A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION 'OF ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION PRACTICES "

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.’
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ALAN L. SIEGEL
‘ 1975

 

IIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

96516

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

   
  

  
    

LIB R A R. Y
Michigan Static
University

.,.. w

I,”

 

A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

presented by

ALAN L. SIEGEL

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D.

 

Date OCtOber 21L1975

0—7639

degree in

Psychology

 

_/ .
‘T‘T/vtd//

 

Major professor

a He .. .e pt... New €9.11}? ‘1 ‘3 N. Ii 1}

ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
BY

Alan L. Siegel

Organizational communications has received a considerable amount
cf attention in the literature. Most of the works have been theoretical
in nature, emphasizing the importance of communication in the work
setting. However, there has been a disproportionately small amount of
empirical research on this topic.

The purposes of the research investigation were twofold. First,
this study investigated the effects of participative theories of
organization on communication practices. A specific implementation of
the participative decision making approach (Scanlon Plan) was compared
to more traditional methods of organization ( Non-Scanlon Plan).
Secondly, the research was exploratory in nature. Communication
practices in organizations were studied in an attempt to increase
understanding in this area since relatively little research had been
conducted to date.

The communication variables investigated included the following:
number of communication contacts; frequency of 3 types of communication-
production, innovation and maintenance; subordinate initiation of pro-
duction and innovation communication; communication satisfaction; and
4 categories of direction of communication.

A greater frequency of each type of communication among employees
of Scanlon Plan (SP) as compared to Non—Scanlon Plan (NSP) organizations

was predicted. It was also expected that the magnitude of the difference

Alan L.Siegel
in frequency of communication in SP and NSP organizations would be
greater for innovation and maintenance communication than for pro-
duction communication. A greater ratio of subordinate to supervisory
initiation of communication in SP as compared to NSP organizations was
hypothesized. It was also predicted that there would be greater satis-
faction with communication in SP than NSP organizations.

Multivariate analysis of variance was used. Two hundred and
sixty one employees of 4 medium size Midwest furniture plants were
used in the investigation. Two of the plants were SP and two were NSP.

A questionnaire employing a pseudo-sociometric approach was used.
Subjects were grouped into supervisor and non-supervisor subgroups so
that the direction of communication could be investigated.

A significant multivariate Groups main effect(SP/NSP) was ob-
tained in the supervisory subgroup analysis. Inspection of the uni-
variates yielded significant F-ratios for the production and maintenance
communication variables. Means on these variables were higher for the
NSP group. A significant Groups main effect for direction of communication
was found in both subgroup analyses. In both cases all 4 univariates
were significant. In addition. the Groups x Direction interaction was
significant in the non-supervisory subgroup analysis. Post-hoe compari-
sons yielded several significant contrasts with the Direction main
effect and the Direction X Groups interaction. The hypothesis concerning
the magnitude of differences in frequency of communicationuwas not

confirmed. Communication satisfaction was found to be greater in the

Alan L. Siegel
SP group.
Alternative explanations for these results were discussed and
recommendations for future research in organizational communication

were suggested.

A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION OF

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

BY

I ( (”Ah-CV

0'“.
Alan L. Siegel

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1975

‘IIII. b

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several individual have made contributions to this thesis.
Dr. Gene Jacobson was a source of tremendous help in clarifying
and refining the theoretical framework. His own research was a
foundation from which much of the thesis was developed. Dr. Frank
Schmidt provided invaluable assistance on methodological and
design issues. When my ship began to waiver from the most appro-
priate course of analysis he was there to help me steer in the
right direction. A thesis can not be built upon theory alone. Any
competence and understanding that I have in the area of measurement
I owe mostly to him. Dr. Jack Wakeley repeatedly raised questions
about the theory, analysis and style of the thesis. This has resulted
in a more logical and cohesive end product. His assistance was also
invaluable. This thesis could not have been written without the
encouragement and patience of my thesis Chairman and good friend,
Dr. Carl Frost. Throughout the frustrations of the journey he was
always understanding, encouraging and most of all very helpful.
Hopefully some small fraction of his love of his work, and his respect
for the dignity of the individual has rubbed off on me. Bob Carr,a
graduate student in the Department of Education, was not just another
graduate student. His knowledge of multivariate analysis and research
design and the mechanics of getting the computer to work were
unequaled. I sincerely appreciate every hour that he spent helping me,

and there were many.
ii

I would also like to thank the employees and management of the
companies that so kindly participated in this research effort. Without

their cooperation I would not be thanking anyone else today.

iii

.‘r

, LL [LI

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES... Vi

LIST OF FIGURES... Vii

INTRODUCTION... 1

PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION... 4

A. Studies Primarily Descriptive In Nature... 4

B. Studies Emphasizing Superior-Subordinate Communication... 9
C. Newer Sociometric Techniques in the Investigation of

Communication... 19

D. Effect of Communication on Other Organizational Variables... 21
IMPLICATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES FOR COMMUNICATION

PROCESSES... 28

INTRODUCTION To THE PROBLEM AREA... 38

A. Problem Area and Hypotheses... 4O

OPERATIONALIZING THE INVESTIGATION... 46

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITES... 52

A. Description of Company A... 54

B. Description of Company B... 60

C. Description of Company C... 65

D. Description of Company D... 74

METHODS... 78

A. Pre-Test... 78

l. Instruments-co 79

2. Subjects and Procedures... 80

B. Main Phase of the Research Investigation... 83

1. Subjects... 83

2. Instruments... 83

3. Procedure... 83

4. Data Coding... 84

5. Method of Data Reduction and Scoring... 86

iv

L ‘I i. I..[.[..[.{E£ ll

Page

VIII. RESULTS... 87
A. Analysis of Supervisory Subgroup... 87
B. Analysis of Non-Supervisory Subgroup... 90
C. Comparison of Production and Innovation Initiation
Among Employees of Scanlon and Non-Scanlon Organizations... 92
D. Comparison of Communication Satisfaction Among Employees
of Scanlon and Non-Scanlon Organizations... 92

IX. DISCUSSION...
A. Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing... 101

X. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH... 119
APPENDICES...

A. Interview Schedule for Comparability Data... 1213

B. Survey Instrument... 121d

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 122

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1.

Summary descriptions of companies participating in research
investigation

Multivariate analysis of variance of groups main effect (SP/NSP)

on 4 dependent measures of communication among supervisory
personnel in SP and NSP organizations

Multivariate analysis of variance of direction main effect on

4 dependent measures of communication among supervisory personnel

in SP and NSP organizations

Page

77

89

89

Multivariate analysis of variance of groups x direction interaction

on 4 dependent measures of communication among non-supervisory
personnel in SP and NSP organizations

Multivariate analysis of variance of direction main effect on 4
dependent measures of communication among non-supervisory
personnel in SP and NSP organizations

Multivariate analysis of variance of subordinate initiation of
communication among employees of SP and NSP organizations

Intercorrelations between measures used in the main phase of
the research investigation

Alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability,average

inter-item r, and average item—cluster r for scales used in the
pre-test phase and main phase of the research investigation

vi

91

91

94

99

100

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Total frequency of communication for each of 3 types
of communication, within 4 directions, for supervisory
personnel, collapsed across SP and NSP organizations

Number of communication contacts in each of 4 directions,
among supervisory personnel collapsed across SP and NSP
organizations

Total frequency of production communication toward 3
directions, among non-supervisory personnel in SP and NSP

organizations

Number of communication contacts in each of 3 directions
among non-supervisory personnel in SP and NSP organizations

vii

Page

95

96

97

98

~.‘

INTRODUCTION

The importance of communications in work organizations has
consistently been emphasized by scholars, practitioners and researchers.
As a topic, communications has been stressed in such diverse areas as
psychology, business management, sociology and the communicative arts.
The ubiquitousness of the term is illustrated by the almost generic
use of the phrase "communications problem" both within and outside
organizational confines.

Barnard's (1938) classic treatise was one of the first in a
long line of writings to emphasize communications. He stated that:

In an exhaustive theory of organization, communication would

occupy a central place, because the structure, extensiveness,

and scope of organization are almost entirely determined by
communication techniques.
Communication was viewed as central to his theory of authority,
which was perhaps the major contribution of his pioneering work.
The importance which he placed on communication is also evident in
his dictum which stated that: "the first executive function is to
develop and maintain a system of communication."

Since the appearance of Barnard's work, the same theme has

reappeared in the works of many other theorists. . .(Heron, 1942;

Pigors, 1949; Cook, 1951; Bavelas and Barrett, 1951; Davis, 1953;

Dorsey, 1957; Simon, 1957; Leavitt, 1958; Rothstein, 1958; March

I .0: ill. IIIETI“ TII ulbll‘.’

. .. (I ’.i. .II‘ III 511' ill! 5.!0II’I; .

and Simon, 1958; McGregor, 1960; Likert, 1961; Thompson, 1961;

Etzioni, 1961; Thayer, 1961; Walton, 1963; Katz and Kahn, 1966;

Hall, 1972). These writings indicate that there is little lack

of testimony to the importance of communication in organizations.

The "how to" and "avoiding pitfalls" publications constitute a

voluminous area of literature in themselves. Articles by cor-

porate presidents, managers, consultants, etc. fill the literature

with personal accounts of past, present and future communications

problems, and insights into possible therapeutic solutions.

Although there is some diversity in the content of the statements,

a common thread is the belief that communications is the vital

[linkage mechanism between "individual and individual, individual

and group, individual and activity, group and group, group and

activity, and activity and activity." (Scott and Mitchell, 1972).

Whether one agrees with the more extremist views regarding the

importance of communication, or takes a more moderate stand, it is

probably a safe assumption that communication processes are worthy

of investigation in an attempt to understand organizational behavior.
The purpose of the present research is to examine the effects of

different management styles and assumptions on organizational communication

practices. Specifically, are there differences in communication practices

between organizations with a management style that is participative

in nature and those with a non-participative style? The implications

of various organizational styles for communication practices will be

explored and hypotheses will then be generated. Part of this research

effort will be purely investigative in nature and tangential to the

testing of specific hypotheses. This second purpose reflects the

need for exploration in this area because of the scarcity Of empirical
research. For all of the attention and apparent enthusiasm the area
has generated, there is a disproportionately small amount of empirical
research compared to the infinite number of pages devoted to armchair
speculation. This next section will attempt to provide a comprehensive
review of the previous empirical studies purposely avoiding material in

the former categories.

II. PREVIOUS RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

 

Although it was not a part of its initial purpose, the studies at
the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric during the late 1920's and
1930's, served as an invaluable catalyst to future communications
research.In trying to determine the effects of working conditions on
employee efficiency, considerable information was obtained concerning
the social organization of employees and informal horizontal interaction.
Even though these studies cannot be considered communication studies
per se, they did usher in a tradition in which the value of communi-
cations has been emphasized and has led to much of the scarce research
which will be reviewed. These first studies reviewed have been clustered
together because they are the most descriptive in nature: They seem to
have little further intent than to provide a "photograph" of an
organization's communication practices. Their grouping merely reflects
this author's viewpoint, and the need to unravel the confusion by pro-
viding the reader with some systematic treatment of the literature. It
is probably reflective of the noticeable lack of theory in this area

which has hindered integration.

A. Studies Primarily Descriptive In Nature

 

Quite a few of the studies have essentially focused on delineating
just what communication activities take place in an organization. One of
the first was conducted by Burns (1954) in a British engineering factory.
Using a self-recording technique, his limited sample of 4 took note of
daily interactions during a 5 week period. Information on who initiated,
whom the communication was with, and whether it involved obtaining

4

IIIl'llllllll‘lllll‘IllIII

(II . .I.I I II

I I. TI 'III (III 'I‘. T (II

5
giving, systematizing or recording information was Obtained. Subjects
were found to both over and under estimate time spent on various
executive functions and to restrict communication within their de—
partment. A marked tendency was also noted for interaction to be
initiated downward and for discrepancies in subordinate perception of
what was being communicated by their superiors. Although Burns did
find out that 80% of the subjects time was spent in conversation,he
concluded that there was still inadequate answer to the questions
of what topics and with whom, executives spend their time.

Hinrichs (1964) also used a self-recording technique in which

232 subjects could indicate method of communication, topic of inter—
action, who participated and initiated and total time spent communicating.
Technical and supervisory personnel from 6 levels of a research and
development organization took part. The technique was slightly different
than the one cited above, in that random times were pre-selected for
the subjects to take note of what they were doing and record the data.
As Burns (1954) had found, communication constituted a large part of
the daily activities in an organization (61%). Oral communication was
a major component (35% company wide) of all communication activities.
Similar to the above study there were discrepancies between estimated
and recorded time allocation.

Wickesberg (1968) was interested in similar aspects of communication
behavior but in addition wanted to make comparisons between managerial
and non-managerial personnel. Ninety—one MBA students holding positions
in 35 organizations participated in the study. A self—recording technique
was utilized for a 5 day period. Type and content of communication was

logged along with amount of time and whom the interaction was with.

I'll

(III... I! I IIIIII

Results indicated that the informational purposes of communication consti-
tuted the highest frequency (54%) with instructional purposes (22%)

next. He reports that there was little difference in frequency Of
composition between manager and non-manager. There was also little
variation between the manager, non-manager groups in terms of direction
of communication flow analyzed by purpose of interaction. This finding

is not surprising since both groups had interactions with far more
members than traditional theory or organizational charts would suggest.

A communications "audit" was conducted by Odiorne (1954) in which
he also wanted to find out what communication processes were going on
in an organization. Specifically, he was interested in discovering the
accuracy and direction of communication within a particular organization
at a particular time. Discrepancies in response to questions administered
to top management and to research'engineers indicated that management
consistently overestimated the adequacy of information given to the
engineers. Most engineers felt that they had an inadequate opportunity
to express ideas because they lacked sufficient information about manage-
'ment‘s plans. They also felt that the channels of communication were in-
adequate.

This problem of adequacy of communications was attacked from a slight-
ly different perspective by Dahle (1954) in one of the few attempts to
objectively determine the effectiveness of different methods of communi-
cation. His experiment utilized college students, workers in a plant,
and employees of a service organization, in an attempt to compare communi-
cations. Analysis indicated that there were differences in effectiveness
of information transmission in all 3 situations. A combination of oral
and written communication was found to be most effective in all 3 samples.

Like many of the above studies the results are far from earth-shattering

.TIOIIIIIITIIII

7
but could be of practical importance.

Walton's (1959) research parallels the Dahle investigation in that
he too was interested in discovering effective means of communicating
downward to employees. The research site was a U.S.Naval Test Station.
Not surprisingly, the grapevine was found to be the speediest disseminator
of information, with supervisory communication ranking second. As in
the above studies, oral communication played a major role . In terms of
greatest overall effectiveness ( the meaning of which was left to the
respondent's interpretation) the station newspaper ranked first. The
author stated that this was probably due to the desire for "offical
communication" right from the top.

Goetzinger and Valentine (1963) used a "communications flowsheet"
which is a method similar to the Burns and Hinrichs techniques. Like
the previously discussed investigations, the main part of the study
was solely to find out what communications were taking place, this time
in an Air Defense Command Station. The far from startling results
were that conferences and telephone calls consitituted 39% and 19%
respectively of the channels utilized. In regard to direction of flow,
37% of the interactions were upward and 26% lateral.

Similar to the above study in its simplicity but containing
slightly more theoretical perspective was a study by Wade (1968). Data
were collected in S divisions of the U.S. Bureau of Budget using a
sample of 61. Wade hypothesized that high levels Of personal activity
in an organization communications net would be positively related to
high level of involvement in other organizational communication nets.
This hypothesis merits attention until it is found that it was opera-

tionalized in such a simplistic manner. The author looked at the

8
relationship between receiving telephone calls and initiating calls. It
was also hypothesized that a high level of personal involvement in
communication nets is associated with effective job performance. Both
of these propositions received support.

Simpson (1959) was interested in verifying the frequently asserted
proposition that work related communication is more vertical than
horizontal. Using an unreported number of supervisors in a textile mill
he Obtained data on the frequency of contact between all pairs of
supervisors. His obtained results were compared to "expected" pro-
portions of vertical and horizontal interactions to determine if the
distribution conformed to chance expectancies. The results could not be
cited as either confirming or negating the hypothesis. Simpson found that
the communications were mainly horizontal but that this was an artifact
of the mechanized nature of the work environment.

Davis' (1953) study fits in with the essentially descriptive
nature of all the above studies. It was unique in that its focus was
primarily the informal communication system or grapevine of an organi-
zation. In addition, Davis pioneered in the use of a research technique
which he termed ECCO analysis.

Briefly, the basic approach was to learn from each

communication recipient how he first received a given

piece of information and then to trace it back to its

source... And when the data from all the recipients

was assembled, the pattern of the flow of communication

emerged (1953)

It was found that the grapevine was fast, selective, location specific
(work) and tended to be jointly active or inactive with the formal
system. The predominant communication flow was downward or horizontal.

The identification of liasons and isolates, which was to become a major

focus of later research, was also accomplished.

8. Studies Emphasizing Superior-Subordinate Communication

The bulk of the communications research literature is concerned
with elements of hierarchical communication. Superior-subordinate
communication, whether focusing on upward, downward, one-way or two-
way processes is at the heart of most of the studies to be reviewed
below. It bears repeating that much of this emphasis possibly stems
fron the Western Electric studies which gave rise to a human relations
tradition that still has its hold on many facets Of industrial and
organizational psychology and practitioners of management theory.

The importance of accuracy and "openess" in communication to this
theoretical perspective is documented by the output of studies
in this area and the theory which will be discussed at a later point.

One of the most ambitious investigations of superior-subordinate
communication practices was conducted by a Maier led University of
Michigan research team for the American Management Association (1961).
Using patterned depth interviews, data from 58 superior-subordinate
pairs in 5 companies were analyzed. All superiors held high middle-
management positions and selected the subordinate half of the pair

themselves. The investigators were interested in the percent of

 

aggreement-disagreement among the pairs on issues such as job duties,
job requirements, anticipated job changes, and Obstacles to performance.
In other words, could the superiors accurately identify and rank order

the statements about these areas of the subordinates job, when compared

 

to the actual responses of the subordinates. Three raters, using

10

developed rating guidelines, took part in a content analytic approach
to determining degree of agreement. Results were far from encouraging.
Of the 4 areas, the only one in which there was even moderate agreement
was job duties. Eighty-five percent agreed on half or more of the job
duties comprising the subordinates job. For each of the other categories
agreement was lower. In summary, superiors disagreed with subordinates
as often or more Often than they agreed in almost 75% Of the cases.
Even in the area of job duties in which agreement was moderate, there
is no assurance that this indicated very much about actual communica-
tion. The results could have been due to mutual but independent
knowledge of the job description. To add to the negativism of this
finding was the fact that there was not much variance in agreement
from company to company. An analysis of variance was performed to
see if there were any significant differences among the companies
in any of the 4 job areas. All F's were non-significant. This
inescapable fact of vast perceptual differences in superior-subordinate
pairs will be mirrored throughout the literature.

Likert (1961; 1967) further substantiates the above findings.
He states that his data overwhelmingly indicates the communications
problems which management itself is aware of. He reports that 4 of
5 managers state that downward communication is the greatest concern
they have. The inadequacies of both upward and downward communication
are cited. A research study conducted in 1951 indicated that there
was a serious discrepancy between superior—subordinate perceptions
of what is reasonable production. His data shows that there were also

marked discrepancies as to how well the communication processes were

11

being performed. Likert also reports a total lack of understanding
between superior-subordinate concerning job obstacles. This is in
agreement with the Maier results.

A study by Boyd and Jensen (1972) also echoed these findings.
It attempted to determine if differences exist in the perception
of first-level manager authority as viewed by the incumbent and his
immediate supervisor. The investigation was carried out in a
randomly sampled group of 989 Midwest companies employing 50 or more
people. The most critical finding was that, on the average, there
was a 50-50 chance of first and second level manager disagreement over
the 39 items tapped. The first level manager either consistently
under or overestimated his authority. The authors concluded that the
superior ineffectively communicates to his subordinate and that there
is little if any information seeking for purposes of clarification.

Blau and Scott (1962) also discovered elements of the vertical
communications problem in their investigations of a federal law
enforcement agency. If the agents, who were free to arrive at their
own decisions, encountered problems they were expected to confer with
supervisory personnel. However, the authors report that agents
were reluctant to go to a supervisor since this would reveal their
ignorance and possibly have a negative effect on their evaluations.
Consultation among peers became the tolerated procedure. Similar
results have been obtained by Zaleznik (1956) and Argyris (1953).
In a separate study Blau (1962) also reports how Operating directives
became distorted as they filtered from high to low levels of the

hierarchy.

