DYNAMICS OF INTERAC‘I‘ION PATTERNS AMONG INDUSTRIAL FOREMEN Thesis Im the Dames. 2:! Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY James A. M: Gang 1966 THESIS I/gwfllgflgILI/L/M/g/xglg/g/II/,I/M/IMI/I/MI 7013 This is to certify that the thesis entitled DYNAI‘CI CS OF INTERACTION PATTERNS AMONG INDUSTRIAL FOREMEN presented by James A. McClung has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Speech /“/ fl fé //[ & /(' (d l\/;/[ //éz Major profetSor //,//, Date " /7/" V5 0-169 .p...._ ! A 7 77.. 7---. .-.. -7 >7? . _ ___.,, ___..A.. r ABSTRACT DYNAMICS OF INTERACTION PATTERNS AMONG NDUSTRIAL FOREMEN by James A. McClung This investigation had three main purposes. First, it examined the interaction patterns of industrial foremen for ten specific tasks. Second, these patterns were com— pared to those expected by their immediate supervisors. And third, an analysis was made to test the difference between the interaction patterns for high and low produc- tive foremen. Both the direction and the channel of interaction were examined. The foremen sampled were employed by a medium—sized machinery manufacturing plant located in the midwest. The manufacturing superintendent ranked each of these foremen according to their weekly productivity. The top twenty— seven per cent and the bottom twenty-seven per cent con- stituted the high and the low productive foremen. Therefore, the interaction patterns were obtained for all the foremen, as well as for the high and the low productive ones. These patterns were then compared to those expected by their production supervisors. For each task, the foremen (and their immediate superiors) estimated: the amount of time spent per week, the direction of interaction necessary to carry out JAMES A. MCCLUNG efficiently the task, and the manner of carrying out the task-—written or oral. In addition, the productivity rankings of the foremen were correlated to their scores on the Fleishman LeadershiA Opinion Questionnaire. The following conclusions were reached. First, the foremen and their immediate supervisors, as well as the high and the low productive foremen, correlated highly in relation to their perceptions of ranked importance for the ten tasks. Second, the production supervisors and their foremen correlated significantly on the ranked importance of the ten tasks, but they did not agree completely on the distribution of time in relation to the importance of each task. There was a high correlation, however, between the high and the low productive foremen. Third, the production supervisors expected a more balanced interaction pattern among the foremen and their subordinates, superiors, and other foremen. The foremen were more independent than expected and devoted significantly more time not inter- acting with anyone. The high productive foremen displayed a more independent overall interaction pattern than the low productive foremen. The latter devoted more time communicating with their superiors and other foremen; although this was less than expected by their production supervisors. Fourth, the foremen in total relied on their superiors for analytical tasks. Fifth, the production supervisors .. .II‘ 9"- JAMES A. McCLUNG expected four times more written communication than the foremen estimated they used during the week. The high pro- ductive foremen depended more on the written form than the low productive primarily because they used this channel more when interacting with subordinates. Even though the low productive foremen used this method more than the high productive with superiors and other foremen, the overall pattern supported the conclusion above. And finally, there was no rank correlation between the productivity rankings provided by the manufacturing superintendent and the results obtained on the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. Therefore, this questionnaire cannot be used as an objective evaluation for predicting the productivity of prospective foremen. The results of this investigation suggest there was a difference between the expected and the actual interaction patterns for industrial foremen. This varied in accordance to the task being performed. Similar findings would be predicted at other levels of the organizational structure. DYNAMICS OF INTERACTION PATTERNS .MONG INDUSTRIAL FOREMEN by James AT'McClung 3> *3 >14 [1’] (J) H 0) Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Communication Arts Department of Speech 1966 ACKNONLE GMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to those who assisted in the preparation of this thesis. Particular thanks go to Dr. Fred Alexander who served as the major professor and provided the support and encouragement that made this study possible. He gave freely of his time and posed challenging questions to stimulate a more thorough analysis of the interaction patterns in a complex organizational structure. Special thanks is also due Dr. Kenneth G. Hance who contributed valuable advice at several stages in the project. The author is also grateful to other members of his committee, Drs. Jerry Anderson, Dalton McFarland, Darab Unwalla, and Jack Rain. In addition, thanks are extended to Dr. Murray hewgill, Dr. Brad Lashbrook, and Robert Kinstle for their assistance. The author is especially indebted to the members of the organization which served as the research site for this investigation. The backing of management, the assistance of staff personnel, and the cooperation of the production supervisors made this study possible. It is hoped that the author has provided some results useful enough to repay the time and effort expended by these individuals. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TA LES v LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. III. IV. Trends in Organizational Theories Early Influence and Scientific Management Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Management and Human Relations Movement Human Relations Movement Revisionists Movement Basic Concepts in Previous Organizational Theories The Purpose of Organizational Structure Effects of Formal Organizations on Human Behavior Two Types of Organizational Structures Individuality and Conformity Position of Supervision Designed to Control Three Variables Present in the Organiza— tional Structure Importance of Supervisory Level of Management Importance of Analyzing Interaction Patterns and Directions REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . Al PURPOSE AND BASIC QUESTIONS . . . . . . 58 RESEARCH PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . 66 Research Site Description of Sample Seniority Length of Service as Superior Number of Employees for which Responsible Academic Background Age Approach to the Analysis iii Chapter Page V. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . 8A Interaction Patterns for Each Task Interaction Patterns for All Tasks Amount of Time Spent Per Week on Each Task Importance of Each Task Comparison Between Amount of Time Spend and Importance of the Task Amount of Interaction with Superiors Amount of Interaction with Subordinates Amount of Interaction with Other Foremen Amount of Time Requiring No Interaction Relationship of Leadership_0pinion Questionnaire Scores and Productivity Ratings Overall Interaction Patterns VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . 156 Summary Conclusion Importance of Task and Amount of Time Spent Patterns of Interaction Method of Interaction Relation Between Objective and Scientific Productivity Ratings Suggestions for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 I. Questionnaire Given to the Foremen . . . . 181 II. Questionnaire Given to the Production Supervisors. . . . . . . . . . . . 191 III. Questionnaire Given to the Manufacturing Superintendent. . . . . . . . . . . 197 iv Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Seniority of the Foremen Length of Time in Foreman Position. Number of People a Foreman Supervises. Education of the Foremen Age of the Foremen Interaction Patterns for Maintaining Quality and Quantity of Production . . . . . . Interaction Patterns for Planning and Scheduling of Manpower and Production; Planning and Using Supplies Economically. Interaction Patterns for Training Workers; Giving Job Information to Workers; Getting the Right People on the Right Job . . . Per Cent of Time Devoted to the First Three Tasks . . . . . . . . Interaction Patterns for Adjusting and Handling Grievances; Promoting Cooperation; Building Morale . . Interaction Patterns for Promoting Safety, Maintaining Good Housekeeping Interaction Patterns for Cooperating with Other Foremen and Departments; Reporting Matters to Management . . . . . . Interaction Patterns for Explaining Company Policy . . . . . . . Interaction Patterns for Engaging in Social Conversation . . . . Interaction Patterns for Analyzing Costs of Production. . . . . . Page 70 71 71 72 73 86 91 9A 97 99 103 106 109 112 115 Table Page 16. Interaction Patterns for Analyzing Efficiency of Your Department . . . . . . 119 17. The Amount of Time Spend Per Week on Each Task. 123 18. The Rank Importance of Each Task . . . . . 126 19. The Amount of Time Spent and the Ranked Importance of Each Task for Production Supervisors and Foremen . . . . . . . . 128 20. The Amount of Time Spent and the Ranked Importance of Each Task for High and Low Productive Foremen . . . . . . . . . . 129 21. Amount of Interaction with Superiors for Each Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 22. Per Cent of Interaction with Superiors for the Ten Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 23. Amount of Interaction with Subordinates . . . 135 2A. Interaction with Subordinates for the Ten Tasks 135 25. Amount of Interaction with Other Foremen. . . 138 26. Interaction with Other Foremen for the Ten Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 27. Amount of Time Requiring No Interaction . . . 1A3 28. Summary of the Amount of Time Requiring No Interaction for Ten Tasks. . . . . . . . 1AA 29. Overall Interaction Patterns. . . . . . . 149 30. Per Cent of Total Week Requiring Written Interaction . . . . . . . 150 31. All Foremen--Interaction Patterns . . . . . 152 32. Production Supervisors--Interaction Patterns . 153 33. High Productive Foremen--Interaction Patterns . 154 34. Low Productive Foremen--Interaction Patterns . 155 vi Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Organizational Chart vii Page 67 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix I. Questionnaire Given to the Foremen II. Questionnaire Given to the Production Supervisors . III. Questionnaire Given to the Manufacturing Superintendent . . . . . viii Page 181 191 197 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Any area of academic achievement requires constant investigation to find analytical and descriptive evidence for principles used and taught. The study of formal organization theories, for example, has many tOpics which offer a challenge to any research worker. The problem to be considered in this study falls mainly in the interaction patterns of formal organizations. This study investigates the interaction processes required to carry out ten specific tasks at the foreman's level of authority in an industrial setting. These processes will be examined from the standpoint of the source, the message, the channel, and the receiver. Before dealing directly with a specific case study, perhaps a review of theoretical trends and previous research would provide a foundation for the concepts to be analyzed. Three basic divisions will provide this background informa- tion: first, a historical review of the trends in organiz— ational theories; second, an analysis of basic concepts which stem from these trends; and third, a review of research related to these basic concepts. '7 Trends in Organizational Theories When analyzing the historical perspective of organ— ization and management concepts, there are three distinct periods or movements that emerge. Each of these possess distinct characteristics from which the modern organiza- tional theorists borrow. The first period can be called the early influences of management and/or scientific management. The work of such men as Taylor, Urwick, Fayol and others promoted this school of thought from 1900 until the 19AO's. The second period, or movement of organiza- tional theories, began in the 1930's and continues to operate today. This era stressed the importance of the human relationists and behavioral scientists. And, finally, from 1955 until the present, the ”revisionists" (to use Warren Bennis' term) have organized some influential concepts. William Scott pictures these three periods as the macro-micro-macro approach to organizational theory. The work completed by the disciples of the scientific management school concerned itself with principles common to all organizations (macro). This "model age" dealt with the "gross anatomical parts and processes of the formal organiza— tion and was not well equipped to account for variation from the established framework."l \ 1William G. Scott, "Organization Theory: An Overview and an Appraisal," Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. ’4. No. 1 (April, 1961), .9. 2’4. However, the human relationists did concern themselves with many variations which resulted from human behavior Operating within the organizational structure. Thus, a microscopic examination of situations, human variables, and interaction networks took on research significance. This type of research leads to a more macroscopic view once again with the infiltration of the modern organ— izational theorists. They are interested in productivity, leadership, participation, and the social system as a whole. That is, there is a study of the organization in total-—a gestalt approach. Thus, the macro-micro-macro approach to organizational theory supports the three divisions listed above. Early Influence and Scientific Management The earliest influence of management thought can be traced to Biblical times.2 These historical accounts emphasize the importance of organizing, managing, and stabilizing peOple and objects. Even Plato and Aristotle stated a number of principles which we follow today. However, it was not until the British mathematician Charles Babbage perceived the importance of scientific and mathe- matical methods that men began to consider the importance ‘ 2Dalton McFarland, Management Principles and Practices (2nd edition; New York: Macmillan Co., 1965), p. 26. of scientific management. He recommended precise and accurate observations and measurements in making decisions in the business enterprise.3 Thus, early in the 19th century, Babbage advocated a foundation upon which scientific management was formulated. Others followed in formalizing the scientific management school. Thegpractitioners.