IHINUIIHUIZIIIIIWHIHHlllHHlllUHIIHHIHIIIHHII 1293 10465 7279 t-.. -~ ~- . s: 3:, \~ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Organizational Social Responses and the Quality of Work and Life: An Inventory of Activities and Outcomes presented by Rich Strand has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD. degree in BsychologL Major professor Date 8-14—81 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES .—c_. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in boOk drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. Witt-figs}; 7' i 0 AY 2 0 2007 SEP 0 4 2002 3 1 0 2 278 e: ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL RESPONSES AND THE QUALITY OF WORK AND LIFE: 1 AN INVENTORY OF ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES By Rich Strand A Dissertation Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 1The material in this project was prepared under Grant No. DD—26-80-018 from the National Council on Employment Policy, Department of Labor. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the National Council on Employment Policy. ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIAL RESPONSES AND THE QUALITY OF WORK AND LIFE: AN INVENTORY OF ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES BY Rich Strand A four dimensional categorical model of organiza- tional social responses affecting quality of work and life is proposed. The literature on facets of quality of life, work, and social responsibility is content analyzed resulting in a proposed inventory of quality of work and life activities and outcomes. The inventory was preliminarily tested by organizational psychologists and behaviorists in an item placement task. Results of the content analyses of the literature and the expert item placanent task supported the categorical model and inventory. The findings were used to develop a survey which was completed by 144 executives of large private organiza- tions. The executives' self-reported organizatonal commit- ments and effectiveness in quality of life and work were analyzed by cluster and factor analyses, correlations with related variables and descriptive statistics. Rich Strand Cluster and factor analyses of quality of life and work items indicated: (1) the empirical structure paralleled similar constructs of the hypothesized categories but not actual item content; (2) executives perceive greater differences among constituent outcome items than organi- zational activity items which contain a general human relations quality of work factor; and (3) a higher-order factor analysis of the clusters resulted in four higher-order organizational responsiveness constructs-- resource exchanges with constituents and employees, and maintenance of social structures and physical resources. Convergent and divergent correlational analyses indicated: (1) clusters were related, although not consistently, to single item measures and number of relevant specialists, and (2) organizational characteris- tics and their economic and social environments were related to quality of life and work commitments. Descriptive results included: (1) organizations were generally least committed and effective to sharing authority and control with workers yet reported rela- tively high commitment to gaining employee trust and identification with the organization; and (2) service industries generally reported higher commitments to quality of work and to quality of life concerns beyond directly related business activities such as community activities, whereas manufacturing organizations limited Rich Strand commitments to related business concerns such as pollution control. The major findings are summarized and directions for future research are suggested. To Linda ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My years at Michigan State University have been filled with very rewarding experiences as well as challenging times professionally and personally. I wish to thank those who have shared the good experiences with me and who have helped me to grow professionally and personally. I am very thankful to Dr. Ralph Levine, chairperson of my dissertation committee, who has exposed me to many new views and who has helped give me direction. Ralph has been there when I needed him, and has always based his advice and judgements on my professionalism and well-being. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Neal Schmitt who introduced me to graduate school and whose modesty and hard professional work I can only try to emulate. To Dr. Benjamin Schneider I thank for both his pats on the back and his kicks in the pants. My thanks go out to Dr. Frederick Wickert for our collaborative work and his encouragement of disciplined writing. My development and growth would not have been so great if it were not for the many competent persons I have worked with outside of the Psychology Department. Special thanks to Dr. Michael Moore in Labor and Industrial Relations, whose professionalism and support has given me guidance. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Robert Davis in Learning iii and Evaluation Services who has given respect to my ideas and who has given meaning to collaborative creativity. I also thank Dr. John Fry for the many skills in training I have received and for my exposure to consulting. My most sincere appreciation goes to my parents who have always respected my independence and encouraged my development. Their support and uncompromising love has given me great security and self-respect ‘without which none of this would have been possible. My greatest debt belongs to my love, Linda. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O D O O O O . INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Categorical Model of Organizational Social Activities and Their Human Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . BaSic MOdel. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Complete Categorical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of Organizational Social Activities Their Human Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality of Life Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality of Work Life Indicators. . . . . . . . . . Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment . . . . Proposed Contents of Organizational Activities and Outcomes Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page ix xi xii 14 17 20 32 54 54 58 59 62 64 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 67 Study 1: Expert Placement Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Study 2: Quality of Work and Life Inventory . . . . . . . . 74 Primary Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 A Priori Multiple Groups Analysis. . . . . . . . . . 75 Activity items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Human outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Summary of multiple groups analysis . . . . . 85 Empirical Structure of the Inventory . . . . . . . . 87 Factor Analysis of Total Inventory. . . . . . 88 Quality of Work Factoral Structure. . . . . . 90 Quality of Life Factoral Structure. . . . . . 94 Cluster Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Correlations Among Empirically—Derived Clmters. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 101 Higher-Order Factor Analyses of Clusters. . . 108 Parallelism Between Empirically-Derived and Conceptually—Derived Clusters . . . . . . 113 Construct Validity of Empirically-Derived Clusters . 115 Correlates Among Clusters and Alternative Measures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Single items. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Specialists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Quality of Work and Life and Organizational/ Environmental Characteristics . . . . . . . . 122 Secondary Analysis: Inventory Profile Analysis . . . . . 130 Commitment of Manufacturing and Service Industries . 130 vi. Commitment—Effectiveness Comparisons. . . . . . . . 136 com tmnts O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 141 Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Discrepancies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 High discrepancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Cluster discrepancies. . . . . . . . . . . . 147 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Literature Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Expert Placement Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Inventory Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 A priori analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Blind structural analysis. . . . . . . . . . 160 Construct validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Secondary Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Overall Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 188 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Basic Model of Human Outcomes and Experiences Which Satisfy Human Needs and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2. Content Analysis of Literature on Quality of Life Facets. O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 29 3. Content Analysis of Literature on Quality of work Facets O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 37 4. Content Analysis of Literature on Corporate Social Responsibility Facets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. Proposed Contents of Categorical Model of Organizational Social Responsiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 6. Breakdown of Inventory Respondents by Industry and P081tion. O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 65 7. Outline of Steps in Research Process. . . . . . . . . . . 68 8. Expert Placement of Quality of Work and Life Items in A Priori Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 9. Percent Agreement Between Hypothesized and Expert Placement of Items Within Categories. . . . . . . . . . 73 10. Correlations Among Organizational Activity Items and Hypothesized Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 11. Correlations Among Constituent Outcome Items and Hypothesized Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 12. Final Clusters in Quality of Work Inventory . . . . . . . 99 13. Final Clusters in Quality of Life Inventory . . . . . . . 100 14. Correlations Among Empirically Derived Quality of Work and Life Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 viii Table Page 15. Factor Analysis of Empirically-Derived Quality of Life and Work Clusters . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 110 l6. Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and Single Item Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 17. Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and Specialists in Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . 121 18. Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and Organizational/Environmental Characteristics . . . 123 19. Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life and Other Management Social Responses and Organizational Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 20. High Commitment - Effectiveness Discrepancy Score Items for Service and Manufacturing Industries . . . . 146 21. High Average Commitment - Effectiveness Discrepancy Items by Industry Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 22. Average Category Discrepancy Scores Between Reported Commitment and Effectiveness by Industry Type. . . . . 150 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Process of Organizational Effects on Quality of Life 0 O O O O O O O O O O O C O I O O I O O O O O O O 6 2. Complete Categorical Model of Organizational Social Responsiveness O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 17 3. Accumulative Percent of Variance Accounted for by Factors in Total Data Set. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4. Average Commitment Responses of Manufacturing and Service Industries to Quality of Work Activities . . . 132 5. Average Commitment Responses of Manufacturing and Service Industries to Quality of Life Activities . . . 133 6. Average Commitment Responses of Manufacturing and Service Industries to Quality of Work Experiences. . . 134 7. Average Commitment Responses of Manufacturing and Service Industries to Quality of Life Experiences. . . 135 8. Average Commitment and Effectiveness Responses of A11 Respondents on Quality of Work Activities. . . . . 137 9. Average Commitment and Effectiveness Responses of A11 Respondents on Quality of Life Activities. . . . . 133 10. Average Commitment and Effectiveness Responses of All Respondents on Quality of Work Experiences . . . . 139 11. Average Commitment and Effectiveness Responses of A11 Respondents on Quality of Life Experiences . . . . 140 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Quality of Work and Life: A Diagnostic Survey . . . . 191 INTRODUCTION The quality of organizational responses to social change and demands is increasingly realized as an integral part of organizational behavior. The question, though, of the degree to which organizational social responsive- ness is considered a subset of the role of private organi- zations in society is of considerable debate. For example, Milton Friedman (1960) argues that organizational social responses which do not relate to normal business operations or the productivity and profit of the enter- prise should not be in the domain of organizational behavior. Others argue from an open systems perspective that organizations maintain continuity of resource inputs through gaining legitimacy in the environment (Parsons, 1960). {One source of this legitimacy is being socially responsive to relevant coalitions and society in general. In this latter perspective, organizational social res- ponsiveness is related to business concerns in general and in the long run improves the productivity and profit- ability of the company; Q$\ Although the debate will no doubt continue,lorgani- zations are exposed to a social environment which is changing and redefining the role of the organization within society:\\As a semi—rational coordination of / a set of activities and people, organizations are pres- sured into modifying and enlarging their goals to encompass non-economic aspects of the quality of life of its constituents. As an environmentally adaptive system, organizations are in need of developmentally becoming more responsive to the needs and goals of a society which supplies the organizations with their resource inputs and absorbs the organizations' outputs. In general, this new and changing role of organizations is a movement towards holding organizations responsible for their effects on society and for being responsive toward the needs and goals of other coalitions and individuals with which they interact. Organizational social responsiveness is a specific reply to the three major questions revolving around the concept of organizational effectiveness: effectiveness of what, for whom, and what are the effects as well as the causes?1/Specifically, organizational social res- ponsivenesskzovers the study of the effects of an organi- zation on the quality of life of its employees and society in general as determined by the relative fulfill-// ment of human needs and goals caused by organizational \ activities and conditions} KT—The majority of the conceptual literature on organizational social responsiveness defines the con- cept as organizational activities or outcomes which are motivated beyond profit making (Davis, 1960; Back— man, 1975) and economic and legal requirements (McGuire, 1963), or consist of voluntary activities (Menus and Wallish, 1972) as well as economic and legal activities (Steiner, 1975), or in terms of responsiveness toward a number of social problems (Hay, Gray, and Gates, 1976) and the broader social system (Bells and Walton, 1961i] Attempts to integrate these definitions and develop typologies of organizational social responsiveness have mostly adopted a hierarchy of responsibilities or responsiveness. For example, an approach developed by the Committee for Economic Development in 1971 defined organizational social responsibilities in terms of three concentric circles. The innermost responsibilities are economic, the intermediate responsibilities include a sensitivity to social values, and the outermost social responsibilities are directed at amorphous and emerging issues in which business should be actively involved to improve the social environment. Sethi (1975) adopts these three hierarchical levels in his approach and further defines the levels as stages: the first stage consists of social obligations which are responses to market and legal constraints, the second stage consists of social responsibilities which are responses to pre- vailing current social norms and expectations, and the third stage is social responsiveness which consists of behaviors derived from the long term role of business in a dynamic social system. As a newly formed field of study, these develop- ments lay the foundations for the conceptual and opera- tional definition of organizational social responsiveness} Two major directions for the field of organizational social responsiveness are additionally suggested. First, a framework is needed for the systematic study of the causal processes and dynamics which explain and predict organizational social responses. Specifically, the focus should be on the development and testing of components of process and systems models of the inter- relationships among the major variables which define the inputs, throughputs, outputs, and feedbacks in the process of organizations responding and adapting to the social environment. The second suggested major direction of the field is the development of normative models of organizational social behaviors and the human needs and goals which are affected by such behaviors. [If manipulation of organizational behaviors toward humanis- tic ends is desired, then a comprehensive understanding is necessary of the causal dynamics between organizational activities and their human effects or outcomes which constitute the quality of lifef) The focus of this dissertation is directed at the second suggested direction of the field of organizational social responsiveness--the development of a model of organizational activities and their human outcomes. Specifically, a static model of categories of organi- zational social responsiveness activities and their human outcomes is proposed. The proposed categorical model will then be used to review the literature on facets of quality of life and quality of work life. The litera- ture review will then be used to develop an inventory of organizational social activities and their human outcomes. The purpose of this study is to empirically test the proposed structure of the categorical model and the proposed inventory of organizational activities . and human outcomes. Categorical Model of Organizational SociaI Activities and Their Human'Outcomes The study of organizational social activities and their human outcomes should include an elaboration of the process of how organizations affect the quality of life. Figure l is an elaboration of such a process. The organization sets policies and takes initiatives based on its established goals, resources, and con- straints. Organizational activities and conditions, whether intended, anticipated, known or unknown result from these policy and initiative directives. The organizational activities and conditions lead to certain .oou no zuuaoao co ouuouum acquouucomuo uo noououm .~ wanwum consequoaxm use auscuuso uo nqo>oa ecu nee—uuuuau< was enema-uuoaxu ao>uuuo-oo use a~u=vuaum 1cm acn>o~oz go ounce can seem: no u:0l~—¢u~:~ can; .0 auaduao ra.z scuuuounuuom v:- ace—uuauouuonnuo uoauuuouaoo on. a~ss -ea>ae:~ u=u>o_o¢ as mosuouum noucouuvaxu ec- uolouuac accuuuvcou ecu acqum>uuu< sequonucsuuo ao>uusuuqcu a augufiuom cauuauucuwuc outcomes and experiences for major constitutents of the organization. For example, the working conditions in an organization can influence the physical health of the employees, and the organization's fair employment hiring and promotion activities influence the extent of equal opportunity experienced in society. These out- comes and experiences for constituents either fulfill or fail to fulfill the needs and goals of the constituents. The extent of need and goal fulfillment relative to aspirations and expectations of the constituent members leads to feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the constituents with the organization. This process is not completely closed; there are a number of exogenous variables which moderate the relationships and affect the variables. For example, employee compe- tence moderates the relationship between organizational policies and actual organizational activities. Also, the extent of need and goal fulfillment for the organi- zation's constituents is additionally affected by the constituents' eXperiences outside of their contact with the organization. The causal sequence fromeorganizational policies and initiatives to the quality of life of organizational constituents, though, is principally accounted for by the path diagram depicted in Figure 1. In general, organizational social responsiveness is defined as the type and extent of effects that organizational activities and conditions have on the quality of life of various constituent groups such as society in general and the organization's employees. :Both quality of life and quality of work life are defined in terms of the relative fulfillment and satisfaction of the universe of human goals and needs for the constituent groups. The fulfillment and satis- faction of human goals and needs is defined by the extent to which outcomes and experiences sought through these goals and needs by individuals and collectives exist in desired frequency and intensity. Hence, any study of organizational social responsiveness should start with an identification of the relevant constituents affected by the organization and the constituents' goals and needs. [The next step would be an identification of all the organization's activities and conditions which affect the constituents' goals and needs;/ The purpose of the content model of organizational social responsive- ness is to develop a framework for the identification of both the constituents' goals and needs and the organi- zation's activities and conditions which affect these goals and needs of the constituents, and to allow further research in the causal dynamics between organizational activities and their human outcomes. Basic Model What is desired is a set of categories of human needs and goals which are exhaustive and mutually exclu- sive. Montgomery (1975) proposes a set of "canonical goals" in order to operationalize the utilitarian prin- ciple of the greatest good to the greatest number of people. A two-by-two categorization scheme is proposed by Montgomery. The first dimension is comprised of individual and group goals to reflect the evolutionary requirement that man be selfish enough to insure his own survival and altruistic enough to insure the survival of the species. The other dimension is comprised of material and spiritual levels "to reflect physiological and cultural requirements of life." The crossing of the two dimensions and their levels results in four categories of quality of life-~provision of material goods and physical services, quality of the material environment, freedom and self fulfillment for the individual, and retributive and distributive justice. There are two primary weaknesses of the Montgomery model. First, the concept of a spiritual life is vague and non-operational. The second weakness is a failure to distinguish between a social life and a psychological life of an individual. The proposed categorical model in this study is based on Montgomery's model with one major change. The "spiritual" level is further broken 10 down into "social" and "psychological". The result is a three-by-two model with six categories. The general universe of human needs and goals can be defined in terms of six categories as labelled in Table 1. These needs and goals are defined in terms of outcomes and experiences desired by individuals and collectives. The categorization scheme of human needs and goals is thus based on the properties of the out- comes and experiences desired by individuals and the collectives they form. There are two basic properties of these need and goal outcomes or experiences--the sphere or source of the outcome or experience and the unit of reception of the outcome or experience. These two properties are referred to as dimensions of desired outcomes and experiences. The first dimension of outcomes directed at the fulfillment of human goals and needs is the sphere or source of the outcomes. The three major levels of source outcomes are physical, social, and psychological. This trichotomy of outcomes accounts for a number of needs and goals which are realized through the outcomes. Alderfer's (1972) three basic needs, existence, related- ness, and growth, parallel the trichotomy of outcome source. In addition, the physical, social, and psycho- logical outcomes sources correspond to Allardt's (1973) three welfare dimensions, namely, having, loving, and 11 Table 1. Basic Model of Human Outcomes and Experiences Which Satisfy Human Needs and Goals. Unit of Outcome Reception Individual Collective Material Physical PhYSical Provisions Environment Source Social Social 0f Social Interaction Integration Outcome .1 :J Psychological Interindividual Psychological Development Consistency 12 being. It is recognized that physical and social out- comes are felt or experienced internally or psychologi- cally by the individual such as by the sensation of satiation, security, or social esteem. The source, though, of the outcomes, which affect these psychological sensations are external. Internal or psychological source outcomes on the other hand, are those outcomes which are both generated internally or psychologically and are experienced or felt psychologically. The second dimension of human outcomes and experi- ences describe the basic unit of reception or impact of outcomes. The two levels of this dimension are the individual and the collective as defined by the consitu- ent group under consideration. Outcomes which can be received by the individual person and which do not have any necessary direct effect on other individuals comprise the level of the individual receptor. On the other hand, those outcomes which when administered affect the group or collective goals or needs form the level of outcomes received by the collective. This distinction readily acknowledges that there exist human goals and needs for the betterment and survival of the group, society, and species beyond those needs and goals of the individual. The two dimensions of outcomes together form six categories of outcomes which satisfy human needs and goals. The matrix of the six categories are depicted 13 in Table l. The category, Material Provisions, describes the cell of the matrix produced by the combination of physical source outcomes and the individual receptor outcomes. The contents of this category essentially provides individuals with needed and desired outcomes from their interactions with the physical spheres of their lives. The crossing of individual receptor with social source outcomes is characterized by the category of Social Interactions. These outcomes emanate from the interpersonal and social involvements of individuals. The combination of individual receptor outcomes with psychological source outcomes comprises the category of outcomes called Psychological Development. These outcomes fulfill the needs and goals that the individual desires from the experiential psychological self. The crossing of the collective receptor of the outcomes with the physical source of outcomes is described by the Physical Environment category of outcomes. These out- comes are experienced by sets of individuals in a collective in the physical world. The category of out- comes which are developed in the collective and which emanate from a social source form the Social Integration outcomes. The Social Integration outcomes establish the group of individuals as a collective on the basis of shared goals, norms, and values. The last category develops from.the intersection of the collective receptor 14 of outcomes and the psychological source of outcomes and is labeled Interindividual Consistency. These out- comes maintain and promote interactions among individuals based on consistencies between individuals within and between various collectives. Interindividual Consistency outcomes include but are not limited to equity, individual and group rights, justice, and demo- cratic processes. The six categories of outcomes can be applied to any system and form the basis for analysis of the system's effect on human goals and needs. Complete Categorical Model A l LAAs noted earlier, there are two major areas of organizational social responsiveness. One area is the effects of organizational activities on the quality of work life of its employeesd The second area is the effects of the organization's activities on the quality of life in society in general. In the context of organi- zational social responsiveness, the two dimensional model of human need and goal outcomes can be further expanded by a third dimension. This third dimension is labelled impacted-group and has two levels, the employees ofthe.;’ organization and society in general: At thistoint we can define quality of work life and quality of life as the current satisfaction and fulfillment of the six categories of outcomes for employees and members of 15 society respectively. The number of levels of the impacted-group dimension can be further broken down depending upon the system under study and the depth of the analysis. At this stage of model building only two levels are chosen, employees and society in general. Each level of the impacted group dimension defines the collective in the receptor dimension in the model. As noted earlier,[the purpose of the content model/— . . . . . . l is to aSSist in the systematic and comprehenSive identi-K \. \l fication of those outcomes and experiences desired by Collectiv;\\ Collective P ' ._. p I Physical , E \\\ Physical SOCIETY 1 AND COMMUNITY 1 16 Social TC (00L) \\\ Social D D 1C l\\\JIc Psychological ’ ' Psychological Figure 2. Complete Categorical Model of Organizational Social Responsiveness 17 The four dimensions and their levels form 24 categories-- 12 quality of work life and 12 quality of life. Each of these 12 categories are then broken down into six cate- gories of organizational activities and six categories of human outcomes. Identification of Organizational Social Activities and Their Human Outcomes JOrganizations affect their constituents' need and goal satisfactions by implementing activities and creating conditions as a result of their policy formulations and program initiatives. These activities and conditions result in certain outcomes and experiences for the constituents. The consequence of these outcomes and experiences is the fulfillment or lack of fulfillment of the needs and goals the constituents possess. An important direction for research in this area\ \ 'I' . I is the analysis of the relationships between organiza- \f 49' \‘v-v tional activities and conditions on the one hand and/f. human outcomes and experiences on the other. The/17 complexities of these relationships are no doubt immense. Organizational activities in any one realm will no doubt affect a number of different types of outcomes for a number of constituent groups. The study of open systems in a number of fields has made this conclusion obvious. In order to grapple with these 18 complexities it is necessary to develop a framework for analysis. Such a framework must be based on the properties of the organizational activities and condi- tions, their resulting human outcomes and experiences, and the constituents involved.'XThewprimaryfpurpgse of. this thesis is to develop and empirically evaluate a static model of the properties of organizational , activities and their human outcomes. Such a model would lay a groundwork for the conceptual development and empirical investigation of generalizations concerning causal relations among organizational activities and human outcomes over time and across constituent groups. The proposed model is based on four dimensions which depict the major properties of the phenomena under study--organizational social responses. The first two dimensions are based on the properties of human outcomes and experiences. The first property is the phenomeno- logical source or sphere of the outcome, which has three levels: physical, social, and psychological. The second property of human outcomes is the unit of reception, which has two levels: the individual and the collective. The third dimension of the model is the impacted group or the constituent group affected by the organizational activities and conditions. For reasons of simplicity only two levels of this dimen- sion are considered at this time: employees and society 19 in general. The fourth dimension of the model concerns the causal sequence between organizational social policy and the