a system of roles--the role of the superior and subordinate arranged in a chain so that role 1 is subordinate to role 2; 2 is superior to l but subordinate to 3; and so forth, until a role is reached that is subordinate to no other role, (but perhaps to a group of people such as a board of directors, commission, etc.)7 The essence of hierarchy is the distinction between the role of "superior"(or superordinate) and "subordinate." The person or group in the superior role is expected to exercise authority over the subordinate. The subordinate in turn is expected to accept the authority of his superior and be responsible to him. Authority The concept of authority in the study of organizations has been elusive indeed. The conventional notion emphasized the formal rational, impersonal, control from the top aspects of authority. Au; thority was most characteristically defined as "an attribute of office as distinct from a relationship between the incumbents of formal 7Maurice E. O'Donnell, editor, Readings_in Public Adminis— tration, (New York: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1966) pp. 52-65. 16 "8 This approach emphasized the rationality and predicta- positions. bility of organizational activity and, for the most part, tended to ignore the motivations and attitudes of the human beings who were employed by the organizations. Max Weber's theoretical treatment of bureaucracy, Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management movement and the administrative management theory associated with Luther Gulick and L. F. Urwick typify the conventional approach to authority.9 The human relations movement drastically altered, if it did not reverse many of the implications of the older, more conventional approaches to authority. The literature of human relations research defines authority in rational terms, stressing its informal, non- rational and subjective aspects. Many writers contributed to this movement. It can best be characterized, however, by the writings of Mayo. Elton Mayo views managementfs task as developing an environ- ment in which employees willingly cooperate to accomplish certain goals. Worker satisfaction gained from allegiance to his own group and the larger organization is as important as material benefits. Acceptance of authority is generated by "spontaneous cooperation."1o Katz and Kahn view authority as "a legitimate.power, power which is vested in a particular person or position, which is recog- nized as so vested, and which is accepted as appropriate not only by 8Robert L. Peabody, Organizational Authority, (New York: Atherton Press, 1964) p. 18. 91m. 10Elton Mayo, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civiliza- tion, (Boston: Harvard Gradfiate SChooT"6f Business AdminiStration, 1945. 17 the wielder of power but by those whom it is wielded and by the other members of the system."11 Converging theoretical approaches can be found in Barnard's authority-upward idea in which he argues that authority possessed by a leader is based upon the willingness of members to accept it,12 13 and other Simon's motivations for the acceptance of authority, empirical studies by Blau and Scott, Golembiewski, Harrison, Etzioni, James, Evan and Zelditch and others. It has been argued by some that attempts to define authority in a single phrase should be avoided since it is better to describe what it is that authority involves.14 Whatever terms we may choose to use to define authority, it is apparent to this writer that the key analytical question is: who sets the goals and allocates the resources for their accomplishment? If we dwell only on the official and prescribed it would appear that we would receive a myopic view of the organization. Since the impor- tant key here is the focus of analysis and not its label, it is sug- gested that "authority be regarded in the official hierarchical sense as the right to command." 1I'Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psycholo of Organizations, (New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966) p. 28%. 12Chester 1. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1938). 13Herbert A. Simon, Donald W. Smithburg, and Victor A. Thompson, Public Administration, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950). 14Peabody, op. cit. 18 Hierarchy of Authority A typical hierarchy of authority is found in a monocratic organization where the person at the top gives orders that initiate all activity. His subordinates make the orders more specific and they in turn communicate the information to their subordinates. Eventually, specific individuals carry the orders out. Hierarchical authority implies not only an awareness of which position or person is superior and which is subordinate, but it also conveys a great deal of infor- mation about which way communications will flow, particularly instruc- tions and orders as distinguished from reporting and information messages. As Miller puts it, "the defining characteristic of the authority relationship is that by virtue of occupying a given position in a patterned role relationship, one individual is empowered to di- rect the actions of another, and the other is obliged to accept that direction."15 In addition, the occupant of the superior position is accorded greater prestige than the occupant of the subordinate posi- tion. The basic concepts which have just been reviewed provide a point of departure for a discussion of the pertinent literature deal- ing with the role of the specialist within an organizational context. Scientific Management Movement The scientific management movement pioneered by Frederick W. Taylor, which emphasized efficiency as a value, came into prominence 15Walter B. Miller, "Two Concepts of Authority", American Anthropologist, 57: 271-289, 1955. 19 toward the end of the nineteenth century. Taylor attempted to dissect manual tasks in the hope of improving output by training workers to eliminate all body movements that were not essential, and he searched for a set of basic activities to which all work behavior could be 16 reduced. While Taylor did not attempt to study the entire organi- zation, he did concentrate on an intensive analysis of work processes at the level of the individual worker. His "one best way" of carrying out each operation is the fundamental contribution which he made to scientific management. Taylor, reacting to the disorder he found in the typical factory of his day emphasized system and order. His own words best convey how he reacted to this situation: . . Now among the various methods and implements used in each element of each trade, there is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than any of the rest. And this one best method and best implement can only be discovered or developed through a scientific study and analysis of all the methods and implements in use, together with accurate, minute, motion and time study. . . . In almost all the mechanic arts the science which underlies each act of each workman is so great and amounts to so much that the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding this science, without the guidance and help of those who are working with him or over him, either through lack of education or through insufficient mental capacity. . . . Those in the management whose duty is to develop this science should also guide and help the workman in working under it, and should assume a much larger share of the responsibility for results that under usual conditions is assumed by the Management.17 16Frederick w. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Manage- ment, (New York: Norton, 1967). 171bid., pp. 25-26. 20 While Taylor did not ignore the human factor, he felt the system not the man should come first to correct the absence of order.18 He felt the average worker simply did not know enough and that in his own interests he should follow the management system. Taylor's basic principle of "friendly cooperation" between management and the workers reflect his attitude toward the employee. He views them in a kindly, paternalistic way. Worker motivation according to Taylor consisted of high wages for employees and maximum output for the employer. Although he was concerned that the individual's health not be threat- ened in the work process, he felt employees should work to the limit ’ 19 In short, he believed that it of their physiological capacities. was possible to analyze the functions performed by each individual in a work setting and determine not only the one best way for each work operation, but also to set compensation. The implications of Taylorism can be seen in the statement that "the fundamental principles of scientific management are applic- able to all kinds of human activities, from our simplest individual acts to the work of our great corporations which call for the most elaborate cooperation."20 In both the private and public sector, the "principles" of the machine model permeated the thinking of practi- tioners and students of organization alike during the first three decades of the present century. In the case of government, there 1§Ibid., p. 7. 19Felix A. Nigro, Modern Public Administration, (New York: Harper and ROW, Publishers, 1965) pp. 84-87. 20George, op. cit., 79-80. 21 was increasing concern over inefficiency and waste, and scientific management provided the intellectual apparatus for making government more businesslike. The basic principles of the machine model include: 1. Division of labor and specialization. The functions of the organization are placed in separate departments and each- department is subdivided into specialized parts (sections, units, individual positions), the more specialization in individual work assignments, the better. If an organization is not operating properly, there is not a proper division of labor, hence, some rearrangement of units is necessary. Unity of command and centralization of decisionmaking. For the departments, sections, and units to function correctly, there must be a unified command at the apex of the organiza- tion. By the same token, the head of each organization sub- division must direct all activities in that subdivision. Superior officials, then, must direct and monitor operations. As Katz and Kahn state, although the organization was viewed as a machine, it was not considered "self-directing."21 Top-down authority. The second principle has developed the notion that authority flows down the chain of command from the top of the organization to the bottom. This concept re- flects the highly centralized authoritarian type of structure which is popular in the classic organization theory litera— tUre. 21Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966) p. 72. 22 4. Span of control. The maximum number of subordinates that any one individual can supervise effectively should be limited to a relatively small number sUch as five or six.“ It is argued that this will permit the superior adequate time to give de- tailed supervision to each subordinate. This results in a steeply pyramidal type of organization where the importance of hierarchy is emphasized.22 The major criticism of the machine model is that it ignored the human element. Workers were viewed as automatons. The worker must adjust to the job and task; labor is a commodity which can be bought and disposed of at management's discretion. Organization is based upon jobs and tasks and the basic unit of the organization is the position, which is composed of the tasks that are to be performed by a single worker. In establishing or studying organizations, the orientation therefore is the job. The personalities in the jobs should be ignored. People should adapt themselves to organization needs; and those who are unable to meet job demands are to be discarded. Leaders are chosen competitively on the basis of merit and production workers take direction from such leaders. Orders 90 downward and re- ports of accomplishment constitute the sole upward communication. To sum it up, men are viewed as machines. It is clear, then, that Frederick Taylor, in the scientific management movement developed the division of labor and specialization, both task and person, as a cru- cial element of his model. 22Nigro, op. cit., pp. 88-89. 23 Durkheim's Division of Labor The idea of social differentiation as a factor in the devel- opment of organizations has gained widespread currency. Durkheim and others have repeatedly called attention to the importance of role specialization and the division of labor not only as an essential ele- ment in the rise of industrialism and modern forms of production, but also in science, government, and in all diverse manifestations of modern civilization. The most remarkable effect of the division of labor, according to Durkheim, is not that it accentuates the distinc- tion of functions already divided, but that it makes them interde- pendent. Its role in every case is not simply to embellish or perfect existing societies but to make possible societies which, without it, would not exist. 23 Durkheim made the primacy of social structure his central doctrine. His classic analysis of the division of labor in society holds that increases in social density promote specializa- tion, which in turn, changes the basis of social solidarity from common values--"mechanical solidarity"--to interdependence with a greater tolerance for differing value orientations--"organic soli- darity:"24 Durkheim also said that specialization as an adjustment to achieve a more satisfactory life involves not only a function which reduces competition but also one suited to a person's constitution or 23Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to The Science of Sociology, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969) pp. 7144718. , 24Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Societ , trans. George Simpson, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1947 pp. 70- 132, 256-282. 24 tastes.25 While theorizing on a relatively high level of abstraction, Durkheim utilizes the division of labor and specialization as impor- tant variables in his analysis of social systems. Some qualifications of Durkheim's assumption that specialization is beneficial, however, seems required. The literature will show that there is an inherent tension in organizations between those in hierarchical positions and those who play specialized roles. Weber's Bureaucratic Organization Large scale bureaucratic organizations arise primarily be- cause they allow more effective specialization of functions than smaller structures. Within large organizations, bureaucratic patterns maximize effiCIGHCY-ZG This is true regardless of the purpose of the organization and bureaucratization occurs in business, voluntary associations, schools, hospitals, religious organizations as well as in government. The main feature of bureaucracy conceived as an ideal type are specialization, hierarchy, a system of rules and impersonal criteria for decisions.27 Each organization member has specialized well defined responsibilities. Tasks are assigned and coordinated through a hierarchy of officials, with general policies translated into increasingly specific instructions as they pass down the chain 25Ihid.. pp. 374-375. 26Max Weber, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. translated and edited by.H. H. Gerth and C. wright Mills, (Neinork: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1946) p. 214. 27Peter M. Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society, (New York: Random House, 1956) pp. 17-19. 25 of command and bits of information being pieced together as a basis of future decisions as they pass up the chain. Formal rules applied impersonally give a basis for decisions, make for predictability since each person can know what rules will guide other people's decisions. These ideal type bureaucratic features are not equally pre- sent in all organizations. Even though in general they make for efficiency, the most thoroughly bureaucraticized organization would not necessarily be the most efficient. For example, in an ideal bu- reaucratic organization, employees are appointed and promoted based on technical competence in a career system. After a trial period, officials gain tenure of position and are protected against arbitrary dismissal. Under this type of organization, does tenure promote effi- ciency? Under what conditions does it have this effect and under what conditions does it not? Given the premise that hierarchy of authority promotes discipline and makes possible coordination of activities, does it not discourage subordinates from accepting responsibility? Another criticism of the Weberian model is its preoccupation with the formal aspects of organization while ignoring the informal relations and unofficial patterns which develop. Frequently, in modern organi- zations, the informal structure is the heart of the decision-making process. Perhaps the most significant limitation of the bureaucratic model and one in which this study is primarily concerned, involves the relationship between the expert qualifications of a professional staff and the bureaucratic authority vested in a hierarchy of offices. Professionalism and bureaucracy, as a theoretical issue, have much in 26 common such as impersonal detachment, specialized technical expertness, and rational decision making based on universalistic standards. There are also divergent elements, however, and professional principles often come into conflict with the requirements of bureaucratic authority. Weber implied that the professional authority rooted in expert tech- nical knowledge and bureaucratic authority rooted in a hierarchy of offices tended to occur together. "The role of technical qualifica- tions in bureaucratic organizations is continually increasing."28 But in addition, "each lower office is under the control and supervision of a higher one." He implies that there is no conflict between these two principles: that is, he implicitly assumes that in every disa- greement between superior and subordinate, the superior's judgment is also the better judgment in terms of technical expertise.29 This is not a realistic assumption. Administrators and managers in large scale organizations are not merely occasionally but typically less qualified to make technical judgments than their professional subor - dinates, since they cannot possibly be the leading expert in each of the specialties under their jurisdiction. Frequently, top management are not expert in any of the specialties, but in administration. The judgment of superiors who are concerned with administrative problems will differ from the judgment of their professional subordinates, who are primarily concerned with technical problems. 28Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, translated by A. M. Henderson and.Ta1cott Parsons, Edited with an Introduction by Talcott Parsons, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947) p. 335. 29Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954) p. 22. 