—-It was not until after the Civil War that the basic concept of scientific management became useful to the business man. Henri Fayol, a French indus- trialist, sought to present principles of management that would bring about effective management. He divided the Operations of a company into six main groups--technica1, commercial, financial, security, accounting, and adminis- trative operations. The administration was broken down into five main aspects--to plan, to organize, to command, to co-ordinate and to control.“ His philosophy supported fourteen principles of management which became his basis for a theory of management. Without principles, he wrote, "one is in darkness and chaos. These principles are the 3Da1ton McFarland, Management Principles and Egactices (lst edition; New York: Macmillan Co., 1958), D. 2A. “L. Urwick, The Elements of Administration (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933), pp. 16-17. lighthouse fixing the bearings, but they can only serve those who already know the way into port."5 Frederick Taylor refined the science of management through practical experience. He experimented with various work situations in order to improve the performance and efficiency of the workmen. His major concern was with the following conditions: (1) unevenness and lack of uniformity in management effort; (2) lack of apparent relation between good management and the payment of dividends; and (3) wide— spread inefficiency of labor, and 'systematic soldiering' of workers on the job.6 Taylor's philos0phy was not unique, but strongly influenced by the Great Britain industrial revolution of ideas; and he saw implications of these ideas for the United States. Ralph Davis wrote: Taylor can hardly be said to have been a theorist; he was rather a keen observer, analyst, and student, with some scientific training, but he appears to have gained most of his ideas from practical experience . . . that neither the management nor the men really knew what constituted a fair day's work, and that this was the cause of much of the misunder- standing and strife between them. However, Taylor is often referred to as the "father of scientific management" in the United States. To him the k SHenri Fayol, Industrial and General Administration, IDublished under asuspices of the International Management lEnstitute (Geneva English publishers, Sir Isaac Pitman and Igons, London, 1925), p. A2. 6McFarland (lst edition), op. cit., p. 25. 7Ralph Currier Davis, Industrial Organization and fanagement (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19AO), pp. 13- art of management was "knowing exactly what you want men to do, and then seeing that they do it in the best and cheapest 8 H way His prescribed duties for management stated that: 1. They develop a science for each element of a man's work, which replaces the old rule-of— thumb method. 2. They scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself as best he could. 3. They heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. A. There is an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. The management take over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, while in the past almost all of the work and the greater part of the responsibility were thrown upon them.9 Thus, both Fayol and Taylor applied scientific principles of management. However, Taylor worked primarily on the operator level from the bottom of the industrial hierarchy upward, while Fayol concentrated on the managing director and worked downward. There were likewise other practitioners of scientific management beside Fayol and Taylor. Henry L. Gantt appeared to understand human psychology more than Taylor and empha- sized "non-financial rewards to promote satisfactory "10 morality. He dealt with the worker's environment and ¥ 81bid., p. 1A. 9Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), pp. 36-37. 10 McFarland (lst edition), op. cit., pp. 28-29. likewise developed scheduling charts to tabulate units of time and operations. His book spelled out three main points which have contributed to modern organizational theory: 1. The task idea he felt extended far beyond individual workmen to industries as a whole. He placed heavy emphasis upon prOper training which would make his system of management self—perpetuating. 2. He used a philosophical and psychological approach to the problem of training workmen. 3. He emphasized the application of managerial principles and organization to the business as a whole.li Frank Gilbreth's work with bricklayers likewise provided new concepts of work-planning and work—training in the most efficient methods. He suggested that the worker was most efficient in an 180 degree radius and thus his tools should be within that distance. He also showed a great concern for the human factors (health and safety) of the workers.12 Harrington Emerson, like Fayol, empha- sized the importance of spelling out the principles of management. His twelve principles of efficiency were to become a reality through the function of the line and staff within the organization structure. These procedures were designed to reduce the waste of human motion and raw materials, and likewise to train and promote leadership. ¥ 11Henry L. Gantt, Work, Wages, and Profits (The Engineering Magazine Co., 1910). l2McFarland (lst edition), op. cit., p. 29. Urwick collected research data completed during this period and endeavored to bridge the gap between machines and man. He wrote that ”one of the problems of our time is to bridge the widening mental gulf between those edu- cated and trained solely in the humanities and those whose minds are shaped by a life devoted to that machine tech— nology on which all are dependent increasingly for the 13 material bases of existence.” Through specific instruc- tions for each member of the line and staff, he endeavored to bridge this gap. According to his philosophy, the principles of administration include: planning, fore— casting, controlling,investigating, appropriating, organizing, co-ordinating, and commanding.lu These were principles that he presented in hepes of describing a coherent and logical pattern of organization and manage- ment--a true science of management. Of course other pioneers could be mentioned. These would include: Carl Barth, Henry Town, H. K. Hathaway, Sanford E. Thompson, Dwight Merrick, Morris L. Cooke, and James Mapes Dodge. Along with Fayol, Taylor, Emerson, Gantt, and Urwick, we find the practitioners of the scientific management movement. k l3Urick, op. cit., p. 10. luIbid., p. 18. The scholars.--The scientific management era likewise produced some outstanding scholars. For example, Ralph C. Davis‘ philosophy was that the ”entire management process concerns itself with ways and means to realize predeter- mined results with the intelligent use of people whose efforts must be properly motivated and guided."13 William Newman, on the other hand, concerned himself with: (l) dividing and grouping the work to be done into individual jobs, and (2) defining the relationship between the individual and his job.16 Mooney and Reiley also empha— sized principles of organization. Their nine points centered upon the logical pattern of principle, process, and effect.17 Some students of management would include Peter Drucker in this list of scholars, but his endeavors were primarily an functional approach. He was in opposition to the "professional workmanship” in functional and specialized work. According to him, the science of manage— ment was a functional work that tended to become an end in 15Ralph Davis, The Fundamentals of Top Management (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1951). 16 William H. Newman, Administrative Action (Engle— wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1951). 17J. C. Mooney and A. C. Reiley, Onward Industry (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1931). Re— Written as The Principles of Organization (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1939). 10 itself.18 His concern for the human elements of the organization was based on the assumption that peOple want to work; they seek satisfaction through work. "What we need is to replace the externally imposed spur of fear with an internal self—motivation for performance. Respon- sibility--not satisfaction-—is the only thing that will "19 . n. . . . The task facing management was, according to serve . Drucker, to reach the worker's motivation, to enlist his paarticipation, and to mobilize the worker's desire to :VOIék.2O These remarks emphasize his criticism of the ESCJLentific management’s practical approach. He attributed tides ineffectiveness of this movement to management's fla;llure in solving the problem of managing the worker and ‘tldee work. The two blind spots in management were: (1) Eifisssuming that the human organism is a machine tool, and (33.) that the division of planning and doing created A. S eDaration of classes . L \ 18Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (TJEHN York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 195A), p. 123. lgIbid., p. 303. _— 2OIbid., p. 272. 21Ibid., p. 285. 11 Thus, in short, the scientific management movement was developed origir ally by engineers, and later became a distinct profession in itself. As such, it drew from such fields as engineering, economics, and psychology wt atever principl% nd procedures that appeared useful in N 93 making the organi tion a more efficient operation. Mason Haire described this movement in the following points: 1. Control within the enterprise is properly exercised through an authority relationship accepted .ithin the enterprise. 2. Authority is delegated from above. It has its source in the institution of society-— "private property" 3. Authority is best supported by the promise of economic reward, rather than by the treatment of economic deprivation. A. Management control is exercised through formal structure that relates individual subordinates with superiors. 5. Worker acceptance of authority is on the basis of individual, rational judgment. 6. Man's work performance is a function of physiological cl.aracteristics. 7. Problems of management control are best solved through scientific adaptation of work processes to worker's physiological characteristics and economic reward for his cooperation within the proper framework of formal structure.23 William Scott was not so explicit in his summary of tlufii scientific management movement. To him there were four pillars: . (l) division of labor; (2) scalar and furlctional processes (chain of command, delegation of EiLrtljopity, etc.); (3) structures (logical relationships \ 23Mason Haire, Organization Theory In Industrial ‘4533133igg (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), . 109. F-J K) of functions); and (u) span of control (number of subordin— ates a manager can effectively supervise).2l4 These pillars of classical organizational theory formed the foundation for the human relationists and revisionists. The worth of the scientific management movement unfor- tunately was misunderstood and misused by many followers of Taylor. Efficiency experts were used to increase production for management and likewise in cutting rates. These miscon— vr “X (X) U: ductions created grobl with the worker's salaries and worker relations. en Scientific Manage- .: Movement Mary Parker Follett and Chester Barnard did not contribute a great deal to the research methodology of management and organization, but they did lend support to both the working ideas of the scientific management and the human relationists. Mary Parker Follett pictured the human organism and the relationship of individuals as the founda— tion of a business orranization. And likewise, the organ— ization could be portrayed as a whole human organization which makes up society. Thus, she endeavored to stress the importance of motivating desires of the human organism. 24 Scott, 0 . cit., pp. 9-10. 13 And thirdly, she was concerned with the conflict of human , . r . h - 25 goals with organizational demands. Chester Barnard, on the other hand, emphasized the "cooperative system” of management. The efficiency of an organization, he wrote, depended upon the personal contri- bution and participation of its workers. he recognized the limitations of the individual but likewise stressed the tools available for management to balance these limita- tions in order to obtain an effective and efficient (I\ R) cooperative system. Limitations of ———*Cooperative System ————+ Effectiveness individuals Efficiency 7(physica1, T psychological and functional) l Organizational tools 1. Communication 2 3 . Willingness to COOperate . Purpose, goals Management is Judged on the ”cooperative system," whereas the individual is Judged on the effectiveness and effici- ency of his work. Certainly these principles triggered further research in the human relations movement. 25Mary Parker Follett, Dynamic Administration, edited by H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1942), p. 21. 26 Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938). if Human Relations Movement-~1940 to 196t The work of the scientific management advocates became the catalyst for the research and teaching in the university behavioral science courses, and the interest . . 2 in the human relations of :us1ness. 7 McFarland defines human relations as “the science which studies the activities, attitudes, and interrelationships existing among peOple at work. Since the turn of the century, 4. this school of thought has concerned itself with the workman, and his relationship to his company, his job and his peers. This microscopic approach to management stimulated the work of industrial psychologists (with their work on efficiency, training, and selecting of employees); industrial sociologists (who studied large and small groups); applied anthropologists (research labor-management relations; negotiationS‘ ’ nd m 0 ollective bargaining); and social-psychologists (who dealt with mass communication, W a 4 29 propaganda, and rumor transmission). This movement as a science originated with the famous Hawthorne studies which were conducted by Elton Mayo 27McFarland (2nd edition), 0p. cit., p. 2. 28McFarland (lst edition), on. cit., p. 337. 29McFarland (2nd edition), on. cit., pp. 36—37. .