quality of human life. There are two main causal sequences of interest: the resulting organizational activities and conditions and the subsequent human out- comes and experiences. The specific areas of investigation of this research is the validation of the proposed four dimensional model and the contents of the model. Results of the research should indicate possible modifications for the static model and future directions for research in the study of the causal relations between organizational activities and human outcomes. The proposed static model is hypothesized to descriptively account for and subsume previous empirical and theoretical notions concerning the relations between organizational activities and human outcomes. That is, I ffhe model can descriptively explain ideas and findings in such field; as quality of work life, job satisfaction, quality of life, and corporate social responsibility. Indeed, the model is intended to integrate such fields and subsume them. Furthermore, the development of the contents of the static model should be based on develop- ments in all these fields. The purpose of this chapter is to develop the contents of the static model of organizational activities and human outcomes using 20 developments in these diverse fields of study. The first section of this chapter will review the major studies in the area of quality of life. The purpose of this subsection will be to identify the major elements and factors of quality of life. The second section will review the major studies in the field of quality of work life and job satisfaction. The third section.will concentrate on studies in the field of corporate social responsibility. The intent of this third section will be to help identify those organiza- tional activities and human outcomes which are relevant to both employees and society-in-general. The fourth and last subsection of this chapter will integrate these three research fields and propose the full contents of the static model based on the literature reviews. Quality of Life Indicators Recently material well being has fallen into dis- favor as the major index of quality of life. Campbell et a1. (1976) have noted a gradual but consistent decline in reported levels of satisfaction in the U.S. from 1957 to 1972 at the same time that economic and social indica- tors went up. Liu (1975) reports that dissatisfaction with the quality of life in the U.S. tends to rise more than proportionally with real per capital income and technological advancement. Some researchers claim that this decrease in satisfaction results from declines in 21 other non-economic areas of life. Hobbs (1971) believes that economic growth has led to mixed blessings, some of which include pollution, crime, over-crowding, and disharmony in human relations. Sheldon and Moore (1968) believe that economic expansion and urbanization have produced serious social strains. These perspectives are examples of the view that quality of life is composed of a number of components of life with material well-being as only one aspect. Some cross cultural and cross regional studies, though, show that economic conditions are not correlated with self reports of well- being. Cantril (1965), in his now classical study of quality of life in a large number of countries, found that although there is a weak relationship between income and satisfaction within nations, there are no consistent significant differences in life satisfaction across countries even,with the large average income differences between countries such as Egypt and West Germany and Nigeria and Japan. Schneider (1975) found no signifi- cant correlation between the economic characteristics of American cities and measures of life satisfaction. Economic conditions seem to be little related to reports of satisfaction and where there may exist such a relationship it is probably due to comparisons to some reference group (Easterlin, 1974). Attempts to define quality of life have been 22 numerous and often conflicting. Most researchers agree that the concept is multidimensional and complex (Levi and Anderson, 1975; McGranahan et al., 1975; and Steelman and Evans, 1976). Campbell et al. (1976) believe that the concept is a "vague and ethereal entity" and Dalkey et a1. (1972) express that the concept is used usually as a mere slogan. The Environmental Pro- tection Agency (1973) states that the concept suffers from a lack of consensus of definition. The response of most researchers is to acknowledge the state of confu- sion of the concept and then go on to operationalize and measure it (Dalkey et al., 1972). There are, however, a number of writers who attempt to directly define quality of life. Gitter and Mostofsky (1975) define quality of life as a set of conditions of a person's day to day life. Campbell et a1. (1976) describe it as the perceived discrepancy between aspira- tions and achievements. McCall (1975) concludes that a person will be satisfied depending on the extent to which his basic needs and major wants are fulfilled. Coleman (1975) observes that quality of life is the amount of happiness, comfort, satisfaction, and general living condition in a person's life. Liu (1975) defines it as a subjective name for the well-being of people and the environment they live in. A number of researchers define quality of life as the composition of a number 23 of partial satisfactions with aspects of their lives. Humphrey (1967) states that high quality of life infers high standards in one's actions, attitudes toward life and people, concern for others, and the best use of one's time, talent, and abilities. Campbell and Converse (1975) define it as a composite measure of physical, mental, and social well-being as perceived by each individual, and of happiness, satisfaction, and gratifi- cation. A large amount of the current research in quality of life measures the concept by asking respondents to rate their perceived happiness or satisfaction with a number of aspects or domains of their lives such as neighborhood, family, house, and work (Abrams, 1973; Andrews and Withey, 1976; Andrews and Crandall, 1975; Harwood, 1976; Rodgers and Converse, 1975; Liu, 1975; Wilson, 1969; and Dalkey et a1. 1972). There are a num- ber of disagreements with this approach. McCall (1975) states that quality of life is not a sum of happiness of life domains but is the existence of necessary conditions for happiness. Basing his argument on measurement theory, Bunge (1975) states that an indicator is a symptom of some condition and is just one component of a vector which points to some condition of something. Bunge then states that a measure of a construct is not an operational definition but is a hypothesis which needs 24 theory and empirical validation. Although Bunge fails to provide a theory that explains the concept of quality of life, he indicates a need for research on the psycho- logical nature of well-being. Research is just beginning on the psychological nature of well-being. A few interesting results have been found on the nature of self-reported well-being. Bradburn (1969) found two independent measures of affect, positive affect and negative affect. Using his "affective balance" scale, Bradburn found that reports of negative affect were uncorrelated with reports of positive affect. He concludes that happiness is the combination of the absence of negative affect and the presence of positive affect. Another interesting result of research in self reported happiness is Campbell et al.'s (1976) finding that self reported happiness is correlated negatively with age, and self reported satis- faction positively with age. The researchers conclude that there are two aspects involved in reports of well being, affective and cognitive. Cognition is tapped by satisfaction measures and affect by measures of happiness. Thus younger people are happy but dissatis- fied because they feel good about their lives but think worse of it. Campbell concludes that the human experience of well being is better defined as three aspects, affect, satisfaction, and stress. 25 Shin and Johnson (1978) formulated a number of theoretical positions on avowed happiness and then attempted to empirically determine their predictive contribution to overall happiness. Eliminating two historical definitions of happiness, namely, the hedonistic model of short term moods of gaiety and elation and to be happy with or about something, the researchers state that happiness includes all human needs, interests, tastes and demands, and a harmonious combination of these elements. Shin and Johnson (1978) then identify four main sources of happiness. The first is having certain things that give passive pleasures. This source is materialistic and is historically related to the idea of Epicurean ideals. The second source, developed from the ideas of utilitarians, is the satis- faction of desire that emanates from needs and wants. The third source,developed from Aristotle's eudaimonia, is from creative activity and the fulfillment of one's capacity. A fourth source of happiness originates in an individual's comparisons with other persons and past experiences. Using a multiple regression procedure, only the first two sources were found to be related to overall happiness. The four happiness sources are of particular interest because they relate to the four of the six categories in this study. The materialistic and need fulfillment sources relate to the Provisional 26 and Environmental outcome categories. The creative activities and fulfillment of one's capacities corres- pond to the Individual Development category. Lastly, the social comparisons correspond to the Interindividual Consistency category. The above brief excursion into possible psycho- logical processes of self-reported happiness demonstrate that the researcher cannot take for granted that there exist congruence in varying individual reactions, including cognitive and affective, to the environment. The nature of these psychological reactions is of high research priority. However, it is the connection between the physical and social environment and the individual which is the primary concern in the study of quality of life. A number of theorists (Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers, 1976; Andrews and Withey, 1976; Strumpell, 1976; Land, 1975) develop conceptual models of quality of life around the Lewinian notion that behavior is a consequence of the environment and the individual. For example, Campbell et al.'s model is a causal sequence from the objective attribute, the perceived attribute, the evaluated attribute, and finally domain satisfaction. Once a model of‘this sort is developed, the next step for the researchers is the development of a list of quality of life factors, indi- cators, or components (Environmental Protection Agency, 27 1973). Ayers (1972) states that there are four sets of classification criteria for the development of categorical models. They are: the classification be unambiguous; all possible cases be covered; the number of classes be small enough to manipulate but large enough to permit detail; and an entity must be homogenous within a class but differentiate from entities from other categories. The primary means, in the literature, of developing categories is the researchers' own reflections on the domains of life, which may include family, work, community, etc. The primary problem.with this approach is that each of these domains contribute to different outcomes sought by individuals.. Quality of life does not necessarily develop from satisfaction with these domains but instead is derived from the universe of human out- comes which are generated from these domains. A person may report total satisfaction with family life even though he may have next to none because he obtains his desired outcomes from other life domains. This study proposes that quality of life is derived from the existence of a number of outcomes an individual desires, the intensity of the outcomes present, and the aspira- tion and importance levels of these outcomes. The human outcomes may emanate from domains of living, such as family and work, but it is the human outcomes which 28 lead to satisfactions and happiness. Hence, a model of quality of life should be based on human outcomes and experiences and not domains of life. The domains of life are conditions through which an individual obtains desired outcomes. Each domain of life may be instrumental for any combination of the six basic categories of human need and goal outcomes. Each domain, though, principally provides for outcomes in one of the categories. For example, recreation.may provide principally for Individual Development category, government for Interindividual Consistency, health ser— vices for Provisional outcomes, and land use for Environ- mental outcomes. A number of these "life domain areas" and their principal category of outcomes which they provide for are listed in Table 2. These factors, cate— gories, or domains are developed by a number of researchers for the purpose of developing indicators of quality of life (Andrews and Withey, 1976; Dalkey et al., 1972; Flax, 1972; Abrams, 1973; Anderson, 1978) or for policy decisions (U.S. Department of H.E.W., 1969; Report of the White House Conference on Youth, 1971; E.P.A. Fellows, 1973; Economic Council of Canada, 1971; OECD, 1973; Goals for America, 1960). Table 2 includes those studies and others and indicates their stated uses and their method of construction. After an examination of Table 2 it is fairly 29 {ma 1. mmmdum-wqdunrm. lsllvuully leashes o-uuu-uy leashed I“ mm 0! sass-r les net Provisional MID-u! lass-reus- asset-rm tools (or merit-vols. sensuous-ess- 0! Wm leslvueel “visa Coalitions lee-Mn \e-z Presl- ler col-assis- lasso-s: [wees “can cl ssselal s—lu-v of hassle-l m Ana 5 Science mus moose (4-! Ian lu- “In L loll-re (1960) Court! . .1. lane era-rise [as—u sltee- 1.11! M char-cm loam goals Political seals sssulvs see by turns—u us- Sell ceases-es [seen-steal Lesa-she b- be“ resorts Joe sun-ans- ates-else conserv- Ceeeral seals balm (19“) Dev-loo e co.- DalsM tech- lhslth srsc- Acuutv toe runs- srsssestss est uses ullssec- I-vslsv mm of '1.0.L. keen“ scales U.S. less. of annua- s! nausea halts last-Ase Metal ssvt- wllaeetclssnsn 5 Public order .1 m (10”) n.o.L. lee lee- lei-es 6 Arts rs—s alt-etio- eaten Social scores hveny lselal .elusy Dre-man levele- sel- [elected '1 mm.- lluuss Physical .vi- loam ensues- 11970) can lease a neat" halter Ida's rel—st .t neeer‘le health luau-rs" “salty use-e1: to.- ‘Ibsslos Coo—ts melts lee-Isles .l laurel Mase- [loses-sued I-ls Press-s: :11 a! Cessna s! “lac-sum mu nun .st hiatus- - essessstss (197!) likeness to iv a.“ heel pass A - “use - ear - tents-Hal - adv-1y oer-1: psllcv ass - sees-Isl - ' “I? love-n - Isl! sees-ess- - lass - Issac-cuss! Iasalm s nines-c7 sues he Ihas Invites- snerlty t [lessen] Cocteau were. as - I‘ll: «do! fine! luau - [elm In“ use - u— !mes at al. Construct a Dav-lees! Ivy lee-n 'nlly lac-Isles Mical and Cultural MINI- Value ("1!) ~01 In s luv-cusses lsllstou mire-scat lea uncles m Ufltlal firm-l: m- betel ev-tel Jessie-tional Essences tennis! Social rev-tun eve nuts "as (111:) c- Isses Is "melon levies-.1 Isenl the His con-‘I—tl‘ls lee ‘Partlcisaetss Charmin-use 1 lines is U lit-till“. t- I-lev-ss canoe DJ. clues I.- as t-eettvs Hat l-Iev—t Isulv lea-loses Is—aee Pep-lattes heel Janos laud ([912) M sealsl luv 1 use wits-sneaks Mu: salscv Pounce. diam but. |s Mice]. lavish-1 tel not-[lily cast-t noes Cons-nos laughs -t A 1’ tion lent-fr Ilse of II.- unaccusto— t lane - sect-(sense Andre-I sea We and fully life has“ been: _I Caves—t “they (197)) «um m. a! chasm Goods 5 services In“! Ila- ‘ Vere-eel health labors accoun- scum ' su- (1971) We 0.0.1.. Issues to halts "leaflets lets-rs best-a assessment bliss ls Irltals slaves I tel sun- [-117 [its unatta- ' doe-tea as- as Dollars services VII,“ 1 M “tom-vs of It: 30 -tssts 2. (csss'dJ. tuna-u, Issstsss 1“ fish! s! has: Us ass-sucks mus-l halos-sud IPA lsltsn but" mmusuuuu s! Isa-s I-tly Isct Ssstslscttsllhystssl (197:) tsssu use n-isss I“: suck! Isctsttssstss Isssssstss ”In": : llystesl sssutty - busts; Isstss - mt- - ssystsst - .ssrtst - .ul q-susy - uncut-s” - nut: sst- vtcss - sssthsuss cm! “HI-C - st: sssttty - uses: saucy - rsltsstss - sslts vssss - ssllctty . sstss nssssss ussssrtss Its- sass-l ascsrtsl usu- Istsctsss vtch lsssltscsssl mue- (1971) sf 0.04. taunt-ls. fists; lsstly scttvtctss 171:1“! lusts sscsttcy - sbtusss huts-st “cusses Isslch ssd ssro - ssscssstysssss sss~l sass! sstscv Closs lrtssss 'sl-s Jos Soctslutsc lhsssl shuts nu abut-s- til Ctssstytty mass m (1913) Oscsntss ssll uu st 2s hush Myths! .- sun. ts sssh «cut sss- a-sss cyst sous-s: use ssctsl csscsrn' cons _ p s as m Issu- sss cssnss to “C ssI-vtsss tn. sssltcy sssssts cm st sort uls. m tsss .- uss. sss ’00 cups- tstsscs tss tutucml Statutes ss Cass-c sssss hstss muo- Mos-ts. Psttcy ssctsl sssst- sl mu Ins. lots-ts sss Mvtstss of us- sss suctsctss buy-s cscrssctss as Mites s! I“ ts 0.8. tsp-n: ssl Wt (197)) ton-urn Cstsstsss - souuus s! sum- unnu- as Ills-n. (102)) stsutttss fos-sssts sass as but as «and sum:- rstsstss tr tsy sf tsss- m sssttcy s! ‘ssnssss Is “1... ltls -sssttc as Isis-s sh ‘srtssss us- ssss map-lost“ “masque-mum tats-sci- ctt st .Issss cslsslscts- “Wt htssss um.- sssss (197)) s! ssussst M ctss m tass- no “as “silos ssscs -m sss “a; .3 mass sssss csu-ttss "ass- (“7” busts-I I. ‘Ists Hit- tsltvtlssl susss‘ m um. “tu— mus ms .sss- lssssstc crusts ssc s! ssstsl tstsss moths! tsstssoss W us- ss- est aslysts W Isstcs labs ssi hum- isststsgtssl lust-sss m ‘W is“ (”711% study st ss suma— my. W m as hos-st mus- httuss m cs— .ss hystsst mu task—s Osttssttysly Iscstyss cs—tcy P‘. «unsu- Isstst sum” as. Nun's Ihstsl. ss-stsy as ctvtc ssst'tttss ass hut-tun . t7 ‘tsstsl ssssrtsy hltttsst s-tsss- m - tstsc-s ssssstsssssy - c’tvtt usstttss - slscsscst mututtss - ”ml mt“! sstssy stss s! 5-stss Ml t: sslscy isssttty of has: 10““! «.1- t 31 tau 1. (sssc'l). “tilt-1h .stsss Csllsectysly but!“ u s! As.- I-- Pun-taut Dudes-m! !nsmuss aunt-n Gus-I sss lasts. . I-sln focus. slsss ndhlsus lets. as luck- lsssnsct—sl bulky us “as. lulssjscst-s ls- ls:- posts unusual tss Maul. cssnm It” (1973) M as can Psts-sl sssssl- It I m .1 o.o.L. ssss ham-t a! In Us" sl ssll mun-n: vtn ans nxy ltts and nut : aura-uls- Iovy ssl links nlu- Issll fins Ins-rt" l-tly Iscrssctss Iss1." [lbs-cu- mn- ll973)~snus MM- any“. ts lulu muo- I-luutss mu .vl ‘11- has“ so Ian-ts lsltatos mulls bsls. ls 5 goals In. I Int 1...: (l) c-lcy sl cylt-scss ss. all (1) sun vs. (1) u vs. ssctsl sssctcy (t) II vs. ssscfl- Issun nu ass-ls- inst lsslch untrus- Asa-s: of ssucs- Hos-ts. Ltls ts v.3. ran-ts- (It?! at n.o.L. uni mslutss tut-u fully luu Has that id C-ssl ‘ssyn-ssnc usslysts s! s ups-rs sl Vctsushln . ttcy or may Casvstss us 9 It Is sl usssl ll Ins-«In Issues ("76) mas-u Isl s ssc s! lust-s Isnsl. Elston nlr ssc mum Ibstul unlu- Mltc Schools lkt-Il 5 nsss 'ltllsstss. Issu- has u- hy‘tn—n Mum hut-ss- ssttucsl ts- Its-ls“ s! \scc-lts-t tty (197i) ssl “'1" Llfs OII’Octlvs 1 0.0.1.. hero-Kl- Isl-Isl ‘ I 1.111 “status hystal "Iss- cum s! s! ”Ml-10.! Pruss- lat-n nun—st 0.0.1.. fist-sus- Soctsl sensua- hrssssl usu- ) Assass- ("ways-logy s! can.“ In- Llls snsccncy Issul ssslch lsustss rs Dtscrtbuclos st ssctsl [sut- nsfls- Isl-n ssrullty Muscles snss- Pollack: mugs-mus Iscs- sss tits-mum Inn-hut" 0-. nuts- susllcy Isctsl nun" Issl .s. as ur- Isstsl ltst'b- Isctsssl bluss lust-u EM Ihtcss Ind my tunes I ms Volts. misus- fl' II- It. m sssstllcy Dec-nos Ds-lsy—t Ins-It: ("7| MW tsslss any-s 'Iusrtsl ssll- Isl-cuss itch lusllsscssl lslrtn ”In lscssss sllsc- (r— ues-r bun Iss-s an ‘Pscclslsulss ts t s-ltcy .slysts st nsssctsl sscsr- Gillsrss hrs-Isl ms s! “I. rsyts- Icy Funny ‘0?- In Isctsltstss scslss us hslzh "ts-ls Ocussusssl sissl ts- w fol. try crssclys suns- Its. hcnutss 32 evident that the quality of life factors and elements developed in the literature can be content analyzed in terms of the two basic dimensions of‘the static model and their levels. The 6 categories of the static model, which define the primary domains of human outcomes and experiences, indicate where various theoreticians and writers place their emphasis in defining quality of life. Comparisons across authors indicate where there is redundancy and where lack of attention has existed. The review of the quality of life literature and the content analysis suggests that the first two dimensions of the static model descriptively accounts for human outcomes and experiences in the realm of society in general. The next section turns the focus of attention to those organizational activities and human outcomes relevant to employees. Quality of Work Li e Indicators The development and research of the quality of work life concept has to a great extent paralleled the work on quality of life. Like quality of life, the literature on quality of work life is in disagreement on an acceptable definition and is diffuse and noninte- grated. Seemingly, both concepts have risen from a need to incorporate noneconomic factors in evaluating and understanding the relationship of the individual to the 33 society or the organization. The term "quality of working life" was introduced by Louis Davis in the late 1960's to refer to the relationship between the worker and his working environment as‘a whole. This aim has continued to flourish; the identification of all the organizational and individual variables which affect the quality of the individual's experience with- - in the organization is the primary objective of the research on quality of work life. Quality of work life has been defined using different sets of outcomes for different relevant groups. Unions think of quality of work life in terms of job availability and security, application of the principle of seniority, equality of treatment, high rates of pay, safe and healthy work conditions, short hours of work and justice in the workplace. Management sees __ it as a tool to increase productivity. ”Government perceives it as primarily an economic issue with impli- cation for training and safety and health. Workers, whose inputs to defining quality of work life has probably had the least effect, define it in a variety of ways and are concerned with a wide range of human outcomes. And lastly, researchers criticize the lack of attention to the interactions of the individual and the organization, the intrinsic outcomes, and the con- text of the larger society (e.g., Davis, 1977). 34 There are three broad types of definitions of quality of work life adopted by researchers in the area. The first type of definition is the extent and quality of certain conditions existing in the work place. Possibly the most comprehensive list of conditions has been developed by Walton (1974): adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy environment, development of human capabilities, growth and security, social inte- gration, constitutionalism, total life space, and social relevance. A second type of definition of quality of work life is the extent to which the work environment satisfies individuals' basic needs. This view is generally taken by organizational psychologists such as Lawler (1975) and Hackman and Suttle (1977). The third type of definition of quality of work life relates to the cognitive and affective reactions of individuals within the work place. Probably the best workable definition of quality of work life incorporates organizational conditions, need satisfaction, and self reported contentment and any interactions of the three. Tihe definition of quality of work life used in this study's proposed model is the extent and quality of existing conditions within organi- zations that provide for outcomes which satisfy human needs and goals relative to the expectations and aspira- tions of individuals and the collective. 35 There haVe been numerous studies of organizational conditions and changes under the rubric of Organizational Development. One typology of organizational innovations directed at quality of work life is outlined by Kuper (1977). Kuper lists the following as major experiments in United States and Europe: flexitime, job enrichment, participative management, autonomous work groups, and labor/management committees. Cummings and Mallory (1977) outline the major quality of work life efforts in the following categories: autonomous work groups, job restructuring, participative management, organization- wide change, organizational behavior modification, flexi- ble working hours, and Scanlon Plan. These two lists are highly similar and indicate agreement on the major quality of work life efforts. A good deal of research on quality of work has centered around the development of categories of major needs and goals which are satisfied at work. Some of the major need theorists who are often cited include Maslow (1954), Alderfer (1972), Erikson (1963), and Herzberg (1957). Hackman and Oldham (1975) have developed what they term "core job dimensions" which affect critical psychological states. The core job dimensions include skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The critical psychological states include meaningfulness, 36 responsibility, and knowledge of results. Burden (1975), in a similar psychological approach to individual reaction to jobs, lists the following psychological requirements of a job: social support and recognition, demanding job, feedback, able to learn, decision making, able to relate to purpose, and desirable future. Table 3 includes some other research on psychological needs satisfied at the work place. Also included in Table 3 are some of the major research and applications of work components or outcomes which relate to quality of work life. As in the previous section on quality of life, the content analysis in this section supports the pro- posed idea that the two dimensional model of human out- comes and experiences descriptively accounts for the research on factors and elements in the field of quality of work life. A cursory look at Table 3 indicates where authors in their field generally place emphasis and where lack of attention exists. For example, a good deal of attention of theoreticians and researchers is focused on those organizational activities and human outcomes relevant to the psychological experiences of the individual such as in job enrichment, advancement opportunities, self esteem, and self actualization. Less emphasis is generally placed on the physical environment and the social spheres of the workers' lives. The next section is devoted to studies in the field 37 !sus 1. asst-t .lysts s! “W ss Onsltty of Us" Ltls. fluid-117 bests“ loss-s hths s! has! Iss toasts-cuss Insists-s1 kw halos-sacs! I-tth st s1. um sf Psych-tut 'sy ss Hort (196” tbs Job Iss- ‘ssslysts ss hssls P's-tio- m'lattss tssss‘ppsscss as In Mb. lP-‘. Inn-tn st s1 lit-st.“ ts mums "ms- - Isles-acts- ”new: (10“) tsst m'llnm's soc-steal Cs-usthsts mum” m- lsctst lssssu mm saswuus- Hut ttsslf 'M "may in. “‘ “ “ Mus (ma) missus tss Inss ss ”may 'mcy so Putt-p sf sslt ”1m. ts-‘h-lss's (1956 lusts ssssls sstsss *m. .l whtsvsssty s1 c1.- ttt-sshtssuhut sl assist-r Issss ssus- sssss Psssttss tsstss tty :lscttss In sss scou- of mm ls! ‘w st s-ssy Mt thought Mttctssttss tn ps1 sstttsu ssd ssthsss Mssssl mu 9st! fulfill-st but-fills scss'ltsbsts may .1 hubs-st stnbslssl esch- .tssssstc ssll- Imus-s1 sslfcssssss Isu- (1971) }- Wants-s fits; fists: Islattssshtss I-ttsssl ssest- sst s! sssss alts.- sss- ~Isslts try his i- schist—st lustvtsssllty Pstttctssttss Gags tsll-cssctsl htyscy Gssssts. ml. Ltst sf ”(assoc-s1 hystcsl bsslth sods! Islstss- Sal! control Inks. sss mm s! wmttvs s! mu.) sud ssss Ssl! s-tsss Jshsst (I!!!) Q.0.U.l.. Hts-soup": seal-1c sscsv- 5s)! usstlty tty Isst sctlvtty sol! ssyslss-ut 'lsslv. secesss Tsstt tmlv-st Tssh ssttslscttsn Hsltss ("71) res-costssl sst-Dssssscssl muss-sans as..- 1.41.“ w- 5.1." .4 “at,“ sssttss sscss- Isscttys s! uttos “at" to on conditions ussssts. tsvssugstsr ssd ssyslo-u 0.0.9.1.. b-s ssssbtl- tttss Istsn ssssrcs- ntttss (or growth Work sod tbs tsul His ssscs luv-ss- (197)) i'hyshslsstssl Ihvstssss It. Isctsl sssssn I-ssstno, M “WV-'9 0 M 0' '50 us tsssgstttss Isshsch ' 3* 0'9! Able to lssrs “a“ lsctstss fits: Isstrsbls lstscs that (1973) ’mtfil ls- tu- lsnunn Cantu! with Job csstsst kart sslsty tsstcsssrs tshss trss sit-Mutts: ttI-s works" sss Hymn-st sss Horns; cssdtttssi ass to rs- ctsl stststn ssssflors trusts; vssl tuss- is! Isst list—y truss cssstttssdc-Iy ssltctss Facial tstsmttoq Osllsct tssly lssstssd lsytrs-sstsl lstmsgtsn gmlgtsncv .4 srscttsss Soc ls} tnvolvsasnl Social sslsy-ucs of sort his to tslsts so msoss Us": stusshsrs Psrttctssttss his cmssttm Mstltuttonsltsv- u I. (.t'd). 38 ldtflO-ll' mild ullscttvslv halal Isa-l nth! s! has! ks Proust-u ’“ lstmulss Ossstsmcv Is:— -I s as. ha ‘1 st mu misty at. (1916) to! tsuvl-l ans 9. Int “It“? ttss ts Its-s s-l crtt 'l’ssll struts-sc- must- tell A‘s-.1 tutu l ssasss houses W ‘ bssI-tstltty bales. of lunch as! lost ntsctslsqu-sos—l Iscu'tty manta-us. lastty ‘tscsssv (19’!) bl u—ntucmpwssszttss of In! slsss sl ‘rtsyssttpssc s-csscy Outs (1111) use sl sls— nil Is-ttv ts .- tt- Earl's! csss lssttsbls tssst- sssts ts sssl- ht. s t Isl! lusts—c -t Icy of m buss-cuss s! Ass-nu Iss— I my st Ills ism Is Us“ mt sift Pvt“ Vt. a“! mu- I-sr (1117) Ltst s! ssssl- tt- ‘Psrttctntt's ts ass aria-s: nus—st ssslttv sf “In [Us sI—s s-ttssss Cuts- (lWIMDt—st— s! -sssss loss-Its ssll- W rsls- Iss st sstlls 0 Mt. stylus- t Aims—st by s! sun-rs! has cuss tt s-t tissue- of sum mt: lit-cs in m m as- lsysly—t l- uh Ids-y lasts— ham Is- tall—ass t mum ts I sl t us.“ st um I t Isl-siss- rssy ass nun-n.