12

Davis (1968) investigated whether high level managers passed
information down through the chain of command when they were told
to do so. An additional feature was a comparison of oral and written
communication of different kinds of information. Using his ECCO
analysis for two groups of 60 managers each, he found that communication
began to deteriorate at the third level (level 5 was lowest level).

All received the information but few passed it on. This downward
filtering has been reported earlier by Blau (1962) and Sanborn (1961).
Use of the two different types of information, production oriented
and personal oriented, indicated that what does get through the
hierarchy depends on content.

In one of the more sophisticated studies in this area, Berkowitz
and Bennis (1961) dealt with the interaction within and across hierarchical
levels of nurses in an out-patient department. Respondents indicated
superiors, peers and subordinates with whom they frequently interacted.
Who initiated the interaction, and the content (which has not been a
focal point in many studies) were also noted. T-tests and ANOVA were
used to analyze the data. The results generally indicated that there
was an inverse relationship between both frequency and self-initiation,
and the hierarchical level of the other person. Initiation typically
goes from superior-subordinate (F = 9.77). Data also indicated
that it isn't that people don't communicate across levels, but "rather
they are more apt to transmit certain types of content, determined by
the nature of organizational lines to be crossed" (1961). Communication
across hierarchiacal levels was concluded to be subject to a filtering

action as though it were passing through a semi-permeable membrane.

13

Organizational content tended to go upward rather than sideward or
downward. Interpersonal content tended to go sideward (peers) rather
than in any other direction. The data on task content indicated that
it tends to flow upwards and sideward leading to the conclusion
that all communication is restricted downward. However, the reliability
and validity of the task data were seriously questioned by the authors.
The importance of the interaction was perceived differently depending
upon the position of the other person. Interactions with superiors
were judged of most importance (F = 3.28). Those with subordinates
were less satisfying than interactions with peers (F = 9.06). As
the authors conclude, these results "seem to highlight an inherent
problem of organizational life" (1961). Initiations with superiors
are perceived as most important and satisfying but are the least likely
to be self-initiated.

Lawler, et a1. (1968) conducted an investigation in the area
of superior-subordinate communication. His study tried to gather data
that could provide a link between managerial attitudes and behavior
episodes. A sample consisting of 105 middle and lower level managers
from five organizations filled out self-recording forms at the conclusion
of each behavioral episode. This was done for a five day period. Type
of contact (letter, phone, etc.), activity (production, finance),
position of interactor initiator, purpose, and attitude toward episode
were obtained. The data showed a fairly even balance of initiation
between self and other (55%, 42%) with few interactions perceived
as being jointly initiated. As expected there was a general tendency

for self-initiated contacts to be more positively evaluated than other

NI! II . IA-.I.\ll-\.[:IIII\TA\II\I{ (It- [III (III. II.‘ Ill-I'll A I.

I III! I!..|.. II I...

II [I It'll! .II

l4

initiated. It was also shown that managers feel more positive about
contacts with their superiors than with their subordinates. The
conclusion drawn should be of great interest to management. The superiors
least valued interactions are those in which a subordinate comes to him.
It is probable, as the authors indicate, that the superior communicates
these reactions to his subordinates. Therefore, it may not be too

long before the subordinate learns to reduce initiation of this type

of interaction.

There have been quite a few other studies which have dealt
with this same hierarchical communication issue, but included
additional variables in an attempt to refine the problem. One of
the most frequent treatments deals with hierarchical communication
in terms of social status. The "substitute locomotion" theory
has had an influence on quite a number of studies. Briefly this states
that individuals derive vicarious status elevation by association
with superiors. This striving for upward communication may be a
substitute for actual locomotion when it is impossible.

Kelley (1951) was one of the first to investigate this problem,
being interested in the forces that act upon communication in status
hierarchies. A sample of 118 college students were utilized in an
investigation which focused on written communication. Subjects were
placed into High and Low status groups with and without the possibility
(expectation) of locomotion. Various instructions were administered
to produce the differential perceptions in the treatment conditions.
The author reported that there was evidence of a status differential

having been produced, but no data about the mobility or locomotion

15

manipulation was obtained. The written output of the group in performing
their task was categorized into relevant and irrelevant content.
Results indicated that the more unpleasant the hierarchical position,
the stronger the forces to communicate task irrelevant content.
Kelley proposed that irrelevancy provides an escape from an unpleasant
position. The addition of high mobility to low status decreased
unpleasantness of the position while low mobility and high status
increased it. The data generally indicated that communication can
serve as a substitute for upward locomotion but this occurred only
for low mobiles who had the desire to move up. The hierarchy tended
to produce forces which restrain the communication of criticism
against people of other levels. However, high status allows an individual
greater freedom to express these criticisms. It should be noted that
this study only dealt with written communication and in addition the
type of task may also severely lessen the generalizability of the
findings. Regardless of these qualifiers, the study did spur
additional investigations.

Cohen (1958) contributed another laboratory study which added
a power variable to that of status in an attempt to clarify the
differences between the two low status groups. He offered an
"instrumental theory" of upward communication. This essentially
states that a power definition of hierarchical rank creates a
functional dependence of lows upon highs. Therefore, the lows behave
toward the highs in the interest of need satisfaction and "not merely
in their attempts to approximate status in either fantasy or wish

fulfillment" (1958). This leads to the predictions that a low group

16

for whom upward mobility is possible will make considerable efforts

to produce good relations with highs; however where upward mobility is
not probable, these efforts will be less intense. Two groups of college
students each were utilized in the study. As in the Kelley (1951)
investigation the messages written by the subjects constituted

the data. Results indicated that the low mobiles were more concerned
with task centered communication to the upper levels than were the

low non-mobiles. The low mobiles appeared to be behaving in a manner
more conducive to their being rated favorably by the highs. Non-
mobiles were more critical of highs, and a good deal of their communication
was devoted to irrelevant comments. These findings were considered

to be consistent with the researcher's propositions.

In a further refinement of the Kelley (1951), Cohen (1958)
research, Read (1962) focused on the attitudes and motives of sub-
ordinates as these effect the accuracy of upward communication.

The major hypothesis was that a negative relationship exists between
upward mobility and accuracy. Going a step further, Read proposed

that the subordinate's interpersonal trust of his superior and the
subordinate's perception of his superior's influence over his career,
modify the relationship; the negative relationship between mobility

and accuracy is greater when interpersonal trust is low and the perceived
influence is high. Unlike the Kelley (1951) and Cohen (1958) studies,
this was a field investigation. Fifty-two third-level supervisors and
their corresponding subondinates were sampled from three major industrial
organizations. One unit from each company was used. Accuracy was

operationalized as the degree of superior-subordinate agreement about

I‘ll. .lllllll‘. .l‘tr. [Eit.l(arllt[f {I'll-I“ T T I. III I I

l7

subordinate problems. Three parallel but independent measures of
mobility were used - mobility need, work-life and inter-generational
mobility. Two, four item Likert type scales, with questionable inter-
item correlations (-.07 to .68), were used to measure trust and influence.
Two of three r's between accuracy and the measures of mobility were
significant (-.38, -.41). To test the moderators the distributions
of these scores on the conditioning variables were dichotomized into
high and low. Results indicated that the accuracy-mobility relation-
shop was significantly moderated by trust but the difference between
groups on influence was non-significant. There was less communication
under the joint low trust, high influence condition. As in the other
studies, these results generally support small group research (Festinger,
1950; Kelley, 1951, Thibaut, 1950; Back, 1950). These studies have all
found that individuals in hierarchies tend to screen information
passed upward and filter that which is potentially threatening to
the communicator's status. As Read (1962) suggests, the results
indicate that free and accurate communication exchange may depend
significantly upon harmonious relationships between organizational
members.

Another study which utilized the variable of interpersonal
trust was conducted by Mellinger (1956). His position was similar
in that he felt an individual is likely to distort hiscnui attitudes
in communicating them to people that he distrusts. The principal goal
of interaction with a distrusted person therefore becomes the reduction
of one's anxiety - not accurate communication. Data was collected in

a government research organization. Interpersonal trust was measured by

18

a three item scale, with accuracy based on A's estimate of 8's answers
to questions. The major hypothesis was that for those B's that trust

A, A's estimates should be more accurate than in the case of 8'5

with whom there was no communication. In addition there will be few
cases in which A drastically over or underestimates agreement. However,
in the case of B's who distrust A: communication does not increase
accuracy, because the communication is probably inaccurate. Findings
supported the prediction that if B distrusts A and is motivated to
interact with him, the communications will conceal attitudes toward

an issue. In other words, communication was associated with increasing
accuracy only under conditions of B's trust of A.

The studies cited all point to the difficulties involved in
hierarchical communication — particularly in regard to superior-
subordinate relationships. There seems to be the implication that the
"climate" in which the interaction takes place may be an important

variable.

19

C. Newer Sociometric Techniques in the Investigation of Communication

Several of the most recent studies have grown out of the re-
cognition, previously mentioned, that there is often a discrepancy
between the actual flow of communication and what the organization chart
would imply. Extensive use has been made of a methodology which attempts
to circumvent this problem.

The basic idea stems from research advanced by Jacobson and
Seashore(l951), Weiss and Jacobson (1955) and Weiss (1956). As
Jacobson and Seashore stated:

The communication structure is seen as existing in the patterns

of actual contacts which occur among individuals in the

organization, and in the patterns of contacts among sub—groups

that are established by the inter—individual contacts.

Relationships implied in such patterns of contact may be different

from the relationships specified by the formal organization,

and they are susceptible to measurement without reference

to the formal charts.(l951)

Using a sociometric procedure, a Personal Contact Checklist obtained
information concerning interaction in the organization without regard to
formal role prescriptions. The authors stressed how these techniques

could be useful in identifying subgroups, key elements in the organization
such as liaison individuals, perceived status differentials and the
location of power in the system. Essentially, a differentiated typology

of a communication structure could be obtained.

This idea of key individuals in the communication structure was
investigated by Walton (1963) in testing his "magnetic theory of
organization communication". His assertion was that communication net-
works are dominated by a number of magnetic centers which draw messages
onto themselves. Using a questionnaire and communications log with his
sample of 30 employees, he was able to identify "centrals" and peripherals.

He hypothesized that the former would be higher on measures of authority

power, expertise, sociability and satisfaction. Only the influence or

I

20
power hypothesis was confirmed.

Direct extension of this work has been conducted by Schwartz
(1968), MacDonald (1970), Jain (1970) and Amend (1971). As an outgrowth
of the earlier Jacobson works, these studies have all attempted to
provide a generic communication structure; a picture of the extant
communication networks based on analogues in graph theory. A two step
approach has been used in which first the extant structure is mapped,
enabling one to locate any individual in the organization "from his set
of previous message transaction linkages with other members..."
(Schwartz, 1968). Next, the meaning of the individual's location can
be determined. Schwartz (1968) in his comparison of liaison and non-
liaison individuals, found that the former's contacts in the organization
were greater, more structurally diverse and more important. Liaisons
were also perceived to be more influential in the power structure.

MacDonald (1970) logically extended the above research by inves-
tigating the concept across content-functional areas. Berlo's cat-
egorization of production, innovation and maintenance functions was
used. It was found that the number of liaison individuals was greater
in the production network. Non-liaisons perceived liaisons as having
more communication contacts, greater influence, more production and
non-production information and higher potential message flow control.
Aside from the descriptive knowledge gained from the above works, a
major contribution stems from the development of computer techniques.
These have greatly extended the feasibility and practicality Of the
use of earlier described sociometric methods to large scale organiza-

tions and social systems.

21

D. Effect of Communication on Other Organizational Variables

 

None of the studies previously reviewed has focused primarily
on the effects of various communication variables on other organizational
factors. As McCroskey (1971) states:

Thousands of isolated attitudes and opinions concerning

communications and organizational performance have been

gathered from business executives. The term "isolated" refers

to the absence of any attempt to relate the attitude to other

measures of performance of behavior.
While there are undoubtedly many studies in the organizational
psychology, management literature which have included communication
items on questionnaires, there are relatively few which have made their
consequences the primary emphasis.

Likert's (1961; 1967) work is probably the most extensive,
while not being exclusively devoted to this area. Throughout his
works he states that evidence confirms that "good communications
and high performance go together" (1961). The accuracy of perceptions,
and ease of transmitting ideas upward were both found to be associated
with measures of departmental effectiveness. It was also reported that
high producing managers have more favorable attitudes and better
communications in their unitstjuni do low producers. From the items
used in his questionnaire it can be inferred that the ambiguous label
"better" communications refers to direction, amount, adequacy, and
accuracy of the communication processes in the organization.

Tacey's (1960) work is similar to Likert's in that he also
focuses on the practices of ineffective and effective employee
foremen. The study is different from most of those reviewed in that it
takes advantage of the critical incidents technique. Those in the

sample of 106 who were rated high in productivity had more favorable

attitudes toward communication and more self—confidence in being able

II {III III\II AI’A.{IL A.f\l\([ll‘l(lll\'ll(l\ll\r [I'll-{I‘ll}. 1" 1 III

 

22

to communicate. Similarly, Simons (1962) was able to identify communication
attitudes which would distinguish "successful" and "unsucessful"
supervisors.

Habbe (1951) conducted one of the only field experiments which
investigated the effects of changes in communication processes. He
was interested in the effects of the implementation of a two way
communication system. An experimental and control plant were used
with the chief difference that one plant had regular meetings with
employees and the other didn't. The experimental group reported
greater knowledge of what was going on in the company (present and
future), more interest in the company's annual report, greater identifi-
cation with the organization, and greater overall satisfaction with
the company.

In relation to the above investigation two laboratory studies
were conducted which focused on one-way versus two-way communication.
Leavitt and Mueller (1951) were concerned with the transmission of
information from A to B and how this is influenced by the return of
information from B to A. Using a series of geometric patterns to be
communicated, 80 students were divided into 4 feedback conditions. The
two most relevant for this discussion were a free feedback and a zero
feedback condition. The difference was in the ability to ask
questions, interrupt, etc. in only the former. The hypothesis was
that when a receiver is free to ask questions he can obtain a better
understanding of what the sender is trying to communicate. In addition
both should feel more confident about the accuracy of sending and
receiving. The findings supported these hypotheses.

A more recent investigation by Haney (1964) parallels the results

LI[.{[[A[[[[.(|Tllll.llr|rrll[T[-llltIlli.‘ll

23

reported above. Three hundred and ninety eight subjects were distributed
into 18 groups whose task was to reproduce a drawing communicated
verbally by the sender. Results indicated that bilateral communication
(free feedback) generated more accuracy, less frustration, more
recipient confidence, and more group willingness to act on the basis
of the information, than the unilateral condition. However, as mentioned
in connection with a prior study, the generalizability of these two
laboratory investigations which employed tasks unusual to-non-labaratory
settings, is seriously questioned.

Brown and Neitzel (1952) were concerned with the effects of
communication variables on morale. Utilizing 86 female employees
from 3 supervisory levels they studied the estimation and communication
of responsibility (R), authority (A), and delegation of authority (D1,.
The R,A, and D scales were borrowed from Stogdill's work. The subjects
estimated R,A, and D in relation to their position in the organization.
The authors hypothesized that a discrepancy in individual estimates
would be due to the communication effectiveness between levels and
to the degree to which management has clearly defined R and A for each
level. Disparity scores representing differences between an individual's
estimation of R, A, and D for oneself and one's superior or assistant's
estimate were used to measure the communication of these factors.
Morale was an index of supervisory attitudes toward company policies.
The correlation of .54 between morale and disparity score indicates that
closer agreement between supervisor and subordinate is associated
with higher supervisory morale.

Perry and Mahoney (1955) also investigated morale and communication
behavior. But the communication variable of interest was how much actual

knowledge employees had about company history, product, finances, work

24
rules, etc. Supervisory and non-supervisory and office personnel in
5 firms were interviewed. The index of morale was a 15 item form of
the Industrial Relations Center Triple Audit Attitude Scale. Only
3 of 28 R's (all in 1 firm) were statistically significant. There was
no support for the proposed relationship between how much an employee
knows about the company and employee's attitudes toward the organization.
These results probably should not be taken as indicative of a total
lack of relationship between the variables. It is probably a safe
assumption that content and style and not simply quantity of communication
affects attitudes.

One of the most recent investigations tackling "openness" in
communication and its effects was conducted by Burke and Wilcox (1969).
They wanted to see if different patterns and degrees of openness in
superior-subordinate communication would affect subordinate satisfaction.
The sample consisted of 323 female telephone Operators. It appears
that their operational definition of "openness" has not added any
clarity to the concept since they indexed the variable by simply
asking the following: "How free and Open are you in communicating your
feelings and ideas to your superior?" Three items tapping satisfaction
with company (inter-item r's ranged .29 - .57), 12 - satisfaction with
company (.07 - .69), and 8 - satisfaction with supervision (.12 - .68)
were used. Twenty-five different patterns (various combinations of
superior-subordinate responses on Likert type Scale) of openness
emerged from the data. Greater openness of either supervisor or
subordinate or both was related to greater subordinate satisfaction.

The greater disparity in the superior-subordinate openness, the less the

satisfaction.Perceived openness of supervision was positively related

| 1. 'Il [T [A I All llllllll'v‘ll’lllcllllfu‘ITIIfII .lf M [t.[{(![...[.}

25

to the stated openness of the subordinate to his superior. There-
fore, in general the results indicate that open communication is
beneficial to the organization, at least in regard to employee
attitudes.

Dealing more in the realm of employee behavior than attitude,
an ambitious project was undertaken by Berlo (1970). It was designed
to investigate communication practices and their relationship to
employee manpower-performance characteristics. The source of the data
was unstructured interviews with 125 supervisory and non-supervisory
personnel, and 600 structured interviews with a representative sample
of employees. Personnel information (turnover, attendence, performance
evaluation) was obtained 1 year later on 91% of the sample. It was
hoped that communications practices would differentiate employees
categorized as high or low on the'above variables. Employees who
left the organization were more likely to have had shorter conversations
with their lst level supervisors, and not to have received any communication
about why others had previously left the work group. Level of attendance
could also be distinguished by amount of contact with supervisors and
co-workers, and amount of information about the organization.
Performance evaluations in terms of salary increases were more frequent
when there was greater and more Open communication contact at the 1-2—3
step supervisory level. Supervisor interest in subordinate's work
and personal problems and subordinate participation in the organizational
information system also differentiated on this variable. NO data
was provided regarding the statistical significance of the differences,
which were reported in percentages. The authors blanket statement that
"there is a clear, consistent, positive relationship between superior-

subordinate communication practices and employee behavior," may not be

ll [rill {All A!!A[flll|ll'[(1[[[.lll.[ri.r‘l..[' T [(.IIIT‘AIIITIIIIITI

26

totally warranted.

Farace and Connelly (1971) also attempted to demonstrate
a relationship between employee attitudes and communication variables.
Using structured interviews with 379 non-supervisory personnel, they
investigated communication correlates of work satisfaction a la
Herzberg. Chi-square was used to test hypotheses of differences
between work satisfied and dissatisfied employees. Berlo's functional
categorization of communication content into production, maintenance
and innovation functions was employed. Work satisfied employees
reported rapid attention by superiors to work problems. However,
predictions regarding subordinate initiation of interaction and
perception of openness were not confirmed. In the area on innovation
communication, the two groups could be distinguished by their perception
about the satisfactoriness of information received about company plans
and policies. Maintenance communication also differentiated the
groups. Rapid attention to personal problems by supervisors, and sub-
ordinate's perceptions of supervisor's interest in personal problems
were the key variables.

Several conclusions can be reached from having reviewed the
literature: 1) Considering how much has been written about the importance
of communication there are relatively few research investigations
devoted to this area. 2) General agreement seems to exiSt about the
inherent problems of superior-subordinate communication in organizae
tional life. 3) Advances in application of computer techniques to
communication studies are being implemented and offer promise for
further development of the area. 4) There are virtually no studies
comparing communications practices across different organizations.

5) Point number 4 is probably a result of mostly atheoretical approaches

.\ I (I. .M' l‘ l l [I l t I! l M II I. [.1 .l ‘ ll

27

in the area of communications. There have been few serious attempts
to intergrate organizational theory and communication concepts.
It is these last two points which will be specifically addressed
in this research investigation.

The next two sections will be devoted to an attempt to more
fully integrate and link the field of organizational behavior with

communication concepts and practices.

III. IMPLICATIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL THEORIES FOR COMMUNICATION PROCESSES

Much of the literature review would lead one to infer that
communication processes influence many other processes in an
organization. Although not explicitly stated, communication has been
viewed for the most part as an independent variable determining other
processes in the social system. It seems just as likely that
communication processes themselves are greatly influenced by the
particular organization theory or management orientation espoused
by the leaders of the company. A cyclical effect may be created in
which communications in turn affect the climate of the organization.
Whether consciously thought out and verbalized or not, many of the day to
day decisions and standard operating procedures of an organization are
grounded in theories of the nature of man (Schein, 1971) and pre-
scriptions of how to organize. While many of the organization
theories do not explicitly deal with communications concepts and issues,
it is certain that each has direct implications and guidelines for
communications practices. There has not been much work devoted
to a systematic treatment of the similarities and contrasts in
communications processes contained within each of the prominent
theories. Farace and Russell (1971) present a concise exposition of
this t0pic. The following discussion borrows heavily from their work.