__£_______ 15 and Fritz Roethlisberger at a Western Electric Company. Their work centered upon the importance of psychology and sociology, as well as the environment. This classic study directed the attention of management research to the com— ponents of a Job and the worker's morale. With emphasis upon the "social system,” "the major contribution of the Hawthorne studies was the integration of Pareto's idea of the social system into a meaningful method of analysis for the study of behavior in human organizations."30 The study turned away from the description of component parts and researched the interrelationships among parts. Thus, the human relations movement was designed to study the individual human behavior, the forces and social processes of group life.31 This interdisciplinary science, likewise, included contributions by economics, history, political science, theology, and Jurisprudence. Peter Drucker described the human relations movement as a study which considered the relationship between what a man is and what kind of work he does.32 There were also seven points that Mason Haire emphasized in seeking to ¥ 3OScott, op. cit., pp. 14-15. 31John M. Pfiffner and Marshall Fels, The Supervision 9; Personnel (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196A), pp. 17—27. 32Drucker, op. cit., p. 288. l6 explain the human relationist's interpretation of organ- izations: 1. Though the existence of authority is admitted, control within the enterprise is properly exercised through use of persuasion. 2. Authority is granted from below and has its source in i s acceptance as useful by those over whom it is exercised. 3. Persuasion as a measure of control is supported by the authority generated through effective leadership. A. Managerial control is exercised through its influence over the informal work groups that are informally integrated to constitute the organization. 5. Workers' response to persuasion and authority is the result of group action that is non— rational in nature. 6. Man's work performance is a function of the socio-psychological climate within and surrounding his work group. 7. Problems of managerial control are best solved through establishing the proper climate for work groups, thus motivating them to exercise self-control.33 Cf McFarland, on the other hand, is more explicit and talks about the basic components of human relations. According to his writings, the three basic elements include: the individual, the group (work being completed in group dynamics), and the situation. Others would include: activity (observable behavior of peOple as they work); interaction (contact between individuals in work situation-- verbal and non-verbal); sentiments (internal states of feelings--drives, emotions, feelings, affective states, 33Haire, op. cit., pp. 110-111. 17 or attitudes); and social system (activity, interaction, and sentiments together).3u Perhaps Maslow's hierachy of needs likewise explains another basic bedrock of human relations thought. He Spent a great deal of time researching factors affecting motivation. McFarland defined motivation as "the way in which urges, drives, desires, aspirations, strivings (or needs) direct, control, or explain the behavior of human beings . . . for our purpose we can consider them in a general sense as forms of tension occurring within individuals, with resulting behavior aimed at reducing, eliminating, or diverting the tension."35 James Latham suggests that there are two basic types of motivation-—psychological and physiological. According to his writings, the physiological motives (food, drink, air, protection, sleep, rest, etc.) are more stable and less numerous than the psychological.36 However, from the work of men like Durkheim, Maslow, Allport, Simmel, Freud, and Mead have come theories of motivation that the human rationalists applied to the organizational setting. A few of the major theories could be as follows. First, McGregor's participation theory endeavors to get the employee to participate in the workings of the 3“McFarland (lst edition), op. cit., pp. 346—352. 35McFarland (2nd edition), op. cit., p. 520. 18 organization in order to satisfy some of his higher-level needs (social and egoistic) rather than seek to provide physiological rewards. His theory (Y) spells out the following points. 1. Expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play and rest. 2. External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about the effort toward organization objectives. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed. 3. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. 4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility. 5. Capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity in the solution of organizational problems, is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. 6. Under conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized.37 Second, Homans, Whyte, Cnapple, and Sayles dealt wjgth the interaction theories of motivation. These inter- acrtionists considered an organization as a social system. Wirthin this system, as mentioned above, they concerned themselves with activities, sentiments, and communications (\ferfioal and non—verbal interaction). A great deal of resseEirch demands dealt with the influences and the charac- tel"sisizics of the informal groups or informal organizations. Th5? Eatudy of these natural groupings of peOple within the \ 37McFarland (2nd edition), op. cit., p. 532. 19 work situation was not investigated during the classical period.38 Some determinants of informal groups researched included: (I) the location of the individual within the physical setting, amount of face-to-face contact and geographic setting; (2) the occupation that an individual held; (3) his personal interests; and (A) special issues 39 that would arise within the organizational structure. William Scott listed five characteristics or functions of the informal group. First, the informal group acted as an agency of social control (with their norms and pressure ‘to conform) which could be in opposition to the organiza— txional goals. Second, studying or researching the effect (Jf small groups required different technical methods of axialysis than those used for formal settings. Third, iriformal organizations resisted change--a necessity in cxrder to survive. And finally, researchers became inter— essted in the role, characteristics and objectives of the lteaders of these informal groups. In short, the human Péilations movement stimulated a concern for both the fRorvnal and the informal groups. 38Scott, op. cit., p. 12. 39Ibid., p. 13. 20 A third theory of motivation was established by Rensis Likert--managemeht pattern theory. He researched perceptions and relationships established between superior-subordinates. These findings, he hoped, would provide an analysis for establishing characteristics of an effective managerial pattern. He discovered that "those supervisors and managers whose pattern of leader- ship yield consistently favorable attitudes, more often ‘ rather than as cogs in s t a v in a human beings pi think of employees le related to the attitudes and (T a machine is a varia motivation of the subordinate at every level in the organ— “0 ization." Fourth, March and Simon suggest a motivational coonstraint theory--as did Merton, Selzneck, and Gouldner. 'They pictured a theory of motivational constraints which (operated on the intraorganizational decisions and upon a . . . . . Al liuman desire to participate in the organization. The E>rime purpose of this theory was to consider the individ- Llal's satisfaction of desiring a movement in the organiza— tlional structure. If such satisfaction is not obtained, true individual would leave the organization and choose an ‘aJJZernative. Thus, management wanted to research human \ qucFarland (2nd edition), op. cit., pp. 533-534. ulIbid., p. 534 21 satisfaction in order to achieve its pre-determined end of the company. McFarland suggests a fifth type of motivational theory which he calls the "achievement—expectation "“2 This theory, as an aspect of the learning theory. theories, relates to motivation by assuming that an inner drive (level of tension) operates in expectation. The followers, or supporters, of this school are Stogdill, George H. Mead, Chester Barnard, Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and William Dickson. Perhaps we could also include the learning theorists such as Tolman, Hull, ESkinner, Hilgard, and McGeoch. Likewise, Murray's Thematic .Apmreception Test (TAT) would be included in this school or‘theory of motivation. Many other theories on motivation were developed by tide human relationists. McFarland suggests the following: Youngs' interpretation on motivation. Allport's theory. Tinberger's theory. McClelland's theory. Hebbs' theory. Frenkel and Brunswik's theory. Masserman's theory. Freeman's theory. Moore's theory. 10. French's theory. ll” Cattell's theor . .12. Maier's theory. \OCDNQU'IIZ‘LAJNH u2Ibid., p. 536. uBMcFarland (2nd edition), op. cit., pp- 519-550- 22 These theories, and the entire human relations movement, received some valid criticisms. As with the scientific management period, practitioners misused and oversold research findings and as a result, the human relations movement could not solve the problems it promised. William Scott wrote that the criticism of this school of organizational theory ranged from ”human relations is a tool for cynical puppeteering of people, to human rela- tions is nothing more than a trifling body of empirical and descriptive information."uu However, it did provide some valuable research, but lacked completeness, long-term ,peispective, and integration of facets of human relations. TTie revisionists have endeavored to correct these short— comings . Phevisionists Movement--1955 to 1966 The human relationists never really established a trieory--it was never a discipline. It was full of fads and ccnisultants who had no basis for their advice. The followers 01? the revisionists school believed that neither of the earlier two movements were developed on valid principles and‘theories. They were too scientific to be applicable fol" industrial research. The revisionists encouraged the most recent advances in. tile methodology of research, especially with the current \_ uuScott, op. cit., p. 15. 23 knowledge of statistical and quantitative research methods, and the computers. Most revisionists, however, were not strictly industrial researchers. They stemmed from such areas as: sociology, psychology, anthropology, psychiatry, physiology, economics, political science, statistics, mathematics, and communications. It appeared that they did not directly help companies make money, but added to the discipline. Warren Bennis coined the term "revisionists" to describe this current group of researchers which include Herbert Simons, Victor Thompson, Chris Argyris, Mason Haire, Rensis Likert, and James March. Their philosophies support ‘the thesis that the only meaningful way to study an organ- :ization is to study it as a system. Thus, a strong reliance Especific goals; the importance of roles and status cor’lcepts; and the importance of psychological and physio- 10g1 cal prOperties of men.l45 usIbid., pp. 16-17. 24 The interrelation of these parts listed above suggest investigation of the linking ppocesses of the organizational structure. The revisionists have concerned themselves with: communication networks and communication controls; equili- bratium of mechanism or parts; cybernetics; and interest in variables in the organization which affect decision—making (for example the work of March and Simmons).L46 Organizational goals which have been investigated are growth, stability, and interaction. The latter has suggested the importance of a general system theory-—universal science of organizational structures. Kenneth E. Boulding concludes triat both the general system theory and modern organizational tflieory study the following points: 1. The parts (individuals) in aggregates, and the movement of individuals into and out of the system. 2. The interaction of individuals with the environ- ment found in the system. 3. The interactions among individuals in the system.u7 A. General growth and stability problems of systems. These two differ, however, in that the general theory CCNdsiders the organization as an integrated whole, whereas tile Inodern or revisionist's theory concerns itself with the Prunuan organization. Boulding classifies these system levels \ u6Ibid., pp. l9-20. S “7Kenneth E. Boulding, "General System Theory—-The IcelIEEton of a Science," Management Science (April, 1956), pp- 200—202. 25 as: (1) status structure (anatomy); (2) simple dynamic system (pre-determined necessary motions); (3) cybernetic system (seek equilibrium through self-regulation); (A) Open system (self-maintaining system, moves toward the living organism); (5) genetic-societal system (division of labor among cells); (6) animal system (level of mobility, goal-directed behavior); (7) human system (symbol inter— pretation and idea communication); (8) social system (level of human organization); and (9) transcendental system (level of ultimates and absolutes which exhibit systematic structure but are unknowable in essence.“8 Chris Argyris has worked with the formal organizational system and has discovered that the effective method to examine an organization is to study it in total. It is stable only if all the components are present at the same time. This total system, according to Argyris, is more than the formal organization. It is a behavioral system composed of four different but interrelated subsystems which produce the following kinds of behavior: 1. Behavior resulting from formal organizational demands (”boss-worship”; or ”mother- relationship"). 2. Behavior resulting from informal activities (the need for informal activities increases when he experiences anomy between individual's needs and the organizational demands).89 uaIbid., pp. 202—205 “9cnris Argyris, Understanding Organizational Behavior (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1960), p. 66. 26 3. Behavior resulting from each individual's attempt to fulfill his idiosyncratic needs. 4. Behavior resulting from unique patterning for each organization of the three levels above. Argyris, therefore, emphasized the importance of the person— ality--physical and mental maturity. He relied on Maslow's primary and secondary needs for support of this thesis. Likewise he discussed the value system which is forced upon an individual within an organizational setting. Lason Haire, on the other hand, considered the human organism as an independent variable (prime-movers) of the organizational structure. The behavioral scientists usually regarded peOple as a dependent variable and sug- gested that "they see people as being affected py organiza- tions, and moved or are manipulated py it . . . however, he views peOple as independent variables of the organization."51 He continues to say that "there is no talk here of the 'delegation' of authority and responsibility, but rather an acceptance of the fact that authority and responsibility will be 'assumed' in varying degrees by people of variable capacity to assume them."52 Other concepts proclaimed by revisionists could include the work promoted by Herbert Simons on "the new 50Ibid., p. 2a. —————-—— 51Haire, op. cit., p. 48. 