- h-ctss Isl-n lsssntttss AsMsy—st mus. csslt- pulley lssssct tar 9st- rI-ssr ussssss s! "at st uto- Iscntty hossstbtltcy ttsss local I tuhl- Isssl run- tlfll) sums and pass ssss ts Inky-st Isss- u-m-u- firs [cull ssl sensu- tn scsvtsss ltts lut- scum- ,ss ssttslsc- suit-s st hush. ‘ st ctas lss las- ml Psrssssl ltts 39 of corporate social responsibility. This area of research is more general than both quality of life and quality of work life. Studies in this field will be content analyzed in terms of organizational activities and human outcomes for both society-in-general and employees. Corporate Social Responsibility Assessment The concept of corporate social assessment is entwined with the definition of organizational social responsiveness. The latter defines the domains of per- formance upon which the audit attempts to measure. As the areas of responsibility of the corporation are continuously shifted so do the criteria of corporate performance. Post (1975) states that the performance of a corporation needs to be evaluated in the context of its status in the environment. Status is the role expectations of the corporation by the larger social environment. These sets of role expectations of corpora- tions within a society develop into models of corpora- tion-society relationships. The models are: legal, market, exploitation, techno—structure, and interpene- trating systems (Post, 1975). In each model the behaviors of an organization are evaluated by different criteria. For example, if a corporation's status is enveloped in a legal model then its adaptive behavior 40 is evaluated by adherence to the rules of the game. If the corporation exists under a market model,then perfor- mance is measured in terms of its competitive behavior (Post, 1975). As Sethi (1975) states, "a specific action is more or less socially responsible only within the framework of time, environment, and the nature of the parties involved." Thus, the assessment of the social performance of a corporation is based upon the role of that corporation within society-~the valence of the elements in the universe of outcomes depends on the particular social system and organization. As noted in the earlier chapters, the domain of corporate social responsibility is expanding. This domain of responsibility is increasing beyond the corporation's traditional economic role to the contribu- tions to the total "life space" of the individual. Ackerman and Bauer (1976) state that "corporate respon- siveness is a movement to make institutions more responsive to human needs...it is a rebellion against measuring progress predominantly in economic and technical terms." This perspective is not meant to imply that corporations have historically averted the fulfillment of human needs but instead implies that as the domain of outcomes sought shifts and expands.it is the responsibility of the corporation to conform to the changing human needs and goals. The Committee 41 for Economic Development in 1971 stated that, "business enterprises, in effect, are being asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of goods and services." Due to the greater recognition of the corporation's wide range of impacts on the quality of life and an expanding role of the corporation within society, the social performance assessment of an organization increasingly needs to be based on an expanding domain of human needs and goals. Despite the recency of the demand for corporate social responsibility assessment and criticisms of the scarcity of quality research in the area of the corporate social audit there are a number of categorizations or typologies of corporate social audits. Bauer and Penn (1972) provide four categories of social audits. One approach is to collect evidence that the corporation is doing no social harm or is not under indictment by a governmental body. A second category is to rely on subjective impressions of knowledgeable and concerned persons. The third approach is to select specific pro- grams and areas of activity, and to descriptively review them in detail. Examples of this third approach includes the work of the Council on Economic Priorities on assessing corporate performance in such areas as air and water pollution, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's work on assessing minority hiring and 42 promotion, and the attitude survey method used by Blum (1958) to measure progress in human relations. The fourth approach is the development of sophisticated quantitative measure of social responsibility. Acker- man and Bauer point out three examples of this last category of social audits. An example is Sater's (1972) proposal to rate:organizations relevant to a number of comparison groups on a number of dimensions of social issues. A second example is Abt's (1972) social audit which is a balance sheet of the company's current and long term social assets and liabilities, and a state- ment of the social gains and losses in the current year. A more recent and extensive typology of social audits is developed by Blake, Frederick, and Myers (1976). Six types are described and examples are given. Type I is called Social Balance Sheet and Income State- ment which attempts to convert social benefits and costs into dollar terms and to develop a social state- ment paralleling a conventional financial statement. Two examples are given: the Abt audit which intends to measure all social benefits and costs and the Linower audit which measures only voluntary expendi- tures. Type II audit is called the Social Performance audit which consists of research based studies of the performance of selected companies in particular I industries on areas of social or political concern such 43 as pollution, minority personnel practices, and war machinery. Two examples given are the work of the Council on Economic Priorities and the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility. The Type III audit is named the Macro-Micro Indi- cator Audit which is a numerical assessment of company social performance compared to a set of indicators developed at national, regional, or local levels. A framework of goals, criteria, and norms for the general community is established at a macro level and is used to compare with similar micro indicators of individual companies. At the point of their writing, the authors give only the proposed studies of Preston and Post (1975), the work of the First National Bank of Minneapolis, and the proposed work of the Urban Strategy Center of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (see Table 4). Type IV is called the Constituency Group Attitudes Audit which attempts to measure preferences and attitudes of groups or constituents which are affected by the corporation's activities and policies in various areas of social concern. The most comprehensive proposal of this approach is by Shocker and Sethi (1975) who adapt a marketing methodology approach of determining priorities for corporate social actions through responses to profiles of social action possibilities. Also a more recent 44 study by Strand, Levine, and Montgomery (1981) assessed the preferences of job seekers for entering organizations based upon organizational personnel and social policies. Type V audit is a category of Government Mandated Audits which numerically assesses corporate performance in mandated areas such as discrimination and pollution, plus descriptions of practices, policies, and organiza— tional characteristics. Agencies such as the Environ- mental Protection Agency, the EEOC, and OSHA all use this approach. The last category of social audits, Type V1, is called the Social Process/Program Management Audit and is advocated, extensively described, and applied to a number of organizations by Blake, Frederick and Myers (1976). The Process/Program Managanent Audit is des- cribed as a "quantitative, descriptive, and social science analytical assessment of organizational per- formance in selected programs having social signifi— cance and impact." The auditors analyze the history of a program, the process of program goal development, the process of inputs-throughputs-outputs of the program, and the process of evaluation. Two organizatons are currently actively using the program mangement audit. One is the Social Audit Research Group at the University of Pittsburgh, and the second is the Bank of America. Dierkes and Bauer (1973), in their attempts to 4S delineate the major issues in assessing corporate social accounting, believe that the concepts developed in social auditing center around four basic dichotomies. Proposals for social audits may be designed either irrespective of their feasibility or for immediate applications. Second, the audits may be for reporting to the public or for internal decision making and enforcement of policies. Thirdly, the social audits may either measure the social impact of all business activities or focus on a specific area, predominantly on a company's social programs. And lastly, there are social accounting methods that report social impacts exclusively in monetary terms, and audits which also include nonfinancial measures. According to Dierkes and Bauer most of the social audit developments can be characterized by these dichotomies and have not been integrated and cross fertilized. The corporate social audits function to delineate the major categories of corporate social activities. As mentioned previously, these activities are directed at both the organizations' employees and society in general. The former activities constitute the organiza- tion's quality of work life activities and the latter activities define the quality of life concerns. Table 4 contains most of the major corporate social audits and the areas of activities and impacts. Inspection of Table 4 reveals a great deal of 46 that. mmdum-mms-ss-mucyhssss. lsssr-lly Illssssl may itncsss busts-fly hairs! Osllscttssty best-st lsltvtsully lscstssl couscttysly Iscstssd I‘D lsvslso- lsu- Dssts— lush- by“b lsts- Csssts- s-nsr syso- hunt-l psrssssl s-tsl —ssl pays sncy Prsytslsss scssssl —ssl s-ssl mus- rsssy Nari-s...“ Ists ttss rsts. ltsortty [is—r hun- rt; l: MING” ts ssstsl .rtts. b trststss cssstttss ss-sttsn tssnz my tsl. us- buy trusts: mums-nus m sssst- t-r-ss- pricing blursl tssttss scttvttts flssrtths ' ‘lhs-s ssscssc nslysts ttsss sslss netst- I—s I (1973) ml sssuy * m t I pus-ct ctvtl rtshn' ss sss esrssr- ssrvssty b—lry hcyslts; rt-tss- sts s-al mutt nus-t lusts.- ttss. Itssr- sdsty l: —t tcy IsstI-ss. ty stssrtty asst- ssscsttss. "mm ' his- slsttsttss. sass trust. s-fl us: tnslys- - C. M tutu. stssh I-ullsl ltsssv-ssusl ttlbsrt Mats. st rysss It-srtty ks—r D-srtss- lsstsgy .4 D! OI ntl'ttt- mun. -1.“ :1. us It.- mt “t1- tI—l Ill-tit) ("13) than t srts hlrtsl L‘s-m Clytl rtms 1‘s“ Duals- trststss (his I" ltrsc Is- lssslss lusts-l us us no huts. busy “ll-1 Dull ‘II “181 ssssrrs- r-nlry ssstrtbsd ssrtlct- Mslssss s! m smss u-ssr- st- suns ' slls (“70 hslts -t Yrs-sssr- Isss-sr tut-s snac- ct- ssrytss ElsMs. lsssuttuuss st :- Int-u. hrs .vt- Its-suns Pas-ct: Fun- Itrt-s sne- mm trtttcs srsss s! sststy b busts mum sultry mum saunt- unlu- Hen: III. DI cs Isa-st Isst. In. 0-10.”. . tlss .st ts sss. rses. “rm sssttls- cuss. ss s—tty ssscsttss. Souls-st buns rtss. sssttss. sutu. "Us . pm. ssvs III-stand Isss sheaths . I-st- ltts. hsslts. tr-sssr- s-t strtu t mum lusts-g. csssss twtstt- lsuI—I Esrssr us trusts; . Pntu- s . ts. Thyssrs tats- sues sl- Gsrsss t wls-ctltcsstss st 'lsvsas Issctsl wry less-ts Urs- Ststssc ssctsl as sew ass-u tut-ts: ssyssss- .rssrs t ttss ts r‘l so.- 0! “ssfi (1910 s-tc smr- .lss w Esnsr -c sfltctss- “in M“ st lsrgs 0.x. try t Insult" cy mu rss fists- Iltssrtty .1 sss sslscy ttss st rs- Mitt rssuss .c ploy—t 'l-ltts l- ! rssslss Ont-cs 5 boss‘- fins-nu. ' tlss stssrtty d nun ts- ssh-t Buss-at muss 47 Issls A. (snr'dJ. tscsrsslly uncut usually Mucus! muss-nu, lost-Id Coliseum" htstvs‘ ls‘tvfl‘u.‘ has!" fiuuttnly local—l lscsr- Issslss- hut-s- tassts- Istsr- Isnlsp- hvtt- Ists- Bats- lmsv 97st- Mt— psrssssl —ul usul tys my Pmtstsss ssrssssl nstsl s-sstsl mttss csscy Issslsr butcsl sssls- Tntstu buy-st nsscrtbs- urns rs-‘h-ttts- Crsstt .1 Its st mu! lusts-1 us. to ssssl sst rsl nscttcss “I“ sssls- usss asssr—sc (HM) sass. eon-r tssss cur-rs. I-csr rlsur- rslsttsss sss ssytrs—tsl "111' and sru str ssttsssl lslsr-sttss sllstrs csstrsl. Inn rslsttsss dtsclsssrs hos-cc sstss um Mutton hit-I 0-- kiss-- "II - srssctas Mr nut-s lstss Ssctsl sdtt mint- W s ml II.- M 10‘ ("16) st an ts ts!- ttss m sssst- ttsss ssltst- ttss m» tss-sl ty st sallsr att- an. .s .lss-ss- ll- Isslcs n sss st-1 Uta-s“ slsfisl “ht Isssstt- st- -lsyusc srssss- Issstss fists- It-rtty u- Isss sti- -t is- hlsy- [r- str M w l7 and Btu-sis hrs-std nuts but not sutu- m Pruitt m sstscy .sssst- I‘ssrtt- tss Ii” I-sss‘ Assrtss- mast-s sm. .4 sum t M! ess- 0er l-lsyss I - Mr qsslt- I- t tnsttt rrtsssss M sststy rslsttsss trot slscs Ins-tin stscrtisq crssttss ty spun-It: st CPA SI for m I'lsv— L cssst- tt ttss s! flstst lsctlttsttsn ("17) w! nsssr-nr rrs ssrssr ru- ttsss rslsctssn ms sssltty tutss rslstt— stttss ts so]... "an Islts 'stsrs t- ts- sssts :- t-cs stsssssl lscsss "s- Inn“ [.1 act].- .0111“ bin-s ssslsgy sscu'tty was t sun“- It! Fry lyslsscs ms- sl lsurssl hust- ass—r- h—tty loll-sto- bur—st Cssssl- m ts lsrss sr—ttss Isa-ss- ts- tssrs csr-ssrsrtsss s-c st Isctslly hlssrs 50th W ' Itssrtttst sssssl Iscrssttss vtcs lsc ssrytss t1 ssssss Isnl Cs-—I~ (1917) rut-ass tsu-rs sstssy ssssrts- ts- .32:- w his, I stcy I.- first. Distru- —t ts htrtss su-ttss tssssc- -rsl Its-smut :7 -t tnsst .ts-ttss tssssussts ms sssssrys- tins 48 overlap between the organizational activities and condi- tions identified in the literature on social audits and those identified in the research fields of quality of work life and quality of life. Very few of the social audits, though, list organizational activities or human outcomes in the domains of interpersonal interactions and social integration for both employees and society- in-general. A great deal of attention of the audits is focused on material provisions, individual develop- ment, and interindividual consistency for employees. These same domains of human outcomes and organizational activities are emphasized for society-in-general, but in addition, physical environmental aspects are also frequently mentioned, including pollution abatement and conservation. These patterns may be indicative of contemporary issues in the field. The next and final section of this chapter will propose the full contents of the static model of organi- zational activities and their human outcomes. The literature on quality of life, quality of work life, and corporate social responsibility reviewed and briefly summarized in Tables 2, 3, and 4 is the primary source for the identification of the proposed elements. 49 Proposed Contents of Organizational Activities and Human Outcomes Model The approach of this study is an attempt to define organizational social responsiveness in terms of the total effect of organizational activities on the quality of life of society and the quality of work life of employees. Quality of work life and life is defined as the intensity and frequency of activities and outcomes which satisfy human needs and goals relative to ever- changing expectations and aspirations. The universe of possible outcomes which affect quality of life origi- nate in the phenomenological existence of individuals in the physical, social, and psychological spheres of life. The purpose of the model is to define the major properties of human outcomes and experiences, their levels, and the resulting categories and elements of the universe of human outcomes which affect the quality of human experience and existence. Once such a structure of human outcomes and experiences is identified, the major elements of human outcomes and experiences that are desired by individuals and collectives in the culture of concern can be listed. The value attached to the human needs as well as the desired outcomes and experiences is relative to the individual, the society, and the culture. The four major dimensions of the model define the 50 universal space of the activities and experienced out- comes that affect quality of life and work. The first dimension is the source of outcomes and has three levels, physical, social, and psychological. These three sources constitute the major spheres of life in which individuals experience outcomes. The second dimension describes the two receptors of outcomes, the individual and the collective.(iThe individual level describes outcomes which are directly received by the individual: whereas collective outcomes affect the entire group directly and only indirectly the individual. For example, the total equity of a system is affected by any one element, and intergroup relations are affected by the change in any one person's perspective. In contrast, the health of any person does not necessarily affect the health of the collective (unless, of course, the illness was environmentally caused, in which case the outcome is collective and not individual). Hence the second dimension of the universe of human outcomes describes the principle of the initial receiver of the outcomes. The source and receiver dimensions of outcomes results in six major categories (Table l). The individ- ually received categories of human outcomes are material provisions, social interactions, and psychological development. The collectively received outcomes are physical environment, social integration, and 51 interindividual consistency. These individual and collective outcomes respectively correspond to the physical, social and psychological sources of the outcomes. The third major dimension of outcomes is the impacted group. The various levels of the impacted group varies with the system under study. In respect to cor- porate social responsiveness, the principal impacted groups are the employees and society in general. Further differentiation of these collectives is possible but is considered impractical in this global study. The levels chosen, though, for the impacted groups dimension defines the collective level of the receptor dimension. The fourth major dimension of the model depicts the causal sequence between the activities of the organi- zation and the outcomes which satisfy human needs and goals. Although the number of levels of the causal sequence may vary with the detail of analysis, practical considerations for this study limits the levels to two. The first level, labeled organizational activities, result from the system outputs from the processing of perceptions of the social environment and the given resources, manage- ment values and goals, and the environmental-organiza- tional context of the system. The second level describes human outcomes and experiences which result from the organizational activities and which fulfill human needs 52 and goals directly. The combination of the four dimensions results in 24 categories of outcomes. These categories and their representative elements are depicted in Table 5. The contents of these categories are developed from the research on quality of life in Table 2, quality of work life in Table 3, and corporate social responsibility in Table 4. Careful attention has been paid to the criteria of inclusivity and exclusivity. The contents of each category are for the most part comprehensive yet non-overlapping. Purpose One of the primary research goals in the fields of quality of work life and organizational social respon- siveness is to identify and test generalizations con- cerning the causal relationships between organizational activities and human outcomes. In order to do so, it has been stated that it is necessary to first build a static model of the properties of human outcomes and experiences and the organizational activities and conditions which affect them. This static model has been developed and described in the previous chapters and sections. It is the purpose of this current research to test the validity of the static model. 53 Table 5. Propossd Contents of Catssortcal Nodal of Organisational Social Responsiveness .lntsrnally Dtrsctad: Quality of Work Lil’s Organisation Activities III-an Outcosss and Exportsncss Individual Collective Individual Oollscttvs rnmusmnu. murmurs. ‘ ' ' r"'aov" 1710M” W Incas Bork ssthsttcs hatsrtsl sscurtty Esthsrics Isnsttts Chatcal and listartal battsr- Chanical and Mo- Physical Gusrsntssd biological ssnt locial hsslth- qloyssst aspoaurss Physical health tulnsas bloyss social III-an factors Physical saisty Ensrgy exposurss sorvtccs sngtnssrtng Physical sacurtty hschantcal ublsncs my: xmuvr mum-rm INTEGMTIVE Social lntsr- M usy c-nt- Social parttctps- lntsnroup rsls- actions cation tion tions Social I-sn rslsttoss Inlaysslorssnh Accsptsncslsoctal Organisational Status nobility national goal sata- tdsnttty Plantatltty for commas Islongtussss/ Acceptance of org- outstds ts- Parttctpattvs ds- trust antcattonal goals volv-snt ctston satin. Iscurtty in social Group tdsnttty Consort" rsuards interaction sum consumer MW“. mm lssulsdss t skill [nutty of rsuard sat across/cas- Equity in outcast Psychological dsvslopnnt systss pstsncs distribution lsrtchsd jobs lsprsssntattvc pro- Lsck of strsss finality of out- Adv-csssnt oppor- sotton of groups Salt control cons opportunity tutty Mats dis- Sal! sctualtsa- Equality of out- Acosptucs of advantaasd troops tion/crouch cosss icr disad- tndtvtdasltty Bork d-ocrscy vantspsd groups consttuttonalt- hast-cratic process htsrnslly Dtrsctsd: Quality of Lita Organisational Acttvtttas II-sn Outcssss and lspsrtsncss Individual Collscctvs lndtvigl 1 iv "ovum "VIM“. MIMI. mama Products t ssrvtcss emanation and hater-1st sscurtty Prassrvatton of Tschnoloatcal daval- rscycltss hstartal bsttsr- rssourcss thsi on]. opssnt Pollution Qata- ssnt Chastcal and bio- - Inloysant ssnt Physical hsslth logical hsalth- Hitctucy Gunny ssrvtcss Physical salary fulnsss and faciltttas Physical nobility Structurss/anvtron— Matty asthsttcs ssnt harsony mm “TIGHT”! 1mm INTEGRATIVE Stable qloyssnt may rsnsral Social participation Col-mics rslsrtons Contributss to cos- .d planning Conatttusnt rsls- Social unity activity Opsn constituant Accsptncslsoctal tions holoyss wards co-rntcstton sstsss Govctnsnt rslations for conunlty Govsrnssntsl rogu- lslomtnssn/trust Intsrnatlnnsl rsis- psrttctpstton lattons Sscurtry in social ttons Pactltttss-co-ustty mittnartonal tstaractton ' lnsgrattm WM. ”Sim mm cams-rm Education Isprsssntattva Education sdvsncs- individual and group Psychological Arts t culturs alloy-ant ssnt rights kisses Constitusnt rsprs- Cultural activities Equity in outcnns nsvslopssnt of ssntatton Scientific distribution oonsussr sophistt- Minority bustnsss sdvsncassnt Equality of outccn-s tlcstton transaction lndtvtdualt ty opportunity Prosots national Donocratic processes dasocrscy METHOD Procedures The development and refinement of elements in each of the theoretical clusters and the validation of the hypothesized cluster structure follows three methodological steps. First, after the theoretical development of the cluster structure (i.e., the 24 cate- gories), a comprehensive literature review of the research in quality of life and social indicators (Table 2), quality of work life and job satisfaction (Table 3), and corporate social responsiveness (Table 4) was content analyzed to determine (a) if the categorical structure could account for the various elements and domains of quality of life and work and organizational activities in the literature, and (b) the various elements in each categorical domain. The (a) task was found to be successful, the various empirical and theoretical facets of quality of life and work in the literature consistently were categorized and indicated differences in emphasis on the categories by the various studies. Although this procedure lends only face validity to the model, it does indicate that a relatively simple analy- tical structure (4 dimensions) can account for twenty years of conceptualization and empirical validation S4 55 in interdisciplinary and diffuse areas of study. The (b) task, identification of the items in each of the conceptual categories, resulted in four major elements in each of the categories as listed and described in the previous chapter. The final list of 96 elements was derived through content analyzing and subcatego- rizing the elements from the literature in each of the categories. The resulting four elements in each cate- gory are thus based on exclusivity and comprehensiveness and represent the basic universe of content (Guttman, 1944) of the categories. The second step in testing the theoretical model and the elements of the categories employed the use of experts in the area of industrial and organizational psychology and organizational behavior. A number of these experts on the campus of Michigan State University were sent a description of the four dimensional, 24 cate- gory model of corporate social responses and a randomly ordered list of the elements in the model identified through the literature review. Each expert was asked to write-in each element into a blank structural table of the categories similar to Table 5. Each item was analyzed in terms of the percentage agreement of raters in the various category assignments. The most frequent category mentioned for each firm indicated agreement or disagreement with a priori category assignments. 56 The degree of agreement indicated either a need for rewording of the item or possible interdependence of interrater agreement of the item placements, conceptual validity of the model structure, and item wording and content prior to implementation of more empirically rigorous validation procedures. The expert placement task is referred to as Study 1 in the results section. After the contents of the model were identified and preliminarily tested in the expert placement survey, which is referred to as Study 1, a more empirically rigorous study was initiated. Thus, the purpose of Study 2 was to validate the hypothesized cluster structure using concepts developed in measurement theory. Measure- ment theory deals with the relationship between the theoretical constructs and the indicators or fallible measures of these constructs. This relationship can be cast, for example, in the language of cluster analysis (Spearman, 1904) or congeneric tests (Joreskog, 1971, 1978). The transition from theoretical constructs to empirical measures cannot be considered a process of operationalization but rather a process of hypothesis testing (Bunge, 1975). The differences between the theoretical construct and the measure of the construct is referred to as "error" which has two sources: random- ness in a particular response and consistent idiosyn- cracies in the respondents (Nunnally, 1978). 57 The major constructs of the model are the social responses of the organization toward six conceptual categories for both quality of work life and quality of life as differentiated by organizational activities/ conditions and outcomes/experiences which satisfy human needs and goals. Each of these 24 theoretical constructs are measured by four items. The sum or average of these four items form the indices or scales of the constructs. Specifically, it is hypothesized that the items within each category sample the item domain (Tryon, 1939) or the universe of content of each construct (Guttman, 1944). To the extent that these items within each cluster share a common core, the unidimensionality of the clusters and the validity of the theoretical constructs and the model are tested (Nunnally, 1978). It is assumed that the relationship between the items and the constructs is linear (Guttman, 1944). The cluster analytic approach (Tryon, 1939) used in this study is based on testing a priori cluster struc- tures through a particular cluster analytic procedure called "oblique multiple groups factor analysis" (Gor- such, 1974; Harmon, 1976; Nunnally, 1978; Hunter and Gerbing, 1978). The purpose of the procedures is to test the unidimensionality within the a priori clusters through evaluation of the factor loadings, the correlations of items and factors, and the correlations of the factors. 58 The computer software package used to estimate these parameters is PACKAGE (Hunter and Cohen, 1969). The items within the hypothesized unidimensional cluster were tested for internal consistency, parallelism to other constructs, and homogeneity of content. Instrumentation The set of items that are cluster and factor analyzed consist of the 96 quality of life and work activities and experiences developed from the conceptual model and the literature review and refined by the expert placement survey. The items are listed in a copy of 1 the survey in Appendix A. Two responses were requested g for each of the 96 items. On a five point Likert-type scale, respondents were requested to indicate the extent of their organization's: (l) commitment of resources (money, persons) to the activity or experience, and (2) effectiveness in implementing the activity. Since extent of involvement and commitment to the activity or experience is the primary dependent variable, the commitment responses are used in the cluster and factor analyses. The effectiveness responses are analyzed only in terms of descriptive statistics. Specifically, average discrepancies between commitment and effectiveness res- ponses will be analyzed. Nunnally (1978) states that there are three aspecfs 59 of the process of scale development and validation: (l) specifying the domain of items of the constructs, (2) determining the extent the items in the specified domain correlate and, (3) determining if one, some, or all measures of such constructs act as though they measure the construct. In this study, the first process was carried out by the theoretical development of the model, the content analysis of the literature, and the analysis of expert agreement on the categorization of the items. The second process was completed through the evaluation of the unidimensionality, reliability and factorial structure of the 96 items in the scales. The third process, concerns the convergent validity of the scales. Alternative Measures Campbell and Fiske (1959) indicate that construct validity is demonstrated when alternative measures of similar or related constructs correlate and the measures of theoretically unrelated constructs do not correlate. The former is referred to as convergent validity and the latter as discriminant validity. Campbell and Fiske propose a systematic approach to the evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity through the use of multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) of correla- tions. Organizational social responsiveness to the quality 60 of work life of employees has a number of implications for employee affective, cognitive, and behavioral res- ponses. Job satisfaction has been found to be related to organizational and job conditions and outcomes (e.g., Herzberg et al., 1957: Porter, 1962; Vroom, 1964). Employee turnover and job satisfaction have been con- sistently found to be negatively related (Vroom, 1964; Porter and Steers, 1973; and Locke, 1975). When there are favorable job conditions and outcomes, absenteeism is less likely to occur (Vroom, 1964; Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Porter and Steers, 1973). Other employee reactions related to quality of work life include work stoppages, strikes, accidents, and employee theft. All these employee reactions indicate the extent of employee withdrawal versus commitment (Porter et al., 1974; and Steers, 1977). Thus, eight items will be used to measure the construct of behavioral commitment to the organization: the extent of absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, work stoppages, accidents, strikes, employee theft, and perceived employee satisfaction. A number of alternative measures of corporate social responsiveness toward society are also possible. It is expected that organizational social responsiveness is related to company performance ratings (Reiman, 1975); that poor quality of social business practices may result in consumer boycotts; that socially irresponsive behavior 61 may result in the breaking of government regulations; that poor social business practices will result in either lawsuits or criminal investigations; and that consumer complaints also indicate low corporate social responsive- ness. These five behavioral reactions of societal members are used to formulate another scale referred to as constituent problems. In addition to the 96 items of the principal indices and the items requesting the extent of employee and con- stituent problems, there are twelve items which directly measure the six categories of quality of life in society and the six quality of work categories. Also, there are two global measures of corporate responsiveness toward quality of work life and quality of life in society. Additionally, included in the questionnaire are items requesting the number of specialists in various areas of quality of work life and quality of life. For, example, the number of specialists at corporate head- quarters in compensation, employee development, and environmental pollution and conservation are requested. Specialists in each of the 6 quality of work general categories and 6 quality of life general categories are requested. These items are listed in the survey in Appendix A. Other items in the survey include organizational 62 characteristics such as assets, number of locations, and number of employees. Organizational environmental characteristics are measured by such items as percent of sales to various markets and by items requesting the respondent to indicate the extent of influence of various constituent groups such as unions and consumers. Also included in the survey is a list of organiza— tional responses to constituent demands which include coopting members of the constituent groups, lobbying, and public relations. Sample The population for which the measurement instruments in this study were designed is all large industrial and nonindustrial companies or firms in the United States. Previous research efforts which have identified this same population have employed various sampling techniques. Krishnan (1973), in a study of business philosophy, used two samples: survey of subscribers to the Harvard Business Review, and all manufacturing organizations employing over 100 employees in a large midwestern industrial area. Parket and Eilbert's (1975) study of corporate social responsibility activities, sampled the entire list of industrial firms in Fortune's list of the top 500 industrial firms. The same investigators (Eilbert and Parket, 1973), in a survey study of the corporate responsibility officer, mailed questionnaires 63 to 400 firms randomly selected from Forbes list of 798 biggest companies in the U.S. Buehler and Shetty (1976), in a study of corporate responses to social change, sampled all 1250 firms on Fortune's list of industrial and nonindustrial firms. In a study of executive opinions on social responsibility, Holmes (1976) used a stratified random sample of the 500 largest industrial firms and 50 largest nonindustrial firms in six categories. Before deciding on a sampling approach for this study, the sample size needed to be considered. (The size of the sample influences the reliability of the sample statistics as estimates of the population param- eters. In an investigation of correlation matrices and cluster structures as in this study, a sample size of at least 100 and preferably 200 or more subjects is desirable (Hunter and Gerbing, 1978). Given a target of 200 subjects, then a return rate was estimated. Parket and Eilbert (1973) had a return rate of 232, Buehler and Shetty (1976) had 192, and Holmes (1976) had 342. Buehler and Shetty (1976) analyzed the major reasons for firms not responding. There were three major reasons companies stated for nonresponse: (a) too costly to complete, (b) company policy prohibits participation, and (c) data not readily available. In a cover letter sent along with the questionnaire in this study, these three reasons for noncompliance were handled through 64 three statements. First, anonymity and confidentiality was emphasized. Second, the questionnaire was introduced as a diagnostic feedback instrument as well as a research tool. Third, no hard statistics were requested, only the knowledgeable and informed perceptions of a qualified high level executive. Given this approach, a modest estimate of the return rate was around 25 to 30 percent. in order to obtain a usable sample size of about 200, 750 firms were sent questionnaires. Combining the requirements of mailing to 750 firms and obtaining a representative sample, a sampling approach was chosen similar to that used by Holmes (1976) who received 192 usable returns. ”A stratified random sample of Fortune's list of the 1000 largest industrial firms and 50 nonindustrial firms in six categories was used. A total of 450 industrial and 300 nonindustrial firms were mailed the questionnaires. This approach allowed further analyses by type of organizationg A copy of the questionniare mailed to the executives is in Appendix A. Respondents The survey instrument was mailed directly to the CEO or president of the company who was requested to forward the survey to an executive knowledgable of cor- porate activities which affect employees and outside (55 «ca 0N Ne 0 AA «A n on c NN n ON a NN nu N «such .uuusoa .u so nounoum mu mN on c: «a snack o n a Nd n acquauusuocs: a e N N soon N c «suucscwh vsmuqsus>un N u e n N ucqxcss n n n o . nouuquuua m N n c N cemusuuocncsuh ~ n m acaaanuuz a c N oucsuoacu Nunaoucu uuuuueua nuance: .u .cuu unsounuuh .nuum oun> announces no .una sou> soucom so .uuscu l scuuqnom .co«u~uoa a auucsccu As nucsvccaaoz uncuco>c~ uo csovxsuun .o sassy 66 constituents or to complete the survey himself. A total of 165 executives responded to the survey, giving a res- ponse rate of 22 percent. Of these returns, 144 were codable--a usable response rate of 19.3 percent. Table 6 contains a breakdown of the 144 respondents by position and industry. The greatest number of respondents were Senior Vice Presidents, who represented 28 percent of the respondents, followed by Directors or General Managers (16 percent), Vice Presidents (13 percent), and Managers (13 percent). Chairpersons or Presidents repre- sented eight percent of the identified respondents and Project or District Managers, three percent. Nineteen percent of the respondents' positions were not specified. The relative frequency of respondents in the six service industry classifications and one manufacturing category were compared in order to test for the represen- tatives of the responding sample. A significant X2 of 50.65 at the p .05 level was obtained. Manufacturing type organizations had the least response rate (11.62) and transportation the highest rate (402). Of those reporting their department or division in the organization, 82 percent.were in personnel, human rela- tions or resources, or a related departmentmsuch as person— nel research or organization development. The remainder of those reporting their department were in public relations, corporate strategy, or a related department. 