1'°111.""'"l1'1"1'1111’ "'l‘lll1f'1.'II"'1-\1'l“ .111111 1111111,..1111‘ 11 .1111'11‘11
1111M; 1.111111.l"1.' ' . ». .

III-
mIl1"‘1"""111_'|I|"

'11. 1 1 . 1 ’ .1 ‘1'
-|' 'I .
1. .III.
.1 l 1 1 1 . .11
11.1 1 ' I ' 1"

.I1II"' N; 1 .
III.

II ;.
111111...1 ‘ 
1’9 I1 “ ’I' H
I,'1'1"1"}'

III
1 111 I 1111 I1 1|
I 'II'I‘ ."

III. I . " ' " I» ,I " . -... v' w 22.:
' I 111.11 1 .1 2111”" "‘- 1.: ',.11,.‘,I "L. _ -°.:‘:1‘1._,1.Y“L Fifi-0:.

. I 11~ 11111 I: ' ‘ ' I "- *' in. a
11 II1Il11 11111111117!
«1:»

. I '
. I 1 'I1I.1 1 , , I ' 1‘ 5‘ ‘ '
" :1'151I1'II111I'11." 1':I1'1'III"'1I'III11"1' III ' "'I' I"W.','1' .

uh
~ :2”
- “w

3"";4
I
- fish“

A.
1;.

' ‘52.

I ' III‘I'II. " : #11111" '1
1 1 11 111111.]: 111.111..111111'1'II‘1I1I 11.1.I1 11111 I. 111. .11l11I1'111111I'II1111'h311 1111111

.1   1. ; 111111 £1.11 1
'1 III“ "" '11111111I1I1 1 II" III 'I'I'II1 “I1'1II1III'II 111 yea-1'.

111 .'..11 '1 111.1-1"1'I',1I1111'1111 11I1 I1..1 ‘11
1.1111 .111 111 111.1 11.1

111111....I111” 1"'""1 "'"
{‘WII'*I.'I.MI.IIIIII .II1“"' --
‘ 1w""| " " fif 1‘1"" ”:32!” ‘3‘ Mt 1N"')'"" 1":1'IIW fl lk“ N W '1' ' .' '11
. . ' 1111“ .1,_.'.w‘1'"l 111: I -. ml"; ' i... ... .II'
I 1 T1 1.. n “1.“,- 1.3-11.1. 1
‘1 $11? 11111 1.11111}? '1. 1 1111‘ 1' H.111 (1111111111111 «l1 I111 111.1111 11 I .
I .. I. III I . II...

.ll‘ 11I11."1 1'11"“ ”'III'

*3
- fi::;:
_~—~.

  
  
 
   

I 11"1IWJWIW11JV1

"III' “"1 .

H

3//////////////

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS
OF STRUCTURE ON JOB DESIGN

presented by

Thomas Lenord Keon

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in BusinessM _
‘ Adminis rat on

\E/fi—

Majo orofes ssor

 

 

Balm/ll will

0-7639

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

 

fr Lvn.|.i.', I!“ r'vil

  

 

Copyright by
THOMAS LENORD KEON
1979

IA

[‘15. -

 

 

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF
STRUCTURE ON JOB DESIGN

BY

Thomas Lenard Keon

   
   

  

, .-.- ' ,ZL’E." fl'
‘1" ’ ’43:)
‘ - ’ '3 firm
A DISSERTATION
(‘ v5- 5 lected
I ‘ I :l“;.’ll"
_ H Submitted to ‘ . ' m5 ~
” Michigan State Universifiy ‘7‘ 3 ““mbln‘d 12'
T;n partial fulfillment of the requirement "Q
for the degree 6! -* '0” “5°“ ‘0 7&5:

35:...

from n“ .;naaia provided

5' “I

n s.
it

  

39b to hot

   

 

 

. $118.: The c‘i', ."wi Lz‘ t 13.7! ’ 1.. _ t flit-«APE;
£113 Mfr'x'gtgmsflo‘f HEW; ‘- s j‘nb and”
a on pupportcfi the ggggzhastz . ~
g‘ .
‘V

 

C7 {/6 925—

ABSTRACT

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTS
OF STRUCTURE ON JOB DESIGN
By

Thomas Lenord Keon

This study tested the main effects and interaction
effects of (l) perceived structure; (2) growth-need strength;
and, (3) perceived motivating potential of the job on job
satisfaction. The sample consisted of a manufacturing firm
(N = 185) and a hospital (n = 62). Employees were selected
from all levels and from each department of the two organi-
zations.

Four hypotheses were tested separately and in a combined
form. The combination of the four hypotheses was used to
derive expectations of the degree of satisfaction people
receive from work. Testing of the first hypothesis provided
information on whether workers that perceive the job to be
high on the core job dimensions are more satisfied than
workers that perceive the job to be low on the core job
dimensions. The obtained Pearson product-moment correlation
between the motivating-potential score of the job and job

satisfaction supported the hypothesis.

 

Thomas L. Keon

The second hypothesis was based on only those people
whose motivating-potential score fell above the sample
median. Workers in this group who had individual differences
congruent with the job (high—growth-need strength and moti-
vating job) were expected to be more satisfied than those
individuals whose growth-need strength were incongruent
with the perceived job characteristics. Analysis of variance
showed no support for hypothesis two.

Hypothesis three was restricted to individuals whose
motivating-potential score was low. For these people, it
was predicted that the person whose growth-need strength
was congruent with perceived organizational structure
(low-growth-need strength and high structure) would be
more satisfied with work than the individual whose growth-
need strength was incongruent with perceived structure.
Analysis of variance showed no support for this prediction.

Hypothesis four concerned the congruent and incongruent
states for jobs perceived to be both high and low in motiva-
ting potential. If the individual perceives organizational
structure as low, then that individual will be more satisfied
with the job than the individual that perceives the structure
as high. Pearson product-moment correlations produced an
overall lack of support for hypothesis four.

When the four hypotheses were tested in combined form
using a Spearman rank correlation, the above findings were

confirmed; i.e., support was found for only hypothesis one.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It is with deep appreciation that I wish to thank those
who helped me complete this work.

Linda, my wife, who played a major role by helping,
understanding, criticizing, and typing this dissertation.

Floyd Willoughby procured the samples and collected
the data without which this work could not have been
started, never mind finished.

Larry Foster, the committee chairman, showed constant
concern and interest in this work. He was critical and
expedient, two qualities which are needed for completion
of such a project.

Ken White acted as chairman in Larry's absence. It
was his final help that made the finished product possible.
He took over with great concern for me and my work. This
timely help hastened the process immensely.

Finally, the two other committee people, Ira Horowitz

and John Wanous, proved to be fine editors and critics.

iii

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES.

Chapter I:

Chapter II:

Chapter III:

Chapter IV:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . .

METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3an

El

Research Design. . . . . . . . .
The Sample . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . .
The Measurement Instruments. .

pl. Task Design. . . . . . . . .
2. Structure. . . . . . . . . .
3. Control. . . . . . . . .
4. Other Variables. . . . . . .

Data Collection Method . . . . .

RESULTS a o a o a a a I o c o o a I o

A.

ow

Scale Reliabilities and Validity.

l O JDS O O I I I I I O O O Q I I
2. Structure . . . . . . . . . .
3. Control . . . . . . . . .

Differences Between Organizations
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . .

l. Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . .
2. Hypothesis 2. . . . . . . . .
3. Hypothesis 3. . . . . . . . .
4. Hypothesis 4.. . .
5. The Hypotheses Combined . . .

iv

 

Page

Chapter V: DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A. Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
B. Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . 83
C. Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . 86

. Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . 87

g. The Combined Hypotheses: : . . . : I . : 88
Chapter VI: CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
A. Implications for the Theory . . . . . . 94
B. Implications for Future Research. . . . 95
C. Implications for the Practice . . . . . 97
APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY . a a o n o a o o I 0 Q o o o I g I u o g o l 7 9

 

Table

4-15

4-16
4-17

4-18
4-19

4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23

LIST OF TABLES

Definitions of Variables in the JDS . .
Definitions of Structural Variables . .
Definitions of Control Variables. . . . .
Rank-Ordered Predictions of Satisfaction.

Sample Description. . . . . .
Reliabilities of the JDS Scales . . . .

Correlation Matrix of All Variables . . .
Correlation Matrix of the Two Subsamples

(Manufacturer--top half, Hospital--bottom,

Reliabilities in diagonal). . . .
High MP8 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction .
Cell Means for Table 4- 3. . . . . .
High MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--
Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4- 5. . . .
High MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--
Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4-7..

High MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--
Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4-9. . . . . . . . .
Low MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--
Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4-11 .

Low MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--

Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4-13 . . .
Low MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--

Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means for Table 4- 15 . . .
Low MPS (ANOVA) Dependent Variable--

Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . .

Cell Means for Table 4-17 . . . . . . .
Pearson Product-Moment Correlations with

Global Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cell Means. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cell Means.

Page

6, 7

8
. 9
.13,36

. 34
. 46

53

57

. 60
. 60

. 61
. 61

. 62
O 62
. 63
. 63

O 66
. 66

. 67
. 67

. 68
0 68

69
69

72
75
75
76
76

 

Page

4-24 Rankings of Global Satisfaction for Each
of the Structural Variables . . . . . . . 77
4-25 Spearman Rank Correlations between the Rank-
Ordered Predictions and the Rank- Ordered
Findings for those Ranking 1 to 4 and those

Ranking 5 to 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5-1 Comparison of Rank-Ordered Predictions

and Result. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
APPENDIX D
D1 Frequency Distributions: Hierarchy of

Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
D2 Frequency Distributions: Division of

Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
D3 Frequency Distributions: Rules and

Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D4 Frequency Distributions: Structure . . . .129,130
D5 Frequency Distributions: Organizational

Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
D6 Frequency Distributions: Skill Variety . . 133
D7 Frequency Distributions: Task-Identity . . 134
D8 Frequency Distributions: Task Significance 136
D9 Frequency Distributions: Autonomy. . . . . 137
D10 Frequency Distributions: Feedback from

Job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D11 Frequency Distributions: Feedback from

Agents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
D12 Frequency Distributions: Dealing with

Others. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D13 Frequency Distributions: Meaningfulness. . 143
D14 Frequency Distributions: Responsibility. .145,l46
D15 Frequency Distributions: Knowledge of

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147Il48
D16 Frequency Distributions: Global

Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . .150,151
D17 Frequency Distributions: Motivation. . . .152,153
D18 Frequency Distributions: Social

Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
D19 Frequency Distributions: Supervisory

Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
D20 Frequency Distributions: Security

Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

D21 Frequency Distributions: Pay Satisfaction. 158
D22 Frequency Distributions: Propensity to

Leave . . . . . . . . . 159
D23 Statistics for Social Satisfaction,

Supervisory Satisfaction, Security Satis-

faction, Pay Satisfaction, and Propensity

to Leave. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

vii

D24
025
D26

D27
D28
D29
D30

D31
D32
D33
D34
D35
D36

Frequency

Frequency
Growth. .
Frequency
Growth.

Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency

Distributions:
Satisfaction. . . .

Distributions:

Distributions:

Distributions

Distributions:
Distributions:
Distributions:

T-tests and F-tests . .
T-tests and F-tests . .
T-tests and F-tests . .
T-tests and F-tests .

T—tests and F-tests . .
T-tests and F-tests . .

viii

Growth

5wéuidi11ké"'

Job-Choice

MPS .

Total Control

Output Control.
Behavior Control. 171

Page

.162,163
. 164

. 165
. 167
168
170

172

175
175
177

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1-1 Hackman and Oldham Model . . . . . . . . . 3
1—2 Interrelations among Variables . . . . . . 11

3-1 Analysis of Variance Presentation of the
Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3-2 Venn Diagrams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40,4l
3—3 Model of Perceived Job Characteristics,
Growth-Need Strength, and Perceived
Structure. 0 I O I I O . I O I O I O I O I 44

5-1 Relationships Among the Four Hypotheses. . 79

5—2 ANOVA Presentation of the Variables. . . . 89

ix

_ ,

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Goal accomplishment is attempted in organizations by
the institution of control systems and the structuring of
organizational life through such things as policy, budget,
and job design. Ironically, these very things often stifle
the innovative behavior necessary on the part of employees
to accomplish organization goals (Pierce and Delberg, 1974).

Because of this, it is necessary to understand how employee

 

perceptions of (1) control systems and (2) structure

f."

interact with (3) the individual employee growth needs and 1

(4) perceived job characteristics. This study investigates

'— ~._._.,_

the relationships among these four variables.

 

Since the early seventies, Hackman has produced and
tested models of job content. His findings, and his ability
to pinpoint motivating job characteristics, have distin-
guished him in the area of job design. Hackman (1975)
identified several factors that can negatively influence a
job—change intervention. Two of these factors will be
discussed as possible c:onditions contributing to the
dampening effect on motivation in the manufacturing worker.
Although this study will not be a job-change intervention,
the findings may help contribute to the understanding of the

job perceptions and the perceptions of 'the job environment.

"Readiness" of_the¢individua1mis.one of the factors

/

that may inhibit the motivational process. If the worker is

not ready for the change or does not truly des1re the
change, he/ShgnwiIIwnOE respond positively (Hackman, 1975).
A worker may have been pleased with a routine job and now
may feel pressured by a complex job that requires more
thought and skill. Similar outcomes may occur, even though
the worker wants to work on a complex job, if he/she views
the change as a management decision. When this is the case,
Hackman (1975) observes that the change is perceived by the
worker as an order by management. These two factors must,
therefore, be considered when undertaking a job-change
intervention. According to Hackman, one way to evaluate
this problem is permit the worker to participate in the
job redesign process, which decreases the workers feeling
of being controlled by management.

Bureaucracy is a second situational issue discussed by
Hackman as a possible deterrent to effective job design.
If the structure of the organization is dominated by rules
and regulations, it is difficult to design jobs with high
flexibility. Hackman (1975) addresses this issue and points
out that "expecting to achieve a flexible, employee-oriented
work system with rigid, bureaucratic procedures that operate
strictly from the top down is unrealistic." "Readiness"
and bureaucracy emphasize the effect of organization

structure and control systems on worker attitude. In

particular, control and structure appear to dampen the
positive outcomes that are thought to be associated with an
enriched job. This study will focus on the impending
restraints of controls and bureaucracy in conjunction with
the individual and his/her job.

The job characteristics model developed by Hackman
and Oldham (1975) explains the relationship that exists
between an individual and his/her job. Figure 1.-l provides
a conceptualization of the job, the individual's psychologi-
cal states, and the :related outcomes of motivation,

satisfaction, and turnover.

~ HACKMAN AND OLDHAM MODEL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Core Job Critical Personal and
Dimensions —>Psychologica‘ -Work Outcomes
States
Skill Variety \
Experienced High Internal

Task Identity Meaningfulness Work Motivation
of the Work

Task Significance

High Quality

Work Performance

Experienced

Responsibility
Autonomy-———————————.»for Outcomes High Satisfaction

of the Work With the Work

Knowledge of the
Feedback-—————————.> Actual Results of Low Absenteeism
the Work Activities and Turnover

Employee Growth
Need Streno th

FIGURE l-l

 

   

For example, when management chooses to enrich a
worker's job, it initiates several job changes. Consider
a worker assembling transmissions on an aissembly line
whose job is to be changed. The worker would assemble a
whole transmission which requires varied skills in several
areas. This is indicative of skill variety and task
identity (for definitions see Table l-l). Because the
transmission plays a large role in the overall functioning
of the vehicle being produced, the worker should be aware
of the significance of his job. Autonomy is provided to
the worker by permitting self-supervision, which gives
the worker an opportunity to function independently.
Feedback, the last of the five core job dimensions, is
attained by testing the transmission upon completion.
According to the model, the five core job dimensions are
present for the worker in this example, indicating an en-
riched job.

Hypothetically, the five core job dimensions are
expected to enhance the individual's psychological states.
Specifically, skill variety, task identity, and task signi-
ficance in combination should provide for a meaningful job,
while autonomy and feedback are associated with responsibil-
ity and knowledge of results, respectively. These three
psychological states are important to the model because they

affect the individual feelings.

The psychological states facilitate certain outcomes,
such as internal work motivation, job satisfaction, turnover,
and absenteeism. Consequently, job design has become a
vital area in management.

The job characteristics model does not apply equally
well to all workers. Employee growth need has been shown
to be a moderator between the core job dimensions and the
psychological states, and between the psychological states
and the personal and work outcomes (Hackman and Lawler, 1971;
Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Oldham, 1976; Wanous, 1974). One
way of assuring the "readiness" of an individual to accept
a job change (Hackman, 1975) is to use employees that have
a desire to grow at work.

Hackman and Oldham (1974) presented the following
formula to compute a score that reflects the I'motivating

potential" of a job:

 

Motivating Skill Task Task
Potential- = Variety + Identity + S1gn1f1cance x Autonomy
Score (MP5) 3

x Feedback

TABLE l-l

DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES IN THE
JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY

Job Dimensions:

Skill Variety. The degree to which a job requires
a variety of different activities in carrying out
the work, which involves the use of a number of
different skills and talents of the employee.

Task Identity. The degree to which the job requires
completion of a "whole" and identifiable piece of

Task Significance. The degree to which the job has
a substantial impact on the lives or work of other
people—-whether in the organization or in the

Autonomy. The degree to which the job provides
substantial freedom, independence, and discretion

Feedback from the job Itself. The degree to which
carrying out the work activities required by the

job results in the employee obtaining direct and
clear information about the effectiveness of his/her

Feedback from Agents. The degree to which the em-
ployee receives clear information about his/her
performance from supervisors or from coworkers.

Dealing with Others. The degree to which the job
requires the employee to work closely with other
people in carrying out the work activities.

 

Experienced Meaningfulness of the work. The degree
to which the employee experiences the job as one
which is generally meaningful, valuable, and worth-

1.
2.
work.
3.
external environment.
4.
of the employee.
5.
performance.
6.
7.
Critical Psychological States:
1.
while.
2.

Experienced Responsibility for work outcomes. The
degree to which the employee feels personally
accountable and responsible for the results of the
work he/she does.

Knowledge of Results. The degree to which the

employee knows and understands, on a continuous
basis, how effectively heishe is performing the
job.

Affective Reactions to the Job:

 

1.

Global Satisfaction. An overall measure of the
degree to which the employee is satisfied and
happy with the job.

Internal Work Motivation. The degree to which the
employee is self-motivated to perform effectively
on the job.

Specific Satisfaction. A number of short scales
which provide separate measures of satisfaction
with:

a. job security

b. pay and compensation

c. peers and coworkers

d. supervision

e. opportunities for personal growth and develop-
ment

Individual Growth-Need Strength:

The strength of the respondent's desire to obtain
"growth" satisfaction from his or her own work
(Hackman and Oldham, 1974, pgs. 5 and 6).

These scores indicate motivational potential inherent in
each job. This formula is only one of the many possible
combinations of the five core job characteristics available
to express the perceived motivating potential of the job.

The above discussion establishes a base for the factors
developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974) that influence the
job and the individual holding the job. The examples pro-
vided above concern themselves with yet two more factors:
structure and control. These two variables will be discussed
in order to get a clear understanding of their relation-
ships.

The concept of structure as defined by Child (1972)
has three elements: centralization, specialization, and

formalization (See Table 1—2).
TABLE 1-2
DEFINITIONS OF STRUCTURAL VARIABLES

Centralization: The extent to which authority
to make decisions affecting the organization
.Mris confined to higher levels of the hierarchy.
. ' Specialization: The extent to which official
duties are divided between and within func-
tional areas.

7 Formaliza 1on: The extent to which procedures,
rules, and instructions are written (Child,
1974, p. 166).
High scores on these elements indicate a high degree of

perceived structure by the individual worker. This

 

exemplifies the bureaucratic state, discussed by Hackman,
that may prove to stifle the positive effects of an en-
riched job. In particular, autonomy may be most affected
by perceived structure, weakening the impact of the other
core job dimensions that may be present in the task.

Control has two dimensions: (1) control of behavior;
and (2) control of output (Ouchi, 1978).

TABLE 1-3
DEFINITIONS OF CONTROL VARIABLES

Behavior control: The extent to which observation

is used as a basis for evaluation.

Output control: The extent to which records of

output form the basis for evaluation

(Ouchi, 1978, p. 174).
As with structure, employees that feel controlled by the
organization may not respond positively to their jobs.
Organizational control systems have been generally shown to
foster dissatisfaction (Lawler, 1976). Therefore, it is
prudent to include the control factor in a model of job
design.

The above discussion and illustrations establish concern
for the role played by organization structures and controls,
although many unresolved questions remain. How do structure
and control affect job design? Is there a particular core
job dimension more affected by control and structure than

other core dimensions? Do control and structure directly

10

affect psychological states? Can structure and/or control
be thought of as a moderating variable similar to the role
of growth-need strength in the model?

Job enrichment or job redesign has been the theme of
many interventions in the last decade. Unfortunately, the
outcomes of these interventions were not always successful.
Some may have been due to a lack of readiness of the indi—
viduals, or because of the company's bureaucratic structure
(Hackman, 1975). Interventions of this nature are costly
and time consuming to the organization. For this reason
it is important to find the answers to the questions
raised above.

The variables involved can be considered to account for
six possible relationships: (1) organization structure-
control system; (2) individual difference-job characteris-
tic; (3) the organization structure-job characteristic;

(4) organization structure—individual difference; (5) indi-
vidual difference—control system; and, (6) control system-
job characteristic.

All six of these relationships will be explored in this
study. The control system is considered to be a function
of the organization's structure. Ouchi (1977) found that
33 percent of the variance in control could be accounted
for by structural characteristics.

Because a control system is a function of structure,
high organization structure implies maximum control in a

system. Similarly, control is minimal in the presence of

11

low organizational structure. If an organization has a
large number of rules and procedures, it is viewed by the
workers as controlling (Ouchi, 1977). Figure 1-2 expresses
the form the relationship takes when structure and control

are viewed as dependent on one another.

INTERRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES

 

Perceived
Structural
% contrOl \AK
Growth—Need 19 Perceived job
Strength Characteristics
FIGURE 1-2

High structure will produce high control, and both fit best
with a routine job (link 3A). The high structure-many
controls would be most appropriate for low-growth employees
(link 1A). The high-growth employees would best benefit
from the low structure-less control organization.

The relationship labeled 2A is the job characteristic—
growth-need strength match. The employee with high growth
strength receives the most satisfaction from a highly
motivating job (Wanous, 1974). The combination for this pair
would be motivating job-high growth and routine job-low
growth.

Table 1-4 describes the three possible combinations
that can exist between structure, growth-need strength, and
job characteristic. The three variables are given as either

a match or a mismatch, in the columns to the right of the

12

situational variables. The degree of global satisfaction

is ranked in order from highest to lowest. The rank of E

is considered the highest because the situation lends itself
to perfect congruence. A is ranked second because the
person matches the job, which has been shown in the past to
have positive results regardless of the structural system
(Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn, 1979). The combination of
low structure, high task, and low-growth-need worker is
rated third. Even though the person does not match the job,
the job and the structural environment will be the most
pleasant and motivating in which to work. Situation C ranks
fourth because the job is going to be satisfying to the
individual, even though perceived structure and growth

needs are not perfect matches. Motivating jobs are con—
sidered to increase motivation even for the low-growth—need
workers. The routine job in the low structure is a mismatch
that ranks fifth, because the high-growth-need individual
will be expected to be somewhat satisfied with the organi-
zational environment. Situations D and H are difficult to
rank because they are very close to providing the same
degree of satisfaction, but situation D where the person
matches both the job and the structure will have a slight
edge and will be rated sixth. Situation B is ranked the
lowest because the job is routine and consistent with the
structure while the individual is high-growth need. The
individual does not match the job and may perceive it as

never changing because it suits the structure.