52ibid., p. 35. 27 science of management decision—making"; and March and Starr's work on Executive Decisions and Operations Research. The latter suggests the use of quantitative research methodology in marketing (scientific forecasting, pricing, competitive bidding); production (economic—lot-size prob- lems, inventory control, machine load scheduling, and transportation); and administration (size of work force, absenteeism, dividends or reinvestments). In short, the revisionists have combined the findings of the scientific management and human relations schools into a quantitative method. They examine the organization as an integrated whole. After examining these organizational theories and structures, one can conclude that the modern organization is a result and a combination of the three main schools of thought presented above--scientific management, human relations, and revisionists. Harold Koontz considered the modern management theories to be an entanglement of theorig§.53 The work of Taylor and Fayol provided the founda— tion; whereas the behavioralists, beginning with the Hawthorne experiment, emphasized the importance of psycho- logy. There are others who view management theory as aspects of sociology, decision-making, mathematics, and 53Harold Koontz, "The Management Theory Jungle,” Journal of theAcademy of Management, Vol. 4, No. 3 (December, 1961), pp. l73-17H. 28 subsystems. All of these entanglement of theories have directed modern researchers to examine more precisely and universally the social, cultural, physical, and psycho— logical systems of the organizational structure.5u Each of these three major schools are designed to achieve one of the following goals or ends: (I) efficiency, (2) effective communication patterns, (3) mobility and satisfaction, (4) power systems, or (5) a combination of these. They have contributed to what Moan y classifies as time.followlrnigsrinciples :m‘rxnuagemdyzz 1. Causation of collectionism. 2. Conviction ("belief in the organization”). 3. Common goals. A. Direction and control. 5. Standardization. 6. Authority (by levels; decisions; Span of control). 7. Responsibility (clearly defined and understood). 8. Division of labor (specialization, mechanization). 9. Functionization (homogeneity of task). 10. Delegation (by position, function, capacity, authority). 11. Structural unity (formal relationship, sequence of delegation). l2. Personification ("living organism,’ cohesiveness). 13. Identification and contradiction (conformity, doing what's right, identify with or distinct from the organization.)55 I Perception of these principles will continue to change in value and degree of importance as they have since the early influences of management and organizational thought. SuIbid. , pp. 173-174. L1H) ’“James D. Mooney, The Ppingiples of Orggnizapigp (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1947). 29 The future developments in automation and computers will continue to affect the above principles. Thus, when considering the industrial administration in an historical perspective, one discovers a dynamic, ever-changing picture of organization and management con- cepts. The concepts that have been, and are being deveIOped presently, stem from the three major periods of organizational thought--scientific management, human relations, and revisionists. Basic Concepts in Previous Organizational Theories The preceding theories characterize some underlying concepts which form the basis for most discussions related to formal organizations. Each of the three periods possess a distinct personality; appear to have similar goals and objectives; but differ in method of reaching these goals. The following paragraphs spell out some of these underlying dimensions. The Purpose of Organizational Structure First, the preceding theorists emphasized that formal organizations have been designed to achieve Specific goals through guided interaction. Since this attainment required collective effort, procedures within an organization are structured to coordinate and to guide human activities. For example, businesses are structured to make goods for a profit, and unions are designed to increase bargaining power 30 with employers. Thus, the goals, the levels of authority, and the procedures to be followed have not been established spontaneously but have been designed in anticipation of necessary ground rules and guidances. Formally established goals have therefore generated the term "formal organiza- tions." Perhaps it is possible to consider a formal organiza— tion as a structure with a broad purpose or plan, which can be subdivided into positions and levels. Position "A" and Position ”B” create a structural relationship rather than a relationship simply between Mr. Black and Mr. Jones. Since communication, both verbal and written, is the method for carrying on relationship between these various positions or levels, it is possible to find in any organization a posi— tional communication network. Thus, there exists levels of communication or positions of communication within an organized structure or hierarchy. The stability of these communication channels deter— mine the efficiency of a formal organization. Lloyd Warner and Norman Martin write in the Industrial Man: An effective system of communication requires not only the stable filling of Specific positions of different status, but also habitual practices and technical procedures. Failure to follow these procedures with routine persistence in general lends to confusion, lack of coordination, and inefficiency or breakdown of the system. The lines of communication, the system of status, and the associated procedures, though by no means 31 constituting "administration", are essential tools of administration and,are the most "visible" general parts of it.50 The controlling of interaction by key positions, and the stability of status and procedures, are the tangible machinery of a formal organization. Therefore, the purpose of organizational structure is to understand the process by which organizations attain their specific goals. ffects of Formal Organizations on uman Behavior E H Second, the findings of the revisionists and the human relationists have emphasized that formal organizations are affected by the human elements, and that the human structure will be challenged by the rules and procedures of the formal organization. The work of Chris Argyris57 has clearly emphasized this point. Increased or decreased lines of interaction are a result of the relationship established between the goals and drives of the human element and those of the formal organization. Some organizational procedures have been established without concern of the personnel involved; while other systems have been instigated prim— arily due to the persons employed. In any event, there is a constant change in human relationships or interaction 56W. Lloyd Warner and Norman H. Martin, Industrial Man (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), p. 270. 57Chris Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957). 32 processes due to the goals of the formal structure, and the goals of the individual. Two Types of Organizational Structures A third basic issue emphasized in previous theories suggests the formal and the informal organizational struc— 58 tures operate simultaneously. The early studies of Mayo and the sociometric diagrams of Morenosg have emphasized this factor. Studying only the formal channels of inter— action will not always provide a complete analysis of the interaction patterns. The informal ones likewise must be considered. Individuality and Conformity The earlier theorists attempted to control and force workers to conform to management policies and practices. There was little room for individuality or personal creativity. However, later the human relationists and the revisionists allowed more individual freedom, with some reservation for conformity to management principles. The basic drive theories, as presented by Maslow,6O and the 58Elton Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial ivilization (New York: Macmillan, 1933). 59Jacob L. Moreno, "Who Shall Survive?" (Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental Diseases Publishing Co., 193“). 60 Abraham H. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 195“)- 33 mother-instinct illustrations of Argyris,61 pointed the way for more consideration of individuality and a decline in strong demands for conformity. Of course, the development of the labor unions has provided more flexibility. Thus, woven throughout the previously mentioned organizational theories have been arguments related to the importance of individuali-y and the need to conform for the purpose of accomplishing prescribed and pre—designed management goals. Position of Supervision Designed to Control Fifth, the application of organizational theories required the location of individuals in key positions of authority in order to control interaction. Perhaps it could be said that the preceding theories were designed essentially to establish formal methods of control. The p (0 (‘f formal organization o be structured to direct human motivation and cont o W ~ollective behaviors of people. F“) ( my inis was to be accomplished by individuals possessing faculties of communication through channels of interaction. Without the element of control, the structure would pro- duce unstructured and independent behaviors of individuals. The physical location of individuals in a common vicinity with nothing in common would provide only a air of l O O Argyris, op. c1t. 34 uncoordinated behavior; unguided toward the prescribed goals of the formal organization. Thus, a fifth basic issue of the previous theories suggests it is the duty of management to control elements of behavior if the organization achieves its goals. The methods of accomplishing this would vary according to the leadership, the personalities, the goals, and the channels of interaction. Three Variables Present in the Organizational Structure If the ultimate purpose of a formal structure is to achieve optimum worker efficiency and productivity, there are three main variables to be examined. The early prac- titioners were concerned with interaction between employees and employers, or management and workers. However, with the organizing of the union shops, there developed a three way interaction pattern. Management *—-—- Union i-—> —-———F *——) \ / Employees <—————v- In this interaction process, there exists: (1) an influ- encing agent, (2) an individual being influenced, and (3) a response being sought by the influencing agent by use of a stimuli. Herbert Kelman has experimented recently with 35 these three variables in his Process pf Opinion Change.62 63 Likewise, Berlo researched the interaction process; such as has been dealt with by the practitioners and scholars of organizational theory. However, rather than be concerned primarily with only three variables, Berlo concluded that in the inter- action process there is a Source, a Message (or Stimuli), a Channel, and a Receiver--the SMCR method. Raymond Ross, in his work at Purdue University, discussed the possibility of finding five variables in the interaction process-- communicator, message, medium, situational factors, and communicatee.614 Thus, in each of these theories there is present an influencing agent, a reSponse being sought by the influencing agent by use of a stimuli, and an individ— ual(s) being influenced. Each level of a formal organization must be concerned with these three variables. The number of levels of auth- ority may vary from one company to another, but the importance of the variables remains the same. The revision- ists and the human relationists have been interested in 62Herbert C. Kelman, "Processes of Opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 (Spring, 1961), pp. 57-78- 63David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960). 6“Raymond S. Ross, "A Case Study of Communication Breakdowns in the General Telephone Company of Indiana" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1954). 36 learning more about the interaction channels and the key points of control within a formal organization. AS was pointed out previously, Chester Barnard theorized that a formal organization is built on individuals who possess 1imitations--physica1, psychological, and functional. And the effectiveness and/or the efficiency of an organization in seeking to reach prescribed goals can be evaluated by the ability to organize a cooperative system. This organ- ized system can be accomplished only through channels of communication; individual willingness to cooperate; and a dedicated effort to achieve prescribed purposes and goals. Importance of Supervisory Level of Management Seventh, as illustrated in the above diagram, the supervisory level of management is a key-position in the organizational structure. Perhaps one could agree with Warner and Martin that the supervisor is an individual required to wear two hats.65 His position is both a part of management and a part of the worker group. If he tends to be identified with both groups, he becomes a "marginal man." He finds himself often caught up in the rapidfire activity of the production processes and responsibilities, but restricted to directives from management and from employees or union. His ability to wear these two hats 65Warner and Martin, op. cit., pp. 304-305. 37 weighs heavily on the effectiveness of the "cooperative system" described by Chester Barnard.66 McGregor charac- terized this individual as an agent of power in whom others higher in the structure have vested responsibility and authority, and in whom subordinates are contracted to accept as the agent of power. The success of his authority requires his dependence upon both his superiors and his sub- ordinates--1ikewise his equals.67 Thus, the supervisor plays a vital role in connecting the two major forces in the formal organization. Importance of Analyzing Interaction Patterns and Directions Likert visualizes the formal organization as levels of authority held together at key points by communication positions. And the location of these positions determine, in part, the efficiency of an organization in relation to achieving prescribed goals. Previous research which has 68 analyzed patterns have been pioneered by Moreno, 66Barnard, op. cit. 67Robert H. Guest, "The Nature of Authority in Perspective," Organizational Change: The Effect of Success- ful Leadership (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962). 