67 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION An outline of the results section is presented in Table 7. Results are reported for two studies. The first study consisted of the expert placement survey. The placement survey requested a number of graduate students and professors who are knowledgeable of organi- zational behavior to place the 96 quality of work and life activities and experiences into the 24 categories of the model. The second study consisted of the analysis of the Quality of Work and Life Inventory: A Diagnostic Survey which was completed and returned by 144 corporate executives. Two results sections for the Inventory are presented. The first or primary analysis contains three subsections. The first subsection is the a priori multiple groups analyses which attempted to validate the proposed structure of the categorical model. The second subsection of the primary analysis consists of exploratory factor analyses of the inventory items and subsequent cluster analysis based on the blind factor analyses. The third subsection of the primary analysis consists of correla- tional analyses of the clusters developed in the second subsection and a number of related organizational and environmental variables. Table 7. Study 1. Study 2. 68 Outline of Steps in Research Process Expert Placement Survey Quality of Work and Life Inventory A. Primary Analysis 1. A priori multiple groups analysis. 2. Exploratory factor and cluster analysis 3. Correlation analysis of clusters and related variables B. Secondary Analysis 1. Comparisons of average commitment and effectiveness responses of all respondents on quality of work and life activities and experiences 2. Comparisons of average commitment responses of manufacturing and service industries to quality of work and life activities and experiences 69 The secondary analysis of the inventory focuses on the mean commitment and effectiveness responses of the 144 executives to the 96 quality of life and work items. The first subsection compares the average commit- ment responses of manufacturing organizations with those of service organizations. The second subsection of the secondary analyses compares the average commitment res- ponses of all respondents to the average self-reported effectiveness rating. The results section is then followed by a short summary. Studyil: Expert Placement Survey A number of MSU graduate students and professors in organizational behavior and psychology were sent a survey which requested them to place each of the 96 items listed in Table 5 into the 24 categories as depicted in Table 5. A total of 45 surveys were sent out--thirteen surveys were returned. Three of the responses were uncodable leaving ten codable responses-~a usable return rate of 22 percent. The ten usable responses were from three professors, three PhD level students, and four master's level students. There were five responses from the Psychology Department, four from Management and one from Labor and Industrial Relations. The analysis entailed the determination of the most frequently mentioned category for each activity 70 or outcome. Table 8 contains all the organizational activities and outcomes listed according to their most frequently mentioned category by the ten respondents. Table 8 consists of 96 items and 24 categories. The original a priori categorization scheme by this researcher listed four items per category. There were actually four different surveys, each with three items per category used in the placement task and one item per category used as an example. Hence, for any item there were from seven to nine usable responses. The relative frequency of each item's most often mentioned category is in parentheses to the right of each item. If there is a tie for the placement of an item, this is indicated by a "t". A doubleasterisk, "**”, next to an item indicates that the most frequent placement of the item in the 24 categories is the same as the a priori or hypothesized placement. A single asterisk, "*", indicated an agreement with alriori placement if the distinction between A/C's (activities and conditions) and O/E's (outcomes and experiences)is relaxed (i.e. , considering only the six QOWL categories and six QOL categories). The percent of items in perfect agreement (i.e., in the 24 categories) with the a priori placement is 77 percent (74 of the 97 items). If one half of the ties are not considered, then the agreement rate is 71. Table 5 . Expert Plac-ent of Quality of Bork and Life It‘s in A Prior: Categories. Quality of Bork Life iIDEZIIELJHELlllllllfifiifilS1EilSEBJEIZIEEJEEEEEJLJZEEEL MSICAI. novrsross PHYSICAL mm Directed at Elam : PHYSICAL WINS PETSICAL mmsm ”intone (.50).1 “sechanical *Isatarial sacurity(7$) “asthetic experience (63) “guaranteed anhience (43) ”Physical health (80) Work esthatics (50) .ploysnt (86) ”claims and “material M'phyaical security (29-t) ”fringe benefits (88) bettersent (71) Whysical safety (50) “energy level contort (38-t) exposures (88) ‘haalthfulnnss of anviroment (50) m factors (50) SOCIAL moss SOCIAL mance socm. 1M8 SOCIAL MOI decision nakinaOO) intergroup “Zmy “social involv-ent trust (30) relations (38) comicacion (63) (63) Worganisational "ha-an relations(63) 1""sroup reuards(38) identity (75) “flexibility for constituent fl'group identity (57) I outside involv-ent representation(38) “organizational goals ! (26-t) “uployee/ acceptance (50) . *sacurity in social organisational l interactions (63) goal uthanges($0) 'L d-ocratic richta ( 38) I PSYOIOLOCICAI. mm MWICAL WNW“ ! DEVELOPMENT CONSISTM 0mm CONSIS‘IENCY l ”skill “equity of syst- (88) “stress (88) "equity in outcoses (70) : developsat (50) Mfacilities for “self status nobility (33) l "advancesent disadvantaged (25) actualization (88) “equity of outcoses (50) opportunity (38) M*representative social esteem (68) Work dasocracy (38) "accept prosotions (50) 1Neal! aste- (lOO) Ml"equality of outcose individualityUS) 1"'self control (83) opportunity (43) participative social services (30) “enriched Jobs (83) Directed at Society: Quality of Life ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND coworrross (A/Cs) ' PHYSICAL rsovrsrnss PHYSICAL zuvrtonnzsr ourconrs AND txrtnrtncrs(o;t£)sarrsrrrnc autos AND GOALS PHYSICAL Pnovrsxous I PHYSICAL swvrnonqtnr’l’ "products & Services (50) “technological de- veloosnnt (SO) *‘atficiency (38) co-anity renewal (SO-t) "contrib . con. ser- *‘setarial better-ent | *‘oreservation (50) 0 ‘ vices (50) "conaervation "pollution abatmnt (75) facilities-com- nity integration (60) SOCIAL INTERACTIONS “esoloyea rewards for co-. participation (:0) “contribution to unity activities (33—t) SOCIAL uncut-Ion “acceptance of gov't regulation (71) ninority bus. transm- actiona (40) representative as— ploysent (38) “open constituent co-inicatioMZS-t) “nultinational in- parialisn (ZS-t) PSYCHOIDGICAL DEVEL- om “contrib. scienca(38) “contrib Educ. (63) “consumer sophisti- cation (IS-t) "contrih arts and culture (50) INTERINDIVIDUAL COHSISI'DICI J * democratic process . es (ZS-t) “prosotion national desocracy (40) f (57) 1' awlovsen, t (50) 1 I fi‘ohysical safety (50)! M'physical health (75) ”material security (75) SOCIAL moss “social participa- tion (38) “security in social interactions (67) ! E i i M‘colllm esthetics (80)! “health fulnasa (50)! “physical nobility ' (50) g * structures-Mirna sent harsony (38) . ! l I SOCIAL Intactarroa I “'relations with con-' sticuants (ZS-t) 1Winternational rela- tions (63) stable esploysant (25) “governsent relations (33-t) M('mansnity relations (ZS-t) s 50 PSYCIDLOGICAI. DEVEL- arm-r "cultural activities (38) social estee- (SO) ”scientific advance- nent (50) Mindividuality (88) “educational INTERINDIVIDUAI. consrzncr ‘ ”ind. & group rights{ (57) ”legality of antenna opportunity (57) “equity in outcomes (43) advance-T ‘1 sent (75) M-In¢li.catas perrect acre-ent with a priori placasent. Lindicataa sue-ant with collapa acro C A 8. l-l.argeat percent of aspart‘ifiégglfi-fg in pat-ugh: saga/Ry? I 71. Table 5 . Expert Placaent of Quality of Bork and Life It‘s in A Prior: Categories. Quality of Both Lita PETSICAL PROVISIONS PHYSICAL mm *‘natarial security(75) “asthatic experience (63) Directed at Biases: PHYSICAL rsovismls “isms (5O)1 “sechanical "guaranteed .hiance (43) *‘physical health (80) Work asthatics (50) splay-at (86) “missions and Material “physical security (29-t) "fringe beaeiits (88) exposures (88) bettersent (71) “energy level “physical safety (50) contort (38-t) ‘hnalthfulnass of anviroment (50) “ht-an factors (50) SOCIAL murmur decision naking(30) social sea-Vices (30) “enriched jobs (83) ; I 1_ I I seem mass :0an manor intergroup ”Z-uny “social involv-ent trust (50) I relations (38) co-inication (63) (63) “organisational I “ht-an ralationa(63) “group reuarda(38) identity (75) I inflexibility for constituent m”group identity (57) I outside involv-ent representation(38) ”organizational goals I (26-t) “gloyee/ acceptance (50) I 'sacurity in social organisational I interactions (63) goal euchanges(50) E dfiratic rights ( 38) I PSYCHOLOGICAL WIVIDUAL MMICAL WIVIDUAL I DEVELOPED?! CONSISI’BICI 13mm CONSISI'ENCI I “still “equity of systan (88) “stress (88) "equity in outcones (70) I developth (50) ”facilities for “self status nobility (33) I “advancuent disadvantaged (25) actualization (88) “equity of outcoses (50) I opportunity (38) “representative social sateen (68) |‘uorln: dasocracy (38) “accept prosotiona (50) “self aste- (lOO) ‘“equality of antenna I individualityUS) “self control (83) opportunity (43) [I participative I I Directed at Sociag: Quality of Life corms AND MIB'CZS @ZEs) SATISFYING suns AND GOALS ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND CONDITIONS (A/ Cs) PHYSICAL PROVISIONS I PHYSICAL mm I. **oreservation (50) . PHYSICAL PROVISIONS 7 PHYSICAL mm as "contrih. co-. ser- vices (50) nconservation npollution abate-ent (7S) facilities-cannu- nity integration («0) *‘products 5 Servic (50) 1"technological de- ’ veloonsnt (SO) _ “efficiency (38) / co-snity renewal - _‘..-‘~4 q (SO—t) y.‘—.——————. ——.—.——.~— I L I soan IWI'IONS J *‘e-oloyee rewards to com. participation (50) *‘contribution to cmity activiti (33-c) SOCIAL IE‘I'IEGRAIION "acceptance of gov't regulations (71) ninority bus. trans: actions (60) representative es- ploynent (38) “open constituent co-snication (ZS-t) “sultinstional in- parialisn (ZS-t) nnaterial better-ent I (57) I * eaploynent (50) I “physical safety (50)! “physical health (75) *finatarial security (75) I I I seem. moss I “social participa- tion (38) “security in social interactions (67) *‘conn asthatics (80)] *8haalth fulnass (50)I **physical nobility (50) I * structures-environ-i sent harnony (38) I 1 50cm. INTEGRATION—I “relations with con-' stituents (ZS-t) “international rela- tions (63) stable anploynant (25) “governsent relations (33-t) **Cm1ty relations (25-:) tst 50 PSYCHOLOGICAL DEVEL- om “count-1b. scienca(38) **concrib Educ. (63) “cansunssr sophisti- cation (ZS-t) *ficoucrib arts and culturs (50) muorvmou consrsrmcr ,I I ornnrr * desocratic process I “cultural activities (38) as (ZS-t) rsrcmmcrcu DEVEL- “promtion national denocracy (40) social sateen (50) “scientific advance- sent (50) “individuality (88) sent (75) I 3 ”educational advance-I- INTERINDIVIDUAL CONSTENCY 1"*incl. 5. group rights (57) *fisgslity of antenna opportunity (57) 1”equity in outcomes I (43) I I I I I I I *fi—Indicstse pertect agrenent with a priori placasant. f-Indicntsa agre-ent with -I.nrgsst percent of expert 9 I135???- ; collapsing across AIC 6 All. in Particular category. 72 71 percent. Collapsing across A/C's and O/E's the agree- ment rate is 84 percent. The percent agreement for only the QOWL items is 77 percent (37 of the 48 items), and 77 percent for QOL items. For only the A/C items the percent agreement is 71 percent, for the O/E items it is 81 percent. This higher agreement rate in the O/E items was expected because the model and a priori item placement is based on a theory of outcomes and experiences which fulfill human needs and goals. Table 9 indicates the percent perfect agreement within each of the six general categories between a priori placement of the items in the 24 categories and the most frequent respondent placement. The high degree of agree- ment in the Material Provision, Psychological Develop- ment, and Physical Environment categories perhaps suggests that conceptual developments and mutual understanding of these areas of quality of work and life concerns are highly refined and well communicated in the field of study. Whereas, conceptual refinement may not be as great in the social spheres of Social Interaction and Social Integration and in Interindividual Consistency. The validity of these assertions, though, depends upon the validity of the conceptual model and the a priori placement. Tdfle9. Percent Agreement Between Hypothesized and Expert Placement of Items Within Categories Material Physical Provisions Environment 882 882 Social Social Interactions Integration 502 752 Psychological Interindividual Development Consistency 1002 632 74 Study 2: Quality of Work and Life Inventory Analysis of the executive responses to the Quality of Work and Life Inventory is in two parts. The primary analysis is an attempt to validate the structure of the categorical model. The secondary analysis focuses on the mean responses of the executives in terms of their organizations' commitment and effectiveness in the quality of work and life activities and experiences. PrimaryfAnalysis The purpose of the primary analysis is to empiri- cally validate the proposed content model. The first subsection directly assesses the content model through an a priori multiple groups analysis. Clusters or mul- tiple groups are defined in terms of the categories of the content model and their respective items. The clusters are analyzed relative to internal consistency, parallelism, and homogeneity. The second subsection of the primary analysis is a blind empirical investi- gation of the structure of the executives' perceptions of their organizations' commitment to the various quality of life and work activities and experiences. Blind factor analyses and cluster analyses are used in this investigation. The validity and interpretability of these empirically-derived clusters will be analyzed in the last subsection of the primary analysis. 75 Correlations between the clusters and related variables Stufli as number of specialists in various departments and degree of influence of various constituent groups will be analyzed. A Priori Multiple Groups Analysis For purposes of testing the a priori structure of the quality of work and life items, as depicted in Table 5, a multiple groups analysis was performed using the statistical program PACKAGE. Twenty-four groups or clusters were defined as stipulated in Table 5, which resulted in six quality of work organizational activity clusters, six quality of life organizational activity clusters, six quality of work employee outcome clusters, and six quality of life constituent outcome clusters. Each cluster was composed of four items. If the empirical results fit the model perfectly then each of the four items within a given cluster would correlate highest with its respective cluster. Also the alpha coefficients, which are measures of the extent of the empirical relationships between items within a cluster, would be very high. On this latter issue the alpha coefficients were .67, .38, .72, .46, .64 and .68 for the following respective quality of work organizational activity clusters: Material Provisions, Social Interactions, Individual Development, Physical 76 Environment, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency. For the same named quality of life activity clusters for the alpha coefficients were .70, .65, .65, .61, .53 and .77 respectively. For the same named quality of work employee outcomes the alphas were .85, .83, .89, .68, .88 and .83 respectively. And for the same named quality of life constituent outcomes clusters the coefficients were .78, .87, .71, .78, .81 and .85. The organizational activity type clusters had low to moderate coefficient alphas and the employee and con- stituent outcome clusters had moderate to high alphas. Although in both types of clusters the size of the alphas were discouraging, the employee and constituent outcome clusters were relatively high. Since the categorical model was based on outcomes and experiences which ful- fill individual and group needs and goals, this finding is not surprising. Executives may perceive a very different structure for the domain of organizational activities than for constituent experiences. More will be said on this later. Activity items. Table 10 presents the correlations between the 48 quality of work and life organizational activity items and the 12 clusters they form, corrected for attenuation. The correction for attenuation is only for the unreliability of the cluster scores. The correlations are similar to factor loadings derived in QUALITY or Hoax QUALITY OF LIFE 77 Table lCl- Correlationsl Among Organizational Activity Items and Hypothesized Clusters. QUALITY OF WORK QUALITY OF LIFE CLUSTERS ITEMS HAT SOC IND PHY SOC INT MAT SOC IND PH! SOC INT PRO INT DEV ENV INC CON PRO INT DEV ENV INC CON pay 60 77* 53 47 57 61 19 24 9 24 25 28 guar. cup. 43 57* 29 10 24 37 17 27 14 10 19 29 benefits 76 83* 68 43 55 64 14 22 14 20 27 31 services 54 78* 59 30 45 64 13 39 35 17 46 4O soc. inter. 66* 65 51 11 41 52 2 30 14 7 36 29 buses tel. 60 65 82* 29 71 73 -11 10 - 2 2 30 29 flexitine 57* 29 41 25 38 54 13 32 36 15 53 38 ___1§___—2 14 69 33 5 30 l 6 39 - l 4 individuality 56 81* 69 2 71 65 6 14 — 1 7 18 17 promotions 47 61* 54 32 56 52 - 5 10 1 6 14 12 enriched jobs 64 74* 61 37 67 66 19 20 29 22 43 41 training 60 85* 2° 26, 66 69 S 16 .18 3 29 33 esthetics 14 25 3 63* 17 10 34 - 3 9 62 12 8 chem. safety 26 42 22 74* 31 2 34 22 29 32 28 25 human factors 7 l7 6 56* 19 0 31 10 6 50 4 4 safety " 53* 21L 3: 91L 11 10 a a 20 12 a; group rewards 48 81* 70 39 63 58 - 2 10 0 7 17 28 a - - 2..., go-gn- é; a a 2: a. 2: s .8 a a 18 a Silsccfifiug? so 84* 7o 47 5° 75 11 23 l4 LJLJL, rep. prone. 60 84* 70 27 59 75 ll 2 14 8 44 53 equity 62 55 64* 28 60 47 14 23 18 19 36 27 a minus. 32 2;. 22 :2 :2 2: 12 2L 3; 2L a m techno. adv. 17 18 2 51 8 3 41 34 42 68* 33 27 service useful. 19 17 12 28 - 1 22 68 7O 68 56 76*’ 61 resource effic. 17 15 4 42 - l 11 82* 46 48 67 55 56 employment 13 3 7 16 Q 15 4* 51 40 48 52 39 empl. comm. part4 35 36 17 19 14 29 42 67 54 48 77* SS recr. contrib. 26 21 ll 17 7 14 35 41 54* 31 46 41 , 4 2 42 49* 3 36 29 ::§;§:°:n;:?v i5 52 23 I6 10 ll 67 so 58 53 77* 52 science contrib. 7 22 - 4 51 6 2 43 13 32 59* 33 25 arts donat. 12 11 10 - 3 - 1 13 47 65 69* 29 65 51 educ. donat. 15 6 8 10 - 5 18 49 65 94* 40 74 51 consumer protac. 37 41 28 27 17 38 45 56 34 41 82* 72 connun. infra. 13 8 - 2 32 - 2 8 47 45 38 32 53* 36 structural asth. 38 39 24 20 12 30 52 66 52 33 73* 60 conservation 4 18 9 51 15 10 53 27 38 86* 51 35 pollution .122 22, 2, I2, 13 4, 2A .33 152 29 dev. country indah l 13 -10 22 2 ~ 2 27 11 38 45* 17 26 gov'nt rag. 26 45 25 25 16 3O 36 55* 51 47 42 52 connun. renewal 30 32 24 9 8 37 60 76* 63 42 67 66 const. connun. 42 54 41 33 29 53 46 62 61 53 66 79* lobbying 28 35 18 18 21 27 51 49 63 44 72* 66 rep. anpl. 44 42 34 24 27 51 49 65 57 45 76* 73 constit. tel. 30 49 25 42 29 33 48 47 51 57 83* 56 ninority bus. 46 45 32 22 26 53 54 64 66 53 83* 7S 1Correlations are corrected for cluster attenuation. Highest cluster correlation of ices. 78 principal factor analysis with communalities. Also, the item/cluster correlations are corrected for inclu- sion of the item in the total cluster scores (Hunter and Gerling, 1979). Table 11 is composed of the correla- tions between the 48 quality of work and life employee and constituent experience items and the 12 clusters they form, corrected for attenuation. There was only one item which correlated highest with a cluster outside of the 12 in its respective activity or outcome type clusters. The item was the chemical and biological safety quality of work outcome item which correlated highest (.68) with the Physical Environment quality of work activity cluster. Examination of the two tables reveals that all the quality of work items and all the quality of life items correlated highest with one of their respective six quality of work or life clusters. Also, all the outcome items correlated highest with one of the outcome clusters, and all of the activity items with the activity clusters with the one exception. In the organizational activity items only 12 of the 48 items correlated highest with their hypothesized cluster. Four of these were quality of work items, eight were quality of life items. On the other hand, 25 of the 48 employee and constituent outcome items correlated 79 highest with their respective hypothesized clusters. Thirteen of these were quality of work items and 12 were quality of life items. It is evident that the activity items do not empirically structure in a manner congruent with the model. By chance alone, 12 items would be expected to correlate highest with their hypothesized clusters. This is especially true with the quality of work activities where 4 items corresponded and by chance alone 6 would be expected to correspond. Further inspection of Table 10 suggests how execu- tives may perceptually structure quality of work activi- ties. All the Material Provision items, all the Indi- vidual Development items, two of the Social Integration items, and three of the Interindividual Consistency items corelated highest with the social interaction cluster. Two explanations are possible for this result. First, there may be a general factor of quality of work activi- ties as perceived by executives. This factor may be determined by the first two items of the Social Inter- action cluster, opportunity for social interactions and human relations. It may be that quality of work perceptions of executives have been shaped by socio- technical theories and the human relations movement. A second explanation is that since the alpha coefficient for the Social Interaction cluster is small, there may 80 be a greater amount of variance of the cluster to be associated with. Generally, the larger the variance of the cluster the greater the likelihood of larger corre- lations. Of course, both explanations may have a combined effect. The human relations item correlated highest with the Individual Development cluster. Also, all the Individual Development items correlated highest with the social interactions cluster. Analysis of the item- item correlation matrix reveals that the human relations item has the two highest item-item correlations. If the Physical Environment cluster is not considered, the human relations item has the highest average item- cluster correlations. It does seem that a general human relations factor may exist. If so, executive definitions of human relations extends across Material Provisions, Social Interactions, Individual Development, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency. The original conceptualization of human relations management as an interpersonal process between manager and employee is obviously not broad enough. Other noticeable discrepancies between the model and the empirical results include the following: blue to white collar (class) promotions is more a function of the concern for the Physical Environment. Participa- tion is perceived more in terms of Individual Development 81 than Social Integration. Also, equity of the reward system is perceived to be more relevant to Individual Development than Interindividual Consistency. In terms of quality of life activities, there are a number of discrepancies between the results and the model. Technological advancements are more a function of commitments to the Physical Environment than to Material Provisions. Also scientific advancements are more related to commitments to the Physical Environ- ment than to Individual Development. On the other hand, contributions to community infrastructures and company structural esthetics are more related to the Social Integration cluster than to the Physical Environment cluster. None of the Social Integration items correlate highest with the Social Integration cluster yet all the Interindividual Consistency items correlate highest with the Social Integration cluster. It may be that activities directed toward Interindividual Consistency are perceived to be for the purpose of Social Integration as defined by the cluster's items and these Social Inte- gration items are perceived as a function of other quality of life clusters. Human outcomes. As noted above, the multiple groups results for the consituent outcome items depicted in Table 11 confirm the hypothesized theoretical structure to a greater extent than do the organizational activity QUALITY OF WORK ovum or ms 82 l Table 11. Correlations Anong Constituent Outcone Irene and Hypothesized Clustdtl. QUALITY O! 90!! QUALITY OT LII! CLUSTERS HAT SOC IID PIT 80C IlT HAT 80C IND PE! SOC INT $25!; 790 IIT DEV llV IIC COR P80 IlT DEV tnv IIO CON safety 78* 6O 59 85 62 58 Z7 19 23 29 29 19 living std. 68 62 67 73* 56 50 33 27 33 40 26 28 soon. security 81* 62 62 75 62 56 35 22 24 29 31 23 health 77 75 77 84* 73 72 38 29 4O 35 35 41 trust 71 65 87* 74 84 79 36 32 39 4O 42 42 social north 68 91* 86 75 78 64 53 47 48 56 49 51 nenber control 49 65* 63 60 57 6O 52 51 55 61 49 58 social involv___ 6‘ * 65 7o 61 59 62 54. 52 53 61... grouth 7 83* 71 81 78 36 31 37 36 38 36 self astees 74 82 82 77 84* 72 39 38 40 43 41 41 stress 73 8O 86* 72 80 69 44 41 39 43 36 47 autonony 63 93* 72 74 71 56 48 58 57 59 , "5,9. esthetic exp. 51 54 49 46 56 44 42 49 46 4O 43 phys. contort 88* 8O 8O 77 78 75 43 38 44 4O 43 44 phys. security 77 64 59 85* 57 56 39 l 29 42 33 26 bio. safety 34 28 18 28 20 16— 15 23 ‘7 L-lé. org'nl involv. 64 72 78 65 83* 69 29 23 26 31 32 28 cohesiveness 70 77 81* 75 79 71 38 34 34 4O 27 41 cooperation 73 82 83* 71 82 74 39 33 41 4O 45 42 goals accept. 6O 74 73 6O * 37 28 41 40 38 4O dado. righta v1 76 81* 724+ 45 35 7'7 48 49 52 justice 55 67 67 59 _ 65 72* 29 26 31 29 3O 38 equality 55 59 56 6O 59 75* 31 23 30 33 41 37 W 49 61 .53—ALI.“— ’6 31 :16 ‘13 M net. better. 40 53 44 46 36 36 61 60 70 66 73* 65 phys. safety 30 54 37 50 31 34 72 68 74 82* 68 77 econ. security 32 47 42 41 35 43 79 7O 84* 75 66 83 disease prev. 18 33 24 39 fig 59 65* 1 51 57 social ecu-"“27 T9 34 35 II—‘Ig‘ so 68* so so 57 a. trust 29 57 50 45 36 32 82 82* 73 72 66 79 social activ. 20 48 33 29 23 29 79 86* 80 70 59 81 science adv. 18 19 13 32 13 ll 36 35 33 53* 37 37 educ. adv. 35 51 46 .46 37 41 85 66 94* 66 74 79 cultural activ. 18 37 29 3O 23 3O 66 58 62 56 75* 64 fraedon 28 6O 45 4: 41 80* 7 61, 702 g; 1 cos-an. esth.— 36 62 49 2 —§ 42 76* 2 76 59 69 75 phys. nobility 24 45 34 39 28 27 77* 66 66 69 56 72 rasour a . 4 7 * .,_, my: 3; ’5; 2: a 3 33 7.2 23 z: a. 2: a con-us. rel. 5 —6'9 54 72 W El gov'nt rel. 38 54 41 41 36 44 7O 55 78 63 88* 68 constit. rel. 31 57 45 43 39 48 8O 67 78 68 91* 75 intarnat'l rel. 13 3O 18 33 18 16 55 46 68* 57 35 51 equity 29 55 42 4O 38 43 74 72 67 61 59 77*I equity rights 32 52 41 35 31 36 76 74 84* 75 67 77 equal opport. 26 52 41 41 34 51 79 7O 79 72 65 81* deno. involv. 