Weber's (1947) bureaucratic model has probably received ‘
greater attention and elicited more writing than any other organ-
izational theory. Weber viewed the world as becoming more and more
rationalized, and demystified. Correspondingly, a new rationalized,
mechanistic, and depersonalized form of organization was to follow -

a bureaucracy. It was to be the ideal form of organization, inducing
28

29
an impersonal and rational orientation toward tasks which is conducive
to efficient administration. The following characteristics described
by Weber (1946) are representative of a bureaucracy:

There is the principle of fixed and official jurisdictional

areas, which are generally ordered by rules. . .laws or

administrative regulations. Regular activities of the
organizational structure are distributed in a fixed manner

as official duties. Any and all authority required for the

discharge of these rules is stably distributed and also

delineated by rules. Methodical provision is made for
continuity in the fulfillment of these duties. The

organization is goverened by the principles of office hierarchy

and levels of graded authority. Thus, there exists an ordered

system of super and sub ordination in which high offices

supervise lower ones, and monocratic organization is the rule.
The above description refers to a condition in which a position
exists regardless of its incumbent. Office management is based upon
written documents. It follows general rules which are fairly stable
and exhaustive communication necessary for fostering inter-departmental
dependencies are not at all emphasized. In fact, the individual is
given no indication of where he fits into the larger organizational
picture. Of all the theories by which organizations could be governed,
the implications for restrictive, hierarchical communications are
greatest with this form.

While Weber's conceptualization ignored the informal organization,
this became the focus of more "human relations" oriented theory
stimulated by Mayo (1949) and Rothlisberger (1946). Their studies
brought the social factor to the attention of the industrial psychologist.
It became apparent that networks of informal relationships and groups
are frequently found in organizations and profoundly affect output
variables. According to Mayo 1) man's basic motivations are social in

nature; 2) management's use of controls and incentives are not nearly

as effective as the social forces which the peer group can bring to bear

30

on the individual. However, man will be responsive to management
to the extent that his supervision meets his social and acceptance
needs.

This picture of organizational life, including communication
practices, is vastly different from the previous bureaucratic model.
In contrast to the strict reliance on hierarchical communication,
there is a more direct emphasis placed on horizontal communication.
The minimization of formal rules and stress on interaction between
peers leads one to assume that there would be a heavier emphsis on oral
communication. The amount of communication would tend to be greater
with this model, with the largest share devoted to the socio-emotional
type. Messages dealing with production matters are limited and little
attention is given to communication dealing with new ideas and suggestions.
It is also expected that initiatiOn of communication would be considerable
at all levels with increased flexibility in linkages over the previous
model. While this discussion has stressed actual communication
behaviors, it is probable that differences would exist in attitudes
toward communication with the various models.

Of the participative-management theorists, McGregor (1960)
has probably achieved the most fame although he has not written
extensively. His Theory X, Theory Y dichotomy is founded in a slight
modification of Maslow's need hierarchy work. His major contribution
has consisted of well written criticisms of traditional organization
theory, and the elaboration of new concepts. His attack on traditional
theory begins in deemphasizing the critical importance of authority
as a means of social influence. Most of the key principles of
organization such as span of control, line and staff, and unity of

command are based on the central importance of authority. This emphasis

31
serves to focus attention on upward dependence-dependence of subordinates
on superiors. It slights downward dependence and lateral dependence.
This condition is in stark contrast to the real need for interdependence.
Not only are subordinates dependent upon those above them in
the organization for satisfying their needs and achieving their
goals, but managers at every level are dependent upon all those
below them for achieving both their own and organizational goals
(1960).
As Mayo had done, McGregor summarizes the basis of his theory in a
series of assumptions (Theory Y) regarding human nature. The following
are most relevant to this discussion: 1) The average individual learns
under proper conditions not only to accept but to seek responsibility.;
2) The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination,
ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organizational problems
is widely, not narrowly distributed in the population.; and 3) Under
the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities
of the average individual are only partially utilized.
The principle of integration, by which ngh_the individual's
and organization's goals are achieved derives from this Theory Y.
It results as a consequence of a managerial point of view which includes
confidence in subordinate potentialities, awareness of management's
downward dependence, and creation of conditions under which people can
influence decisions affecting them. The importance of the climate of
the superior-subordinate relations is emphasized. Subordinate confidence
in the integrity Of the superior and confidence downward, become
important elements in the establishment of this climate. In discussing
the application of Theory Y, McGregor (1960) refers to management by
objectives under which the superior's role is markedly different from

the conventional boss stereotype. The bulk of the responsibility during

the' process is assumed by the subordinate. The superior Offers advice

32

and information but does not direct and control in the usual sense.

The focus is undoubtedly on the individual, his self—direction
and resultant self-actualization. As a result of this tendency to
steer away from external direction one could expect a minimum Of
formal rules and written messages. As in the above model the emphasis
would lean towards oral communication. However, unlike Mayo's model,
peer or horizontal communication is not stressed. Independent effort
is idealized with the consequence being a limited volume of communication.
The idea that most communication will be initiated by subordinates
seems integral to this philosophy. Equal weight is given to messages
from all members of the hierarchy with directionality for messages
therefore well balanced and interaction patterns flexible. In terms
of functional use of messages, there is probably a balance here also,
since innovative content is advocated really for the first time.

As previously pointed out, Likert's (1961, 1967) writings are
the most empirically based of the participative management theorists.
With his "science-based" system of management he is able to differentiate
4 systems of management, empirically as well as theoretically. Stated
briefly, as an organization moves from system 1 (exploitive authoritative)
to system 4 (participative group) it begins to more closely resemble the
ideal. The key concept in the system 4 approach is the utilization
of a group system of organization. Group linkage and functional
interdependence are of critical importance. Under a system 4 philosophy
the following conditions and climate would be strived for:
1) high confidence and trust by superiors in their subordinates
2) subordinate perception of being able to freely discuss work

related matters

3) seeking and implementing of subordinate's ideas and suggestions

4) high level of communication with groups and individuals
5) multi-directionality of communication - up, down, across

33

6) freedom to question downward communication
7) motivation to accurately communicate
8) interdependence and cooperative behavior across the organization
Because he stresses the importance of communication to an organization,
the implications for communication practices are more explicit than in
any of the previous theories. The value of cross—organization
communication comparisons also becomes more evident. There is an
absence of formal rules with a bias toward oral communication. The
high amount of communication would be manifested in all directions.
Superiors would be eager to solicit information from subordinates,
with initiation symmetrical. Although production messages might dominate,
there would also tend to be a high amount of maintenance and innovative
messages. A group hierarchy is maintained but the general climate
of freedom of control would presume a moderate amount of pattern
flexibility. It is quite obvious that this system 4 approach is on
the opposite end of the continuum from the bureaucratic model initially
discussed.

It is clear that each of these organizational theories has different
implications in terms of communications practices. As pointed out,
the comparison is perhaps most clear when looking at the bureaucratic
model (Weber) vs. the human relations model (Argyris, Likert & McGregor).
One of the most novel attempts to take the latter participative-
oriented models from the realm of theory to practice has been the
Scanlon Plan. The next section will briefly describe the Plan in
terms of its philosophy and structural mechanisms. Its implications
for communications practices will also be discussed.

Description of the Scanlon Plan

 

McGregor (1960) may have most aptly summed up the Scanlon Plan

with his statement that: "The Scanlon Plan is not a formula, a program,

34

or a set of procedures. It is a way of industrial life - a philosophy
of management. . ." Without attempting to proselytize, it can be stated
that there are many factors which differentiate a Scanlon Plan from
other cost reduction plans.

While the cost-reduction sharing mechanism is a basic part of the
Plan it is only one of its three basic features. The other elements
are a philosophy of participation and cooperation, and utilization
of a system-wide suggestion system. We will examine the features in
that order.

The cost-reduction aspect of the Plan provides for employees
to share in any improvements in the ratio between total labor costs
and sales value Of production. A distinguishing feature of the scheme
is that factors irrelevant to employee efforts are not integral to the
measurement. This allows employees to see the direct connection
between their behavior and organizational achievement. These increases
in production or savings in labor costs are paid to the employees in
the form of monthly bonuses. The bonus is designed to emphasize to
both labor and management, the variables that are critical to
organizational productivity. As Puckett (1958) states, the formula
can therefore have both reinforcing and educational value if its
purpose is really understood.

Merely understanding the cause makes it much easier than when

the worker thought all adversity started with a bum decision

by management. . . What better education can the worker get

than by living, feeling, and working with the most basic problems

of the particular enterprise of which they are a part.

Before installing the Plan the company attempts to determine

the normal labor costs. This information is then used as part of

the ratio that is calculated. The formula that is used is not a set,

35

predetermined guideline that follows adoption of every Plan. Each
company determines its own formula and the factors that are reflected
inpit.

The second feature of the Scanlon Plan is of greater concern
to this discussion and research. Greater participation and cooperation
by all members of the organization is one of the ultimate goals of the
Plan. Its philosophical orientation espouses a change in the power
structure of the organization. This is manifested in attempts to
increase participation by rank and file employees in organizational
decisions, and decrease the usual emphasis on hierarchical authority.
All of the above changes are based on the belief that the rank and file
members of the organization have valuable inputs to make and that when
the proper conditions exist they will share this information with
management. But this is not a one—way exchange. Management also has
a great deal of information which if shared with all employees gives
them the means to collaborate. The worker is seen as a valuable
resource that is instrumental in achieving the system's goals and
affecting the bonus. As Whyte (1955) states, the philosophy of teamwork
which the Plan tries to develop is implemented via "1) a social
process whereby suggestions for productivity improvements can be made
and carried out; and 2) a formula for sharing the fruits of productivity
improvement on a plant-wide basis." This second feature of the Plan is
interwoven with the third element - the suggestion system.

The suggestion system is an integral part of the Plan by which
employees can communicate and participate in organizational processes.
The formal mechanisms established for transmission of suggestions is

intended to reduce secrecy and dysfunctional competitive behavior

36

that is often the norm in traditional organizations. The individual
is encouraged to develop and improve ideas with the help of others in
the organization. Cooperation is made feasible since the goal is
total organizational effectiveness. As Strauss and Sayles (1957)
remark:

This suggestion system is the communication scheme which makes

the Plan work...it should result in an unleashing of hidden

ideas and energies and a transformation of the factory from a

system of bureaucratic-hierarchical control to a system of

democratic teamwork and cooperation.
McGregor(l960) adds that the economic gains are shared, but the
social and ego satisfactions are the employee's alone.

The transformation of the ideas and suggestions into action
is accomplished through the use of Production and Screening committees.
These committees are also integral to the second element of the Plan
in that they provide a mechanism fOr increased participation and coopera-
tion. Although there is no rigid format and these structures may vary
from company to company, it is typical for Production committees to
be established in every department throughout the organization.
Representatives from both labor and management are included. They are
structured such that the foremen and peer elected representatives from
each functional department meet to discuss means to increase department
efficiency. Anything which might pertain to the departmental work can be
discussed if it does not involve a substantial monetary expense or is
likely to affect the work flow or procedures of other departments. If
the suggestion falls into either of these last categories it is
referred to the Screening committee. The Screening committee is

established at a higher level, composed of an equal number of

[IAllll‘llT‘T-ulll‘ll III
.I\ . . I

 

37
representatives selected from Production committee representatives
and representatives from top management. It is this body's function to
review the bonus level, transmit such information to the employees
and review and decide upon submitted suggestions. Complete information
is to be available regarding exactly what factors determine the current
bonus level. The meetings also allow for an exchange of information
regarding what areas can be focused on to improve individual and
departmental productivity.

What has been emphasized in the discussion is the develOpment of
an organizational climate in which the interdependent nature of the
organization is recognized. The key elements of the Scanlon Plan
are built on this idea and help to reinforce it. In addition, the
worth of the individual to himself and the organization is stressed.
Each individual is accepted for the ingenuity and know how he brings
to the system. Thus, a degree of confidence downward can be generated
as the managers realize this human resource potential. As Lesieur
states:

This means that this (the best department) is a department

where the people are not afraid to speak up. They are not

afraid to participate and to say just how their job might

be done easier and better. The old idea of the boss doing all
the thinking and the employees just doing the work is dead.

IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM AREA

The previous discussion has attempted to build a rationale
based mostly on theoretical grounds,for the investigation of
communication practices under different organizational systems.
As emphasized, these stated differences in communication under the
different organizational theories have not been generated from
empirical research. The area is fertile for data-based investigations
of these differences. Likert(l96l,l967) is one of the few theorists
whose work has even tended in this direction. His data provides profiles
of various organizations, ranging from system 1 to system 4, on
many different variables including communications. However, this
research has not been focused exclusively on communication variables
and depth of information has been sacrificed. The literature has in-
dicated that studies comparing communication practices between
organizations are essentially non-existent. Comparative organizational
studies are rare in general. But the problem inherent in such investi-
gations should not deter or devalue further attempts at this type of
research. An additional problem cited in the review was the atheoretical
nature of communications research. Research looking at differences in
communication variables under various "types" of organizations would
not be solely descriptive in nature as most of the previous studies
have been. This type of research would start from a somewhat more
theoretical ground-work leading the investigator to expect particular
differences in communication variables. It would also serve to integrate
the fields of organizational behavior and communications to a greater
extent than has been done in the past.

The problem of locating organizations to serve as research sites

38

39

and then defining what organization theory they are operating under

is simple in the abstract and frustrating in reality. How does one go
about differentiating organizations in terms of the variables discussed
in the last section? The Scanlon Plan was described because it offers
a concrete, functional application of one of the theoretical orientations
discussed. In theory it helps us to identify an organization which is
attempting a "more participative-oriented" approach to management

and organizational design. It has been pointed out that the Scanlon
Plan operates on assumptions which may be totally foreign to companies
which do not have the Plan or similar participative mechanisms. If

we can find companies that subscribe to the Plans tenets and utilize

its mechanisms for increasing participation and communication, and
companies that do not have the Plan or a similar participative
orientation, we might expect to find the differences in communication
previously alluded to. This is the purpose of the present study — to
bring this area further into the realm of empirical investigation.

It will attempt to determine if differences in communication variables
do exist between traditional, non participarive-oriented organizations,
and more participative-oriented companies such as those having a Scanlon
Plan. Most of the hypothesized differences in communication variables
stem from three sources: 1) the writings of "human relations" (PDM)
theorists;2) writings of individuals closely involved with the
implementation and maintenance of participative-oriented plans such

as the Scanlon Plan; and 3) intuitive assumptions based on understanding
of what advocates of the Plan are attempting to accomplish. A more
detailed examination of the problem area and hypotheses are presented

in the next section.

40

Problem Area and Hypotheses

Previous investigations have yielded data regarding overall
amounts of communication, and have provided some useful information.
However, these studies have not gone far enough in trying to determine
particular uses of communication in organizations. Distinctions have
been made between formal and informal communication with functional
differences an implicit assumption. But explicit breakdowns of
communications into content areas has been more a theoretical than
empirical concern. If information concerning the amounts of each of
these specific functional types of communication could be obtained, the
usefulness of such data would be greatly increased. The data could
be a source of content-specific suggestions on how to "improve
communications" in particular organizations.

Berlo's (1970) categorization in which he distinguishes between
three functional types of communication can provide a useful starting
point for an examination of these differences. He differentiates
between production, manintenance, and innovation communication. His
schema is useful due to its simplistic but yet fairly inclusive nature.
The production function refers to the use of communication in providing
an instructional pattern. As Berlo (1970) states: "It's the use of
communication for control, for maximally efficient repetitive output
of the system." Messages that dictate amount and type of output,
agreement with designated specifications etc. are included in this
category. Also included are those communications which deal with any
work (production) problems. As such, most of these messages would
probably flow along pre-established authority and hierarchical lines.

Innovation messages are primarily concerned with a search for

41

new things to do and new ways to do things. This is in contrast to
production communication which focuses on on-going activities. The
concept of implementing formal suggestion systems in organizations
epitomizes this category. Innovation refers not only to the generation

of new behavior, but also to its subsequent implementation. It is
integrally related to employees having greater Opportunity to participate
in organization decisions and changes and making use of these new
opportunities. As a category it has been continually stressed by
theorists and practitioners who note its importance to continued

long term health of the organization.

Maintenance communication is different from the first two
categories in that it does not refer to communication for system outputs.
"It is communication designed to maintain the system as an ongoing
system and to maintain the human components of the system."(Berlo,l970)
Berlo discusses three subfunctions of maintenance communication:
maintenance of self-concept;maintenance of interpersonal relationships;
and maintenance of the production and innovation functions. A clear
distinction theoretically or empirically between these subcategories
is not apparent. Messages dealing with encouragement and recognition,
employee worth to the whole organization and those dealing with the
"consideration" end of the consideration-initiating structure paradigm
would seem to fall into this category. In essence this category
expresses the emphasis of the human relations, participative-oriented
management theorists of the last 15 years. It is concerned with the
worker as an individual, as a resource to himself and the organization.
This category emphasizes social-interpersonal factors not considered by

the more task or content oriented categories mentioned above.

42

The participative—oriented theories of organization echoed
by PDM theorists (McGregor, 1961; Likert, 1961; Argyris, 1964) have
emphasized the untapped value and worth of man to work organizations.
The employee has not been viewed or used as a resource to the fullest
extent possible. Human ingenuity has been wasted. Through greater
participation in the organization both the individual's need fulfillment
and organizational productivity can be enhanced. Suggestion systems, if
properly instituted, are seen as a viable mechanism for creating greater
employee input into the system. The emphasis on the suggestion
system as an integral part of the Scanlon Plan has already been discussed.
With this type of philosophy operating and the formal mechanisms which
the Plan has for suggestion transmittal, one could expect to find an
emphasis on innovation communication in such organizations.

These philosophies or theories of organization which have been
termed participative-oriented also place a great value on satisfactory
relationships within the organization. The role of the organization
in helping employees develop positive self-concepts, and appreciating
their worth to the whole organization, is a point often mentioned in
PDM literature and particularly in connection with the Scanlon
philosophy. Employees should receive encouragement and recognition
for jobs well done. They should also feel free to discuss "people
problems". People maintain the system, and it is this type of
communication which supports effective interrelationships among employees
so that the system can operate most efficiently. An emphasis on
maintenance communication in a system in which people are valued
highly would therefore seem to be a logical operationalization of

this type of organizational philosophy.

43

It is in the area of production communication that the expected
differences between participative-oriented organizations and less
participative oriented organizations are not as clear cut. It is
quite natural that production matters be discussed in any organization.
However, the emphasis on multi-directional communication in participative-
oriented organizations might serve to increase the total level of
production communication in such an organization.

Having discussed the rationale for expected differences in
communication practices, these can now be stated in hypothesis form.
The terms Scanlon Plan (SP) and Non-Scanlon Plan (NSP) are used below
for convenience. These labels may serve to indicate inherent differences
in operating policies and procedures between organizations. A detailed
description of the various organizations used as research sites will be
presented shortly so that similarities and contrasts between them can be
judged by the reader.
H1: The frequency of production communication will be greater among
employees in SP organizations than in NSP organizations.
H2: The frequency of innovation communication will be greater among
employees in SP organizations than in NSP organizations.
H3: The frequency of maintenance communication will be greater among
employees in SP organizations than in NSP organizations.
It should be noted that these differences in communication practices
between employees of the different organizations are stated to hold
regardless of the direction of communication investigated. Communication
was viewed as flowing in 4 possible directions: 1) toward supervisory
personnel;2) toward subordinates; 3) toward co-workers in the same
work group; and 4) toward workers in other departments.

Also of interest is the magnitude of these differences within

44
each of the three types of communication. Specifically, it is
hypothesized that:
H4: The magnitude of the difference in frequency of communication
between employees in SP and NSP organizations will be greater for
innovation and maintenance communication than for production
communication.

A reorganization of the power structure of the organization is a
key concept in PDM literature and in Scanlon Plan functioning. Increased
participation by rank and file members and decrease in hierarchical
control are operational signs of this change. The typical one-way
vertical flow of information which parallels the lines of organization
chart authority, is recognized to perform many, but not all functions
required for effective use of participative decision making teChniques
in an organization. Subordinates as well as supervisors have important
information and are a resource that can be of value in determining
departmental and system wide effectiveness. Participative theories
of management would suggest that in organizations in which participative
decision making has been achieved, there would be less of a tendency
for individual A to always initiate communication when interacting
with individual B. Initiation refers to who decides what is to be
discussed, when, and who comes to whom to do the discussing. In
essence, this variable indexes the degree to which the communication
relationship is dominated by either member of the dyad. Specifically,
a participative philosophy would not advocate a position in which
superiors always initiate communication with their subordinates. More
of a balanced symmetrical state would be sought in which each member

of the dyad initiates at different times depending on the situation.