68Moreno, op. cit. 38 Bavelas,69 70 and Cartwright and Zander. As emphasized by Bavelas, when the ”nature of a task is such that it must be performed by a group rather than by a single individual, the problem of working relationship arises."71 Through his findings one becomes aware of the intimate relationship between communication, control, and authority. He has relied upon the thoughts of earlier organizational theorists in seeking to determine the communication patterns most appropriate for establishing morale, accomplishing tasks, and developing leadership. From the preceding pages on organizational theories, it can be noted that each of the three periods were con- cerned with patterns of interaction; but primarily in the latter two periods. Within the formal organization, employees learn the value of various positions of social influence which provide rewards and yield punishments. Through their experiences of accepting and rejecting various social influences, they acquire expectations about the usefulness of various sources of information. They rely on sources or positions of auth- ority which provide security and social acceptance. They 69Alex Bavelas, "Communication Patterns in Task— oriented Groups," Group Dynamics, edited by Dorwin Cart- wright and Alvin Zander (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1962), pp. 669-682. 7ODorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.), Group D namics (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 19 2 . 71Bavelas, op. cit., p. 669. 39 seek security or protection against a temporary or permanent loss of job and loss of physical functions. They also seek social acceptance of their fellow employees within the formal organization in order to establish a sense of belonging to a gr up with established norms and goals. However, the supervisor who has authority over employees cannot always be on the same social level because he must control the activity of others and he must possess the ability to reward and punish. Thus in the formal organ— izational setting the superivor, and all positions of auth- ority, attempt to provide satisfying morale and cooperative spirit but also productive efforts. These elements can be examined through patterns of m interactions. lhese patterns can be upward, downward, or horizontal in nature. However, as emphasized previously, the supervisor on the front-line is the key to developing and controlling an organizational system striving to accom- plish prescribed company goals. For this reason supervisory interaction patterns are worthy of examination and study. In short, it can be concluded that the work of the early influences of scientific management, the human relationists, and the revisionists have been concerned primarily with eight basic concepts. It is of immediate concern to analyze some of these elements in an actual organizational setting, with primary emphasis upon examining the front-line supervisor as an influencing agent in MO directing union employees toward prescribed company goals. As "marginal men," their daily activities play a vital role in coordinating the interaction patterns between union and management. Some of their interaction will be directed (0 toward their sup riors, some toward the subordinates, others horizontally toward other supervisors, and likewise some of their work will not resuire any interaction. A "We ihus, the three variables mentioned above play an important role in analyzing the interaction process of front-line supervisors--(l) an influencing agent (supervisor); (2) a stimuli or response being sought by the influencing agent by use of a stimuli (task); and (3) the individual being influenced (source of interaction). The following section reviews some of the more recent research dealing with supervisory interaction patterns. EZVIEN CF LITERATURE Several research studies have been completed which deal directly with analvsis of interaction patterns in formal organizations. Some of these have been Specific case studies, whereas others have been related to analysis of human factors affecting communication rather than noting the actual communication patterns themselves. Taking these studies in chronological order, a certain cross-section of such studies can be mentioned. One of the first reported case studies emerged in 19u9 with the work at Esso Standard Oil Company and Johnson and Johnson by Helen Baker, John Ballantine, and 72 g. . John True. iney focused their attention on the structure of a communication system, the substance of communication, and the effectiveness of the communication in terms of individual and group attitudes. These three specific topics were noted for management and employees as well as for union officers and union members. As a result of this study, four major conclusions or four basic issues emerged: 72Helen Baker, John w. Ballantine, and John M. True, Transmitting Information Through Management and Union Channels (Princeton, flew Jersey: Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section, 1949), p. 13. ul 242 A. Clearly defined lines of responsibility and authority. 1. Formal channels of communications can be strengthened by coordination with informal channels. By-passing should be avoided if possible. Staff departments can be used to strengthen the effectiveness of both formal and informal channels. B. Attitudes encourage a free exchange of information throughout the organization. I. If past attitudes have tended to limit the amount of information given out, part of the current program must concern itself with securing a recognition of the new policy in respect to communications. 2. Success in imparting information is affected by a willingness to listen as well as to talk. 3. Fear of authority may act as a block to upward and downward communications. C. Recognition of the interrelationships of management and union communications. 1. The total framework within which communications are carried on must be taken into account. 2. Management acceptance of the importance of the union in communications with employees is an essential element. 3. The union must be willing and able to fulfill its responsibility as a major channel of information. A. The first-line representatives of union and management must be well informed and willing and able to transmit information. 5. Recognition of the common interest as well as the duality in management and union communica- tions is imnortant. D. Effective techniques. 1. The selection for each specific subject of the most effective media or channels. 2. The need to write or Speak in terms understood by the group. 3. The need to present broad subjects in terms of the personal interest of the individual super- visor, steward, or worker. A. The value of participation in gaining understanding.73 LUR) 73Dale Arthur Level, Jr., "A Case Study of Human Communications in an Urban Bank” (unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, Purdue University, 1959). “3 Although this study considered only a few of the varied facts of interaction, it inspired early research in the area of communication analysis in formal organizations. 1. . i 14 . Raymond Peters7 used questionnaires and personal visits to twenty-eight companies in the same year to 75 He examine what Berlo classified as the SMCR elements. examined both the mechanical factor and the human factors, U) as well as the media being used. The general findings m :3 O (D O H) d :J' (D :3“ s: :3 DJ :3 H) Q) 0 c—f O *3 U) 1.1. :3 H) O "S 53 m H pointed out the import organizations. A tore thorough study was completed at Purdue Univer- .7b Re concerned himself sity in 1350 by William Kilgore with analyzing fifteen Specific tasks of foremen in business and industry. For each of these tasks, he asked the foremen to make three separate estimates: (1) the difficulty of the task, (2) the importance of the task, and (3) the importance of communications in performing each task. These questions were asked to lOl foremen and IA personnel directors. Some of the results from the respondence could be summarized as follows: U . 7 Raymond w. Peters, Communica (New York: harper and Brothers, 194 tion Within Industry 9), pp. 1564162. 75 Berlo, op. cit. 76w1111am Carroll Kilgore, "A Study of Attitudes of Business and Industrial Supervisors Toward Their Speech Tasks" (unpublished M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1950). AA 1. The f oremen included in this Study rated speech as importa. t in twelve of the fifteen jobs. 2. Twelve of the fifteen jobs surveyed were generally rated by the foremen as "difficult but could be done." 3. 30 significant relationships were found between ratings of the importance of speech in performing he jobs, the importance of the jobs, or the difficulty of the jobs.77 A similar studv was conducted at Ohio State University in 1351 by Arthur Angrist. With his interest in type and frezq e ncy of inter action patterns, he attempted to determine the frevq ue ncy of conml‘ni cation activities, the importance of each activity in carrying out specific executive duties, and the relative difficulty wi h which the executives used these communication acts. Another academic effort was performed in 1953 by Thomas Nilsen at Northwestern University79 who concerned himself with the ability to define and discover interaction problems, and likewise determine a method to examine each of these. The methods used by Hilsen included interviews with management, supervisory personnel, selected employees, ‘ written questionnaires given to employees, and personal 77 (3 P. Ll V ”('5 ’0 P0 1? I {\J W T V .L 78Arthur w. Angrist, "A Study of the Communication of Executives in Business and Industry,” Speech Monographs, XX (November, 1953), pp. 277-285. Based on Ph.D. disser- tation at Ohio State University, 1951. 79Thomas R. Nilsen, "The Communication Survey: A Study of Communication Problems in Three Office and Factory Units" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953). 45 observations in three office and factory units--the purchasing office, a fiscal office, and a shoe factory. These varying methods of research produced the following fifteen postulates of organizational interaction: 1. Where regular or occasional meetings for iscussion among different levels of supervisors are not held, areas of misunderstanding among such levels of supervisors can be assumed to exist. where certa n problems important to individuals, such as promotions, are not freely discussed with these individuals, they will participate less freely and adequately in discussion of other more objective problems, such as production. The assumptions made about peOple having certain classifications often impedes effective communi— cation with them. For example: The assumption on the part of a supervisor that his superintendent ought to know or does know what is going on in the shop frequently keeps the supervisor from informing the superintendent of events important to him. Unless deliberate steps have been taken to discover communication problems within an organization many such problems exist of which management and super- visors are unaware. This was postulated even where management is enlightened and sensitive to the human factor. Effective discussion is not automatic when a group of people are brought together for discussion purposes. Effective discussion is the result of carefully evaluated experiences and training. Where there is little or no social talking within a work group the supervisor of that group is not sufficiently sensitive to human motivation for the most effective leadership. The less well defined a supervisory position is and the less secure he feels in his position the less effective will be his communication both with his employees and his supervisors. The fact that management thinks that employees feel free to make suggestions is not indication that employees do feel free to make suggestions. The presence of a suggestion box and stipulated permission to make suggestions does not result among employees in a feeling of freedom to make suggestions. I 1 10. 19. 15. studies efforts suggestion and attempted to tak _/ the Ge 46 The practice of avoiding the discussion of touchy issues impedes tr e discussion of less touchy issues. Another way of saying this is that prob- lems cannot be avoided. Where m“ up meetings are called only when a ue has arisen, the effectiveness of ' reduced. attitude characterizes one group, this attitude tends to o or to pervade an entire group. ' g within a group is encouraged, bundant, fewer resentments will oup than where such talking is J (M. la) (n ,3 (D U) :- 0' p) L1. *3 m w- x. Y (D (T q (‘f (D (D i—J H O b the s 11 sens; tize irdividual himan rela.luns. The with-holdin of information from employees by communication tends to human motivation and a supervisor is often a need- satisfying pattern of behavior. Being more in the know than someone else 3 ego—satisfying.d3 of these postulates will be examined in the following FT-l iis emphasis upon the desirability to utilize case of individual organizations has likewise stimulated for this study. Raymond Ross of Purdue University accepted Nilsen's (D a limited case study of neral Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc. to find the answers to the following four questions: To what extent, in the opinion of the supervisors, do the basic, written communications (company publications) assist them in their supervising? How can the value of these media be increased? What are the supervisors' attitudes and practices as far as their primarily oral, day-to-day communications are concerned? 80 Ibid., p. 416. w 4. Are any of these attitudes and practices pervasive enough to indicate possible techniques for locat- ing areas of communication weakn sses or break- downs among Company supervision? He att mpted to answer these questions by sampling a total population of lc8 supervisors-~38 received mailed question- naires and 29 supervisors were interviewed personally. b F‘ (:1 With this smal -amp1e, the results cannot be generalized (.11 P. to other supervisor‘ n similar companies. Likewise, his method of categorizing ”down-oriented” and "up—oriented" supervisors was ambiguous and created some analytical problems. He writes: . . . a supervisor who thought that communications with subordinates were most important, most frequent and that he was most effective in such communica— tions, could be categorized as "down—oriented". A supervisor who thought that communications with superiors were most important, most frequent and his most effective communications, could be categorized as ”up-oriented”.54 He did not distinguish the point of initiation or the point ,of reception, but only from the standpoint of "direction" (which might include listening as well as talking). In any event, Ross's conclusions were: 1. Most of the supervisors in the General Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc. believe that the Company publications, Tele News, Management Bulletin and General Instructions have been of some value to them in their work as supervisors. 