25 6O 48 45 4O 47 84 77 89* 71 76 71 *Corralationa are corrected for cluster attenuation. Highest cluster correlation of itan. 83 items. More than half the outcome items correlate highest with their hypothesized clusters. Those quality of work outcome clusters with three or four items correlating highest with their respective cluster include Social Interactions, Individual Development and Interindividual Consistency. The quality of life outcome clusters with three or four items correlating highest with their respective clusters include Social Interactions, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency. The addition of the social sphere of outcomes, which determines the Social Interaction and Social Integration categories in the model, to the basic Montgomery mode (1975) seems to be supported. Additionally, the inclusion of the Interindividual Consistency category as distinct from Social Integration also is supported. Inspection of the discrepancies between the theoretical and empirical placement of individual items lends some insight into the executives' percep- tions of quality of work and life. In the realm of quality of work, living standards and physical health are perceived as more a function of the Physical Environ- ment, as determined by its respective items, although they correlate second highest with their Material Pro- visions cluster. Trust, a hypothesized Social Interaction item, and group cohesiveness and cooperation, both Social Integration items, and democratic rights, an 84 Interindividual Consistency item, all correlate highest with Individual Development. It seems that executive perception of individual development is a broad quality of work factor. This seems to parallel the organizational activity cluster results which indicate a general human relations factor and the result that the human relations item correlates highest with the Individual Development cluster. In terms of quality of life outcomes, the greatest discrepancies between the model and the data are in the Material Provisions and Individual Development clus- ters. Only one of the Material Provisions items correlate highest with the Material Provisions cluster, the other three correlate highest with the three collectively received clusters. Again, it may be that executive perceptions are influenced more by domains of activities than causal outcomes. Also, freedom, a hypothesized Individual Development item, and community esthetics and physical mobility, both Physical Environment items, all correlate highest with the Material Provisions cluster. Other quality of life outcome discrepancies include the following: scientific advancement, a hypothesized Individual Development item, is perceived as a Physical Environment item; cultural activity is placed as a Social Integration item and not an Individual Development item; international relations is related more to Individual 85 Development than Social Integration; and lastly, the individual and group rights item is more a function of Individual Development than Interindividual Consistency. Summary of Multiple-Groups Analysis. In summary, the a priori multiple groups analyses resulted in I four major findings. First, the outcome type items empirically fit the model better than the activity type items. Since the model is based on a theory of domains of outcomes and experiences which fulfill human needs and goals, there seems to be general support for the theory behind the model. The second major finding is that there seems to be a general human relations factor in executive per- ceptions of quality of work. This finding was supported in both the activity type items and the outcome type items. Further, in the organizational activity results in Table 10, the fit between the model and the data for the quality of life items was better than the fit for the quality of work items. It may be that the influence of socio-technical theories and human relations has been so great that executives have lost some perceptual discrimination ability and tend to fit most quality of work activities under the rubric of human relations. The third major finding is that in the outcome and experience type items, for both quality of work and life, there is considerable support for the additional 86 inclusion of a social sphere or source of outcomes. The Montgomery (1975) model was based on only the distinction between the material and psychological realms of experi- ence. Although one is tempted by such a clean dichotomy, the idea that sources of need and goal satisfaction are limited to an external physical world and internal psyche misses the rich and fruitful experiences which emanate from social interactions and group affliations and identities. The fourth major finding is that, in general, execu- tive perceptions of quality of work and life are not structured in terms of the model. It may be that either executive constructs of quality of work and life are not as sophisticated as the model or that they are con- ditioned by practical purposes (e.g., along functional departmental lines) and by overgeneralized theories of quality of work. In either case, the results of the data are limited to these executive perceptions. The remainder of the primary analysis section will focus on these socially constructed realities of executives. The next sub- section will explore and attempt to uncover these executive reconstructions of quality of work and life through factor analyses and blind multiple groups analy- ses. The remainder of the primary analysis section will focus on exploring the relationships between these 87 perceived constructs of executives and a number of environmental, organizational, and individual related variables. Empirical Structure of Ehe Inventory As described in the literature review in an earlier section, the 96 items in the Quality of Work and Life Inventory are based on the four dimensional 24 categorical model depicted in Table 5. Preliminary testing of the structure of the model has been carried out through: (a) a content analysis of existing inventories of quality of work and quality of life facets in the literature, using the a priori categories of the model for the content analysis; and (b) the expert placement survey, which employed organizational behavior experts to inde- pendently content analyze the preliminary set of 96 quality of work and life items developed from the literature review, by using the a priori categories of the model. Both of these procedures have been used to develop and refine the 96 quality of work and life items, and both have demonstrated some degree of conceptual or face validity to the structure of the model. In the previous section, the hypothesized structure of the 96 items was tested more directly through a priori multiple groups analysis. The results demonstrated that corporate executives' perceptions of the structure of 88 quality of work and life diverges to a large extent from the structure proposed in the conceptual model. The results of the a priori multiple groups analysis suggests, to some extent, what these divergencies are and what perceptual structure executives have of quality of work and life. The purpose of this section is to further explore and analyze the structure of executive perceptions of quality of work and life through factor analysis and blind multiple groups analysis. The first part of this analysis focuses on exploring the factorialstructure of the data by using principal factor analyses with communalities and varimax rotation. Principal factor analyses were performed in two steps. First, the entire set of 96 quality of work and life activities and outcomes was factor analyzed to determine if the items factored into quality of work activities, quality of work outcomes, quality of life activities, and quality of life outcomes. Given this result, each of the 24 item sets formed by these four factors were further factor analyzed. Factor Analysis of TOtal Inventory For the two factor solution in the factor analysis of the entire 96 item data set, the first factor was composed of primarily employee activity, employee experience, and societal experience items. The factor 89 had an eigenvalue of 20. The second factor primarily contained manufacturing related items such as chemical emissions, physical safety, and human factors and had an eigenvalue of 11. The three factor solution separated out the societal experience items from the first factor, which is composed of employee activities and experiences, although the societal activities items remained with the manufacturing-related items. The eigenvalues for the three factors were 14, 16, and 9 respectively. The societal activities items, though, did factor out of the manufacturing-related items in the four factor solution. The eigenvalues in the four factor solution were 14, 15, 9, and 6 respectively. Not until the five factor solution did the factoral structure of the data correspond to the a priori categories of quality of life experiences, quality of work experiences, quality of work activities, and quality of life activities. The fifth factor, labeled manufacturing-related responsi- bilities, was composed of the following items: chemical emissions, human factors engineering, promotion from blue to white collar jobs, work safety, scientific and technological advancements, resource conservation, pollu- tion reduction, and chemical exposures and biological health. The eigenvalues for the five factors were 14, 13, 8, 8, and 6 respectively. Figure 3 depicts the accumulative percent of 9O variance accounted for by the factors as they were entered into the factor analytic solutions of the 96 item data set. Ten factors had eigenvalues greater than 1. But inspection of Figure 3 indicates that additional vari- ance accounted for dropped off fairly rapidly after five factors had been entered in. In the five factor solution, the employee activities factor accounted for 8 percent of the total variance, the employee's experiences factor 13 percent, the societal activities factor 8 percent, the societal experiences factor 14 percent, and the manufacturing-related factor 6 percent. The addition of the sixth, seventh, and eighth factors each added only 2 percent more variance accounted for, and the ninth and tenth factors one percent each. The five factor solution in the principal factor analysis gave sufficient support for further separate factoring of the employee activities, employee experi- ences, societal activities, and societal experiences. Each of the 24 item sets were subsequently submitted to a principal factor analysis with communalities and varimax rotation. Quality of Work Factoral Structure Activity items. The principal factor analysis with varimax rotation of the 24 quality of work life activity items resulted in three factors with eigenvalues 91 (so-1' so. Accumulative 2 of Total 40.. Variance Accounted for by Eigenvectors 30-: 20d 10. T—rrlll] r1 1. 2 3I 4 5 £5 7 8’ 9’ 10 Number of Eigenvectors (Factors) Entered Into Solution Figure 3 . Accumulated Total Variance Accounted For By Eigenvectors Entered Into Principal Component Solution of All 96 Items. 92 greater than 1. The first factor accounted for 23 per- cent of the total variance with 15 items having the highest loading on it. The factor, labeled Human Resource Utilization, correlated highest with the following items in descending order of factor loadings: human relations, acceptance of individuality, participative decision making, training, two-way hierarchical communication, communication of organizational goals, representative promotion, equity of reward system, fringe benefits, enriched jobs, promotions from within, work democracy, pay, work esthetics and group rewards. The second factor, labeled Individual Differences Accomodation, accounted for 11 percent of the total variance, and correlated highest with the following items in order of factor loadings: flexitime, modifications of the work place for the handicapped, employee personal services, guaranteed employment, and opportunity for social inter- actions. The third factor, labeled Physical Work Condi- tions, accounted for 9 percent of the total variance, and correlated highest with chemical emissions at work, work safety, promotion from blue collar to white collar jobs, human factors engineering, and biological healthful- ness. Outcome items. The 24 quality of work life employee outcome items factored into two varimax factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Named, Employee Identification 93 and Integration With Organization, the first factor accounted for 24 percent of the total variance and con- tained the following items which correlated highest with the factor: equal opportunity, employee acceptance of organizational goals, trust in management, personal growth, feelings of equity and justice, employee self- control, identification with organization's mission, intergroup cooperation, feelings of competence, democratic rights, stress reduction, equality for pro- tected groups, work-group cohesiveness, feelings of social acceptance, employee control over work-group, cohesiveness, feelings of social acceptance, employee control over work-group membership, and esthetic experiences. The second employee outcome and experience factor, called Physical and Economic Security of Employees, accounted for 23 percent of the total variance. The factor had the following items which loaded highest with the factor: physical security, physical safety, economic security, physical comfort, increased comfort, increased standard of living, physical health, and social involvements. In summary of the principal components analysis of both quality of work activities and experiences, the following factors emerged as domains of quality of work life: Human Resource Utilization, Individual Differences Accomodation, Physical Work Conditions, Employee 94 Identification and Integration With Organization, and Physical and Economic Security. Quality of Life Factoral Structure Activity items. The 24 societal activity items, when submitted to a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation factored into three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor, labeled Constituent Integration Into Organization, accounted for 19 percent of the total variance, and loaded highest on the following items in order of factor loadings: communication with constituents, consumer information, constituent representation in organizational decision, transactions with minority owned businesses, represen- tative employment, stable employment, community renewal, employee rewards for community activities, usefulness of products, esthetics of structure, governmental lobby- ing, and convenience of location for employees. The second factor of the quality of life activity items accounted for 14 percent of the variance of the items. Named Organizational Philanthropy and Obligations, the factor correlated highest with the following items: donation to the arts, donations to higher education, contributions to community recreation, government regulations and maintaining levels of employment. The third factor of organization societal activities 95 accounted for an additional 12 percent of the variance, was called Material Resource Utilization, and was correlated highest with: pollution reduction, conserva- tion,technologica1 advancements, contributions to basic science, material resource efficiency, contributionsfito community infrastructure, and encouraging independence and self sufficiency of developing countries. Outcome items. The quality of life societal outcome and experience items, when submitted to a principal factor analysis with varimax rotation, factored into two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The first factor accounted for 30 percent of the total variance of the 24 items and was labeled Social Democratic Freedoms. The factor was correlated highest with: free choice in society, physical mobility, social activities, security in community membership, economic security, disease pre- vention, democratic involvement, feelings of membership in society, physical safety, individual and group rights, international relations, material resource preservation, equal opportunity in society, and equity of rewards. The second factor, called Organizational Relations With Societal Groups, accounted for 26 percent of the variance of the societal experience items, and was correlated highest with: relations with the community, relations with the government, relations with constituents, material betterment of society, community cultural 96 activities, community esthetics, educational advancements in society, and social esteem of societal members. In summary of the separate principal factor analy- ses of the quality of life activities and quality of life experiences, the following factors emerged as dominant vectors in the data: Constituent Integration in the Organization, Organizational Philanthropy and Obligation, Material Resource Utilization, Social Democra- tic Freedoms, and Organization Relations with Constituents. Cluster Analyses The results of the principal factor analyses for the total data set and the four sets of 24 items were used to generate an initial set of 10 clusters or scales. The items for the initial clusters were very similar to those that correlated highest with the 10 factors listed in the previous section with a few exceptions. The employee experience of freedom from chemical emissions 'was added to the Internal Working Conditions cluster. Also, the societal experience items, healthful- ness of members of society and scientific advancement items, were added to the organizational social activity factor called Material Resource Utilization. The alpha coefficients of the ten clusters ranged from .75 to .95. Four alphas were less than .90 and 6 were equal to or greater than .90. The large size 97 of these reliability coefficients indicates that the clusters are not only unidimensional to a large extent but also that the extent of measurement error is rela- tively small (Hunter and Gerbing, 1976). The unidimensionality of the clusters was tested further by the criterion of parallelism, which states that the items in a unidimensional cluster should have similar patterns of correlations with (a) items in other clusters, and (b) other traits (clusters). The patterns of correlations of the items in one cluster with those items within other clusters generally supported the unidimensionality of the clusters. For example, the correlations of the items in the Individual Difference Accomodations cluster with the item, communication with outside constituents, ranged from .21 to .38, and with the item, freedom from chemical exposures, from —.08 to .01. The pattern of correla- tions from lowest to highest were very consistent. A more clear test of parallelism and, subsequently, unidimensionality was the size of the correlations of the items with the cluster scores corrected for attenua- tion. The corrections for attenuation were made using only the reliability of the clusters. Only nine of the 96 items correlated higher with a cluster other than the one cluster the particular item was assigned to. Of these nine items, no one correlated with another 98 cluster more than .07 than with its respective cluster. Thus, the tests for parallelism supported, to a large extent, the unidimensionality of the empirically derived clusters. Although the above internal and external consis- tency tests supported the unidimensionality of the ten clusters, further inspection of the correlations of the items with their respective clusters, and the homo- geneous wording of the items led to some breaking up of the clusters. The Human Resource Utilization cluster was divided into two subclusters. The division was based on the meaning of the items, the correlations between the items and the clusters, and the original factor loadings of the items. The two subclusters and their items are listed in Table 12 and are named Human Resource Utilization and Comprehensive Reward System. The only other cluster modification was the division of the Constituent Integration Into the Organi- zation cluster into two subclusters. The separation of the clusters was based on the criteria listed above. The two subclusters are labeled Constituent Communication and Representation, and Organization-Community Integra- tion. The 12 revised clusters were resubmitted to a cluster analysis using the statistical program called PACKAGE. The cluster names and their coefficient alphas, 99 Table 12. Final Clusters In Quality of Work Inventory. Item Item Cluster Names ri,c1 Cluster. Names 1'lie 1. Comprehensive Reward System 4. Internal Werk Conditions (64 -.78) (at -.80) fringe benefits .70 chemical exposures .87 pay .67 biological health .73 equity of rewards .66 work safety .68 enriched jobs .52 promotion from esthetics .52 blue collar .66 promotion from within .50 hman factors .48 work democracy .48 group rewards .28 5. Employee Identification and Integration With Orggization 2. amen Resource Utilization (d -. 95) (st-.87) trust in management .84 human relations .80 personal growth .83 individuality . 74 intergroup coop. . 82 training .68 competency .82 2-way communication .67 stress reduction .81 goals communication .67 democratic rights .80 rep. promotion .67 employee self partic. dec. mkg. .63 control .80 group cohesiveness .79 3. .Indigidnal_nif£gzgngg§ social acceptance .78 .Agggmgdggign, goals acceptance .77 (a; .,75) identif. with goals .76 'modif. for handicapped .67 equal opportunity .69 personal services .63 equity and justice .69 social interactions .63 minority equalities .62 flexitime .62 control of group guaranteed employment .50 ‘membership .61 esthetic experiences .54 6. Physical and Economic Security (0‘ -.91) physical comfort .88 physical health .81 economic security .79 physical safety .78 physical security .75 increased standard of living .67 social involvements .65 1 ri,c - correlation between item and true cluster score. 100 Tablel;L, Final Clusters In Quality of Life Inventory. Item 1 Item Cluster Names rizc Cluster Names rilc l. Organization-Community 4. Material Resource Utilization Integration (It - . 81) pollution reduction . 72 (ct-.82) technological adv. .71 community renewal .73 contrib. to science .66 stable employment .70 conservation .63 usefulness of products .70 healthfulness of envir. harmony of society .55 structures .65 resource efficiency .49 empl. rew. for comm. contrib. to comm. participation .62 infrastructure .47 governmental lobbying .52 scientific adv. .47 conv. of location for independence of dev. employee .50 nations .44 2. Relations with Constituents 5. Constituent Communication (at -. 91) and Representation relations with community .84 (OC -.85) relations with communication with government .84 constituents .88 relations with consumer information .74 constituents .83 transactions with material betterment .77 min. bus. .72 community esthetics .77 repres. employment .66 community cultural constit. rep. in activity .72 decisions .63 educ. adv. in society .72 social esteem .58 6. Social Democratic Freedoms (0‘ - . 94) 3. Or as i P thro involvement in dance. .82 (0‘ -.76) free choice in society .81 donations to arts .82 social activities .80 donations to education .79 feelings of societal contribution to membership .79 community recreation .63 indiv. & group rights .78 promotion of regulation .55 security in commun. maintaining employment .38 membership .78 economic security .78 physical safety .77 physical mobility .74 equal opportunity .74 equity of rewards .70 material resource preservation .65 disease prevention .64 international relations .56 1ri,c - correlation between item and cluster corrected for attenuation. 101 as well as the clusters' respective items and their items—-true cluster score correlations are listed in Tables 12 and 13. The standard score coefficient alphas of the clus- ters range from .75 to .94. The original Human Resource Utilization cluster, which had an alpha of .90, was divided into two subclusters which have alphas of .87 and .78. Also, the original Constituent Integration into the Organization cluster, which had an alpha of .90, was separated into two subclusters with resulting alphas of .85 and .82. These results indicate that the two cluster divisions decreased the reliability of the clusters to a small extent. Given the increased homogeneity, interpretability, and differentiation of the clusters, though, the two divisions were concluded to be an improvement in the restructuring of the data set. Correlations Among Empirically-Derived Quality of'Work and Li e C usters Table 14 contains the correlations among the 12 final quality of work and life clusters corrected for attenuation (as listed in Tables 14 and 15). The full correlation matrix is reproduced for full column or row reference. Some correlations are actually higher than the coefficient alphas, which demonstrated that 102 Table 14. Correlations1 Among Empirically-Derived Quality of Work and Life Clusters. Clusters Clusters Quality of Work Quality of Life 502 501 503 504 509 510 505] 506 501 508 512 511 502 c h 1 I '- o r ens v Rezzrs Syste: 1.0 .95 .79 .19 .48 .36 .4; .32 .29 .10 .40 .26 501 Human Resource .95 1.0 .65 .13 .53 .30 .43 .22 .08-:04 .29 .18 Utilization 1 503 Individual Differences .79 .651.0 0 .36 .28 .60 .53 .34; .10 .49 .28 Accomodation 504 Internal Work .19 .13 0 1.0 .18 .23 .15 .09 .01 .79 .03 .16 Conditions 509 Em l. Ident. 5 integration .48 .53 .36 .1813c> .87 .52 .48 .38 .28 .56 .52 510 Physical & Econmc 036 .30 .28 .23 087 1.0 .43 .45 .45 .35 s49 .44 Security n.___“_.___n_1__.___._.1_ _.__“___. 505 Orz'n - Cemm- .47 .43 .60 .15 .52 .43 1.0 .89 .62 .45 .36 .19 Integration 506 Relations 1 with Const. 032 022 s53 s09 e48 045' s89 1.0 s85 .48 s37 .18 507 0r 'nl Philanthropy .29 .08 .34 .01 .38 .45 .62 .85 1.0 .39 .37 .14 508 Material Res. Utiliz. e10 -004 s10 e79 s28 e35 e45 048 s391e0 e29 s37 512 Const. Comm. 1 & Repr. 040 .29 .49 .03 .56 049' .36 .37 .37 .29100 .85 511 Social Democr i Freedoms 026 018 .28 016 .52 044‘ .19 e18 014 s37 .85 1.0 l 1Correlations are corrected for attenuation. 103 the corrections for attenuation are dramatically larger than the raw score correlations. For example, the correlation between Comprehensive Reward System and Individual Differences Accomodation clusters corrected for attenuation is .79, whereas the raw score correla- tion is .60. The intercorrelations among the true cluster scores indicate certain patterns of quality of work and quality of life involvements different organizations engage in. The discussion of these patterns is in three parts. The intercorrelations among the quality of work life clusters in the upper left quadrant are discussed first, followed by the quality of life correlations in the lower right quadrant, and lastly the correlation between the quality of work life and quality of life clusters in the lower left and upper right quadrants are discussed. Quality of work intercorrelations The correlations among the quality of work life clusters are all positive and greater than .25 with the exception of the correlations between Internal Work Conditions and all other quality of work life clusters. This finding demonstrates that, across organizations, organizational commitments towards such activities and experiences as safety, health, and human factors engineering are only weakly or not at all related to 104 other quality of work life activities. Organizational commitments towards items in other quality of work life clusters, though, are generally all positively related. This is especially true of the Comprehensive Reward System cluster, which has the highest mean correlation among other clusters. Thus, high organizational commit- ments towards such activities as attractive fringe bene- fits, competitive pay levels, equity of rewards and enriched jobs are strongly associated with high commit- ment to overall quality of work life. The highest set of correlations is among the first three quality of work life clusters - Comprehensive Reward System, Human Resource Utilization, and Individual Differences Accomodation. Although these three clusters were developed from the quality of work activities set of items, and hence share common method variance, their high intercorrelations (.65, .79, .95) demonstrate that organizations which generally pursue either compre- hensive rewards for their employees, or full use of their human resources, or accomodating differences among individuals, are likely to be committed to the other two quality of work set of activities. Another notable high correlation is between Employee Identification and Integration With the Organization and Physical and Economic Security (r=.87). Organizations which are committed to having employees who identify 105 with the goals and mission of the organization, who trust management, and develop within the organization, are also likely to be committed to employee experiences of physical and economic security. This is probably especially true for those organizations which pursue the activities in the Internal Work Conditions cluster, which is correlated the highest with the Physical and Economic Security cluster. The finding that commitments to developing organizationally-identifying employees and physically and economically secure employees are strongly related further clarifies the previously discussed finding that organizations perceive employee-organization inte- gration as a high priority problem area and at the same time have relatively low commitments to sharing power and control. It seems that organizations desire to gain the hearts and minds of their employees through pri- marily fostering employee experiences of physical and economic security and not by sharing power and control with them. This conclusion, though, must be tempered by the finding that there is a moderate correlation (r=.53) between the clusters, Employee Identification and Integration and Human Resource Utilization. It does seem that organizations which pursue organizationally commited employees do, to some extent, desire to more fully utilize their employees through two-way communica- tion, training, participative decision making, human 106 relations, and promoting individuality. In general, though, it appears that organizations are more likely to create physical and economic security for their employees in order to develop employee commitment to the organization. Quality of life intercorrelations. The correla- tions among the quality of life clusters in the lower right quadrant of Table 14 are on the average smaller and have less variance than the quality of work life cluster intercorrelations. The cluster which on the average correlates highest with other quality of life clusters is the Relations with Constituents cluster. This cluster contains items which tend to be worded in general terms and are more global in nature, such as relations with community and relations with constituents. The two clusters, Constituent Communication and Representation and Social Democratic Freedoms, are very highly correlated with each other and are correlated relatively low with the other four quality of life clus- ters. Since these two clusters are derived from different item types, the former from activity type items and the latter from experience type items, their shared variance-is derived from a strong association between the self-reported commitments of organizations. Organizations which are commited to such social freedoms 107 as democratic involvement, free choice, individual rights, and economic security, tend to pursue communication links and joint representation with the community. Since these activities are only weakly related with the other quality of life clusters, they may represent a level of social responsiveness born from a distinct philOSOphy of social democracy. Intercorrelations between quality of work and life clusters. The correlations between the quality of work clusters and the quality of life clusters, in the lower left quadrant of Table 14, take on a wide range of values (from -.05 to .79). The exceptions to this large dis- persion of correlations are the moderate size correlations between the quality of work clusters, Employee Identifi- cation and Integration and Physical and Economic Security, and all six of the quality of life clusters. These two clusters tend to be most strongly and consistently related to the quality of life clusters. Although the quality of work cluster, Comprehensive Reward System, is on average the strongest predictor of other quality of work clusters, it is not the strongest predictor of any one quality of life cluster. The Indi- vidual Differences Accomodation quality of work cluster is the best predictor of the highly intercorrelated clusters of Organization - Community Integration and Relations with Constituents. Hence, organizations which 108 accomodate worker differences tend to be aware of the impacts of their business on the community and desire positive relations with the community and their consti- tuents. The highest correlation is between the Internal Work Conditions cluster and the Material Resource Utilization cluster (.79). This association is most likely explained by common technological processes, such as manufacturing. Whereas, though, Material Resource Utilization is a very poor predictor of all other quality of life factors, the Material Resource Utilization cluster moderately predicts the last two quality of work clusters, Employee Identification and Physical and Economic Security. Hence, it seems that Material Resource Utilization is a more general and comprehensive social response of organizations which are involved in manufacturing. Higher-Order Factor Analysis of Clusters The examination of the correlations among the empirically-derived quality of life and work clusters suggested a number of patterns of organizational commit- ments. The purpose of this subsection is to further analyze these commitment patterns by factor analyzing the six quality of work clusters and the six quality of life clusters listed in Tables 12 and 13. The factor 109 analysis is expected to distill higher order constructs underlying the twelve clusters. A principal factor analysis with varimax rotation and communality estimates was performed on the twelve quality of work and life clusters. The cluster scores were calculated as raw score sums of their respective items as listed in Table 12 and 13. Four factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The factor loadings are listed in Table 15. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 4.78 and accounted for 39.82 of the total variance. The factor was labeled Resource Exchanges with Constituents and loaded highest with the following clusters--Organization/ Community Integration (community renewal, stable employ- ment, usefulness of products, etc.), Organizational Philanthropy (donations to arts, education, recreation, etc.), and Constituent Communication and Representation (consumer information, minority business, representative employments, etc.). The second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.77 and accounted for an additional 14.72 of the total variance. The factor was termed Maintenance of Social Structures and loaded highest with Social Democratic Freedoms (democracy, free choice, rights, etc.), Relations with Constituents (community, government, cultural activities, etc.), Employee Integration with Organization (trust, 110 .co—umsuamEuo: nommmx so“: couumuou mouum xuuuoe monomu ad. sc. mm. a <~. «m. cm. uh. eo.| mN. e no. mo. nu. No.l oH. No. e 00. «a. Na. MN. NN. am. e ma. an. Km. e No. mc. «o. e co.n cm. 0—. e no. No. —~. e co. um. 0—. e Illl‘- llilf .0 'Il'"..' It'll.-- cmousoeox aeoumhmm mamwa—aam zafis uo oucmcoucum: nomcm:oxm souooeoz uo eosecmusfimz ‘Oilllu Comomm voumuou unsuum> I a CC. meommoum owumuoosoa fimuoom oo. eouumucmmoueom use a couumoucaeeou acosuuumcou an . nodumnuuuu: mousommx umuuoumz mo. secuzucmawsm a auscuumuucmwuo ON. mucosuuumcou Lou: msouumdmx no. eouueuwoucm a auqoofisounsouumnucmwuo an. unqususm adiocoum use umuueasm ~m. couuenuemmuo and: somumuwoucu soxofieEu cc.l occuuuvcou use: uscuousu an. souummoeouu< moosououuua ~m=m«>«m:~ 8. 