13

 

 

b o: o: no» 30H 30H 30H m
m mom on o: 50H: 30a 30a U
m O: mom on 30H no“: 30H m
H new mom no» amen 50H: 30H m
m mm» mm» mo> 30H 30H saw: a
v o: no» on omen 30H amen U
m no» 0: 0: 30a amen amen m
N on 0: mm» no? :3: :93 <
:oflu06mmwumm mo Aoclmoxv Aeolmmwv Accummmv non Hosp musu
mcofluoficwum noun: scum: noun: |H>flocH losuum
owuooHOIxcmm musuosuum ousuosuum boo Goduosuflm
noon IGOmHom IcOmHom

 

ZOHBU<mmHB<m m0 mZOHBUHDmmm ommeMOIMz<m

VIH mqm<fi

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The contingency view of management integrates the ideas
from a wide range of disciplines to make possible a more
prescriptive method for managing (Tosi and Carroll, 1976).
Stated simply, the correct management response "depends" on
the situation. Specific variables in the environment must
be identified and then assessed to determine appropriate
managerial actions. Upon recognition of these variables,
the managerial ideology that best "fits" the situation can
be adopted and used by others. The focus of this review
will be to establish the relationships between the job,
the structure, and the individual which combine to provide
such a "best fit."

The person-job congruency, the person-structure match,
and the job-structure match have all been tested separately.
Research on individual differences and the job have examined
the following moderating variables: authoritarianism, need
for independence, urban/rural, alienation, Protestant Ethic,
growth-need strength, education, and locus of control
(White, 1978). Growth-need strength has shown to be the
most effective moderator of satisfaction for enriched and
routine jobs (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Oldham, 1976;

Sims and Szilagyi, 1976; and, Wanous, 1974). Because most

14

15

previous research did not account for structural varia-
tion, a full review of earlier studies will not be under-
taken. For the present study, the variable growth-need
strength will be expected to moderate the job satisfaction-
perceived job characteristics relationship, but only in
some instances (to be explained later).

The congruence between the person and the structure
has been reviewed by Nemiroff and Ford (1976). They con-
clude that people with bureaucratic orientation prefer
higher structure, thus creating a higher degree of satis-
faction. The present study is concerned with growth—need
strength, a variable that has not been tested with structure.
Thus, the relationship to be tested has no past research
from which to make a solid prediction.

The job and the structure have been investigated in
various ways, as exemplified by two studies discussed
below.

Burns and Stalker (1961) presented a study of 20
British firms. The Burns and Stalker evidence suggests
that organizations are arranged on a continuum from "mech-
anistic" to "organic" structure. Burns and Stalker (1961)
describe the mechanistic structure as:

(a) the specialized differentiation of functional

tasks into which the problems and tasks facing
the concern as a whole are broken down;

(b) the abstract nature of each individual task, which
is pursued with techniques and purposes more or
less distinct from those of the concern as a whole;
i.e., the functionaries tend to pursue the techni-

‘cal improvement of means, rather than the accom-
plishment of the ends of the concern;

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f

v

(9)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k

v

16

the reconciliation, for each level in the
hierarchy, of these distinct performances
by the immediate superiors, who are also, in
turn, responsible for seeing that each is
relevant in his own special part of the task;

the translation of rights and obligations and
methods into the responsibilities of a func-
tional position;

the precise definition of rights and obliga-
tions and technical methods attached to each
functional role;

hierarchical structure of control, authority,
and communications;

a reinforcement of the hierarchic structure by
the location of knowledge of actualities ex-
clusively at the top of the hierarchy, where
the final reconciliation of distinct tasks

and assessment of relevance is made;

a tendency for interaction between members of
the concern to be vertical, i.e., between
superior and subordinate;

a tendency for operations and working behavior
to be governed by the instructions and deci-
sions issued by superiors;

insistence on loyalty to the concern and
obedience to superiors as a condition of
membership;

a greater importance and prestige attaching to
internal (local) than to general (cosmopolitan)
knowledge, experience, and skill (Tosi, 1975,
pgs. 100 and 101).

They identify this structure as being very stable with

little change in technology and little market change. By

organizing in this fashion, a company may maximize utiliza-

tion of its resources. The description provides for

standardized procedures and guidelines, to saving time and

17

to reducing systematic error. Given a relatively stable
environment, this organization need not change any of
its policies quickly.

Under changing conditions, the organic structure must
be flexible in order to adapt to new problems and unfore-
seen requirements. Under those conditions, it is impossi-
ble to have set procedures to follow when a problem arises.
Burns and Stalker characterize the organic organization
as:

(a) the contributive nature of special knowledge and
experience to the common task of the concern;

(b) the "realistic" nature of the individual task,
which is seen as set by the total situation
of the concern;

(c) the adjustment and continual re-definition of
individual tasks through interaction with others;

(d) the shedding of "responsibility" as a limited
field rights, obligations, and methods (Problems
may not be posted upward, downwards, or sideways
as being someone else's responsibility);

(e) the spread of commitment to concern beyond any
technical definition;

(f) a network structure of control, authority, and
communication. The sanctions which apply to the
individual's conduct in his working role derive
more from presumed community of interest with
the rest of the working organization in the
survival and growth of the firm, and less from
a contractual relationship between himself and
a non-personal corporation, represented for
him by an immediate superior;

V

omniscience no longer attributed to the head of
the concern; knowledge about the technical or
commercial nature of the here and now task may

be located anywhere in the network; this location
becoming the ad hoc center of control authority
and communication.

(9

18

(h) a lateral rather than a vertical direction
of communication through the organization,
communication between people of different
rank, also, resembling consultation rather
than command;

(i) a content of communication which consists of
information and advice rather than instruc-
tions and decisions;

(j) commitment to the concern's tasks and to the
"technological ethos" of material progress
and expansion is more highly valued than
loyalty and obedience;

(k

v

importance and prestige attach to affiliations
and expertise valid in the industrial and tech-
nical and commercial milieux external to the
firm (Tosi, 1975, pgs. 101 and 102).

In the second study, Organizations in Action, (1967)

 

J.D. Thompson hypothesized a series of propositions about
the formation and workings of organizations. By combining
the literature from several fields, Thompson provided a
framework for management theory. His overriding theme
was that the rational actions taken by organizations to
protect themselves from environmental impacts caused
rstructure to emerge. According to Thompson, the protection
of the technological core was the highest goal, because
that was where the greatest amount of capital investment
could be found. Thompson defined the varied technologies
as:

long-linked: involving serial interdependence;

mediating: requiring operating in standardized

ways and extensively with multiple clients

or customers widely distributed in time and
space; and,

19

intensive: a custom technology which depends on
the availability of potentially necessary
resources and their suitable application in
as individual case of project (Thompson, 1967,
p. 16.17).
Thompson noted that three major components are involved
with organizational rationality: (1) input activities;
(2) technological activities; and, (3) output activities.
These are seen as interdependent, with input and output
activities also interdependent with the environment. There-
fore, to protect the technological core, input and output
activities must be adjusted to correspond with changes in
environmental conditions. Thompson provided two proposi-
tions based on this logic.
Under norms of rationality, organizations seek
to buffer environmental influences by surround-
ing their technical cores with input and output
components.
Under norms of rationality, organizations seek
to smooth out input and output transactions
(Thompson, 1967, pgs. 20 and 21).
The production process functions "as if" there is a steady
stream of raw material being filtered into the system, and
"as if" there is a steady stream of production flowing out
of it. To assure this steady stream, the operations of the
company may be buffered. To buffer inputs the organization
can stockpile items that fluctuate, and outputs may be
buffered by warehousing finished products. Both techniques
‘will help to provide that steady flow of materials into and

out of the organization. Smoothing may be accomplished by

leveling out sales during periods of reduced volume,

20

amp, utility companies often provide reduced evening or
weekend rates. The establishment of these techniques
require departments and specialists to deal with the
implementation. Thus, structure is being created by
rational reaction to the environment.

Some of Thompson's propositions relate the structure
of organizations to the market. Instead of simply pro-
viding inputs, the organization may rationally form structure
to interface with market diversification.

Under norms of rationality, organizations facing

heterogeneous task environments seek to identify

homogeneous segments and establish structural

units to deal with each (Thompson, 1967, pg. 70).

This is illustrated in the divisionalization of a
large firm. An electronics firm may serve a wide variety
of needs for the public, yet some of these are directly
related because they are produced for household consumption,
and others may be related because they are sold to manufac-
turers. The electronics firm may set up divisions to deal
with the separate markets by establishing the following
divisions: Small Appliances, Large Appliances, Lighting,
Generators, Military Equipment, etc. Within a division,
e.g., Small Appliances, a homogeneous grouping of products--
toasters, mixers, and blenders—-wou1d be expected. The
type of market and channels of distribution for products
of like kind are similar, and the rational organization

structures itself accordingly.

21

The findings and research above have contributed to
the production of many contingency models. In the area of
task design, Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) presented
a conceptual model depicting the congruence of structure,
task design, and individual attitudes. The model combines
the organic and mechanistic concepts of Burns and Stalker
with the job-characteristics model of Hackman and Oldham
(See Figure 1-1). They hypothesized a relationship of
congruence among the individual, the job, and the structure.

The organic organization, combined with a high-growth-
need individual performing a complex job, is described as
"perfect congruence" by Porter, et a1. (1975). If the
individual does not have a desire to grow, but performs com—
plex jobs in an organic organization, the individual will
be overwhelmed by the job and its environment. When the
job is routine in the organic structure, it lessens the
possibility of congruence. Both high- and low-growth—need
individuals will be dissatisfied with this situation. In
the mechanistic structure, the best "fit" is a routine job
and a low-growth—need individual. The high—growth-need
person would feel restricted by the job and the company.
The complex job in the mechanistic environment may prove
interesting to the high-growth-need individual, but the
structure restricts organizational growth. Porter, et a1.

(1975) predicts just the reverse for the low-growth

‘22

individual. In the presence of congruence, workers are
motivated and satisfied, while incongruence causes dis-
satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover.

Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn (1979) tested the Porter,
et a1. model, but they altered the predictions for two
reasons: (1) past evidence supports a positive relation-
ship between job design and worker responses for both
high— and low-growth-need individuals; and, (2) workers are
more concerned with the job design than with the design
of the social system. To examine these differences,
Pierce, et a1. (1979) questioned 398 employees in the home
office of an insurance company. This sample represented
19 different work units at all levels. The structural
measures were: complexity, centralization, formalization,
stratification, and coordination. The results indicated
that 6 units were mechanistic and the rest organic. In
addition:

1. Three of the 12 centralization items loaded

on the autonomy factor as well as the cen-
tralization factor when a factor analysis was
performed.

2. Three main effects (social system structure,

job design, and individual differences) were
significant (p 4_.05).

3. The job-design-by-social-system-structure and

job-design-by-growth-need-strength interactions

were also significant.

4. The main and interaction effects accounted for
21 percent of the variance in employee response.

5. Job complexity and the job-complexity-by-growth-
need interaction were the major predictors of
motivation and satisfaction.

23

6. Porter, et a1. (1975) predicted that congruence
of the person, the job, and the structure was
found to be true for the high-growth-need
worker with a job perceived as motivating in
an organic structure. The low-growth-need
worker—-routine job--mechanistic structure
congruence did not prove to be satisfying.

The findings suggest a strong relationship between unit
structure and job design and add significantly to the
congruence hypotheses.

Nemiroff and Ford (1976) proposed a model similar to
the Porter, et a1. model, with the addition of individual
bureaucratic orientation. Previous research led them to
believe that an individual with high bureaucratic orienta-
tion desired to work in mechanistic organizations.
Nemiroff and Ford predicted congruence when an individual
has high-growth needs with a low bureaucratic orientation,
holding a complex job in an organic organization. This
same individual would have difficulty with a routine job
in an organic organization, even though he/she would enjoy
the company. In the mechanistic structure, this same
individual would be constantly restrained by the bureau-
cracy, regardless of the job. Interestingly, congruence
exists in a mechanistic organization ofr a high-growth
individual, high in bureaucratic orientation and working
at a complex job. The bureaucratic orientation reduces
the possibility of congruence in an organic organization.
The situation predicted as the worst possible alternative
is for the high-growth-high-bureaucratic individual to be

holding a routine job in an organic environment. The

24

low—growth worker is best suited for a routine job regard-
less of bureaucratic orientation. But congruence can
exist for low-growth individuals with low bureaucratic
orientations in organic organizations and for high bureau-
cratic orientations in mechanistic organizations.

Rousseau (1977) classified 19 subunits from 13
organizations into three technological categories (long-
1inked, intensive, or mediating). When the three groups
were tested, significant differences were found in all
five of the core job characteristics, employee satisfaction,
and motivation. A discriminant analysis was performed
post hoc to clearly identify the differences between the
three technologies. Units with long-linked technology
(10 units) were lower on skill variety, task significance,
autonomy, dealing with others, and learning, as compared
to the other two. The three units of mediating technology
possessed high task identity and feedback from agents.

Rousseau (1978) also studied 19 departments from two
electronics firms and a radio station. Sampling 271 em-
ployees, she investigated the effect of physical departmental
structure on the task design variables. The results provide
several interesting conclusions: (1) a significant rela-
tionship existed between most perceived job characteristics
and job satisfaction; (2) perceived skill variety was
strongly related to departmental characteristics; (3) over—
all departmental characteristics (technology, centraliza-

tion, formalization, hierarchy) were related to the

25

perceived job characteristics; (4) job satisfaction and
innovative behavior of employees were related to the
departmental structure independent of the job perceptions;
(5) employee status and tenure related strongly to job
characteristics; and, (6) perceived job characteristics
accounted for 43 percent of the common variance of individual
attitudes and behavior.

Rousseau concluded that job characteristics mediate
the relationship of department characteristics, individual
attitudes, and behaviors. She suggests that for future
research in the area, a perceptual measure of structure
should be included to identify features of emergent struc-
ture. Rousseau believes that emergent or perceived struc-
ture develops by social interaction which may not neces-
sarily be a function of the physical environment. Under
circumstances of this nature, one might expect a dis-
gruntled work group to feel more structure than what
actually exists.

In conclusion, the contingency View of management has
led to a search for situations and ideologies that "fit"
together in some congruent fashion. Although few studies
have investigated the fit between the job, the individual,
and the organization, a review of the literature illus-
trates the need for more research in this area. Pierce,
et a1. (1979) and Rousseau (1978) clearly show a link
exists between the job and physical structure, but further

investigation is needed to complete the link between the

26

worker and the environment. Rousseau suggested that due to
social interaction, perceived structure may be more bene-
ficial than physical structure to identify the job-by-
worker-by-structure interaction. This is because peer
group pressure may add or delete structure from the exist-
ing physical structure via a discussion of the likes and
dislikes of the group.

Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn (1979) used one per-
ceptual measure of structure (centralization) which proved
to be associated with autonomy. This shows that one area
of the core job dimension is affected by one measure of
perceived structure. Given this information and Rousseau's
comments, it is apparent that perceived structure rather
than physical structure should be used to find the best
"fit." Using structure is quite different from previous
studies. The works of Pierce, et a1. (1975) and Rousseau
(1978) could have been related to prior works in that they
identify physical variables.

The current study differs in that the physical descrip-
tions provided in the previous studies do not always reflect
the structure perceived by the employee (Sathe, 1978).
Thus, those works that did not directly address the organi-
zation's structure will not be reviewed. The strength of
this study lies in the analysis of the perceived structure

and its relationship to both the job and the worker.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The three broad categories of design that may be used
to investigate an area are: pre-experimental designs; true
experimental designs; and, quasi-experimental designs
(Campbell and Stanley, 1963). Only one design type is
feasible in the present study: the use of a pre—established
setting and pre-established groupings of individuals. These
settings and groupings take the form of organizations and
departments within organizations. Pre-experimental designs
are a "one-shot" examination of a situation. Because of
the pre—established groupings that exist in the work setting,
it is impossible to conduct an experiment in which the
subjects are randomly assigned to "treatment groups." A
quasi-experimental design, which allows the use of a
nonrandom sample, normally entails some control over experi-
mental stimuli. The research undertaken here did not
manipulate the independent variable. Thus, the quasi-
experimental design is eliminated as a potential design
strategy.

Randomization is an important aspect of research design
for two reasons. First, randomization of subjects assures

that any difference detected between groups will be due to

27

28

the treatment effect. This reduces the possibility of
having found an effect between groups because of some
other variable common to both groups. This process forces
any confounding variable to be distributed to all groups
in an equal fashion. The second reason for randomizing is
generalizability. If subjects are chosen randomly from a
particular population, the overall results should be the
same for the group regardless of who was chosen to be in
the sample.

Generalizability is of particular importance when the
purpose of the study is to build on a model that is to apply
to several different situations. Cornfield and Tukey
(1956, pgs. 912 and 913) present the following argument
with regard to randomization and generalizability:

In almost any practical situation where
analytical statistics is applied, the inference

from the observation to the real conclusion has

two parts, only the first of which is statistical.

A genetic experiment on Drosophilia will usually

involve flies of a certain race of a certain

species. The statistically based conclusion

cannot extend beyond this race, yet the geneticist

will usually, and often wisely, extend the con-

clusion to (a) the whole species, (b) all

Drosphilia, or (c) a larger group of insects.

This wider extension may be implicit or explicit,

but is almost always present. If we take the

simile of the bridge crossing a river by way of

an island, there is a statistical span from the

near bank to the island, and a subject-matter span

from the island to the far bank.

The logic of the argument illustrates that a statistically-
based study may be generalized beyond a specific group
but that an accurate description of the sample is necessary

so that others that wish to generalize from or reproduce

29

the study will know the appropriate population. Because

of the importance of generalizability. the sample in

this

this

They
when

with

study is described in detail in a latter section of
chapter.
According to Campbell and Stanley,

Internal validity is the basic minimum without
which an experiment is uninterpretable; did in
fact the experimental treatments make a dif-
ference in this specific experimental instance?
(1963, p. 5)

presented eight possible extraneous variables that,
not controlled, may produce an effect confounded
the experimental stimulus.

History, the specific events occurring between
the first and second measurement in addition to
the experimental variables.

Maturation, processes within the respondents
operating as a function of the passage of time
per se (not specific to the particular events),
including growing older, growing hungrier, growing
more tired, and the like.

 

Testing, the effects of taking a test upon the
scores of a second testing.

Instrumentation, in which changes in the cali-
bration of a measuring instrument or changes in
the observers of scorers used may produce changes
in the obtained measurements.

 

Statistical regression, operating where groups
have been selected on the basis of their extreme
scores.

 

Biases resulting_in differential selection of
respondents for the comparison groups.

Experimental mortality, or differential loss
of respondents for the comparison groups.

 

30

Selection-maturation interaction, etc., which
in certain of the multiple-group quasi-experimental
designs is confounded with, i.e., might be mistaken
for, the effect of the experimental variable.

The question of external validity is a question of
generalizability. "To what populations, settings, treatment
variables, and measurement variables can this effect be
generalized?" (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 5) The
four factors that may jeopardize external validity of
representativeness of the sample are:

The reactive or interaction effect of testing,
in which a pretest might increase or decrease the
respondent's sensitivity or responsiveness to the
experimental variable and thus make the results
obtained for a pretested population unrepresente-
tive of the effects of the experimental variable
for the unpretested universe from which the ex-
perimental respondents were selected.

The interaction effects of selection biases
and the experimental variable.

Reactive effects of experimental arrangements,
which would preclude generalization about the
effect of the experimental variable upon persons
being exposed to it in nonexperimental settings.
Multiple-treatment interference, likely to
occur whenever multiple treatments are applied
to the same respondents, because the effects of
prior treatments are not usually erasable
(Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p95. 5 and 6).
Careful consideration must be given to all twelve of the
aforementioned factors to protect the study from variables
that may affect external or internal validity.
The "Static-Group Comparison" is the design most like
the one to be used in this research. This design is
characterized by the comparison of two groups: Group 0,

which has experienced the treatment; and, Group X, which

31

has not experience the treatment. This study will have

more than one group, each of which will be subject to a
different level of treatment. History, testing, instru-
mentation, and regression normally are not a threat to
validity for the static-groups comparison design. Selection,
mortality, the interaction of the two, and the interaction
of selection by treatment are considered weaknesses in

the design. The first three weaknesses concern with
internal validity: the last deals with external validity.

External validity will be minimized by a precise,
description of the sample, facilitating the use of the
Cornfield-Tukey "Bridge Argument." Thus, the sample may
be clearly identified by those that may wish to replicate
the study or generalize to a similar population.

Internal validity is controlled in a manner that will
allow for the experiment to be conducted with few compli-
cations. Although the selection process is predetermined
by the organizations studied, the sampling within the
company may be accomplished randomly. This study was not
performed over a period of time, so little emphasis is
placed on mortality; any mortality that may have existed
is considered to be due to either employees self-selecting
themselves out, or being asked to leave in accordance to
some preestablished method developed by the company. Having
accounted for selection and mortality, it is unlikely
that the interaction of the two will exist in this study.

The selection by treatment interaction for this design may,

32

however, be a concern. Because both structure and control
may be organizationally bound, special effort will be

made to identify any confounding of the measures with the
organizations. Should such confounding exist, it may then
become necessary to analyze the data using the organization,
rather than control and structure, as the independent
variable.

This study will have hypotheses testing higher-order
interactions. The more complex is the hypothesized inter-
action between two nonequivalent groups, the more a
causal interpretation tends to be facilitated (Cook and
Campbell, 1976). Causality provides a solid base to build

theory for future similar research endeavors.

The Sample

 

The sample was drawn from two work organizations in
different industries. One is a 77-bed hospital in a small
community in the midwest. The hospital has 180 full-time
employees, 63 of whom were randomly selected to complete
the questionnaire. The employees sampled were a stratified
group from the following departments: adminiStrative,
nursing, medical records, dietary, radiology, housekeeping,
purchasing, pharmacy, pathology, pediatrics, respiratory
therapy, operating room, anaesthesia, maintenance,
emergency room, and medical/surgical. Depending on the size
of the department, the number of employees ranged from one
to seven. Table 3-1 provides more explicit information about

the sample.

33

The second organization is a medium-sized manufacturing
firm located in a midwestern rural community. The organi-
zation employs approximately 600 employees, 185 of whom were
randomly selected to complete the questionnaire. Again,
there is a stratified sample representing all levels of the
organization, every department, and all shifts. In total,
28 departments were used in the study: machine shop, weld-
ing, quality control, tool and die, farm assembly, paint,
fabrication, personnel, sales, data processing, accounting,
cost accounting, engineering, product engineering, manage-
ment systems, traffic, purchasing, inventory control,
administration, safety, maintenance, manufacturing,
assembly service, product support, shipping and receiving,
records, and training.

Statistically significant differences between the two
organizations were found for: management level, sex, age,
and education. Management level differed between the two
because the manufacturing firm has a greater number of
non-managerial people. The manufacturing firm requires more
unskilled and semi-skilled workers at the lowest level
because of the nature of the product. Sex differences occur
between the two because males have in the past considered
machine work over patient care. Age and education may be
somewhat related in that young people who do not go to
school would work in an organization that requires skills
and little or no formal education. The hospital would hire

more highly educated people that are older.

34

TABLE 3-1

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

 

 

 

Hospital Manufacturing Firm
Freqpencyy % Frequency %
Sample 62 185
Shift Distribution
1 46 74 121 65
2 8 13 32 17.5
3 8 13 32 17.5
Job Categories 10 31
Management level**
Non 31 50 134 72
Middle 23 37 42 23
Upper 7 11 8 4
Blanks l 2 l 1
Sex**
Male 12 19 134 72
Female 49 79 49 26
Blanks l 2 2 2
Marital Status
Married 39 63 128 69
Single 12 19 43 23
Divorced 10 16 14 8
Blanks l 2 0 0
Mean Mean
Age* 33 27
Education* two-year college some college
degree

*Mean differences are significantly different.