27 Talcott Parsons.also criticises Weber for confounding these two analytically distinct types of authority.30 Professional authority rests on the certified superior competence of the expert, which prompts others voluntarily to follow his directives because they consider doing so to be in their own interest. Bureaucratic authority, in contrast rests on the legitimate power of command vested in an official position which obligates subordinates to follow directives under the threat of sanctions. Superior knowledge is not required for bureaucratic author- ity, whereas it is essential for professional control and mandatory compliancé is enforced by coercive sanctions in the bureaucratic but not in the professional case. Gouldner similarly stresses the dif- ference between the influence exerted on the basis of technical com- petence and the compelling authority in a bureaucratic hierarchy, and he derives from this distinction two contrasting forms of bureaucracy-- "representative" and "punishment centered." Specialists--Bureaucratic Authority Relationships The various components of specialization must be distin- guished in analyzing its implications for hierarchical authority in organizations. Full fledged specialization involves not only expert skills but also a body of abstract knowledge underlying them, a self- governing association of professional peers, professional standards of workmanship and ethical conduct, and an orientation toward service. Some of these factors may easily come into conflict with the discipline 30Parsons, op. cit., pp. 59-60. 28 required by bureaucratic authority. Research indicates that a profes- sional orientation toward service and a bureaucratic orientation toward disciplined compliance with procedures are opposite approaches toward 31 work and often create conflict in organizations. Besides the identi- fication of specialists with an external reference group may well re- 32 It is also reasonable to duce their loyalty to the organization. expect that conflicts arise or decisions made strictly on the basis of professional standards are recurrently set aside for the sake of administrative considerations by bureaucratic authorities. All these conflicts refer to fairly advanced aspects of professionalization. But Weber's concern was not so much with these components of profes- sionalism as with technical expertness, which he held to be an integral part of hierarchically organized bureaucracies. The findings of Udy33 imply, however, that even a moderate degree of technical expertness conflicts with bureaucratic authority. An important segment of the research literature involving the specialist-hierarchical authority dichotomy deals with such 31Ray G. Francies and Robert C. Stone, Service and Procedure in Bureaucracy, (Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, 1956. 32Alvin W. Gouldner, "Cosmopolitan and Locals," Administra- tive Science Quarterly 2:281-306, March, 1958; Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee, The Academic Marketplace, (New York: Basic Books, 1958) p. 85; Everett C. Hughes, Men anHTTheir Work, (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1958) p. 137; Peter Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations, (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962 pp. 64-74. 33Stanley H. Udy, Jr. "Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Organization Theory? American Sociological Review, 24: 791-795, December, 1959. 29 34 35 professional organizations as hospitals, public welfare agencies, and public schools.36 Scott suggested that not only is there a basic incompatibility between expert orientation and bureaucratic orienta- tion but that the profession and the bureaucracy rest on fundamentally different principles of organization, and these divergent principles generate conflict between professionals and their employers in certain specific areas.37 Corwin in his study of conflict in nursing roles surveyed 295 nurses in seven hospitals and junior and senior student nurses in four schools of nursing.38 He argues that the professional conception of roles upheld by nursing schools is in principle opposed to crucial aspects of the hospital bureaucracy. Upon graduation, as the student's status merges with an administrative office, professional and bureau- cratic principles converge producing conflict in roles. He insists that graduates of degree programs are especially vulnerable to the resulting conflict because of the program's independence of hospital administrators.39 34Ronald G. Corwin, "The Professional Employee: A Study of Conflict in Nursing Roles," American Journal of Sociology, 66: 604- 615, May, 1961, Mary E. Gross, Influence and Authority Among Physi- cians in an Out-Patient Clinic," American Sociological Review, 26: 33-50, February, 1961. 35Blau and Scott, op. cit. 36Ronald G. Corwin, "Professional Persons in Public Organi- zations," Educational Administrator Quarterly, 1: 1-22, Autumn, 1965; "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterl , 14: 507- 519, December, 1969. 37W. Richard Scott, "Reactions to Supervision in a Heterono- mous Professional Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly, 10: 65-81, June, 1965. 38Corwin, the Professional Employee: a Study of Conflict in Nursing Roles, op. cit. 391bid. 30 In this study, Corwin addresses himself to the following questions: 1. Do bureaucratic and professional conceptions of role conflict? 2. Are there systematic differences in the organization of roles produced by diploma and degree programs? 3. Do discrepancies between ideal roles and perceptions of the reality increase after graduation? Results of this study suggest that at graduation, inherent conflicts between professional and bureaucratic principles of organi- zation are most seriously encountered. Those who express strong al- legiance to bureaucratic and professional roles, simultaneously, also sense the greatest discrepancies between ideal conceptions and per- ceived opportunity to fulfill them--which is interpreted as evidence of their incompatibility. Because of the greater independence of degree programs from hospital administration, bureaucratic principles are stressed more than in the diploma programs. There is evidence that diploma and degree graduates organize the bureaucratic profes- sional roles differently and adjust to conflict of roles in systemati- cally different ways. For example, while both degree and diploma nurses experience conflict in roles after graduation, the degree nurses maintain high professional conceptions more frequently than diploma nurses. Diploma nurses express lower professional and service conceptions of roles than diploma students do, suggesting that these are modified after graduation while bureaucratic conceptions are apparently maintained. On the other hand for the degree nurses, the professional conception seems to be maintained after graduation. 31 40 several variables considered In another study by Corwin as potential causes of conflict suggest that conflict is endemic to large scale, complex organizations or at least to schools. He focuses mainly on the structural causes of conflict using a several stage cross section design. The earlier case studies because they observed or- ganizations across time, had an opportunity to see conflict as a process. Data on 28 high schools in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana were collected between 1962-65. Over 1500 teachers and admin- istrators representing a stratified sample of more than three fourths of the total number of employees returned questionnaires. Over 700 of the respondents, stratified by position and subject matter taught, were randomly selected for tape recorded interviews. The variables used by Corwin included structural differentiation, specialization, levels of authority, organizational complexity, participation in the authority system, regulating procedures, heterogeneity, and interper- sonal structure. The hypotheses offered by Corwin suggest that: 1. Conflict will increase with the degree of differentiation in the organization. 2. Specialization will be positively associated with the incidence of conflict. 3. Organizational tension and conflict will increase with the number of levels of authority in an organization. 4. Organizational tension and conflict will be positively as- sociated with organizational complexity. 40Ronald G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," Administrative Scienceguarterty, 14: 507-520, December, 1969. 32 5. Organizational tension and conflict will be positively as- sociated with the participation of subordinates in the authority system. . 6. Organization tension and conflict are positively associated with emphasis on procedures for regulating organizational conflict. 7. The number of staff members added to the organization will be positively associated with organizational tension and conflict. 8. The rate of informal interaction among a faculty, the rate of interaction between a faculty and its administration, and the degree of participation in employee associations are positively associated with organizational tension and conflict. In this study organization size, specialization, hierarchy, complexity, staff additions and heterogeneity seem to contribute to organizational strain; participation in decision making and cohesive peer relations seem to facilitate conflict if it is present. Close supervision, standardization, and rules also appear to be associated with strain.41 In short, the hypotheses were supported by the data. The significance of this research in terms of the present study identified not only the tensions which exist between specialists and hierarchical authority but with other specialists as well. For example, the number of officially recognized departments in a school, one aspect of organizational complexity, was associated with the number of moderate and severe disagreements among the faculty. The addition of teachers (specialists) increases the tension found in the school system. Finally, Corwin notes that in terms of interpersonal structure, the proportion of a faculty who lunch together "very 4'Ihi . 33 frequently" is significantly associated with the number of disputes. It is in the more experienced faculties that frequent lunching is as- sociated with conflict. In less experienced faculties most conflict tends to decrease with interactions. Blau and Scott in a survey of two welfare agencies explored the notion developed by Gouldner and others_that professionals tend to assume a cosmopolitan orientation manifesting itself in a lack of loyalty to particular organizations and a willingness to move from one employer to another compared with those less committed to profes- sional skills who usually have strong feelings of loyalty to their organization.42 The researchers developed the hypothesis that there is an inverse relationship between professional commitment and organizational loyalty. The index which was employed to measure the professional orientation among the social work staff consisted of (1) commitment to professional skills as indicated by some graduate training in social work, and (2) orientation to professional reference groups outside the agency. Data was gathered using unstructured observation, inter- viewing, and analysis of records and documents. The subjects included 80 professional employees in the City Welfare agency and 103 profes- sionals in the County agency. The results of the survey indicated there was a tendency for workers with graduate study to choose outside reference groups. In addition, professionals were in all cases most 42Biau and Scott, op. cit., pp. 66-74, 254-257. 34 likely to exhibit professional characteristics such as attending con- ferences, being active in local welfare groups, and feeling that supervisors should have M.S.W. degrees. Finally, the professionals were somewhat more apt to be willing to leave their employing agency for another position than were the bureaucrats. These findings con- firm the hypothesis derived from other studies that a professional orientation is inversely related to organizational loyalty. In an analysis of specialists in an industrial setting, Kornhauser and Hagstrom found that there were built in strains between 43 These researchers suggest organizational and professional values. that there are four areas in which professional organizational values are in basic conflict: 1. The Nature of the Goals Sought. The professional seeks ex- cellence and adherence to scientific standards. The organi- zation also seeks excellence but wants its scientists to come up with profitable developments in a regular fashion. But the nature of science is such that the developments may not only fail to be profitable but also may not occur with any regularity. Both sets of goals are legitimate but both cannot always be realized at the same time. 2. Source of Control Over Scientists'Work. A) Recruitment of personnel. The organization wants to select persons it believes will benefit the organization 43William Kornhauser and Warren 0. Hagstrom, Scientists in Industr , (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1962. 35 in the long run, personnel who have potential to move into management positions. The sciences on the other hand de- mand that selection be based on scientific ability and these skills are not necessarily the same. 8) Actual organization of work groups may present conflict. Scientists desire work groups to be organized around scientific specialites, since this facilitates intensive investigations into specific areas of interest. The or- ganization on the other hand, prefers that work groups be organized around particular tasks, which involves mixing different types of scientists and engineers for the solu-’ tion of a particular problem or the development of a par- ticular product. C) Supervision is another problem. Organizations rely upon legitimate hierarchical authority as the means of control; scientists and other specialists rely on expertise as the major control mechanism. As a scientist is placed in a supervisory position, his ability as a scientist is likely to suffer since he will have less time to spend on keeping up with his field. Kinds of Incentives Sought. The scientist operates in a com— munity that transcends organizational or geographic boundaries and is known by his contributions to this community. He is rewarded by the recognition that he has made a contribution to knowledge. The organization on the other hand uses ad- vancement within it as its primary reward system. This creates 36 conflict with scientific advances. The organization expects its members to be local in orientation with loyalty to the organization and its purpose, but the scientist is cosmopoli- tan in that his reward and reference are in the wider scien- tific community. For the cosmopolitan, advancement in the local organization may not be an attractive incentive. 4. Matter of Influence--Who Has the Ultimate Power in Decision Making? Since the organization assumes the risks for its actions, it has the last word in deciding which course of action to pursue. In this sense, the hierarchy has ultimate power over professional expertise which puts the scientist in an awkward position. If he remains detached from the decision making process, he has little impact on organizational mat- ters, he in reality becomes part of the organization and moves out of the scientist role.44 Kornhauser and Hagstrom conclude that these areas of value conflict, while probably inherent in the situation, need not result in conflict for the professional or the organization. They state: In sum, the strain between professional autonomy and bureaucratic control is accommodated by the creation of new roles for research administration. Administrative matters are controlled on the basis of hierarchical principles of authority while matters re- garded by professionals as the primary responsibility of the individual are more subject to multilateral determination through colleague relations. Thus, organization controls are relied upon to a greater extent in the sphere of general policy, in research areas close to operations, and by the top research directors, whereas, professional controls are used more extensively 1n re- search assignment and procedures, in more basic research areas, and by first line research supervisors. 44Ibid., pp. 17-41. 45Ibid., pp. 201-2. 37 Specialist vs. Specialist Specialization in large scale organizations has often re- sulted in strong attachment to subgoals of the enterprise.46 Special- ists are not immune to such ills as resistance to change that would decrease the importance of their specialty and status anxiety as they compete with other specialists in the formal arena of the organiza- tional hierarchy. Presthus, in a study of organizations concluded that specialists can frequently be difficult. Rarely can they be per- suaded that their own unit does not deserve the lion's share of the organization's resources. Their orientation makes it difficult for them to see someone else's point of view. They frequently disturb the equilibrium of the organization by fighting among themselves about resources and recognition. In large organizations such conflicts are less amenable to accommodation based upon personal association and friendship. Each department or division tends to become a world in itself. "Indeed, there are political and professional sanctions against collaborating with the enemy, because the internal discipline and unity of each subunit becomes so important in its competitive success. In this sense, size and attending specialization can become pathological."47 Shepard in his research observed that specialist groups tend to foster narrow interests and make it difficult to cross specialist ¥ . 46Edwin B. Flippo, Management: A Behavioral Approach, (Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1970) Ch. 13. . 47Robert Presthus, The Organizational Society, (New York, Vlntage Books, 1962) p. 30. 38 lines and cooperate with other kinds of specialists. He indicated this may disCourage creativity and the responsiveness to challenge, "the scientist becomes a specialist in knowing what cannot be done and "48 Litterer, in his is afraid to venture into unfamiliar fields. analysis of organizations, concluded that specialists may be more concerned with their specialty than with the end purpose of the organi- zation. Because of the interest in their specialty, people may find it either difficult or not in their interest to communicate and as- 49 Thompson argues that the sociate with other organizational members. introduction of new programs in organizations frequently is viewed with suspicion and even hostility by estaBlished specialists. The new may threaten the old with loss of functions or programs and, there- fore, with loss of status. In order for new specialties to be accepted, ~they must be evaluated over a period of time and then the new functions must have a high social evaluation in order to have high status.50 Communication difficulties between specialists with different frames of reference, then, can easily become great. The problems of communi- cating with or between specialties, each of which tends to have its own terminology, approach, and perhaps basic values as well poses a significant organizational dilemma. ‘48Herbert A. Shepard, "Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 302, December, 1956. 49Joseph A. Litterer, The Analysis of Organizations, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 194517p. 181. 50Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organization, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1963) pp. 38-39. 