With regard to this variable the
H5: The ratio of subordinate to
communication will be greater in
H6: The ratio of subordinate to
communication will be greater in
H7: The ratio of subordinate to

communication will be greater in

45

following hypotheses are introduced:
supervisory initiation of Production
SP than NSP organizations.
supervisory initiation of Innovation
SP than NSP organizations.
supervisory initiation of Maintenance

SP than NSP organizations.

It is also hypothesized that these dissimilarities in philosophy

and management of organizations will lead to differences in the degree

of satisfaction with communication in the company.

H8: There will be greater satisfaction with communications among

employees in SP than NSP organizations.

The theoretical material from which these hypotheses developed

does not warrant the stating of additional hypotheses regarding types

of communication, direction of communication and organizational

differences. However, it will be possible to investigate any interactive

effects of these variables in the course of this research. Much of

the research will therefore be exploratory in nature. This work may

be highly useful in yielding information about communication which has

been unobtainable to this time.

V. OPERATIONALIZING THE INVESTIGATION

Having defined the problem area and postulated specific
hypotheses, the next step was to Operationalize the variables. The
focus of the investigation was a comparison of the frequency of three
types of communication in participative-oriented and non-participative
oriented organizations. In addition there were two other variables
of interest,ratio of subordinate to supervisor initiation of communication,
and satisfaction with communication.

Berlo's typology of production, innovation and maintenance
communication was used because it seemed to be fairly exhaustive
and fitted in with the theoretical differences that were postulated.
It was one of the few typologies of communication that had already been
operationalized in research investigations. The author was familiar with
a study by Berlo, Farace, and Connelly(l97l) that had used the
classification. The initiation variable was viewed as an index of the
degree of openness,or freedom to communicate with onefls immediate
supervisor in an organization. A comparison of this variable in par-
ticipative and non-participative organizations was therefore relevant
to the investigation. Communication satisfaction was seen as an end
product of levels of communication in an organization. The researcher
was interested in determining if the hypothesized differences in
communication between employees in SP and NSP organizations resulted in
any overall differences in employee satisfaction with communication.

It was decided to use a field setting rather than a laboratory
setting for the investigation. The feasability of simulating different

organizations with participative and non-participative structures and

46

47

climates in the laboratory was questioned. The researcher also thought
that the development of stable communication patterns in the laboratory
organization would take a longer period of time than we could realistically
expect to keep groups intact for. The problems of 1) creating the
organizational environments in the laboratory, and 2) being ab1e>
to generalize to a field situation outweighed the problems of gaining
entre and acceptance into "real" organizations.
Having decided to conduct the investigation in the field a
survey questionnaire was though the most appropriate, efficient
technique for gathering the data. Interviews and a "diary method"
of data collection were other viable alternatives. But interviewing
a large sample of employees in several different organizations would
be much too time consuming. Having employees record their communication
episodes would be time consuming for them and too interruptive of their
production activities. The survey was a method that would require only
a brief period of the respondent's time and could be completed off the
job. The researcher also wanted to get in and out of the organizations
as quickly as possible in order to minimize any disruptive effects
and increase acceptance of the proposed project by the organization.
Because the focus of the research was frequency of communication
a behaviorally oriented questionnaire was designed. The investigator
decided that a pseudo-sociometric technique would be best. One approach
would have been to have subjects respond to items tapping general
frequency of each type of communication with others in the organization.
But the sociometric technique had two important advantages. One, it
would provide a behavioral anchor for each subjects response. In

other words, the subject would be reporting his frequency of communication

48

with specific individuals. Because he was not reporting an overall
level of communication with people in the organization, the information
might be more accurate and revealing. Secondly, knowing whom the
respondents communicated with would allow for the investigation of
the direction of communication. Each respondent's listed communication
contacts would be classified into one of four different directional
categories: supervisory personnel; subordinates; co-workers in the same
group; and members of different departments or work groups. Sociometric
approaches similar to this had been used to study group structure(Weiss
and Jacobson, 1955) and more recently to investigate frequency of
communication (Berlo, Farace, and Connelly, 1971). But the specific
items and administrative techniques that were developed had never been
used. Pretesting was therefore considered essential.

A medium sized manufacturing plant in the Northeast was chosen
as the research site for the pretest for several reasons. First, the
researcher did not want to use any of the Midwest manufacturing firms
with which he had contact. These firms would be likely research sites
for the main phase of the investigation. Second, the researcher had
personal contacts with management in the Northeast plant so opportunity
for entry already existed. Pre-testing was conducted in June 1973.
Questionnaires were distributed to all employees of the organization
to create as large a pre-test group as possible. The subjects were
instructed to complete the forms at home and return them when they came
to work the next day. Procedural details and results of the pretesting
are presented in a later chapter._ In brief, no major changes were
necessary in the questionnaire content, format of administration, from

the pretesting to the main phase Of the investigation.

49

The most immediate problem then became one of gaining entry into
organizations which could serve as research sites for the main phase
of the investigation. The investigator had indications from other
members of the research team that the Scanlon Plan companies into which
we would most likely gain entrance were manufacturers of furniture or
furniture-related products. Most of these sites were located in the
same geographical area. It was therefore decided to concentrate efforts
on eliciting cooperation from Non-Scanlon companies that were also
furniture manufacturers located in the same geographical area as the
SP organizations. The likely SP research sites were medium sized
companies and the search for NSP organizations took this into consideration.
Letters were written to several NSP furniture manufacturers
outlining the purposes of the proposed research and the benefits which
would be shared by pppp the company and the researcher. The investigator
then began contacting these firms by telephone, to determine where
support for the project existed. Several companies expressed interest
and interviews were arranged with liason personnel in each organization.
Through the use of these interviews the company became more aware
of the details of the proposal, and the researcher gained a clearer
idea of the suitability of the company for the comparative investigation
which was to take place. Two NSP organizations accepted the proposal
and dates were finalized for administration of the survey instrument
to all employees. Each company was promised feedback on the results of
the investigation. Administration of the survey took place in
November 1973. All employees in both organizations were handed the
questionnaire as they left work and they were asked to complete the

questionnaire and return them to work the next morning. This procedure

50

was used in all plants in an attempt to minimize disruption of routine
activities in the organization. Procedural details of the administration
are presented in Chapter VII.

By the time data had been collected in the NSP plants negotiations
with SP plants were being concluded. Two SP plants also agreed to
cooperate and arrangements for data collection and feedback similar
to that discussed above, were finalized. Data was collected in February
1974. Specific procedures used in the data collection phases and
description of each research site are discussed in the next two chapters.

Ideally the researcher wanted to use 3 to 4 SP plants and
NSP plants in the investigation. A larger number of SP and NSP plants
representative of the SP and NSP populations would increase the
generalizability of obtained results. But the number of organizations
that were willing to cooperate in the project was limited.

Because communication data collected in several organizations
were going to be compared,it was necessary to find out as much as
possible about the various organizations. Were the organization
structures of the various companies similar? Did the plants have
similar formal mechanisms for communication? Detailed interviews
with personnel in each of the plants were necessary to obtain this type
of information. Interviews with both management and rank and file
personnel would have been highly desirable. But again the investigator
was limited. The source of most of this information was management
personnel. A detailed description of the various research sites follows
in the next chapter.

Most of the research on organizational communications had been

fairly unsophisticated and primarily descriptive in nature. The proposed

51

research intended to apply techniques of data analysis that not only
would enable testing of the hypotheses, but would allow for a more
general exploration of the organization communication data that was
generated. Interactions between variables were also of interest.
Analysis of variance was therefore chosen as the technique to be used.

The specific designs and analyses are presented in Chapter VIII.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITES

 

Previous chapters have outlined the basic elements of the Scanlon

Plan - its mechanisms and philosophical orientation. Hypotheses

related to differences in communication practices between Scanlon and
Non-Scanlon organizations have been stated. It is necessary to emphasize
however, that we can talk about the elements of Epg_Scanlon Plan only in
a theoretical sense. There is no ppp_Plan. The formal mechanisms may
be somewhat alike from one organization having the Plan to another.

But the day to day operation of the Plan, along with its acceptance,
effectiveness, and mechanisms exhibited in trying to achieve the Plan's
goals, may differ widely between companies. It may be just as true

that companies that do not have the Plan are equally or more advanced in
terms of participative management practices and structures, and
organizational development efforts. Since there is no 922 Scanlon

Plna we must shift the emphasis to the description Of the operation of

a specific Plan in a specific organization. Also, it is just as true
that there is no ppp_kind of traditional company. What is needed is

a description of ggpp_organization used as a research site in the
investigation. What is there about a Scanlon Plan organization that
differentiates it from a company which does not have the Plan?
Obviously, stating that one company has the Plan and another does not

is not terribly meaningful. It is necessary to be able to differentiate
between SP and NSP companies (and between Scanlon Plan companies) in terms
of actual behaviors and mechanisms that exist in one and not the other.
These contrasts will afford the reader the opportunity to determine if

any actual differences in measured communication practices may be due

52

S3

to differences in organization theory and climate between the various
companies.

Each of the 4 different plant utilized for the present research
will be discussed in detail in this section. The following format will
be followed:

1) brief identifying information about the organization

2) historical-background data

3) employee characteristics

4) formal organization structure

5) physical description of the plant and facilities

6) personnel processes

7) formal mechanisms for communication within the organization
In addition, a table summarizing the comparison between organizations
is included on page 77 .

The qualitative information that follows was obtained in semi-
structured interviews with key management personnel and from investigator

observation. A copy of the interview schedule is included in Appendix A .

54

Description of Company A

Company A began in the early 1900's as a one man Operation.
The founder of the company started in the back of a garage, building
high quality upholstered furniture. The quality Of the furniture has
remained high while the company expanded twice to its present location
which it has occupied for 12 years. Today the Grand Rapids plant is
only one of 3 which bear the original founder's name. A second plant
five times the size Of this Operation, was started in North Carolina in
the early 1960's. Soon after, the company merged with a much larger
furniture manufacturer and a third plant was established. Today the
three plants retain the original name although they are under the
control of the larger parent organization. The company is publicly
owned and for the 1973 fiscal year had a total sales volume Of $3.4
million. It has a well known reputation for high quality upholstered
furniture, with its product line ranging from a wide variety Of

upholstered chairs to sofas.

Employee Characteristics

 

There is a total Of approximately 125 employees in this particular
plant. Thirty-three percent of the work force is female, with the
average age of employee being 36 years. The average level of education
is between ll-thh grade. There are approximately 23 management and
supervisory level personnel, and 12 Office workers, with the remaining
number being primarily production workers. A breakdown by skill level
would result in the following classification: skilled- 70%; semi-skilled
20%; unskilled- 10%. Absenteeism in the plant has been at a level Of
about 6%, while turnover for the last year was approximately 12%. Forty-

three percent of the employees belong to the United Furniture Workers

55

of the AFL-CIO. The plant has been an Open shop for the last 12

years.

Organization Structure

 

The Vice-President and General Manager have primary responsibility
for the overall functioning of this particular plant. Ultimate
responsibility is to the Board of Directors Of the parent organization.
The Sales and Marketing Department and Accounting and Finance Department
are directly responsible to the General Manager. The Plant Manager
also reports to him. The Assistant Plant Manager has the foremen
reporting to him. The work force is organized into various functional

departments.

Description of Physical Plant

 

The building housing the plant dates back to the early 1900's.
It is a 5 story building, with the 5th floor being used primarily as
a storage area. The lst floor contains the rough mill and is the
starting point for the initial cutting of the lumber into pieces ready
for set-up. The materials flow by elevator from the mill to the 4th
floor where the set-up and frame departments are located. From here it
continues on this floor through the springing, cushion and finishing
departments. The work is manually transported on each floor by lugger,
leadmen, etc. Between floors there is the elevator and a conveyor
system in part of the plant. The work flow continues down to the 3rd
floor where the Operations Of cutting, sewing, and upholstering are
performed. Final trimming is done on the 2nd floor after which the

finished product is brought to the shipping department, also located on

56

this floor. The general Offices are also located on a portion of the
2nd floor. The interior Of the plant is rather dark and dingy but kept
fairly clean. Two toilets are located on each floor with drinking
fountains in proximity to each department. There is no centrally
located area that is designated as a lunch room for employees. Vending
machines are distributed throughtout the plant and Offer a variety Of
products.

Personnel Processes

 

When it is necessary to recruit new employees the primary
methods used are word of mouth and the service provided by the local
Employers Association. lMost new employees are recruited by the former
method, with friends and family the source of information that openings
exist in the company. Some advertising is used but mainly when
management level personnel are needed. Applicants are selected on the
basis of past job experience, and job stability. Interviews are
conducted by the personnel manager.

Upon hiring, the new employee receives an orientation tO the
company and his job, although this process is not very extensive.
There is no real set procedure for the orientation. It seems to consist
primarily Of paper processing of forms - insurance, health, time cards,
etc. There is no special "orientation package" Of materials given to
the new employee. The only written communication that he receives from
the company (other than the above mentioned forms) is a 4 page list Of
company rules and regulations. Penalties for various Offenses are
Specified. The list includes the penalties for the lst through 4th

Offenses in regard to particular regulations. For example, the penalty

57

for smoking in an undesignated area can range from a verbal warning
(lst Offense) to a 3 day layoff (3rd offense) and an ultimate discharge
beyond that. The rules cover approximately 35 behaviors ranging from
fighting in the plant to use of company phones without permission. The
personnel manager talks to the new employee about the plant facilities
and their location. If time permits they are given a tour of the plant.
However, the employee gets little if any information about company
history, background, or total product line. At the end of this
orientation he is introduced to his foreman.

Any training that either a new or old employee receives is on
the job training. There is no formal training mechanism per se.
Training is considered a continual process and a matter of individual
need. There is a probationary period Of 90 days which is held to closely.
However, efforts are made to transfer an individual who is having dif-
ficulty learning a job to another job assignment. There is no apprentice-
ship program in the company. No special training programs exist for
management or supervisory level personnel either. The company will
pay if anyone wants to take a self-improvement course Off the job on
their own time. Every non-salaried worker has to punch a time clock.
However, the company has been lax in enforcing time regulations as
outlined in the employee handout. There are several rules relating
to "excessive" absenteeism and tardiness. But there seems to be the
attitude frOm management that there is no reason to be particularly
strict in regard to isolated cases of lateness. The employees are not
on an hourly system and ultimately are hurting themselves financially.
99mpensation System

Ninety percent of the non-salaried personnel are on an individual

58

incentive (piece-rate) compensation plan. The piece-rates are determined
by historical standards which were the result of time and motion

studies. Percentages are continually being added to the standard base
rates as product lines change and involve more difficult production,

and to accommodate cost of living increases. These rates are in accord
with union demands and agreement. The 10% of the non-salaried that

are not on incentive are paid on an hourly basis. These are workers such
as lugger and repairmen for whom the piece-rate compensation system would
make little sense.

According to the personnel manager the company's rates are above
average for the industry, as stated by the Furniture Manufacturers
Association. In addition to wage compensation, the employee receives
several standard fringe benefits including: health insurance; 1 week
paid vacation after 1 year and 2 weeks after 5 years; retirement
benefits; life insurance; and a company discount of 10% above cost on
any product. These benefits are not listed in any written material given
the employee.

There is no formal mechanism for performance appraisal in the
organization. NO scheduled times exist for evaluation. Production
workers are evaluated on a continual basis, according to the company,
since they are on a piece-rate system. Mistakes go back to the
individual responsible for them and are reflected in his weekly
productivity. Management and office personnel also have no routine,
written system for being appraised.

Eprmal Mechanisms for Communication Within the Company

The only formal scheduled meetings which take place are between

department foremen and assistant plant manager and plant manager.

59

These individuals get together for 15 minutes every day during the
morning break. Meetings between management personnel are on an informal
unscheduled basis. When asked about the state of inter-departmental
coordination in the company, one reply was "the place functions."
The production workers do not have any formal meetings although they
may learn what is going on in the company from the foremen on an informal
basis. There is no company newsletter or company publication. Employees
do not have any means Of gathering financial information about the
company. There are no reports or information made available to them
directly from.management. As the personnel manager stated: "they can
find out how the company is doing by looking at the Wall Street Journal."
The employees do receive communication about product waste, returned
merchandise etc. The company utilizes an "error system" such that
individuals who make mistakes or waste materials are notified and responsible
for most corrections. There is a formal paper work system which
follows this procedure.

There is no formal suggestion system in Operation. Suggestions,
if made, would go through word Of mouth to the department foreman and
implementation would be decided upon. There is no provision for financial
incentives for suggestions. Recognition would be more in the form Of a

handshake.

60

Description of Company B

 

Company B began in 1963 as an upholstered furniture manufacturer.
It is a privately owned corporation under the control Of stockholders
from the local area. The company's product line, although having grown
since the company's inception, is still exclusively devoted to upholstered
furniture ranging from chairs to sofas. Although the firm does some
marketing of its products under its own name, most of the goods are
sold by large retail Operations under the respective retailer's label.
The company has an industry reputation for middle Of the line quality
furniture. Not only the quality, but the prices of their product line
are also lower than those found in company B. Company A and B therefore
can not be considered competitors for the same share of the upholstered
furniture market.

Employee Characteristics

 

There is a total of approximately 100 employees in this plant.
Thirty percent of the work force is female with the average age of
employees being 35 years. The average level Of education is 11-12th
grade. Of the 100 employees approximately 16 are management and
supervisory level personnel and 7 are office workers. The remaining
number are production workers. Absenteeism at the plant has been at a
level of about 7%, while turnover in the last year was close to 14
percent. Approximately 50% Of the employees are members Of the United
Furniture WOrkers Of the AFL-CIO.

Organization Structure

 

The President of the firm has ultimate responsibility for the

overall functioning Of the organization. Reporting to him are the

61

Secretary, Treasurer and Vice President for Production. The plant
Superintendent reports to the VP for Production and has close contact
with departmental foremen who in turn report to the Superintendent.
The work force is organized into various functional departments.

Description of Physical Plant

 

The plant building dates back to the first quarter of this
century. It is a four story building which houses only this particular
manufacturing operation. The manufacturing process begins on the lst
floor of the plant where the rough mill operation is located. Pieces
are out here and rendered for set up. The material flow continues to
the second floor where the set up and frame departments are located.

An elevator transports the materials between floors while manual
lugging is used to get the work from department to department on each
floor. After the frame has been completed the project continues to
the springing, cushion and finishing departments also located on the
second floor. The flow continues tO the 3rd floor where the major up-
holstering Operations are performed. Cutting and sewing are also
performed on this floor. Upholster time and final finishing are located
on the 4th floor. From here the product goes down to the lst floor

to the shipping department where it awaits loading and eventual
delivery. The general Offices Of the plant are located on the lst
floor. The plant interior is well lighted but appears fairly dirty.
Toilet facilities are available on each floor with several drinking
fountains also available to the various departments. There is no
designated lunch area for employees.

Personnel Processes

 

Recruitment of employees is accomplished primarily through word

62

of mouth with plant employees informing friends and family Of available
openings. Newspaper advertising is used periodically but not heavily
relied on. Other than interviews, no formal standardized testing
procedure is used. Applicants are selected on the basis of previous
training and skills. Evidence of job stability in previous employment
also enters into the hiring decision.

After the new employee has been hired he receives a very informal
brief orientation to the company. The only written material given to
the employee is a sheet Of information telling the individual about
insurance, length of work day, time cards, and rules and regulations
that they are supposed to adhere to. Drinking on the job and tardiness
are examples of the types Of behavior covered on this list. NO specific
penalties are given for each regulation. There is no "orientation
package" of materials which the new employee receives. New employees
are usually given a tour of the plant and the opportunity to acquaint
themselves with the various facilities. If this tour is not given on
the day of hiring, then the individual's foremen usually shows him
around when he reports for work. As was the case in Company A, the
hiree gets very little information about company history, background,
or product line. The information he does get is usually Obtained on
the job, informally from co-workers.

There is no formal training mechanism per se in the organization.
Any training that employees receive is on the job usually from supervisory
personnel. [If an individual needs training he is likely to receive it
and probably for as long as he needs it, although there is a probationary
period of 90 days. Those individuals who can not learn the job are given

a chance in other positions if openings exist or changes are possible.

63

NO apprenticeship program exists. There are no special training
programs for management of supervisory level personnel either. Non—
salaried workers have to punch a time clock. There are rules pertaining
to "excessive" absenteeism and tardiness but no rigid enforcement for
sporadic, infrequent violations.