**Distributions are significantly different.

35

Hypotheses

The total study may best be conceptualized in an
analysis-of—variance framework. The task itself may be
perceived as having higher motivational potential (non-
routine jobs) or low motivating potential (routine jobs).
The individual is either high-growth-need strength or
low-growth-need strength, and the structure may be per-
ceived as high or low. The dependent variable took the
form of global work satisfaction as outlined in the job-
characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). The
letters in each of the cells in Figure 3—1 correspond

to those in Table 1-4 as can be seen below:

36

 

 

h on 0: now 30H 30a 30H m.
m mm% 0c 0: and: 30a 30H w
m o: mm» o: 30H amen 30H m
H mow mm» mm» nae: amen 30H m
m no» no» mo» 30H 30H amen o
v 0: wow 0: omen 30H amen U
m mm» o: 0: 30a noes no“: m
N o: 0: mm» none can: no“: a
oceu06mmeumm mo Aocnmmmv Accumowv Acclmmwv boo Hosp was»
macauoneoua noun: roams noun: na>nccH uosuum
pwumouolxcmm ousuosuum ousuosuum boo cowumsuem
noon Icomnom Icemuom

 

ZOHBUflmmHB<m m0 mZOHBUHDmmm ammMQMOIKZ¢m

via mqm<9

37

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PRESENTATION
OF THE VARIABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structure or Control
High Low
Task (MP8) Task (MPS)
High Low High Lo
High A B E F
Growth
Need
Low C D G H
FIGURE 3-1

Other types of testing will be necessary to find those parti-
cular areas of the model in which control and structure play
an influential role. The core dimensions of autonomy and
feedback, for example, may yield less than satisfactory
results when the individual employee perceives him/herself
to be working under a high degree of control and/or
structure.

Figure 3-1 provides for further discussion of each
of the cells of the analysis-of-variance model. Of those
people that view the organization as being high in structure‘
(Cells A, B, C, and D), the workers that fall into cell D
would be expected to be the most satisfied. The routine job
linked with a structured environment is a good fit, because
the individual has no particular desire to grow in the work
place. Cells A, B, and C all have two mismatches between

the three variables. Cell A has a very challenging job and

38

an individual that desires to grow at work, but the structure
or control is such that it restrains growth and voids the

job of its fullest autonomy. Cell B depicts the classic
worker who has a desire to move ahead in the work place,

but finds him/herself restrained by the job and the bureau-
cracy. Those in Cell C find themselves in a structure well
suited to their own personalities, but their jobs have a
great deal of unwanted latitude, and the jobs do not fit in
with the rest of the work place.

When the structure and/or control are seen as being
less inhibiting, cell E workers would find the greatest
contentment with work. This cell represents the perfect
match for low-structured organization because the job and
the individual are creative and moving. The workers placed
in cell F can become greatly frustrated by the jobs in that
the latter do not fulfill the worker's interests, and are
very'routine, given the lack of organizational restrictions.
The people in cell G have low-growth need and, therefore,
have no desire to work at rewarding jobs. Cell H represents
that segment of the population who desire more routine
than is provided because of the lack of structure or control.

Cells D and E are opposites, but they both should
afford the employee optimal satisfaction. In the first
case, the individual has no desire to grow and has a routine
'job in a structured organization. These fulfill all the
requirements for a perfect match. In the latter case, B,

the worker is motivated by the job and the freedom because

39

of his/her individual desire to grow.

H1: WOrkers that have jobs perceived to be high on core
job dimensions will feel more job satisfaction than
.workers that have jobs perceived to be low on core
job dimensions.

The job is the most significant variable for indicating
employee satisfaction. Hackman, Oldham, JanSon, and/Purdy
(1975) found that people with complex jobs are more motiva-
ted and satisfied than people scoring low on the core job
dimensions. The relationship between the task and satis-
faction is moderated by growth-need strength (Hackman and
Oldham, 1975; Oldham, 1976; Sims and Szilagyi, 1976; and,
wanous,.1974).

H2: For individuals that perceive the job to be high on
core job dimensions, those individuals with high.
growth-needs will be.more satisfied with the job than
workers with low growth-needs..-

Previous research led Nemiroff and Ford (1976) to
conclude that a match between the person and the structure
results in increased satisfaction.

H3: For individuals.that perceive the job to be low on
core job dimensions, those individuals with growth-
needs congruent with perceived structure will be
.more satisfied with the job than those that perceive
the two as incongruent.

Structure has been found to relate negatively to
innovative behaviors, climate, and satisfaction, and
positively to tension (Child and Ellis; 1973; Inkson,
Hickson, and Pugh, 1968; Payne, Pheysey, and Pugh, 1971;

Pugh, et al., 1963; and, Vrendenburgh and Alutto, 1977;.

40

When controlling for individual differences and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 perceived job characteristics, workers that per-
ceive the structure to be low will be more satisfied
with the job than workers that perceive the struc-
ture to be high.

The Venn diagrams (Figure 3-2) conceptualize the
hypotheses. , ’
VENN DIAGRAMS OF THE HYPOTHESES
-" ’ the'32
Cell. Hypothe51s l ‘ HYPO 31 -
E .e s n J b ' '-
A

56* HighMPS - ' “

lieu ' '

o

m

'H

.3

.3 F

to D Low MP3

H ‘-‘-’
B -
Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis_4
Cell' ' '
s . mmgmgmg
A .
c
G >5 f?

O .

3c 5 r.

o

a V’ A-.

.fiFrPro-tu ;;}§

:30 . ‘

H 235%
B ' I .

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 3-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

//1 \K
w / . \
m .. r/ .- A\
T h ./ .,

 

 

 

42

Cells E, A, G, and C from Figure 3-1 represent motivating
jobs and appear in the top half of the diagram in accordance
with hypothesis 1. Of the four combinations involving jobs
with a high motivating-potential score, situations E and A
represent a match between the person and the job (high growth-
‘needs and high MPS). Hypothesis 2 predicts these to be the
most satisfying of the motivating jobs. Utilizing hypothe-
sis four, the motivating jobs may be rank ordered from
highest to lowest as: E, A, G, and C. The routine jobs

are differentiated on degree of satisfaction by hypothesis
three. Cells F and D illustrate the person-structure

match (high structure-low-growth-need person and low struc-
ture-high-growth-need person) and will be ranked above

cells H and B. Cells F and H are low in structure; there-
fore, the final rank order for routine jobs is: F, D,

H, and E.

Figure 3-3 is provided as a tool for the purpose of
assessing the level of job satisfaction that may be expected
given a job and an individual. This model starts by asking
the question: Does the worker perceive the job to be moti-
vating? In accordance with the first hypothesis, it is
expected that the jobs perceived as motivating will be
more satisfying. If the worker perceives the job as moti-
vating, then the focus rests with the growth-need strength
of the worker. The high-growth workers are identified by
question B as receiving greater satisfaction than the low-

growth—need counterpart. If the job is perceived as low

43

in motivating potential, question C differentiates those
that are congruent with the perceived structure from those
that are incongruent: In this instance congruence between
the person and the perceived structure will create the
higher degree of satisfaction. Question D is applied to
all four groups in order to differentiate on perceived
structure. The worker that perceives the structure as low
is expected to be more satisfied than those that perceive

the structure as rigid.

44

mtm mmDOHm

m gunman oz
0

oz
m sarcasm} wow 0
o nuxflm

.20
m0» 02

 

 

 

 

m sumahll.
o 559.... Z
o 02 mom
0 UHflEBIll mm%
m ocooom oz 0

 

mm»
m umfim‘ mm» o

 

 

via manna cowuomwwwumm pm>flwoumm
Eoum maawo m0 umpuo xcmm
mmumxuo3 umnuo cos» H030H on ou musuosuum may m>woouwm umxHOB may moon

. mmusuosnum coHumuflcmmno
om>floouom on» can monoclnu3oum m.comumm on» :mm3umn umflxm mucosumcoo moon

mmoeumeumuomumno
new om>fiwoumm or» can woundinuzonm m.comnom on» cmmzumn umwxo mocosnmcoo moon

maneum>wuoe on on ooh on» m>woouom uoxuo3 on» moon

HMDBUDMBm Dm>Hm0mmm 02¢ .mawzmmfim DmmZIEBZOmU
.mUHBmHmMBU<m¢mU mOh Dm>HmUmmm ho AmQOZ

c.<

45

The Measurement Instruments

Task Design. The Hackman and Oldham (1974) Job

 

Diagnostic Survey (JDS) was used for this study. The JDS
measures three areas: (1) core job dimensions; (2) psycho-
logical states; and, (3) personal and work outcomes. The
reliabilities reported by Hackman and Oldham are presented
in Table 3-2, with a breakdown of all the subscales listed
under the three main areas above.

Structure. Emergent (perceived) structure included

 

three dimensions: (1) hierarchy of authority; (2) division
of labor; and, (3) rules and procedures. A review of the
literature revealed Hall's (1962) measure of structure as
being used most often. In 1971 Duncan revised Hall's

scale of perceived structure,

46

TABLE 3-2
RELIABILITIES OF THE JDS SCALES
Hackman and

Oldham (1974) Present
Reliabilities Reliabilities

 

 

JOB DIMENSIONS

Skill Variety .71 .73
Task Identity .59 .60
Task Significance .66 .70
Autonomy .66 .77
Feedback from the Job

Itself .71 .73
Feedback from Agents .78 .76
Dealing with Others .59 .61

PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES

Experienced Meaningfulness

of the Work .74 .75
Experienced Responsibility

for the Work .72 .79
Knowledge of Results .76 .74

AFFECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE JOB

General Satisfaction .76 .80
Internal Work Motivation .76 .76
Specific Satisfactions:
Job Security A .75
Pay A .91
Social .56 .58
Supervisory .79 .85
Growth .84 .79

GROWTH-NEED STRENGTH
"Would-like" Format .88 .88
Job-Choice Format .71 .76

A--These scales were added to the JDS after the Hackman and
Oldham (1974) publication.

47

and has since taken its place. Most recently, Sathe (1978,
p. 231) again revised the scale in an attempt to strengthen
Duncan's work. Sathe states two major reasons for the
further revisions:

First, some of his (Duncan) scales have items
containing "can" (allowable or potential behavior),
whereas others use "do" (actual behaviors).

... Since the present study attempted to tap the
degree of structure actually experienced by indi-
viduals in the organization, the items in Duncan's
questionnaire were formulated in behavioral terms
("do you," not "can you"). Second, his division
of labor and rules and procedures scales had
marginal reliabilities.
The reliability for Hierarchy of Authority decreased slightly,
while Division of Labor and Rules and Procedures increased

substantially.

Control

Although the structural measures include a dimension of
control, more specific dimensions of control will be con-
sidered. Two types of control reported by McMahon and
Ivancevich (1976) can be found by asking respondents: "How
much say or influence do each of the three levels of the
organization (upper management, middle management, and
nonmanagement) have in determining the work goals in the
departments in the plant. The response is on a five-point
scale ranging from "usually a great deal to say" (1) to
"usually no say at all” (5). Because both organizations
had only two management levels, first-line supervisors were
asked to respond as middle management. The two control

dimensions are:

48

(1) Total control: The sum of the three points
(top, middle, nonmanagement) that make up
the control curve.
(2) Distribution of Control Indicator: Calculated
by fitting a least-squares regression line to
the three points that comprise the curve
(McMahon and Ivancevich, 1976, pgs. 73 and 74).
Ouchi (1977 and 1978) identified two types of controls
that exist in the work place: (1) behavior control and
(2) output control. Behavior control is a function of more
frequent contact between supervisors and subordinates.
Ouchi states that the presence of the supervisor shapes
subordinate behavior to reflect the behavior desired by
the superior. Subordinates feel their behavior is controlled
as a result of this form of supervision.
The second form of control is output control. Under
this condition the control placed upon the worker comes
in the form of units produced and quality of units. The

questions developed by Ouchi (1978) were used for this

research.

Other Variables

Propensity to leave was measured as a dependent variable
to replace turnover. The scale was developed by Vroom (1964)
and was used primarily to investigate its relationship to
turnover. Because this study deals with perceptions of the
workplace, it seems appropriate to tap perceptions of future

work arrangements.

49

Finally, demographic information was collected on a
self-report basis. The entire questionnaire appears as

Appendix A.

Data Collection Method.

Data were first collected at the hospital. All of the
management people were brought together for an explanation
of the study, the instrument, and the results reporting
technique. These people were then asked to participate
by filling out the questionnaire and by urging subordinates
to participate. The management group were asked to read
and initial a consent form approved by Michigan State
University (see Appendix B). Two days later subordinates
were asked to participate in the study. At 7 a.m. the
third-shift employees were assembled as they left work and
were asked to participate in the study. These workers
were given a verbal explanation of the study and consent
forms to be initialed. The questionnaire was administered,
taking between 20 to 50 minutes to complete. The remainder
of that day was spent by asking workers selected at random
to participate in the study. When 8 to 12 participants
were found, they were assembled together and given the
questionnaire. This process was continued until the first
and second shift had been tested.

The second data collection took place in the manufac-
turing firm. On the first day of data collection, the top

management people were assembled and given an explanation

50

of the study. It was explained that the questionnaire
would be administered at random on a voluntary basis.

A brief handout that explained the questionnaire and its
uses was given to them (see Appendix C) and its uses.
These people were given consent forms to read and initial
and were asked to fill out the questionnaire. The next
group that was given an explanation of the study was the
union officials. They were given the questionnaire and
the consent form in order to gain their approval. After
the union approved the study, workers were sought after

to complete the questionnaires. A brief description of
the questionnaire and the study were distributed to
employees selected at random (see Appendix C), and they were
asked to participate in the study. Groups of 10 to 15
were brought together, given an explanation of the study,
a consent form to read and initial, and a questionnaire to
fill out.

Conference rooms and lunch rooms throughout the plant
were used to assemble the groups. On the first after the
office and clerical people were sampled until they left at
5 p.m. Second-shift line workers were sampled between 5
and 9 p.m. At midnight the line workers from the third
shift were administered questionnaires. On the following
morning the first-shift line workers were sampled. Of the

190 employees approached, 185 participated in the study.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

SCALE RELIABILITIES AND VALIDITY

The frequency distributions, means, and variances for
all the scales are presented in Appendix D. These statistics
are reported for the total sample and both subsamples.

Below is a summary of the scale reliabilities and validities
for the three segments of the questionnaire: (1) Job
Diagnostic Survey; (2) Structural variables; and, (3) Control
variables.

Job Diagnostic Survey. Table 4-1 shows the correlation
matrix among scales with the scale reliabilities, standard-
ized alphas, in the diagonal. The reliabilities for the
job ranged from .58 to .91. The reliabilities calculated
here were similar to those presented by Hackman and Oldham
(1974) (See Table 3-1). Similarly, the interscale correla-
tions in Table 4-1 are comparable to those presented by
Hackman and Oldham (1974).

The correlations between the core job dimensions ranged
from .50 to .15 (See Table 4-1). The majority of the cor-
relations between scales were moderately low, and all intra-
scale reliabilities exceeded the interscale correlations.
This is evidence in support of the discriminant validity

of the scales.

51

52

The psychological states were found to have the
following reliabilities: (l) meaningfulness, .75;
(2) responsibility for work outcomes, .79; and, (3) knowl-
edge of results, .74. The correlation between responsibility
and meaningfulness was .72 as shown in Table 4-1. In each
case the correlation between the psychological states
were exceeded by the reliability of each of the scales.

The personal and work outcome scales yielded relia-
bilities ranging from .58 for social satisfaction to .91
for pay satisfaction as shown in Table 4-1. The correla-
tions between these scales were moderate to strong, with
most of the correlations around .50. Scale reliabilities
in each instance exceeded the correlations among the
scales.

Growth-need strength was measured with two formats:
(1) "would like" and (2) job choice. The correlation ad-
justed for attentuation was .49 and produced reliabilities
of .88 for "would like" and .76 for job choice.

Structure. Structure was measured with the elements
of: (l) hierarchy of authority; (2) division of labor;
(3) rules and procedures; and, (4) a composite of all three.
The reliabilities shown in Table 4-1 for these four were
.55, .60, .71, and .75 respectively. These reliabilities
are similar to those reported by Sathe (1978) as were the
interscale correlations. Each of the individual subscales
(Hierarchy of Authority, Division of Labor, and Rules

and Procedures) produced correlations with the composite

53

oo.uoo Jon... .3. Va .3A a 5 oo

ac
«—
an
an;

no:
do

put
Cu

nun
an:
out

neounou
ooooao
oOoocou
noo>oroa
oOoucou
ounce

ONTO“
ncnocooon
nanny->ooox
carbon
ou—ozu-noa
gaseoo
ozon-vonor
coouoooooocm
nuance

o>ooo ou
auoucoQOoa
coooooooooon
nooo>oonom
tenuous-ooem
ooouom
coouuou

canyon nanosuom

«NI
an;

on;
val
so:
can
can
«an

eel
was

an:
«at
uni
no-
but
In:
0—:

o~u
ecu

-"’ ... I

 

oo no no no- no- no- oo oo- oo oo oo no no no no no no no- no no no- no no- oo- no oo- on no no oo
oo no no- no- oo- oo- oo no no. no- no. no- no- no- oo- oo oo- no no no. no- no- no- no. oo- oo oo no on
oo- no- oo no- on- nn no- oo- no. no- oo- nn- no- no- no- no- nn- no- no- oo- oo- no- oo- oo- no- on. no- oo-
no on nn oo on- no nn on oo oo on on no oo. no on on on nn oo on on no oo- on- on- on-
on oo no oo- no no on no oo no no on oo nn nn no on oo oo oo on no no- nn- on- on-
oo no no no on no no- oo oo on nn on on on on on on no oo no on oo no- oo- no-

on on- no on on oo nn on no no no oo nn oo nn oo on no on on no no- no oo
on on- nn- on: on: on- oo- on- on- no- on- on- on- on- on- oo- no- no- no- on- no oo- oo-

no no on nn no no no no no nn nn on nn on no no no no oo no- on no

on no nn no on no no on on nn on on on no no no oo no no- oo on

on on no on oo nn on no nn on on on on no no no oo oo on no

on on no on nn on on on no on no no no- oo no oo oo- no no

on on on on no no on no no no on oo on on no no- no oo

on no oo on no on oo no nn on nn no oo no oo- oo oo

no no no no no oo oo nn nn no on on oo- no- oo no

on on no nn oo nn nn on on nn on no oo- oo oo

on no on no nn nn nn no no- oo- oo oo no no
oo nn nn on no oo no on on oo- no- no no-

on nn on nn no on oo no no oo no on

. nn on on nn on no no no no no no
on on on oo on on no- nn- nn- on-

on on on on on no oo- no- oo
oo nn oo no oo- oo oo oo-
nn no no no- nn- on- nn-
ooo on no- on- nn- on-
ooo no- oo- oo- on-

on no oo nn

oo nn on

no on

no

on on no on on on no on no nn on on no no no no no on no no oo oo n o n o n o n n

nfldc¢ul<> '8h 64‘ 5°.xuth‘t IOnh‘JDKIOU

«I. Ndfl<h

a

eoouuou
unoucm >om
coouo>ouox
cooouoooooom
ooboou
onus—on
nocncoo:
auooob
Innocence
ouoanoz

uo coco—Joe:
nnoroo

goo: ooooouo
cocoon Econ
xuoncooh

non so...
noooooon
h50:0o:<
cocououocoom
xnoh
nooucov~

unhapOUOnn
vac ucozt
boned

.0 sooon>oo
noooogos<

uo >£boenco=
onsuoauam
cooueuorceoo

son I

«a

ca
on

on
w—
on
ma

nu

nu
an

e—

at!!! v 0'9 OF.

54

scale that exceeded the reliability of the composite scale,
thus questionning the discriminate validity. The correla-
tions between the subscales were moderate to low, and none
of the interscale correlations exceeded the reliabilities
for the scales.

Control. As shown in Table 4-1 the reliabilities for
the control measures were: (1) total control, -.l4;
(2) behavior control, .04; and, (3) output control, .40.
These scales were not used in any of the analysis because
of the reliability problems.‘ No other published relia-
bilities were available on these scaleS. Therefore, no

comparative analysis could be made.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS

Appendix D shows the t-tests between organizations
for each of the scales. The t-tests indicate that several
differences exist between means on the scales. In
particular, the structural variables and the satisfaction
variables had higher means than the means for the manu-
facturing firm. With the large number of rules and pro-
cedures that must be adhered to in the hospital, one would
expect the structural differences to exist. Because of
the differences between the two organizations, steps were
taken to eliminate possible confounding. All scales
that were used in this study were adjusted by adding a
constant to each individual's score. By adding a constant,

the variance and distribution of the item is not altered,

55

but the mean is increased by the constant added to equalize
the subgroup means. This eliminates mean differences.

A further study of Tables 31 to 37 in Appendix D
reveals that very few variables differ significantly when
the variances are tested. Specifically, "would-like" growth
is the only variable that will be used in this study that
differs significantly in variance between the two organiza-
tions. The difference in educational level (see Table 3-1)
between the two organizations may account for the variance
differentiation in the "would-like" growth variable. The
higher-educated individuals in the hospital may have strong-
er desires to grow at work. Further, there are some very
low-level employees in the hospital who may have no
desire at all for more growth at work. Therefore, it
seemed appropriate to combine the two subsamples.

Table 4-2 shows the correlation matrix for each of
the individual subgroups. In the top half of the matrix
the correlations for the manufacturing firm are reported.
The lower half of the matrix contains the correlations for
the hospital. The scale reliabilities based on the entire
sample are in the diagonal. Fisher R to Z transformations
were performed, and the 2's were tested for significant
differences. The correlations that have asterisks are
significantly different (P 5 .05) between the two organiza-
tions. The majority of these differences were due to task

significance and knowledge of results. The hospital

56

employees that perceived the job as being high on task
significance also felt the job was meaningful. This
would be expected with the type of work they perform in
that they deal with people's lives. These same employees
receive a good deal of feedback from patients, increasing

the knowledge of results at work.