39 Specialists Respect for Hierarchical Authority In his research with organizations, Thompson also indicates that organizations face a growing problem of rewarding specialists. To be socially regarded as successful in Western Civilization is inter- preted to mean possessing social prestige or status. The status sys- tem provides incumbents of hierarchical positions such important personal satisfactions as power, income, deference, interesting assignments and broader associations. It has generally been conceded that status or social prestige has become largely a monopoly of the hierarchy in modern bureaucracy. To be socially defined as successful, then, one must proceed up some hierarchy, that is, a person must give up his specialty and enter hierarchical competition.51 Employees of modern organizations are conditioned to expect promotions for good work. With few exceptions in professional special- izations, promotions are defined as improvement in hierarchical rank. Specialists, then, to "succeed" must leave their field of speciali- 52 With the enormous expansion of know- zation and enter management. ledge flooding the organization with specialists of all kinds and with the organization increasingly dependent upon them, the organizations reward system is facing a crisis. With all his pre-entry training, the specialist finds he can succeed only by giving up work for which 51Ihid.. pp. 96-97 52Wilbert E. Moore, Industrial Relations and the Social Order, rev. ed., (New York, the MacMillan Company, 1951)Chapter 6; Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,71954) p. 226. 40 he is trained and entering management—~work for which he has no training.53 Administrators of technical programs generally are selected on the basis of their capacity to accommodate management. They are more than likely to be oriented toward the bureaucratic norms of the organization rather than the colleague norms of the professional group. The organizational orientation is likely to be strongest at the higher levels of management, as the following case study by Marcson illustrates. In a national firm, engineers on the highest management levels are more company minded and less professionally minded than engineers on lower management levels. "At the same time, all engin- eering managers of whatever levels are more company oriented than professionally oriented."54 This is the central conclusion of a study of 616 (83 percent) of the engineering managers in this company. The highest engineering executives, including the chief engineers, tend to see themselves as business leaders with executive authority and responsibility for "selling ideas and project results to upper levels of management or to customers." The group leaders who comprise the lowest management level gave greater emphasis to the norms of the colleague group and responsibility for "a technical and engineering type of job." These engineers are more apt to be defensive and pro- tective about the professional aspects of their jobs.55 53Lewis C. Mainzer, "The Scientist as Public Administrator," Western Political Quarterly, 16: 814-829, December, 1963. 54Simon Marcson, "Role Concept of Engineering Managers," Institute of Radio Engineers Transactions of the Professional Group on Engineering Management, EM-7: 33-33, March 1960. 5516id. 41 Anthony, in a survey of 405 industrial laboratories, reports that: The (research) director usually, but not always, has technical training experience. In rare instances, he has reached the top in the laboratory principally because of the brilliance of his technical work; more commonly, he has been given his job primarily because of his executive ability, rather than because he has had a record of outstanding technical accomplishments.56 Specialists'Commitment to Organizational Goals Since organizations engage in activities of one sort or another and presumably these activities accomplish something, the issue of organizational goals plays an important role in much of the research. Like other organizational concepts, there exists a plethora of definitions on what goals really are, according to Etzioni "an organizational goal is a desired state of affairs which the organiza- tion attempts to realize."57 This desired state of affairs means many things to many people. In large organizations, top executives may see the organization seeking one kind of state while those in the middle and lower echelons may have drastically different goals for the organ- ization and for themselves personally. Parsons has pointed out that organizational goals are inti- mately intertwined with important and basic societal functions such 56Robert A. Anthony, Management Control in Industrial Re- search Associations, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1952) p. 31. 57Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1964), p. 6. . 42 as integration, pattern maintenance and so on.58 From this point of view, organization goals are really an extension of what the society needs for its own survival. At the other extreme, it may be argued that strictly speaking, organizations do not have goals; only indi- viduals do.59 Both positions leave something to be desired. If the level of analysis is kept in the broad societal-function framework, the variations in goals and activities among organizations performing the same basic functions are ignored. If the level of analysis focuses on just the variety of individual goals, there would be no point in organizing. Organization goals are created by individuals singly and collectively. They represent the desires of its members along with pressures from the environment and the internal system. "While there is never 100 percent agreement among members as to what organizational goals are or should be, members can articulate a goal that is a de- sired state for the organization at some future point in time."60 This approach is similar to that of Herbert Simon whose major focus is on decision making within the organization. He notes that: 58Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies, (New York: Free Press, 1960) pp. 17-22, 44-47. 59Charles Perrow, Organizational Analysis: A Sociological Perspective, (Belmont, California: Woodsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1970) pp. 133-134. 60Richard H. Hall, Organizations--Structures and Processes, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972) p. 82. 43 When we are interested in the internal structure of an organiza- tion, however, the problem cannot be avoided . . . . Either we must explain organizational behavior in terms of the goals of the individual members of the organization, or we must postulate the existance of one or more gpganization goals, over and above the goals of the 1nd1v1duals. Simon then goes on to differentiate between the goals or value premises that serve as inputs to decisions and motives, and the causes that lead individuals to select some goals over others as the basis for their decision making. He keeps the goal idea at the indi- vidual's level but offers the important notion that the goals of an organization at any point in time are the result of interaction among the members of the organization. To this, the writer would add that external conditions also affect the nature of the organization's goals. An example is the case of the Department of Highway and Transportation where the official goals are to design, construct, and maintain a state trunkline system. Members of the Legislature, Executive Office, Department of Highway and Transportation and other state agencies have placed responsibility for mass transit systems within the department significantly altering its original goals. In this example, the goals of individual organi- zation members, particularly those in high positions, are crucial in goal setting. These goals are modified in the course of internal and external interactions. Perrow argues that the type of goals most relevant to under- standing organizational behavior are not the official goals but those 61Herbert A. Simon, "On the Concept of Organizational Goal," Administrative Science Quarterly, 9: 2, June, 1964. 44 that are embedded in major operating policies and the daily decisions 62 These goals will be shaped by the particular of the personnel. problems or tasks an organization must emphasize, since these tasks determine the characteristics of those who will dominate the organi- zation. The factors that affect goals and the fact that the meaning- iifl goalsof an organization are not those officially pronounced, might lead us to reject the goal concept altogether. But there is still the simple but basic fact that the organization would not exist if it were not for some common purpose. With few exceptions, members come to the organization willingly, if not enthusiastically. In all cases, the organization engages in some activity. This activity is simply not random behavior, it is based on some notion of what the purpose of the action is. The basis for organizational activities, then, is its purpose or goals. While it is true that means may be emphasized more heavily than the goal itself, that members of the organization may have no idea of why they are doing what they are doing, and that blind adher- ence to obsolete norms may become the norm; but these behaviors would be impossible without the presence of a goal. "Even when forgotten or ignored, the goal is still the basis for the organization, since the means would not have developed without it in the first place."63 62Charles Perrow, "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organi- zations," American Sociological Review, 26: 854-866, December, 1961. 63Han, op. cit., p. 94. 45 Perrow focuses on the complex nature of goals in an organi- zation. He develops five different kinds of goals which he feels must be carefully distinguished: societal, output, system, product, and derived. Societal goals produce goods and services. This category deals with large classes or organizations that fulfill societal needs. output goals are those which place the public in contact with the organization such as consumer goods, business services, health care, education, etc. System goals reflect the state or manner of function- ing of the organization. Examples would place emphasis upon growth, stability, and profits. Product goals represent the characteristics of the goals or services produced. Examples would emphasize quality and quantity, variety, styling, and availability of products. Finally, derived goals are identified as the uses to which the organization puts the power it generates in pursuit of other goals. Examples are political aims, community service, employee development, etc.64 He concludes that a person's point of view will in large measure deter- mine what the goal is. For example, for a society, the justification of the Department of State Highway and Transportation's existance may be to produce an expressway system for the entire state; the goal of the Department may be to design, construct, and maintain a state trunk- line system (not necessarily an expressway system); for roadbuilders and suppliers to accelerate the construction program; for top execu- tives, to run a stable and secure organization where life is predict- able and not too stressful; for a division head, to design the best 64Perrow, op. cit., p. 135. 46 damned highway around; and for the specialist, to emphasize the design of fixed span bridges rather than movable structures. Multiple goals do not necessarily create problems unless the pursuit of one goal interferes with the pursuit of another. In General Motors Corporation, two of its goals are to produce a large number of cars and at the same time to maintain a quality product. It becomes apparent, however, that a point is reached where one goal can be accom- plished only at the expense of another. In organizations as large and as complex as those found in government such conflicts, then, are not uncommon.65 Research in three industrial plants showed conflict between the staff specialists and line groups that hindered the attainment of organization goals. The higher line executives opted for greater control of specialists or the elimination of these groups with the functions taken over by persons friendly to line personnel. The con- flict between the two groups was attributed to differences in goals, fear in the line that staff personnel would undermine line authority, differences in ages (staff much younger than line), formal education, and potential occupational ceilings.66 Organizations are social units oriented toward the pursuit 1.67 of specific goals according to Etzion In this sense they can be 65Melvin L. DeFleur, William V. D'Antonio, and Lois B. DeFleur, Sociology: Man in Society, (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971. 66Melville Dalton, "Conflict Between Staff and Line Mana- gerial Officers," American Sociological Review, 15: 342-351, June, 1950. 67Amitai Etzioni, A Sociological Reader on Complex Or aniza- tions, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and’Winston, Inc., 1961) p. 15 . 47 conceived as tools which gain meaning and direction from their functions. Students of organizations have observed that often the "tools" deter- mine in part the goal to which they are applied. The process takes several forms: initial goals may prove to be "utopian," and organiza- tional personnel may adjust these goals by making them more "realistic" or the organization's original goals may be.neglected Without being changed officially and the organization may develop alternative or competing goals which are more in line with the interests of its staff. The organization may also see its predominant task as maintaining and expanding itself.68 A study was conducted by Sheldon to test the hypothesis that investments and social involvements will lead to the development of commitment to the organization.69 By investments, the author means participation in an organization to an extent that possible partici- pation in another organization is decreased. Social involvement refers to interaction and identification with other members of the organiza- tion. The hypothesis that investments produce commitment to the or- ganization regardless of other features of the relationship of the member to the organization was supported for professionals with long lengths of service in the organization, regardless of their position in the organization. Professional commitment appeared to increase with the work experience and professionals with high commitment to 681bid. 69Mary E. Sheldon, "Investments and Involvements as Mechan- isms Producing Commitment to the Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 143-149, June, 1971. 48 the profession tended not to be committed to the organization, regard- less of investments. The profession, thus increasingly provides a reference group that competes for loyalty with the organization. The organization is hard pressed to retain the loyalty of its professionally committed personnel particularly those with a medium length of service. The literature which has just been reviewed is more often confusing than enlightening. The general theorizing has not been systematically supported by empirical research. Indeed, perhaps the most significant contributions have come from those students whose works do not have an empirical base. A great amount of the research has been conducted with industrial organizations. There has been a paucity of interest in typically large bureaucratic organizations especially in the public sector. In addition, the focus has been on the professional association competing with the organization for the loyalties of its members. While it is evident that some of the re- search involving professionals pertained to the relationship between the specialist and hierarchical authority, there were few studies which addressed themselves to the relationships between specialists in large bureaucratic organizations. The commitment of the specialist to organization goals has generally involved competition with external forces, i.e., professional associations. There has been little effort to establish these rela- tionships without reference to outside interest groups. The concepts specialist or professional have often been used as if they referred Ia 49 to more or less undimensional, well understood phenomena, when in fact as some studies demonstrate they tend to mean some very different things.70 Hypotheses This study will address itself not only to the relationships between specialists and hierarchical authority, but to the neglected relationships between specialists and their commitment to organizational goals. Existing studies of specialists have included a variety of professional occupations. Included in the groups have been lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers, social workers, stockbrokers, personnel managers, and advertising executives in a variety of organizational settings. The kinds of research concerning professionals in organiza- tions has at least four dimensions: 1. Professionals engaged in private practice vs. those on salary. 2. Professionals in government vs. those in the private sector. 3. Professionals who are a part of a large bureaucracy vs. the specialist who has his own practice. 4. Professionals who deal with things rather than people. The present research is concerned with a study of salaried engineering specialists in a large public bureaucracy who deal with things (highway design, construction, and maintenance) rather than people. The engineering specialist is viewed as the product of extended 70Bertram M. Gross, Organizations and Their Managing, (New York: The Free Press, 1964) pp. 36-37; Flippo, op. cit. 50 education and training prior to entering the organization where he is employed for his technical expertise as it relates to the accomplish- ment of certain organizational goals. The proliferation of occupational specialties--person specialization--as we have seen appears to result in strains between the professional and the organization. It will be argued that not only are there strains between the engineers and hier- archical authority, but with other engineers as well. These tensions and strains arise where occupants of hierarchical positions and engin- eers in a particular area must consult appropriate engineers in other areas thus sharing decision making. This suggests the following hypotheses: 1. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for hierarchical authority. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of'a particular position, the less the respect for specialists in other substantive areas. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for specialists with fewer skills. The extent to which specialists succeed hierarchically (assumes a generalist or managerial role) is positively as- sociated with their respect for hierarchical authority. The extent to which specialists respect hierarchical authority is positively associated with their commitment to organiza- tional goals. A large complex state bureaucracy which employes ‘ a substan- tial number of engineers in different professional specialties was selected for intensive study. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND OPERATIONALIZATION OF CONCEPTS The hypotheses outlined in the previous chapter provides the framework for this research. This investigator will study the relationships between specialists and hierarchical authority, other specialists, and specialists' commitment to organization goals. These hypotheses are rooted in the literature in the field, are brief, and testable. The independent variables used in the study include degree of skill, promotion to supervisory and managerial positions, and re- spect for hierarchical authority. The dependent variables are respect for hierarchical authority, attitude toward specialists in other sub- stantive areas, attitude toward specialists with fewer skills, and commitment to organization goals. Respect for hierarchical authority is used in part of the analysis as a dependent variable and in another part of the study as an independent variable. Qperationalization of Concepts In order to analyze the organizational phenomena, the follow- ing concepts will be operationalized in this research. Degree of skill refers to the amount of education or technical training required 51 52 for the accomplishment of certain non-repetitive tasks. These skills are generally acquired prior to joining an organization. Subsequent improvement in education, however, may also be required. The acquisi- tion of years of experience and increases in Civil Service class level are surrogates for hierarchical competition. In short, as one ascends the hierarchy (increases his class level) and gains experience, he becomes a generalist resulting in increased respect for hierarchical authority and commitment to organizational goals. Respect shall be defined to mean the evaluation of one's performance by others. To be held in high regard, generally means to be judged competent by superiors, subordinates and colleague group. Recognition as a superior employee provides satisfaction to most people. An individual likes to feel that he is important to his department or group; while he may not be indispensable, he likes to feel that his contribution is important enough so that group action will not be the same without him. Most men are responsive to the attitudes of others who are not members of the same organization. Working for a well re- garded organization or individuals is a highly desirable goal. Respect, then, is a value which may be attributed unevenly; some men are given more deference than others . . . respect arises out of those informal norms of behavior or"rule 'of the game' in terms of which members regulate each others' conduct and which are enforced by both positive and negative sanctions. Those who 1 excel in playing by the rules are given respect and are rewarded. 1Heinz Eulau, "Basis of Authority in Legislative Bodies; A Comparative Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, 7: 309-332, December 1962. 53 Hierarchical authority refers to the relationships of boss and men. It shall be defined to mean the influence and sanctions (formal and informal) available to any incumbent of a position regard- less of his personal characteristics. It is assumed that the superior, at any point in the hierarchy, is able to tell his subordinates what to do and to guide them in doing it. The managerial or supervisory role shall include those positions identified at the Engineer 12 level and higher according to the Civil Service class specifications. The success of specialists hierarchically involves giving "2 Success, up their specialty to "enter hierarchical competition. then, means leaving a highly technical position for one which is usually identified as managerial to acquire social prestige, status, recognition and esteem, in addition to increased income. The higher rewards come from joining the administrative structure. Commitment to organization goals is viewed as the extent to which specialists identify and agree with the stated objectives of an organization. Research which has attempted to measure this variable has been relatively rare in public bureaucracies. "Generalizations about . . . the loyalty that employees feel toward the organization have largely been based on research in industrial firms."3 The research which has been conducted, however, suggests that specialists do not support organizational objectives as effectively as they might, given their own objectives. 2Victor Thompson, Modern Organization, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961) p. 110. 3Robert L. Peabody and Francis E. Rourke, Public Bureaucracies, in Handbook of Organizations, James G. March, editor, (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1965) p. 810. 54 The terms specialists, technical expert, and professional have been used interchangeably in this study. The crucial elements include extended education or training to achieve a recognized occu- pational competence. The more professional training an individual has acquired, the greater the degree of skill he will possess to achieve personal and organizational objectives. Specialists shall be defined to mean those department employees who have civil service classifica- tions of "engineer" who work at the 07 through the 11 level, and are assigned to the Design, Construction, and Maintenance Division, Bureau of Highways, Department of State Highways and Transportation. Engineers in class levels 12, 13, and 14 are defined to mean supervisory and middle management personnel. 15 level engineers and higher are defined as top management for purposes of this survey. Context of Data: Description of the Organization In order to measure the variables previously outlined, the writer has surveyed the Department of State Highways and Transportation. (See appendix A) This organization has been undergoing an organiza- tional renewal resulting in significant changes in goals and direction. The State Highway Department was originally established in 1905 reflecting a shift in emphasis from local responsibility for the construction and maintenance of roads to one of shared responsibility with the State. Since the passage of a tax on motor vehicles and fuel where the revenues were used for highway construction and maintenance and a subsequent constitutional amendment in 1938 earmarking the gas 55 and weight tax exclusively for "highway purposes," the Department has grown in size and complexity reflecting a typical large bureaucratic organization. The department was administered by an appointed or an elected State Highway Commissioner up to 1964. The Constitution which became effective January 1, 1964 created a 4 man State Highway Commission responsible for administering the State Highway Department as well as having "jurisdiction and control over all state trunkline highways and appurtenant facilities and such other public works of State, as provided by law."4 Policy making for the state trunkline system is now vested in a four man commission. The Commission "shall appoint and remove a State Highway Director, who shall be a competent highway engineer and administrator."5 The Department maintains a central office in Lansing. The field operations are assigned to ten districts (see appendix 8) each administered by a district engineer whose specialty may be either construction or maintenance. The division chiefs in the central office and their assistants maintain functional control of each program in the district with coordination being provided by the district engineer. The budget requests for fiscal year 1969-70 indicates "the department's primary program responsibility is to plan, design, con- struct, and maintain state trunkline highways to meet the needs of the 4Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, Article V, Section 28. 5Ihid. 56 state within the limits of available funds."6 Planning, design, con- struction and maintenance of state trunklines, then, are the obvious, formal commonly articulated goals of the department. Less well known but of considerable importance are these additional goals of the organization: 1) Public relations and tourist information services provide for the preparation and dissemination of news releases, magazine articles, and other information to more than 500 newspapers and 150 radio stations. This operation also distributes from eight tourist information stations located throughout the state;literature, brochures, pamphlets, and other material on Michigan attractions and points of interest. 2) Roadside parks and rest areas have been provided throughout the state to accommodate the:motoring public. These facilities include picnic tables, restrooms, telephones and other items for public convenience. Within the past year, the department was assigned responsi- bility for two additional functions, i.e., the general supervision of all aeronautics within the state and urban mass transportation programs. The department, in order to operate its multiple programs, is organized into the following bureaus: Aeronautics, Urban and Public Transportation, Administration, Transportation Planning, Finance, and Highways. 6Estimated Revenue and Budget Requests for July, 1969- June 30, 1970, Michigan Department of State Highways, p. 2. 57 The Bureau of Highways, the largest in terms of numbers of employees provides the bulk of the engineering services for the depart- ment. The three divisions in the Bureau which are the focus of this study involves the Design, Construction, and Maintenance Division. These divisions provide the crucial engineering elements in a highway program. The Design Division (see appendix C) conducts surveys and prepares plans, specifications, estimates and other required documents for all programmed or emergency projects for bridges, roads, and re- lated work required for the maintenance, improvement and additions to the State Trunkline System. The Construction Division (see appendix D) supervises all highway construction activities in the State's trunkline system. The staff process engineering and technical data used to support changes in contract quantities and costs, inspects the fabrication and welding of structural steel used in highway construction, provides engineering, inspection, and documentation activities on all bridge and road con- struction projects. The construction staff provides contractors with the alignment and elevation of all State Highway facilities under con- struction, takes measurements used as a basis of payment to contractors, compiles and computes quantities of work as completed by contractors and prepares reports of tested materials used. The Maintenance Division (see appendix E) maintains the state trunkline system and appurtenant facilities, supervise mainte- nance activities on state trunklines in municipalities and counties where the local units provide the services to the department, maintains roads and bridges on the rest of the trunkline system. The staff is 58 responsible for the acquisition, maintenance, assignment, and disposal of automotive and special equipment for the department including serv- icing and repairs, inspects all structures including fiXed and movable- bridges on the trunkline system and recommends maintenance repairs. In short, personnel of this division provide road, bridge, and forestry maintenance for direct maintenance counties and superVises these activities in contract counties. The department employs approximately 4,600 persons, the ma- jority of which are assigned to the Bureau of Highways. The largest percentage of these employees are found in the Design, Construction, and Maintenance Divisions. The department employs approximately 645 persons who are classified as "engineers" according to Civil Service specifications. Out of 645 engineers, 6 are women who are assigned to the various divisions. The Design Division employs 13 of the 6 with the remaining numbers working in other divisions. The Construction and Maintenance Divisions have no female engineers. The Design Divi- sion employs 201 engineers, Construction Division 169, and Maintenance Division 35 far a total of 405.7 These 405 engineers in Civil Service class levels 07 through 18 constitute the survey sample. In order to better understand the various degrees of spe- cialization identified by the Civil Service class levels and their concomitant relationships, a detailed description of each class is found in appendix F. Table 3.1 provides a summary of this information. 7Statement by Orville Emery, Personnel Officer, Department of Highways and Transportation, Personal interview, January 10, 1974. 59 eeppaeememam nae: eaemeseo F _ F mp gmmcwmcu cowpmgumwmmm m2< o F 0 up pm>m4 eeeeeepmemam .Ee< meeeeemem a F m e_ paegamaumg eowuaepmwmem peeeeapewcaasm e m op mp gmmcwmcm .umwo cowumgpmmmmm .p.mm< Lo .umwo N m o e— Lomw>gma=m eawuaememam mews pm, m mp mm mp ucmsmmmcmz gwmcwmcm mpuuwz mcwemmcwmcmttmm Lowcmm N om Fe up gmmcemcm mcwgmwcwmcm-1mm cmeamceaow m up mm FF mcwgwmcwmcu gwmcwmcm Pw>wu--mm muanmEmecH o om mp op mcwgmmcwmcm emwcwmcm mumwmeumam Pw>mu-imm Lowcsw P m_ mm mo mcwgmmcwmcutumm mmcpmep o m P so mmmpu op .uqa< Lem :oPHmNPPePumam .pcwez .pmcoo :uwumo Fm>m4 mpcmsmemzcmm .uaum eo mmgmmo mmepu cw .nsm mo .02 mmepu .:o_mw>wa mucmcmucwmz use coppozeumcou .cmwmmotixgmsszm .P.m wFQMH 60 Research Design There exists in the literature a wide range of techniques to evaluate organizations. Since there is no predetermined technique, a good research design is in large measure influenced by the particu- lar setting in which it is used. It must address the problem under study and provide certain kinds of information under certain kinds of conditions.8 Perhaps the greatest challenge facing most social scientists is the common assumption that unless the ultimate form of research de- sign is used--experimental--the results will be something less than satisfactory. The key problem in this approach is to establish suit- able control so that any change in the dependent variable can be at- tributed only to the independent variable that was manipulated by the researcher. The laboratory approach accomplishes this by isolating the research in a physical situation apart from the routine of ordi- nary living and by manipulating one or more independent variables under vigorously specified, operationalized, and controlled conditions.9 Because it does provide relatively complete control over intervening variables that may affect experimental outcomes, this approach had the virtue of being replicable in other contexts. It 8Kent J. Chabotar and Stephen H. Montgomery, Second Year Evaluation of an American Management Association Pilot Programs: Adopting and Testinngusiness Management Development Programs fOr Edu- cational Administrations, (Washington: U.S. office of Education, 1972). 9Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundation of Behavioral Research (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, Inc., 1964) p. 379. 61 has considerable appeal then, to the researcher who wishes to make an objective and rigorous contribution to his discipline. But people in organizations do not lend themselves easily and readily to certain types of investigation. Their actions and at- titudes are not amenable to precise definition, external manipulation, or isolation from extraneous variables. In short, the order of the laboratory is exchanged for the disorder of the field study. The cru- cial difference, then, in these two approaches is that the survey takes the world as it comes, without trying to alter it, as opposed to the laboratory approach where some aspects of the world are systematically altered in order to see what changes follow.10 The organizational evaluations used in the present study are designed to produce data that is useful and valid for an explanation of relationship among variables. Field studies have three distinct advantages for purposes of this research: to decide on significant variables in the research situation, to discover relations among vari- ables, and to suggest guidelines for further research.11 In short, while laboratory results are precise and "clean", they usually have to be "translated“ for purposes of use in the "real world" while field studies try to take into account important "real world" variables. 10Julian L. Simon, Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The Art of Empirical Investigation (NewlYork: Random House, 1969) p. 229. 11Daniel Katz, "Field Studies", in Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz, Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. , 1953) pp. 75- 83. 62 The discussion thus far does not suggest that laboratory research is necessarily an inferior model, however, for our purposes, a field study would provide more useful information. The research methodology used in this study included a scaled- response questionnaire and individual interviews as inStruments for data collection. The survey explores relationships between the inde- pendent variables in the hypotheses, i.e., degree of skill, success of specialist, and respect for hierarchical authority and the dependent variables, respect for hierarchical authority, respect for specialists in other substantive areas, respect for specialists with fewer skills, and commitment to organizational goals. Questionnaire Questionnaires were used in this research because a larger sample can be surveyed in a relatively short period of time, and at a reasonable cost. Questionnaires produce large amounts of data while requiring a minimum amount of time for completion. The primary dis- advantage of structured questions is that they sacrifice much of the ‘2 Questionnaires also color and intensity of the respondents answers. may induce a compliance process on the respondent's part--people may say what they think they should say. This is one form of the problem of reactive measurement and is a significant issue in social science 12Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survethesearch, (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963) p. 75. 63 research.13 The author might also add that other methodologies induce compliance, i.e., interviews. The problem of measuring the intensity of the respondent's opinions is partially overcome by using a rating scale which allows the respondent to indicate the direction and intensity of his feelings. The questionnaire employed in the present research used a seven-point scale discussed below. To control and check for the problem of reac- tive measurement, the author attempted to allow major areas of overlap in the questionnaire and structured interviews. The questionnaire was developed to include two categories of questions. The first seven items elicited demographic information concerning each respondent. The balance of the questionnaire con- tained 13 items designed to measure respect for hierarchical authority, attitude toward specialists in other substantive areas, attitude toward specialists with fewer skills, and commitment to organization goals.l Four items, which were included, will be used for further research. (See Questionnaire in appendix G) A seven point scale was the basis for responses to the items in the instrument. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Fairly often Very often The scaled response questionnaire was pretested on a group comparable to the sample in another State agency. The pretest group consisted of engineers in the same Civil Service class levels as those 13Larry Kirkhart and W. Lynn Tanner, "Evaluation for Center for Planning and Development of the American Management Association," (Syracuse, New York, Syracuse University, October 1971) p. 38. 