81Ross, op. cit., p. 37. 821bid., p. 39. —— AB 2. Readability and human interest scores for all of the written media except the Tele News were low. 3. As far as the distribution of the five predominant type was co ncerr ed, in no case was a significant difference found between departments or districts. A. The mailed survey and interview survey methods produced essentially the same results as far as typing the supervisors on the oasis of questions regarding "frequency of media" used and ”directional crier tation were concerned. 5. About half of the supervisors used oral communica— ticn almost all of the time. The other half used oral and written communications equally. 6. Most of the supervisors were "down—oriented"; very few were ”up—oriented”. 7. There is no interaction between the most frequent media of communication used by a supervisor and his direction of orientation. 8. There appeared to be enough pervasive features and characteristics of day- -to- -day, primarily oral communications to sug gest a theory for locating communication breakdowns. In the same year as Ross, Thomas Dahle8u directed his research efforts to the ”char nels” of interaction: in an industrial situation; a business location such as Spiegel, Inc., and a classroom experiment. In each of these experi- ments, Dahle measured the relative effectiveness of five methods of transmitting information: (1) oral only, (2) written only, (3) combined oral and written, (A) bulletin board, and (5) grapevine only. Four Specific questions were investigated: 1. Which of the five methods listed above would produce the best results as measured in terms of correct answers to test questions? 83Ibid., pp. 175-178. “Thomas L. Dahle, ”An Objective and Comparative Study of Five Methods of Transmitting Information to Busi- ness and Industrial Employees" (unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, Purdue University, 1953). “9 2. What differences in the results can be attributed to the time of presentation of the material? 3. How does length of service affect results obtained? A. How do results obtained from a business and industrial population compare or contrast with results obtained from a student population? According to his analysis several conclusions could be drawn. First, the combination of oral and written communication was the most effective, with the oral only, written only, bulletin board, and the grapevine following in descending order. Second, the time variable was not a significant factor in determining the amount and accuracy of the information transmitted. Third, older seniority employees scored higher on each of the five methods. And fourth, the results from each of the locations were similar. Several research studies emerged in 1955 as a result of the pioneering done on the interaction patterns in formal ions which were discussed above. Darrell Cf organiz (D $13 0\ Piersol utilized the findings of Kilgore on the basic tasks of a foremen, the techniques used by Ross in a case study, and used patterned (structuralized) interviews and "shadow technique" (following subjects around for a full working day, noting the time spent carrying out their 86Darrell T. Piersol, "A Case Study of Oral Communi— cation Practices of Foremen and Assistant Foremen in a Mid— Western Corporation (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1955)- SO duties) for determining how much of a work day a foreman spends talking and/or listening and how much time he Spends in oral communication in performance of specified tasks The general con clus; ons Piersol reached after dealing with his 16 supervisors were as follows: l. The oral 9""4. ma ion activities carried on within the 333§a”fb, foremen and assistant foremen included interviews, conferences, social cor.vers ations and speeches. 2. The foremen and assistant foremen had very few oral communication activities representing the company in irterviews, conferences, or Speeches outside of the plart. 3. The oral commu ication activities carried on by n 4 the forem en and ass stant foremen in the com- nity after working hours consisted mainly of social conversation and interviews. U. The foremen and assistant foremen felt that the majority of their communications "up," "down,” and ”horizontal” were oral. Approximately ninety to ninety—five 'ercent of their daily inter- actions were oral and from five to ten per cent of their interaction were written. 5. The fo remen ar Id assistant foremen in this company had received a negligible amount of training in oral communication in scr ool, outside of plant traini ..g, a 6. Half of the com pany i ii emen and assistant foremen in this i ed that they ger erally heard about company poli char .ges in regulations, or company lay- off of wc rs through rumors (g grapevine) before the;J r ived the information through regular company channels.8 Additional conclusions were drawn after the "shadow tech- nique" was used. First, approximately half of the supervisor's daily activities required some form of oral 87mm. , pp. 88-90. communication interaction (speaking or listening). Second, the task these foremen spent the most time in oral inter- action was in the maintaining of quality and quantity of 88 n .. production. however, Piersol like Ross, failed to approach the foreman as a receiver as well as a sender. Nevertheless, from this study it can be gleaned that foremen will differ as to the amount of interaction and the media used for interaction in accordance to the task being performed. 89 Dallis Perry and Thomas Mahoney examined five firms in order to determine the correlation between morale, information, and communication. As a result of an informa- tion test and a short form of the Industrial Relations Center Triple Audit Attitude Scale, they concluded: The . . . results provide practically no support for the hypothesis that there is a relationship between an employee's a titude toward his company and how much he knows a out his company. They do not, however, indicat hat there is no relation— ship between morale, an communication effectiveness. 90 (D D, ("f O' (‘1‘ In relation to the SMCR theory of communication, this study emphasizes primarily the source and the receiver, plus the content of the message. Ibid., pp. vi—vii. 89Dallis Perry and Thomas Mahoney, "In-plant Communi— cations and Employee Morale,” Personnel Psychology, 8 (Autumn, 1955), pp. 339-3u6. 90 Level, op. cit., p. 24. 52 At about the same time as Piersol, Perry, and Mahoney 91 studies were being performed, Edwin Fleishman (along with Harris and Eurtt) was investigating characteristics of the communicator or source. In his leadership and supervision p: . f!" “1 4 -" ‘ r- . ‘ “' Vi r lindings, :leisnman discover (D d a questionnaire that measured the "Structure and "Consideration" dimensions of super— visory leadership. ”Structure” is the tendency to initiate F“ D . ( D Q) U) (‘f O ’0 FJ fl) 5 O *3 (“f 0 direct a group toward organizational goals. "Consideration, on the other hand, reflects the degree to which the supervisor mphasizes rapport——his warmth or sensitivity to subordinates' feelings and his emphasis on two-way communication. This initial study in 1955 has become a common test for selecting supervisory and management personnel. Since the Leadership Opinion Ques- tionnaire does deal with characteristics of an influencing agent in the formal organization, and likewise deals with interaction, it will be a source of measurement for this study. The importance of analyzing interaction patterns in industrial situations was further promoted by the work of Frank Funk at Purdue University in 1956.92 His investiga— tion was concerned with two main purposes: (1) to examine 91Edwin A. Fleishman, Edwin E. Harris, and Harold E. Burtt, Leadership and Supervision (Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, l955). 3 9"Frank E. Funk, "Communication Attitudes of Indus- trial Poremen As Related To Their Rated Productivity” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1956). 53 certain attitudinal dimensions concerning the communication activities of front-line supervisors; and (2) to test for significant differences between higher and lower production— rated foremen in these communication attitudes. The two different attitude questionnaires were constructed to measure foremen's attitudes toward: (1) communicating and the subject matter of communications, (2) workers, (3) the "boss" or immediate superior, and (A) higher management. The result of his researchproduced the following conclusions: 1. As compared with lower production foremen, higher production-rated foremen have more favorable attitudes toward communication aspects of their Job, toward their workers and communi— cating with these workers. 2. No statistically significant differences were found between higher and lower production-rated foremen in their attitudes toward their immediate superior, and in their attitudes toward higher management. 3. When foremen were classified by departments, these department groups were not found to differ significantly in mean communication attitude scores on any of the four scales. u. The degree of the relationship between communica- tion attitudes and productivity was significantly different from one department to another. 5. Content analysis of items which discriminated most between higher and lower production—rated foremen suggested that higher rated foremen are more communication-minded, have more favorable attitudes toward workers, and are more confident and understanding.93 The general conclusion to be drawn from the above comments would be that certain communication attitudes of industrial foremen are related to their rated productivity. 93Ibid., pp. x—xi. Another case study was conducted by Dale Level 94 in an urban bank. The purpose of his study was to investigate human communicatior s (primarily oral) in the following areas: 42‘me Through Basic communication attitudes of management. Communication channels and organization structure. The grapevine. Techniques of oral communication as used in typical banking situations. Knowledge of tank policies and practices by the employees. The level of satisfaction of bank personnel with company communication pr ctices. Reactions of both customers and r:on—customers toward tne tank's "external" co.m lmunicatior ns.95 L) (T (I) (T) a series of interviews, vations, and question- naires he concluded the following: 1. Evidence did :3: substantiate the hypothesis that mana event must have well defined communica- tion policies in order that the internal communication pro mgram be a reasonably successful one. In spite of a fairly effective communication program, the employees' information about bank practices a.d policies was only mediocre. There was widespr d ignorance, for example, about such matters as s rance benefits. Th e hypothesis was confirmed that, by and large, f A p. 1 e.ployees pre r th oral and more personalized ”ication to the written or impersonal. a in internal communications were apparently m st likelv to ccur in (a) stimulating ”upward” flo of ideas, suggestions, and complaints; (b) h andli.g re prim ds and complaints; and (c) appraising job per man ce. No significant cor r ations were discovered between level of informati io and employee morale, or between level of information and communication satisfaction. A moderate correlation was found between communica— tion satisfaction and morale. media of comrmv Problem a J): ( (D 9U Level, op. cit. 95Ibid., 0. viii. A. 6. An effective internal communication system is probably prerequisite to, but cegtainly no guarantee of, business success.9 From Level's study it is possible to glean information about the importance of the source of communication, the content of the message, the channel used, and the recipient of the message. In each case there is an influencing agent, stimuli creating a response, and a recipient being influenced. Ll. A more recent stu 97 J v has been completed by Herbert Simons. Like th (D research of Frank Punk with high and low-rated production foremen, Simons attempted to test the significant difference between "more successful" and "less successful” hotel supervisors in relation to selected com- munication attitudes, skills, and practices. And secondly, determine the attributes of communication of the entire group of supervisors. He found that successful and less successful super- visors did differ in characteristics of communication skills and attitudes. However, he did not concern himself with the direction of the communication nor attempt to examine specific tasks. The above studies have dealt with various dimensions and variables underlying organization structures. William 96Ibid., pp. x—xi. 97Herbert William Simons, ”A Comparison of Communica- tion Attributes and Rated Job Performance of Supervisors in a Large Commercial Enterprise" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, Purdue University, 1961). _ C8 . . . . eddy“ attempted to analyze tne dimenSions of organizational behavior to determine elemer ts which provide principles of effective a ministration. One part of his perception study dealt with he invest tation of variability in organiza— +1. (‘2 (f d tional performance. h (D a' emp ed to capture the supervisors' reason for variatili ty in depart mental performance and also t. eir reports of the kinds of information they used to evaluate this perfo *‘S J pa :3 0 (D The findings in relation to specific tasks performed, paralleled those of Piersol and , emphasized that management and supervisors do not perceive tasks and methods of accom- plish ng specific tasks in the same manner. . - . 99 . .. . . Jonn La rie' carried this point further Wlth his investigation of perception of leadership characteristics. He combined the findings of Eddy and Pleishman in order to note any significant difference between: (1) supervisors ar d their superiors, (P) supervisors and their subordin- ates, and (3} supervisors' perceptions and evaluations of their ch .arac te ristics as a leader. He attempted likewise to categorize the amount of time foremen spend on each daily task. However, he did not attempt to distinguish between high and low rated production foremen, nor did he 98william B. Eddy, "Dimensions of Organization Behavior" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 99John Lawr ie, ”Evaluation of Role Occupants as a Function of Role Expectation Reciprocity” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State Univers sity, 1903). 57 attempt to calculate the amount of time spent interacting with superiors, subordinates, and other foremen. Tnerefore, in the above review of literature the folloaing "ajor pCl’to take on significance for the follo.ihg case stud; l. Previouzly investigated case studies were often general in nature and were not limited to analysis of specific supervisory tasks. 