57

.vOInouuoa no) a o» x hog-oh I too) fiasco coconOuuoo u nonvonocoomo

oo.v no .nnA: ono. vo .onA «Ann

 

 

oo.-so .25 o. .no. v o .noA on Ann 39:59:23.
on on on on nn on nn on nn nn on on no no no oo no oo no no oo oo n n n o n o n n o
oo oo nn oo on- oo- oo nn- on no on on no oo no oo oo no- no oo oo oo oo- no no no- nn no no no -
on «u oo- no- oo- no- no- oo- no no no- oo- no .no no oo- no no- on no no- no- no no- on. no- on no on nn -
no on «m- no no no no- no oo no no no oo .no- no .no no no- oo..no no no- .on no no no on- no- no- on- -
oo- oo- nn- mm no nn on on- no nn on no no no no nn oo nn no no nn no on no nn on no oo- nn- no- -
oo- no- oo- nn mm on on on no- oo no oo no no no no no on no no no nn oo- oo no oo oo- no- on- on- -
no- no oo- nn no mm on no on oo on no no no no no on on nn nn no no no on oo oo no no- oo- oo- -
no oo- nn- on no oo NM no- on on no no nn oo no no no no on on nn .on no on no on oo oo- oo- oo -
oo no nn on- oo- no- oo- mm on- on- no- on- oo- oo- oo- oo- oo- oo on. no- nn- no- no no oo- on .no- oo- no- no- -
oo oo nn- oo no no on nn- mm nn on no no no no nn oo nn no no oo no no on no no on no on no -
oo oo- oo- nn no no nn nn- no mm no on on no nn on on no no nn on oo on on no no on no- oo no -
no no- nn- nn on no no nn- nn oo mM no on no on no nn no nn on on on no oo on no no oo- no no -
no no- no- no oo oo- no on- nn nn nn mm on nn nn nn no on no no nn nn nn- no no oo- no no no no -
no oo- no- no no on on on- no oo nn no mm on on nn .oo on on oo on .no no nn oo- on on no- no on -
no-ono-.on- no no no on oo- on no oo on nn on on on .no oo no on on .nn no on no- oo .oo no no no -
no no- no- on on nn no nn- no no oo nn nn no mm on .no on nn nn .nn .on nn oo oo nn on no no no -
no oo-ono- on on on no nn- on no on on no on no NM on no no on .no no on nn no- on on no no no u
no oo- oo- on no no oo on- no no no no .nn .no .nn nn «N no on on nn nn on oo no- no nn no no no -
oo no- no- oo nn on nn nn- on nn no no nn on no oo oo nu oo no no on oo- on no oo no- no- no- oo- -
oo- no nn- on nn nn no no- nn nn nn on on nn nn no on on an nn oo oo oo on no no nn no- oo oo -
no- no .on- nn no on no on. on on nn no no oo no no on nn nn mm on nn nn on. no- no- on oo- oo oo -
oo- no- oo- on on no nn on- on on on no on no no .oo nn nn on on MN on oo oo no on no no- on- on- -
no oo- oo- on oo nn .nn on- no oo oo no..nn .nn .no nn no no no on nn on no on no on no oo no no -
oo- no-.oo- no no no on no- no on on nn on nn on nn no no no on on on on no no- no no- no no- on -
no- oo- no- oo oo no on on- no no oo oo- oo no no nn oo no on nn no no on no nn on no- no- on- nn- -
......” "flown on m a non a a o... m x m a “no" a x m n a no munrmoow ”now o
oo nn on- oo- on- oo- no..no no no no no no .no oo- no no no- oo oo nn- oo oo- no- on- no- on no nn on -
no no oo- nn- nn- oo- nnr oo no- no- oo- no- oo- no- no- no- oo no- oo oo nn- oo- no- nn- on. on- no mu nn on -
no no oo- nn- nn- no- oo no- nn nn on no oo oo no oo no no no on nn- oo- no- nn- on- no- no on Mm on -
om nm nm- nm- nm- om- om- nm- nm no no no no no oo- oo no no- no no nn- no- no- nn- nn- on- on nn on mm -
on on no on nn on nn on on nn on on no no no oo no oo no no oo oo n n n o n o n n o
.3..."

d4200‘un “Sh In nhzu~0~hhu00 hhud~l¢~dfl¢
.hd‘: IOFFOG Zn d‘husm0= .nd‘: QOH nth zu tank 08n‘9h01h924!
mueat‘wflbm 03h Nth LO K—xh‘t 80—h4duxxou

NI. ldn‘h

l

oOnucou
oaooao
oOou=ou
u0o>ozun
neon:ou
oon0h

Cocoa
oooucouoo
-noooo>ooo:
zuuooo
oooozo-ooo
£91.30
axon-pozoz
:Oouuouoooam
guanoo

o>ooo cu
non-coaooo

:Oouuooooncm
oOno>oouam
coouUQonooem
odouom
coouuonnooou
nuoosoow
cooquooooow
nun
cOoua>ooox
coouooonooam
oonuoo
onocoau
nococoo:
noooon
noncoanoz
ouoonoz

no oooao)o:x
noonuo

goo) ocooooo
cocoon 60o.
xuonoooo

non soon
nooooooo
nt0:0o:‘
oucou
-ono:non noon
nooocooo
snob

nuoono>
ooonu

oo>oo
coooouovn
noosvovOnn
can noon:
noouo

.0 coono>oo
nuooo;o:¢

no nann-ouoa
moanuanun
econ-nocouno

odou—nno=

an
on

as
an
on
mm
on

mm
mm
an

on
on
an
on
no
on
no

no
nu

oooonno:
Inns ozonquouacqt

58

HYPOTHESES

The four hypotheses were tested and the results are
presented in this segment.

Hypothesis 1. Those people that perceive the job to be
high on core job dimensions will be more satisfied with the
job than those that perceive the job to be low on the core
job dimensions. The Pearson product-moment correlation
between the perceived motivating potential score and global‘
satisfaction was .49 for the entire sample and both sub-
samples. All three correlations were significant beyond the
.001 level of probability. These findings strongly support
the prediction made by hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2. When the worker perceives the job to be

 

high on job characteristics, it is expected that the high-
‘growtheneed-employees will be more satisfied with the job
than the low—growth-need employees. Four separate analyses
of variance were used to test hypothesis 2 for each of the
four structural variables. Each of the four ANOVAs were con-
ducted using only those people whose perceived motivating-
potential score was above the median for the entire sample.
The analysis of variance in each case was a two by two
with growth-need strength as an independent variable and one
of the four structural scales as the other independent
variable. Global satisfaction was used as the dependent
variable for all the ANOVAs.

Table 4-3 shows the analysis of variance results when

the independent variables were structure and growth-need

 

59

strength. A main effect was found for the independent
variable, structure, on global satisfaction, but no other
significant effects were found. Cell means and sizes are
provided in Table 4-4.

When the structure variable was replaced with hierarchy
of authority, the analysis of variance again produced only
one main effect. As shown in Table 4-5, hierarchy of author-
ity produced a main effect on global satisfaction. Table
4-6 reports the cell means for the analysis of variance
in Table 4-5.

The analysis of variance with division of labor and
growth-need strength as independent variables, with global
satisfaction as the dependent variable, is shown in Table
4-7. No significant effects were found. An examination of
the cell means in Table 4-8 indicates that three of the four
cells had equal means, while the fourth cell varied from
the other three by .16 standard deviations.

The final structural variable used as an independent
variable was rules and procedures. As indicated in Table
4-9, there were no significant effects for the independent
variables on global satisfaction. The cell means are
reported in Table 4-10.

The results do not support hypothesis 2, which predicted
a growth-need strength main effect. Instead, the structural
variables produced main effects, or no effects were produced

at all.

60
TABLE 4-3
HIGH MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

 

 

Mean
Source of Variation 2: Sguare E Sig.
Main Effects 2 2.500 2.464 .089
Structure (ST) 1 4.783 4.714 .032
Growth-need
Strength (GS) l .122 .121 .729
2-Way Interactions l .104 .103 .749
ST by GS l .104 .103 .749
Explained 3 1.701 1.677 .176
Residual 120 1.015
TOTAL 123 1.031
TABLE 4-4
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-3
Structure
high low
. 5.5 5.2
High N = 32 N = 48
GNS ‘

5.7 5.2
LOW N = 20 N = 24

 

 

 

 

61

TABLE 4-5

HIGH MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

 

 

Mean
Source of Variation 23 Sguare E
Main Effects 2 3.937 3.974
Hierarchy of
Authority (HA) 1 7.656 7.729
Growth-Need
Strength (GS) 1 .067 .067
2-Way Interactions 1 .109 .110
HA by GS l .109 .110
Explained 3 2.661 2.686
Residual 120 .991
TOTAL 123 1.031
TABLE 4-6
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-5
Hierarchy of Authority
high low
. 5.6 5.1
High N = 32 N = 48
GNS
5.7 5.1
L°W N = 21 N = 23

 

 

 

 

62

TABLE 4-7

HIGH MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

 

 

Mean
Source of Variation DE Sguare E
Main Effects 2 .159 .151
Division of Labor
(DL) 1 .101 .096
Growth-Need
Strength (G8) 1 .228 .216
2-Way Interactions 1 .194 .184
DL by GS 1 .194 .184
Explained 3 .171 .162
Residual 120 1.053
TABLE 4-8
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-7
Division of Labor
high low
. 5.3 5.3
High N = 37 N = 43
GNS
Low 5.3 5.5
N = 22 , N = 22

 

 

 

 

E3

.860
.758
.643

.668
.668

.922

63

TABLE 4-9

HIGH MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

 

 

Mean
Source of Variation Q§_ Sguare E Sig.
Main Effects 2 .423 .403 670
Rules and Proce-
dures (RP) 1 .628 .598 .441
Growth-Need
Strength (GS) 1 .271 .258 .612
2-Way Interactions l .009 .009 .925
RP by G8 1 .009 .009 .925
Explained 3 .285 .271 .846
Residual 120 1.050
TOTAL 123 1.031
TABLE 4-10
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-9
Rules and Procedures
high low
. 5.4 5.3
High N = 33 N = 47
GNS
5.5 5.4
L°W N = 15 N = 29

 

 

 

 

64

Hypothesis 3. When the individual perceives the job to

 

below on core job dimensions, the workers that have growth-
need strengths congruent with the perceived structure will
be more satisfied with work than the employees with growth-
need strengths incongruent with perceived structure. These
analyses were performed only on those people that perceived
their jobs as low in the core job characteristics. Four
separate analyses of variance were performed using each of
the four structural variables as an independent variable,
and growth-need strength as the second independent variable
with global satisfaction as the dependent variable.

Table 4-11 shows that when structure is used as the
independent variable, no significant effects are found.

Cell means for the ANOVA are reported in Table 4-12.

The analysis of variance with hierarchy of authority
and growth-need strength on global satisfaction is shown in
Table 4-13. The structural variable hierarchy of authority
produced a significant main effect, but no other significant
effects were encountered. Table 4-14 reports cell means
and cell sizes for the ANOVA in the preceding table.

When division of labor is used as the structural variable,
no significant effects are observed. The ANOVA is shown in
Table 4-15, and the accompanying cell means are reported in
Table 4-16.

The last test of hypothesis 3 used rules and procedures

and growth-need strength as independent variables on global

65

satisfaction. Table 4-17 reports no significant effects
for this ANOVA. The cell means and sizes are shown in
Table 4-18.

The hypothesis predicted an interaction effect, and no
interactions proved to be significant. An inspection of
the cell means show that the low-growth-need people were
always the most satisfied. The match of person and
structure predicted to be second of the four was normally
lowest. The structural main effect dampened the prediction
of hypothesis 3 producing mixed results with no support of

the hypothesis.

66

TABLE 4-11

LOW MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

 

 

Mean
Source of Variation DE Sguare E
Main Effects 2 2.552 1.673
Structure (ST) 1 2.699 1.770
Growth-Need
Strength (GS) 1 2.535 1.662
2-Way Interactions 1 .307 .201
ST by GS 1 .307 .201
Explained 3 1.803 1.182
Residual 119 1.525
TOTAL 122 1.532-
TABLE 4-12
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-11
Structure
High ‘Low
. 4.1 4.0
High N = 26 N = 19
GNS
4.5 4.1
LOW N = 43 _ N = 35

 

 

 

 

£19-

.192
.186

.200

.655
.655

.320

 

67

TABLE 4-13

LOW MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Globa1 Satisfaction

Mean
Source of Variation DE, Sguare
Main Effects 2 6.980
Hierarchy of
Authority (HA) 1 11.557
Growth-Need
Strength (G8) 1 1.147
2-Way Interactions l .277
HA by GS 1 .277
Explained 3 4.746
Residual 119 1.451
TOTAL 122 1.532
TABLE 4-14

CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-13

High
GNS

Low

['11

4.811
7.965
.791

.191
.191

3.271

Hierarchy of Authority

 

 

 

High Low
4.5 3.7

N = 19 N = 26
4.6

N = 44 N

 

 

4.0
=1

 

68

TABLE 4-15

LOW MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

Source of Variation

 

Main Effects
Divison of Labor

(DL)

Growth-Need
Strength (GS)

2-Way Interactions

DL by GS
Explained
Residual

TOTAL

 

 

Mean
D§_ Sguare g Sig.
2 1.902 1.256 .288
1 1.400 .925 .338
1 2.367 1.564 .214
1 2.940 1.942 .166
1 2.940 1.942 .166
3 2.248 1.485 .222
119 1.514
122 1.532
TABLE 4-16
CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-15
Division of Labor
High Low
High 3.8 4.4
N = 27 N = 18
GNS
4.4 4.3
L°w N = 46 N = 32

 

 

 

 

69

TABLE 4-17

LOW MPS

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Dependent Variable--Global Satisfaction

 

Mean
Source of Variation 2: Sguare E Sig.
Main Effects 2 2.588 1.695 .188
Rules and Procedures
(RP) 1 2.772 1.815 .180
Growth-Need
Strength (GS) 1 2.302 1.508 .222
2-Way Interactions l .002 .001 .973
RP by GS 1 .002 .001 .973
Explained 3 1.726 1.130 .340
Residual 119 1.527
TOTAL 122 1.532
TABLE 4-18

CELL MEANS FOR TABLE 4-17

Rules and Procedures

 

 

High Low
. 4.2 3.9
High N = 21 N = 2%
GNS ‘
Low 4.5 4.2
N = 38 N = 40

 

 

 

 

7O

Hypothesis 4. To test hypothesis 4, the sample was

 

broken down into four groups. The four groups are:
(1) individuals that perceive the job to be high on core job
dimensions and are high-growth-need people; (2) individuals
that perceive the job to be high on core job dimensions
and are low-growth-need people; (3) individuals that perceive
the job as low on core job dimensions and are high-growth-
need people in a structure they perceive as low, or are
low-growth-need people in a structure they perceive as high;
and, (4) individuals that perceive the job as low on core
job dimensions and are low-growth-need people in a structure
they perceive as low, or are high-growth-need people in a
structure they perceive as high.. The hypothesis predicted
that in each of these four groups, the person that perceived
the structure to be low would be more satisfied With the
job than the person that perceived the structure as high.
Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated
between each of the structural variables and global satis-
faction within each group. For groups 3 and 4, when a
specific structural variable was correlated with global
satisfaction, the same structural variable was used to
designate whether that person perceived the structure as
high or low. Therefore, when division of labor was correla-
ted with global satisfaction, the structural element used to
classify the individual as perceiving the structure as high
or low was also division of labor. The correlations are

reported in Table 4-19.

71

Only the fourth group (Table 4-19) proved to support
the hypothesis. The overall finding show no support for

hypothesis 4.

72
TABLE 4-19

PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATIONS WITH
GLOBAL SATISFACTION

Structural Variable

Structure
Hierarchy of
Authority
High GNS Diviéon of
Labor
Rules and
Procedures
High MPS
Structure
Hierarchy of
Authority
Low GNS Division of
Labor
Rules and
Procedures

Structure
Hierarchy of
Person-Structure Authority
.Congruence Division of
- Labor
Rules and
Procedures
Low MPS
Structure
Hierarchy of
Person-Structure Authority
Incongruence Divison of
Labor
Rules and Pro-
cedures

*.*p < .01

.18
.16
.06
.17 _
.12
.22

-.11

.14

.41**
.40**

.09
-.05
.03
-.22
-.19

73

The Hypotheses Combined. To test the predicted rankings
of global satisfaction in Table 1-4, the means for each of
the eight combinations of high and low perceptions of
motivating-potential scores, high and low perceived structure,
and high- and low-growth-need strength were calculated. The
means are presented in Tables 4-20 to 4-23. To distinguish
each of the separate combinations, Figure 3-2 was used to
report the means. The cells were rank ordered from highest
(representing the greatest degree of global satisfaction)
to lowest (representing the least degree of global satis-
faction). The rank orders for each structural measure
and the order predicted from Table 1-4 are shown in Table
4-24.

To test the accuracy of the predictions, a Spearman
rank correlation was performed between the predicted rank
order and the actual rank produced in the analysis for each
of the four structural variables. Four significant correla-
tions with the prediction were: (1) structure, .66, p 4 .05;
(2) hierarchy of authority, .65, p 4,.05; (3) division of
labor, .87, p 4;.01; and, (4) rules and procedures, .65,
1p < .05. These results support the predicted rank order
based on the four hypotheses.

Because only one of the four hypotheses was supported
by the sample data, further analysis was performed. Spearman
rank correlations were conducted on the predicted order

for those that perceive the job as high, and again for those

74

that perceive the job as low. The results, reported in
Table 4-25, show negative correlations. This further
analysis shows that the predicted order for the two sub-
groups (1ow MPS-high MPS) was incorrect. These Spearman
rank correlations parallel the tests of the hypotheses
above and provide further support of hypothesis 1, but no

support for the other three.

GNS

GNS

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4-20
CELL MEANS
Structure
high low
MP8 MP8
High Low High Low
H. h 5.5 4.1 5.2 4.0
19 N = 32 N = 26 N = 48 N = 19
L w 5.7 4.5 5.2 4.1
0 N = 20 N = 43 N = 24 N = 35
TABLE 4-21
CELL MEANS
Hierarchy of Authority
high low
MP8 MP5
High Low High Low
. 5.6 A 4 s 4.1 3.7
High N = 32 N = 19 N = 48 N = 26
Low 5 7 4.6 5.1 4.0
N = 21 N = 44 N = 23 N = 34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GNS

GNS

76

TABLE 4-22

CELL MEANS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Division of Labor
high low
MP8 MP5
‘High Low High Low
. 5.3 3.8 5.3 4.4
High N = 37 N = 27 N = 43 N = 18
Low 5.3 4.4 5.5 4.3
N = 22 J N = 46 N = 22 N = 32
TABLE 4-23
CELL MEANS
Rules and Procedures
high low
MP8 MP8
High Low High Low
. 5.4 4.2 5.3 3.9
High N = 33 N = 21 N = 47 N = 24
Low 5.5 4.5 5.4 4.2
N = 15 N = 38 N = 29 N = 40

 

 

 

 

 

 

77

 

m.o m m m.o m m

m.m h n m.w n m

m m.m m m m o

m m.m m m m m

a m H a o O

m.m H m.m m.m m 0

m.m m N N m <

o m m.m m.m H m

monopoooom Honma mo -Nunoonuo< mo muouoonum noun mnbmav mHHoO

pom moaom c0nmn>no uncooomnm moonxoom
cmuonpoom

 

mOZH&Z<m A<DBU<

mmqdem<> Q<MDBUDmBm mmfi m0 =U<M mom
ZOHBU<hmHB<m A<mOQU ho wUZHKZ<m

vml¢ wflmde

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE

78

TABLE 4-25

SPEARMAN RANK

RANK-ORDERED PREDICTIONS AND THE
RANK-ORDERED FINDINGS FOR THOSE
RANKING 1 TO 4 AND THOSE RANKING 5 TO 8

Structural
Variable

 

Structure

Hierarchy of
Authority

Division of
Labor

Rules and
Procedures

*p 4 .05

High MPS
First four

 

-.63

-.63

-.26

-.95*

Low MPS
Last four

 

-.32

-.40

.95*

-.32

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The four hypotheses presented in Chapter Three in
combined form may be used to predict the degree of job
satisfaction people will receive with work. The first
hypothesis should be applied first to separate the workers
that perceive the jobs to be motivating from those that
perceive the job as less motivating. This primary step
will be essential for differentiation on the satisfaction
variable. When the worker feels that the core job
characteristics are high, the worker should also view him/
herself as receiving satisfaction from the job.

Figure 5-1 illustrates the relationships among the
four hypotheses.

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE FOUR HYPOTHESES

 

Hypothesis 1
High MPS Low MPS

(Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis:ED

CL

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis 4

 

FIGURE 5-1
When the motivating-potential scores fall above the median
for the sample, hypothesis two will be used to separate

workers whose individual differences are congruent with the

79

80

job from those that have incongruent individual differences.
The workers with high-growth-need strength will experience
more global satisfaction than workers with low growth-needs
for highly perceived job characteristics. The path labeled
A represents the relationship between hypothesis one and
hypothesis two.

The second group of people identified in hypothesis
one are those that perceive their jobs as being low on the '
job characteristics. When the job is not considered to
be very motivating to the individual, it is hypothesized
that the individual will identify with the perceived struc-
ture in the organization. When this is the case, congruence
between the person and the structure will lead to more
positive outcomes.

Hypothesis four is applicable to congruent and incon-
gruent jobs that have both perceived high and low motiva-
ting-potential scores. Paths C and D in Figure 5-1
illustrate that hypothesis four applies to each group of
people after hypothesis two and three have been tested.

If the individual perceives the structure to be low, then
that individual will be more satisfied than the individual
that perceives the organization as high in structure.

All four hypotheses interact in such a way as to predict
the level of global satisfaction an individual perceives
in the workplace. The perceived motivating job with a
worker that has high growth-needs and perceives the structure

to be low will derive the most job satisfaction. The

81

job-person congruence (high MPS-high growth-needs) with a
structure viewed as high will rank second in global
satisfaction. The next pair of workers perceive the job
to be motivating, but the growth-need strength of these
workers is low. Given this job-person incongruency, the
worker that perceives the structure to be low will rank
third in outcomes received and the worker that perceives
the structure as high will rank fourth. The fifth and
sixth ranked groups of workers represent a person-structure
congruence (high growth-need with perceived low structure
and low growth-need with a perceived high structure).' For
this congruent state the higher ranked of the two workers
will view the structure as being low. The last pair of
workers hold jobs that they rated as low in motivating
potential, and incongruence existed between the person and
the perceived structure. The worker that sees the organi-
zation's structure as low will be ranked seventh, and the
person that perceived the structure as high will rank

eighth.

HYPOTHESIS 1
Workers that have jobs perceived to be high on core
job dimensions will feel more job satisfaction than
workers that have jobs perceived to be low on core
job dimensions.
The basis for studying job design rests with the premise
that some jobs produce desirable outcomes. Workers derive

a positive attitude about work and the job if they perceive

the job as having desirable characteristics. Past research

82

has identified the core job dimensions (task identity,

task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback)
as the characteristics most likely to produce job satis-
faction. In the presence of a job that the worker per-
ceives as containing these elements, the worker should feel
motivated and satisfied with the job and surrounding condi-
tions. Hackman, Oldham, Janson, and Purdy (1975) studied
perceptions of job content and found that jobs perceived

to be complex were more satisfying to workers than were
jobs perceived to be routine. The results indicate that
the workers that perceive the job to be motivating did feel
more satisfied than those that scored the job characteris-
tics low (r = .49). This suggests that more favorable job
characteristics, regardless of individual differences,
produce workers that feel more satisfied about the task.
Previous literature has indicated that only certain workers
(e.g., high-growth-need individuals) have a greater desire
for job enrichment. Yet, all of the workers that per-
ceive the job to have high job characteristics were more
satisfied than those that perceived the job to be low on
core job dimensions (see Tables 4-20 to 4-23). This evi-
dence supports the findings of Pierce, Dunham, and
Blackburn (1979) which showed that people that perceived
the job to be motivating were more satisfied than those
people that perceived the job to be low on core job dimen-

sions.

83

Past research and the present results show that per-
ceived motivating tasks and perceived job characteristics
relate to satisfaction. The evidence presented suggests
that those that perceive the job to be high in core job
dimensions derive more positive outcomes than the workers
that perceive the job to be low in the five core job
dimensions. These findings strongly support the prediction
of Hypothesis 1--that people will be more satisfied with
the job if they perceive the job to be high on the five

core job dimensions.

HYPOTHESIS 2

For individuals that perceive the job to be high on

the core job dimensions, those individuals with high

growth-needs will be more satisfied with the job

than will workers with low growth-needs;

Congruence of the job and the individual has been a
topic of many writers (White, 1978). Growth-need strength
has been identified to be the most significant individual
difference that moderates the relationship between the
perceived job characteristic and satisfaction (Wanous, 1974).
Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn (1979) warn, however, that
those differences are not always statistically significant.

The literature reveals that this moderating effect of
growth-need strength is particularly strong for the indi-
viduals that perceive the tasks to be high on the job

characteristic variables (Hackman and Oldham, 1976 and

Oldham, 1976). Most of the past writings focused on the

84

perceived complex jobs, with little or no emphasis on the
perceived routine jobs. A recent study by Pierce, Dunham,
and Blackburn (1979) attempted to study both perceived
complex and routine jobs. They found the complex job-
individual difference interaction to be a significant
indicator of satisfaction. These results indicate that the
congruence of the individual difference and perceived job
characteristics is a predictor for the jobs with high
motivating-potential scores.