64 in the Department of Highways and Transportation. (N = 50) Each was given the questionnaire on two separate occasions (3 weeks apart). Questionnaires were coded to facilitate comparisons. Correlations were then computed using Spearman's Rho. The rank difference correla- tions ranged from a low of .57 to a high of .84 and significant beyond .0001 level of confidence with most of the correlations being in the .75+ range. The pretest provided evidence of the reliability of the items. The author, then, proceeded with the instrument as written. The scaled response questionnaire was the common instrument used in the Design, Construction, and Maintenance divisions, Bureau of Highways. The questionnaires were mailed to all engineers (405) in each of the divisions with a self addressed and stamped envelope en- closed including a cover letter (see appendix H). The respondents were asked to return the questionnaire by a specified date. As a result, 245 questionnaires were returned. The major problem in statistical analysis of the question- naire data was to select a statistic that was both comprehensive and powerful. It was concluded that computing the arithmetic mean and standard deviation would be a fruitful way to measure the dependent variables in the first four hypotheses. The data tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 found in Chapter IV contain this information. The writer anticipated that as levels of education increased, there would be a decrease in respect for hierarchical authority, specialists in other substantive areas, and specialists with fewer skills. In other words, as the amount of education increased, there would be a decrease in the size of the mean response for each item, controlling for class 65 levels, except for items 17 and 18. In this case, the means should increase in size if the hypothesis is supported. Chi-square (X2) tests and contingency coefficients were computed to determine whether the differences between means were sig- nificant. It was also determined that the consistency of direction of the date would also suggest whether the differences in means are random and due to chance or whether the differences are, in fact, real. The fifth hypothesis concerning the relationship between the specialists' respect for hierarchical authority and their com- mitment to organizational goals will be tested by computing correla- tions for the three items which measure the independegt variable, respect for hierarchical authority with three items representing the dependent variable commitment to organizational goals. Correlations for each of nine cells will be computed using the Spearman Rank Dif- ference Correlation. In order to determine whether the sample size was adequate for research purposes three criteria were used, i.e., confidence level, degree of accuracy, and standard deviation. It was decided that a 95% confidence level is desirable, and that the acceptable level of precision would be .125 on a seven point scale. Given the standard deviation of 1.000 derived from the pretest questionnaire, the formula for determining the adequacy of the sample size is shown on the following page. 66 _ 9'__ (1.000) X1196fn— =l.96-——1-2-§-=15.7 .125 = 1.96 x‘ i N = 246 7T .125= 1.96XU-0—0 J—N' (Distribution of two tailed test)14 These results suggest that the number of questionnaires returned appear to be an adequate size given the parameters that had been es- tablished. Interview Unlike questionnaires, interviews require a tremendous in- vestment of time by researchers and respondents. The interview as a research tool has been used extensively especially in social science research. Advantages outweigh the disadvantages in using the inter- view technique to reinforce the questionnaire. The interview is a much more flexible instrument than the questionnaire since the inter- viewer has an opportunity to explain to the respondent any ambiguities that may emerge. The interview has the added advantage of permitting the interviewer to follow up leads and thus obtain more data and greater clarity.15 The interview situation, thus, usually permits much greater depth than the other methods of collecting research data. 14Hubert Blalock, Social Statistics, (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1972). 15Bernard S. Phillips, Social Research Strategy and Tactics, (New York: the MacMillan Company, 1966) pp. 120-121. 67 The free response interview technique has comparative ad- vantages. The interviewer can provide the overall framework for the interview by asking a set number of basic questions. But any follow up questions are based on the responses of the interviewer. The semi- structured interview enables the respondent to describe circumstance; and events with a minimal amount of definitional structure provided by the researcher. Theoretically, material produced through this method will be more "reality oriented"; more as the interviewee sees and defines things. There is also reason to believe that data gathered through this technique will be more conservative, i.e., less likely to show training effects and that when effects are produced they are more likely to be of meaning and value to the respondent and, hence, the organization . . . the semi-structured interview process is more likely to reveal internalized beliefs held by the respondent. The writer determined that 10% of the respondents would be an adequate N size for the interviews. All engineers, both respond- ents and non-respondents were divided in three broad groups, top management (level 15, l6, 18), middle management (12, l3, l4) and non—supervisory specialists (O7, O9, 10, 11) by organizational unit. A table of random numbers was used to select by code number the in- terviewees keeping in mind the general distribution of specialists in the three divisions. The interviewees consisted of central office as well as district personnel. Each respondent was asked 14 questions. They were assured of their anonymity and urged to be as open and candid as 16Kirkhart and Tanner, op. cit., pp. 37-38. 68 possible. The author worked from a set of forms which contained the questions and insured that the order of items was always the same. (See appendix I) The questions were structured so that the author could immediately assign their responses to a seven point scale par- allel to that used in the questionnaire. After the initial responses, non-directive probes were used to draw out the respondent and insure that he had responded to the question as fully as he could or wished to do. Feedback techniques were used, i.e., "I hear you saying that ." or "the major points you are making are . . ." this technique served to elicit additional information and also to correct and clarify impressions the respondent was making. Because the number of subjects in this analysis is small, it was necessary to compare the results of the scale scores of the interviews with the responses of those engineers who returned the questionnaire. Since the interview is designed to enable the res- pondent to project his or her own feelings of the situation concerning each of the questions asked, it was anticipated that it would be pos- sible not only to measure the intensity of responses but to elicit additional information which would improve the quality of the data. In order to test for differences in intensity of reaction, a mean was computed for each item used in the interview and was applied to the scale scores. This test even though applied to a small number of respondents still provides a meaningful analysis of the probability of differences between groups. 69 It should be pointed out that interpretation of these sta— tistics for the interviews should be regarded as somewhat less power- ful than the data from the questionnaires. However, with carefully conducted interviews rich data can be obtained from the subject which probably would not be revealed under any other circumstances. This is especially true concerning negative aspects of himself or negative 17 feeling toward others. In a study by Jackson and Rothney and sup- h18 it was concluded that under favorable conditions ported by Wals the interview tends to yield more complete data and also more data regarding negative aspects of the individual. In summary, the data collection tools used in this research included a questionnaire supported by individual interviews. The information thus obtained was standardized and quantified, for the most part, at the time it was collected. The statistical methods used facilitated the study of relationships and comparisons between groups. 17Robert M. Jackson and J.W.M. Rothney, "A Comparative Study of the Mailed Questionnaire and the Interview in Follow-Up Studies," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 39: 569-571, March 1961. 13w. B. Walsh, "Validity of Self-Report: Another Look," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15: 180-186, March 1968. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS In the last chapter, the variables under investigation were operationalized and the sampling procedure and design of the research were discussed. In this chapter the hypotheses will be tested and the findings discussed. However, before discussing the data as it relates to the hypotheses being tested, some of the preliminary analysis under- taken and its significance for the research will be made clear. Background of Specialists The dependent variables used in this research--respect for hierarchical authority, respect for specialists in other substantive areas, respect for specialists with lesser skills, and commitment to organizational goals were measured by means of a questionnaire admin- istered to engineers in the design, construction, and maintenance divisions, Department of State Highways and Transportation. In addi- tion to the questionnaires, interviews were conducted with 30 engineers selected by using a table of random numbers. A sample was drawn from each division in proportion to the total number of engineers employed in that division and representing the various class levels. The interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes and provided a useful supplement to the questionnaire data. 70 71 Table 4.1 indicates class level, number of employees in each class and respondents by division. Four hundred and five question- naires were mailed to engineers in the three divisions with a total response of 245 representing a return rate of 60%. In addition to the statistical technique used to determine adequacy of the sample size i.e., confidence level, degree of accuracy, and standard deviation outlined in Chapter III, three additional variables: age, class level, and geographic location were employed to determine the representative- ness of the respondents. It is clear from a sampling of non-respondents that the characteristics are essentially the same between groups as determined by the three variables. A breakdown of employees by class level, explained later in this chapter, indicates the following: Class % or total % of total Level employees respondents 07-09-10-11 (specialists) 45.7 39.2 12-13-14 (middle mgt.) 45.7 51.0 15-16-18 (top mgt.) 8.6 9.8 100% 100% A comparison of the percentages of total employees with total respond- ents shows general similarity in the proportions in each level. To provide a context for the data to be presented, it seems useful to present information on the backgrounds of the respondents. Table 4.2 provides a comparison of reSpondents by age, experience, education, and division. The median age category in the three divi- sions is 41-50 years and median experience category 16-20 years. The educational backgrounds of the engineers reveals that there are a substantially greater proportion of graduate degrees in the design 72 o.ooF mew mu mp, aop o.oop moa Punch ~.F m P P F n. m m? o o o o. o N. F NF m.~ n m m P o.~ w mp m.m «P m o m ~.m mm mF m.m m— P m m o.¢ my «P ~.¢F mm c om NP m.m~ Fm mp o.pm on e am we ~.m~ mF— NF m.NN wm m ea c ¢.¢N mm FF o.m mm o m «P m.w mm op P.m mp F e o— ¢.op Na mo N.~ m o N F N.N o no mmm_u cw EB mpcmccoqmmm 8:23:32 :3,mmo.co.5u=.5mcou ~33 mmmzofism 35.. Lo x 40 .oz . mucmuconmm :owmm>wo x3 mgcmucoammm mo Longs: Mmmmu :p wwwaammam mmmpu peeae . ea .62 Peace .cowmw>_u new ~m>mF mmm—u x3 m~_m mpasem ._.¢ open» 73 Table 4.2. Comparison of respondents by age, experience, education and division. Construction Design Maintenance AGE No. of % No. of % No. of Resp. Resp. Respondents % 30 years and less 19 63.3 9 30.0 2 6.7 31-40 years 23 39.0 32 54.2 4 6.8 41-50 years 35 39.4 44 49.4 10 11.2 51-60 years 20 43.7 22 47.7 4 8.6 61-70 years 7 33.3 11 52.4 3 14.3 EXPERIENCE 0-5 years 11 14.0 12 48.0 2 8.0 6-10 years 15 46.9 15 46.9 2 6.2 11-15 years 12 26.0 32 69.6 2 4.4 16-20 years 23 40.4 24 42.1 10 17.5 21-25 years 24 52.2 19 41.3 3 6.5 26 years and over 19 48.7 16 41.1 4 10.2 EDUCATION Less than 85 degree 17 50.0 13 38.2 4 11.8 85 degree--Engineering 80 45.5 78 44.3 18 10.2 MA degree--Engineering 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0 MS degree--Engineering 6 20.0 24 80.0 0 O 74 division than in either the construction or maintenance divisions. There are also proportionately fewer engineers with something less than a baccalaureate degree in engineering also in that division. The design division is the only organizational unit of the three which contains engineers possessing Ph.D. degrees.1 The composition of engineers by sex is not an important variable in this research.2 It can be seen from charts found in the preceeding chapter and the detailed class specifications found in appendix F that those specialists in class levels 07 through 11 include engineers from the Engineer Trainee through the journeyman level. Employees in these classes can work at their specialty unencumbered with supervisory, managerial, or administrative responsibilities. Engineers classified at the 12-13-14 levels serve in a supervisory or managerial capacity where a significant amount of their time is devoted to administrative detail. In the design division the 12 level engineer is an assistant squad leader and the squad leader is classified at the 13 level. In 1Statement by Orville Emery, Personnel Officer, Department of Highway and Transportation, Personal interview April 2, 1974. 2There are six female engineers in the department, three of whom are assigned to divisions in the sample. The Design division employs two women and the Construction division employs one female office engineer. The Maintenance division has an all male engineering staff. There are no female engineers in supervisory positions. Four women were hired during the past year and two of these employees have since left the department. The department, as a part of their affirm- ative action program, has made numerous attempts to attract qualified women in the engineering classes without much success. There appears to be keen competition among employers for those few females enrolled in engineering curriculums. 75 the construction division, the project engineer at the 12 level, who is responsible for the more complex construction projects, supervises junior project engineers. The maintenance engineers at the same level whether in the central office or the district also function in a super- visory capacity. The higher level engineers, 15 through 18 levels, are considered top management in each of the divisions. The division directors have traditionally been viewed as part of top management on a department wide basis. It was necessary, then, to control for class level in order to measure in some reasonable way the variables under consideration. With this in mind, and for purposes of this study the 10 class levels will be collapsed in the following three major cate- gories: 1. Class Levels O7-O9-10-ll--Specialists 2. Class Levels 12-13-14--Middle Management 3. Class Levels 15-16-18--Top Management Table 4.3 provides a comparison of respondents engineering specialties in addition to work stations. The engineering specialists in the design division are evenly divided with road engineers pre- dominating in the construction and maintenance divisions. The distri- bution of the respondents by work station reveals that the construction engineers are fairly evenly divided over the 10 districts which make up the state. The vast majority of construction engineers are assigned to the districts rather than the central office. Conversely, the de- sign engineers are primarily located in the central office although there are a few design squads located in two districts. The mainte- nance engineers are evenly divided between the districts and the central office. 76 Table 4.3. Comparison of respondents by engineering specialty and work station. Construction Design Maintenance . . . No. of No. of % No. of Engineer1ng Spec1alty Resp. % Resp. Respondents % Bridge 39 37.5 58 49.0 9 42.8 Road 65 62.5 60 51.0 12 57.2 Work Station Lansing 7 6.7 110 93.2 11 47.9 District 97 93.3 8 6.8 12 52.1 Table 4.4 compares respondents by age and education while controlling for class level. An inspection indicates class levels 07 through 11 contain the same percentage (16.6%) of advanced degrees as the top administrative engineers (16.6%). For all engineers 72% have bachelors degrees and 14% have advanced degrees. If we were to stop here, there would be a significant void in reviewing the educational backgrounds or degree of skill as defined in this study. How do we explain the 34 engineers or 14% of our sample who possess less than a bachelors degree in engineering? How is this possible when the Civil Service class specifications require either a degree in engineering or registration as a professional engineer? There are three possible reasons why an employee may be classified as an engineer and not possess a bachelors degree in engin- eering. Prior to 1951 a great many positions including draftsman were classified as engineers. As a result of upgrading the class 77 Table 4.4. Comparison of respondents by age, education and class level. EDUCATION Less Than B.S. Degree M.A. M.S. Degree AGE N 8.5. Degree in Engr. Degree in Engr. No. of % No. of % No. of % N0. of % Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. SPECIALISTS 30 yrs. & less 29 0 O 27 93.1 0 O 2 6.9 31-40‘y‘rs. 01d 30 3 10.0 18 60.0 1 3.4 8 26.7 41-50 yrs. old 19 4 21.1 14 73.6 0 0 1 5.3 51-60 yrs. old 10 5 50.0 5 50.0 0 O O 0 61-70 yrs. old 8 1 12.5 3 37.5 2 25.0 2 25.0 Total 96 13 13.5 67 69.7 3 3.2 13 13.6 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 30 yrs. & less 0 O O O O O O O 0 31-40 yrs. old 30 O 0 26 86.7 0 O 4 13.3 41-50 yrs. old 61 9 14.8 41 67.2 1 l 6 4 6.4 51-60 yrs. old 26 6 23.1 16 61.5 0 O 4 15.4 61-70 yrs. old 8 5 62.5 2 25.0 0 O 1 12.5 Total 125 20 16.0 91 72.8 1 .8 13 10.4 TOP MANAGEMENT 30 yrs. & less 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 31-40 yrs. old 0 O O O O O O . O 0 41-50 yrs. old 9 O O 8 88.9 0 O 1 11.1 51-60 yrs. old 10 1 10.0 7 70.0 0 O 2 20.0 61-70 yrs. old 5 O O 4 80.0 0 O 1 20.0 Total 24 1 4.2 19 79.2 0 O 4 16.6 _._ f 78 specifications for many of these positions, individuals were "grand- fathered" into the system, i.e., continued in engineering classifi- cations even though they did not meet the new educational requirements for the class (BS degree in engineering). Practically all the engin- eers over 50 years of age fit into this category. Until 10 years ago, the department accepted the passing of the Princeton Graduate Record Examination as a substitute for an engineering degree. A number of employees met the educational requirements in this manner. Finally, registration as a professional engineer has been viewed by the de- partment and Civil Service as meeting the educational requirements even though a bachelors degree is not a mandatory requirement for registration. A number of respondents are registered professional engineers but have not completed a regular 4 year degree program in engineering.3 A review of the educational backgrounds of these re- spondents indicate the group is evenly divided between those with a high school education and those with two years of college. While Table 4.4 compared age and education by class level, it did not indicate the educational backgrounds of respondents in the three divisions. The education summary in Table 4.2 suggests that the design function attracts the vast majority of advanced degrees with construction second and maintenance a distant third.4 3Statement by Orville Emery, Personnel Officer, Department of Highway and Transportation, Personal interview April 9, 1974.: 4How does one explain this phenomena by comparison with the other two divisions? The design of highways and structures is consid- erably more theoretical and involves the application of engineering principles to a much greater extent. In addition to the functions of 79 Table 4.5 compares age with experience while controlling for class level. In class levels 07 throuth 11 the concentration of engineers appears in the first two experience intervals 0-5 and 6-10 years with the majority of employees 40 years of age and younger as one might expect. As one ascends the hierarchy, however, employees in the 12 through 14 levels tend to concentrate in the 11 through 25 year experience intervals and the 41 through 60 age groups. For the 15 through 18 levels, 50% of the engineers possess 26 years or more of experience in the department and tend to cluster in the upper age intervals again as one might expect. The respondents, then, for the lower class levels, tend to be younger and with fewer years of ex- perience. Engineers in the supervisory classes 12 through 14 tend to be middle aged with 15 years of experience or more in the department and the administrative engineers in classes 15 through 18 tend to cluster at the upper ends of both the age and experience scales. this division, the recruiting practices have played a role. Approxi- mately 15 years ago, the department experienced a severe shortage of engineers at a time when the construction program was accelerating,at' a rapid pace. To meet this manpower crisis, the residence and citi- zenship requirements were waived by the Civil Service Commission in order that the department be permitted to appoint foreign students majoring in engineering. As a result of these recruiting efforts, a substantial number of foreign born engineers from India, China, and the Near.East were appointed to positions primarily in the design di- vision. With few exceptions, practically all the foreign born students who were appointed possessed masters degrees. At least two of this group had their doctorate in engineering at the time of original ap- pointment. The foreign born engineers tended to concentrate in the design division for two reasons. Since most of the stu ents had their masters degree there seemed to be a trend toward specia izing in structural engineering with emphasis on design. Secondly, the nature of the design functions is such that there is little if any public contact as compared to the construction and maintenance operation. Potential communications or language problems were not viewed as a 80 o.om NF m.0N m o.mN o F.