Compensation System

 

Production employees are on a piece-rate incentive system.
Historical standards determine the specific rates. However adjustments
are made to the base standard in response to rises in living costs and
substantial changes in product line. The rates are also determined by
union negotiations. Standard fringe benefits which the employees receive
include: health insurance; paid vacation time; retirement benefits;
life insurance; and company discounts on products (12%). The new
employee learns about these benefits at the time he is hired when
the necessary paper work is completed.

No formalized performance appraisal system exists in the organization.
There are no scheduled times for appraisal. Informal evaluation of
production workers is an inherent part of the piece-rate system since
production mistakes are directed back to the individual responsible.
Non-production workers also do not have a routine system for evaluation
and feedback. It is more Of a continual, day to day informal process.

Fommal Mechanisms for Communication Within the Company

 

Production workers in the organization do not have any formal
meetings. Any information that they receive is usually in an informal
basis and from foremen. The plant foremen have an Opportunity to meet

with the plant superintendent daily as he goes around the plant. However,

64

group meetings Of all foremen and superintendents are not held on a regular
basis. Management personnel also meet but on an informal, unscheduled
basis. Employees have no Opportunity to receive financial information
about the organization. Reports or statements from management are not
available. Any information which they would Obtain would be from

the grapevine. No formal suggestion system exists either. If suggestions
were made they would be discussed by foremen and the plant superintendent
and decided upon. There is no financial reward when a suggestion is

implemented.

65

Description of Company C

Company C began manufacturing grandfather clocks at the turn
of this century. It was incorporated in 1906 at which time its
present factory was built. The plant started as a family run and owned
operation with successive generations taking part. A line of case
goods furniture was introduced in 1908 and was manufactured along
with the clocks until 1962. For the past 12 years the company's
product line has been devoted exclusively to hall clocks. The company
has an industry-wide reputation for making top Of the line, finest
quality merchandise. It competes directly with five other companies that
manufacture clocks, few of which are exclusively devoted to this product
line. Of these five companies, company C is one Of the two Oldest and
largest in terms Of sales volume. From a family owned organization it
has become a privately owned firm under the control Of approximately
45 stockholders-mostly local members of the community. Its sales
volume was $6.2 million in 1973. Ninety-seven percent of its sales
volume is generated from the sale of grandfather clocks, although the
company also manufactures wall clocks. The product line now consists
of 50 different models. Of these 50, 36 are new models having been added
to the line since 1971. In 1972 the company purchased assets of
another furniture maker in a nearby location and has expanded its
manufacturing Operation to that site. The Scanlon Plan was introduced
in 1964.

Employee Characteristics

 

There is a total Of 155 employees in this particular plant of
company C. Thirty-five percent Of the work force is female. The

average age of employees is 35. The average level Of education is

66
12th grade. There are approximately 40 management and supervisory

level workers, with the remaining subtotal primarily production
workers. Classification by skill level results in the following
breakdown: skilled-58%; semi-skilled-36%; and unskilled- 6%.
Absenteeism at the plant has been at a level of approximately 8%.
Turnover in the past year was about 10%. The plant is not unionized
and has never had a union. There has never been an attempt to
unionize.

The work day at the plant is from 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for non-
salaried personnel with 30 minutes for lunch and two ten minute
break periods. All non- salaried personnel get compensated for one
hour of overtime a day since they are on this schedule. The non-salaried
people are required to punch a time clock. Loss of pay for lateness
is rigidly enforced and is a policy that the employees are made fully
aware of. If employees are more than two minutes late they are pe-
nalized by loss Of pay. They lose pay in tenth of an hour units so that
being late 2-6 minutes will result in a loss of one-tenth Of the
individual's hourly wage.

Orggnization Structure

 

The Executive Vice-President of the company reports to the
President, as do the VP's in charge of Research and Development and
Manufacturing. The directors Of Marketing, Cost Accounting and Personnel
are in a line under the Executive VP. The plant superintendent and
personnel in charge Of engineering, purchasing and service, report to
the VP of Manufacturing. Foremen Of the various functional production

departments are responsible to the plant superintendent. The personnel

67

department in the second plant reports to the Personnel Director who
works out of this plant. Production workers report to the foremen-
in charge Of their respective departments.

Physical Description Of Plant

As previously stated, the present location of company C
dates back to 1906 with expansion since then. The plant is composed
of two buildings joined by a tramway. Access between the two is no
problem. Building 1 contains three floors. The first floor contains
the rough mill and veneer departments and is the starting point for
the manufacturing process. Here the lumber is cut and readied for
further refining by the machine department on the second floor. The
materials are readied for sub-assembly by the cabinet department also
on the second floor. Elevator and manual lugging are used to keep
the sub-assembled clocks moving through the various processes described.
The clocks go from the second floor to the finishing departments on
the third floor. The flow then continues across the tramway into building
2 where the clock and movement department is located on the third floor.
A conveyor system then takes it through the rub and trim department
also located on the third floor. From here they are moved down to
shipping on the second floor and eventually delivered. General Offices
are located on the second floor in both buildings. The plant interior
was observed to be remarkably clean for a wood-furniture Operation.
Most sections of the plant are also very light and airy with plenty Of
windows throughout. Toilets are located on each floor with drinking
fountains in each department. There is a lunch area available for

employee use with vending machines dispensing a range of products.

68

Personnel Processes

Advertising, along with word Of mouth are the primary methods
used for recruitment Of new personnel into the organization. Selection
for skilled positions is usually dependent upon former training and
acquired skills. For less skilled jobs interviews and application
blanks are heavily relied on. The company has a policy of trying, if
possible, to promote from within. Lateral transfers are attempted if
positions becOme available. Women are being moved into machine jobs
previously the exclusive domain of men.

Each newly hired employee receives an orientation to the company
from the personnel director. The same procedure is used for every
employee from production worker to management level. The verbal
orientation covers the rules and regulations, descriptions of company
benefits, safety procedures, company history, product lines, explanation
of the monthly bonus system and company philosophy Of management
(Scanlon Plan). They receive an "orientation packet" which provides
written description and explanation of many of the points covered above.
One of the sheets in the packet is called an "employee welcoming."

As the name implies it tries to make the new employee feel at home in

his new organization. One of its messages is that everyone in the
organization is necessary and important to the success of the
<Irganization. It points out that although profit is a major index Of
Success there are other aims of the company: 1) providing a good place

tx: work; 2) creating and maintaining good relations between everyone

113 the organization; 3) providing a secure future for employees; 4) giving

f\Jll value and service tO customers; and 5) earning the respect of the

69

community. This sheet goes on to cover a few rules and regulations that
the company emphasizes, ranging from reporting Of all accidents to
prohibited punching of another employee's time card. Benefits described
include health insurance, vacation and holiday pay rates and eligibility
(1 week paid vacation for 1 year of work and 2 weeks paid vacation for
2 years employment), monthly bonus plan and retirement benefits.
The information ends with the statement that "these rules are designed
not to limit your freedom, but to enable the company to be fair and
consistent to everyone. . ." Also included in the orientation packet
are the following:
1) a sheet describing company history, the relation Of the company
to its competitors and a brief description Of product line
2) a brochure describing the company's product line in detail
3) booklets describing the company's insurance and retirement
benefits
4) an employee information sheet indicating the dates that he
becomes eligible for specific company benefits
The employeeis briefly informed about the company's unique company
wide incentive system and its ramifications, but not very much written
emphasis is placed upon it. After this orientation period they are given
a tour of the plant and meet and spend time with their foremen.
There is no formal training mechanism established by the company.
Itf a new or Old employee requires training he will receive it on the job
"host probably from his supervisor. No apprenticeship program exists
Eiither. There is a probationary period Of 90 days but adherence to this
1&8 dependent upon the individual and type Of job into which he has been

.Pllaced. The rule is to work with the person and if necessary transfer him,

70

rather than termination. Management and supervisory level personnel
would also receive the same type of training. The company does have a
policy of paying employees for any job related classes that they take
for self-improvement.

Compensation System

 

All of the non-salaried personnel are on an hourly wage.
Production workers average approximately $3.10/hour and non-production
hourly workers average $3.40/hour. Wage rates are determined by
historical standards and consideration Of industry averages. There
was no wage scale by skill classification available. Labor grades exist
for each of the various job titles with range in pay on each job affected
by individual performance and seniority. In addition to the wages
employees benefit from the company wide incentive system which is part Of
the Scanlon Plan described earlier. Bonuses have been increasing
steadily for the past few years. The total bonus for 1973 was $214,000.
Net bonus percentages for the last two months have been 10% and 15%.
Without getting involved in details Of how the bonus is calculated it is
worth mentioning what items are included in determination Of the bonus:

1) direct and indirect labor allowances for each clock style by

each department

2) overtime payroll

3) worker compensation and unemployment compensation

4) holiday and vacation accrual

5) group insurance

6) salaries for manufacturing, sales, general administration,

research and development

7) returns and allowances
Outside services not related to production and several miscellaneous
employee benefits are not included in the bonus calculation.

Although the bonus system can be viewed as a fringe benefit, there

are other more traditional benefits that the employees also receive,

71

most of which have already been mentioned. An employee discount of 20%
off wholesale prices is also granted. The company tries to do many little
things to indicate their interest and good will toward employees. Hams
are given to employees at Christmas and several days a week employees
have an opportunity to purchase hot prepared lunches ordered in by the
company.

Performance appraisals are conducted twice a year by foremen on
a formal basis. An individual performance report allows for the rating
of performance on several dimensions. It is not really known to what
extent these evaluations are relied on for granting raises in pay.
Supervisory personnel get appraised on the same basis by the plant
superintendent. Salaried personnel also get reviewed, but their
appraisal is conducted once a year and on a verbal, informal basis.

Formal Mechanisms for Communication Within the Organization

Formal mechanisms for communication are designed into the
organization as part Of implementation of the Scanlon Plan. Every
department elects a screening committee representative who serves for
6 months and attends the monthly meetings. The personnel director
chairs these meetings. Discussion centers around employee suggestions
and their implementation, ways to improve productivity, changes in
bonus calculations and monthly financial figures. The representatives
are given COpies of financial reports on the bonus to be distributed to
their respective departments. The report is a 1 page detailed summary
of the company's financial condition for the previous month. How much
understanding the employee has Of the figures presented is questionable.

Minutes of the meetings are also kept and printed the next day in the

72

company newsletter which is distributed to all employees. The
representatives serve as a voice for their co-workers and provide

an opportunity for the dissemination of information regarding what was
discussed in the monthly meetings.

Staff meetings composed Of members Of each of the major functional
groups (manufacturing, accounting, marketing, etc.) are held weekly.

The President and Executive VP are in attendence in these meetings.
Foremen's meetings are also scheduled weekly. The foremen meet jointly
as a group on alternative weeks, with subgroups getting together to discuss
related problems on the weeks in between. There are no regularly
scheduled meetings between foremen and subordinates. But it is the
foremen's responsibility to share the information from his weekly
meetings with his men on an informal basis. The production workers do
not have representatives at these foremen or staff level meetings. Nor
do they receive any written information pertaining to them. Although
the Scanlon Plan designates the holding Of Production Committee meetings,
there are none held in Company C. NO reason was given for this.

The monthly newsletter reports on old and new suggestions that have
been initiated by employees. Each suggestion is stated along with the
name of the suggestee. Comments from the Screening Committee meeting
relating to the suggestion are also printed. Information about industry
markets and furniture shows is also made available. However, along with
reporting the minutes of the meeting and the suggestions, a major purpose
fo the newsletter is to provide the employee financial information about
the company - specifically about the monthly bonus. This is more in the
form of a summary about what the bonus is rather than a detailed picture
of how it is calculated or factors that led to an increase or decrease

from previous months. The financial report already mentioned provides the

73

latter. Financial information is also posted weekly on a bulletin board.
Information about shipments sales, orders, and the trend of the bonus
for the past few months is charted. Employees gain information about
product waste, returned merchandise, damages, etc. through the news-
letter and the financial report.

A formalized suggestion system is another example of a mechanism
designed into the organization structure through implementation Of
the Scanlon Plan. Many Of the mechanisms integrally related to the
suggestion system have already been mentioned. Pre-printed forms are
used for transmitting the suggestion formally to department foremen or
Screening committee representatives. There are 3 copies of the form:
one for the individual suggestee, one for the personnel director and one
for the Screening committee. Regardless of how simple the suggestion is
and whether or not it has already been implemented, it eventually gets
to the screening committee where it is discussed and decided upon. The
action taken by the committee is also written on the form. Suggestions
are submitted by groups or departments as well as by individuals. If the
suggestion is implemented and affects productivity, directly or indirectly,

everyone will be affected through the monthly bonus.

Description of Company.D

Company!) is the newly acquired plant of Company C described
in the previous section. Most of the information pertaining to Company
C in regard to organizational structure, compensation system, mechanisms
for communication, etc, are the same. Differences that exist between the
two plants will be pointed out in the following discussion.

In July 1972 Company C purchased the assets Of another well known
furniture maker and expanded its manufacturing of grandfather clocks to
that new location. The plant is located approximately 25 miles from the
other plant. Product lines and manufacturing operations are similar in
the two plants. The plant employs approximately 70 people. The
composition of the work force is very similar to the parent plant.
Thirty-eight percentlof the work force is female. The major difference
is that the management and staff are located at Plant C. Only a very
few office employees work at this location. There is a personnel manager
at the plant who reports to the personnel director housed at Plant C.
Absenteeism and turnover figures for this plant are also similar to
Plant C, 8% and 7% respectively.

The building in which the plant is located dates back to the early
quarter of this century. There are four floors with the production
flow almost identical to that described in Plant C. The process begins
with the cutting Of materials on the lst floor. Here we find the rough
mill. The machine department is located on the 2nd floor and is the
second step in the process. Maintenence department and general offices
are also located on this floor. The parts reach sub—assembly on the
3rd floor where the cabinet department is located. From here they go

to the 4th floor where it works its way through the finishing and rub

75

and trim departments. The clock movements department is also located on
the 4th floor. The completed product is then sent by elevator to the
shipping department on the lst floor. The clocks are then shipped to
Plant C for general distribution.

Facilities at both plants are identical. The plant is also well
lighted and appears almost spacious.

Employees at this plant are under the same compensation system
as Company C. The Scanlon Plan is in effect in both. The bonus is
pooled between the two plants so that increases and decreases in one
are felt by employee in both plants. The average hourly wage rates are
slightly lower because employees Of this plant are newer and have less
seniority. Production employees average $2.80/hour and nonproduction
hourly workers average $2.58/hour. New employees receive the same
"orientation packet" as previously described and a similar orientation
process and plant tour from the personnel manager.

The formal mechanisms for operation of the suggestiOn system
and formal communication within the organization are also the same as
that described under Company C. There is no separate Screening committee
for this plant however. Elected representatives attend the company wide
meeting that is held alternately at each location. The attempt is to
Create an attitude of interdependence between Plants C and D. The
length Of the working day and time for lunch and breaks is also the same.
Also, there is no union in this plant.

Plants C and D can be viewed as basically the same with the major
differences being in terms of number Of employees and length Of time that
the latter plant has been in Operation. While they both have the Scanlon

Plan mechanisms designed into the organization it is surely worth noting

76
that plant D and its Plan have been in operation for a considerably

shorter period of time.

77

 

mmceuoos SHSuCOE
EOAHMOAHQDQ acmmfioo

meow meow
o>wucoosfi OOH:
wcmmsoo mom Samson

OCH>Ommum HOEHOMGH

meow mamo om
manson one
much OOOHQ mums women

mEchmnooa COHHUOHGDEEOU
UOHHOQ SHMCOflquOHm

Emum>m cowummcomeou

coaumooq

 

Odo: OHOIqmm owsuflcwom copes: compoflaflmwm cOecD
mm mm mm mm mOOSOHQEO MO was coo:
Oomwm compo

momma ruma ruNHIHH rumHIHH Ho>oa ascoflumosoo cmoz

oum>flum ousbwwm oaaasm wsmmeoo mo HouucOU

AD one UV E N.cw co>wm no: a a.mw oEsHO> moaom

on OOH ooa ONH mmmsoamsw mo nonesz

mommmm ozone ocmHOON moammm promo
Amxoodo wonumwocmwmv Aoowoumaocmsv

OHouacwsm owsuflcHSM owsuwcwdm owsuaswom coflumwflcmmwo mo meme

Q Nmmmwou U homewou m hommeoo mINcmmEoo sOHmcoeao

 

cowummwumo>cfl someones cw mcwuomwowuHOMINOHcmmmoo mo

H wands

chflAmeomOo mmeEdm

VII. METHODS

A. Pre-Test

A pro-testing stage of the investigation was considered

essential and was conducted to serve six preliminary functions:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

The degree of cooperation that could be expected utilizing

the research instrument and the proposed administrative
technique had to be determined. It was not known if subjects
would be willing to take time Off the job to complete the
instrument as requested. WOuld the entire procedure be taken
seriously enough for the investigator to have confidence in
the data? Also, what would be the extent Of missing data?

The adequacy Of instructions and item-working had to be evaluated.
Were either of these ambiguous or to the point of creating
respondent misunderstanding?

How much time was needed to complete the questionnaire?
Estimates were available from similar research in the area.
Butdetermining the time was considered essential since the
subjects would be completing the instrument on their own time
and length would probably be a critical factor in regard to
return rates. Reduction in length would then be possible for
the main phase of the investigation.

The number Of communication questionnaires to include in each
subject. survey packet had to be determined. This would be
indicated by the number of communication contacts listed by
pretest respondents.

Theissue of anonymity had to be confronted. Would the subjects
hesitate to put their name on the questionnaires since they

were being asked questions about specific individuals in the

78

79

organization? Also, would they put the names Of people that
they communicated with on the survey as requested? This was
a crucial question that needed to be answered.

6) Some scale development was necessary to select items and

scales to be used in the main phase Of the research.

Instruments

 

The questionnaire employed in the present study incorporated six
different indexes all focusing on communication practices. Each Of the
indices is briefly identified below. A more detailed listing Of the
items is available in Appendix B .

Using Berlo's typology of communication, which already has been
described, items and scales pertaining to frequency of Production Innovation
and Maintenance communication were developed. These items were based
on Berlo's (1970) theorizing about the three functions, and previous use
of the functional categories by Berlo. Farace and Connelly (1971) in
organizational communications research. A six point scale indexing
frequency Of each type of communication (more than once a day - never)
was used.

The production items essentially focused on frequency Of
communication about on-going work or production-oriented matters.

For example, "How Often do you talk about current work problems?"
The Innovation scale consisted Of items pertaining to the frequency
communication about new ideas or suggestions relating to improvement
in the plant.' For example, "How Often do you talk about new things
to do in connection with your work or the work Of others?" The
Maintenance items indexed frequency Of communication relating to

"people" problems or communication which may be best described as

8O

closer to "consideration" than "initiating structure." For example,
"How often do you get encouragement or recognition about work or
non-work matters?"

Three separate Initiation scales (one for each type Of communication)
were utilized. For each type it was attempted to index the degree to
which the subject's communication with his immediate supervisor was
supervisor or self-initiated. Items for these scales were also based
on previous work done by Berlo, Farace and Connelly (1971) with this
communication concept. A six point scale ranging from subordinate
always initiates, to supervisor always initiates was used to assess degree
of subordinate initiation.

A two item index measuring general satisfaction with commu-
nications in the organization was used. A five point Likert scale was

utilized to measure intensity Of response to the two items.

Subjects and PrOcedures

Ninety-six employees of a medium-sized manufacturing firm located
in the Northeast participated in the pre-test. On the afternoon of the
administration, subjects were each handed a packet Of material by the
investigator. Included in the packet were a cover letter from the
researcher explaining the purposes of the research, a communication
survey, comment sheet providing space to answer several Open-ended
questions about the instrument and procedure, and a pencil. Employees
were asked to complete the forms at home and return them to the investigator
when they came to work the next day. All levels of employees received
the same packets and instructions. Those that did not return the packets
the next day (for several reasons, ranging from forgetting to bring them

in, to absolute refusal) were then asked to make a special effort

81

to complete the forms and mail them to the researcher. Extra questionnaires

and pre-stamped envelopes were left with management to accomodate late
returns. Emphasis was placed on employee suggestions about the form,
content and style of the questionnaire. The cover letter stressed the
need for information about the survey and encouraged use Of the comment
sheet.

The total return rate including surveys that were later mailed to
the researcher was 51% (49 subjects). This figure was higher than
expected for two reasons. Management commitment to the entire
project was very limited and based only on a desire to accomodate the
researcher's needs. Time had prohibited the sending of a cover letter
from top management to employees about the visit of the investigator

and the project.