822:3: unneceox sees: mu. Eoum>m panama o>um=oruueloo wucosu«uncoo and) ewucezoxm ouusosox umumsdo ensues—U use: are sum; uo haw—cs: ce>ummcns——coquuafim uo mquqmc< unuomm.m_.o—amh — 111 growth, cooperation), and Employee Physical and Economic Security (comfort, health, security, etc.). An additional 12.7 percent of the total variance was accounted for by the third factor which had an eigenvalue of 1.53. The factor correlated highest with Comprehensive Reward System (benefits, pay, etc.), Human Resource Utilization (human relations, individuality, training, etc.), and Individual Differences Accomodation (handicapped employment, personal services, flexitime, etc.). The third factor was named Resource Exchanges with Employees. The fourth and last factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 (1.28) accounted for 10.6 percent of the variance and was labeled Maintenance of Physical Resources. The factor correlated highest with Internal Work Conditions and Material Resource Utilization. The Resource Exchanges with Constituents factor was composed of primarily quality of life activities. Also, the Resource Exchanges with Employees factor con- sisted of mostly quality of work activities. The other two factors, though, were composed of quality of work and life activities and outcomes. Of particular interest is the Maintenance of Social Structures factor. Two quality of life clusters loaded very highly on the factor and two quality of work factors 112 moderately. The reason for the label given the factor is as follows. The Social Democratic Freedoms concept is basic to the capitalistic economic environment and the Relations with Constituents factor is fundamental to the organization's perceived legitimacy by other organized power groups in society. It seems that positive relations with societal power groups go hand in hand with promoting Social Democratic Freedoms. Likewise, in the internal organizational social environment (i.e., employees) the development of employee integration into the organization commitments is paralled by commitments to their physical and economic security. Given the overlapping of the quality of work and life clusters in the higher-order factors there are a number of relevant implications. First, quality of work and life are not necessarily empirically distinct. Commitments to maintaining social structures and physical resources affect both quality of work and quality of life concerns. Resource exchanges on the other hand seem to be divisible in terms of whether the exchanges are with constituents or employees. The second implica- tion is that the concept of organizational social res- ponsiveness can be split into four separate areas-~resource exchanges with constituents and employees, and main- tenance of social structures and physical resources. The next subsection is the last of the primary 113 analysis. The subsection focuses on the relationships among the 12 clusters and other related organizational and environmental variables. Before the correlational analysis is presented, though, there is a brief discussion of the conceptual parallelism between the empirically— derived clusters and the original six categories of the content model. Parallelism Between Empirically-Derived and Conceptually- Derived’Clusters Quality of work and quality of life activities and experiences were originally theorized to be each conceptually structured in terms of six categories: Material Provisions, Social Interactions, Individual Development, Physical Environment, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency. The content analysis of the literature and the expert placement survey demon- strated to a large extent the utility and conceptual validity of the basic six category model. The empirical analyses of the factor and cluster analytic structure of the 96 quality of work and life items in the Inventory, though, was not identical with the conceptual categories and their domain of items. The empirical structure of the data, though, does not refute the utility nor the validity of the conceptual model for two primary reasons. First, the conceptual 114 model was instrumental in the development of the cluster structure. The actual cluster domains listed in Tables 12 and 13 were developed from a synthesis of the "blind" factor analyses and the item domains of the original conceptual categories. The final cluster analytic structure is a product of the inductive-deductive scientific process of theory development--empirical testing-~and theory refinement. The second reason for the empirical support of the utility of the original model is manifested in the conceptual parallels between the final six quality of work life clusters, the six quality of life clusters, and the original categories of the conceptual model. The Material Provisions category is similar to the Reward System cluster for quality of work life and the Organization-Community Integration quality of life cluster. The second category of the conceptual model, Social Interactions, parallels the Human Resource Utilization and Relations With Constituents empirically-derived clusters. The Individual Development category is related to the Individual Differences Accomodation quality of work cluster and the Organizational Philanthropy quality of life cluster. The fourth cate- gory, Physical Environment is very closely aligned with Internal Work Conditions and Material Resource Utilization clusters. Also, the Employee Identification and Integra- tion quality of work cluster and the Organization- 115 Community Integration quality of life cluster coincide with the Social Integration category. And lastly, the Interindividual Consistency category of the original conceptual model is very related to the Social Democratic Freedoms quality of life cluster and somewhat related to the Physical and Economic Security quality of work factor. Construct Validity of Empirically-Derived Clusters The primary results section of study, to this point, has focused on the cluster and factor analytic structure of the 96 quality of life and work items. The purpose of the structural analysis was to investigate the internal validity of the content model and its categorical con- structs. The remainder of the primary analysis of the inventory is devoted to examining the relationship be- tween the twelve empirically-derived quality of work and life clusters and a number of related organizational variables such as number of specialists in various depart- ments. The intent of this last subsection of the primary analysis is to investigate the meaning and utility of the 12 clusters as they relate to other organizational phenomena, or in short, the construct validity of the 12 clusters. The correlational analysis is in two parts. The associations between the twelve clusters and two sets 116 of alternative measures are investigated in the first part. The alternative measures are single item measures of the twelve original quality of work and life constructs and the number of specialists in areas related to the twelve constructs. The second part of the correlational analysis examines the correlations between the twelve clusters and organizational/environmental variables, such as percent of sales to various customer types and the self-reported influence of various constituent groups. Correlates Among Clusters and Alternative Measures The original intention of this section of the results was to test the convergent/divergent validity of the category clusters as determined by the proposed model of quality of work and life by using the multitrait- multimethod procedure. Since the final quality of work and life clusters, which were derived by factor and clus- ter analytic analyses, are somewhat conceptually and empirically different from the conceptual categories of the model, the proposed alternative measures of the original clusters are not measures of the same traits or constructs as the empirically-derived clusters. Since, though, the empirically-derived clusters are, to some extent, parallel to those of the original model, the alternative measures and related organizational variables and their correlations with the empirically-derived 117 clusters should give an indication of the utility and conceptual meaning of the empirical clusters. In short, the construct validity of the twelve final quality of work and life clusters will be explored in this section through analysis of their organizational correlates. Single items. Tables 16 and 17 contain the correla- tion coefficients between the twelve final quality of work and life clusters and the single item measures of the original twelve quality of work and life categories and the number of specialists in areas related to the original twelve categories. If the original quality of work and life clusters were used in Tables 16 and 17, it would be hypothesized that the diagonal elements of the two sets of Table ele- ments would be higher than the off-diagonal elements. Since, though, the empirically-derived clusters are used in the tables this hypothesized similar-trait relationship is not expected to occur to a great extent. But, since the empirical clusters are somewhat parallel to the original clusters, the diagonal-off diagonal comparison should given an indication of the conceptual meaning of the final clusters. In Table 16, almost all correlations are statis- tically significant except for the correlations with the Work Conditions cluster. The diagonal elements for this cluster, though, are statistically significant. 118 Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and Single It- Measures. Table 16. p<. 01 mic—ween *2 e1 e9 *0 s7 s9 *9 e0 *3 209-4.“qu 7 4Q 3 3 Id .Q 3 6 3 O I 0 1. O O . 0 * O * O * 0 e e 0 82.3.3“ a n .2. n .n .12. .2. u m UBOSUGUIEO o e e e o o e o o esuuaoso e1 % M e7 .0 e2 e4 .4 u e6 an 7 a” u M 4 8 e4 22.53.5— J . 4 . . . J 4w J soon-as e0 e1 e2 e1 .8 a“ s8 8 8 2.38.... 3. 4. 4+ a 4. 4 2. 4. 3 consumes“: a e e e e e J 3qu he «BENN— um um N.“ um. n. D. H. mm Mm 3 «ususw 5 *6 *1 «.5 a“ 4.8 e“ 7 9 .38 . .2... a 2. a 3 . 2. . a 2 u s- 19 1 I‘M-I s8 e8 e0 5 2 sons.— 35 u 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 Bofl§dfi e e s s e s e e 0 2332250 U 1 e0 3 5 e7 4 M 4. . o. o 2. m a a a . 4| i 4| .I 1d * sooseusu u «a— n M B u n an... N. we. a...“ d.3‘«.«‘¢~ e e s s e e e s e ses.-some: a” e” e 6 Jews. e0 e0 e3 u... 9 ‘3: O O a. O ‘0 ‘0 O O J a s6 .6 ti s8 s7 a... e 3 5 Ivan m 4. I» 4 2 3 4h n 3 3 ”b.30. e o e s s e s e e t interactions psychological development psychological development healthful economic health social g 3 S ink—06w Pram-“5.50 v3.5 593m cohesiveness equity and equality stone 119 The upper left hand quadrant contains the correla- tions between the quality of work life clusters and single items. The Reward System cluster is fairly highly correla- ted with all the single item quality of work life commit- ments, indicating further support for the generality of purpose of the cluster. The Human Resources cluster is more highly correlated with commimments to psychologi- cal development and group cohesiveness, although all corelations are significant and moderate in strength. The Individual Differences Accomodation cluster is noticeably more highly related with social interactions and psychological development. As noted before, the Work Conditions cluster is only correlated with its respective single item measure, healthful environment. The Employee-Organization Integration cluster is most strongly associated with the expected single item of group cohesiveness, and is also highly correlated with psychological development. The last quality of work cluster, Physical and Economic Security is moderately correlated with all the quality of work life single items. The correlations between the quality of life clusters and the quality of life single items are contained in the lower right quadrant of Table 16. The diagonal elements for the first two clusters are higher than the off-diagonal elements, although somewhat less so for 120 the Constituent Relations cluster. Philanthropy is only significantly related with economic health and equity and equality. Material resources, as expected, is most highly correlated with healthful environment. Constit- uent Communication, like Philanthropy, is most strongly related to the economic-related single items. The Social-Democratic Freedoms cluster is very strongly associated with group cohesiveness, but is also fairly highly associated with all other items, indicating the strong predictive power it has as a quality of life factor. Specialists. In Table 17, the correlatiors between the clusters and number of specialists in related areas are presented. In the quality of work life quadrant, the number of specialists in social activities is correlated the highest with all clusters except the work conditions cluster, indicating the strong predictive power of these specialists for quality of work life commitments. The Physical and Economic Security cluster is generally correlated with the various types of specialists, which suggests the pervasiveness of physical and economic security across specializations. The correlations between the quality of life clusters and specialists are contained in the lower right hand quadrant. Philanthropy is significantly related to the number of specialists in arts, culture, and science, and minority employment and business. Concern for NUMBER OF SPECIALISTS Table 17. EMPLOYEE SOCIITAL 121 Specialists in Organisation. compensation social activities training and development work conditions ubitration goal setting equity and equality on. social activities arts. culture, science pollution and conservation constituent relations minority upl. and business Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and .: '° 8 O C SCH : Us! '40 Q :50 O: O =0 g C .0 c - “U ’0‘“. H ‘0‘ g 0 :1: O nut-:5 9056 g #050 U '00 '4 HO U “HUD H '0‘)" IE 8: .H 2:: :1 88*: ‘88:: new 1: ': 28 23:88 2:28 33:: : 382E133 5H :0 3.900 5 :9 0:00 a: 600 CH e:u5 ::m: ~0C33L§L ban-u: hdizll a. " Leia-JQJ. .12 .14 .17 .05 .204.21* .11 T24* .19 .234,24* .18 .2444 .2444 .29T12 .3m.29* .13 .23* .13 .13 .23* .2o* .13 1.15 40413 .13 .16 .08 :02 .08.07 415 908 el‘ .12 .17 ’11 .12 b17 708 0 e09 n07 >01 s02 .12 010 .13 has 016 821. .10 O oZMnog 518 .02 .09 .19. .08 :01 .11 503 .05 1’12 .13 :05 .17 e15 .15 .11 .24106 .17 .17 .14 1.17 .211.19*.l7 .08 .01 .09 .10 l116 .15 .15 .12 :12 .08 .15 .20‘ 710 .13 .06 .24+17 .12 .19 .15 .07 .15 .30‘.25* .05 .05 .13 .16 |.02 .09 09 707 :13 .30'p03 .04 710 e I". 01 122 f Material Resources is significantly correlated with specialists in arts, culture and science and in constituent relations. The Constituent Communication cluster is related to specialists in pollution and conservation and in constituent relations. No other correlations are significant. Quality of Work and Life andVOrganization/Environ- mental CharacteriStics It is expected that the type of quality of work and life concerns organizations have are related to the economic and social environment of the organization. The organization/environmental interface was measured in two ways. Respondents were requested to indicate the percent of sales or business their organization transects with wholesalers, government, public, retailers, other industries, and their five largest customers. In addition, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which their organization's activities were affected by various societal elements and groups. The correla- tions between the quality of work and life clusters and the environmental items are presented in Table 18. The organization's percentage of sales to whole- salers was positively related to Work Conditions and Material Resources, and negatively related to commitments to Constituent Relations. The percent of sales to the Table 18. 1123 Organisational]Environmental Characteristics. 2 of Sales To: Wholesalers Government Public Retailers Industry Five Largest Customers ggtent Affected Consumers Suppliers Regulators Employees Media Technology Stockholders Other Industries Environmental Urban Groups Correlations Among Quality of work and Life Clusters and s 8 . .U a h g 3 O H a B G U G. H“ O .73 '73“ 3638 3 e838 0 :1 E g 0 U H ’4 H U :6 a: 0" 0 :3 0 $ 9 'U 0 v0 0 C I U ? C 80 U U U an 3 '0. any uxu an mus-4|: «awn—0 usegoe «cautious-lam 5.839.? O U “U 8‘ F! U C a U 0. I" 0 C V. 523:8: ‘65“: 28!: 8:: 2 “:85": ‘ .50) :a ~4:I:s:3:5u~ e.o: cu _fii§. -eu -e16 "e03 .221702 .0 e06 -ez 005 oz 4051-.02 -.11 -.06 -.0 .40'I .11 £1.03 0 -.03 mi .07 .13 .2’2' .18-.351.28* .09 .23 .07 .06 p.331.23-_.07 sol. .02 e03 009H01 e10 .812 ‘05“12 "eOlelG 0 i l 3 .19 .10 .o .26 .15 .2 .01 .02 .11 .2 .07 .05 .05 .01 h—*— .18 .26 -.03 -.05 4104 .28'l .16 -.06 .05 .3! .05-.01 .16 .16 .23+.11 .17 .191 .13 -.03 .3310 ,___1fi e21 e17 eu-e°3 e28 e10 e05 e01 e231 012 .14 .06 .26...o7 .16 .28 .14 4521.11 .19 .10 .1 .261 .241 .18 .19 .08 em -.02 -e04 e39 e07 -e10506 ‘03 .20' .18 .23. .19 .15 .13 0 4 _‘ .231 .17 .13 .09 .19 .21 .18 .13 .19 .06 .0 .13 .21"1 .16 .18 .3 6 306 'k .10 .04 .0: .49 .23 .16 .12 .4 .23'.16 .28 .261 .431.03 .31"I dies” .29 .27“ .10 .4 .15 'p ‘01 124 government is somewhat strongly related to commitments to Work Conditions and significantly to Material Resources. Sales to the public is negatively associated with commitments to Work Conditions and Material Resources, and positively to organizational commitments to Human Resources, Employee-Organization Integration, and Con- stituent Communication. Organization sales to other industries is positively related to Work Conditions, Material Resources, and Physical and Economic Security. And lastly, the percent of sales to the organization's five largest customers is positively related to Work Conditions and Material Resources. The extent to which organizations report they are affected by consumers is positively related to commit- ments to Human Resources, Individual Differences Accomo- dation, Community-Organization Integration, and Con- stituent Communication, and is negatively correlated with Work Conditions and Material Resources. The effect of suppliers, though, is positively related to Work Conditions and Material Resources. There is a positive relation of regulator influences on Individual Differences Accomodation, Employee-Organization Integration, and Constituent Communication. The extent organizations indicate they are affected by employees is significantly associated with commitments to Reward System, Employee- Organization Integration, and Constituent Communication. The influence of the media on organizations is associated with commitment to Individual Differences Accomodation, Physical and Economic Security of employees, Community-Organization Integration, and Constituent Re- lations and Communication. Reported influence of tech- nology is significantly correlated with commitments to Work Conditions, Employee-Organization Integration, Physical and Economic Security, Material Resource, and Constituent Communication. Union influences seem to be primarily on Work Conditions. The extent to which the community is reported to influence the organization is related to Reward System, Individual Differences Accomodation, and Community- Organization Integration, Relations, and Communication, and Material Resources. Organizations which report higher influences of other industries are more likely to have higher levels of commitment to Employee-Organi- zation Integration, Physical and Economic Security, Community-Organization Integration, and Material Resources. The extent to which environmentalists affect the organi- zation is most strongly related to Work Conditions and Material Resource usage. And lastly, the effect of urban groups is most pervasive since it is significantly related to all the quality of work and life concerns except Work Conditions, Material Resource, and Social-Democratic Freedoms. 126 The pattern of correlations between the clusters and the percentage of sales and influence of certain groups indicate what types of organizations are associa- ted with the various quality of life and work commit- ments. The correlations also suggest why organizations vary in the commitments. High percent sales to whole- salers, for example, is associated with lower commit- ments to constituent relations--these organizations interact less with consumers and the community. Also sales to the government is related to high commitments to the maintenance of physical resources, which indicates the influence of safety and environmental regulation. And lastly, the influence of various constituent groups is diverse. Organizational characteristics. The correlations among the clusters and a number of organizational charac— teristics were measured two ways-~through additional items in the executive survey listed in Appendix A and objective measures such as return on equity listed in 1980's Fortune magazine. In the executive survey, ten items were used to form a management social values scale, six items for an information dissemination on social policies scale, six items for social auditing, six items for human resource problems, and five items for constituent problems. The Management Social Values scale is correlated Table 19. Correlations Among Quality of Work and Life Clusters and Other Management Social Responses and Organizational Characteristics. : a -F - a a: o u a: -n o u >. o o m u s s 0 <3 : u o. u-H o .4 m mca o one o n o a u a 03 Q U I: I vs >s-fi 0.) O H m 0 Q o a s o m u .4 o .u4u : o .s .4 o a 01: a 01:0 wwmmwumuo aqua-ml “as Law-4H umuosouww own-nodo u a a > o «n o u:«« o a «5114: m u a u : o-o flame-wuxvdm no one A son as SQEQ'U'HHGO-U >40 Eula—i “amt-1300 £3; £4“; 53385:. 8‘38 85 84”.- S £43 888: Management's * e e e a Social Values .32 .31 .36 .16 .52 .49 .29 .54 .25 .24 .32 .54 * e e e d * Inf°mti°n 471.24 .411 .01 .26128 .45 .431.” .22 .53 .25 Dissemination i a e.. * 5°°131Aud191°8 .29 .27 .39 .09 .32 .25 .3111 .45129 .09 .36 .30 Human Resource * Problems -.15 -.21 -.14 .18 .12 .17 .01 .12 6.04 .11 .01 .17 Constituent * * Problm .10 402 .15 .03 .20 .26 .21 .36 .14 .19 .27”.26 * Assets e03 e06 e19 -el7 e03 e09 e17 s08 e16 e07 e19 ”807 Number of Employees e06 e07 s04 e03 e08 all e09 e10 e09 e17 all e04 Number of Divisions e04 ‘02 e07 b.09 e07 pl]. 014 e03 ell e01 e09 304 Number of Sites 007 ‘03 ‘07 e20 all 513 e07 e03 s17 e25 .QLROZ Z of Market 1 * 1 * Share .23'1.03 .11 .37 .07 ,15 .23 .13 .20 .29 .26 0 Return on * . * Equity - 1979 -.15 -.13 -.22 .Ol .01 .05 .09 -.07 ~09 .091-421 .09 Return on 127 * p‘. 01 128 with all the quality of work and life clusters except Work Conditions. This result indicates the ubiquity of social values as an index of organizational social values. The Information Dissemination and Social Auditing scales have the same pattern of correlations with the quality of work and life scales as does the Social Values. Thus, social values and social information gathering and dissemination are generic variables or indicators of organizational commitments to quality of work and life. Human Resource Problems are negatively related to commitments to Human Resources, which supports the efficacy of these type of quality of work activities. The amount of constituent problems indicated by an organization is positively related to the clusters Employee-Organization Integration, Physical and Economic Security, Community-Organization Integration, Constit- uent Relations, Constituent Communication, and Social- Democratic Freedom. Thus, organizations which experi- ence constituent problems tend to be more committed to building better relations and communication with its constituents. The remainder of Table 19 contains items concerning demographic information of the organizations which were obtained directly from the Fortune magazine. The 129 amount of assets of an organization is related to Individual Differences Accomodation and Constituent Communication. It seems that larger/richer companies are more likely to engage in these activities. The number of employees and divisions in an organization is not related to any of the quality of work and life. clusters. The number of sites or locations the organi- zation has is related to Work Conditions and Material Resources. The organizations' percentage of market share in their major product line or service is related to Reward System and Work Conditions quality of work clusters and all quality of life factors except Constit- uent Relations and Social-Democratic Freedoms. The percentage of the work force unionized is related to Work Conditions and Material Resources, which suggests that union influence is primarily limited to manu- facturers and specifically, conditions of the physical environment. The return on equity of the organizations in 1979, a measure of profit, is negatively related to Individual Differences Accomodation and Constituent Communications. Since these same factors were related to assets, it may be that these activities are not directly related to profit, but that the relation is spurious due to the effect of assets. 130 Secondary Analysis: Inventory Profile Analysis This section of the results focuses on the average commitment and effectiveness self-reports of the corporate executives to the 96 quality of life and work items on the first four pages of the survey in Appendix A. Res- pondents were requested to indicate for each item: (1) the degree of commitment of their organization in terms of resources and goals; and (2) the extent of organiza- tional effectiveness in implementing the particular activity or creating the particular constituent experi- ence. Respondents were given a five-point Likert—type scale for their responses (l-none, 2=low, 3-moderate, 4thigh, 5=very high). There are two subsections to the secondary analy- sis. Average self—reported commitments of manufacturing organizations are compared to those of service industries in the first subsection. The second subsection then compares the average self-reported commitments of all respondents to the average self-reported effectiveness ratings on the 96 quality of life and work items. Commitment of Manu- fatturing and Service Industries One means of describing the quality of work and life priority areas of various industries is to compare the average commitment scores on the different quality 131 of work and life items. Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 contain profile lines of the average self-reported commitments to the 96 quality of work and life items for service industries and manufacturing industries. Disparities between the two profile lines and also between the percentage of respondents indicating the activity or experience is not applicable to them suggest areas of divergent interest for service and manufacturing companies. In general, service industries indicate greater commitment to the various quality of work activities and experiences. In particular, service industries report on the average much higher commitment to employee personal services, guaranteed employment, social interactions, and employee training, whereas manufacturers place more emphasis on work safety and health. The patterns of quality of life concerns for service and manufacturing industries, on the other hand, are much more divergent. Service companies place more emphasis on stable employment, convenience of company location, consumer information, cultural philanthropy, structural esthetics, constituent communication, community renewal, and governmental lobbying. These quality of life activi- ties are generally above and beyond normal business operations. On the other hand, manufacturers indicate higher priority on research and development, pollution .mmfiufifiuoe. xuos mo 53.930 3 mmauumonoH outflow mom mumunuommoomz uo momooemmm assauaEEoo owmuo>< . emu—swam {ensue-ness «as. 18 assesses.— meuesgs seesaw: assu— 132 iisgfieifiitti 51.4.1.8... .6 26...... is. .- 8... 229.... .6 8:24.... 339635;. 00.6128 2. soc-.808 finiteness .31....8595328818siss888. .. c m c ~ .. m iiiiiii m c 4 . . lulllmll / 31333388388989... c 5 11386323833318.8398... ens-sins... .25-£6... N c 3373333583.! r. m 25818368188533.8238... a c 2.18 88888 5% N c .giaggieesssg o a asst-26585322183383! e u 8s. 333333 55:88 N am 33385833411158.6334. a S 28.135.898.58... 2 :. gig .. n Religigufiu o o .\ at... 11111 8.5.... w o £828.88...- 68.6831... .2 Nm igueziigziglitfl c O qlfi e 4 _ stag-93:5.E‘Ei I e m m h - I m m w n m I. .la 1.3 m 8.443333. 3.3 mo mafiamoo ou mmfiuumsnoH moa>umm new muououommoamz mo momoonmmm unmeufiaaou mwmum>< .m shaman 133 alga—.3303 4 J giggigfiila A 3332-83333 . ii... / [tissues-5.8 e 5 8:8... erases-9.383238 ‘3 I z z i E? L .53-3...... .3... rue-55:2: f— \ iii; 983% ‘ sis-Is §.ss2sane.!e.e.t§!s e / gitgls; ~ 8333:3238 h / 333538123 n / ginseng-easeme- . ii \ 808%? n t.» 33.333393: 0— — \ zggggfigt 8.35.258 A. - gigging G elite-ages reassures; V. / 388.8828. 4 EN 38.88.833.38 ~ 5.8188332283818283 > 948878.; .3923}: a... 893.88% / 80383-58?! attain-96...: Q Cm o. as skate Iii-6.43.33.38.83 8.3888... — 3| .938. onto-.88.... >53 0. 88.38.89 0 h _ tosses... 80.28 are 28333 .0 2.8.? 2 3.1.1.1.: \ 33983 a 3 §=§3£S§%.§z§£n:§.efe c 2 aftggsi-ousssfi .. l . . . . e e . _ Ia .3 so .3 onto Cowl so not: ear—I 134 " iii-2...»... c 135 w > 5 mp mam «.330 g E: g mu 2m 3mm 250 < 10:... no... ‘- 3‘: .013! .3 2 c— ggigflslsi .2 MN {iii-c.3813... .; CN fi‘lig‘i ~N a: gets-ligating... S S {1.198311385131131 2 o .238...- osgésgsgiu 2 mu . _._.____..l!8..lal§3i S 2 gitigtll £il£9§ — nN fitggif 818.0. zit-.31.; iii-23;..g188 eliisrfiiriEzuuallsIIIISiEI. .l!!!35832§£!l£988!£81§3 gill-382% {3583;18- ol!!:!lizillilzll££itnllt ilt‘:ixtzlali£n £18.8- EIIB. :Ei’f Eiltgflgfig igs. §§3§¥ £18.93??? cm flit-iii! S zit-£335.53}: c w w u I w a. — awd ago u>h l 68L :7:— :CEI 136 reduction, conservation and recycling, and encouraging self sufficiency of developing countries. These types of quality of life concerns are more in line with.means of carrying out normal business operations. Service industries in their quality of life activities are hence more likely to commit themselves to additional indi- rectly-related business activities in the community, whereas manufacturers are more likely to modify their means of doing directly-related business activities in society in general. Commitment - Effective- ness Comparisons Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 contain the average self- reported organization commitment responses (represented by a thick line) and the average self-reported effective- ness ratings (represented by a thin line) for each or- ganizational activity and constituent experience across all respondents. The figures allow an examination of the relative commitment priorities, self-reported effective- ness, and a comparison between expressed commitment and effectiveness for each organizational activity and con- stituent experience averaged across all respondents. The numbers next to the profile lines indicate the percent of respondents who either gave no response to the item or indicated that the item was not applicable to the organization. These responses were not calculated in 137 do sufiamao co mucwvcoammm HH< mo momcoamm .mm...>..u< ago: mmocm>fiuowmwm paw unusuaaaoo mwmum>< .w muswfim .30-53:.- a... ul- i. 5....- oo‘?! lulu. IIIIMIII _ _ c 3180.33.01.29!!! 2.3. 55.5525 03:5 32:. an»: 1133153383¥8§ .83-{I085 igzggigif issiizesstzsilzzis 20.: haunt: A ”“60: law w . u — 5.25: 35.5: .7. III-I'll 1.... :1... .....Ur. .25) 3.2.9.0... 0.8.0.1803: 3.09.02.85.33. .Lofivoou 500235u5tlc¢8 Illl $3.333. 33 mo .3335 :o mucovsoammu .3... mo wmmcoammm mmo=o>wuommum mam ucoauaaaou wwmuo>< .a 0.335 138 to class-i.— 00133 :3 ‘ 28.23:... 56:50.5!5; 33.550.85.80. / 9.83388... :8 8358:0588... 8.5.88 83981533328182.8133 \ 5838833.... fiiguégigiz ‘ 852.83%... 3.. 32.5.5 \ 132-v.80... 3.353.833; 5958;533:815!!! A 2.5 50 £55 392:2»: aka—Scan: 455 aaaaa a 35.52888 8.8.8 8.95.8... 858888885888 8.8.53; 52.2.1.8? \ Sgt-avengsgfll 8§§8§§§x 8.6.82.8 igggusi nggtgi — §.§.dl / 3.3.5.5292? jigging; 3:88.23... ‘ DIES-.5383; \ 5.95.8.5. 438m gags—Eu 3.5a \ gong}: auto-15835935838938: is I. 83.8.3... :5 g .23.. 2.. I... \ 2%.;ilg £538.... i.8.82.-13.a.8. 8.83.85 Egéigoigg s ‘§%2§3>.§2£i \ x 338:. ow 8.2.280... .0 8.5.8 8.6.8. 8.5!... 1.855.}... c— 238...! 8.38.9..- {fill-5.; .3» a _ . . 5.22:5 .222... 8." w _ . — “.2338... $.55. 8- .Ia 3.2.9.. 2.. 9.2.85... .. a. mu. .Zw>... aw ll §.8£3§§z.§.§.§§55§ .IIII 139 m0 muaamao so mucmvaoammm HH< mo mmmaoammm mm .muamfiumaxm 9003 009.3003“. cum 000302.500 wwmuw>< .OH 00:»... {9.9903009 .3... ‘09 90000009. 99.930 0000-09. '03. _=. W1? 98.953238195938858: :833 2:58. 322989838... :05: .82.... 53.89.000.00... 90.310.99.309 3.900909 0:39.! «9990.900 9.. 9099.399 99...... .3090. .0 03.0.9.0. 9.09.... 99 .9 90.00050 009 .0003 :09 .0 .0099... 0090.900 90029993038383.9518...- 4500:0080 a 8:895... 9238.89.88 8.5.8. 33...... 83895183303322.5838... Ezmhmumzcu ..<...:~>~:z~¢m...z~ get—3mg: ASK—HbunzH c 2103.93.90.03 99.9.090 099090.909 g‘lagiggzii 2.. 3.. £5. 32...... c WJ d _ 09.9 :33:.__n___.9._.1:0..0.9...90. 0.9.0.0939 éliiiggg — 9998' m 11'.— 90..0.0_..039090.909 39509396593399.3999... I.— 80.09%!009‘EE53909019 — . . u A £339.039990853033i9090909 figig3§hfl 26:5.802— q<~8w gage»: goon o— '4'.— iigitgi‘ gitii 92.90.9900... 38383...s§93££8§38.8.§ .. 8180318502999...- .. .889..§889:!.x}.9...8.29§3.828013.{ a q < 1 . 8.399.319.9508? _€ 10.0.9.0 0:0. 000. .05....9 9.6.9 0.0303600000901909 .0. £“£3ii .3 m m . _ 05:22.92... .22.»... .3. m . u «220.90.... 0590...... .I.. .8.- ...:...... _—. -.~m..b l a..:...... 0.: Z . ._ v, .. §9£§£2§33§99.§.§.98§3b2gp§0 II 140 no %ufiam=o so mucmvcoammm HH< mo mmmcommwx .moawfiumnxm mafia mmmcm>fiuummwm van usuauusaoo mwmum>< .HH muzwfim {3.03:- } ul- i. £00.. .033 unlu- o. . . . . libtlitsiinlizelialf gilt-cognition} .Iflsiiitsiixtilltlifltll ...:...3.11.2:u..:..n..:..:.:; I... . . 8§§o£.o.§33i893.§8¢2§.§§3 th git—8.3;!- // 5.8.5 4< 0o gags—MHz .2 00m 1‘ £1.18- % 9.0393?! HE... n— q . 1 4 a gigfigii of; 2.5842313. 1.3%.832. 