2. There were weaknesses in determining the high and low rated foremens' patterns of interaction in relation to specific tasks. 3. Fanaqex:nt’s evaluation and perception of the productive efforts of supervisors were not directly compared to specific tasks. 4. Importance of specific tasks were not compared to the amount of time devoted to each. 5. The p rcentage of written and oral supervisory communications were not calculated in relation to interaction with subordinates, superiors, and other foremen. 6. Leadership ratings from a reliable test were not compared to the management evaluation of a foreman or supervisor. CHAPTER III PURPOSE AND BASIC QUESTIONS In Chapter I the trends of organizational theories were explored by examining the three basic movements. Likewise, the underlying principles of these theories were spelled out and previous research related to these basic concepts were then cited in the next chapter. Each of the research studies was examined for: basic questions being investigated; general conclusions; and major limita— tions of the study. The basic purpose of the proposed case study stemmed from the research cited above, with primary emphasis upon analyzing the interaction100 patterns for ten specific tasks of foremen in an industrial setting. Secondly, the expected patterns by the foremen's immediate superiors were also studied. Using the SMCR theory of Berlo, the proposed case study concerns itself with the source, the message, the channel, and the receiver. These four variables can be identified in the following manner: lOfl Jr"! .. H- i - t," ,, ....-..‘ - :.. i-i-- ihe term inte action as used in this di:serta— ° 0 f. '-‘ .-‘,-. .. ,: F ,. .. ‘ I“ .,-, ‘ 1 .-.,- -_ . ,2”, tion relers to the written aha/o? verbal contact made between foremen and their superiors, subordinates, and other foremen. 59 Source = foremen/production supervisors Message = ten specific tasks 101 Channel = written or oral interaction Receiver = superiors/subordinates/other foremen/no interaction required In order to perform their weekly functions efficiently, the foremen must be concerned with the above variables. For each of the ten tasks, they must interact with one or more of the "receivers"--through one of the two channels. These variables affect the productivity of all of the foremen and likewise th (I) expectations of the production supervisors. In order to analyze these interaction patterns more closely, a comparison will be made among all of the foremen and the expected patterns of their immediate superiors. And secondly, the high and the low productive foremen will be examined. These comparisons will be made in relation to the following categories: 1. Amount of time spent on each task per week. 2. The importance of each task in performing efficiently as a foreman. 3. The amount of time spent interacting with superiors. M. The amount of time spent interacting with subordinates. 5. The amount of time spent interacting with other foremen. 6. The per cent of interaction which is written to each of these recipients. 7. The amount of time requiring no interaction each week. Thus, for ten specific tasks, the expected patterns of interaction can be compared to the actual. These 10‘The interpretation of this term utilizes only a part of the definition provided by Berlo who indicates channel choices may encompass any or all of the five senses. 60 communication networks will be examined from the standpoint of: direction of interacton for each task; the channels r: (I) (D Q. c—f O O O i] 'U H (D ( r (D (T 3 (I, p. ‘S L f (D *3 action; and the importance of each task in relation to the amount of time devoted to each. Considering the above variables in this case study, several basic questiors will be explored. The following are designed to contributEtoward the purpose of examining the interaction patterns of industrial foremen. 1. Is there any correlation between the foremen's perceived rank order of importance of the ten tasks and those of the production supervisors? 2. Is there any correlation between the high and low productive foremen as to their perceived rank order of importance of the ten tasks in performing their weekly activities? Perception studies have been completed in industrial settings, such as the work cited previously by John Lawrie. From the results of his work, and considering tn (D descriptive charac- (f LL teristics of the sam there will be a 1 «l s— ' 4 . ie, it is predlc e ch high correlation between the foremen and the production supervisors. Only one of the foremen was not promoted from rank—and—file; as were the production supervisors and manufacturing superintendent. Therefore, with the same schooling it would appear that their perceptions of tasks values would be correlated. A similar result would be predicted between the high and low productive foremen, although there should be some disagreement considering that their interaction patterns would differ if their productive outputs differ. 61 The above questions generate additional areas of investigation. After comparing the actual and expected rankings of task importance, a correlation can be made between the mportance of the rank and the time Spent on each task each week. 3. Is there any correlation between the foremen's rank order of task importance and the amount of time spent on each task per week? 4. Is there any correlation between what the production supervisors expect the foremen to consider important and the amount of time spent on each task per week? 5. Is there any correlation between the high and low productive foremen in rank importance of tasks and the amount of time spent on each task per week? Since the foremen and the production supervisors have experienced the same backgrounds, the correlation should be relatively high. However, there should be a difference between what the foremen consider and what the production supervisors expect with tasks of lesser importance. Of the ten tasks, perhaps three or four will receive high task ranking and occupy a high per cent of the work week. In relation to these tasks, the correlation should be high. Both the high and low productive foremen should correlate highly between rank importance of the task and the time spent on each task because they possess similar backgrounds and tend to perceive things as they have been in the past. 62 The above questions have dealt with the ranked importance of tasks and the amount of time devoted to these activities each week. However, some predictions should be made about the interaction patterns required to perform these tasks. 6. What 5 the relationship between the foremen's patterns or the production supervisors' eraction patterns with superiors, , and other foremen? {l U) (dz—L Y: Q} subordinate 7. What is t e relationslip between the inter— actio patterns for these ten tasks for high and low productive foremen? hese interaction patterns,of course, can be examined for each task, and for the ombination of all the tasks. As a whole, it would appear that the production supervisors would expect their foremen to interact more with superiors and other foremen than the foremen themselves consider beneficial. They would tend to show more dependence on themselves and ontact with subordinates. The difference between high and low productive fore- men would likewise center upon the importance of being independent. The hi.h productive foremen should be con— 0 cerned more with the task and his self-evaluations than the low productive foremen. Therefore, they should be more independent and less dependent on superiors and other fore- men throughout their weekly activities. Not only the interaction patterns will be of concern, but also the method, or channel, of interacting is important. 63 8. What is the relationship between the foremen and the production supervisors as to the method of interaction with superiors, sub— ordinates, and other foremen? The foremen often find themselves rushed for time to perform various activities and thus depend on the oral channels of communications. The Piersol research study cited earlier found that approximately ninety-five per cent of the super— visors' daily interactions were oral and only five per cent were written. Similar results would be predicted in this case study. However, the production supervisors often consider the written method of interaction more productive. Documentation of procedures, instructions, and problems lend a more organized and productive operation. Adminis- trative positions, such as those occupied by the production supervisors, often require written communication. There- fore, it is predicted that they would expect their foremen to follow the same method. A similar comparison should be made between the high and low productive foremen. 9. What is the relationship between high and low productive foremen as to the method of inter- action with supervisors, subordinates, and other foremen? A general statement about the method most used by the high and low productive foremen would not appear logical, especially with three directions of communication involved. There should be a difference between the written and oral method of interaction in accordance to the direction of contact and the tasks being examined. 64 In the above paragraphs it was predicted that foremen would be more independent than expected by their production supervisors. This independence should be pronounced between D; the high an low productive foremen. 13. Do tne righ and low productive foremen agree on t‘e amount of weekly activities not requiring any interaction? As a whole, it is predicted tnat the high productive fore- men will be more dependent upon their self—evaluation and experience to provide sufficient information in order to perform these ten tasks. The low productive foremen, on the other hand, will be more dependent on someone else to supply the necessary support. Therefore, the high produc- tive foremen should disagree with the expected patterns of their production supervisors and be more independent. The evaluation of foremen characteristics has often plagued their immediate sup rvisors. What variables deter- mine how productive they will be? What objective methods are available for predicting supervisory potential? These questions were asked in this study in hopes of discovering O obgectively the foremen in the same a means of evaluatin UH manner as their superiors. 11. What is the correlation of the manufacturing superintendent's rating of foremen with their scores on the ”consideration” and "structure” scales of the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire? J. The Leadership pinion Qrest-onnaire which was developed by F Fleishman has often been used as a predictive instrument for supervisory potential. Therefore, it will be used in this (7\ U1 study to determine the correlation between the productivity rating of each foreman offered by their supervisory superior and the scores they receive on the ”structure” and "consid- eration" scales. It is predicted that this test will be a good indication since the foremen and their supervisory superiors have followed the same training and experienced similar positions. If a high correlation occurs, this questionnaire can be an instrument for evaluating foremen at this industrial location. Thus, the basic questions of this proposed case study are designed to evaluate the interaction patterns of foremen--botn high and low productive foremen--and those patterns expected by their production supervisors. This requires examination of the charauteristics of foremen, evaluation as to where thev spent their time in relation to ten specific tasks, and a summation of interaction patterns used to perform these tasks. The following chapter outlines the research site, the sample to be used, and describes the research procedures to be instigated. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH PROCEDURES Research Site The research for this design was carried out in a medium-sized machinery manufacturing plant located in a midwestern community. Products are distributed nationally with about 18% of the product sales being sold to foreign countries. Mixed product lines have forced this company to be flexible in handling a variety of jobs. Due to the size of the plant in comparison to others in its surrounding community, it has experienced pressures from its union to increase wages and fringe benefits. Therefore, the company has been forced to keep closer supervision, and thus created some supervisor-employee relational problems. The eight hundred employees of this organization are divided into four major divisions--finance, sales, engin- eering and manufacturing. Within the manufacturing phase of the operation there are eleven major departments. The number of workers in these departments will range from ten to forty. However, the average supervisor is responsible for approximately twenty men--in a fairly consolidated area (see organizational chart, Figure l). 66 67 zmzmmom mszomngm ZOHBobmomm ZHm mmmme mOmH>mmmDm 20Heoboomm BzmaszZHmmmDm UszDBodmazdz mm¢2¢z AHQ 68 As illustrated in the organization chart, there are four levels of authority within the manufacturing area of this comp ny--Division Manager, Manufacturing Superinten— dent, Production Supervisors, and Foremen. Since two departments in this factory do not have four levels (Maintenance and Inspection Departments), this sample will be limited to 89% of the total hourly factory employment on the day shift. Thus, the sample for this proposed investigation will be drawn from a population of 305 out of a total day shift population of 344 manufacturing employees. Included in this chosen population will be fifteen foremen, who constitute the fourth level of authority. The third level consists of two production supervisors. Their responsibilities are divided so that one is respon- sible for the Steel Shop and the Machine Shop; and the remaining areas come under the leadership of the second production supervisor. The second level of authority is the manufacturing superintendent who is responsible for the entire manufacturing phase of this company. At the first level of authority, or the highest level, is the Divisional Manager. he is responsible for all the major divisions of this company--i.e., Finance, Sales, Engin— eering, and Manufacturing. Only three levels of authority will be included in this case study of interaction patterns. The Manufacturing 69 Superintendent will evaluate or rank the productivity of the foremen. The two production supervisors will express their expectations of their immediate foremen in relation to interaction patterns for ten specific tasks. And the foremen will be examined for estimates as to their actual method of interaction,their direction of interaction, and their amount of time spent on these specific tasks. Since this is a case study, the number in the sample will be small and thus will limit generalization. Fifteen foremen and two production supervisors will constitute the sample to be investigated for interaction patterns for ten specific tasks. Specific information as to their seniority with the company, length of service as a supervisor, number of people they are directly responsible for, academic back- ground, and age provide a description of the sample to be used. Descrgpticn of the Sample Seniority Twenty per cent of the foremen have worked with this company for less than ten years. Approximately sixty-five per cent of the fifteen foremen used in this sample have been employed by this company between ten to thirty years, and the remaining foremen have been employed over thirty years. The following table illustrates this distribution. 