The current results are not consistent with those of
Pierce, et al. (1979). Growth-need satisfaction in each
instance produced results opposite of that which was ex-
pected (see Tables 4-3 to 4-10). Growth-need strength did
not moderate the relationship, and an inspection of cell
means shows that low-growth-need people were slightly
more satisfied than the high-growth-need people. One
possible reason for this may be that the high-growth-need
people are not receiving growth fulfillment from the job.
Even though they perceive the job to be high on core job
dimensions, it is still possible that these individuals
desire more valued outcomes from the job. The relationship
between growth-need strength and growth satisfaction is low
and positive for the entire sample (Table 4-1). An examina-
tion of the subsamples shows that the high-growth-need
manufacturing firm people do not feel as satisfied with.
growth fulfillment as the high-growth-need hospital people

(Table 4-2). A second possible reason for the inconsistency

85

of these findings with the others may be the sample.
Three-fourths of the sample were drawn from a manufacturing
firm, which is very different from the samples used by Hack-
man and Lawler (1971); Hackman and Oldham (1976); Oldham
(1976); and, Wanous (1974). Two studies have shown
that the JDS is not consistent across samples and production
technologies (Dunham, Aldag, and Brief,l977 and Rousseau,
1977). The current study produced mixed results with
respect to hypothesis 2, which may be a function of the
sample. This inability to generalize sample-specific
results may be the reason for these mixed findings.
Contrary to hypothesis 2, structure provided a main
effect on the dependent variable, global satisfaction
(see Tables 4-3 to 4-6). Individuals that perceived the
structure to be high were more satisfied than those that
perceived the structure as low. The reduction of ambiguity
provided by a highly-structured organization may account
for this finding. In particular, the low-growth-need
people may find a great deal of satisfaction in the
presence of a perceived high structure. These findings are
consistent with Keller, Szilagyi, and Holland (1975) who
found the task characteristics to relate negatively to role
ambiguity and positively to work satisfaction. A structure
perceived by workers to be high would be low in ambiguity
and the results show more satisfaction when this is the

case.

86

HYPOTHESIS 3

For individuals that perceive the job to be low

on the core job dimensions, those individuals with

growth-needs congruent with perceived structure

will be more satisfied with the job than those

that have growth-needs incongruent with perceived

structure.

Congruence of the individual and the structure may be
traced back to Vroom (1960) who found that not all indi-
viduals derive high satisfaction from a participative
environment. The literature suggests that some structural
characteristics are not considered desirable by all
individuals (Hall, 1972 and Huse and Price, 1970).

Ivancevich and Donnelly (1975) indicated a congruence
between self-actualization and organization structure
affected satisfaction in sales personnel. Thus far, only
one study has specifically looked at the growth-need
strength variable as an individual difference for structures
considered to be mechanistic or organic (Pierce, Dunham,
and Blackburn, 1979). The results of the Pierce, et a1.
study are mixed with respect to the person-structure con-
gruence. The structural measure used was primarily physical
structural characteristics of the organization. Perceived
structure in this study showed mixed results for the rela-
tionship with the individual difference variable, growth-
need strength. When the workers perceived themselves as
having motivating jobs, the workers that had individual

differences congruent with the perceived structure were

more satisfied than all of the other workers. The workers

87

with perceived routine jobs, and the workers that had
individual differences congruent with structure, were the
least satisfied in three of four statistical tests

(see Tables 4-11 to 4-18). Overall, the results indicate
minor differences exist between worker job satisfaction
when the job is perceived to be low on core job dimensions.
Hierarchy of authority as the structural variable moderated
the relationship between MP5 and global satisfaction. As
discussed above, the reduced ambiguity of the workplace
associated with a high structure may account for these
findings. Thus, the hypothesis could not be fully supported

by the findings in this study.

HYPOTHESIS 4

When controlling for individual differences and

perceived job characteristics, workers that per-

ceive the structure to be low will be more

satisfied with the job than those workers that

perceive the structure to be high.

As used in this study, structure consists of indivi-
duals' perceptions of the hierarchy of authority, division
of labor, and rules and procedures used in the organization.
If workers perceive these factors to be very high, then they
are likely to be less satisfied because of the constraints
the structure places upon them. Innovative behaviors,
satisfaction, climate, and work attitudes are related to
perceived structure (Child and Ellis, 1973; Inkson, Hickson,

and Pugh, 1968; Payne, Phesey, and Pugh, 1971; and,

Vrendenburgh and Alutto, 1977).

88

The relationship between perceived structure and
global satisfaction provided mixed results (see Table
4-19). It was expected that a structure perceived to be
low would enhance global work satisfaction. In only one
of the four situations (low MPS-person structure incon-
gruence), was a structure perceived to be low related to
global satisfaction. For the other three situations,

(1) high MPS-high-growth-need strength, (2) high MPS-
low-growth-need strength, and (3) low MPS-person structure
congruence), the structure perceived to be high was the
more satisfying. Given the structural main effects
encountered in the above hypotheses, these results are not
unexpected. Overall, the findings do not support the
hypothesis that a structure perceived to be low will

make people more satisfied with the job.

THE COMBINED HYPOTHES ES

The four hypotheses in combination can be described
in an analysis-of-variance framework. Figure 5-2 (a repro-
duction of Figure 3-1) will be described and referred to

later in order to relate the present study to past research.

89

ANALYSIS-OF-VARIANCE PRESENTATION
OF THE VARIABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Structure
High Low
MP5 MP5
High Low High Low
High A B E F
Growth
Need
Low C D G H
1
FIGURE 5-2

Cells A, C, E, and G are representative of the individuals
that perceive their job to be high on the five core job
dimensions. The people that rated these dimensions lower
are represented in cells B, D, F, and H. Among the people
with high motivating-potential scores, A and E would be
considered to be congruent with respect to the job and the
individual. Congruence among the lower-scoring motivating-
potential-score people exists for cells F and D because the
people match the perceived structure. Cells E, G, F, and H
contain people that perceive the structure to be low.
Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) made predictions
about the degree of satisfaction that would be derived by
congruence of the individual, the job, and the structure.

Their model was an eight-cell model similar to Figure 5-2.

90

Perfect congruence exists in cell E (organic structure,
complex job, and high-growth-need individual) and cell D
(mechanistic structure, routine job, and low-growth-need
individual). Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn (1979) found
support for cell E as a producer of satisfaction, but cell
D was ranked far lower. Support was not shown for either
of the findings (see Table 4-24) indicating the congruence
hypothesis is not valid for the low perceived structure
and high growth-need and perceived complex job situation,
or the low perceived structure and low growth-need and
perceived routine job.

Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) and Pierce, Dunham,
and Blackburn (1979) provided a rank order of the degree
of satisfaction each of the eight situations would
ascertain.. Table 5-1 shows the rank orders predicted
by Porter, et a1. (1975), Pierce, et a1. (1979), and the
present study as well as the results produced by the
latter two studies. Porter, et a1. (1975) predicted con-
gruence as the greatest indicator of satisfaction, and
ranked cells E and D first and second, respectively. Cells
F, A, H, and C were considered to be of equal value.

Cells G and B were ranked seventh and eighth. Pierce, et
a1. (1979) ranked the first four cells (E, A, G, and C)
identically to those in this study. The predictions differ
in the cells representing routine jobs (F, D, H, and B),
because the study at hand predicts a person-structure

congruence as being a better predictor of satisfaction.

91

As shown in Table 5-1, the predictions of Pierce, et a1.
(1979) are similar to those made in this study. The
results of Pierce, et a1. (1979) are different from the
results of this study. This could be because structure
was measured in two different ways. Pierce, et a1. (1979)
used mostly physical measures of structure, while this
study used entirely perceived structural measures. This
basic difference constitutes the basis for the structure-
individual congruence hypothesis. An emergent structure
is a function of social interaction with which a person is
more likely to identify. The individual filters all
information provided to him/her thereby forming a judgment
about the organization's structure. When this judgment

of structure matches the individual's growth-needs, he/she
feels more satisfaction.

The test of the prediction against the four sets of
results all proved significant (p 4..05). The strongest re-
lationship was between the predictions and the results
produced when division of labor was used to represent the
perceived structural variable. Table 5-1 indicates that of
the eight cells, ties were encountered for the cells ranking
second, third, and fourth, and another tie was encountered
between the fifth and sixth cells. The relationship proved
strong because the jobs perceived to be high in core job
dimensions were ranked one to four and they were in the top

four. This was the primary cause of the predictions being

92

munomom

 

n n o n Enos Boon
m o m.o n 30o 30o
m n m m can: 30H
5 m m.o m 30H non:
o o n.o o Boo: 30o
m m n m 30a 30a
n n n.o n Enos Boo:
o o o o 30o Boo:
.Hm um .Ho um .Ho um via muouosuum comuom
moownm moownm umuoom canoe

mBQDmmm 02¢ mZOHBUHQmmm DmmmamOIMZ<m ho ZOmHmdeOU

 

 

30H
30a
30a
30a
Boo:
Boo:
Boo:

Boo;

<

m

 

hon

mum mosmnm
Boom mango

aeouomwmnumm.non mo MCOnuOnpmom Umowpuolxcmm

Him mamdfi

93

significant. Thus, the overall results of the rank-
ordered predictions indicate the strength of hypothesis
one and the mixed results found for the other three

hypotheses.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS

This study tested the main effects and interaction
effects of perceived structure, growth-need strength, and
perceived motivating potential of the job on job satis-
faction. AS predicted, those that perceived the job to
be high on the core job dimensions ere more saitsfied than
the individuals that perceived the job to be low on the
core job dimensions. Thus, when a person perceives a job
as having a high motivating potential, he/she is satisfied
with the work involved.

Contrary to the predictions of the other hypotheses,
the structural variables produced main effects. Past
research shows that growth-need strength moderates the
relationship between the perceived job characteristics
and job satisfaction. These findings were not replicated
in this study; rather, the structural variable proved to
be a determinant of the relationship between perceived

job characteristics and job satisfaction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY

These results emphasize the need for a more thorough
investigation of the Hackman and Oldham Model (1975). In
particular, the moderating effect of growth-need strength

should be examined closely. (For a thorough analysis of

94

95

the problems connected with growth-need strength as a
moderator between perceived job characteristics and
satisfaction, see White, 1978). The lack of support of
growth-need strength as a moderator in this study strength-
ens the conclusions of White (1978).

Structure is a relatively new variable in the job design
literature, yet it has been shown to be a major influence
on the perceived job characteristic-job satisfaction rela-
tionship (Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn, 1979). This
study differs from Pierce, et a1. (1979) in that the
structural measure was perceived structure, while Pierce,
et a1. (1979) used a combination of physical and perceived
structure. This difference may account for the variation
in the findings; in both instances, however, structure
played a major role. Thus, structure is an important
variable in a contingency model of job design. Further con-
sideration must be given to better identification of the

relationship it has in an overall model.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The results were in some instances contradictory to.
past writings. This may be a function of the Job Diagnos-
tic Survey (JDS). The JDS has been shown to produce
different results across samples and across organizational
technological processes (Dunham, Aldag, and Brief, 1977 and
Rousseau, 1978). The JDS appears to be sample specific

with respect to the relationship among variables, which

96

restricts the generalizability of the research performed
with the instrument. The motivating-potential score and
the five core job dimensions correlated with the organi-
zational level and the amount of education of the employees.
This may limit the use of this instrument when the sample
consists of many different job types that require varying
degrees of education. Such a wide spectrum of jobs may
cause the people with high-level and/or high-education jObS‘
to be placed in the top end of the distribution of moti-
vating-potential scores. If the research entails a
median split, it may cause the sample to confound education
and/or level with those in the upper half of the distribu-
tion. For future research using the JDS, it is recommended
that the sample be drawn from a large number of'jobs that
would not be of varied education or varied level. This
would maximize job variability, but not because of
education and/or level.

Of the research performed to date using the JDS, few
studies have involved an actual job Change. This study,
as do most studies, look at an already established setting
with no actual job-Change intervention. Yet, in dis-
cussing the findings, writers often generalize the results
to the job-change literature. To resolve this problem,
research involving a job Change is needed to assess this

ability to generalize.

97

Structure proved to be an important variable in this
study and in the work of Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn
(1979). As mentioned above, structure was operationalized
in two different ways and provided two different sets of
results. Contrary and mixed results fill the structural
literature because of the lack of standardization of the
measures and the variance in the operational definitions.
Standardization is necessary to direct the research toward
a more common end result.

The operationalization of control in this study proved
unsuccessful because of the poor reliabilities of the
measures. This stems from a lack of research in this area.
Further research on control is essential for the full

comprehension of the function of control in organizations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRACTICE

The results indicate that perceptions of structure play
a role in the relationship between the job perceptions and
satisfaction. Careful consideration should be given to the
structural aspects of the work environment in order to
maximize work satisfaction.

Satisfaction is associated with the core job dimensions
when they are perceived by the worker to be motivating.
If this relationship heightens satisfaction, employers
should help workers identify the core job dimensions and

point out the importance of the job. Often the employee

98

may not know the importance of the job to the functioning
of the product and plant. This can provide the employee
with a more positive job attitude, because this will

enhance the core job dimensions.

APPENDICES

99

APPENDIX A

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Section One

 

This part of the questionnaire asks you to describe your
job, as objectively as you can.

Please do not use this part of the questionnaire to show
how much you like or dislike your job. Questions about
that will come later. Instead, try to make your des-

criptions as accurate and as objective as you possibly
can.

 

A sample question is given below.

A. To what extent does your job require you to work with
mechanical equipment?

1 -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5 ------- @ -------- 7

Very little; moderately Very much;
the job the job
requires requires
almost no contact almost
with mechanical constant
equipment of any work with
kind. mechanical
equipment.

You are to circle the number which is the most accurate
description of your job.

If, for example, your job requires you to work with mechan-
ical equipment a good deal of the time-—but also requires
some paperwork--you might circle the number six, as was
done in the example above. If you do not understand

these instructions, please ask for assistance. If you do
understand them, turn the page and begin.

100

1. To what extent does your job require you to work closely
with other people (either clients or people in related
jobs in your own organization)?

 

1 -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5 -------- 6 --------- 7

Very little;
dealing with
other people is

Moderately;
some dealing
with others is

Very much;
dealing with
other people

not at all necessary. is an abso-
necessary in lutely essen-
doing the job. tial and

crucial part
of doing the
job.
2. How much autonomy is there in your job? That is, to
what extent does your job permit you to decide on your
922 how to go about doing the work?

1 -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5--------6 --------- 7

Very little;
the job gives
me almost no
personal "say"
about how and
when the work
is done.

Moderate auton-

omy; many things
are standardized
and not under my

control, but I
can make some
decisions about
the work.

Very much;
the job
gives me al-
most com-
plete re-
sponsibility
for deciding
how and when
the work is
done.

3. To what extent does your job involve doing a "whole" and

identifiable piece of work?

 

That is, is the job a com-

plete piece of work tfiat has an obvious beginning and

end? Or is it only a small

part of the overall piece of

work, which is finished by other people or by automatic

machines?
1 -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 --------- 5 -------- 6 -------- 7
My job is My job is a My job in-
only a tiny moderate-sized volves
part of the "chunk" of the doing the
overall piece overall piece of whole piece
of work; the work; my own of work,

results of my
activities
cannot be seen
in the final
product or
service.

contribution can
be seen in the
final outcome.

from start
to finish;
the results
of my activ-
ities are
easily seen
in the final
product or
service.

101

4. How much variety is there in your job? That is, to what
extent does the job require you to do many different
things at work, using a variety of your skills and

talents?

l -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5 -------- 6 --------- 7
Very little; Moderate Very much;
the job requires variety. the job
me to do the requires me
same routine to do many
things over different
and over again. things,

using a

number of

different'

skills and

talents.
5. In general, how significant or important is your job?

 

That is, are the results of your work likely to signi-
ficantly affect the lives or well-being of other

people?

1 -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5 -------- 6 --------- 7
Not very Moderately Highly sig-
significant; significant. nificant;
the outcomes the outcomes
of my work are of my work
n93 likely to can affect
have important other people
effects on other in very im-
people. portant ways.

6. To what extent do managgrs or co-workers let you know
how well you are doing on your job?

 

l -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4---‘ ----- 5 -------- 6 --------- 7
Very little; Moderately; Very much;
people al- sometimes people managers
most never let may give me "feed- or co-work-
me know how back"; other times ers provide
well I am they may not. me with
doing. almost con-

stant "feed-
back" about
how well I
am doing.

102

7. To what extent does doing the job itself provide you

with information about your work performance?

 

That is I

does the actual work itself provide Clues about how well
you are doing--aside from any "feedback" co-workers or
supervisors may provide?

Very little;
the job itself
is set up so
I could work

 

l -------- 2 -------- 3 -------- 4 -------- 5 -------- 6 --------- 7
Moderately; Very much;
sometimes the job is
doing the job set up so
provides "feed- that I get

forever without
finding out how
well I am doing.

back" to me;
sometimes it
does not.

almost con-
stant "feed-
back" as I.
work about
how well I
am doing.

103

Section Two

 

Listed below are a number of statements which could be
used to describe a job. You are to indicate whether
each statement is an accurate or an inaccurate descrip-
tion of your job.

 

Once again, please try to be as objective as you can in
deciding how accurately each statement describes your
job--regardless of whether you like or dislike your job.

 

Write a number in the blank beside each statement, based on
the following scale:

How accurate is the statement in describing your job?

1 2 3 4 ‘ 5 6 7
Very Uncertain Very
Inaccurate Accurate

l. The job requires me to use a number of complex or
high-level skills.

2. The job requires a lot of cooperative work with
other people.

3. The job is arranged so that I do not have a chance
to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.

4. Just doing the work required by the job provides
many chances for me to figure out how well I am
doing.

5. The job is quite simple and repetitive.

6. The job can be done adequately by a person working
alone--without talking or checking with other people.

7. The supervisors and co-workers on this job almost
never give me any "feedback" about how well I am
doing in my work.

8. This job is one where a lot of other people can be
affected by how well the work gets done.

9. The job denies me any chance to use my personal
initiative or judgment in carrying out the work.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

104

Supervisors often let me know how well they think
I am performing the job.

The job provides me the chance to completely finish
the pieces of work I begin.

The job itself provides very few clues about whether
or not I am performing well.

The job gives me considerable opportunity for inde-
pendence and freedom in how I do the work.

The job itself is not very significant or important
in the broader scheme of things.

105

Section Three

 

Now please indicate how yguypersonally feel aboutgyour

BE.-

Each of the statements below is something that a person
might say about his or her job. You are to indicate
your own, personal feelin 5 about your job by marking
how much you agree With each of the statements.

n _. n _ A
...

Write a number in the blank for each statement, based on
this scale:

How much do_you agree with the statement?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Strongly

1. It's hard, on this job, for me to care very much
about whether or not the work gets done right.

2. My opinion of myself goes up when I do this job
well.

3. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this
job.

4. Most of the things I have to do on this job seem
useless or trivial.

5. I usually know whether or not my work is satisfac-
tory on this job.

6. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when
I do this job well.

7. The work I do on this job is very meaningful to me.

8. I feel a very high degree of personal responsibility
for the work I do on this job.

9. I frequently think of quitting this job.

10. I feel bad and unhappy when I discover that I have
performed poorly on this job.

11.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

106
I often have trouble figuring out whether I'm
doing well or poorly on this job.

I feel I should personally take the credit or blame
for the results of my work on this job.

I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I
do in this job.

My own feelings generally are not affected much
one way or the other by how weIl I do on this job.

Whether or not this job gets done right is clearly
my responsibility.

107

Section Four

 

Now please indicate how satisfied you are with each
aspect of your job listed below. Once again, write the
appropriate number in the blank beside each statement.

 

 

How satisfied areyyou with this aspect ofyyour job?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Extremely Extremely
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
1. The amount of job security I have.
2. The amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive.
3. The amount of personal growth and development I get
in doing my job.
4. The people I talk to and work with on my job.
5. The degree of respect and fair treatment I receive
from my boss.
6. The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get from
my boss.
7. The chance to get to know other people while on the
job.
8. The amount of support and guidance I receive from
my supervisor.
9. The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
contribute to this organization.
10. The amount of independent thought and action I can
exercise in my job.
11. How secure things look for me in the future in
this organization.
12. The chance to help other people while at work.
13. The amount of challenge in my job.,
14. The overall quality of the supervision I receive in

my work.

loot-l

108

Section Five

 

Now please think of the other pegple in your organiza-
tion who hold the same job you do. If no one has exactly
the same job as you, think of the job which is most
similar to yours.

 

Please think about how accurately each of the statements
describes the feelings of those people about the job.

It is quite all right if your answers here are different
from when you described your 93g reactions to the job.
Often different people feel quite differently about the
same job.

 

Once again, write a number in the blank for each statement,
based on this scale:

How much do you agree with the statement?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly Strongly

1. Most people on this job feel a great sense of person-
al satisfaction when they do the job well.

2. Most people on this job are very satisfied with the
job.

3. Most people on this job feel that the work is useless
or trivial.

4. Most people on this job feel a great deal of person-
al responsibility for the work they do.

5. Most people on this job have a pretty good idea of
how well they are performing their work.

6. Most people on this job find the work very meaning-
ful.

7. Most people on this job feel that whether or not
the job gets done right is clearly their own
responsibility.

8. People on this job often think of quitting.

10.

109

Most people on this job feel bad or unhappy when
they find that they have performed the work
poorly.

Most peOple on this job have trouble figuring out
whether they are doing a good or a bad job.

110

Section Six

 

Listed below are a number of characteristics which could
be present on any job. People differ about how much they
would like to have each one present in their own jobs.

We are interested in learning how much you personally
would like to have each one present in your job.

 

 

 

Using the scale below, please indicate the degree to which
you would like to have each characteristic present in your
job.

 

 

NOTE: The numbers on this scale are different from
those used in previous scales.

 

 

4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Would like Would like Would like
having this having this having this
only a moderate very much extremely
amount (or less) much

1. High respect and fair treatment from my supervisor.
2. Stimulating and challenging work.

3. Chances to exercise independent thought and action
in my job.

4. Great job security.

5. Very friendly co-workers.

6. Opportunities to learn new things from my work.
7. High salary and good fringe benefits.

8. Opportunities to be creative and imaginative in my
work.

9. Quick promotions.

10. Opportunities for personal growth and development
in my job.

11. A sense of worthwhile accomplishment in my work.

111
Section Seven

People differ in the kinds of jobs they would most like to
hold. The questions in this section give you a chance to
say just what it is about a job that is most important to
222-

For each question, two different kinds of jobs are briefly
described. You are to indicate which of the jobs you
personally would prefer--if you have to make a choice
between them.

In answering each question, assume that everything else
about the jobs is the same. Pay attention only to the
characteristics actually listed.

Two examples are given below.

 

Job A Job B
A job requiring work A job requiring
with mechanical work with other
equipment most of people most of
the day the day

1 --------- 2 -------- 6} -------- 4 --------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly

Prefer A ' Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

 

If you like working with people and working with equipment
equally well, you would circle the number 3, as has been
done in the example.

Here is another example. This one asks for a harder choice--
between two jobs which both have some undesirable features.

 

Job A Job B
A job requiring you A job Iocated 200
to expose yourself to miles from your
considerable physical home and family.
danger.

1 -------- -® -------- 3 --------- 4 --------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

 

If you would slightly prefer risking physical danger to work-
ing far from your home, you would circle number 2, as has
been done in the example. Please ask for assistance if you
do not understand exactly how to do these questions.

112

Job A

1. A job where the
pay is very good.

Job B

A job where
there is con-
siderable
opportunity to
be creative
and innovative.

l --------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

2. A job where you
are often required
to make important

A job with many
pleasant people
to work with.'

decisions. . .
l --------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
3. A job in which A job in which
greater respon- greater respon-
sibility is given sibility is
to those who do given to loyal
the best work. employees who
have the most
seniority.
1 --------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly .Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
4. A job in an o A job in which
organization you are not
which is in allowed to
financial trouble-- have any say
and might have to whatever in
close down within how your work
the year. is scheduled,
or in the pro-
cedures to be
used in carry-
ing it out.
1 --------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
5. A very routine A job where
job. your co-workers
are not very
friendly.
1 --------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

Job A

6. A job with a supervisor
who is often very
critical of you and
your work in front of
other people.

113

Job B
A job which
prevents you
from using a
number of
skills that
you worked
hard to develop.