Pre—test Results

 

The pre-test phase served its purpose since it provided information
relevant to the questions posed. Although the response rate could not
be considered overwhelming, it was about average for similar field
investigations, and there were circumstances previously mentioned that
had to be taken into account. A quick eyeballing of the data by the
investigator and others involved in the research indicated that the
subjects apparently had taken the questions seriously. There were
no huge gaps in the data or any serious problems of missing data.
There were only a few isolated cases of trouble with general instructions
and item wording. Information received from the respondents indicated
that median time necessary to complete the survey was approximately

20 minutes. This was about what the respondents had been led to expect.

82

Some respondents indicated that completion time was longer than this,
and longer than they had been led to believe. Drastic reductions in
length of the questionnaire were not viewed as necessary. However, it
was decided that including any additional variables in the investigation
could adversely affect future response rates and might be a costly
mistake.

The average number of communication contacts listed by respondents
was 6.5. This figure was in accord with results from other work in the
area. Each subject had been handed 10 communication questionnaires.

It was decided to continue this procedure in future phases of the
research. Subjects showed little reluctance to list the names of
communication contacts or to put their own names on the survey as re-
quested. Less than 5% of the respondents refused to give their name
or the names of contacts or made comments about the implications of
such a procedure.

Although the primary purpose of the research investigation was
not scale analysis and development it was necessary since the specific
items and procedure had not been previously used. Scale analysis was
undertaken primarily on the basis of a series of item intercorrelations
and cluster analyses. There was not a large enough sample for a "blind"
cluster analysis. Apriori item clusters based on theoretical
expectations and face validity were tested. Decision rules based
on alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability, inter-item
correlations and item-cluster correlations were used to eliminate items.
No regrouping of items from apriori clusters was necessary. The results

of the cluster analysis are presented in Table 8 in the Results section.

83

B. Main Phase of the Research Investigation

Subjects

Subjects for the main phase of the investigation were employees of
four medium-size manufacturing plants located in the Midwest. All four
plants manufactured furniture products and were located within 25 miles
of each other. A more detailed description of the various manufacturing
plants and employee characteristics was presented in Chapter VI.

The total number of subjects in the investigation was 261. The
number of subjects from each plant was as follows: plant A-73(60%);
plant B-48(48%); plant C-96(60%); and plant D-44(62%). The figures in
parenthesis indicate the percent of the work force that returned
questionnaires. The sex composition of the groups was: plant A-45%
female; plant B-42% female; plant C-38% female; and plant D-39% female.

Instruments

 

The instruments previously discussed and modified as a result of the
pretest were used in the main phase. The only difference of any conse-
quence from the pretest to this phase was the deletion of the maintenance
initiation scale, mentioned earlier. Item statistics based on the analysis
of data from the main phase are presented in Table 8 in the results section.
Procedure

The data collection procedures were basically the same as used for
the pre-test. The major difference was the greater degree of collaboration
and commitment to the project from the various managements. This resulted
from the investigator having more time to plan and discuss the research

with these organizations than was possible for the pretesting. Top

84

management distributed a cover letter describing the project and its
possible benefits to each employee a few days before administration of
the survey. 0n the afternoon of the administration each employee was
handed the survey packet which included a cover letter from the re—
searcher explaining the study, a communication survey and a pencil.

These were distributed to each employee in the organization at their
work stations. They were asked to complete the instrument and bring it
to work the next morning. Each employee was provided a large yellow
envelope in which to seal the returned questionnaire. It was stamped
"confidential" and addressed to the "Division of Organizational
Research" Michigan State University. Although most of the returns were
not being mailed, the address was another attempt to add credibility

and prestige to the project. The investigator was at the plant the next
morning to collect the packets and individually thank each respondent for
his/her cooperation. Those who had not completed the questionnaire were
given another opportunity to do so within the next few days. Arrange-
ments were made to collect and mail these late returns to the researcher.
The procedure outlined above was followed in each of the four plants

which served as research sites.

 

Data Codigg_

Responses to each item were manually coded onto optical-scanning
sheets and machine punched onto IBM cards. Coded responses were checked
against original raw data. Only an insignificant number of errors were
found. When data reduction was completed there were three cards per
respondent. Each of the cards contained subject identification numbers

and company identification to insure against any possible data mix-ups.

85

Due to the nature of the research investigation coding was a
tedious, and important process. Because part of the investigation fo-
cused on the communication links or direction in the organization, the
relationships between respondent and listed communication contact had
to be determined. The investigator was provided with a list of employees
by each organization. Each employee was listed by department or functional
grouping. The personnel director or similar liason individual at each
organization spent time going over the list and answering questions
about the relationships of departments and individuals in the organi-
zation. In this way it was possible to code the relationship of each
respondent-communication contact into one of four categories: communication
with supervisory personnel (D1); communication with subordinate(D2);
communication with co-worker within same work group(D3); or communi—
cation with worker of another work group(D4). Although the researcher
had an assistant to help with other coding tasks, this aspect of the
work was done by the investigator to insure comparability in determining
relationships and placement into the categories. Any problems that arose
in regard to the directionality of listed communication relationships
were solved by further discussion with personnel at the particular plant.

The respondent was instructed to write in the name of the communi-
cation contact at the top of each communication questionnaire that he
filled out. In addition, each of the four directional categories was
listed with instructions for the respondent to check the one which
applied to the particular contact named. These two methods of identifying
respondent-contact relationships were utilized to insure that the re-
lationship could be determined and that the completed questionnaire

would not be rendered useless by lack of this critical information.

86
Method of Data Reduction and Scoring

The questionnaire included items dealing with frequency of
production, innovation and maintenance communication, for each com-
munication contact listed. The number of communication contacts listed
could range from O to 10. The number of communication contacts within
each of the 4 directional categories was therefore variable between
subjects and provided one of the 4 dependent measures used in the
research-number of contacts. This measure reflected solely the number
of contacts each respondent had in a particular direction. Frequency of
production,innovation and maintenance communication was obtained for
each of the directional categories. The dependent measure in the last
3 cases was a £232l_frequency of communication score obtained for each
subject. This was obtained by summing the item responses within each type
of communication and within each direction, for each subject. Since one
of the directional categories was communication toward subordinates, and
most employees in organizations do not have subordinates, it was neces-
sary to subgroup respondents.The subordinate direction category was used
only with those subjects who were in a supervisory or management position
and had the opportunity of communication with subordinate personnel. For
most of the subjects in the investigation, communication with subordinates
was impossible since they had no subordinates. Thus, the subordinate
category was excluded for such individuals.

The initiation items afforded a much easier scoring procedure since
each respondent answered the items only once. The items for the production
initiation and innovation initiation scales were averaged separately so
each subject received two initiation scores. A similar procedure was used
with the two item communication satisfaction scale yielding one score per

subject.

VIII. RESULTS

The results chapter is divided into two sections focusing on dif-
ferent aspects of the data analysis. As previously mentioned, subjects
were grouped into supervisor and non-supervisor categories. Using this
subgrouping it was possible to include a subordinate direction category
where appropriate in the analysis (for supervisory personnel) and to
exclude this category where inappropriate(for non-supervisory personnel).
Subjects included in the former subgroup included employees who were in
a position to have subordinates reporting to them. Data analysis will be
presented separately first for the supervisor subgroup and then for the
non-supervisor subgroup. Hypothesized differences in frequency of com-
munication between employees in SP and NSP organizations (hypotheses
l to 3) are therefore examined in each subgroup analysis. Intercorrela-
tions among the 4 main dependent measures are presented in Table 7.
Results of item analyses are presented in Table 8 in this section.
Analysis of Supervisor Subgroup

A one way multivariate analysis of variance, with 4 dependent
measures at each measure point, and one repeated measures factor was
used. The N for this part of the analysis (with subject as unit of

=24).

analy51s) was 50 (NSP‘=26,NNSP

Table 2 reveals a significant multivariate F ratio for the Groups
(SP/NSP) main effect (F=2.71,df=4,45,p<.05). Because the multivariate
test rejected the null hypothesis of equality of mean vectors inspection
of the univariates was warranted. This revealed that the univariates for
frequency of production communication (F=5.25,df=l,48,p<.05) and frequency
of maintenance communication (F=4.86,df=1,48,p<.05) were significant.

Thus, it could be concluded that the overall Groups main effect might be

87

88
attributed to differences between supervisory employees of the NSP
and SP groups in frequency of production and maintenance communication.
The means for the SP and NSP groups on production and maintenance
variables respectively are as follows: SP-17.93,10.48; NSP-24.37,l4.96.
Contrary to the prediction of hypotheses 1 to 3, the means indicate
that there was a greater frequency of these two types of communication
among supervisory personnel in the NSP than the SP group. Using the NSP
group as the reference distribution we find that these differences in
the SP/NSP means are equal to differences of .65 and .81 standard
deviation units respectively.

Looking at the univariate F ratios in the above analysis tends to
disconfirm the prediction of hypothesis 4. This hypothesis stated that
the magnitude of the difference in frequency of production communication
between employees in SP and NSP organizations would be less than the
magnitude of these differences in innovation and maintenance communication.
But examination reveals that the univariate for production is significant
and not the univariate for innovation communication.

Table 3 indicates that the multivariate F ratio testing the Direction
main effect is also significant (F=7.6l,df=12,37,p<.OOOl). A follow up
inspection of the univariates was again justified. All 4 of the univariates
were significant at the .05 level and were as follows: (number of contacts-
F=l4.99; production-F=l3.93; innovation—F=l3.99; maintenance- F=l3.66).
Thus, there were differences in frequency of communication between the
various directions, within each of the 3 types of communication and
number of contacts. This data is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The multivariate test for a Groups (SP/NSP) X Direction interaction

was not significant.

89

Table 2

Multivariate analysis of variance of groups main effect(SP/NSP)
on 4 dependent measures of communication among supervisory
personnel in SP and NSP organizations

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors= 2.71,df=4,45,p<.05

 

 

Variable MS Univariate F Eta2
Number of communication contacts 6.23 3.07
Production communication 2071.85 5.25* .02
Innovation communication 196.02 1.35
Maintenance communication ' 1000.82 4.86* .02
* p(.05

Table 3

Multivariate analysis of variance of direction main effect on 4
dependent measures of communication among supervisory personnel
in SP and NSP organizations

 

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors=7.6l,df=12,37,p<.0001

 

Variable MS Univariate F Eta2
NUmber of communication contacts 42.48 15.00* .19
Production communication 6709.86 13.93* .17
Innovation communication 2011.33 14.00* .17
Maintenance communication 2469.23 13.66* .16

 

* p<.05

90
Analysis of Non-Supervisory Subgroup

Basically the same model was used for analysis of the non-super-
visory data. The only difference was in the lack of a subordinate
direction category. The N for this part of the analysis was 210(NSP=113;
"mfg” '

In contrast to analysis with the supervisory subgroup, the multi—
variate test for a Groups main effect was not significant. The predictions
of hypotheses l to-3 with this particular subgroup were not confirmed.
This finding indicates that on the combined vector of the 4 dependent
variables there was no significant difference between the SP and NSP
groups. Therefore, further inspection of the univariates was not justi-
fied. This finding tends to disconfirm the prediction of hypothesis 4
with this subgroup of data. With no justification in further examination
of the univariates it made little sense to compare the magnitude of
insignificant differences.

Table 4 reveals a significant multivariate F ratio for the Groups X
Direction interaction (F=3.04,df=8 and 201,p<.0030). Inspection of the
univariates indicates that the F ratios for number of contacts (F=4.46,
df=2 and 416, p<.05) and production communication (F=3.96,df=2 and 416,
p<.05) were significant. This leads to the conclusion that the pattern of
responses under these 2 dependent measures is contributing to the signifi-
cant multivariate Groups X Direction interaciion. These interactions are
presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Table 5 indicates that the multivariate test for the Direction main
effect was significant (F=9.23,df=8,201,p<.0001). As was the case for the
supervisory personnel subgroup, the univariates for the 4 dependent
measures were all significant at the .05 level (number of contacts-

F=5.72,df=2,416; production- F=7.21,df=2,4l6; innovation-F=6.42,df=2,416;

91

maintenance-F=12.28,df=2,416). This information indicates that there are
differences in frequency of communication between the various directions,

within each of the 3 types of communication and number of contacts.

Table 4

Multivariate analysis of variance of groups x direction interaction on
4 dependent measures of communication among non-supervisory personnel
in SP and NSP organizations

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors= 3.04, df= 8,201,p<.0030

 

 

Variable MS Univariate F Eta2
Number of communication contacts 12.50 4.46* .01
Production communication 1130.49 3.96* .01
Innovation communication 191.44 2.02
Maintenance communication 246.59 1.40
* p<.05

Table 5

Multivariate analysis of variance of direction main effect on
4 dependent measures of communication among non-supervisory
personnel in SP and NSP organizations

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors= 9.23,df=8,201,p<.0001

 

Variable MS Univariate F Eta2
Number of communication contacts 16.04 5.72* .02
Production communication 2673.15 7.21* .03
Innovation communication 607.98 6.42* .02
Maintenance communication 2167.20 12.28* .03

 

* p(.05

92

Comparison of Production and Innovation Initiation Among Employees
of Scanlon and Non-Scanlon Organizations

 

A different model was used to test hypotheses 5 and 6. These
predicted differences in production and innovation initiation between
employees of SP and NSP plants. A one way multivariate analysis of
variance was used. Table 6 reveals a significant multivariate F ratio,
indicating a significant Groups(SP/NSP) main effect (F=4.48,df=2,256,p<.01).
Because the multivariate test rejected the null hypothesis of equality
of mean vectors, inspection of the univariates was warranted. Only the
univariate F for production initiation was significant (F=8.98,p .003).
Thus, it can be cencluded that the difference between employees of the
SP and NSP organizations in subordinate initiation was attributable to
production initiation rather than innovation initiation. The means for
the SP and NSP groups (3.29.2.9?) on production initiation indicate that
employees in the SP group were higher on this variable. If we look at
the difference in terms of standard deviation units and consider the
NSP group as the reference distribution, there is a difference of .40
between the groups. As mentioned in Chapter VII, the maintenance
initiation scale items had to be dropped from the main phase of the
research. Hypothesis 7 could not be tested.

Comparison of Communication Satisfaction Among Employees of Scanlon
and Non-Scanlon Organizations

 

A t-test was used to test hypothesis 8 which predicted a higher
degree of communication satisfaction among employees in the SP than in
the NSP group. Results indicated that there was a significant difference
(t=5.7,p(.01). The mean communication satisfaction score of employees in
the SP group was 2.53. This indicates that the average employee response
was between " I agree somewhat" and "undecided" to the 2 items dealing

with general satisfaction with communication in the organization. For

93

the NSP group the mean response was 3.45. This indicates an average
response somewhere between "undecided" and " I disagree somewhat". The
analysis indicates a significantly higher degree of communication
satisfaction among employees in the SP group. Again, if we look at the

difference in standard deviation units, there is a difference of .53.

94

Table 6

Multivariate analysis of variance of subordinate initiation of
communication among employees of SP and NSP organizations

F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of mean
vectors= 4.48,df=2,256, p<.0122

 

Variable MS Univariate F
Production initiation 6.89 8.98*
Innovation initiation 1.64 1.30

df(hypothesis)=l
df(err0r)= 257

 

* p<.005

Tbtal frequency of communication

30

25

20

15

10

95

 

Supervisory Subordinate Co-worker Other department
Dl D2 D3 D4

Figure 1. Total frequency of communication for each of 3 types of
communication within 4 directions for supervisory personne1,collapsed
across SP and NSP organizations

Number of communication contacts

96

Supervisory Subordinate Co-worker Other department
D1 D2 D3 D4

Figure 2. Number of communication contacts in each of 4 directions among
supervisory personnel collapsed across SP and NSP organizations

Total frequency of production communication

97

30
25
NSP
20
SP
NS
15
SP
SP
NSP
10
5
Supervisory Co-worker Other department
D1 D3 D4

Figure 3. Total frequency of production communication toward 3 directions
among non-supervisory personnel in SP and NSP organizations

Number of comunication contacts

98

 

 

NSP
NSP SP
SP
SP
NSP
Supervisory Co-worker Other department
D1 D3 D4

Figure 4. Number of communication contacts in each of 3 directions
among non-supervisory personnel in SP and NSP organizations

99

Hmsoomflo cw who >uwaflnmwaou hoompmmeOOIHmcuoucfi mo mmumsaumo mcmdm «4*
onsmmofi mflnu How oHanHm>m Doc mamad ««
cowumssmuuo Hom.oouoouwoo msoflumawuuoowoucw omumaflumm mum mononucoumm CH mucoHOflwmwou *

 

 

Hm. mv. coaumoasdafioo
sues cowuomwmflumm
«« mucousoo
mo Honesz
Adm.vn¢. mu. an. GOflDMHUflGM
. soaum>oqu
lom.vae. as. Aem.c me. am. - coaumaueea
sofluooooum
Amm.vmo. 5h. ~h®.v Nm. Amm.v do. on. GOAMMOHGQEEOO
moccamusamz
Ave.vmm. ma. Aan.c em. Ammo om. Ama.v om. om. coaumoassEEOO
soaum>ossH
Amv.vmm. Hm. “Oh.v mm. Aaw.v mo. AH®.V mo. Aamo.v Hm. «atom. GOHHMOMGDEEOO
cowuosooum

.mmaumm .ueoo.oz

o “#3.." o >O§H o UHGN o UCHQ o g0 . UQHMZ . ECU . >OQGH . 3:00 o CORR QHQMHHM>

 

sowummwumm>cw noncomow map No woman Gama on» ma owns mmwcmmws somzumn mcowumawuwooumusH

h magma

100

Table 8

Alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability, average inter-item r,
and average item-cluster r for scales used in the pre-test phase and

main phase of the research investigation

 

Scale No. items Alpha Inter-item r Item-cluster r
Production communication p 4* .91 .67 .80
Production communication m 4 .86 .66 .79
Innovation communication p 3** .92 .71 .85
Innovation communication m 3 .90 .69 .83
Maintenance communicationp 4* .84 .60 .75
Maintenance communicationm 4 .76 .64 .74
Production initiation p 2*** .77 .62 .90
Production initiation m 2 .81 .67 .91
Innovation initiation p 2*** .75 .60 .90
Innovation initiation m 2 .71 .58 .88
communication satisfaction m 2 .81 .68 .92

 

* scale reduced from 5 to 4 items
** scale reduced from 5 to 3 items
*** scale reduced from 4 to 2 items
p- pretest phase statistic

m- main phase statistic

IX. DISCUSSION

 

Summary of Results of Hypothesis Testing

 

Before presenting a full discussion of the results and the con-
clusions that can be drawn from them, a brief recapitulation of the
hypotheses and results will be presented. Originally 8 hypotheses
were proposed. But as mentioned, hypothesis 7 could not be tested.
Although the hypotheses were not postulated for supervisor and non-

supervisor subgroups, data analysis later suggested the use of the

2 subgroups.

1) Frequency of production communication would be greater among
employees of SP than NSP organizations. This hypothesis was not con-
firmed for the non-supervisory subgroup. A significant difference in the

opposite direction to the prediction was found for the supervisor subgroup.

2) Frequency of innovation communication would be greater among
employees of SP than NSP organizations. This hypothesis was not
confirmed for either of the two subgroups.

3) Frequency of maintenance communication would be greater among
employees of SP than NSP organizations. This hypothesis was not con-
firmed for the non-supervisor subgroup. However, a significant dif-
ference in the opposite direction to the prediction was found in the
supervisory subgroup.

4) The magnitude of differences in frequency of communication
between employees of SP and NSP organizations would be less for
production communication than for the other two types of communication.
This hypothesis was not confirmed for either subgroup. Although there
was a difference in magnitude in the supervisory subgroup, it was the

SP/NSP difference with production that was greater than the other 2

differences.

101

102

5) There would be a greater ratio of subordinate to supervisor
initiation of production communication among employees of SP than NSP
organizations. There was a significant difference in the predicted
direction.

6) There would be a greater ratio of subordinate to supervisor
initiation of innovation communication among employees of SP than NSP
organizations. This hypothesis was not confirmed.

7) There would be a greater ratio of subordinate to supervisor
initiation of maintenance communication among employees of SP than NSP
organizations. This hypothesis could not be tested because of difficulty
with the scale items.

8) There would be a greater degree of communication satisfaction
among employees of SP than NSP organizations. This hypothesis was not
confirmed.

An additional dependent measure not initially included in the
design of the research was used in the analysis. This variable was the
number of communication contacts and has been described previously.
Results with this measure tended to follow the pattern described above.
There were no significant differences obtained with either of the sub-
groups, between the SP and NSP groups on this measure.