3.5.5.8 ~n DEE-g .Efioal-EsSSaczl §.a§.g§8:o 5E:I.iv3.o>§§xttflv{ W q d _ cit-18.3%? §£§¥3§ ~_ «Ill—NI] :28. 9"... 3.3388333! I. a n u . 522 :5» 385:: ...w ~ . u 22... x... s. I. I. o .1. . 141 the profile lines. Commitments. The highest average commitments (greater than 3.9) for organizational activities which affect employees (Figure 8) include the following: pay, benefits, human relations, training, promotion, biologi— cal safety, physical safety, reward system equity, and representative promotion of employees in protected groups. Employee experiences (Figure 10) given high priority (greater than 3.9) are as follows: physical .health, physical safety, trust in management, freedom from slow acting chemical and biological dangers, feelings of physical security, and equality of outcomes for members of protected groups. These activities and experiences represent the core of high commitment acti- vities in personnel and human resources. The highest average commitments (greater than 3.9) for organizational activities which affect society in general are as follows: product or service usefulness, resource efficiency, stable employment, pollution reduc- tion, and representative employment of protected groups. Societal members' experiences given high priority (greater than 3.9) by the organizations include community relations in general and government relations in general. These societal-directed activities and experiences represent high priority quality of life concerns of organizations in general. 142 Effectiveness. In Figures 8, 9, 10, and ll, the thin profile lines represent mean responses of all organizations to the request for self-reports of . effectiveness in implementing the activities or bringing about the constituent experiences. The same five point Likert-type scale was used (lsnone, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high). Quality of work life activities given high average effectiveness ratings (greater than 3.5) included fringe benefits, promotion from within, biological safety, and work safety. Quality of work life experiences which were indicated as effectively brought about (greater than 3.5) were limited to health and safety experiences-- feelings of physical safety and security, and freedom from chemical and biological dangers. 0n the lower end of the self-reported effectiveness scale, those quality of work life activities and experi- ences indicated as being implemented ineffectively (less than 2.5) were: enrichment of lower level jobs, use of collective or group rewards, employee control over membership in work groups, and employee feelings of autonomy. These activities and experiences, though, were generally given low levels of commitment. In general, it seems that the responding organizations believe they are most committed and successful in safety and health aspects of quality of work life and least 143 committed and successful in sharing authority and control with lower level employees. In terms of quality of life, the least success- fully implemented activities and constituent experiences (less than 2.5) are as follows: employee rewards for community participation, encouraging independence and self-sufficiency of developing countries, constituent representation in major organizational decisions that Iaffect their concern, social activities, and international relations. These activities and constituent experiences are also given low levels of commitment by the responding. organizations. Discrepancies. Comparisons of the difference or spread between the two profile lines in Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11 allow an examination of quality of work and life areas which are given high commitment relative to the degree of self-reported effectiveness. These items represent perceived problem areas for organiza- tions. Quality of work life activities and experiences which have an average discrepancy between commitment and effectiveness ratings greater than .5 include the following: pay, human relations, training, communica- tion of corporate goals to employees, two-way communica- tion between highest and lowest levels in the organiza- tion, reward system equity, promotion of employees in 144 protected groups, employee trust in management, employee identification with the organization, employee acceptance of organizational goals, and equality of outcomes for employees who are members of protected groups. Be- sides the equal employment, compensation, and training activities, executives perceive their greatest difficulty with managing employees is in imbuing the employees with a sense of trust and confidence in management and identi- fication with the mission of the organization. These same respondents that desire to gain the trust and organizational spirit of their employees also, as indi- cated earlier, are not committed to sharing authority and control with their employers. The quality of life organization activities and constituent experiences which have a discrepancy of .5 units or more between stated commitment and effective- ness are: resource efficiency, development of consumer education, representative employment of protected groups, transactions with minority owned businesses, economic security of societal members, preservation of material resources, and international relations. These items indicate relative problem areas of organiza— tional quality of life concerns. The above findings concerning organizational activi- ties and constituent experiences which have high commit- ments relative to reported effectiveness may not 145 generalize to all industry types. Certain types of industry may be more effective or less committed to these activities. Average discrepancies between stated commit- ment and effectiveness for all 96 items were subsequently disaggregated by industry type. Service type industries (S.I.C. codes .40 to 67, N=92) were compared to manu- facturing type industries (S.I.C. codes 20 to 39, N=52) on items which had a discrepancy score of .7 or more in either type of industry. Table 20 lists the high discrepancy score items for service and manufacturing industries. In general, service type industries had higher and more discrepancy scores greater than .70. Of the items listed in Table 20, service industries reported much greater difficulty compared to manufacturers in reaching their commitments toward employee training and cross functional cooperation. The data was further disaggregated by industry type, as listed earlier in this section, for the purpose of identifying crucial quality of work and life concerns for each specific type of industry. High discrepancies. Table 21 is a list of quality of work and life items which had discrepancy scores greater than .75 in any one industry. Table 21 gives an indication of high priority problem areas for certain industries as demonstrated by a high discrepancy between 146 Table 20. High Commitment-Effectiveness Discrepancy Score Items For Service and Manufacturing Industries. Discrepancy Score Discrepancy Score For Service For Manufacturers Item Industries Industries Employee Training .70 .47 Representative Promotion of Protected Groups .73 .61 Human Relations Management .75 ~ .57 Employee Trust in Management .73 .67 Cross-functional Cooperation .70 .33 Z-Way Heirarchical Communication .63 .71 147 extent of self-reported commitment and effectiveness. Human relations management and communication of the corporate mission seem to be perceived problem areas for insurance and retail companies. Training is reported as a problem for these two types of companies as well as for transportation, which also indicates work safety and reward system equity to be of high concern. Two-way hierarchical communication for insur- ance, transportation, and banking companies have extremely high discrepancy scores. Retailing, trans- portation, and utilities all indicate problems with implementing representative promotion programs. Trust in management seems to be an acute problem with utility and food companies. Transportation and banking both report high discrepancies between commitment and effectiveness in getting employees to identify with their organization's mission and to accept the company's goals. Insurance and bank companies report a problem in getting their various departments to cooperate. In reference to quality of life concerns, retail com- panies report a problem in developing free choice and expression in society; diversified financial companies in maintaining equality of opportunity for all;\and insurance companies in getting societal members to participate in the democratic process. Cluster discrepancies. To this point, the Table 21. Industry Type. 53 O U . 'e e 50 e O E- idigfiififiwféosi‘: Quality of «.00 g E m i; 3 3 g a E: 8 c: u WorkLife :5 E c: 3 a: E-' :3 an as. Fm $3? Human Relations .68 .57 .75 .77* .92!.69l.65 .71 .64 .55 .58 Training .62 .47 .70 .77’ .95 .771.59 .71 .27 .64 .43 Work Safety .33 .41 .27 0 .17 .854.“ 0 0 .55 .38 Com- Corp. .64 .67 .63 .85 .83 .62 .53 .57 .36 .45 .73 Mission Z-Way er *4 i? Communication :69 -71 ~69 -92 3.0 .77 .65 .79 .18 .64 .73 Reward System * Equity .54 .51 .55 .62 .67 .77 .53 .43 .46 .55 .50 Representative J * Promotion '69 '61 '73 -70 ~92 .85 .7715? .46 .45 .65 Trust In Management .70 e67 073 .54 075 .62 100%064 073 1.2% .50 Identification * * With Mission -55 ~51 ~53 ~54 .75 .92 .53 .79 .27 .64 .43 * c’°’°'F““°‘1°nal .56 .33 .70 .77* .75 .54 .65 .86 .64 .36 .33 Cooperation Acceptance of * 7 * .36 .46 .55 Org'n. Goals .58 .53 .62 .46 .75 .77 .47 . 9 * Discrepency score greater than .70. Quality of Life " Free Choice . . .18 .64 .43 and Expression .36 .47 .30 .62 .831 15 12 0 Equality °f .82{.27 .45 Opportunity .40 .41 .40 .54 .50 .15 .24 O mcrati“ .37 .41 .35 .85" .75 .73 .18 o .09 .73 .33 Involvement j _ 4 l 148 1 High Average Commitment-Effectiveness Discrepancy Items By Items in this table have a commitment-effectiveness score of .70 in at least one industry type. 149 discrepancy scores between average self-reported commit- ment and effectiveness in areas of quality of work and life have been presented for individual items only. In order to gain a more general view of high priority problem areas, the sum of the average discrepancy scores for the four items within each of the 24 quality of life and work categories listed in Table 5 were calcula- ted. The sum of the four discrepancy scores in each category in the a priori model are presented in Table 22 for the various types of industry. In Table 22, for each industry type, the twelve categorical activity discrepancy scores are very parallel to their respective constituent experience discrepancy scores. For example, in the first row of discrepancy scores, which repre- sents all organizations, both the activity and experience discrepancy scores for Individual Development, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency quality of work life categories are very similar and indicate an agreement that these are high priority problem areas. Also, the comparatively low scores for both the activity and experience discrepancy scores for Social Interaction, Individual Development, and Physical Environment quality of life categories, indicates an agreement that these are relatively low problem areas. The sum of discrepancy scores within categories that are greater than 2.0 are distinguished by an Table 22 . All Organiz. General Manufact. Service Insurance Retailing Transport. Utilities Commercial Banking Diversified Financial Food Products Manufact. 144 52 92 13 12 13 29 14 11 11 41 (excludes food) 150 Quality of Worl lity of Life MAT soc IND pay IND PHY soc INT PRO INT DEV ENV DEV §§!._1E§nfiflflw A1 .8 1.0 1.7 1.0 .4 .5 .6 1.1 E2 1.1 1.0 1.5 .9 1.0 .9 1.3 1.2 A . 1.0 1.6 1.1 .4 f .5 .5 .9 E 1.2 1.01.5 1.1 P.l .8 .7 P.1 A . 1.0 1.7 .9 .4 .5 .7 1.2 s 1.0 .9 1.5 .9 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.3 A 1.0 1.0 2.0* . . .5 .4 1.4 E 1.2 .7 1.8 . P.o 1.3 1.5 4.48 A .6 1.3 1.8 .5 . .3 .8 .1 E 1.8 1.3 1.9 .9 .2* 8.1 1.8 .3* A 1.2 .8 2.1* 1.5 1.9 2.” 1.2 .5 .4 1.0 .8 .4 E 1.0 1.6 1.8 1.4 2.2* 1.5 1.2 .2 .5 1.2 1.2 .8 A . 1.0 1.7. 1.1 .5 1.8 .6 .4 .7 .9 1.0 1.5 E .9 .81.4 1.6 .9 1.6 .9 .7 .7 4.0 1.9 .7 A .4 1.0 1.4 .4 .9 1.0 o .3 o .5 .9 E o _ .4 1.3 .8* 1.4 .9 o .4 .4 1.6 o A .1.3 .8 1.6 1.1t05 1.5 .3 0 .7 .4 .9 1&041 E .5 1.2 1.2 .5 .6 1.6 1.6 1.0 .8 4.2 .7 1.5 A .6 .6 41.7 1.1 2.6*1.3 .5 .4 .5 .2 .3 .9 E 1.5 2.0Hh.6 .97 1.6 ;2.1* .7 .55 8.5 .o .9 .3 A .8 1.1 1.6 1.1 2.3*1.6 .7 .5 .4 .7 .5 1.0 E 1.1 .8 1.4 1.1 1.8 1.3 fl .9 .7 1.0 .7 .7 1.0 Average Category Discrepancy Scores Between Reported Commitment and Effectiveness By Industry. 1 - Organizational Activity Type Items 2 5 Constituent Outcome and Experience Type Items * - Discrepancy Score Greater Than or Equal to 2.0 r 151 asterisk. These areas indicate very high problem areas in that the average discrepancy scores for the categories' respective four items is at least .5 units. The most frequent category with discrepancy scores greater than 2.0 units is the Social Integration quality of work life category. This result supports the earlier finding on individual item discrepancy scores, that employee acceptance and identification with the organiza- tions' goals and mission is the highest priority problem area for private organizations in general. The second most frequent problem area is the Inter- individual Consistency quality of work life category. Retail, transportation and food product industries all show difficulty in implementing and bringing about equity and equality of opportunity for their employees. This finding is also supported by the high discrepancy scores in the related category of Interindividual Consistency in society for both insurance and retail companies. Table 22 also allows a comparison of priority problem areas within each industry. For example, banks indicate little or no problem in Material Provisions, Social Interactions and Physical Environment concerns for their employees, but indicate difficulties in employee development and organizational integration. In addition, banks place relatively greater concern on Material Provisions and Social Integration in their 152 quality of life concerns than in Social Interaction and the Physical Environment in society in general. SUMMARY The primary objectives of this study were (1) to propose a model of human outcomes and experiences which fulfill human needs and goals, (2) to expand the model and develOp an inventory of organizational social responses which affect the quality of work life and the quality of life, and (3) to empirically vali- date the model using expert opinions and executive perceptions of their organizations' commitments. This summary reviews the major findings, describes the over- all conclusions, and offers four areas of future research. The Model The proposed basic model of human outcomes and experiences is based on two properties of the outcomes-- the source or sphere and the unit of reception. The source of outcomes are either physical, social, or psychological. Reception units of the outcomes are either individuals or collectives. The two proper- ties are used as two dimensions of the model which when crossed form six categories of human outcomes. Individually received type outcomes are Material Provisions, Social Interactions, and Psychological 153 154 Development. Collectively received outcome categories include Physical Environment, Social Integration, and Interindividual Consistency. Organizational social responses were further modeled by the inclusion of two additional dimensions. The causal sequence leading from organizational activi- ties and conditions to human outcomes and experiences formed the third dimension. And the fourth and final dimension was the impacted group which was limited to employees and society in general. The complete model thus contained twenty-four categories--six quality of work activities, six quality of work experiences, six quality of life activities, and six quality of life experiences. Litggéggze Analysis Lists of facets of quality of life and work and corporate social responsibility from over fifty studies in the past two decades were content analyzed using the model. The content analysis of the literature was used to test the face validity of the model and to help identify the contents of the various categories of the model. Different categorical areas seemed to be explained by the various studies. The following are some of the better lists of facets for each of the six quality of 155 life categories. The Dalkey (1968) study was analyzed as having health, affluence, and security as Material Provisions elements. Social Interaction facets were very infrequently mentioned but included family, friendship, and status. For the Psychological Develop- ment category, Terleckyj's (1973) list containing education, art, science and leisure was very represen- tative. The Environmental Protection Agency Fellows (1972) had the most comprehensive Physical Environ- ment list which was divided in terms of the physical environment (housing, transportation, esthetics, etc.) and the natural environment (clean air and water, noise; etc.). The EPA Fellows (1972) also had one of the better list of Social Integration facets which included community, social stability, and culture. The last quality of life category was extensively covered in the literature and best represented by the Economic Council of Canada which listed basic freedom, equality, electoral process, and group rights. In reference to quality of work life there were greater degrees of variance in emphasis across the six categories. Material Provision elements were the second most emphasized category next to Psychological Development. A representative list included salary, security, and employee benefits (Peay and Wernander, 1978). Dunnette et al.'s (1966) list of quality of 156 work facets contained the following Social Interaction facets: recognition, co-workers, and human relations supervision. By far, the most represented category was that of Psychological Development. Hackman and Oldham's (1976) five core job characteristics-~skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback--was the most comprehensive and theoreti- cally impressive. I The three collectively received quality of work outcome categories were least emphasized. One possible reason for the emphasis on individually received out- comes in the quality of work literature is the strong influence of psychologists. For example, Porter (1972) explicitly stated that his list was based on Maslow's theory of a hierarchy of needs. Analysis of the collectively received human outcomes illustrates a major deficiency in current quality of work constructs. The only elements in the literature which were placed in the Physical Environment category were work safety and working conditions (Sheer, 1975). Social Integration elements appeared in greater number in later years. Sheer's (1975) list was very exceptional: commitment, absence of apathy, involvement and influ- ence, confidence in management, and union/management relations. Interindividual Consistency elements also did not appear on the lists until the mid 1970's. 157 Two elements given by Davis (1977) subsumed all others-- equitable treatment and democracy at work. The content analysis of corporate social respon- sibility facets demonstrated the utility of the dis- tinction between quality of life and quality of work life as the two areas of organizational social responsiveness. Although there was less emphasis on quality of work life, all the facets could be placed in one of the twelve categories. The analysis also suggested that the social interaction and social integration categories are distinct from the other categories. The most com- prehensive lists are by McAdam (1973) and Carson and Steiner (1974). The content analysis also revealed two other major deficiencies in the literature. First, there was no standardized categorical scheme of quality of life or work elements. Most methods for construction of the lists were based on either the authors' percep- tions, integration of a number of different perceptions, or empirical analysis of items which originated from the researchers' perceptions. The major contribution of the proposed model is the proposition that there exists certain properties of human outcomes and experiences and that these properties form categories which are generic to both quality of life and work. Another deficiency in the literature is a clear 158 lack of differentiation between organizational activities or conditions and human outcomes and experiences. This problem is symptomatic of the conspicuous absence of clearly defined properties and dimensions. For example, some lists of quality of work facets contain objective elements such as amount of-authority and opportunity for interactions and purely experiential elements such as self-esteem and personal growth (Porter, 1962). An exception to this is the explicit differentiation by Hackman and Oldham (1976) between objective task characteristics and resulting psychological states. The proposed four dimensional model was an attempt to apply this causal sequence between objective con- ditions and human experiences to all areas of quality of life and work. Expert Placement Task The content analysis of the literature was then used to develop a proposed set of 96 elements for the twenty-four categories of the model. Two studies were implemented to test the model. Study 1 used the responses of ten experts in organizational psychology and behavior to place the 96 items in the twenty four categories. Overall, 77 percent of the most frequent placement of the items agreed with the hypothesized placement of the items. The agreement rate with that 159 hypothesized was greater in the human outcome items (81 percent) than the organizational activity items (71 percent)--which tends to support the proposition of two properties underlying human outcomes and their usefulness as a basis for model building. The highest agreement rate between the experts and the a priori placement was in the Material Provision, Physical Environment, and Psychological Development categories. Inventory Analysis Study 2 attempted to further validate the proposed model through an analysis of the responses of 144 cor- porate executives to the 96 quality of work and life items and additional items. The primary analysis con- sisted of cluster and factor analyses of the 96 items and their correlations with related variables. A priori analysis. There were four major findings in the a priori multiple groups analysis. First, the structure of the executive perceptions of their organie zations' commitments fit the model better for the human outcome items than the organizational activity item. Only twelve of the forty eight organizational activity items correlated highest with their respective hypoth- esized clusters, whereas twenty five of the forty eight human outcome items correlated highest with their 160 respective clusters. The second finding was that a general human relations factor in quality of work seemed to be present. A total of thirteen of the twenty four quality of work activities correlated highest with the Social Interactions cluster which contained the items human relations management and opportunity for social interactions. The third finding of the multiple groups analysis was that there existed general support for the inclusion of a social level of human experiences in the basic Montgomery (1975) model. In the quality of work outcome items, three of the four hypothesized Social Interaction items correlated highest with the Social Interaction cluster, and in the quality of life outcome items, all four of the Social Interaction items correlated highest with that cluster. Also, three of the four Social Integration quality of life outcome items correlated highest with the Social Integration cluster. The fourth and last major finding of the a priori multiple groups analysis was that executive perceptions of their organization's commitments are not structured in the same manner as that of the model. The alpha coefficients were generally low to moderate and the item/cluster correlations did not support the hypothe- sized item placement. Blind structural analysis. The purpose of the 161 factor analysis and subsequent cluster analysis was to investigate the structure of the executives' perceptions of quality of life and work commitments. In the factor analysis of all 96 items, five dominant factors emerged. Four of the factors corresponded to the distinction between quality of work activities, quality of work experiences, quality of life activities, and quality of life experiences. The fifth factor was related to manufacturing processes. The structuring of the entire data set in terms . of the four major sets of categories of organizational social responsiveness supported the procedure of further factor analyzing each of the four sets of twenty four items. The twenty four quality of work life items_ factored into three factors-vHuman Resources, Individual Differences Accomodation, and Physical Work Conditions. The quality of work life outcomes factored into Employee Integration with the Organization and Physical and Economic Security. The twenty four quality of life activity items gave three factorSo-Constituent Inte- gration Into the Organization, Organizational Philan- thropy, and Material Resource Utilization. And lastly, the quality of life outcomes resulted in two factors-- Social Democratic Freedoms and Organizational Constit- uent Relations. The highest loadings of the items with the factors 162 were used to develop ten clusters which were then cluster analyzed. The alpha coefficients of the clusters ranged from .75 to .95, which were considered fairly high. Only nine of the 96 items correlated higher with a cluster other than their own respective clusters and none of these were greater than .07 in difference. After further inspection of the item/cluster correlations and item content, two clusters were further subdivided. The Human Resources cluster was divided into Human Resource Utilization and Reward System subclusters. The Constituent Integration Into the Organization cluster was divided into Constituent Communication and Repre- sentation and Organizational/Community Integration. The patterns of correlation among the twelve final clusters was investigated. A higher-order factor analysis of the twelve clusters revealed four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four factors were labelled Resource Exchanges with Constit- uents, Maintenance of Social Structure, Resource Exchanges with Employees, and Maintenance of Physical Resources. There were four major findings of the factor analyses of the 96 items and the subsequent cluster analysis. The first is that the twelve empirically derived clusters conceptually paralleled the original six quality of work categories and the six quality of 163 life categories. The actual item contents, though, were very much different. The second finding was additional support for the inclusion of the Social Interaction and Social Integration categories of the original model. The Constituent Integration and Employee Integration clusters emerged in the factor analyses and were suppor- ted in the cluster analyses. The third finding was that the quality of life commitment patterns of organi- zations are not separate from their quality of work life commitments and vice—versa. Two of the higher-order factors were composed of quality of life and work clusters--Maintenance of Social Structures and Mainte- nance of Physical Resources. The fourth major finding of the factor and cluster analyses dealt with the composition of the higher-order Maintenance of Social Structures factor. The two quality of life clusters which correlated highest with the factor were Relations with Con- stituents and Social Democratic Freedoms. The two quality of work clusters which correlated highest with the factor were Employee Integration into the Organiza- tion and Physical and Economic'Security. Perhaps, the development of positive relations with constituents is perceived to be associated with commitments to social and democratic freedoms and commitments to organiza- tionally integrated employees is associated with 164 developing the physical and economic security of the employees. That is, positive constituent relations are possibly promoted through granting freedoms, and positive employee relations are promoted through granting securities. Construct validity. The third and last subsection of the primary analysis attempted to explore the organizational correlates of the twelve empirically- derived quality of work and life clusters. Single item measures of the original twelve categories of the content model and number of specialists in areas related to the twelve original categories were correlated with the twelve empirically-derived clusters. Since the clusters seemed to parallel the original categories of the model, the correlations tested the validity of the clusters as measures of the twelve quality of life and work constructs. Examination of the correlation matrices revealed only partial support for the construct validity of the clusters. In the single item/cluster matrix, only one of the twelve diagonal elements (8 percent) was not significant (Philanthropy with psychological development in society) whereas twenty six of the 132 off diagonal elements (20 percent) were not significant. In the specialists/cluster matrix, four of the twelve diagonal 'elements (33 percent) were significant whereas only 165 twenty three of the 132 off diagonal elements (17 percent) were statistically significant at p.