¢ F o o o o aN FmpoF o.ooF m o o o o o o o o o o m uFo .mg» omuFo o.ou N o.oF F o.ON N o o o o o 0 OF vFo .mea ootFm o o e.¢¢ a ¢.¢¢ a N.FF F o o o o m uFo .me» othe o o o o o o o o o o o o o uFo .mez oeuFm o o o o o o o o o o o o o mmmF w .mex om Fzm2mwutmuszmmmxm .Fm>mF mmmFu vcm mucmFemaxm .wmm ma mucwucoamme eo comFemnEou .m.a mFaeF 81 The demographic data outlined above provides the reader with background information in order to better understand the relationships between variables used to test the hypotheses in this research. In order to determine whether there was a relationship be- tween the dependent and independent variables, an arithmetic mean and standard deviation was computed controlling class levels for those engineers responding to the items designed to measure the independent variable in the first three hypotheses. In other words, the writer was interested in knowing whether an increase in levels of education and training would be reflected in a decrease in the respect for hier- archical authority, engineers in other specialites, and engineers with lesser skills. The mean, as a central value, is used as a basis for comparison of dissimilar universes, i.e., educational backgrounds and class levels. Results of Survey Table 4.6 sets forth the responses concerning respect for hierarchical authority. The seven point scale used by the respondents in answering the items and the four educational categories (4x7 matrix) were collapsed to a 3 point scale and 2 educational categories (2x3 ma- trix). The collapsing was done not to maximize differences but to se- cure reasonably sized marginals in all cases. In the original 4x7 ma- trix there was a large number of cells which contained 0 or at best only a few cases. Chi-square tests and contingency coefficients were constraint since there would be minimal contact with contractors, suppliers, and others in the industry. In short, interest in struc- tural engineering and language problems were primarily responsible for the foreign born engineers in the design division. 82 Table 4.6. Arithmetic means and standard deviations for items meas- uring respect for hierarchical authority. EDUCATION N Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 SPECIALISTS 7' o 7' o 7' o 8.5. Degree and Less 80 1.67 .47 1.40 .49 1.38 .49 Masters Degree 16 1.50 .52 1.25 .45 1.31 .48 EDUCATION N Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT X' o X' o N. o 8.5. Degree and Less 111 1.86 .36 1.44 .50 1.41 .49 Masters Degree 14 1.78 .41 1.43 .51 1.29 .47 EDUCATION N Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 TOP MANAGEMENT T o ")T o 7 o B.S. Degree and Less 20 1.90 .31 1.50 .58 1.65 .49 Masters Degree 4 1.75 .50 1.45 .51 1.50 .58 Item 8. I carry out the directives established by the State Highway Commission and the Director. Item 9. Item 10. Hypothesis: Higher managements' authority is respected throughout the department. I have confidence and trust in higher management. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the functions of a particular position, the less the respect for hierarchical authority. 83 computed for data in the first four hypotheses. The differences in means were significant with some of the items, however, what is im- portant is the consistency of direction of the data. Without exception, there is a decrease in the size of the means as educational level in- creases. This is true not only for the “true specialists," i.e., the lower level engineers but surprisingly for the supervisory and admin- istrative engineers as well. The consistency of direction of the data then would suggest that the differences in means are not random and due to chance but that there appear ix) be real differences between means as level of education increases. The similarity of the magnitude of the standard deviations in Tables 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 indicates comparable response variance among the several categories of respondents. In short, as educational levels increase there is a decrease in respect for hierarchical authority, with position in the hierarchy held roughly constant. These conclusions are generally supported by data from the interviews. Typical of the comments from those engin- eers with advanced degrees are the following: "Policies are not and will not be as effective until engineers are appointed to the Commis- sion to give it proper balance and provide technical input into en- gineering decisions"cn~"top management does not wield their authority in a manner designed to generate respect." A final observation sug- gests that "as political pressures increase in the decision making process there is a natural resistance from engineers especially where engineering decisions are concerned." 84 The questionnaire and interview data, then, concerning the relationship between levels of education and respect for hierarchical authority appears to support the hypothesis. The higher the level of education the lower the respect for hierarchical authority. The re- lationships between engineers with different specialties are measured by the four items which appear in Table 4.7. As educational level increases, respect for engineers in other specialties decreases. Again, the significance of the data is the consistency of direction. For items 11 and 12 the means decrease as educational levels increase. For items 17 and 18 the direction is just reversed. As educational levels increase the means should increase. Data in Table 4.7 supports this position. The consistency of direction is uniform for all class levels. The wording of questions 11 and 12 are such that means should decrease as educational levels increase. Conversely for items 17 and 18, the means should increase as educational levels increase if the hypothesis is supported.‘ Results of the interviews coincide with the questionnaire data. Engineers with advanced degrees felt their specialty required greater skill than other engineering positions in the department. As one engineer put it "we tend to be more theoretical in performing our engineering functions than other engineers." Another suggests "design engineers have to know and apply more basic engineering principles than construction engineers and a whale of a lot more than those 'roadside farmers' in maintenance division." Finally, a project en- gineer observes that he needed "a broader overall knowledge of basic engineering skills since I must review design plans and occasionally redesign a plan sheet when problems arise." 85 Table 4.7. Arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for engineers in other specialties. EDUCATION Item 11 Item 12 Item 17 Item 18 SPECIALISTS 7' o N. o 7' o 7' o B.S. Degree - and Less 80 1.69 .47 1.46 .50 1.24 .43 1.19 .39 Masters Degree 16 1.63 .50 1.44 .51 1.31 .48 1.63. .50 EDUCATION Item 11 Item 12 Item 17 Item 18 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT Y' o 7' o 7' o X' o B.S. Degree and Less 111 1.71 .47 1.45 .50 1.26 .44 1.24 .43 Masters Degree 14 1.67 .47 1.36 .50 1.43 .51 1.29 .47 EDUCATION Item 11 Item 12 Item 17 Item 18 TOP MANAGEMENT 7' o 7' o 7‘ o 7' o B.S. Degree and Less 20 1.90 .31 1.70 .47 1.20 .41 1.20 .41 Masters Degree 4 1.75 .50 1.50 .58 1.25 .50 1.25 .50 Item 11. Engineers with specializations different than my own contribute to the effectiveness of the State Highway Program. Item 12. I really feel that engineers with specializations different than my own are getting things done. Item 17. I really feel that engineers in my division make a greater con- tribution to the State Highway Program than engineers in other divisions. Item 18. I believe my engineering specialty requires greater technical skills than others in the department. Hypothesis: The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for specialists in other substantive areas. 86 The data just reviewed tends to support the hypothesis that as educational levels increase there is a decrease in respect for en- gineers in other specialty areas. Data involving respect for special- ists with lesser skills is reported in Table 4.8. The means are inconsistent. While the higher level engineers, supervisory and ad- ministrative, indicate lesser respect for engineers with fewer skills among those with advanced degrees, the lower level engineers 07 through 11 report just the opposite. It is difficult to explain these differ- ences in light of the information developed in the survey. In any event, the crucial group are the lower level engineers who represent the "true specialists" in this study. The interview data also reflects the inconsistencies found in the questionnaire data. When asked whether engineers with a lower class level than the interviewee made a contribution to the effective- ness of the highway program one 11 level engineer with a masters degree responded "very definitely--they are the backbone of the Highway pro- gram." Another indicated "you are only as good as the people under you--so they must contribute something to the program." And still another indicated "I feel I make a greater contribution to the program since the lower level engineers are in a learning capacity." Neither the questionnaire nor interview data support the hypothesis that as educational levels increase there is a decrease in respect for engineers with less skills. In order for specialiSts to succeed, they must give up their specialization and enter hierarchical competition according to 87 Table 4.8. Arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measur- ing respect for engineers with fewer skills. EDUCATION N Item 13 Item 14 SPECIALISTS 7' o 7' o B.S. Degree and Less 80 1.42 .50 1.35 .48 Masters Degree 16 1.63 .50 1.44 .51 EDUCATION N Item 13 Item 14 MIDDLE MANAGEMENT 7' o 7' o B.S. Degree and Less 111 1.72 .45 1.57 .50 Masters Degree 14 1.43 .51 1.43 .51 EDUCATION N Item 13 Item 14 TOP MANAGEMENT 7' o 7' o 8.5. Degree and Less 20 1.75 .44 1.55 .51 Masters Degree 4 1.50 .58 1.50 .58 Item 13. Engineers with Civil Service class levels lower than my own contribute to the effectiveness of the State Highway Program. Item 14. I really feel that engineers with Civil Service class levels lower than my own are getting things done. Hypothesis: The greater the degree of skill required to perform the functions of a particular position, the less the respect for specialists with fewer skills. 88 Thompson.5 In other words, engineers to succeed must be willing to accept supervisory or managerial positions in which administrative (non-engineering) functions play an increasingly important role. The movement of engineers up the hierarchical ladder is viewed by this writer, then, as being positively associated with engineer's respect for hierarchical authority. The data in Table 4.9 consists of responses to the three items designed to measure respect for hierarchical authority. The three major groups have been used to differentiate between the true specialist and those who are identified as supervisory or managerial. The seven point scale was employed since the cell size and marginals were acceptable in developing the means for each experience interval. Again, what is important concerning the data in this table is the con- sistency of direction. Without exception, the means increase in size as one moves up the bureaucratic ladder. The uniformity and consist- ency of the data suggests that the differences are not random and due to chance but are, in fact, meaningful. As one improves his hierar- chical position, then, there appears to be increased respect for hierarchical authority. Typical of the interview comments made by engineers in the supervisory or managerial classes are the following: "Yes,I feel the policies of the State Highway Commission and Director are effective because policies are generally written by engineers and recommended to the Commission for approval." "Top management has the support of 5Victor Thompson, op. cit. 89 Table 4.9. Average arithmetic mean and standard deviation for items measuring respect for hierarchical authority. Hierarchical Success N Respect for Hierarchical Authority Class Levels Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 7' o 7' o 7' o 07-09-10-11 96 5.51 1.70 4.80 1.51 4.85 1.52 12-13-14 125 6.03 1.18 4.99 1.33 5.00 1.37 15-16-18 24 6.08 1.28 5.21 1.28 5.29 1.65 Item 80 I carry out the directives established by the State High- way Commission and the Director. Item 9. Higher management's authority is respected throughout the department. Item 10. I have confidence and trust in higher management. Hypothesis: The extent to which specialists succeed hierarchically (assumes a generalist or managerial role) is positively associated with their respect for hierarchical authority. the rank and file engineers since the Director is an engineer as well as the majority of his Bureau Chiefs." Finally a top civil engineer observed "I believe the goals and objectives are reasonable and cer- tainly attainable if there is no raid on restricted highway funds." This individual was obviously referring to the potential threat posed by the mass transit and aeronautics programs in the possible use of re- stricted gas and weight taxes. The data appear to indicate a direct and positive relation- ship between hierarchical success and respect for hierarchical authority. Finally, it has been hypothesized that the engineer's re- spect for hierarchical authority is positively associated with his 9O commitment to organizational goals. In order to determine the rela- tionship, if any, which exists between these two variables, Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient was computed for items 8, 9, and 10 rep- resenting respect for authority with items 16, 23, and 24 representing organizational goals. Table 4.10 involves a 3x3 matrix which contains nine correlations. The correlations which varied from .44 to .73 were significant beyond the .0001 level of confidence. The correlations also reveal a systematic closeness of degree of relationship between items 8, 9, and 10 with items 16. 23, and 24. This suggests a positive relationship between two conceptually independent variables, in this case respect for authority and commitment to organizational goals. The interview data also suggest a positive relationship between respect for hierarchical authority and commitment to organizational goals. Several engineers who indicated the policies of the State Highway Com- mission and the Director were very effective suggested that "the goals established by top management are reasonable and attainable providing federal funds are made available for the construction program." Another engineer felt one of the primary goals of the department was "to pro— vide a safe method of transportation for the motoring public." "The department has enjoyed considerable success in this area." A third engineer observed "since we have 'good leaders', the goals and objec- tives are certainly reasonable." It would appear, then, from the questionnaire and interview data a positive relationship exists between respect for hierarchical authority and commitment to organizational goals. 