1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

7. A job with a super-
visor who respects
you and treats you

A job which
provides con-
stant oppor-

fairly. tunities for
you to learn
new and inter-
esting things.
1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
8. A job where there A job with
is a real chance very little
you could be chance to do
be laid off. challenging
work.
1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
9. A job in which there A job which
is a real chance for provides lots
you to develop new of vacation
skills and advance time and an
in the organization. excellent
fringe
benefit
package.
1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
10. A job with little A job where
freedom and inde- the working
pendence to do your conditions
work in the way you are poor.
think best.
1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3----------4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

114

Job A
11. A job with very
satisfying team-

Job B
A joE which

allows you to

work. use your skills
and abilities
to the fullest
extent.
1 ---------- 2 ---------- 3 ---------- 4 ---------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B
12. A job which offers A job which
little or no requires you
challenge. to be com-
pletely isola-
ted from co-
workers.
l-----—----2----—-----3 ---------- 4-- -------- 5
Strongly Slightly Neutral Slightly Strongly
Prefer A Prefer A Prefer B Prefer B

115

Section Eight

Biographical Background

 

1. Sex: Male Female

2. Age (Check one):

under 20 40-49
20-29 50-59
30-39 60 or over

3. Education (check one):
____Grade School
____Some High School
____High School Degree
____Some Business College or Technical School Experience

Some College Experience (other than business or

technical school)
BuSiness College or Technical School Degree
____College Degree
____Some Graduate Work
____Master's
____Doctorate

4. A. What is your brief job title?

 

B. What is your department?

 

5. What is your level in the organization?
____nonmanagement
____middle management
____upper management

physician

116

6. What is your marital status?
married
____single
divorced

7. How many dependents do you have?

 

Personal Job Data

 

8. Approximately how many days have you been absent from
work in the past year?

 

9. Which of the following statements best represents your
general attitude about staying with your present
company:

I would not consider leaving under any circum-
stances.

I would leave for a promotion and a 20 percent
increase in pay.

I would leave for a similar kind of job and a
20 percent pay increase.

I would leave for a similar job and salary, which
has more challenge.

I would leave for a similar kind of job and pay.

10. What are your plans in regard to staying with your
company:

I would like to stay all my working life.
I would leave only for an exceptional opportunity.
I will leave if something better turns up.

I hope for a chance to leave under favorable
circumstances.

I expect to leave as soon as possible.

117

Section Nine

 

Answer the questions below as to the frequency they
occur at work.

 

 

RARELY SOMETIMES USUALLY ALWAYS
1 2 3 4 5
Low% 50% High%

1. When a new type of decision is to be made, how often
do you get an approval from your boss before taking
any action?

2. How frequently do instructions come from your boss
when existing rules and procedures are not adequate
to make a decision?

3. When problems arise, how often do you go to your
boss for an answer?

4. When an unusual Situation is encountered, how
frequently do you go ahead without checking with
your boss?

5. When a decision is to be made for which rules and
procedures do not exist, how often do you act
without referring the matter higher up?

6. What percentage of employees in your department
make decisions of the type usually made by you on
the job?

7. What percentage of the specific duties performed by
you on the job change from one day to the next?

8. What percentage of employees in your department
perform the same function as you do?

9. What percentage of your job duties are clearly
specified?

10. What percentage of the decisions made by you on the
job are of the same type?
11. What percentage of the decisions made by you on the

job are handled adequately with existing rules and
procedures.

12.

13.

14.

118

What percentage of the problems arising on your job
do you handle by following written and verbal
instructions previously given to you?

Consider problems that cannot be handled with
available instructions. What percentage of these
problems do you take care of by reporting them in
a standard way?

How often do you handle problems by following a
standard procedure?

119

Section Ten

 

What is the amount of influence of work goals by each
of the following groups?

 

1 2 3 4 5
Usually a great Usually Usually no
deal to say some say say at all

1. How much say or influence does upper management
have in determining the work goals in the depart-
ments in the plant?

2. How much say or influence does middle management
have in determining the work goals in the depart-
ments in the plant?

3. How much say or influence do nonmanagement workers
have in determining the work goals in the depart-
ments in the plant?

4. How much say or influence do the physicians have in
determining the work goals in the departments in
the plant? '

 

Answer the following questions as they relate directly
to you and your present job.

 

1. When deciding on raises, promotions, and termination,
how much weight is given to written records of output?

1 2 3 4 5
No weight Some A lot
at all weight

2. How often are you seen by your immediate supervisor?

1 2 3 4 5
Almost A few times Every day
never a week

120

In some departments, records are kept for each
employee which shows his or her output; for example,
production, sales volume, number of parcels handled,
etc. Does your immediate superior keep such records
of your individual output?

Yes No

 

How often does your immediate supervisor Check to see
what you are doing on the job?

1 2 3 4 5
Never Occasionally Always

121

APPENDIX B

SUBJECTS WAIVER FORM
An Assessment of the Impact of
Structure and Control on Job Attitudes

I have agreed to participate in a study which I under--
stand is for the purpose of assessing strengths and weak-
nesses in my work organization. I am further aware that
Thomas L. Keon is collecting this information for the use
of the organization and for analysis for a doctoral
dissertation. While the results of the measure will not
be reported to me on an individual basis, I understand that
feedback will be made available at the organization level.
Feedback of this nature will allow my results to be kept in
strict confidence and my identity anonymous. Further, I
understand that I may not in any way reCeive any benefit

for having participated and that I may withdraw at any time.

Signature

122

APPENDIX C

HANDOUT DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY

The Management of has been requested
by Mr. Thomas Keon and Mr. Floyd Willoughby, students at
Michigan State University, to conduct a survey on "HOW
PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THEIR JOBS."

The survey questionnaire:

1. will be strictly CONFIDENTIAL and totally
ANONYMOUS

2. is VOLUNTARY

3.. will take approximately 20 to 40 minutes to
complete

4. will be conducted during working hours on
Monday and Tuesday, April 2 and 3.

The Management supports this survey and requests your

full COOperation from those who are asked to participate.

123

APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Measures of Central Tendency

 

Table D1 shows the frequency and relative frequency
of hierarchy of authority for the entire sample and the
two organizations used in the study. The mean and variance
for the total group were 16.6 and 17.4, reSpectively.
The hospital had a mean of 17.7 and a variance of 17.1.
A 16.2 mean and 17.1 variance were found to exist for the
manufacturer. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Section Nine of
the questionnaire were combined to formulate the scale.
The hierarchy of authority scale produced the following
reliability coefficients: alpha equal to .65 and a

standardized item alpha of .65.

124

 

 

 

 

 

c.00H mmH o.o0H No o.OOH hoN MHBHOB
N.m o m.m o o.v OH mN
m.H m m.v m v.N o «N
o.H m m.v m o.N o mN
m.m n o.H H N.m m NN
m.m HH H.m m m.m oH HN
m.v w h.m w n.m oH ON
m.OH 0N w.o m m.m MN mH
m.v w H.@ m m.m MH mH
w.OH oN n.m o m.0H oN SH
m.oH mH H.m m h.m vN oH
H.m mH m.HH h m.m NN mH
m.m HH n.m m m.m 5H oH
o.m mH N.m N m.h mH NH
H.w mH m.m o h.h mH NH
m.m HH m.v HH HH
N.m o o.N m CH
H.H N o.H H N.H m m
m. H v. H m
m.H H v. H h
m. H o. H w
H.H N m. N m
o
m
ucwooom mucosvmom ucmoomm mocmsqwom ucwooom mocmowmom mooom
wocooqoom wocwoqoom wocmoqwom auHoonu5<
m>Huonm o>HDMme o>HuoHom mo
oomsuomwscwz HmuHMmom Mmm nnoomome

muHHonus< mo accomowH:
monBDmHmBmHo wozmoommm

HQ mHm<B

125

Division of Labor was measured by combining items
6 through 10 from Section Nine of the questionnaire. The
frequencies for each organization and the total sample are
provided in Table D2. The coefficient Alpha was .59 and
the standardized Alpha was .60 for the division of labor
scale. For the entire sample the mean was 15.3 and the
variance was 14.9. The manufacturing firm produced a 14.9
mean and a variance of 14.5, while the hospital had a mean
and variance of 16.5 and 14.4.

Table D3 lists the frequencies for the scale measuring
the degree of rules and procedures. The last four questions
from Section Nine of the questionnaire were used for this
scale. The mean of this scale for the total sample was 14.1,
for the manufacturer 13.6, and for the hospital 15.7. The
variances for the total sample, the hospital, and the
manufacturer were 11, 9.4, and 10.5 respectively. The
Alpha and the standardized Alpha produced a reliability of

.71.

126

 

 

 

 

o.OOH mmH o.OOH No c.00H nvN MHmuOB
H.H N N.m N o.H v mN
m. H v. H oN
m.N o w.H H o.N m MN
m.H m H.m m N.m m NN
H.H N w.H H N.H m HN
m.o m H.w m m.m MH 0N
m.m HH m.HH h m.h wH mH
m.v m m.m v m.o NH mH
m.HH NN H.@ m m.OH 5N nH
m.o NH n.m m m.n mH oH
p.mH mN H.m m a.mH om mH
m.0H mH H.m m h.m vN oH
o.NH MN N.HH n H.NH om MH
m.n «H H.w m 5.5 mH NH
m.m HH N.m N m.m MH HH
w.H m m.H H w.H o 0H
m.H m N.H m a
m.H m w.H H m.H o m
H.H N m. N n
m.H m N.H m m
m. H o. H m
o
n. o o. o n
ucwoomm accosqoom poouuom accosvoom. ucmoumm hocwdwoom wuoom
mucoskum xocmokum hocmovwom HonoH mo
w>H mem o>H 6 mm o>H m o COHMH>H
unwusuommscwz u HHMDH mo: u H m mmw Q
noan wo :onH>Ho
monBDmHmHmHD Huzmsommm

ND mHm<B

127

 

 

 

 

 

o.ooH mmH o.ooH No o.OOH noN mHmuOB
m. H m.o o o.N m oN
m.o m h.m w H.@ mH NH
H.m mH H.oH OH H.0H mN NH
m.m HH «.mH NH m.m MN 5H
o.NH MN w.o m m.oH wN oH
m.m mH m.NH w n.m vN mH
m.mH mN m.HH n o.MH Nm oH
m.OH mH N.m .N m.m HN MH
N.m 5H m.v m H.@ 0N NH
n.m mH m.H H h.h mH HH
o.n oH w.o m m.m 5H OH
m.H m m.H H m.H o m
N.m o N.m N N.m m w
N.N o m.H o n
H.H N m. N o
H.H N m. N m
o
m
Homoomm xocmowoom usmoomm .NUcmovmom uooooom hoomowmnm mooom
mocmoqmom noomovmuh wocoovmnm mmuspwoonm
o>HumHom o>HuoHom m>Humem pom mmHom
Housuommscmz HmuHmMoz mam

monopmoonm pom mmHom
mZOHBDMHmBmHD VUZHDOmmm

mo mqmdfi

128

All fourteen items from the three scales above were
combined to illustrate an overall structural measure. The
mean and variance for the entire sample were 46 and 76,
for the hospital were 49.9 and 66.2, and for the manu-
facturer 44.7 and 73. The frequencies are provided in
Table D4 for all groups. The reliability coefficients
for the fourteen-item scale are both .75.

Table D5 shows a breakdown of the sample by number of 6
people at each level of the organization. The levels were
nonmanagement, middle management, and upper management. The
frequencies include the total sample and that of each
organization. This measures a physical aspect of structure

in each of the organizations.

129

 

 

 

 

 

m.o m O.o m m.o NH mo
m.m HH N.N N m.m NH no
m.o m H.m m m.m mH Oo
N.N o m.v m O.N h mo
O.N OH N.N N m.h OH vv
N.N O N.N N N.N N no
v.m OH m.O m h.m «H No
n.N m m.v m N.m O HO
m.m HH O.H H O.v NH ow
N.m O O.N O ON
N.N O N.N N N.N N am
h.N m O.N m on
b.N m O.N m Om
N.N o O.H o mm
m. H o. H on
n.N m O.N m mm
N.N o O.H H O.N m Nm
N.N o O.H v Hm
h.N m O.N m on
O.H H o. H ON
m. H v. H ON
m. H o. H «N
m. H o. H HN
ucoouom wmmommmom ucmonmm moomfimmhm unmoomm hucwswmom muoom
hocosqoom wocmoqmom . moomovoum moouoooum
o>Hu6Hmm w>HumHom m>HHMHmm
umnouomwscoz HmuHmmom Mam
mosuosoum

mZO H BDm HmBm HD NUZMDOflme

v0 BEE

130

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H mmH 0.00H NO 0.00H hoN MHmuoe
O.H H v. H on
m. H v. H OO
O. H o. H hO
m. H o. H OO
N.N N m. N «O
m. H v. H MO
m. H O.v m O.H o NO
H.H N m. N HO
O. H N.m N N.H m OO
O.H m N.m N O.N O NO
O.H m m.O o O.N 5 mm
H.H N O.H H N.H M 5m
H.H N m. N Om
N.N o m.v m O.N n mm
N.N m N.N N O.N h om
N.m O N.m N N.N m mm
O.H m m.o m O.N HH Nm
m.v m m.O o m.o NH Hm
O.H m O.v m O.N O OO
>.N m O.H H v.N O av
ucwoomm woooomoom ucooomm hocmsmwum ucoooom wocwnwoom oncom
aocwsvoom hocosvoom mocmovouh moouosuum
w>HumHom m>HumHom m>HumHmm
nououommscoz HmuHmmo: MMQ

HpmscHucoov on mqmde

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho>oH HmcoHuonncmmoo
mZOHBDmHmBmHD MUZmDOmmm

mo mqm<8

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H hoN mHmuoe
o. o o.o HI n. n venom
m.v O m.HH n H.O NH m momma
h.NN No H.nm MN m.ON mO N OHUOHZ
O.N» OMH 0.0m Hm 0.00 OOH H :02
ucwoumm accosmOHE unwouom Nucwswmom. unooomm mocwsvmoh ucofimmmcoz
wocmovonm aocmovmom wocmovmom
o>Huonm m>HDMHmm w>HumHmm
oomouoomscmz HouHmmom HH<

132

The next set of variables presented will be job dimen-
sion scales. Table D6 reports frequencies for the Skill
variety job characteristic. The scale is the average of the
following items:

Section One #4
Section Two #1
#5 (Reverse scored)
These three items produced an Alpha and standardized Alpha

of .72. The statistics were:

 

M333 Variance
Total Sample 4.9 2.4
Hospital. 5.2 2.4
Manufacturer 4.8 2.4

Task Identity reliabilities were both .60. The
total sample had a mean of 4.5 and a variance of 2.23.
The hospital mean was 5.1 and the variance was 1.6. For
the manufacturer the mean and variance were 4.3 and 2.3
respectively. The scale items that were averaged are:

Section One # 3
Section Two #11
# 3 (Reverse scored)
Table D7 contains the frequencies for the sample and its

subparts.

TABLE D6

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Skill Variety

Manufacturer

Hos ital

All

 

133

 

 

 

 

>4
(DO-H
>502) HomNNmfi'mmmmvockoOHOr-l
...-4 o o o o o oo o 00 o c o o o o oo o
«USU r-h—l mmmmmcmomhhhhmbm
IUO‘H -—i
H010)
(Di-ID.-
06B.-
>-
g
Q) NMHkofi'l‘OI‘O‘r-JO‘OMMQ'MLOMUW
:3 r-i HHHHHHHHHH
O“
0)
H
[L-
>-
(DO-U
>635 OHOCN \boqm ndothvnubcwe' U1
".4 o no on o o 00 I no. one
115:) «ern nunnw cocamrncrvrnoono
KID‘S-l H H
HOG)
THO-
04E:-
>1
0
5
S <Vn4m nqmcv mcuuamtnfiwhcwr~q
U1 H
0)
H
Ex.-
>-
(DO-H
#2:: caowboanNowaouwmannvwamnonHr~
...-{mm o o oo o o o one o on .00 000
+350 N MHM¢MM©m©®h©wOmF
(BETH u-i
H010)
THO.-
mt:-
>1
8
0) NmNmfl'mNmO‘w-HLOIDQI‘OI‘OON
:5 v-l HNHHHHNNNv-l
O"
0)
84
It.-
>-
r-JJJCD -
H018 OMKDOMKDOMQOMWOMWOMOO
H.H o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
XML) HHHNNNMMMQ‘Q‘Q‘LDLOLDOKDKD!‘
mgr/3

185 100.0

100.0

247 100.0

Totals

TABLE D7

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Manufacturer

Hos ital

Task Identity

All

 

Relative

Relative

Relative

Task

134

 

 

 

 

>:
04-)
CC \OKDNONFMNNQI‘GSDOOOmQ‘N
010) I o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
50 HHMHMOQ‘MMQONQ‘mI‘mFMLDM
U‘S—t
00)
HQ-
In
>1
8
Q) MMOMOmQGOQQQOVI-JMI‘OKD
D H an nthaH H-
O"
(D
L4
[:4
>1
U-LJ
CC: SON \Dmml‘Nr-‘II‘LHCHIDNH
m0) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
DO Hm HQ‘Q‘O‘MQO‘DHQWMQ
0"“ N
010)
LID-
EL.-
>1
0
€-
5 n4N Hffifl106VU1m1$FHn<ern
w H
0)
LI
[14
>1
04--1
:C NNGDCQ‘MOHWO‘HI‘fiMI‘MLfiO‘I-fi
mm o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
5 U Huncochh~mxoc1mcouwmr-au\<rv-w
U‘H
om
HQ-
CL-
>1
2
Q) mmr-mOcooxmoxNovmmvmv—INH
=03" P‘I I—l NNHNr-INHHI—IH
0)
LI
In
>1
4.)
«40)
US! omwomoomwomoomwomwc
a o oo o oo o 00 o oo o o 0 on. a
(DO HHHNNNMMMQ‘Q‘Q‘LDWLOWGW!‘
'00)
H

247 100.0 62 100.0 185 100.0

Totals

135

Task significance was attained by averaging item 5
from section one with items 8 and 14 (Reverse scored) of

section two. The sample statistics were:

Mggg Variance
Total Sample 5.7 1.6
Hospital 6.1 1.3
Manufacturer 5.6 1.6

The Alpha coefficient was .69 and the standardized Alpha
was .70. The frequency distribution for task signifi-
cance is shown in Table D8.

The reliabilities associated with autonomy were

.77 for both Alpha and standardized Alpha. The items

used to calculate reliabilities were:

Section One # 2
Section Two # 9 (Reverse scored)
#13

The frequency distributions for autonomy may be viewed
in Table D9. The total sample had a mean of 4.7 and a
variance of 2.2. The statistics for the hospital were a
mean of 4.9 and a variance of 2.2. The manufacturing firm

produced a mean of 4.7 and a variance of 2.2.

136

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H bON mHouoe
0.0N Om O.NN oH H.HN NO O.N
N.O 5H 0.0N OH v.mH mm 0.0
O.HH HN O.¢H m H.NH Om m.O
0.0H ON n.m O 0.0H ON 0.0
0.0 OH H.O O 0.0 HN 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 o 0.0 OH m.O
0.0 OH N.m N m.> OH 0.0
O.N mH m.O OH O.o
O.N O O.H H v.N O m.v
m.o O N.m O O.v
O.N O O.H H v.N O O.m
N.N O N.m N O.N n m.m
H.H N O. N O.m
H.H N O. N O.N
O.H m N.H m O.N
O. H N.m N N.H m O.N
O. H o. H O.H
Homouom Hucoowwom ucooowm mwcoovmom ucmonmm Nocummvom ouoom
zoomsvoom mucoovmom hocmovwom- oocoo
m>HuoHom T>Huonm O>HuoHom IHOHCOHO
nooouoomocmz HouHmOom Mam xmoe

OOCOOHMHCOHO xmoe

mZOHEDmHmBmHD Muzmbommm

OD mHm<B

TABLE D9

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Autonomy

Manufacturer

Hos ital

All

Relative

 

Relative

Relative

137

 

 

 

 

>-
04-!
5 5 Nxonqmr-oaOwnu>H<DO\oc:wwmmoc1N
5 O Nr4n4NcherOh~Or-vw\r~ornaavcu
0‘“ n4H
OO
no.
Ex.-
>1
8
O vroo:v1nu>bcovuncwaunnwoMVuDO-o
5 -anH nthqmrq
oi
O
H
m
>-
04-3
5 8 O> (VCQOJWHDCVUWFWDCVO\FJDOIVHH
5 o H vwrnnnnmnn\oowvwncuovvrnuwm
U‘H n1 H
OO
HQ.-
fix.-
a
8
3 r4 choanuooq<woc7mcnu>mr~<rm
O
H
c:-
>-
04-3
g 5 O\bdiVCbochnuuhT-anHuwnanonO
: o Hrn chrun<rOt~hwv\oaao<:ovvrn
U‘H HH
OO
HO.-
£2.-
>1
8
O ¢~OouOr-caOruu>mkn04mn4rnnflwwcn
a an-annhqcomcuodH
O
H
O
E
O O crow:ornu>ornu>ornu>ornu>o uao
CH .00 0000000000000...
3 O HrnniNcuoarung3v<rownuwmxou>Or-
U
DU)
<2

247 100.0 62 100.0 185 100.0

Totals

138

The last core job dimension is feedback. The Job
Diagnostic Survey (JDS) provides for three distinct types
of feedback: (1) Feedback from the job; (2) Feedback from
agents; and, (3) Dealing with others. Alpha and standard-
ized Alpha reliabilities for the first was .73 and the
second .76, while Dealing with others had an Alpha of .57
and a standardized Alpha of .61. The frequency distribu-
tions for the three scales are given in Tables D10, D11,
and D12.

Feedback from the job itself was derived by averaging
question number 7 from Section one with questions 4 and 12
(Reverse scored) from Section two. The entire sample pro-
duced a mean of 4.9 and a variance of 1.7 on the Feedback
from job scale. A mean of 4.8 and a variance of 1.8 were
calculated from the manufacturing workers. The hospital
produced a mean of 5.1 and a variance of 1.5.

Question 6 from Section one and questions 7 (Reverse
scored) and 10 from Section two were averaged to measure
Feedback from agents. The statistics for Feedback from

agents were:

M333 Variance
Total Sample 3.9 2.4
Hospital 4.2 2.5
Manufacturer 3.8 2.3

Dealing with others was a combination of items: 1
from Section one; 2 from Section two and 6 (Reverse scored)

from Section two.