In conceptualizing the research project both implicit and explicit
assumptions were generated. The researcher's basic value structure re-
garding organizations and organizational processes necessarily entered
into the conceptual development. The explicit assumptions became
formalized in the statement of hypotheses. They were mainly an outgrowth
of the integration of PDM, "human relations" oriented theory, and

organizational communication concepts. The theory and the rationale for

103
the specific hypotheses have been described in detail in an earlier
chapter. Most of the hypotheses based on these assumptions have not
been confirmed. The most compelling question at this point is why
didn't we obtain the results that were predicted? Reasons have been
given for expecting the predicted differences. We will now turn our
attention to possible reasons why the predictions were ngt_confirmed.

The most obvious statement that the lack of expected differences
can lead one to make is:" Perhaps the SP and NSP organizations
taking. part in the investigation were not very different." We not
only had a small sample of organizations but it is possible that these
organizations did not really differ in organizational philosophy and
day to day organizational processes. Detailed descriptions of the
various plants used as research sites have been offered in an attempt to
afford the reader an opportunity to decide on the comparability of the
sites. Although the descriptive comparability data was time bound and
mostly non-observational in nature, it can provide some basis for
trying to more fully understand the results.

The four plants were basically in the same industry. While all
four did not manufacture the same product, they did manufacture wood
furniture products using similar manufacturing processes and technolo-
gies. We are not confronted with extremes such as two plants being
highly automated, heavy industry manufacturing operations, and the
other two being primarily research and design operations. Physical
layouts of the p1ants,and work processes and flow were also highly
similar. Characteristics of the work force were very much alike in the
SP and NSP groups, and all four plants were located within the same
geographical area. There is no reason for one not to assume that all

four are drawing upon the same work force population. Size of the

104

plants and work force are also fairly similar across groups. Probably
the most useful and relevant information with which to compare the
companies is that pertaining to some of the personnel processes and
formal communication mechanisms that exist in the organizations.

The picture that is drawn of the orientation procedures in the
SP/NSP organizations seems to indicate a substantial difference.
Compared to orientation in the SP plants, the NSP procedures appear to
be much less emphasized, less valued by management, less informative and
generally not very employee centered. Not as much time and effort seems
to have gone into planning or implementation of the orientation in the
NSP group. The citing of company rules and regulations occupies a
larger part of the procedure in the NSP companies. In fact, the only
written material given to new employees in the NSP plants is a compre-
hensive list of rules and penalties resulting from violation of rules.

It is generally in the area of formal communication mechanisms de-
signed into the organization that we see even greater differences
between the SP/NSP groups. For the most part, formal mechanisms for
communication do not exist in the NSP group. Cross-functional group
meetings between management level personnel are infrequent. Although
the foremen meet together there is no formalized method for insuring the
transmission of this information back to the production workers. No
company newsletter or such similar method of information exchange exists.
The NSP companies make what seems to be little effort to keep employees
informed. The value and obligation of keeping them informed seems to be
missing in the NSP group. The comment about employee knowledge of
company financial conditions ("They can find out in the Wall Street
Journal”.) seems indicative of this general attitude . There is no

formal suggestion system in operation in the NSP plants. A manager in

105
one of the plants voiced concern that there was no such system and
felt that its feasability should be looked into.

The SP plants can not be categorized as fully employee centered
or system 4 in nature. But more of an attempt seems to be made to
disseminate information to all levels of the plants. Many of the formal
communication mechanisms are designed into the organizations as a
result of implementation of the Scanlon Plan. But how operative and well
functioning these mechanisms are is another more salient question.
Management level personnel frOm different functional areas do meet
fairly regularly. Foremen also get together in formal, scheduled
meetings. But more crucial in comparison to the NSP operations is the
existence of the Screening committee in SP companies. Representatives
of all functional areas attend these meetings and purportedly report
the information back to their constituients. In addition, minutes of
these monthly meetings are distributed to all employees. The work force
also receives financial information about the company largely focused
on the profit sharing system. This financial information is both dis—
tributed in the form of a monthly financial sheet, and posted even more
frequently in the plants. However, it is worth noting that a Production
committee does not exist in these SP organizations.

Employees appear to have a greater opportunity to participate in
the organization through information sharing processes already described
and through the use of a formalized suggestion system. Suggestions are
submitted to committee representatives and discussed at the Screening
committee meetings. Action in regard to each suggestion is decided upon
and later printed in the newsletter. A formal mechanisms for suggestion
transmittal is therefore in operation. From looking at plant newsletters

it appears that the suggestion system is made use of. Each issue lists

106
lummmous suggestions submitted by employees and acted upon by the
committee. Again, the question of how well these processes function is
important.

Differences in mechanisms for communication seem to exist between
SP and NSP companies. The type and amount of information disseminated
through orientation also differs. But do the groups have a basically
different approach to organizational processes and different views of
the nature and value of the employee? An overall answer to this
critical question, based on hard, objective data is not possible at
this time. Whether or not there is a participative climate in the SP
group and a non-participative climate in the NSP group can not be
determined with this information. But, evidence does seem to point to
greater participation in information sharing by the SP employees and a
greater value by management in sharing this information. The uncovering
of these differences must be tempered by the fact that the source of
most of the information was management personnel who may have been
presenting a distorted, more favorable view of their organizations.

The extent to which these differences exist on a day to day operational
basis, and the effect that they have on employee attitudes and behavior
can be questioned.

Although these later contrasts do seem to exist, perhaps these
companies are not generally "different enough" on the participative/
non-participative continuum for most of the hypotheses to have been
confirmed. Regardless of the SP/NSP differences that are evident, we
certainly are not dealing with 2 groups of organizations that can be
categorized as system 1 versus system 4. It is quite relevant to this

point that a consultant familiar with the SP plants has also questioned

the nature of their SP operation and the degree to which the management

107

philosophy at the heart of the Scanlon Plan is being implemented. The
"maturity" of their Scanlon Plan is very questionable. The obtained
results, some of which are opposite to that predicted for an SP organi-
zation, and others which indicate no significant difference on the
dependent measures, would seem to be consistent with this more

clinical evaluation of the SP organizations. There is also some hard
data collected tangential to this investigation that may substantiate
this point. Employees in the’SP group were asked several questions
pertaining to SP functioning . One of the items stated that "The
Screening committee representatives keep me well informed about what is
going on in the company". The mean response of employees was 2.6. This
indicates a response close to undecidedness or neutrality about the
statement. On the item, "I really understand the basic ideas of the
Scanlon Plan," the mean value was also 2.6. On another item the mean
was 2.0 indicating some understanding of the use of the suggestion
system. Also interview information collected about the orientation
process seems to show that while the orientation was more thorough than
in the NSP plants, little emphasis was given to informing the employee
about the Scanlon Plan. Discussion of the philosophy and day to day
implications of the Scanlon Plan took a back seat to the financial
aspects from which the employees could benefit.

Organizational consultants worked with management and labor when
the plan was initially introduced in the organization in 1964. Since
that time there has been no organizational development effort. It is
only recently that the organization seems to be taking a look at
itself. Within the last 6 months management of the organization has

worked closely with a consultant in modifying calculation of the SP

108
bonus. Effort was taken to inform the employees of this modification.
Each functional group in the organization had the opportunity to
meet with the consultant and the personnel director to discuss the
changes that were to be implemented.

The company also seems fairly concerned lately with the inter-
_relatedness of the two plants. There has been a need expressed to view
both plants as equal parts of the whole system. Management does not
want either plant to feel that it is being favored at the expense of
the other. They want to view both p1antsas part of one organizational
team. This recent self-analysis may indicate that the organization is
moving toward a more "mature" Scanlon organization. It would be interest-
iig to evaluate communication practices in these plants in the future to
determine what effects, if any, these recent changes have.

Even with the apparent SP/NSP contrasts discussed below, without a
basic difference in philosophy between the groups the lack of confirma-
tion of the hypotheses may be more understandable. A sampling of companies
more demonstrably apart on the partipative/non-participative continnum
may have yielded the predicted differences.

Two of the hypotheses were confirmed. These results are not in-
consistent with the previous findings and discussion. The data indicate
that there was a significant difference in regard to the ratio of
subordinate to supervisory initiation of production communication as
predicted in hypothesis 5. Subordinates and supervisors in the SP group
appear to have a more equal degree of initiation of production communi-
cation than their counterparts in the NSP group. But although the SP/NSP
difference was statistically significant this was a difference of only

.47 standard deviation units. There was no significant difference

109

between the SP/NSP groups on the innovation initiation variable.

The second hypothesis that was confirmed pertained to communication

.

satisfaction. As predicted in hypothesis 8 employees in the SP group
indicated a significantly greater degree of satisfaction with communi-
cation practices than their NSP counterparts. This would seem to fit
with the described differences between the SP/NSP groups. The descrip-
tion of organizational processes in each group, specifically in regard
to dissemination of information, has indicated that some qualitative
differences do exist. There seems to be greater opportunity for employees
to receive information in SP plants. More channels and greater access
to channels appear to exist in the SP group. It can be assumed that as a
result of this ,employees in the SP group indicated significantly
greater communication satisfaction. But once again we must look at the
practical significance of the data. Even though there is a statistically
significant difference, use of eta indicates that the relationship
accounts for only 6% of the variance and practical significance is
therefore almost nil.

Thus far we have been discussing the results primarily in terms of
the analysis of the non-supervisory subgroup. It is when we try to in-
terpret the results obtained with the supervisory subgroup that the
inconsistency appears. For two of the dependent measures (production and
maintenance communication) the frequency of communication is greater in
the NSP group than in the SP group.

These differences are in the opposite direction to the predictions
of hypotheses l and 3. With the apparent lack of a large difference in
operationalization of different organizational theories and philosophies

that was anticipated, these findings are an even greater surprise. There

110

is no clear explanation for why these differences would be obtained for
the supervisory subgroup and why they would be in that direction in
particular. Looking at the production communication variable one
might explain the greater frequency by stating that perhaps there is
less of a need for this type of communication in SP organizations be—
cause of the existence of formalized communication mechanisms. Or perhaps
employees in the SP group have a better idea of what their job duties and
responsibilities are. They may have less of a need for communication
about production matters. It is easier to try and explain this seemingly
inconsistent finding than the result obtained with the maintenance
variable. All of the theorizing up to this point has emphasized a greater
awareness of the importance of maintenance type communication in partici—
pative oriented organizations. Why the frequency of this type of communi-
cation would be greater in NSP organizations, even if the organizations
do not differ as much as anticipated, is unanswerable at this time.
However, this finding could be of great practical importance to advocates
and implementors of SP operations. Organizational development practitioners
have frequently discussed the "filtering down" process by which organi-
zational change evolves. If greater maintenance communication is desired
throughout the organization it would seem most appropriate that super—
visory personnel also be committed to the change and help in the process.
They would serve as models of change. The fact that frequency of mainte-
nance communication was greater in the NSP supervisory subgroup than in
the SP supervisory subgroup suggests that organizational change in the
direction implied by the SP philosophy may be a difficult process to
achieve under existing conditions.

It may also be argued that the area of explanation for the

failure to obtain most predicted differences is the measures themselves.

111

The dependent measure in most of the analyses was an index of the fre-
quency of communication. But frequency of communication may be too in-
sensitive to relatively small differences in organizational climate

or organizational processes between various companies. Even though some
SP/NSP differences were obtained in the analysis of the supervisory
subgroup, a greater number may have been obtained with the use of a
different, attitudinal approach. Even though there were these few
statistically significant SP/NSP differences, use of eta indicated that
little variance was accounted for and practical significance is question-
able. Regardless of what OD interventions are applied( and the Scanlon
Plan can be considered an OD intervention) it may be very difficult to
effect significant changes in the amount of communication in an organi-
zation. It was stated at the beginning of the study that a measure of
total amount of communication was not the best approach to use but had
been most frequently used in previous research. For this reason amount
was refined into frequency of specific types and directions of communi—
cation. Evenwith the addition of types and directions of communication
as variables it may be difficult to monitor differences in frequency
unless between organizational conditions are widely disparate. The
assumptions which guided this investigation are still accepted by this
researcher. In a highly participative-oriented organization in which
system 4 type beliefs are implemented and operating, communication
processes should be different than those in more "traditional" organi-
zations. But perhaps the crucial difference manifests itself in the
guality rather than the quantity of the type or direction of communication.
Attempts by organizations to be more participative and communicative

throughout the organization may affect attitudes of employees about

112
communication processes to a much greater extent, or earlier in the life
cycle of the change, than they affect actual communication behaviors.
Unless an extremely intensive OD effort is applied directly to the area
of communication, changes in frequency may not be readily forthcoming.
But an organization that has somehow demonstrated to employees that it
has a participative philosophy of organization, and which has a general
and successful OD intervention like the Scanlon Plan, may affect employee
attitudes about organizational processes. Thus, an attitudinal approach to
the problem area of study, rather than a behavioral approach may have
uncovered more differences. By an attitudinal approach I mean more
perceptual questions such as the adequacy of type and direction of
communication,how much effort is being spent in fostering better
communications, and quality of the types of communication in different
directions. With even the relatively slight differences in organizational
processes that were found in the qualitative data of this investigation,
these types of items may have found some meaningful differences. It was
mentioned that a significant difference was found between the SP/NSP
groups with the use of the communication satisfaction variable. Although
the difference was of little practical significance it corresponds to the
attitudinal approach being suggested.

It is also worthwhile to speculate in regard to the above discussion
and the research area in general, about some of the less explicit
assumptions the researcher has been making. It seems that there has been
an implicit assumption that the greater the frequency or amount of
specific types and directions of communication, the "better the
organization". More specifically, the more participative—oriented the

organization the greater the frequency of the various types and directions.

113

But this viewpoint must be questioned. How do we Operationalize "better"
communications or "efficient" communications practices in organizations?
What levels and directions of production, innovation and maintenance
communication should we find? Also, how should we interpret a high or low
level of communications in an organization? What does a high frequency of
production communication tell about the state of the organization? Is this
a good sign because employees are exchanging a great deal of information
about production matters? Or could it be a cue that nobody in the company
really knows what is going on, what specific duties and objectives are.
Does a low frequency of production communication indicate that everyone
knows what to do in regard to duties and few problems and questions
exist? Or does the organizational climate inhibit the flow of communi-
cation and lead to infrequent interaction? This fuzziness of interpre-
tation may also be extended to a discussion of other types and directions
of communication.

In framing this research study it was assumed that high levels of
production, innovation and maintenance communication were necessary to
continued health and vitality of an organization. An insistence on the
multi-directional nature of these types of communication would also seem
to flow from the works of PDM theorists. However, there seems to be no
basis at this time for prescribing certain levels and directions of
communication over others in all situations. The state of the science
is such that we really are unable to assert that production communication
once or twice a week between supervisor and subordinate is necessary to
smooth functioning of an organization. Nor can we say that there should
always be a high level of innovation communication between departments.

We also have no reason for assuming that maintenance communication

114

should be frequent among employees. Taking as a given the fact that we
can not always just strive to increase communication, how can we decide
what level constitutes too much or too little? Is this level the same
for all types, in all organizations?

The answer to the last question is probably no. There just aren't
any clear, simple answers to the questions raised. Frequent communication
about production matters may not be as necessary in certain types of
organizations and task environments as in others. For example, in a
highly automated assembly line operation production communication may
not only be impossible but for all practical purposes highly unnecessary.
The work is so routinized and mechanized that questions and problems
concerning the work activities are infrequent. The opposite may be true
in a highly skilled, single unit oriented production process in which the
aspects of the work are continually changing and constant questioning is
therefore necessary. In the former organizational environment maintenance
communication may assume an important role. The worker may not want or
might not be able to form his self-concept and identity as an outgrowth
of his job. He may look toward communication with others to help him
identify and confirm who he is as an individual. Intrinsic satisfaction
not available from the job may be received from maintenance communication
with others. In the second task environment described above, maintenance
communication may not be as necessary. The work itself can provide
maintenance type communication and information. There may also be less
room for innovation communication in a highly routinized environment
than in the other task environment. Similar statements and reasoning
can be applied to the issue of directionality of communication. Inter-

action between co-workers may be impossible for assembly line workers

115

during most of the working day. Communication between functional de-
partments may not be as critical in a situation in which the nature of
the work is not as highly interdependent. Some situations may require
an extremely high degree of worker autonomy such that interaction
between supervisor and subordinate is critical when it does occur.

But it may occur relatively infrequently.

The overall point is that the amount, type, and direction of
communication which is most appropriate is probably highly situation
specific. The works of Fiedler(l964), Lawrence and Lorsch(l969),
WOodward(1958), and Schein(l966) have all pointed to the benefits that
behavioral scientist theoreticians and practitioners can accrue from
contingency approaches to organizational variables. Leavitt's(l951)
laboratory investigations have also pointed to different types of
communication practices having different results under different sets
of conditions. The desire for parsimony has in a sense infused us
with tunnel vision. We have looked for simplistic, unidimensional
answers and approaches. Just as Schein(l966) recognized the need for
a complex man orientation, there may be a need for a more complex,
contingency approach to the investigation of organizational communica-
tions. Blanket statements about "effective" communications in organi-
zations are of little value and only serve to steer us away from the
important but complex realities of organizational functioning. This is
a serious limitation of the "human relations" oriented theorists who
seem to ignore individual and organizational differences. They ignore
individual differences by implying that everyone has higher order
needs and wants them satisfied. They ignore organizational differences

by implying that PDM approaches are best under all conditions. This

116

later statement carries with it the implication that particular
communication practices which fit the PDM model should also exist
under all conditions. If we are going to be able to make pre—
scriptive statements, we must study communications under varied
organizational conditions and task environments, and in "effective"
and "ineffective" organizations. Clear and simple answers may not be
forthcoming, but increased understanding of communication processes
will undoubtedly be gained.

We must also consider in discussion of the results that the
present study, like most organizational research, has a frame of
reference of only one point in time. It is as if the investigator
took a "photograph" of the communication processes at a single point
in the organizational life cycle. Therefore, the results may reflect
but a brief sampling of how the communication processes are in
general. Factors and conditions extraneous and unknown to the re-
searcher may have affected the picture that was obtained. It would
seem that research of this nature would benefit greatly from longi-
tudinal investigation. It may also have been more appropriate to
study this problem area by utilizing a pre and post design. Data
about communication processes in the organization before the implemen-
tation Of a Scanlon Plan could have been compared to periodic post
(6 month intervals) evaluation of communication processes. In this way
changes in communication that accompany initial implementation and
later maturation and refinement of the Scanlon Plan could be assessed.
This is a particularly fruitful area for future investigation. The
practical logistics of gaining entrance into an organization when it is

about to implement the Scanlon Plan may reduce the feasability of such

117

an approach.

Having discussed the results of the focal point of the investigation
let us now look more closely at some of the supplemental findings more
tangential to the heart of the research.

A finding Which is not at all surprising, and one which was ob-
tained in both subgroup analyses, is the Direction main effect.

This main effect indicates that collapsing across SP and NSP groups
there are differences between directions in the frequency of communi—
cation for each of the 4 dependent measures. Since a Direction X Groups
interaction for the supervisory subgroup was not found, it makes sense
to try and further examine the obtained Direction main effect. Post-

hoc contrasts with the Schefe(l953) method of comparison were used.
Examination indicated that for each of the 4 dependent variables the
same pairwise contrasts were significant(p<.05) and contributed to the
obtained main effect. The significant contrasts were as follows:
frequency of communication to other departments versus frequency of
communication to subordinates; frequency of communication to co—workers
versus frequency of communication to subordinates; and frequency of
communication to supervisors versus frequency of communication to
subordinates. Thus, the low frequency of communication to subordinates
in relation to communication in the other 3 directions seems to account
for the significant contrasts. This finding of lower levels of com-
munication to subordinates is one which has consistently been reported
throughout the literature and reemphasizes the problems of superior-
subordinate relationships. Superior-subordinate communication seems to
be an area which still needs much attention from communication researchers

and from psychologists and management specialists hoping to alleviate the

118
problems in the day to day functioning of an organization.

To further investigate the Groups X Direction interaction that
was obtained for the non-supervisory analysis, post—hoc contrasts were
also used. This time the Schefe method was also appropriate but
multiple comparisons were conducted. Different comparisons were signi-
ficant with each of the 2 dependent measures for which the interaction
was significant. Looking at the measure number of communication contacts,
we found that the SP/NSP comparison under direction 1 (toward supervisors)
versus direction 4(toward other departments) was significant (p<.05).
Figure 4 shows that there is a greater SP/NSP difference in the number
of communication contacts that non—supervisory employees have with
supervisory personnel than there is for any of the other 2 directional
categories. Again it is difficult to interpret this finding clearly. Is
a greater number of supervisory contacts beneficial to the individual
and the organization? In using this variable as a diagnostic aid what
does more communication really tell the behavioral scientist about the
health of the organization? Answers to these questions would be purely
speculative and relate to the discussion of implicit and explicit
assumptions about communication at the beginning of this chapter.