91 Table 4.10. Spearman rank correlation coefficients respect for authority and organizational goals. RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS N Item 16 Item 23 Item 24 Item 8 245 .48 .46 .44 Item 9 245 .57 .57 .52 Item 10 245 .73 .67 .64 Average Correlation = .57 Significant beyond the °OOOl level of confidence. Item 8. I carry out the directives established by the State High- way Commission and the Director. Item 9. Higher management's authority is respected throughout the department. Item 10. I have confidence and trust in higher management. Item 16. I feel loyal to the department and agree with its goals and objectives. Item 23. I agree with the goals and objectives of the department. Item 24. I believe the department has realistic goals and objec- tives and that they are attainable. Hypothesis: The extent to which specialists respect hierarchical authority is positively associated with their commit- ment to organizational goals. Summar After an attempt to provide the reader with background in- formation on the respondents concerning such variables as age, educa- tion, experience, class levels, location of work station, and engin- eering specialty, attention was given to testing the major hypotheses. It is argued that as the level of education increases there is a de- crease in respect for hierarchical authority and specialists in other 92 substantive areas. It is also argued that as specialists become supervisors and managers there is a positive association with respect for hierarchical authority. Finally, specialists' respect for hier- archical authority is positively associated with commitment to organi- zational goals. The data reported in this chapter tend to support these conclusions. The data however, did not support the argument that as the level of education increases there is a decrease in respect for specialists with fewer skills. What is significant within the data for the first four hypotheses is the consistency of direction of the means. It is unlikely that the difference in means is due to chance, rather it would appear that there are significant differences between the variables. The implications of these observations and their plausibility are discussed in the final chapter. CHAPTER V DILEMMAS OF FORMAL ORGANIZATION In this chapter the significance of the findings from the research must be fitted into the larger body of evidence from which it emerged. Hopefully this involves modifying as well as extending some of the prevailing assumptions and ideas which have grown out of the literature in the field. It is, then, the intent of the author to review and interpret the findings of this research and its signifi- cance for the larger body of evidence concerned with one aspect of organization theory. The Role of Specialists in Organizations There have been few general theoretical statements regarding technology in large scale organizations. The two which have the most relevance for the material discussed in this research are found in 1 The research con- the works of Thompson, Kornhauser, and Hagstrom. ducted by these authors, has been very influential in stimulating interest in this area. The authors discuss the impact of specializa- tion on large scale organizations with special emphasis on the rela- tions between specialists and the bureaucracy. Thompson argues there 1Victor Thompson, op. cit.; William Kornhauser and Warren Hagstrom, op. cit. 93 94 is a growing gap between the right to decide, which is authority, and the power to decide which is specialized ability. He insists the gap is growing because technological change, with a resulting increase in specialization, occurs at a faster rate than the change in cultural definitions of hierarchical roles. This situation produces what he views as tensions, and strains the willingness to cooperate. In short, "the most symptomatic characteristic of modern bureaucracy is 2 Unfortunately, the growing imbalance between ability and authority." the general theorizing by Thompson is not supported with empirical findings. Kornhauser and Hagstrom agree basically with Thompson and identify the strains between professions and organizations in four areas: goals, controls, incentives, and influence.3 Herbert Shepard adding to their research suggests that specialist groups tend to foster narrow interests which make it difficult to cross specialist lines and cooperate with other kinds of specialists.4 The work of Thompson, Kornhauser and Hagstrom has been previously concerned with the rela- tionships between specialists and the bureaucracy. The conflict be- tween specialization and hierarchy and potential solutions to this dilemma have occupied their attention. Thompson would argue that while authority is necessary, it must be disciplined by reason and reality. By reason and reality he means accommodating the basic con- cerns of the specialist. In organizing, in dividing up the work and 2 3 4 Victor Thompson, 0 . cit. William Kornhauser and Warren Hagstrom, o . cit. Herbert Shepard, op. cit. 95 delegating jurisdictions, authority must submit to the needs of spe- cialization. "Then men will become adults, and the grown up kinder- gartens through which we now conduct our affairs will pass unregretted "5 from the scene. Kornhauser and Hagstrom observe that the introduc- tion of former specialists into managerial posts leads to a better relationship between those with authority and ability.6 In order to determine the relationship between specialists and the hierarchy, this research project involved a study of design, construction, and maintenance engineers, on the educational backgrounds of the respondents and their attitude regarding hierarchical authority, other specialists, and specialists with lesser skills. The following five hypotheses provided the framework for this study: l. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for hierarchical authority. 2. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for specialists in other substantive areas. 3. The greater the degree of skill required to perform the func- tions of a particular position, the less the respect for specialists with fewer skills. 4. The extent to which specialists succeed hierarchically, (assumes a generalist or managerial role) is positively asso- ciated with his respect for hierarchical authority. 5. The extent to which specialists respect hierarchical authority is positively associated with their commitment to organiza- tional goals. The questionnaire and interview data reviewed in the preceeding chapter 5Victor Thompson, op. cit. 6William Kornhauser and Warren 0. Hagstrom, o . cit. 96 tends to support the notion that as educational levels increase there is a decrease in respect for hierarchical authority and specialists in other substantive areas. This was true not only for those engineers in class levels 07 through ll but for the supervisory and managerial levels as well. Class levels were controlled for in this research since it was felt that supervisory and administrative engineers would respond differently than the "true specialist." This was not the case however, as indicated by the data tables in Chapter IV. The relationship between degree of skill and respect for specialists with lesser skills was not clearly established by the data. For engineers in the lower class levels, respect increased as educational levels increased. The reverse was true for the supervisory and managerial engineers. A partial explanation may be found in the nature of the work groups. In the design division for example, engineers are assigned to squads or as Kornhauser suggests, task groups. The task group exists to solve particular problems. The groups are heterogeneous and may in- clude different levels of specialists. Because each of the specialists is concerned with only a part of the total problem, cooperative rela- tions are necessary. As a case in point, senior design engineers will determine the basic design of a bridge. Once the basic design has been developed, there are many subsidiary designs.which have to be produced to make a final product. These are of lesser importance re- quiring less engineering competence. In designing a bridge, initial design considerations may involve determining the length of the basic structure, whether it is to be a suspension or cantilever bridge, and other overall design characteristics. Once this is done, designs on 97 many subparts of the bridge must be carried out: girders, plates used to hold beams and girders together, the form and number of rivets and bolts, etc. There is a succession of engineering tasks, each subse- quent one constrained by the preceding one, while allowing for less originality and competence, are essential to the proper completion of a set of plans. The engineer trainees and junior engineers perform those functions which do not require a high degree of skill. In spite of the various skills usually found in task groups, there appears to be an esprit de corps and camaraderie which is not found in other specialist groups.7 For this reason, there is the possibility that journeyman engineers may look favorably on lower level engineers because of the role they play in the task groups. Thompson, Kornhauser, Moore, Marcson, Mainzer and others agree that specialists in order to “succeed" must leave their field of specialization and enter management. In other words, success, which is defined as an improvement in hierarchical rank, is awarded to those who can perform well as a manager. Generally, those specialists who are selected for administrative jobs are likely to be oriented toward the bureaucratic norms of the organization rather than colleague norms of the professional group. Marcson, in his study of a nationwide firm confirms this view that engineers at the management level are more "company oriented than professionally oriented."8 7Herbert A. Shephard, op. cit. 8Simon Marcson, op. cit., pp. 30-33. 98 This research which controlled for class level in order to distinguish between supervisory and non-supervisory engineers supports the premise that specialists who are promoted to supervisory or mana- gerial positions have a greater degree of respect for hierarchical authority than specialists or those at the lower levels. Again, the data indicates that as the specialist moves up the hierarchical ladder, there is a corresponding increase in respect for hierarchical authority. It has been suggested that the goals of an organization and the objec- tives it sets for the professional group are not the same as those for a profession.9 Management's orientation in developing a product or providing a service may be expected to clash with the specialists' goals of the pursuit of technical knowledge. Not only may the goals differ significantly but the way of achieving them may also differ. Specialists would seek structural autonomy whereas managers would emphasize an integrated structure for better communications and coordi- nation. While this may be true in some organizational contexts, there are other organizational environments which tend to reduce tension and possible conflict. La Porte in his research on industrial organiza- tions concludes: The dependence of managers on scientists for achieving technical goals leads to a modification of traditional bureaucratic devices in operating large organizations. Introduction of many former scientists into managerial posts leads to a high degree of mana- gerialISnderstanding of the motives, goals, and rewards of scien- tists. 9William Kornhauser and Warren Hagstrom, op. cit., p. 12. 10Todd R. LaPorte, "Conditions of Strain and Accommodation in Industrial Research Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1965, lo: 2l-38. 99 Organizational responses to professional values according to LaPorte, would tend to change the organization in such a way as to enable spe- cialists to satisfy many important professional values; not simply by increasing traditional rewards, but by a movement away from relatively strict control of subordinates toward freedom of operation and protec- tion from organizational uncertainties. The Director, Department of Highways and Transportation, as well as the majority of bureau chiefs are former specialists within the organization. The administrative engineers may be better able to understand some of the needs of the engineers thanma.non=engineer. The data in Table 4.10 in Chapter IV supports the argument that as the specialist's respect for hierarchical authority increases there is a positive association with his commitment to organizational goals. To summarize, the results of this research tend to support the observation that the hypotheses have a directness as well as a relationship between the dependent variables, i.e., respect for hier- archical authority, and specialists in other substantive areas, with the independent variable, degree of skill. These conclusions generally agree with the research efforts of Kornhauser, Corwin, Shephard and others who have conducted empirical studies in this area. It may also be concluded that a positive relationship exists between the success of the specialist as the independent variable with his respect for hierarchical authority as the dependent variable. At this point, a critical question may be raised: In actual operation, whfich is the antecedent or "causal" variable, respect for hierarchical authority or commitment to organizational goals? This is reminiscent of the lOO chicken and the egg argument--one which does not lend itself to an easy answer. It has been the writer's experience in large scale or- ganizations that both may be the causal variable under different cir- cumstances. Finally, the specialist's respect for hierarchical author- ity, the independent variable, tends to be positively associated with his commitment to organizational goals, the dependent variable. Comments on Methodology This research would not be complete without some comment on the methodology employed in this study. Because of this author's interest in gathering demographic data as well as responses to the substantive questions from as large a group as possible, the question- naire was selected as the primary tool for data collection with the interview used to provide complementary information. Questionnaires were distributed to 405 engineers in three divisions of the department. Responses were received from 245 employees or 60% of the total universe. Even though the instrument was carefully pretested in another state agency utilizing engineers employed at the same class levels, questions surfaced during the interviews which suggests that the wording of some questions may have influenced the respondent in a direction different from that which was intended. Two terms used in the questionnaire, i.e., directives and goals, were not well understood by some of the lower level engineers even though the majority of them were college graduates! The cover letter which accompanied the questionnaire requested that the instrument be returned by January. Five weeks later the 101 documents were still trickling in. The question immediately arose whether the non-respondents came randomly from the population or rep- resented a biased sampling, that is, are those people who did not respond to the questionnaire in some measureable way different from those who did respond. As statistics reported in the previous chapter suggested, the number of questionnaires returned appeared to be satis- factory. Three additional variables were employed, however, to support these findings. Age, class level and geographic location were de- termined for the non-respondents and compared with data in the ques- tionnaire. After a laborious process of developing this information for the non-respondent, a comparison of the results indicated the characteristics were essentially the same for the two groups. In short, a substantial effort was expended to insure the representiveness of the respondents. Finally, the author was faced with a dilemma--to increase the number of items and consequently the length of the questionnaire or to keep it brief hoping for a greater return rate. A decision was made to use a brief instrument. Experience with the interviews indi- cates the author did not get a completely true picture, in certain instances, of opinions and feelings on certain items in the question- naire. Again, those questions dealing with the directives established by the Commission and Director and those questions dealing with de- partment goals caused some difficulty. Interviews were conducted with 30 engineers in the three divisions selected by using a table of random numbers keeping in mind the proportion of engineers in each division and their class levels. lOZ The sample included both those engineers who returned the questionnaire and those who did not. Without exception, every engineer contacted was cooperative and helpful in providing the requested information. The interviews were successful from another point of view. It was possible, for example, to make full use of the responses of the subject to alter the interview situation. The interviewees provided more data with greater clarity than would have been otherwise possible. In addition, information was provided this researcher that would simply not have been available under any other circumstance. The reason why such information may be difficult to obtain is that it usually con- cerns negative aspects of the self or negative feelings toward others. Respondents are not likely to reveal this type of information about themselves on a questionnaire and will only reveal it in an interview situation if they have been made to feel comfortable by the interviewer. This author recognizes some of the disadvantages of inter- views as a data collection device: subjectivity and possible bias, training required to conduct interviews, time constraints in conduct- ing interivews, and potential costs. In spite of these constraints, however, the author considers the interview an excellent tool to com- plement the primary selection instrument--the questionnaire. The strength of one method tends to reinforce the area of weakness of the other. This discussion suggests, then, that positive experiences with certain techniques tends to focus attention on these techniques for use in similar research efforts. lO3 Suggestions for Future Research The conclusions, based on the sizeable literature in the field in addition to this modest effort, has established the fact that strains and tensions do exist between the specialist, with his own set of values and the bureaucrat who more than likely will have a different set of values. The organization pressures on specialists' values has manifested itself at a number of different pressure points including goals, controls, incentives and influence. The values of the specialist, for example, suggest that he must have a degree of freedom to work on problems that interest him and to follow leads as they emerge from his work, if he is to make a maximum contribution to his profession. Bureaucracies, on the other hand, have generally dur- tailed this freedom in work in order to increase the production of a good or service, or for the efficient coordination of diverse activi- ties. It is suggested that research be conducted with a pilot project exploring the possibilities of the organization accommodating special- ists by inviting them to develop projects, present them to management for approval and allot a small amount of free time for research of the specialists' own choosing. It is also suggested that the special- ists be encouraged to publish the results of their research efforts, again, in order to achieve recognition and contribute, in a scholarly way, to the literature in the field. This research effort, if success- ful, may contribute in a small way toward mitigating the strain not only between specialist and organizational requirements but between other specialists as well. Since specialists tend to compete with one another for professional achievement and recognition, this approach 104 may prove fruitful. It has been suggested that the introduction of former specialists into managerial ranks leads to a high degree of managerial understanding of the motives, goals, and rewards of special- ists. This may be the case in the subject agency. Further research is recommended in this area to determine whether professional values may be more nearly realized and whether the specialist-turned-manager would provide the stabilizing elements and modification of the organi- zation to respond to the requirements of technical innovation. At least one student of organization has developed a descrip- tion of the principles of organizational self-renewal, the Sponsorship Theory of Organization Change, and an experimental Research and De- velopment methodology for producing more effective organizations.1] One vehicle which has been proposed to bring about organizational renewal is a Learning and Knowledge Building Station. Through this mechanism, organizational actors and university representatives can come together to share their expertise in resolving organizational problems. This author would suggest exploring the possibility of bringing together the university community and the organization spe- cialists to develop research and development projects within the frame- work of this model aimed at ameliorating the tensions and strains which have been identified in this study. During the course of this research, it was indicated by one of the respondents that policy in the subject department was really not developed by top management or the Commission but was instead 1'IChristopher Sower, A Michigan State Proposal for Funding py the Research and Development Incentives Program of the National Science Foundation, April, l973, p. l. 105 approved by them. He insisted that engineers develop policy and recommend them to higher authority for approval. Without verifying the accuracy of this observation, it does suggest the following questions: 1. Should the specialist influence policy? 