139

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H NON mHouoe
m.o O 0.0 o O.v NH O.N
0.0 HH O.o m h.O oH 0.0
m.v O n.O O h.O OH m.O
m.OH OH O.HH n 0.0H ON 0.0
N.O 5H O.HH n n.O ON 0.0
N.O 5H H.O O 0.0 NN m.O
0.0 OH h.m O 0.0 NN 0.0
H.O OH O.HH n 0.0 NN O.v
h.m OH n.m O n.m ON m.v
O.m h 0.0 o O.v HH O.o
o.O OH O.H H O.o HH O.m
O.n OH N.m N H.O OH m.m
0.0 HH O.v HH O.m
n.N O O.H H O.N O O.N
N.N o O.H o O.N
N.N v N.m N O.N O O.N
O.H H o. H O.H
H.H N O. N O.H
O.H

ucmooom hocwnmoom ucmoomm mocmovwom ucwoomm hocmsvmom Oooom
mocwogmoh NUCODUOHO wocmovmum boo Eoom
O>HuwHOm O>HOMHOO O>HOMHOO xombwmwm
oOoouommocmz HmuHmmo: .flflm

bOO ECHO xombOOOh
mZOHBDmHmBmHQ MUZMDOmmm

GHQ mHm<B

140

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H hON mHmuCB
N.N O 0.0 O N.O O O.>
O. H O. H O. N 0.0
N.N O N.O N O.N O 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 HH 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
O.N OH 0.0 O O.n OH 0.0
0.0 n >.O O 0.0 OH 0.0
O.h OH N.O O H.O ON 0.0
0.0 n O.HH n h.O OH 0.0
O.HH NN 0.0 O 0.0H ON 0.0
O.> OH N.O N 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 HH H.O O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 NH N.O N h.O OH O.N
0.0 HH O.H H 0.0 NH O.N
0.0 OH O.H H 0.0 HH O.N
O.h OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O.H
O.N O N.O N O.N h O.H
N.O O N.O N N.O O O.H

ucwoowm mocmsvmom HEOCHOO hocmavwnh UCOCHOm hmcmammom OHCCm

NCCOCUOHO wocmskum OCCODUOHO muomm< ECHO

O>HuoHOm O>HumHOm O>HumHOm xCMCCOOm

uwoouommscmz kuHmmCm wflm

OOCOO< ECHO xomnOOOh
OZOHBDOHOBOHD wozmsommm

HHD mHmdfi

141

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H nON mHouCB
O.NH NO O.NO ON H.HN NO O.h
H.OH ON 5.5H HH 0.0H OO 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 O O.> OH 0.0
0.0H ON 0.0 O h.O ON 0.0
N.O OH H.O O 0.0 NN 0.0
0.0 OH >.O O 0.0 NN 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 NH 0.0
O.> OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 h N.O N 0.0 O 0.0
N.O O O.N O 0.0
O.H O N.H O 0.0
O. H O. H 0.0
O.H O N.H O O.N
O.H O O.H H O.H O O.N
H.H N O. N O.N
O. H O. H O.H
O.H
O.H

ucwoomm Nchmmmom OCOCHOO NCCODOOHO uCOCuOm NCCODOOHO OMCCO

OCCODWOHO OCCOSUOHO OCCODOOHO momnuo

O>HuoHOO O>HuoHOm O>HumHOm :uH3

omoouoowocmz HmuHmmom .flflm OCHHMOO

mowooo Boo; manommo

mZOHBDmHmBmHD WUZMDOMfih

NHQ MHm<B

142

The mean for the total sample regarding Dealing with
others was 5.7, for the hospital 6.1, and for the manu-
facturer 5.6. The variance for the total sample was 1.5,
for the hospital 1.1, and for the manufacturer 1.7.

The next major segment of variables are the psycho-
logical states: meaningfulness of work, responsibility,
and knowledge of results. Meaningfulness values were
derived by averaging questions 4 (Reverse scored) and 7
from Section three with questions 3 (Reverse scored) and
6 from Section five. The distribution of these scores
are presented in Table D13. Both the Alpha and standard-
ized Alpha reliability coefficients yield a value of .75.
The total sample had a mean and variance of 5.3 and 1.3
respectively. This can be broken up into the two sub-
samples; (1) the hospital with a mean of 5.8 and a
variance of 1.1; and, (2) the manufacturer with a mean of
5.1 and a variance of 1.2.

Table D14 reflects the frequency distributions of
responsibility for the hospital, the manufacturer, and the
combined group. The mean for the three distributions are:
5.9 for the hospital; 5.3 for the manufacturer; and, 5.4
for the total sample. The total sample had a variance of
1.2, the manufacturer had a variance of 1.2, and the hos-
pital had a variance of 1.0. The items averaged for

responsibility are:

143

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H N 0.00H OON mHmuCE
O. H O.H H O. N O.h
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 OH On.O
O.h OH 0.0H NH 0.0H ON 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0H NH N.O ON ON.O
H.O OH O.HN OH O.HH ON 0.0
0.0 OH >.O O 0.0 NN O0.0
0.0 OH N.O N O.> OH 0.0
0.0 OH O.H H 0.0 OH ON.O
O.h OH 0.0 O O.> OH 0.0
0.0 HH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O0.0
O.b OH 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 NH ON.O
0.0 HH O.H H 0.0 NH 0.0
N.O O O.N O O0.0
O.N O O.H H O.N O 0.0
N.O O O.H H O.N b ON.O
N.N O O.H O 0.0
O.N O O.N O ON.N
O. H O. H O.N
O. H O. H ON.N
O.H H O. H O
ucmuomo NCCODOOHO HCOCHOO (NCCODOOHO UCOCoOm .NCCOSOOMO OMCCO
Oocmovoom OCEODOOHO OCCODOOHO mmOcHsm
O>HumHOm O>HumHOm O>HpoHOm IOchmmz
omnsuowmscmz HmuHmmC: Mmm
mmOcHsmOchmOZ

mZOHBDmHmbHQ NUZMDOmmh

MHD mqm<B

144

Section Three # 1 (Reverse scored)
# 8
#12
#15
Section Five # 4
# 7
The reliability coefficients are an Alpha of .73 and a
standardized Alpha of .79.

Items numbered 5 and 11 (Reverse scored) from Section
three in combination with items numbered 5 and 10 (Reverse
scored) were averaged to attain a value for knowledge of
results. These items generated a standardized Alpha of
.75 and a coefficient Alpha of .74 for reliability measures.
The total sample mean was 4.9 and the variance was 1.3.
For the manufacturing firm the mean and variance were 4.9
and 1.3. A mean of 5.1 and a variance of 1.3 were
calculated for the hospital. Table D15 contains the dis-
tributions for knowledge of results.

Table D16 reports the frequencies related to global
satisfaction. Global satisfaction is the average of 5
items from the questionnaire. The items are:

Section Three # 3

# 9

#13 (Reverse scored)
Section Five # 2

# 8 (Reverse scored)

145

 

 

 

 

 

N.N O O.H O O0.0
0.0 HH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O0.0
O.H O N.H O N0.0
N.O O O.H H O.N h OH.O
O.H O N.H O 0.0
0.0 O N.O O 0.0
O. H O. H O0.0
O. H O. H O0.0
O. H O. H N0.0
O. H O. H OH.O
H.H N O. N 0.0
O. H O. H O.N
O.H O N.H O OO.N
O. H O. H OO.N
O. H O. H N0.0
O. H O. H OH.N
O. H O. H O.N
O. H O. H O.H
O.H H O. H O
HCOCHOO moomsmmom HCOCHOO NMOODUOHO uCOCHOm -NC:O9OOMO OMCCO
mocwsvwom Occwovmom OCCODUOHO OuHHHCHm
O>HOMHOO C>HumHOm O>HOOHOO .IcommOO
Hmusuommscoz HmuHmem flmm
OuHHHnHOCCmmOm

mZOHBDmHMBmHQ VUZMDOmmh

OHQ MHm<B

146

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHouCB
H.H N O. N O.h
H.H N 0.0 O O.N O 0.0
0.0 O 0.0H NH 0.0 HN O0.0
0.0 HH 0.0 O h.O OH O0.0
0.0 HH 0.0 O 0.0 OH N0.0
O.h OH 0.0H O 0.0 ON OH.O
0.0 O O.NH O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 O O.h OH 0.0
O.h OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 O 5.5 OH O0.0
0.0 O N.O N 0.0 HH N0.0
O.N OH N.O N H.O OH OH.O
0.0 O N.O N 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 n O.H H N.O O 0.0

usmooom mocmdmwom HCOCHOO -chmdwmom OCOCHOO NCCOJOOHO OHCCm

OCCOSOOHO OCEODOOHO OCCOSOOHO OOHHHQHm

O>HumHOO O>HumHOm O>HuoHOm ICCmmOm

umoouommocmz HmuHmmom MOO

owmscouaoov OHo momOe

147

 

 

 

 

 

>.O OH 0.0 O 0.0 NN 0.0
O.b OH h.O O h.h OH O0.0
0.0 HH H.OH OH 0.0 HN ON.O
O.h OH 0.0H O 0.0 NN 0.0
0.0 NH N.O N N.O OH On.O
0.0 HH 0.0 O N.O OH 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 OH ON.O
0.0 OH O.H H H.O OH 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 OH On.O
0.0 o 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
O.H O O.H H O.H O ON.O
N.N O O.H H O.N O 0.0
O.N O O.N O OO.N
O. H O. H O.N
H.H N O. N ON.N
H.H N O. N O.N
O.H H O. H Oh.H
O. H O. H O.H
O. H O. H ON.H
O.H H O. H O
OCOCLOO mmowmwmom ucmoowm OCCOJOOHO uCOCoOO mocmnmwum OHCCO
OCGOSUOHO mocmovwom OCCODCOHO muHsmOH mo
O>HuoHOm O>HuoHOO O>HumHOO OOCOH3CCM
Hwosuommocmz HmuHmmCm Mflfl

muHsmOm mo OOUOHBCCO
OZOHBDOHOBOHO wozmoommm

OHQ MHm<B

148

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuCB
n. o l. O. o on
O.N O 0.0 O O.N h O0.0
O.h OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
N.OH OO 0.0H O 0.0H OO ON.O
OCOCMOO OCCODOOHO ucmoomm OCCODUOHO DCOCMOO NCCOmmOom OHCCm
OCCODUOHO OCCODUOHO Oosmsvmom muHsmOH mo
O>HumHOO O>HumHOm O>HumHOm OOCOHBCCM
umosuomwscmz HmuHmOCm HH<

oOwscnucooO moo mom<o

149

The reliability coefficients for global satisfaction
were computed as an Alpha of .81 and a standardized Alpha
of .80. The total sample statistics were: mean of 4.5
and a variance of 1.6. The manufacturer's sample contained
a mean of 4.4 and a variance of 1.6. The mean and variance
for the hospital was 4.8 and 1.5.

Internal work motivation statistics were:

Tota Mggg’ Variance
Total Sample 5.5 .92
Hospital 5.9 .91
Manufacturer 5.4 .87

These statistics were developed from the questionnaire
items numbered 2, 6, 10, and 14 (Reverse scored) from
Section three and items 1 and 9 from Section five. A .76
reliability coefficient was found for both Alpha and
standardized Alpha. The frequency distributions for the
total sample, the manufacturing firm, and the hospital
are presented in Table D17.

The next five scales deal with specific dependent
variables: (1) social satisfaction at work; (2) super-
visory satisfaction; (3) security satisfaction with work;
(4) pay satisfaction; and, (5) propensity to leave.

The frequency distributions for these five variables are

in Tables D18, D19, D20, D21, and D22. The first four

TABLE D16

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Global Satisfaction

Manufacturer

Hos ital

All

Global

 

Relative

Relative

Satis-

Relative

Frequency Frequency Frequency

faction

150

 

 

 

 

4.)
C. mmwmmml‘NNNOQ‘me‘I—ianN
a) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c
U H MNNMMHLOMMwaLO
H
0)
04
>1
2
O HHMHHFmQ‘OOMOl‘WLfimNr-l
a H HHI-l
0)
H
CH
JJ
c \90 \D NWHONHKD
Q) o o o o o o o o I o
8 HH I—i MWWHMWI—l
0)
Q4
>4
0
8
5 P4 r-‘IH r-I NvaNl-nv-i
0"
0)
H
In
4.)
C VQ‘Q‘NQ‘Q‘NQ‘WmQ‘NO‘V'Q‘VO‘O‘O‘
Q) o o o o O. o o o o o o o oo o o 00
8 F4 MNHNNHVV‘Q‘NWWV
0)
G.-
E1
0) HHHMHHGDOVI‘OMNHHOI‘I‘N
5 I-If-Ir-i HHH
w
0)
Sol
Ex.-
0)
H NVKOQONQ‘OGONQ‘OQONQ‘kD
O o o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o HrdnhHCdNtNCdNrowwmrnng-O<rO
U)

151

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuCB
O.h
O.H H O. H 0.0
O.H O O.H H O.H O 0.0
N.N O O.H H O.N O 0.0
0.0 b 0.0 O 0.0 OH N.O
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O H.O O 0.0 NH 0.0
0.0 HH H.O O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O O.NH O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 NH N.O
0.0 NH 0.0 O H.O OH 0.0
0.0 HH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
DCOCHOO OCCODOOMO ucwoowm OCCOJOOHO HGOCHOO OCCOCUOHO OHCCO
OCCODUOHO OCCODUOHO OCCODUOOO :CHquO
O>HumHOm O>HumHOm O>HumHOm ImHumO
owooquOocm: HouHmmC: Mam HMQCHO

oomscoucoov ooo mom<o

TABLE D17

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Motivation

 

(D
>
---I
4.)
HM
(Dv—I
H0)
501
4..)
0
“3
NH
:3
{.1
f6
2
0)
>
-:--I
4.)
(U
H
r-IG)
(do:
4.}
-:-1
0‘)
O
:1:
0)
>
-H
4.)
M
H
0)
(3!.
H
H
<2

Motiva-

Frequency Frequency Frequency

tion

152

 

 

 

 

4.)

C Lfil‘ HHHNI‘NNNQO‘Q‘Q‘mHNI‘LfiV
Q) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o 0
U N Hr—IHNNNNNMLOLDLDMQOO‘OW
Ll H

0)

Q4

>«

8

Q) HID NNNVMQ‘V‘Q‘K‘HCOI‘LOO‘CDNO
5 HF4F4 Fquqr4H
0"

G)

H

in

4.!

C \D \D \DWI‘NK‘Hl-nm
Q) o o o o o o o o o o
O H H HHmmmoxor-I
u .4 H
CD

Q:

>1

0

C.

Q)

5 H H v-lv—IKDNWON!‘
0" HP!
(1)

H

[:4

JJ

C Q‘ Q‘ GQQWCWKDWWQ‘Q‘Q‘MONHMI‘Q
Q) o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O N HNHHHNV‘V‘VMOCHO‘W
Ll v-lv—l

0)

0.;

>1

8

0) Pl Ln NNNQ‘V‘Q‘VQ‘I‘HHI—Im hmmfi‘l‘
: Hr4F4H Hr4chouH
U‘

(D

LI

In

(D \DNQV‘ \DNQQ‘ \DNV‘ 001
H mOHMQ‘OmOHMQ‘OmOHMWva-‘IM
O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
O NMMMMMMVQ‘Q‘Q‘Vfl'mmLfimmwmm
U)

153

 

 

 

 

 

AUmSGHUCOUV hHo mam<e

o.OOH OOH c.00H NO o.o0H NON mHmuoe
m. H O.H HI m. N cg
O.N O N.O N O.N h 0.0
m.O O 0.0 O 0.0 OH O0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O m.O NH O0.0
unmoumm Nocwsmmum unwonmm [Nocmmwmum unmouwm hocmsmmum muoom
mocmsvmum wocwsvmum mocmskuh :oHu
w>HumHmm m>Humem m>Humem Im>Huoz
“wusuomwscmz HmuHmmo: HH¢

154

satisfaction scales come from items in Section four.

The scales are the average of the following items:
social satisfaction #2 and #9; supervisory satisfaction
#5, #8, and #14; security satisfaction, #1 and #11; and,
pay satisfaction #2 and #9. The propensity to leave
scale is the combination of items numbered 9 and lo in
Section eight. Social satisfaction reliability coeffi-
cients were Alphas of .58, while supervisory satisfaction
items produced Alphas of .85. The other three variables
were two scale items. Therefore, correlations between
items were calculated and adjusted to reliability co-

efficients using Spearman and Brown's formula
2r
r + 1 .
The reliabilities were .78 for security satisfaction,

R:

 

.91 for pay satisfaction, and .57 for prOpensity to leave.
The mean and variance for these five scales for the three
samples are provided in Table D23.

Growth satisfaction plays a major role in the job
characteristics model. In the Job Diagnostic Survey, it
is measured three ways: (1) growth satisfaction;

(2) "would-like" growth; and, (3) job-choice growth.
Growth satisfaction is a function of averaging items
numbered 3, 6, 10, and 13 in Section Four. The Alpha
and standardized Alpha coefficients were both .79. The

mean for the total sample was 4.7 and a variance of 1.8.

155

 

 

 

 

 

o.OOH OOH o.ooH NO o.OOH OON mHmuoe
N.O O 0.0 O o.O OH o.O
0.0 O H.OH 0H 0.0 OH 0.0
N.O OH H.OH OH 0.0H ON 0.0
O.HN 0O 0.0N OH 0.0N OO o.O
H.OH ON O.HH O 0.0H mm 0.0
O.NH ON N.O N H.OH ON 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 HN c.O
H.O OH H.O OH 0.0
H.O OH N.O N 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O N.O O o.O
O.H O O.H H O.H O 0.0
H.H N O. N 0.0
H.H N O. N o.O
N.O N O. N O.N
O.H H O. H O.N
O. H O. H O.N
O.H
O.H
O.H
O.H H O. H o
uswouwm Oucmskum ucwoumm mucmsmmum pcmouom Ooswsmmnm ouoom
Oocwsvmum Oocmsvmum Oocmskum coHuommeumm
m>HumHmm m>HUMHmm m>HumHmm HmHoom
kusuomOocmz HmuHMmom _ mam

:ofluommmfiumm HmHoom
moneomHmsmHo wozmoommm

OHQ mqm<B

TABLE 019

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Supervisory Satisfaction

Relative

 

Manufacturer

Relative

Hos ital

Relative

All

Supervisory

156

 

 

 

 

>«
up
€38 OxouaOrVoxOCVONOLn<rOMD OcaoxN
5c) OMdeHrnOwnn1O<rOnnaaOcaruO<rN
U‘H HH
(DO)
$404
[a
>1
2
m Ornnwmxboxo\ooxOcvc>Ornc>Ornc\O
5 H .HraHrqoquq
U‘
(D
u
m
>«
04.)
6c: \omno Oxo NxoaomxooaOrO IHanim
Q) oo o o o o no. 000000000
5!) rdrdH OwH mrdOwnOHnOrOCQO-OGNO
U‘H HHH
mm
HQ.
in
>1
0
8
D ~4H-4 O.H N.Haridoquoaaochqu
U H
(D
H
m
>1
0+)
535 <“¢\DCQQHw\DO\¢HhU1fi1@J\P~ (wawan
O. .0. 000 0.. 00.00.00.
Dc) «MHF4NCVNMOcuOuvwwOr~Or4OwnuwN
U‘H H
mm
HQ.
in
>4
2
m F4O~O03OrOoxNrOOMHrnouoanDOCVOrO
D H riHrqOhHqurnOQH
U‘
a)
H
In
t:
O
‘3
:38 c>ornu>ornu>ownu>ornu>ornu>ornu>o
mag rqthoqmrvc)OonO~rOunuwmxomer~
m
-HU)
u
to
U)

100.0

100.0 62 100.0 1

247

Totals

157

0.00H OOH

 

O

O
O
O
H
N
O

0.00H OON

 

 

mHmuOB

 

 

O.N O O.H H O.N O 0.0
O.N O 0.0 O 0.0 HH 0.0
0.0N OO 0.00 ON 0.0N HO 0.0
0.0H OH O.HH O 0.0H ON 0.0
0.0H ON 0.0H HH O.NH HO 0.0
0.0H ON 0.0 O 0.0 ON 0.0
H.O OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O O.N
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 HH O.N
O.H O O.H H O.H O O.H
0.0 O N.O O O.H
O.H . H O. H O

acmoumm Oucmswmum usmoumm mucmammum usmoumm mwcmnmwum wuoom

hocmsvmum Oucmsvmum hocmsvmum coHuomOmHumm

m>HumHmm m>HuMme m>Humem OuHusowm

Hmusuommscmz kuHMmom mmw

:oHuommmHumm OuHusowm
OZOHBDOHOBOHO wuzmaommm

0ND MHm<B

158

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuOB
O.H O O.H H O.H O 0.0
0.0 O O.H H N.O O 0.0
0.0H ON 0.0H NH 0.0H OO 0.0
0.0H ON 0.0 O 0.0 ON 0.0
0.0 OH 0.0H NH H.NH OO 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 O 0.0 OH 0.0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 HH 0.0
N.O O O.H H O.N O 0.0
O.HH HN 0.0 O 0.0H ON 0.0
0.0 NH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O.N
0.0H OH 0.0H O O.HH ON O.N
0.0 OH 0.0 OH O.H
O.NH ON 0.0 O 0.0H ON O.H
O.H H O. H O

unmoumm mwdumwmum unmoumm mosmsvmuh unwoumm Nocmawmnm muoom

Oucwsvmum Oocmzvmum mucwswwum coHuommeumm

m>HHMHmm 0>HUMHmm m>HMMHmm Own

HwHDHUMODGMZ HmuHmmom mam

coHuommmHumm Omm

mZOHBDmHmBmHQ wuzmaommh

HND MHQ<B

159

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuOB
H.H N N.O N O.H O OH
0.0 O N.O N 0.0 OH O
O.HH NN 0.0 O 0.0H ON O
0.0H NO H.O O 0.0H OO O
0.0N OO H.OH OH O.HN OO O
0.0H OO 0.00 OH O.HN OO O
0.0H NO 0.0 O 0.0H OO O
N.N O O.H H O.N O O
0.0 O 0.0H NH 0.0 OH N
m. a v. H H
O. H O. H O
ucwonmm hmcwswmum ucmonmm hocummmum unmoumm Oucwswoum muoom
Oucwskum Oucmswwum mocmswwuh m>me ou
m>Humem w>HHMHmm w>HUMHmm OuHmcwmoum
amusuomOscmz HmuHmmom mwfl

w>qu ou OuHmcmmoum

mZOHBDMHmBmHD VUZWDOmmm

NNQ mqm<fi

160

TABLE D23

STATISTICS FOR
SOCIAL SATISFACTION, SUPERVISORY SATISFACTION,
SECURITY SATISFACTION, PAY SATISFACTION, AND
PROPENSITY TO LEAVE

Mean Variance
Social
Satisfaction
All 5.5 1.0
Hospital 5.8 1.5
Manufacturer 5.4 .82
Supervisory
Satisfaction
All 4.8 2.5
Hospital 5.1 2.7
Manufacturer 4.6 2.4
Security
Satisfaction
All 4.7 2.3
Hospital 5.2 1.8
Manufacturer 4.5 2.4
Pay
Satisfaction
All 3.8 3.3
Hospital 4.0 3.1
Manufacturer 3.8 3.4
Propensity
to Leave
All 5.6 3.5
Hospital 5.0 4.8
Manufacturer 5.8 3.0

161

For the hospital the mean was 5.1 and the variance 1.7.
The manufacturer had a mean and variance of 4.6 and 1.8
respectively. The frequency distributions for growth
satisfaction is displayed in Table D24.

"Would-like" growth produced a mean of 5.6 and a
variance of 1.6 for the entire sample. When broken into
its subparts the mean and variance turn out to be 5.6 and
1.3 for the manufacturer and 5.5 and 2.5 for the hospital.
The scale is the average of items numbered 2, 3, 6, 8,

10, and 11 from Section six. The reliabilities for "would-
like" growth are Alpha .88 and standardized Alpha of .88.
For the distribution of "would-like" growth refer to

Table D25.