A look at the same multiple contrasts with the production
communication measure reveals that it is the SP/NSP comparison under
direction 1 versus direction 3(toward co—workers) that is significant
(p<105) and contributing to the obtained interaction. Figure 3 reveals
that the difference in frequency of production communication between SP
and NSP groups is greatest under direction 1. Apparently individuals in
NSP organizations communicate with their supervisors about production
matters much more frequently than their SP counterparts. As was mentioned

above, the reasons for this are unclear.

X. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

 

The purposes of the present research have really been two fold.

An attempt was made to investigate the effects of participative-
oriented theories of organization on organizational communication
practices by comparing a specific implementation of the PDM approach
(SP) to more traditional methods of organization(NSP). Secondly,
communication practices in organizations were explored in attempt to
increase understanding in an area that has received little research
emphasis.

Some significant differences were found between communication
practices. The only Groups (SP/NSP) main effect occurred in the
supervisory subgroup analysis and there it was obtained for only 2
of 4 dependent measures. Even though these differences were statistical-
ly significant, the use of eta indicated that little variance was
accounted for. Reasons for not obtaining a greater amount of expected
differences have been postulated. The most parsimonious explanation
for the lack of confirmation of the hypotheses may be a lack of
real differences between the SP and NSP companies. With greater dif-
ferences in organizational style and practices, the expected differences
may have emerged. There is also the possibility that the measures utilized
were not sensitive to small inter—organizational differences in communi-
cation. An index of quality of communication rather than quantity may»
have been more revealing.

Examination of the data also indicated the existence of a Groups X
Direction interaction, and Direction main effect. The Groups X Direction
interaction affirms the fact that simplistic statements about communica—

tions in participative versus non—participative organizations must be

110

120

reworked. The difference in frequency of communication in participatiVe
versus non-participative organizations may depend upon the specific
direction of communication investigated. It would also be worthwhile

to examine the possible interaction between types of communication and
direction of communication as well as the interaction between type and
groups. Investigation of these effects were not possible with the model
of analysis being used. However, both of these interactions would appear
to fit in with the contingency approach to communication that was
discussed. .

Although implications and recommendations have been stated at
appropriate times throughout the discussion, a brief summary will be
presented.

1) The frequency measure that was used may have restricted the
opportunity of demonstrating even greater differences in communication
practices. It may be more appropriate and revealing to investigate
employee perceptions about the quality of communication. Differences in
climate and operating philosophy between organizations may affect
employee perceptions of adequacy and satisfaction with communication
to a much greater extent and more quickly than they affect frequency of
interaction.

2) Utilization of a pre-post longitudinal design may have afforded
a greater opportunity to answer some of the questions abOut communi-
cations under SP and NSP operations. Any changes in communication that
result from different degrees of "successfulness" or "maturity" of the
Scanlon Plan could also be assessed this way.

3) Prescriptive statements and assumptions have failed to emphasize
a contingency approach that is necessary to increased understanding of

communication processes. The most appropriate,efficient mix of frequency

121

direction, type and other variables not yet even thought of, must be
examined under a wide range of organizational and task conditions if
understanding is to be enhanced. This researcher believes that the
effort is justified. Communication is a process that pervades all
aspects of organizational functioning. Its relationship to other
organizational processes and to individual, group and organizational

end states should also be investigated.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Interview Schedule for Comparabilitprata

 

Brief Identifying Information

 

l.
2.
3.
4.

Organization name and location

Type of organization (ie. service, manufacturing)
Total dollar assets for 1973

Total dollar assets for 1973

Historical-Background Information

 

Line of succession after initial founder
Major product line when company started and subsequent changes

 

a) Actual diagram of structure if available from records or
perceptions of organizational hierarchy from key people

b) Written description of how organization is divided and
subdivided structurally,'by investigator

a) Determine if formal job descriptions exist
b) Obtain copy if possible to determine extent of detail

Number of employees in each functional area: number of
production, supervisory, management and office personnel

1. When company founded

2. Founded by whom

3.

4.

The Formal Organization

1. The Formal Organization Chart
2. Job Descriptions

3.

4.

Ratio of supervisory personnel to production workers and
ratio of management personnel to entire work force.
Information also

Plant and Equipment

 

Brief description of different functional areas on each floor
Facilities available such as drinking fountains, toilets,
windows, lunch and break facilities

Plant size

a) Total square footage of plant

b) Number of floors

Equipment
a) Type of equipment ( manual, semi-automatic, automatic)
b) General frequency of equipment breakdown

Employee Characteristics

 

1. Mean age of employees
2. Mean educational level
3. Percent male and female

121a

lZlb

Percent of workforce voluntarily terminated in 1973
Average daily absenteeism

Percent at various skill levels

Mean length of service in company

. Ethnic composition

WQOUIb

Personnel Processes

 

1. Description of recruitment process
a) methods used
b) criteria for selection

2. Rate of recruitment per month

3. Description of orientation procedures
a) length of orientation
b) when it occurs
c) who conducts procedure
d) contents
e) written material given to employee
f) rules and regulations- content, formal-informal
9) information about company background, products

4. Training of old and new employees
a) do new employees get any training
b) form and length of training
c) do supervisory and management get any training
d) description of apprenticeship program, if any
e) description of probationary period

5. Promotion
a) percent promoted in last year
b) description of written promotion policies
c) how are promotions decided

6. Compensation
a) wage scale for hourly
b) comparison of wage scale to industry rates
c) how are wage rates set
d) description of profit sharing or incentive systems,if any

7. Performance Appraisal
a) timing of appraisals
b) who does the appraising
c) are standards generated and by whom
d) is the appraisal written,formalized

8. Fringe Benefits
a) what are the benefits and who shares in them

9. Conceptualization of time in the organization
a) are there assembly lines or similar devices to regulate workers

121c

b) is there a time clock and who has to punch in (level)
c) penalties for lateness
d) what is considered late

Communication Within the Organization

1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
ll.
12.

13.

Are there any formal committees set up within the company
Are there formally scheduled meetings
Frequency of meetings
Level of these meetings
Are there written reports from these meetings
Do rank and file attend or have representatives
Is there a company inhouse organ and what does it contain
What financial information is made available to employees
What is the form of this financial information and frequency
Is information about product waste, returned goods made available
Do supervisors hold scheduled meetings with subordinates
Suggestions
a) Is there a formal system
b) Is it tied to incentives
c) Who gets the incentive for the suggestion
d) Are suggestions made known to all
e) Who decides on implementation
Inter-departmental coordination
a) Are there scheduled meetings between departmentsand frequency

Financial Information

 

l.
2.
3.

Total sales volume for 1973
Relative standing in industry
Dunn and Broadstreet rating if available

Miscellaneous

 

1.

Union activities
a) Union affiliation and number
b) Do employees have to join
c) Attempts to unionize

2. Daily schedule

a) Length of work day

b) Frequency and length of breaks
c) Length of lunch time

d) Percent that work overtime

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Psychology-Organizational Research Division
COMMUNICATIONS ON YOUR JOB

A phrase that we hear often nowadays is "communication problem."
People are constantly talking about the problems that they have in
communicating with others in both work and home life.

The Psychology Department at Michigan State University is very
interested in finding out about communications that take place in
work settings. With this information we may be able to learn how to over-
come many of these problems. Your cooperation in this study will help
greatly in trying to find some solutions.

All of the enclosed questionnaires are strictly confidential.

N2 232 but the research team at the University will see them. As
soon as you have completed the questionnaires you can seal them in
the envelope provided. You will hand them directly to

the University staff. No one in the company will ever see the
individual information that you have provided. General results of
the study will be made available to you.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Before starting to answer the questionnaire it is necessary that we

get some information about you. This will only be used to help us code and
analyze the information in the questionnaire.

YOUR NAME:

 

JOB TITLE:

 

SEX: MALE FEMALE

LENGTH OF TIME ON JOB:

 

121d

12le

INSTRUCTIONS

 

This part of the survey deals with communication between you and your
immediate supervisor-your boss or foremen. There are no right or wrong answers
to these few questions. Below each question you will find 6 possible answers.
Each of the answers has a number above it. Read each of the questions and
answer them by drawing a circle around the number of the answer that you want
to give. Please answer all questions.

Remember your answers are held in strict confidence.

EXAMPLE
When you talk with your supervisor about your work activities who decides

what will be discussed?
1 2 3 4 (5) 6

I always I usually We each do an He usually He always We never
do do equal number does does talk
of times

If your supervisor always decides you would circle the S as is done above.

1. When you talk with your supervisor about things related to your work, who
starts the conversation?

1 2 3 4 5 6
I always I usually We each do an He usually He always We never
do do equal number . does does talk
of times

2. When you talk with your supervisor about your work activities who decides
what will be discussed?

1 2 3 4 5 6
I always I usually We each do an He usually He always We never
do do equal number does does talk
of times

3. When you talk with your supervisor about new ways of doing thingg, who
starts the conversation?

l 2 3 4 5 6
I always I usually We each do an He usually He always We never
do do equal number does does talk
of times

4. When you talk with your supervisor about any changes that take place or
should take place in connection with your work, who starts the conversation?

l 2 3 4 5 6
I always I usually We each do an He usually He always We never
do do equal number does does talk
of times

turn over

l21f

Read each of the next statements and indicate how strongly you agree

or disagree by circling one of the 5 answers below each statement.

5.

10.

11.

12.

13.

I usually get the information I need at the time I need it.

1 2 . 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

I am satisfied with communications in general in this company.

1 2 3 4 5
I. agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The production and screening committee representatives keep me well
informed about what is going on in the company.

1 2 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

The Grand Rapids and Zeeland plants are equally important .

1 2 3 ' 4 s
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

. The company is more interested in the Zeeland plant than they are in us.

1 2 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly
I really understand the basic ideas of the Scanlon Plan.
1 2 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

I understand how to use the suggestion system to get my ideas across.

1 2 3 4 S
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

I don't understand how the bonus is figured out.

1 2 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

All things considered, I’m satisfied working here.

1 2 3 4 5
I agree I agree I am I disagree I disagree
strongly somewhat undecided somewhat strongly

1219 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERSONAL COHMUUICATION LIST

 

Please go back over the last few months and think of the peOple gp_£§g
company that you talk to the most. You are to list the full names of these
people in the spaces provided below. This list can include people higher in
the company than yourself (such as supervisors, foremen, or company president)
ygpr subordinates, peOple in other departments or work groups, and 297
workers in your own department. Space is provided for you to list up to
10 names.

 

We need the names in order to properly analyze the information. But we
can assure you that all the information is treated confidentially and no one
in the company will ever see any of your responses.

LIST OF NAMES — COMMUNICATION CONTACTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMMUNICATION QUESTIONNAIRES

Now that you have listed these names we would like to find out briefly
about the types of things you talk about with each of these people.
On the next few pages are Communication Questionnaires. At the top of
each questionnaire is a space provided for you to write in the name of a
person that you listed above. Look at your list of names and write the nag;
of the lst_person from your list in the space provided on the lst question-
naire. Then answer the questions about your communication with this person.
When you finish the lst questionnaire go on to the second and write in
the name of the second person from the list. Answer the questions about your
communication with this person. Rgpeat this procedure for every persog_that you

‘listed above. Tliaise think carefully about your answers since we want the infor-

mation to 55 as useful as possible.
Again, thank you for your cooperation. The research staff at Michigan

State University appreciates your help and will make the general results
of this survey available to you.

 

 

121h

commute/nun: GILESngrzAfig

 

COMMUNICATION CONTACT

 

Check one of the following. Is this person -

l) a member of your work group

2) a member of a different work group
3) or in a supervisory position

4) your subordinate

1H

 

1. How often do you talk about current work problems with this person?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

2. How often do you talk with this person about work deadlines-getting the
work done?

1 2 3 4 S 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

3. When talking with this person how often do you give or take orders about
work performance?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

4. How often are your talks with this person about meeting work specifications?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
8 day twice a week twice a month once a month

5. How often do you talk with this person about new things to do in connection
with your work or the work of others?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

6. How often do you talk with this person about any new ideas or suggestions
that you or others have about how to improve work performance?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

7. How often do you talk with this person about actually putting these ideas
or suggestions into effect-carrying them out?

1 2 3 4 S 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

8. How often in your talks with this person do you give or get encouragement
or recognition about work or non-work matters?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

turn over

1211

9. How often do these talks produce information about why your job is necessary
or how your job relates to other jobs in the company?

2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month
10. How often do you talk about "peOple-problems" - such as trying to solve
personal problems-with this person?
2 3 4 S 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

11. How often do you talk about non-work problems with this person?

1 2 3 4 5 6
more than once once a day once or once or less than never
a day twice a week twice a month once a month

12. In general, how important are your talks with this person?

1 2 3 4 5
utmost great some little no
importance importance importance importance importance

SPACE IS PROVIDED BELOW FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS YOU WISH REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS, OR WORK
IN GENERAL IN THIS COMPANY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amend,E. Liaison communication roles of professionals in research
dissemination organizations. Unpublished Ph.D.thesis.
Michigan State University,l97l.

 

Argyris,C. Executive Leadership. New York: Harper and Row,1953.

Back, K.,Festinger,L.,Hymovitch,B.,Kelley,H.,Schacter,S., and
Thibaut,J. The methodology of studying rumor transmission.
Human Relations,l950,§,307-312.

 

Barnard, C. The Function of the Executive. Cambridge:Harvard Press,l938.

 

Bavelas,A., and Barrett,D. An experimental approach to organizational
communication. Personnel,l951,gz,366-71.

Berkowitz,N.,and Bennis,W. Interaction patterns in formal service-
oriented organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1961,§,25-50. T

 

Berlo,D. Essays on communication. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan
State University,l970.

Berlo,D.,Farace,R.,Connelly,R., and Russell,H. Relationships between
supervisor-subordinate communication practices and employee
turnover,attendance, and performance evaluations. Unpublished
manuscript. Michigan State University,l971.

Blau,P., and Scott,w. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler
publishing,1962.

 

Boyd,B., and Jensen,J. Perceptions of first-line supervisors authority:
A study in supervisor-subordinate communication. Academy of
Management Journal, l972,l§,331-43.

 

 

Brown,C. and Wilcox,D. Effects of different patterns and degrees of
openness in supervisor-subordinate job satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal,l969,l§,319-326.

 

Burns,T. The directions of activity and communication in a departmental
executive group. Human Relations, 1954,Z,73-97.

 

Cohen,A. Upward communication in experimentally created hierarchies.
Human Relations,1958,ll,4l-53.

 

122

123

Cook,P. An examination of the notion of communication in industry.
Occupational Psychology,1951,2§,l-14.

 

Dahle,T. An objective and comparative study of five methods of
transmitting information to business and industrial employees.
Speech Monggraphs,l954,2,21-28.

 

Davis,K. A method of studying communication patterns in organizations.
Personnel Psychology,l953,§,301-312.

 

DaVier.Success of chain of command oral communication in a manufacturing
group. Academy of Management Journa1,1968,ll,379-387.

 

Dorsey,J. A communication model for administration. Administrative
Science_guarterly,l957,2,307-324.

 

Etzioni,A. Complex Organizations. London: Free Press,196l.

 

Farace,R. and Connelly,R. Organization communication correlates of
Herzberg's theory of work satisfaction. Unpublished masters
thesis. Michigan State University,1970.

Festinger,L. Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 1950,
§Z,217-282.

Fiedler,F. A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In
L.Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology.
Academic Press,l964.

 

Funk,F. Communication attitudes of industrial foremen as related to their
rated productivity. Unpublished D.Ed. thesis. The Penn State
University, 1960.

Goetzinger,C. and Valentine,M. Business and professional communication
training program. Todays Speech,l963,ll,10-ll.

 

Habbe,S. Experiment in oral communication. Management Record,1951,l§,128.

Hall,R. The Formal Organization. New York: Basic Books,l972.

 

Haney,W. A comparative study of unilateral and bilateral communication.
Academy of Management Journal,1964,l,128—136.

 

Heron,A. Sharing Information With Employges. Stanford: University Press,1942.

 

Hinrichs,J. Communications activity of industrial research personnel.
Personnel Psychology,l964,lZ,193-204.

 

Jacobson,E. and Seashore,S. Communication practices in complex organizations.
Journal of Social Issues,l951,z,28-40.

 

Jain,N. Communication patterns and effectiveness of professionals per-
forming linking roles in a research dissemination organization.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,Michigan State University, 1970.

124

Katz,D. and Kahn,R. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York:
Wiley,1966.

 

Kelley,H. Communications in experimentally created hierarchies, Human

Lawler,E.,Porter,L., and Tannebaum,A. Managers attitudes toward
interaction episodes. Journal of Applied Psychology,l968,
§EJ432-39.

 

Lawrence,P. and Lorsch,J. Organization and Environment. Homewood:
Irwin,Inc.,1969.

 

Leavitt,H. Some effects of certain communication patterns on group
performance. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,l951,
46' 38-50.

 

Leavitt,H. Managerial Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,l958.

Lesieur,F. The Scanlon Plan-A Frontier in Labor Management Cooperation.
Cambridge:MIT Press,l958.

Likert,R. New Patterns in Management. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

 

Likert,R. The Human OrganizationzIts Management and Value. New York:
McGraw Hill,l967.

 

MacDonald,D. Communication roles and communication content in a bureaucratic
setting. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, 1970.

Maier,N.,Hoffman,L.,Hooven,J., and Read,W. Supervisor—Subordinate
Communication in Management. New York: American Management
Association, 1961.

 

March,J., and Simon,H. Organizations. New York:Wi1ey, 1958.

 

Mayo,E. The Social Problems Of An Industrial Civilization. London:
Routledge and Kegan,l949.

 

McCroskey,J.,Larson,C., and Knapp,M. An Introduction To Interpersonal
Communication. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice Hall,l97l.

 

McGregor,D. The Human Side Of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill,1960.

 

Mellinger,G. Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology,l956,§3,304-309.

 

Odiorne,G. An application of the communication audit. Personnel
Psychology,l954,z,235-243.

 

Perry,D., and Mahoney,T. In plant communication and employee morale.
Academy of Management Journal,l964,1,128-136.

 

125

Pigors,P. Effective Communication in Industry. New York:Nationa1
Association of manufacturers,1949.

 

Read,W. Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations,
1962 IE, 3-15 0

 

Redfield,C. Communication in Management. Chicago:University of Chicago
Press,l958.

 

Roethlisberger,P., and Dickson,w. Management and the Worker. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press,l946.

 

Rothstein,J. Communication, Organization and Science. Indian Hills:
Falcon Press, 1958.

Schefe,H. A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance.
Biometrika,l953,29,87-104.

 

Schein,E. Organizational Psychology. Englewood:Prentice Ha11,l966.

 

Schultz,G. Variations in environments and the scanlon plan. In
F.Lesieur (ed.) The scanlon plan: a frontier in labor management
cooperation. Cambridge:MIT press,1958.

 

Schwartz,D. Liason communication roles in formal organization.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Michigan State University,1970.

Scott,W., and Mitche11,T. Organization Theory. Homewood:Irwin,Inc.,1972.

 

Simon,H. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan,1957.

 

Simpson,R. Vertical and horizontal communication in formal organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly,1959,31188-196.

 

Strauss,G., and Sayles,L. The scanlon plan:some organizational problems.
Human Organization,1957,1§,15-22.

 

Tacey,w. Critical requirements of the oral communication of industrial
foremen. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis , The Penn State University,
1960.

Thayer,L. Administrative Communication. Homewood:Irwin,Inc. 1961.

 

Thibaut,J. An experimental study of the cohesion of underprivileged
groups. Human Relations,1950,1§,251-278.

 

Thompson,V. Modern Organizations. New York: Knopf,l961.

 

Wade,L. Communications in a public bureaucracy. Journal of Communication,
196811—8-p '8—250

Walton,E. Communicating down the 1ine:how they really get the word.
Personnel,1959,§§,78-82.

126

Weber,M. A study of organizational communication systems. Personnel
Administration,1963,26J46-49.

 

Weber,M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York:
Oxford University Press,l947.

 

Weiss,R. Process of Organization. AnnArbor:Institute for Social Research,
1956.

 

Weiss,R., and Jacobson,E. Method for the analysis of the structure of
complex organizations. American Sociological Review,1955,20,
551-558.

Wickesberg,A. Communication networks in the business organization
structure. Academy of Manggement Journal, 1968,111253-262.

 

Winer,B. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1962.

 

Woodward,J. Management and Technology. London:Her Majesty Printing Office,
1958.

 

Zaleznik,A. Worker Satisfaction and Development. Boston: Harvard Business
School,1956.

 

"IWEIIIMJILWIIIII