2. If the specialist should influence policy, how should he communicate his ideas organizationally? 3. How much and through what means should the specialists in- fluence policy? 4. Despite the best of intentions on all sides, how is the oper- ating ethic of any specialty to be somehow accommodated to the ethics of other specialties and/or to the ethics of .hierarchical authority? Most of the empirical work conducted with the specialist--hierarchical authority dichotomy have implications for practitioners concerned with administration of complex organizational systems. Increasingly, modern organizations are being expected to cope with heterogeneous environ- ments that are both highly dynamic and quite stable under different circumstances. While the advances of science are increasing the tempo of change in some subsystems, the requirements for regularity and pre- dictability in peoples' relationship with each other remain in others. This continually increases the needs for specialization in organiza- tions; yet the requirements for integration by the hierarchy to achieve a unified effort are at least as great as ever. The findings of this and other research indicate that, other things being equal, speciali- zation and integration are essentially antagonistic, and that one can be obtained only at the expense of the other. Most administrators are very familiar with this issue. They are constantly struggling with the difficulty of reconciling the need for specialization with the need for coordination of effort. Some clues have been provided which 106 suggest conditions that seem able to make it possible to achieve a high degree of specialization and a high degree of coordination simul- taneously. These clues, in combination with an emerging methodologi- cal capacity to quantify the variables under consideration may provide concrete direction for the deliberate design of organizations that can cope more effectively with the turbulent environment that science and technology are creating. REFERENCES REFERENCES Anthony, Robert A. Management Control in Industrial Research Associ- ations. Cambridge, MassaChusetts: GradUate sch001 of Busi- ness Administration, Harvard Univeristy, 1952. Backstrom, Charles H. and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Barnard, Chester 1. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass- achusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966. Blalock, Hurbert. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972. Blau, Peter. Bureaucracy in Modern Society. New York: Random House, 1956. and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Caplow, Theodore and Reece J. McGee. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Chabotar, Kent and Stephen H. Montgomery. Second Year Evaluation of an American Management Association Pilot Program: Adapting and Testing Business Management Development Programs for Educational Administrators. Washington: U.S. Office of Education, 1972. Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963. Corwin, Ronald G. "The Professional Employee: A Study of Conflict in Nursing Roles," American Journal of Sociology, May, 1961, pp. 604-615. . "Patterns of Organizational Conflict," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1965, pp. 65-81. . "Professional Persons in PubTic organizations," Educa- tional Administrator Quarterly, Autumn, 1965, pp. l-22. 107 108 Dalton, Melville. "Conflict Between Staff and Line Managerial Offi- cers," American Sociological Review, June, 1950, pp. 342-351. DeFleur, Melvin L., William V. D'Antonio, and Lois B. DeFleur. Soci- ology: Man in Society. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by George Simpson. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1947. Emery, Orville. Personal Interview, January 10, 1974, April 2, 1974, and April 9, 1974. Estimated Revenue and Budget Requests for July, l969--June 30, 1970, Michigan Department of State Highways. Etzioni, Amitai. A Sociolo ical Reader on Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, inEhart and WifiSton, Inc., 1961. . Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1964. Eulau, Heinz. "Basis of Authority in Legislative Bodies; A Comparative Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, December, 1962, pp. 309-332. Flippo, Edwin B. Management: A Behavioral Approach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Francies, Ray G. and Robert C. Stone. Service and Procedure in Bu- reaucracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Gouldner, Alvin W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucraoy, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954. . "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles,‘I Administrative Science Quarterly, December, 1957. Pp. 281-306. Gross, Bertram M. Organizations and Their Managing. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Gross, Mary E. "Influence and Authority Among Physicians in an Out- Patient Clinic," American Sociological Review,February, 1961. pp. 33-50. Hall, Richard H. Organizations--Structures and Processes. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. \ 109 Hall, Robert. "The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment," The American Journal of Sociology, July, 1963, pp. 32-40. Hughes, Everett C. Men and Their Work. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958. Jackson, Robert M. and J. W. M. Rothnew. "A Comparative Study of the Mailed Questionnaire and the Interview in Follow-up Studies," Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 1961, pp. 569-571. Katz, Daniel. "Field Studies," in Leon Festinger and Daniel Katz. Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1953. Katz, Daniel and Robert L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of Organiza- tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundation of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson, Inc., 1964. Kirkhart, Larry,.and W. Lynn Tanner, Evaluation for Center for Plan- ning_and Development of the American Management Association. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University, 1971. Kornhauser, William and Warren 0. Hagstrom. Scientists in Industry. Berkley: University of California Press, 1962. LaPorte, Todd R. "Conditions of Strain and Accommodation in Industrial Research Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1965, pp. 21—38. ' Litterer, Joseph A. The Analysis of Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1945. ., ’ Mainzer, Lewis C. I'The Scientist.as Public Administrator," Western Political Quarterly, December,'1963, pp. 814-829. L Marcson, Simon. "Role Concept of Engineering Managers," Institute of Radio Engineers Transactions of the Professional Group on Engineering Management, MarCh, 1960, pp. 30-33. Mayo, Elton. The SocialProblems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: Harvard Graduate SChool of Business Administration, 1945. Michigan Manual. Published by the State of Michigan, James M. Hare, Secretary of State, 1959-60. Miller, Walter B. "Two Concepts of Authority," American Anthropolo- .Qi§§; April, 1955, pp. 271-289. 110 Moore, Wilbert E. Industrial Relations and the Social Order. rev. ed. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1961. Nigro, Felix A. Modern Public Administration. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965. O'Donnell, Maurice E. (ed.) Readiogs in Public Administration. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. Ozmui, Koya and Jerald Hage. Organizational Systemg, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1972. Park, Robert E. and.Ernest W. Burgess. Introduction to the Science of Soliology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Parsons, Talcott. Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Peabody, Robert L. Organizational Authority. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. and Francis E. Rourke. "Public Bureaucracies," in Hand- book of Organizations. James G. March, editor. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965. Perrow, Charles..."The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organizations," American Sociological Review,December, 1961, pp. 854-866. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological Perspective. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1970. Pfiffner, John and Frank P. Sherwood. Administrative Organization. Englewood Cliffs; New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Phillips, Bernard S. Social Research Strategy and Tactics. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1966. Presthus, Robert. The Organizational Society. New York: Vintage Books, 1962. Scott, William G. The Management of Conflict. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1965. Scott, W. Richard. "Theory of Organization," in Robert E. L. Faris, editor.. Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1964. Sheldon, Mary E. "Investments and Involvements as Mechanisms Produc- ing Commitment.to the Organization," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1971, pp. 143-149. 111 Shepard, Herbert A. "Nine Dilemmas in Industrial Research," Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, December, 1956, PP. 295-309. Simon, Herbert A., Donald W. Smithburg, and Victor Thompson. Public Administration. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1550. . "On the Concept of Organizational Goals," Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1964, pp. 1-22. Simon, Julian L. Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The Art of Empirical Investigation. New York: Random House, 1969. Sower, Christopher. A Michigan State Proposal for Funding by the Research and Development Incentives Program of the National Science Foundation. April, 1973, p. 1. Taylor, Frederick W. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Norton, 1967. Thompson, Victor. Modern Organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1961. Udy, Stanley H. Jr. "Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Organi- zation Theory," American Sociological Review, December, 1959, pp. 791-795. Walsh, W. B. "Validity of Self-Report: Another Look," Journal of Counseling Psychology. March, 1968, pp. 180-186. Weber, Max. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated and edited by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. . The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans- lated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. Edited by Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1947. APPENDIX A ORGANIZATION CHART--DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 112 an: .n .>Oz awm.>mm as, >43. mr.._.uwuuw 4<>>IoE “:5 mo FZWEESEQ 35.122 ZO_._.<.EOmmZ<>>I0_I m0 DkDmmo umiu >._._«OI»3< mOoEm (Z ._._._xOI»D< _ L «OFUwEo :UZDOU ZOEm_.5Umxw ZO_mm_<<<<>>IO.I 55% APPENDIX B DISTRICT ORGANIZATION CHART :2 . >532: . 23 “>58: 5.58 525.25% 25:2. ”25wa .2225: 2025.233 £525.: mi: .0 Ems-£3 23.5.1 52585.»; id 3.05 id 5...: x55 02“: 23:52; «0:23 J30 mg: Zgzuzl «0:21.. .5U 02w: «0:2: .50 mu-OS 5_ZO_EuUu¢ 35w... 30$: 5.20230: .VSU GE)» 55w... «35y .XJU 5:: 5.20:..wufi RN. .xaU Si)» .N. x._u SIC .xJU GE»; .52 3E0 £02 350 ..05 5.30 .01 quo ..02 5E0 .52 33.0 ozw 239‘ (.3: .02. .233 .tsx .02» 2.5:? (.3: .02“ .233 #3: .025 .SZOU it: 02. .235 .Sz .07.“ 52.52 is: .025 .SZOu #3: 55.550“ ”3:20.. 20064.. Swish: uS...o...» o. . 6:55 o . 5.2.25 m . 5:55 A . 5:55 o . 5355 m . 5:55 a . 5:55 m ~ 53:5 N a 5:55 _ . 0:55 _ _ _ _ ~ . fill. _ _ _ a “HZ—1(XWFZDOUU( ume.DZw .:>_U quCmO .Z.<‘o< «0:034 .53.. x0203< #1200 .m. «O:DD< #500 .m. uOtDD< €500 2: a .. 3 ..> 9‘. .3125: .. 3 x x55 02.: E $2.253 . Ouu 9 .95 < . oo .95 >3: «9 o n .95 « >2 éfiu 53>. 295% 20.3% 20.53 .53. 20.5% 20.5mm 5:5 .5323 .zwxzm>oo .30.. 32.24 553.40: 955.3 a S ..__S .534 .SZOU .53 .222 525.03 203:5 20225 S imam H92 23?. ozZzS. 20.225 _ — — IF — 322032 N fuss 0.2. 2.23 zo:<20&z<: hzwizaw>00 130.. 20.52 zo:«<&o.z_ .ozm .2.Zo< .25: 3:33; .2320 x 232 “20:15.5 oz... _ .02. .0. .0525 .xd 02.: :25 2523.. 54:53 2:55: .953 >3: — .9534 20.3.320u «Otcji 203925.00 a. 5.5.6 0255 .02. 2.19 >3: 523:3 5: .16 2033.592. :55: .233 E .83 >3: 2,. 05.6 3:: a. 225.03 «OVUwng. 1 Sign»; .>>¢. me_>uww aguw»z. 07¢ mi<~00~2 ._(_Y530 «Ohmic >(3xo_z :(hm :23 3500: Zia: Aw v 520322100 >(3x0_z >x_5UwXu ZO_mm_2$0U )(310 _I 5(3 D_U £0:(»Zuwwum .m. ume_OZm .n. uuwZFIvZu I U.S.(xu I 02.20.35 .25... I 02.20.30 .C..x :23 :23 :13 20.30 vimgo {w_>w Odom m»2<:jnZOUQ(O« F :WItOZw I 02.2035 )<>.t0.r :ZD 5.02.5515 20.30 Q:(u__.m_2_5..u( Cr)»: 535 75>. «wa_OZw - 195: .. 20:5 nuu2_02m w>:(:m_2:20<.>?1 20.30 ‘0 «32.02“ 205.29 20.20 — .... 1.35.55 z~wnjm mug r94; 15.5 .452 No :wZ_OZm .>)f( :23 .>. .0.“ GZG mUZmI.SI ammZFJZm I 02.20.36 ~09: 32.xww1_02w 04w: sOF§waO wZ.IU$2 :. xuwau .(‘uZwO $017<1~UIEO :23 priwogg «EEO H — fl 115 .R. . 5:323 ” =3 ”25“.: :36 3.32253 5.22.. 2289 232.3 ._o szwo S .3265 62.2038 .ts: E .3252. 62.2033 .02: 20.53 a . 20:8 2. 9.98 :2 . :32: u :3 “25:: 2.5.5 20.25525 2222.. 22m... ..<...z_U 23:50 . OZu E 25.: :50 5 2323.36 6 .3252; S 2.32:8 .02. .9 «32.02“ 6 .3252. zszmtsa a. .3262. 02.2028 #3: 02.20;! ..Si - (4(Z(Umw - 02525 - 57:; um»(; Z‘ingD-GZ. auuZ.02w ..>.U E ngtso .UZu .5 $3.02. ..Zu «0 ~O>w>5m .Sx ¢O>u>kDm H6 223.30 uuw2.02w .0. 251339 .9 uwu2.02m . .(U.n.,Uw._w 3.. umuZ.02u I 02.20.30 .E ..llll. .5262. a. 252ng 20.625on >3: . 2:500:29 .3261» .3 5.2.02” «0 «0:23 .5: .9 219qu: I 022055 >3: u 02.2053 is: 3.5 52.2 - 25225005.: 830" :2: 3 . . > - :2 9:25 - 20:3 52:5 - a "3.6 ~23. - 3222:5099... — . (mmZZUZm .321..va . 02.20.30 “8.: 1202815200 .E :23 “Eh—4.5 m)m>5m _ x340 023m :uuquZm E2 _ ZOZUum as 20.30 2.52:on . zo.w_>.o zo_mmo APPENDIX D ORGANIZATION CHART--CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 117 R2 9.4323 1.70 .25.... 52...“. zo_.—.o ZOZUDEmzou 2:252 20.552550 94.320... .7..." .0 5.2553 2(953 .32. 325. .6332 82 20.83555 ><3:o... :30 58>» 8. >258: «2535 4453.530 «02383» xi 30233:. 8323» «05.92. 3555.1 >320... E «32.02. >1320... 6.. 3.2.02. 20.83520u .5320... a... .3257; u>..—(c.5.2=¢o< >552?! H 20.53 m)— ..(u—w_2_¢¢o( .0355 .Ontfiuga Fm figmcu .330 .39/30 8.30 53>» AN. uuuaU OZuhu s02>uu3m 32 loavrmz. 02.0.53 20.552. 02.3.) 3.2.02. 5 .3423. 32.0 02.5: .65... :23 :2... ..Zwiuogg uUZmO xuwau ..st uO acuau OZZuuZRva w>.5UuKu a(320... :23 unwlfiuzu uUIuO — a H zo_w.>_o zo...u:~:mzou quuZRUZw «26352551 .3320... ZOZUDEhZOU .0 «32.02w H 203.20 Zth-hnZOU 118 .5. .5552 8.352(on {(320.1 :(5 .0 uszmn31 ..umau 53>» 4-...U 02:“ £45.03 rug 02.00U . I. .3209) ..i -’ :2... n. pvisa 205.20 51.21. ".75 .25.... 20:525.... 2922: 20.83528 Kuwau GI)» «:40 02.5 .v. 5.2.02. E grungy: [20:035mZOU .>..,¢. - :23 o. .0353 . 20:me cuuz.UZm wUufiO-s OZ< p283: :23 m. rU.-..m_o tagu 02qu n20:ux..-:ZOU. >3! - :23 v. ..Ui—flo _ zo_._.03~:mzou 4:..U 02.; 2 3.2.02. 20.52520u ,tsx - :23 m. rU.=m.a 4 $.30 02 PS - :23 E »U_=m_o _ 43.”. SE)» 1:4”. 01;: - :23 m. FUESS _ 203me .2 .35.)..13: ~U.=m.o mm ..mco x~3U 5E). x-u.u 02m: «wuZSuZu >3! - :23 o. .0255 . 13.—U SK). ‘.._0..v15m20v. 5i - :2; I .2520 . 119 :2 .5323. 93 “25!: ESE 22.555on 20.239 20.522528 3:252 20.252520 €5.52: :5» .0 5925:! 23.5.2 we; ZOZUJuSZOU .E Z5U.ZIU= why—:0 _>uzuo_m§ . .5235- 45:>._. « 3:032. :56 25. do; I 02:52.02“ 5.835 Zfiylrvg I {3! 5835 a 2030315200 iii .2 maOerva: - 2033-520u {it .0»Uunm2. : ZOCUDu—wZOU £32 .Ohuw;w2_ no.1: mm ugmcu no; I 02.nmw2_02u 533: 2322720: 1 Cr}: P2835 we; IZO__.U3=mZOU .35: no: ZOZUDu—mZOU .35: no: '20:.U3-5Z0u .CSI «0 .uu2_01u .=>_U z miuuu >u>qu 13.-U 5:).— x-uau wvunO! Dd: . I-flu 02-da‘392u wx-ZU _ 132.07; I ZOZUD-SZOU .>ix nuu2_02w ulna-mu. rUZuDSux zo_w_>_o zoFUDmHmzou xwuZRVIu n ZOZVDEmZOV #3! - maul—Ola pUmnO-n .0. 3U. :0 ”Uu.‘ O! L 120 .k. . 33. “aka gflstu :53 8.5.38 Sass 8.52:...on mm ”:25 353 8.3.3.3 ggOU. 3‘3 8 51:8 3859! A «0.20 51.0: 3% < «mpg. ‘56 a...» v 82 .. gig-02¢ 582m 25 22:00.— IZO._—g:nZOU . >3! 5 «80552. nggumeOu .i £0 fr! ‘4 3:0; ISO-£0: ~93 1— fi 3,207; lax—94:200.; . 8. to Q32. 6:8 zo_w.>_o zo_._.UDm._.mzou APPENDIX E ORGANIZATION CHART--MAINTENANCE DIVISION 121 :2 2:321. ”23 3.5:: 5.5.3 zo__.E 3225222 32252 zo:<¥ZUE E 21.0.:de 155.9 5 53:32:23 . 252:8: 222.52 :3on 58232.35“ 6 .3255 #222 £81 252: 3220.: 5.23 :23 "3qu :2) FRIES «02232.52 Jivtm . “Uni QZ< 0‘0- IJ 5»:an 502.02” - .Z.v¢0< ><§U_! - 20.5: “20.238 A uUZ(Zu_—2_§ , l _ 211302 55:. 550.2054 5 Spiro . ”23:30“ is: 3. «50.5 SL358: 5 55! “was: .2 15.34.: v »2 “.1330“ quOi =23 “0(«(0 4(5sz E xuflu oz“: limit—30w «OI—Oi 20:3» rZw§t30u d u>:.0205< _ uww2_02u .27201 >(320_x >-(:-wa misty—2.; .0 mum—2.02m 205.20 “22:22! zo_m_>_o wuz_. «90-5 U.Z(XUm§ . .22: 45552.5 £3: E .8503 won:- £93522. 0:5. 5 .2525 am 9:25 20:50; >-Om_>o< --I I." I Zgwam . 25!:de E :20; “09-. : EquDm .30- nuuZfivZu Zintg .mu2_02u 4.20 42.54 >(320i v agaggn moo—3 mg:- 3253 umw2_02w ..(20:(Z~w_.2. I 30241 ..(uwZuO 552.43 ><¥I0_r . =02; ..(anwO :2: :23 :23 mg;- wgin 32.x; 2°.»Umgn2_ 2120:2332. x-fiu Clara Sal—Ola - . .259. >536... 20:03 202§mm7z ushgu—m “and 5:: 3.585 5 mad . 592523 xzau it: . 22123031 a>._<2< .239. 5 235.0. z§a§n x66 44325 E 3:63: «:5 02E . .223: 33x0... 02:31.02“ 522:3 5: . 512:5.2 .3265 53232.55” v5.0 02“; {flu 02E “2585 .2222 $56.: .533 1310:. .2535 .>>.,r :92; 8:3 . .5358: :2: £100... :2: 30:5: :2: :23 5:505:52 :2: .6:on $212322: 32(5521 SuSFZOu 3.30 «3503. hZ(rZ OUU< 20.53 :22: u>:<=m_2_¢.a muz<§z_<£ 122 .9. . >32: .345 gzvummm ._<=2<£ KERN. z<31nvi a?“ $0 23523 23.29.! a 3.55 5 :53 3.2.8. :23 2.4.. n 3.55 c. :58 also :33 £2. Zgunom ~33: “4305.054 .n. An. U_2(IUw<< 3. 551.: awn» Zgwuom unziia um: - :2: >530. 20.5w“ i=3... 0 ~ 5:55 >.—.Z_JOU .—ZDOU (0:1 .Z..zo< v . .0555 .253 n . 6:55 20:me L 20.03 .2.30( .s $2:er ,Z_.2n.< u s .0355 A H— _ 8222200 20535 muzn¢32= kaw .3252 5:523: «>550... win .0 535.8 23.5.: 122 .2 552:: mu: Zgwuom 512...... mm: m .355 c. {$2.0 $3.3. Caron 9.4.. n 5.55 E >2on 39.20 C33 «.2- ZSZw-Om 5(mwu 3.002051 Xxwau EDOUU< .3 22:0. 1 #2.; .2 .53m 3.2—(1 .73: .3 525:5 3.: 255.9 52$: 3:. - :ZD >uhmw80m 20:.me .233 0 ~ 5:55 :ZD >>ZDOU (..OmUmO >EDOU <1w-..mwdom .n. .3 .272: v . FUFSE - «go‘s £31550 woe-n F 832.50”. P zo_m_>_o muzZ—ZS. "up; gFUuku #2252 20.252535 m><3tu_z :15 mo >2;ng 2(0—121 E_a 3522.235 unecos fig U_Z(Ium1 . 33020:: nguom ‘uibu 5305054 . 21: 5302054 9. .53 ..Sou .ts: 5 x56 Escuu< 5 255.9 1.52: >22 .ER .5353: . :19. 53010:? 32 .to ..53 is: E .55 .2303.‘ a: 23.0; . .222 ..S: E3 .52: .5: we usmcu . .25. 330205< :1 :55 .50”. >3: 8 x55 5:034 - :23 mutt _. §< h -O:Z(.. . 11w- 530105< :5 5‘0 .50“. t5; 6 22(1qu .5?! :3 430.529.; find 5:: 3 P2523235» 8 55a 5239‘ 5:5 5383‘ 5 5:5 2:83 . .222 0254.2. 5 .9093 a 216.9 3 25.9.9 3:95 i 2.329 $.09) E “2585 E :32: m: . .522 .tsx . .525 is: 5 $23.: 3.: 4222 .Ei a. $21.: we: . 2339‘ 25429 5:25 3: 65m .52: £3... ‘53 .522 is... 255.9 :35: :2 ..KB $.32. if .Ka 42:3 is: 2.35.9 $53.3 m: :2: - :23 5:39 :23 mooim swr<§ w): - :23 >35”qu _ :23 XS (w¢< :ZDOU 3:223 -’ :ZD >u~mu¢0m .1 :23 OZ» (:4 -r :23 ~20 (mu: A: uflOnS 33.0} woe: AN. 2253: #7:; — — w _ J 3. . 5:095 A: x0»<~wa0 wOOEo be 5:03 ~09: P523453: #2.; . mwgpggm .ZSI tuSu EDOUU< xuju 02:» 243:9 . «2:. 33020:? 8 sad 02E 5 .02“ £212.)»; 295% .233 o. . 5:55 .ozwgziiizz c. 02w. 5.42. >3: .UZu ..—2_(2 .Ez ZOZUmm ZO_»Umm (GIme .Z_10( 9 ~ ~U::m_a .Z=2n< a s FUESE .275: a u F2550 _ A _ $322,200 29920 wuz