Job-choice growth is computed using twelve pairs of
jobs that the subjects are asked to choose between from
Section seven. The items scored in a reverse fashion are
numbered 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9. The items that are direct
scored are numbered 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, and 12. The frequency
distributions for job-choice growth is reported in Table
D26. A .76 reliability was obtained by both Alpha and
standardized Alpha coefficients. The statistics for job

choice were:

Mean Variance
Total Sample 3.1 .28
Hospital 3.1 .19

Manufacturer 3.1 .31

Relative
Frequency
Percent

 

Manufacturer

Frequency

162

an-iv—INOo—i l‘GflWkOQ‘Mmmmmmfi'

HHNI-lv-‘l NVMI‘HLOQ‘LOWVOOH
I-lv-i

 

Hos ital
Relative
Frequency

Percent

TABLE D24
Frequency

HcvnwOajN U3mr~QWfic>mw400m¢VC>H

H O1 F4Fl F4NCV

\o O N u: NtflhhHrdmchun

O O O O O O C O O O O C O

,H H O O1 «nnflvmcnOHOonO
.H

:4 H N F4 oamcvuwmrnn1N<w
H

 

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
Growth Satisfaction

Relative
Frequency
Percent

All

Frequency

V'Q'NQ‘ONQQOOQI‘OOSOmO‘mr-{OH
O 0

Fl v-lI-I NVNLONQ‘Q‘WKDQ'QMO
I-IH

r-lF-IMNQ‘MNNLO

17
11
15
32
25

14
12
10
16

 

Growth
Satisfaction
Score

 

In In In In In In In LO In In
ONmI‘Ole‘ONmK‘ONLfil‘CNIfi!‘

HHHHNNNNMMMMVQ‘V‘V‘LOWLDLD

163

 

 

 

 

 

AcmscHucoo. ONO mam<e

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuoe
N.O N O. N 0.0
O.H O O.H H O.H O O0.0
O.N. O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0
N.N O H.O O 0.0 O ON.O
0.0H OH O.HH O 0.0H ON 0.0
ucmoumm [wwcmnmmum uswonwm [chmnwmum usmouwm hocmswmum mHOom
hocmskum Oucwskum Oucmsvmum :oHuomOmHumm
m>HUMHmm 0>HumHmm m>Humem :H3ouw
amusuommscmz HmUHmmom Adm

164

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuoe
53 mm m.mm Mm «.2 E o;
IO.O
0.0N OO O.NN OH H.ON OO 0.0
IO.O
N.ON OO 0.0H NH O.NN OO 0.0
IO.O
H.OH ON 0.0H O N.O OO 0.0
IO.O
0.0 O N.O N 0.0 O 0.0
IO.N
O. H O. H O.N
IO.H
O.H H O. H O
unmouwm mocwsmmum ucwuumm Nocwswmum usmoumm hocmsmmum mHm>umucH
Oocmsvmum Oucwnqmum mocmskum muoom nuzouo
m>HumHmm m>HUMHmm w>Humem =mxHHIOH503=
umusuomOscmz HmuHmmom HH< .

£H30Hmv : mxflglcdsoz:
monBDmHmBmHo NuszOmmm

ONO mHm¢B

165

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H O.NO 0.00H OON meuoe
N.N O O.H O 0.0
IO.O
O.NN NO 0.0N 0.0H 0.0N OO 0.0
IO.O
0.00 OHH O.HO 0.00 0.00 NOH 0.0
IO.N
O. HH O.HN N.ON 0.0 ON O.N
IO.N
ucmoumm Nocwswmum unwoumm wouwsvmum unwoumm ‘Nocumwmuh mHm>kucH
Oocmskum Oocmsvmum Oocmsvmum muoom :u3ouo
m>HumHmm m>HuMHmm w>HpmHmm ononulbon
amusuommscmz HmuHmmom HHO

nuzouw woflonounou
moneomHmemHa wozmaommm

O NO WHmdB

166

The Motivating-Potential Score (MP8) is calculated

by the formula below:

Skill Task Task
Variety + Identity + Significance x Autonomy x Feedback

MP8 = 3 from job

Table D27 shows the frequency distribution for the motiva-
ting-potential score. The reliability of the motivating-
potential score was .83. The total sample mean was 124.9
and a variance of 4367.8. The mean and variance for the
hospital were 142.7 and 4348.7, and for the manufacturer
are 118.9 and 5,056.2.

The last set of scales are those that deal with control:
total control, output control, and behavior control. Total
control like the MP8 is a conceptual measure which is the
combination of first set of items numbered 1, 2, and 3 in
Section ten of the questionnaire. The total control
measure produced a reliability of -.14. The distributions
of scores are reported in Table D28. The mean and variance
for the total sample are 8.2 and 3.1. For the hospital
they are 7.9 and 3, and for the manufacturer they are 8.3
and 3.1.

Table D29 shows the frequency distributions of output
control for the total sample, the hospital, and the manu-
facturer. The reliability coefficient produced using the
Spearman-Brown formula was determined to be .04. Output

control was the combination of items 1 and 3 of the

167

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuOB
N.N O O.H O OOOIHON
0.0 O O.HH O H.O OH OONIHON
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH OONIHHN
0.0 OH 0.0H O 0.0 ON OHNIHOH
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 ON OOHuHOH
0.0H ON 0.0H HH N.OH OO OOHIHNH
O.NH ON 0.0H HH 0.0H OO ONHIHO
0.0H ON O.HH O 0.0H OO OOIHO
0.0H NO H.O O 0.0H OO OOIHO
N.O OH N.O N 0.0 OH OOIH
unmoumm Noamawmum acmoumm Oocmswmnm usmouwm Nucmzvmum pmmmmHHoo
Oocmsvmum Oocmsvmum mocwzvmum mHOUm
m>Humem m>Humem m>HumHmm mm:
umusuumwscmz HmuHmmom mam
mm:

WZOHBDmHmBmHD NUZMDOMMK

ONO MHm€B

168

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuoa
OH
O. H O. H OH
O. H O. H OH
O.H O N.H O NH
0.0 OH 0.0 O H.O ON HH
0.0 OH 0.0 O H.O ON OH
0.0N OO N.ON OH 0.0N OO O
H.HN OO 0.0H HH N.ON OO O
0.0H OO O.HN OH 0.0H OO O
H.O OH 0.0 O 0.0 HN O
O.N O 0.0 O 0.0 HH O
O.H H O. H O
O. H O. H O
N
H
O. H O. H O
unwouwm \Nocwswwum unmoumm .choswwum unwouwm Owcwmwwum wuoom
Oocmskum Oocmsvmum Oucmskum Houucou
w>Humem 0>Humem m>Humem Hmuoe
“wusuomuscmz HmUHmmo:

Houucoo annoy

mZOHBDmHmBmHO MOZODOOMO

ONO MHO<B

169

second set of questions in Section ten. A mean of 4.3
and a variance of 2.1 were calculated for the total sample.
The hospital produced a mean of 4.2 and a variance of 2.4.
The manufacturer was found to have a mean of 4.3 and a
variance of 2.

Items numbered 2 and 4 of the second part of Section
ten were used to measure behavior control. The Spearman-
Brown formula was used to calculate a reliability of .40.
The frequency distributions for behavior control are
shown in Table D30. The mean and variance for the total
sample were 7.9 and 3.2, for the hospital 7.5 and 3, and

for the manufacturer 8.0 and 3.2.

170

 

0.00H OOH 0.0¢H NO 0.00H OON mHmuOB
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O
0.0H ON 0.0H O 0.0H OO O
0.0N HO 0.00 OH 0.0N OO O
0.0N OO 0.0H HH O.NN OO O
0.0H HO O.HH O 0.0H OO O
0.0 OH 0.0H NH O.HH ON N
O. H O.H H O. N H
H.H N O. N O
unmouwm mocwswwum . ucwoumm Oocwsmwwm unmouwm Nocmswmum 1&‘muoow
Oocwsvmum Ovawsvmum hocmswmum Houucou
m>HumHmm m>Humem m>HumHmm usmuso
HGHDHUMODCMZ HmuHmmom MMQ

Houucoo usmuso
OZOHBDOHOBOHQ wuzmbdmmm

ONO mHm<B

171

 

 

 

 

0.00H OOH 0.00H NO 0.00H OON mHmuOB
0.0N OO 0.0 O 0.0H OO OH
0.0N OO O.HN OH 0.0N OO O
0.0N HO 0.0N OH 0.0N OO O
0.0H ON 0.0H HH O.NH HO O
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 OH O
0.0 OH 0.0 O 0.0 OH O
O.H O 0.0 O O.N O O
N.N O O.H O O
O.H H O. H N
H
O. H O. H O
unmoumm Oocwswmum ucmoumm 1Ndcw5mwuh ucmouwm hocmswwum muoom
Oocwsvmum Oucwswwum hocmskum Houucoo
w>Humem 0>HumHmm m>HHMHmm HOH>mnmm
HmHDuommscmz HmuHmmom mam

Houucoo uoH>wnmm
mZOHBDmHMBmHO NUZODOOOO

COO OHO<B

172

T-Tests and F-Tests

 

The two samples were compared on each variable dis-
cussed above using t-tests on means to see where differ-
ences lie between the samples. Table D31 reports t-tests
for the structural items of Hierarchy of Authority, Division
of Labor, Rules and Procedures, and Structure. All of the

structural items were found to have significantly different

 

 

means.
TABLE D31
T-TESTS AND F-TESTS
Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DF 245
Pooled
Variance F 2-tailed
X SD SE t P value yprob.
Hierarchy .
of Authority
Hospital 17.7 4.1 .5 2.46 .01* 1.0 1.0
Manf. 16.2 4.1 .3
Division of
Labor
Hospital 16.5 3.8 .48 2.89 .00* 1.0 1.0
Manf. 14.9 3.8 .28
Rules and
Procedures
Hospital 15.7 3.1 .39 4.38 .00* 1.11 .64
Manf. 13.6 3.2 .24
Structure
Hospital 49.9 8.1 1.0 4.17 .00* 1.1 .67
Manf. 44.7 8.5 .63
L

 

 

*Significant

173

Four of the five core job characteristics are shown in
Table D32. Task identity and task significance were found
to be significantly different, while skill variety and auton-
omy did not differ between the subsamples.
TABLE D32

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

 

 

 

Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DE 245
Pooled
Variance F 2—tai1ed
X SD SE t P value prob.
Skill Variety
Hospital 5.2 1.5 .20 1.81 .07 1.0 .96
Manf. 4.8 1.5 .11
Task Identity
Hospital 5.07 1.3 .16 3.4 .00* 1.45 .09
Manf. 4.34 1.5 .11
Task ,
Significance
Hospital 6.06 1.2 .15 2.5 .01* 1.22 .38
Manf. 5.6 1.3 .09
Autonomy
Hospital 4.9 1.5 .19 1.27 .21 1.01 .97
Manf. 4.7 1.5 .11 ‘
*Significant

The last core variable, feedback, is recorded in three
different ways: (1) feedback from the job; (2) feedback
from agents; and, (3) dealing with others. When comparing
the hospital to the manufacturing firm in this area, it was
found that feedback from agents and dealing with others differ
significantly. As shown in Table D33, feedback from job

does not differ significantly between the two.

174

TABLE D33

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

 

 

 

Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DF 245
Pooled
Variance F 2-tailed
X SD SE t P value prob.
r
Feedback from
job
Hospital 5.1 1.2 .16 1.81 .07 1.16 .51
Manf. 4 8 1.3 .10
Feedback from
Agent
Hospital 4.2 1.6 .2 2.21 .03* 1.09 .66
Manf. 3.8 1.5 .11
Dealing with
Others
Hospital 6.1 1.0 .13 2.6 .01* 1.5 .07
Manf. 5.6 1.3 .09
*Significant

Of the three psychological states, meaningfulness and
responsibility are found to be different, but knowledge of
results means are not different. The results are pre-

sented in Table D34.

175

TABLE D34

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

 

 

 

Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DE 245
Pooled
Variance F 2-tai1ed
X SD SE t P value prob.
Meaningfulness
Hospital 5.8 1.1 .14 4.65 .00* 1.1 .68
Manf. 5.1 1.1 .08
Responsibility
Hospital 5.9 1.0 .13 3.9 .00* 1.24 .34
Manf. 5.3 1.1 .08
Knowledge of
Results
Hospital 5.1 1.1 .15 1.11 .27 1.02 .96
Manf. 4.9 1.2 .09
*Significant

As shown in Table D35, global satisfaction and moti-

vation are both significantly different between the hospital

and the manufacturer.
TABLE D35

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

 

Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DF 245
Pooled
Variance F 2—tailed
X SD SE t P value prob.
Global Satis-
faction
Hospital 4.8 1.2 .15 2.42 .01* 1.11 .65
Manf. 4.4 1.3 .09
Motivation
Hospital 5.9 .95 .12 3.49 .00* 1.05 .80
Manf. 5.4 .93 .07

 

 

*Significant

176

Table D36 is divided into three parts: (1) specific
dependent variables; (2) Motivating-Potential Score; and,
(3) the growth-strength scales. For the specific dependent
variables, all but one were significantly different.
Security Satisfaction, Social Satisfaction, Supervisory
Satisfaction, and Propensity to leave all differed, while
Pay Satisfaction did not show a difference. The MPS's
produced significant differences between the hospital and
the manufacturer. Of the three growth-strength measures,
only growth satisfaction differed between the two subsamples.

The results are reported in Table D36.

177

TABLE D36

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

Hospital N = 62

Manufacturer N = 185

DE 245

Pooled
Variance F 2-tai1ed
X SD SE t P value prob.

Pay Satisfaction
Hospital 4.0 1.7 .22 .89 .38 1.12 .61
Manf. 3.8 1.9 .14

Security

Satisfaction
Hospital 5.2 1.3 .17 3.2 .00* 1.33 .19
Manf. 4.5 1.5 .11

Social

Satisfaction
Hospital 5.8 1.2 .16 2.39 .02* 1.88 .00*
Manf. 5.4 .9 .07

Supervisory

Satisfaction
Hospital 5.1 1.6 .21 2.01 .05* 1.13 .54
Manf. 4.6 1.5 .11

Propensity to

Leave A
Hospital 5.0 2.2 .28 -2.92 .00 1.59 .02*
Manf. 5.8 1.7 .13

Motivating-Potential

Score
Hospital 142.7 65.9 8.4 2.33 .02* 1.16 .50
Manf. 118.9 71.1 5.2

Growth Satisfaction
Hospital 5.7 1.3 .16 2.75 .01* 1.06 .82
Manf. 4.6 1.3 .10

"Would-like"

Growth
Hospital 5.5 1.6 .20 -.20 .84 1.89 .00*
Manf. 5.6 1.1 .08

Job-Choice

Growth
Hospital 3.1 .43 .06 .43 .67 1.67 .02*
Manf. 3.1 .56 .04

 

*Significant

 

 

178

The measures of control were tested with t-tests and
are shown in Table D37. None of the three control measures

was significantly different between the two organizations.

TABLE D37

T-TESTS AND F-TESTS

 

 

 

Hospital N = 62
Manufacturer N = 185
DF 245
Pooled _
Variance F 2-tailed
X SD SE t P value prob.
Total Control
Hospital 7.9 1.7 .22 -1.72 .09 1.82 .00*
Manf. 8.3 1.8 .13
Behavior Control
Hospital 7.5 1.7 .22 -1.88 .96 1.05 .84
Manf. 8.0 1.8 .13
1
Output Control
Hospital 4.19 1.5 .20 - .74 .458. 1.14 .55
Manf. 4.35 1.4 .10

 

*Significant

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blood, M.R. and Hulin, C.L. "Alienation, Environmental
Characteristics, and Worker Responses," Journal of
Applied PsychologY, 1967, 51, 284-290.

 

Brief, A.P. and Aldag, R.J. "Employee Reaction to Job
Characteristics: A Constructive Replication,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60.

 

Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. THE MANAGEMENT INNOVATION.
London: Tavistock, 1961.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. EXPERIMENTAL
AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH. Chicago:
Rand-McNally Publishing Company, 1963.

Child, John. "Organization Structure and Strategies of
Control: A Replication of the Aston Study,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 163-177.

 

 

Child, John. "Strategies of Control and Organizational
Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973,
18, l-l7.

Child, J. and Ellis, T. "Predictors of Variation in
Managerial Roles," Human Relations, 1973, 26, 227-250.

Cook, Thomas D. and Campbell, Donald T. "The Design and
Conduct of Quasi-Experiments and True Experiments in
Field Settings," HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZA-
TIONAL PSYCHOLOGY. Chicago: Rand McNally College
Publishing Company, 1976.

Cornfield, Jerome and Tukey, John W. "Average Values of
Mean Squares in Factorials," Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 1956, 27, 907-949.

 

 

Duncan, Robert B. "The Effects of Perceived Environmental
Uncertainty on Organizational Decision Unit Structure:
A Cybernetic Model," Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1971.

Dunham, R.B. "Reactions to Job Characteristics: Moderating
Effects of the Organization," Academy of Management
Journal, 1977, 20, 42-65.

 

179

180

Dunham, Randall B., Aldag, Ramon J., and Brief, A.P.
"Dimensionality of Task Design as Measured by the
Job Diagnostic Survey," Academy of Management
Review, 1977, 20, 209-223.

 

Hackman, J. Richard. "Is Job Enrichment Just a Fad?,"

Harvard Business Review, 1975, September-October,
129-138.

Hackman, J. Richard and Lawler, Edward E., III. "Em-
ployee Reactions to Job Characteristics,"
Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 1971,
55. 259-286.

Hackman, J. Richard and Oldham, Greg R. "The Job Diag-
nostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnosis of
Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects,"
Technical Report No. 4, Department of Administrative
Sciences, Yale University, 1974.

Hackman, J. Richard and Oldham, Greg R. "Development of
the Job Diagnostic Survey," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170.

 

 

Hackman, J. Richard and Oldham, Greg R. "Motivation
through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory,"

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1976, I6, 250F279.

Hackman, J. R., et al. "A New Strategy for Job Enrich-
ment," California Management Review, 1975.

Hackman, J. Richard, Pearce, Jone L., and Wolfe, Jane C.
"Effects of Changes in Job Characteristics on Work
Attitudes and Behaviors: A Naturally Occurring
Quasi-Experiment," Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1978.

 

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. "Relationship of
Centralization to Other Structural Properties,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1967.

Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael. "Routine Technology,
Social Structure, and Organization Goals,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 366-376.

Hall, D.T. and Lawler, E.E., III. "Job Characteristics
and Pressures and the Organizational Integration of
Professionals,” Administrative_8cience‘Quarterly,
1970.

 

Hall, R.H. "Intra-Organizational Structural Variation:
Application of the Bureaucratic Model," Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 1962, 7, 295-308.

 

181

Hall, R.H. ORGANIZATIONS: STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Hulin, Charles L. and Blood, Milton R. "Job Enlargement,
Individual Differences, and Worker Responses,"
Psychological Bulletin, 1968.

Huse, E.F. and Price, P. "The Relationship Between
Maturity and Motivation in Varied Work Groups,"
Proceedings of the 70th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, 1970.

Inkson, J.H., Hickson, D.J., and Pugh, D.S. "Administra-
tive Reduction of Variances in Organization and
Behavior," London: British Psychological Society,
Annual Conference, 1968.

Inkson, J.H., Pugh, D.S., and Hickson, D.J. "Organiza-
tion Context and Structure: An Abbreviated
Replication," Administrative Science‘Quarterly,
1970, 15, 318—329.

 

Ivancevich, J.M. and Donnelly, J.H. "Relationship of
Organizational Structure to Job Satisfaction,
Anxiety, Stress, and Performance," Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 272-280.

 

Keller, R.T., Szilagyi, A.D., and Holland, W.E.
"Job Characteristics of Research and Development
Personnel: Relationships with Satisfaction and
Role Variables," Academy of Management Proceedings,
New Orleans, 1975.

 

Lawler, Edward E., III. "Control Systems in Organizations,"
HANDBOOK OF INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY.
Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company,
1976.

Lawler, E.E., III and Hall, D.T. "Relationship of Job
Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction,
and Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1970, 54, 305-312.

 

 

Lawler, Edward E., III, Hall, D. T., and Oldham, Greg.
"Organizational Climate: Relationship to Organiza-
tional Structure, Process, and Performance,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1974,
139-155.

McMahon, Timothy. "Organizational Effectiveness and Man-
agement Control Structure-~An Analysis of Indirect
Employees," Academy of Management Proceedings, 1973,
451-457.

182

McMahon, J. Timothy and Ivancevich, John M. "A Study of
Control in a Manufacturing Organization: Managers
and Nonmanagers," Administrative Science Quarterly,
1976, 21, 66-83.

 

McMahon, J. Timothy and Perritt, C.W. "The Control
Structures of Organizations-~An Empirical Examina-
tion," Academy of Management Journal, 1971, 14,
327-339.

McMahon, J. Timothy and Perritt, G.W. "Toward a Con-
tingency Theory of Organizational Control,"
Academy of Management Journal, 1973, 16, 624-635.

Nemiroff, Paul M. and Ford, David L., Jr. "Task Effective-'
ness and Human Fulfillment in Organizations: A
Review and Development of A Conceptual Contingency
Model,” Academy of Management Review, 1976.

 

Nemiroff, Paul M. and Ford, David L., Jr. "The 'Fit'
Between Work Group Structure and Tasks: Its
Influence on Task Effectiveness and Human Fulfill-
ment," Organization and Administrative Sciences,
Winter, 1977/78, 8, 15-34.

 

Oldham, G.R. "Job Characteristics and Internal Motiva-
tion: The Moderating Effects of Interpersonal
and Individual Variables," Human Relations, 1976.

 

Ouchi, William G. "The Relationship between Organiza-
tional Structure and Organizational Control,"
Administrative Science_guarterl , 1977, 22, 95-113.

Ouchi, William G. "The Transmission of Control Through
Organizational Hierarchy," Academy of Management
Journal, 1978, 21, 173-192.

 

Ouchi, William G. and Johnson, Jerry B. "Types of Organi-
zational Control and Their Relationship to Emotional
Well-Being," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978,
23, 293-317.

 

Payne, Roy L., Pheysey, Diana C., and Pugh, D.S. "Organi-
zation Structure, Organizational Climate, and Group
Structure: An Exploratory Study of Their Relation-
ships in Two British Manufacturing Companies,"
Occupational PsychologY, 1971.

 

Pierce, Jon L. and Delbecq, Andre L. "Organization Struc-
ture, Individual Attitudes, and Innovation," Academy
of Management Review, 1977.

 

183

Pierce, Jon L. and Dunham, Randall B. "Task Design:
A Literature Review," Academy of Management
Review, 1976.

 

Pierce, Jon L., Dunham, Randall B., and Blackburn,
Richard C. ”Social Systems Structure, Job Design,
and Growth—Need Strength: A Test of a Congruency
Model," Academy of Management Journal, 1979, 22.

Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., and Hackman, J.R. BEHAVIOR
IN ORGANIZATIONS. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1975.

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., and Hinings, C.R. "An
Empirical Taxonomy of Structures of Work Organiza-
tions," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 115.

Pugh, D.S., et al. "A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational
Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, 1963.

 

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.F., Hinings, C.R., and Turner, C.
"Dimensions of Organization Structure," Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1968.

 

 

Rousseau, Denise M. "Technological Differences in Job
Characteristics, Employee Satisfaction, and Motiva-
tion: A Synthesis of Job Design Research and Socio-
technical Systems Theory," Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1977, 19-20, 18.

 

 

Rousseau, Denise M. "Characteristics of Departments,
Positions, and Individuals: Contexts for Attitudes
and Behavior," Administrative Science Quarterly,
1978, 23.

 

Sathe, Vijay. "Institutional Versus Questionnaire Measures
of Organizational Structure," Academy of Management
Journal, 1978.

 

Sims, Henry P., Jr. and Szilagyi, Andrew D. "Job Character-
istic Relationships: Individual and Structural
Moderators," Or anizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 976, 211-230.

 

 

Thompson, James D. ORGANIZATIONS IN ACTION. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Tosi, Henry L. THEORIES OF ORGANIZATION. Chicago:
St. Clair Press, 1975.

Tosi, Henry L. and Carroll, Stephen J. MANAGEMENT: CON-
TINGENCIES, STRUCTURE, AND PROCESS. Chicago: St.
Clair Press, 1976.

184

Turner, A.N. and Lawrence P.R. INDUSTRIAL JOBS AND THE
WORKER: AN INVESTIGATION OF RESPONSE TO TASK
ATTRIBUTES. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate
School of Business, 1965.

Vrendenburgh, Donald J. and Alutto, Joseph A. "Perceived
Structure in Relation to Individual Attitudes and
Performance," Organization and Administrative Sciences,
1977, 8, 255-272.

Vroom, V.H. SOME PERSONALITY DETERMINANTS OF THE EFFECTS
OF PARTICIPATION. New Jersey: ,Prentice-Hall, 1960.

Vroom, Victor H. WORK AND MOTIVATION. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Wanous, John P. "Individual Differences and Reactions to
Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology,
1974, 59, 616-622.

White, J. Kenneth. "Individual Differences and the Job
Quality-Worker Response Relationship: Review,
Integration, and Comments," The Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 1978, 3, 267-280.