<.01. Also, the number of specialists in employee social activities significantly correlated with five of the six quality of work clusters and three of the six quality of life clusters, which accounts for seven of the twenty three significant off-diagonal corre- lations. Cluster correlates with other organizational variables revealed a great deal about the organiza- tions' varying patterns of commitments. The percent of total sales to wholesalers was positively related to commitments to Internal Work Conditions and Material Resource utilization and negatively related to Con- stituent Relations. Also percent sales to government or five largest customers was positively related to Internal Work Conditions and Material Resource Utiliza- tion. Lastly, percent of total sales to the public was negatively related to Internal Work Conditions and Material Resource Utilization and positively to Human Resources, Employee Integration, Community/ Organization Integration, and Constituent Communication and Representation. Self-reported degree of influence of various constituent groups also helped explain the various commitments. Of all groups, the influence of unions 166 correlated with the least number of clusters--only Internal Work Conditions. The influence of urban groups was most pervasive--five of the six quality of work and four of the six quality of life correla- tions were significant. Influence of technology was also pervasive (six significant correlations), as was the influence of consumers (six significant, but negative with Work Conditions and Material Re- sources). The influence of environmentalists, the. media, and stockholders significantly correlated with five clusters. Stockholder influence, though, was limited to quality of life commitments. The suppliers and regulators correlated only with two and three clusters respectively. Hence urban groups, technology, consumers, the media, and stockholders had the most pervasive effects and unions, regulators, and suppliers the least effects. The cluster correlations with other organiza- tional variables included the following. The ten item Management Social Values scale, and the Information Dissemination and Social Audit scales were significantly positively correlated with all twelve clusters, except Work Conditions and Material Resources with the Social Audit scale. The six item Human Resource Problems scale was significantly correlated only with and nega- tively to Human Resource Utilization. The Constituent 167 Problems scale, though, was positively related to Employee Integration and Employee Security and all quality of life clusters except Material Resources and Organizational Philanthropy. This last result suggests that organizations with constituent problems such as lawsuits and boycotts may not necessarily attempt to buy off their constituent problems through philanthropy. Included in the cluster correlations with objec- tive measures of organizational characteristics are the following. Assets, a measure of size, was positively correlated with Individual Differences Accomodation and Constituent Communication and Representation which suggests these are either expensive activities or best suited for large companies. The number of employees and divisions, though, were not correlated with any of the clusters, which suggests that the wealth explanation above is probably operating. Return on equity in the 1970's, a measure of productivity,was correlated near zero with all twelve clusters. Return on equity for 1979, though, was negatively correlated ‘with Individual Differences Accomodation and Constituent Communication and Representation. Secondary Analysis There were two major findings in the commitment 168 comparisons between manufacturing and service organiza- tions. First, service industries had greater quality of work commitments except for Internal Work Conditions. Second, the quality of life commitment patterns were very divergent. Service industries were more committed to activities which were not directly related to their business concerns whereas manufacturing organization commitments were generally limited to activities directly related to their operations (e.g., pollution reduction, minority employment). The comparisons between self-reported commitments and effectiveness across all respondents revealed two major findings. First, in quality of work life, execu- tives perceive that their greatest problems are in Social Integration outcomes (e.g., employee commitment and identity) but their lowest commitments are to the hypothesized Social Integration activities (e.g., participation, two-way communication). This finding supports the earlier suggested finding in the higher- order factor analysis that organizations generally attempt to develop employee commitment by fostering economic security and not by sharing power and control. The second major finding was that there are high per- ceived problems with both implementing Interindividual Consistency activities and bringing about their hypothesized outcomes. Social integration and justice 169 are the largest quality of work problems confronting management. Overall Conclusions There are four overall conclusions in the total study. First, the content model was very practical for content analyzing the literature and developing the inventory but did not fully account for the structure of executive perceptions of their organizations' commitments to quality of life and work. The four dimensions, based on the properties of human outcomes and experiences, was found to subsume all previous models of quality of life, quality of work, and corporate social responsibility. The fourth dimension, the Impacted Group, generalized the basic model to,and allowed parallel analysis of,quality of.work and quality of life. The third dimension differentiated between activities or conditions and outcomes or experiences which added to the analysis of the literature and the organizational commitments. The basic six category model as defined by the first two dimensions, source and receivor, was generally supported by the expertixen placements and the conceptual parallelism with the struc- ture of the executives' perceptions. In both studies, the outcome type items fit the model better than the activity type items as expected by the nature of the 170 proposed properties of the model. The second major finding was that the inclusion of the social level in the source dimension, which added the Social Interaction and Social Integration categories, improved upon the basic four category Montgomery (1975) model. The social categories emerged andvmme supported in both the cluster and factor analysis. Also, their inclusion greatly improved the content analysis of the literature and the profile analysis of organizational commitments. The third major finding was that quality of life commitment patterns are very much related to the quality of work commitment patterns. The higher- order factor analysis, for example, indicated that the factors Maintenance of Social Structures and Main- tenance of Physical Resources overlap quality of life and work. Degree of commitments to constituent rela- tions is associated with degree of commitments to employee relations. Likewise, commitments to material resources relate to work conditions commitments. The last overall conclusion is that the manner in which organizations commit themselves to the main- tenance of social structures is very different with constituents than with employees. For quality of work life, commitments to employee/organization inte- gration are most associated with commitments to 171 improving the physical and economic security of employees. Whereas for quality of life, commitments to constituent relations are most related to commitments to social and democratic freedoms. This finding was further supported in the profile analysis. Organizations were highly commited to social integration outcomes for their employees but were less committed to the hypothesized social integration-activities such as sharing power and control. Instead, organizations seem to buy employee commitment with physical and economic security. Future Research Four major future directions for research are suggested. The two studies explored only the structure of the quality of life and work perceptions of experts in organizational psychology and those of executives of large private organizations. The first suggested research direction is to explore the perceptual quality of life and work structure of employees and government policy makers. Although a large number of the reviewed studies have used these types of subjects, none have done so with as complete a list of quality of work and life elements or with a concisely formed a priori model with stated properties. A second suggested direction for research on the model is the development of objective measures 172 and/or standardized measures of the proposed categories, elements, and clusters. Standardization and objecti- fying the constructs of the model would make longitudi- nal analysis possible, improve comparisons between organizations, and allow comparisons to other indices developed in the literature. Another important line of possible research is the causal dynamics between organizational activities and conditions and their resulting human outcomes and experiences. There are three postulated types of causal rela- tions. The first are primary causal relations which exist between respective categories of activities/ conditions and the outcomes/experiences. For example, Material Provisional activities affect primarily Material Provisional type outcomes and experiences. More specifically, compensation and guaranteed employ— ment activities affect primarily such outcomes or ex- periences as material betterment and material security of employees. Then there are secondary effects of organizational activities and conditions within each sphere (i.e., physical, social, and psychological) on the human out— comes and experiences within the same sphere. For example, some Material Provisional activities, such as productivity of goods,may have certain effects on 173 Physical Environmental outcomes, such as resource preservation and biological healthfulness. Another example would be the effects of Interindividual Con- sistency activities, such as equality, on Psychological Development outcomes, such as individuality. In other words, secondary effects deal with the relationships and tradeoffs between individual type outcomes and collective type outcomes within respective levels of the source dimension. Lastly, there are tertiary effects of the activi- ties on the outcomes. Tertiary effects result from the accumulation of "low level" outcomes and experiences and the fulfillment of their respective goals and needs. For example, Maslow (1954) theorizes that there are some progressive dynamics in the importance and expectation levels of the different spheres of outcomes within the individual level. Specifically, as material needs and goals become fulfilled, social, and later, psychological outcomes and experiences become more impor- tant. Likewise, it can be hypothesized that these dynamics exist within the collective level as well. Furthermore, within the constituent group, collective type outcomes may gain more importance as the individual type needs and goals become fulfilled. Once the full dynamics between organizational activities and their human outcomes are understood then optimization equations could be developed for quality 174 of work and quality of life. That is, given any current situation, a policy planner could request via a computer terminal what the likely human outcomes are for different courses of action. Also, the same programs could suggest courses of action for some desired set of human outcomes. The fourth suggested major research direction in the quality of life and work model is an exploration of the individual psychological processes involved between reception of human outcomes and need and goal fulfillment. Two types of sets of variables may be involved in explaining individual reactions to human outcomes and experiences. The first set consists of internal psychological states such as higher-order need strength (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1976) and value systems (Strand, Levine, and Montgomery, 1981). The second set of variables which may moderate the effects of human outcomes on individual reactions are contextual variables. Social cues and social comparison processes may affect individual reactions. For example, Cantril's (1965) finding that the wealth of a country is little or not at all related to reports of satisfaction and Schneider's (1975) comparable finding for American cities suggests that comparisons to some reference group is the primary basis for satisfaction reactions (Easterlin, 1974). 175 Together, these future research directions would help pave the way towards a greater understanding of the structure and dynamics of quality of life and work and make the concepts more operational. Knowledge gained would improve policy makers' ability to assess value systems and apply them to directing qualities of life and work to desired ends. REFERENCES REFERENCES Abt, C. Social Audit. New York: American Management Association, 1977. Abrams, M. Subjective social indicators. Social Trends, Government Statistical Service, London, 1973. Ackerman, R. and Bauer, R. Corporate Social Responsive- ness: The Modern Dilemma. Reston, Virginia: Reston PubliShing Company, Inc., 1976. Aldag, R. J., and Jackson, D. W., Jr. Some properties and correlates of the social attitudes questionnaire. Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the Academypof’Management, 1977. Alderfer, C. P. Existence, Relatedness and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings. New York: Free Press, 1972. Allardt, E. About Dimensions of Welfare. Helsinki, Research Group for Comparative Sociology, Univ. of Helsinki, 1973. American Accounting Association, Committee on Social Measurement. The Measurement of Copporate Social Performance. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc., 1977. Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. New York: Mac- millan Publishing Co., 1976. Anderson, J. G. Causal models and social indicators. American Sociological Review. 38, 1973, 285-301. Andrews, F. M. and Crandall, R. The validity of measures of self-reported well-being. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1976, 1-19. Andrews, F. M., and Withey, S. B. Results from several national surveys. Social Indicators Research, 1, 1974, 1-26. Andrews, Frank M. and Withey, Stephen B. Social Indica- tors of Well-Being: Americans' Perceptions of Life—Quality. New York: Plenum, 1976. 176 177 Ayres, R. U. "A Material-Process-Product Model." In A. Kneese and B. Bower (eds.) Environmental Quality Analysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1972. Backman, J. Social Responsibility and Accountability. New York: New York University Press, 1975. Barker, Roger G. and Schoggen, P. Qpalities of Community Life. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1973. Bauer, R. G. The corporate social audit: Getting on the learning curve. California Management Review, Fall, 1973. Bauer, R. A. and Fenn, D. H., Jr. The Corporate Social Audit. New York: Russell SageiFoundation, 1972. Blake, D. H., Frederick, W. C., and Myers, M. S. Social Auditing: Evaluating the Impact of Cor- porate Programs. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976. Blau, P. M. and Scott, W. R. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. Scranton, Penn.: Chadler, I962. Blum, F. H. Social audit of the enterprise. Harvard Business Review, March, 1958. Bowman, E. H., and Haire, M. .A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18, 1975, 49-58. Bradburn, Norman. The Structure of Psychological Well- Being. Chicago: Aldine,41969. Buehler, V. M., and Shetty, Y. K. Motivations for corporate social action. Academy of Management Journal, 11, 1974, 676-771. Buehler, V. M., and Shetty, Y. K. Managerial response to Social Responsibility Challenge. Acade of Management Journal, 12, 1976, 66-78. Bunge, Mario. What is a quality of life indicator? Social Indicators Research, 2, 1975, 65-79. Buttel, H., Wilkening, E. A., and Martinson, O. B. Ideology and social indicators of the quality of life. Paper presented at the 7lst Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York City, August, 1976. 178 Campbell, A., and Converse, P. Monitoring the Qpality of an American Life: A Prpposal to the Russell Sage Foundation. Survey Research Center, Univer- sity of Michigan, 1970. Campbell, A., Converse, P., and Rodgers, W. The Qpality of American Life: Perceprionsp Evalua- tions, andlSatisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1976. Campbell, D. T., and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi- method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 1959, 81-105. Cantril, H. The Pattern of Human Concerns. New Bruns- wick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Carlson, H. C. Organizational research and organizational change: GM's approach. Personnel, July-August, 1977. Carroll, A. B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 1979, 497-505. Carroll, A. B., and Beiler, G. W. Landmarks in the evolution of the social audit. Academy of Management Journal, September, 1975. Coleman, A. Qualiry of life: How community leaders and ordinary residents assess various aspects of life in four Kentucky mountain counties. RS-45. Depart- mental Bfilletin, Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture, Lexington, Kentucky, 1975. Committee for Economic Development, Social Responsibilities of Business Corporations, New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1971. Corson, J. J., and Steiner, S. A. Measuring Business's Social Performance: The Corporate Social Audit. New Yofk: Committee for Economic Development, 1974. Cummings, T. S., and Malloy, E. S. Improving Productivity and the Quality of Work Life. New York: Praeger PubliShers, 1977. Dalkey, N. C. (Ed.) Studies in the Quality of Life: Delphi and Decision Making. Lexington, Massa- Ehusetts: D. C. Heath, 1972. 179 Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social res- ponsibility? California Management Review, 2, 1960, 70-76. Davis, L. E., and Cherns, A. B. The Quality of Working Life. New York: The Free Press, 1975. Dickenson, J., III; Gray, R. J., and Smith, D. M. The quality of life in Gainsville, Florida: An application of territoriallindicators. South- eastern Geographer. November, 1972. Dierkes, M., and Bauer, R. A. Corporate Social Accounting. New York: Praeger, 1973. Easterlin, R. Does money buy happiness? Public Interest. 30, 1973. Ebel, R. L. Essentials of education measurement. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Economic Planning Agency of Japan. Whitepaper on national life 1973: The Life aid to quality in Japan. Overseas Data Service, 1974. Eells, R., and Walton, C. Conceptual Foundations of uBusiness. Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin, 1961. ' Eilbert, H., and Parket, R. The current status of social responsibility. Business Horizons, 16, 1973a, 5-14. Eilbert, H., and Parket, R. The corporate responsibility officer. Business Horizons, 16, 1973b, 45-54. Emery, F. E., and Trist, E. L. The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18 (l), 1965, 21-31. The Environmental Protection Agency, The New Quality of Life Concept, a Potential New ToollfOr Decision Makers. Springfield, Virginia: National'Tech- nical Information Service, 1973. Erikson, E. Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1 (10), 1959, 92. Estes, R. W. Corporate Social Accountipg. Los Angeles: Melville Publishing Co., 1976. 180 First National Bank of Minneapolis. Annual Report, 1974. Flanagan, J. C. A research approach to improving our quality of life. American Psychologist, 1978, 138-147. Flax, M. J. A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators: Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April, 1972. Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Gallese, L. R. The soothsayers: More companies use "futurists" to discern what is lying ahead. Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1975. Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., and Mulaik, S. A. Limita- tions of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 1977, 827-838. Gitter, A. C., Mostofsky, D. J. The social indicator: An index of quality of life. Social Biology, ‘20 (3), 289-297. Gomolka, E. C. An analysis of social responsibility activities undertaken by small business companies. Proceedipgs of the Thirry-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, 1975, 336-338. Goodal, J. C., Hall, D. T., Burke, R. J. and Joyner, R. C. Some significant contexts and components of individual quality of life. In Davis and Cherns, The Qualiry of Working Life. New York: The Free Press, 1975. Gorsuch, R. L. Factor analysis. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1974. Guttman, L. A. A basis for scaoing qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 2, 1944, 139-150. Hackman, J. R., and Lawler, E. E., III. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 1971, 259-286. Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G.*R. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, 1975, 159-170. 181 Hall, R. H. Organizations: Structure and Processes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972. Harmon, H. H. Modern factor analysis (3rd Ed.). Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1976. Harwood, P. D. Quality of life: Ascriptive and testimonial conceptualizations. Social Indica- tors Research, 3, 1976, 471-496. Hay, R. D., Gray, E. R., and Gates, J. E. Business and Society. Cincinnati: Southwestern Publishing, Herrick, N. Q. and Maccoby, M. Humanizing work: A priority goal of the 1970's. In Davis and Cherns, The Quality of Working Life. New York: The FreelPress, 1975. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., and Cap- well, D. F. Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of_Pittsburgh, 1957. Hobbs, D. Quality of Life in the Rural Community. The Yearbook of Agriculture 1971: A Good Life for More People. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1971. Holmes, S. L. Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, June, 1976. Humphreys, G. Quality of Life in the Countryside - How Can It Be Achieved? Presidential Address, pro- ceedings of the Forty-Sixth Conference of the American Country Life Association, Inc., Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 1967. Hunter, J. E. Methods of reordering the correlation matrix to facilitate visual inspection and pre- liminary cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 1973, 51-61. Hunter, J. E. Cluster analysis: Reliability, construct validity, and the multiple indicators approach to ,measurement. Paper presented at a meeting of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, March 21, 1977. Hunter, J. E.. and Cohen, S. H. PACKAGE: A system of computer routines for the analysis of correlational data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, ‘29, 1969, 697-700. 182 Hunter, J. E., and Gerbing, D. W. Unidimensional measure- ment and confirmatory factor analysis. Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1979. Joreskog, K. G. Statistical analysis of sets of con- generic tests. Psychometrika, 33, 1971, 109-133. Joreskog, K. G. Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 33, 1978, 443-477. Krishnan, R. Business philosophy and executive respon- sibility. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 1973, 658-669. Land, K. C. On the definition of social indicator. American Sociologist, 3, 1974, 332-335. Lawler, E. E., III. Improving the Quality of Work Life: Reward System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of LaborIVl975. Levi, L., and Anderson, L. Psychosocial Stress: Popula- tion Environment, and Quiliry of Life. New York: Spectrum, 1975. Levy, 5., and Guttman, L. On the multivariate structure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1975, 361-388. Liu, R. Quality of life: Concept, measure, and results. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 33, 1975, 1-13. Locke,, E. L. What is job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Pefformance, 5, 1969, 30¢336. Manne, H., and Wallich, H. C. The modern corporation and social responsibility. WaShington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1972. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper, 1954. McAdam, T. W. How to put corporate responsibility into practice. Business and Society Review Innovation, Summer, 1973. 183 McCall, S. Quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1975, 229-248. . McGranahan, D. F., Wilkening, J. Hutch, and Geisler, C. The Use of Leaders Ratings to Assess Community Services and Characteristics in the Kickapoo Valley, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Institute for Environmental Studies, 1975. McGuire, J. W. Business and Society. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1963. Montgomery, D. J. Making the "quality of life" an opera- tional concept. Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 3! (l), 1975, 46-51. Newgren, K. Social forecasting: An overview of current business practices. In Managing_Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by A. B. Carroll, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1977. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978. The OECD Social Indicator Development Program; List of Social Concerns Common to Most OECD Countries. OECD, Manpower and Social Affairs Directorate, Paris, 1973. Office of Management and Budget. Social Indicators, 1973. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ostlund, L. E. Attitudes of managers toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 3, 1977, 35-48. Parket, I. R., and Eilbert, H. Social responsibility: The Underlying factors. Business Horizons, August, 1975. Parson, T. Structure and Process in Modern Society. New York: The Free Press, 1960. Pfeffer, J. Size and composition of corporate board of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, l1, 1972, 218- 228. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dspendensy Perspective. New York: Harper andfiRow, 1978. 184 Porter, L. W. Job Attitudes in management: Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33, 1962, 375-384. Porter, L. W., and Steers, R. M. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeims. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 1973, 151-176. The President's Commission on National Goals. Goals for Americans. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Preston, L. E., and Post, J. E. Private Management and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Pren- tice-Hall:_l975. Rodgers, W. L., and Converse, P. Measures of the perceived overall quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1975, 127-162. Russ, Eft D. Identifying components comprising neighbor- hood quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1969, 349-372. Sater, C. W. A Supplement to the Bottom Line: Rating corporations on social responsibility. Stanford Graduate School of Business Bulletin, Summer, 1971, 18-21. Scheer, L. A comparison using perceptual indicators: Job satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1975, 1-8. Schneider, M. The quality of life in large American cities: Objective and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, l, 1975, 495-509. Sethi, S. P. Dimensions of corporate social responsi- bility. California Mansgement Review, ll (13), 1975, 58-64. Sheldon, E. B., and Land, K. C. Social reporting for the 1970's: A review and programmatic statement. Policy Sciences, Summer, 1972. Sheldon, E. B. and Moore, W. E. Indicators of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, I968. 185 Shin, D. C., and Johnson, D. M. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 3, 1978, 475-492. Shocker, A. D., and Sethi, S. P. An approach to incorporating social references to developing corporate action strategies. In The Unstable Ground: Corporate Social Policy in a Dynamic Society, 1974, 67-80. Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., and Keller, R. T. The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, lg, 1976, 195-212. Smith, D. C., Kendall, L. M., and Hulin, C. L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retire- ment. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Spearman, C. General intelligence, objectively deter- mined and measured. American Journal of Psy- chology, l3, 1904, 20l-293. Staw, B. M. and Szwajkowski, E. The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 1975, 345-354. Steelman, V., and Evans, D. Operationalization of quality of life indicators by county knowledgeables. Rural Sociology in the South: 1976. Proceedings (Rural Sociology Section) Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Mobile, Alabama, February. Steiner, G. A. Business and society (2nd ed.) New York: Random House, l975. Strand, R., Levine, R., and Montgomery, D. Organizational entry preferences based on employee and social policies: An information integration perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 1981, 50-68. Strumpel, B. (ed.) Economic Means for Human Needs: Social Indicators ofPWell-being and Discontent. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1976. Terleckyj, N. E. Improvements in the Quality of Life Estimates of—Possibilities in the UnitedPStates, l974-l98371 Washington, D.C.: NationalPlanning Association, 1975. 186 Tryon, R. C. Cluster Analysis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1939. Tryon, R. C., and Bailey, D. E. Cluster Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book—Company, Inc., 1970. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Toward a Social Report. Washington, D.C.: USGPO, T969. Walton, R. E. Quality of working life: What is it? Sloan Management Review, Fall, 1973, 11-21. Wilson, J. Q. Qpality of Life in the United States: An Excursion into the New Frontier of Socio- Economic Indicators. Kansas City, Missouri: Midwest Research Institute, 1969. Woodward, J. Industrial Organizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Zenisek, T. J. Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational litera- ture. Academy of Management Review, 5 (3), 1979, 359-368. APPENDIX A Quality of Work and Life Inventory: A Diagnostic Survey 187 00000 t. 00000 36 00000 8.0 00000 3. 00000 :.0 00000 3. 00000 .aO 00000 3. 00000 .mO OOOOO 3o 00000 too @0000 go .00000 3.0 .00000 S. 00000 .1.0 00000 3o 00000 t. C 00000 3o 00000 t. 0 00000 So 00000 .30 00000 So 00000 .30 00000 3o . . _ . . a. . 0...... Cm...‘ florfiua 31.5....66669: €9..5:... 3....86... assesses... Sass... I...» 1177-....571 1 1'- I' .- C $7.2!!! i. C. £2132....521..........x...........p...e 3.3.5:... «v.35... .3... .....e >02... .0 3...... .l>:....:o v.3. >883?! an...» .20.: .52.. 2.5.1.390 .00.. U.S.... .3502... .0 .0)... .50. 50. 3.3.5 0......» 0. 3:00 0:... $0.. «9.35.5.2... :0..0...c... 0.26. me .e 9.3.2.. 003.00.. 3:030:00 90.00.... 35...... .88.}... .o .55.: e... .2. .3338... 60.33.86... .e. at)... .830. 3.0.8.3100!!! 5......Exic0u >2... 0...... 00:21.09! .0 1!... .030. .e 50. v0.3.3.0 .0 800...... .933.300 01000000 a... .51... .8200. 80.3.3 10.8.00 201...... 3.5.03.6... 20.0.. :25... 0%... a... 0. 6.....00... 91.80.: 80>... ‘ .e 5......» 50.. 00:00.0... .0 >21... $153.31.... fear... .0 505:8}... .0. 22.33.35... :2..- .0. :02 --- 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 m... n: 0 go A... O :0... a. O IOU n... O IOU t. O IOU A... O ’0... t. O 30“. t. O :00 t. O :00 t. O :09 t. O :0... t. O :0... at)... .1. 91...... ......m>v. 2.6.)... .0 >31... 2......5: .53.. 92.85.. 8.3.6.. ..o o. 25.....23 .90.... eras... .0. >551... £5.35 8.... .5... o... 5 8500...... o... 2.0.3.50 10.50.02. .1! 385...... .0 19:... 3... 3.1.2.5.. $0.015 300...... ........o...et!: 5.0.3.... teen... .29.; aisle. 8.8... c... 7:0... 5 £03.... .0 00:95.... 02....tvex8. 000...: £03 5 2.0.2.22... .30... .0. 3.02.0000 3:93.... 85.9... .0 8.0.083 nut-Elite... ...o.t>0...=.e $02.83.... 0.26. me .e 8...... {03 .0 8:053 5.31.0.0 a. 8.3:... 0:0... .3- 0250300 .0 02. 2.50.... 0903 “13.8.0238”. .50).. 3.5.5050 3.2.00 2.. a53.05022... 0. mmw2w>=owumw I 5.3 .u. a... .>..>..ue o... 0. .100 1.5.3350... p... .23-.2. $2.05. .00503. .0 2.3522500 - 5.00 .p. 8.00.3359... 50> .0 00.60.. 0... 200...... Case... $32.2. cue. .0. mw.h.>.hu< ”20:43:23.0“. can; $2.350“. ¢=O> z. www>O...—2w co“. w“... .303 “.0 >h...<...O um . z-.. z-.. . O O .3)... . AU.H.A:JA.. .OOOOO 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 w.... .2. . .4... t. 3 a... .3 O .3 O 89 to O 30 ... mu 88 tn 0 t. O t. O to O .3 O .30 ......1.....0.00..o:.r. ....|....c...... .. .— . ................... 44.2.2.3....00....10...0.0...:_...t. 50.88157334333310 00.0.1.3... 2. ....0.........>.... .00.. 30.3.2.3: «0.0.3.0.. $0.01....‘S... 2.001.233 0.20.3110... . £03035... .0 0513.9. 5.00.65.23.31... 12.030.00.00. . 20.2.0... 3.5.5.80 .0 30.33150 8.1.0 0.10.00.21.00... >25... 5 3.0.5.0305 . glitz-50.039.030.80 20.00.... 0gtgiltiio0§aili . gflgzig . 0.088 .1... .8... I... 0518.. 1.3.5.1.... i:£§002800§2§..03§0‘08 . 000.200.00.210... 0. 0000.000. 0508.000; .0 300.083 0.508.300. . 00830988328500.3238“. . O I . .... z-.. . 30000 ©0000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 "a... :u . w 3...» z. 0 3...... t. O 390 t. O 80 t. C so to O 30 t. O :00 .30 80 to O :8 2.0 t. O 30 t. O 30 ’ ...... 0. 7:22.... 3. .................... ...:.........€....... £30300. .0... .50-8.3.... (0.2.0.30 2829......1. 0.0.0.3.... .0! {0083.18.20.01 5).... 000.0 >330 3000.280 7.0 050...... 06:15.... 0. .835... 03:05:... .0 8.5.05.0... 5.831.005 R. .3956... 00...)...0 .0! 0.0.4.0... .0 >....,...... 0. 50.1300: .28..- ..B..00....0. .00. 0.. >§0§ 0. 9.0.5.1380 £0.30 igazgazgaoos §§8.CIII§ 31.3.0.3...8200308. Viggiigflgs 003.500.5001... 3>£1II§£§ 5.530831%.803928. 3530.06.00.18! ibgaioaigiig .52.“... 2.. 95:80}... 5 3.2.2.8.... u t. a. ...0 5.2.8 2.. o. .08 9.3.2.50... a... .88.... .38.... .8282 .0 5.2.328 .. .28 E "0.03.0350! 50> .0 00.00.. 0... 0.000.... 0000... $32.00 3000 .0. ww.b.>.h0( Q.ZO.F ShwGOm 2(U.¢w2< 92¢ £53226“. up: 2. mm... KO >ta.ar.s!5.£s...5§82526.ci5 a 00000 .28 §i£i3.:as.tu.£1 .. 00000 5 0 00000 t» 0 00000 38 §!§.a~..lox..oo!i.§uuooo§ .3 00000 $09 ESEYBitn-onncfizcflsccsflai. .a 00000 E 0 00000 E 0 00000 38 nicariiatiissiiagatfgglui 5 00000 18 3889.93.68... 3351835.}... .. 00000 to O .331??- 00000 ta 0 f5.- 0 O O O O 300 151:2“. Ex: 95. .933. :53 .30.. 53.02. 0:39:- .: 000 OO :00 8990 00139:. 350 at. 30503565 5 :5: 82:9...- .. OOOOO “Ru 0 3.653.920... OOOOO mum 0 00000 .28 .c..&zsc.oa§.8>iria.gz635seo .. 00000 88 365.53%3§:§§5§:§o : 03000 ta 0 {2.13:}: 00000 ta 0 25.38.333.138: 00000 to... £§;£.>359813§3§t.§ .. 00000 38 .>83x...co.ncov8..i%3§}§:§ .9 00000 E 0 £51.. 00000 E 0 00000 .28 365¢835$189§=8$B..§%5 . 00000 :8 82388151338 3.888 ._ 00000 E 0 00000 E 0 00000 209 E1.o>§.3.xl.ai.co .33-9.12%... a 00000 300 §§.§a£cn.§=i§§!§=£!§;% .0 00000 3w 0 ‘33.. 00000 use 0 00000 IOU £533§33098.$o31893§% .- 00000 360 g5‘3:§o&3§.§l§85§.31 .v 00000 E 0 5.2.5085...) 00000 to 0 00000 :8 8.3189918523358336}; .o 00000 :8 8%}!!3933395332 .9 00000 5 0 00000 E 0 00000 209 .§.2¢...£!eu.3s§.i§l2333.938.881:8 : 00000 200 .538%I.o£kl§33.2.8 .a 00000 t. 0 00000 E 0 00000 :8 32:65:52.......}.c..8o§...i.o:o..891s:i .c. 00000 38 Stale-$3.533: .- .._.. : .._.. 1 . . 00:389.. 9:39.3555mmw2w2b0wuuw I mum .a. . it“|-l \I ll. ’llill. 20: 2.5.» .02 on @@A®@@®@@@ . ©3633©®®®® @GGmVGQGQVGm. -ildwlcmaz mmeM 1. .25 62.2.8.9... 8.5.9.... o... o. :25 1:333:38 v:- 33028 $2.95 .8532 3 #:5225200 3 ECU .: ”9:233:38 50> .o 858. up: 2.955 3001. 69:359.- oo>£an :03 Eu meZwEwQXw .mww>O.—&¢¢w ¢=O> ">24a200 ¢=O> 2. mww>0432w KO“— wm: 830)) “.0 >248...E.:ou I: 5 8.93.8- 1.3.3 2210!: 3103‘ .0. 13:38.80 05850.0>5!&o . g1.100¢3>s§§ . £030. 5 3950.21.83... 300.8232: . 8:06 3:389 :33 28:82 98:03:33 . 2859: 13.80- .0 3:05.20»... 0:. 8.33.9. 1.00. . -—--- 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 "at. -. two ZOO ta 0 IOU to O IOU ta 0 SO .5 O :OU to O :OU t. O :00 “.3 O 30 two 80 .3 O 30 2.0 («OD tn O 300 1. £05.09: .2309. .c 3.3.. 0:05 0.... 3.32.0... nil-i: 1.303 .0 55.89.90. 1:33:00 225...... 3.01.000 00:33.35... .6... .35.... .338. .e :38. .81.... 20.15.: .2300. .0 to... 1.8-r... :18. o. «a; v:- .n.:. .0 3:02.. 3.2108: .5390: 28.58.60 £1... 25...... 9:03-3:35 058.6 52.03 5 35:89.26. 9.3.00.0. a} 20:52.. .2190. ‘ .0. 0050...! 2:00.30 5 2160 ...!Eo..>i 18. .o .88. 19.5.... 8:2...- >3; 2100- .0 pg .0 50.50:... 3.29: >§§u 53.. 30...... 2.068 23:85 1500‘ .0 .0023 1.00. .8339... a... so... 9.655 5 3.52833 I at a. 0.... 62.0.59... 2: 0. :33 35:32.35 0:- 300:00 00- 309... «3508. .0 35522200 I IOU .: 6.0935390 50> .0 8.000 I: 338:. 83.: 69.2.8on .2359: .3300. £03 .0» mmUZmEmtXm «CwOZNS a