70 TABLE l.--Seniority of the foremen. Seniority Per Cent Less than five years 6.7 Five to nine years 13.3 Ten to nineteen years no.0 Twenty to twenty-nine years 26.7 Thirty to thirty—nine years 13.3 One of the production supervisors has been with the company seventeen years. This includes seniority with another com— pany purchased by the operation being researched. The second production supervisor, however, has been employed at the present location only fifteen years. Thus, the produc- tion supervisors average sixteen years of service with the company. Length of Service as Supervisor Even though sixty-five per cent of the foremen had been employed between ten to thirty years with the company, forty per cent of them have been foremen less than five years. Approximately seventy-three per cent have been supervisors or foremen for less than ten years, but ninety—three per cent record less than twenty years of foremen background. The following table shows this dis— tribution. 71 TABLE 2.--Length of time in foreman position. Length of Service as Foreman Per Cent Less than five years 40.0 More than five years; less than ten 33.3 More than ten years; less than twenty 20.0 More than twenty years 6.7 The production supervisors, on the other hand, average eleven years of supervisory experience. Number of Emplgyees for Which Responsible In a survey of the entire manufacturing operation it was noted that the average foreman was directly respon— sible for twenty-two to twenty-five employees. This same statistical average holds true in the sample chosen for this study. Forty per cent of the foremen have less than twenty employees to manage. Sixty-six per cent have less than thirty; and approximately ninety—three per cent con- trol the activities of less than forty workers. The table below lists the percentages in more detail. TABLE 3.--Number of people a foreman supervises. Number Responsible For Per Cent Less than twenty people 40.0 Twenty to twenty-nine people 26.7 Thirty to thirty-nine people 26.7 Forty or more people 6.6 72 The production supervisors, on the other hand, are responsible directly for their respective foremen. One of these men assumes the responsibility of six foremen, while the other takes charge of the remaining nine foremen. Academic Background Of the fifteen foremen in this sample, only one did not work his way through the ranks into the supervisory classification. Since most of the hourly workers have not completed college or graduate work, it would be expected that likewise the foremen in this sample would have only high school educations. Forty per cent of the foremen did not complete high school-—comp1eted eleven grades or less. And eighty-seven per cent did not reach the college level of education. The following table illustrates specifically the description of the educational status of the fifteen foremen. TABLE 4.-—Education of the foremen. Level of Education Completed Per Cent Less than eleventh grade 40.0 High school diploma 46.7 Undergraduate work in college 6.7 More than four years of college 6.6 The production supervisors, on the other hand, can be characterized in the following manner. Both of these 73 men hold a high school education, but one has continued on a part-time basis to the college level. F’ I (D It is interesting to note that every foreman is over thirty years of age. This is probably due to the fact that the average foremen worked an average of ten years before being considered for supervisory level of employment. Fifty-three per cent of the foremen are between the ages of thirty and forty-five. Approximately thirty-two per cent of them are between forty-five and fifty-five years of age, while the remaining thirteen per cent are over sixty years of age. The chart below illustrates the distribution. TABLE 5.--Age of the foremen. Age Per Cent Less than thirty-five years of age 26.7 Thirty-five to forty—five years of age 26.6 Forty-five to fifty—five years of age 32.4 Over fifty-five years of age 13.3 The production supervisors, on the other hand, are the same age and would fall into the thirty—five to forty— five age category. Therefore, they would be in the same age bracket as the average foreman. From the above figures it can be concluded that the average foreman in this sample has been employed by this 74 company less than twenty years, with less than ten years of supervisory experience, with a high school education, respon- sible for twenty-five people, and approximately forty-five years of age. The two production supervisors support similar creden- tials. Their average length of employment was sixteen years, with eleven years of supervisory experience, a high school education, and thirty-six years of age. Thus, the above statements describe the characteristics of the sample used in this design at the chosen research site. Approach to the Analysis The basic questions listed previously for this analy- tical case study are based on the following variables. First, descriptive data in relation to the fifteen foremen used as subjects is important in order to analyze the source of interaction. Second, the message or content of the interaction requires the use of Kilgore and Piersol's research on weekly tasks of manufacturing foremen. The ten specific tasks to be used in this study provide the "message" variable. Third, as emphasized by Berlo, not only the source, and the message are important in an interaction process, but also the ”channel" and the "receiver." The channels of analysis for performing the ten specific tasks to be 75 examined were categorized as written and oral. And finally, these interaction patterns were examined as to the receiver of the interaction. This likewise refers to an analysis of the direction of interaction for carrying out specific tasks and the channels used in order to accomplish them. The ”receiver,” thus, could refer to the foremen's superiors, subordinates, other foremen; or the task may not require any interaction. In order to examine these above variables, the follow- ing procedures were used. Arrangements were made with the Manufacturing Superintendent to have the fifteen foremen meet in groups of five in a conference room to fill out the required questionnaires. The purpose and procedures were mentioned to the Divisional Manager and the Manu- facturing Superintendent prior to this time. Both of these individuals were informed as to the specific purpose of the study, the tests to be used, and the questionnaires to be filled out. No other employee received information about this study, primarily due to the employment of the researcher with the company and his familiarity with the foremen involved. Thus, the foremen were told to report to a con- ference room to fill out a questionnaire on supervision. A graduate student at Michigan State University was asked to meet with the foremen and explain the procedures of filling out the various questionnaires and tests. He 76 explained that this was part of h$§_graduate research at the University. This method was used to disguise the actual researcher (an employee of this company and like- wise known by all of the foremen). It required approxi- mately thirty to forty minutes for the foremen to fill out the necessary information. The questionnaires were enclosed in an envelope, pre-marked as to the recipient. The name of the foreman was clipped to the envelope when the foreman received it. He was told not to sign his name on any sheet and that the slip with his name was to be removed. Since the envelopes were coded inside, it was possible to determine the exact writer of the questionnaire without the foremen being aware. Five pieces of material were placed inside the envelope. First, a general cover letter was included to inform each foreman of the purpose of the research, of the necessity for making realistic estimates as to his weekly interactions, and of the use of the material at Michigan State University. This information was read orally by the graduate student administering the question- naire. The second part of the questionnaire included the Fleishman Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. This question- naire measures two independent variables or dimensions of supervisory leadership: structure and consideration. The 77 "structure" scale measures the tendency to initiate ideas, to plan, or to direct a group toward organizational goals; while "consideration" reflects the degree to which the supervisor emphasizes rapport. This would refer to his sensitivity to subordinates' and superiors' feelings and his emphasis upon two-way communication. Questions on the ”structure" scale were asked in the following manner: 1. Put the welfare of your unit above the welfare of any person in it. ___Always ___Often ___Occasionally ___Seldom ___Never 2. "Needle" persons under you for greater effort. A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all 3. Let the persons under you do their work the way they think is best. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Examples as to the "consideration" scales were likewise worded in the same manner in order to determine how frequently a foreman feels he should do what is described in each item. 1. Ask for more than the persons under you can accomplish. Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom 78 2. Refuse to compromise a point. Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 3. Change the duties of persons under you without first talking it over with them. Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Norms for each of these scales have been established by the Science Research Associates for such categories as: general supervisory personnel, first line administration clerks, college seniors, executives, engineering supervisors, educational supervisors, and foremen. This leadership questionnaire is being used currently for selecting super— visory and management personnel; for evaluating management training programs; for assessing "managerial climate" in performance; and for use with supervisory trainees as a self-development tool. Therefore, a variety of uses are available with specific norms for evaluation and analysis. Fleishman's questionnaire is being used by such companies as: American Motors Corporation; Radio Corpora- tion of America; Northwest Orient Air-line; International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation; and Maynard Research Council. The reliability and validity of this questionnaire have been examined in large shoe-manufacturing companies where management's overall rating of proficiency of foremen was compared to scores on this questionnaire; likewise, 79 in such situations where an analysis was being sought for determining the relationship of leadership patterns to organizational stress and effectiveness in hospitals. A third section of the material given to the fifteen foremen included the sheet on "general information." Five specific areas of descriptive information were covered: length of employment with the company; length of seniority as a foreman; number of persons for which they have direct responsibility; educational training; and age of the foreman. Under each of these headings, categories were established in order to provide rapidly the necessary information. An "X" was to be placed next to the most appropriate category. For example: How long have you worked with this company? Less than 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 19 years 20 to 29 years 30 to 39 years This same format was used for the other four major divisions. The information was essential for providing descriptive material of the fifteen foremen. As documented by the research of Kilgore and Piersol, the specific tasks of industrial or manufacturing foremen appeared to fall into specific categories. From their work, ten specific tasks were listed for the foremen to consider in the fourth section of the questionnaire. Each foreman was asked to rank these tasks in the order of importance 80 as he considered them in doing a good and efficient job in supervising his department. He marked a number "1" next to the task he considered the most important; a number "2" ranking second, etc. For example: 1 Maintaining quality and quantity of production. 3 Planning and scheduling of manpower and pro- duction; planning and using supplies economically. 2 Training workers; giving job information to workers; getting the right people on the right The I; a; portion of the foreman questionnaire utilized these ten tasks in relation to: the amount of time Spent each week per task; the direction of interaction necessary to carry out efficiently the task; and the manner of carrying out the task—~written or oral. In order not to make this section confusing, a three-part, carbon question- naire was used. On the first sheet, only the total number of hours spent per week for each task was listed. On the second sheet, the direction of interaction was listed; with information on written communication on the third sheet. For example see sample on the following page. The amount of time spent on each task and the direction of interaction were thus estimated. 81 W m E-i m < I DZ 2 CC: 0 H :z m H D E B [-4 O: a: Cr: 2 qu [fl (3 film H TASK E87]. g g Egg 0 —— BU) U) U) 0&4 2 ACTION 1. Maintaining quality and quantity of production. 2. Planning and scheduling of manpower and production; planning and using supplies economically. 3. Training workers; giving job information to workers; getting the right people on the right job. The third sheet requested the per cent of interaction which was written to their superiors, subordinates, and other foremen. This information provided data on the channels used. Thus, the foremen questionnaires were enclosed in an envelope with their names attached. They removed their names or identification and exposed themselves to five different sections of information. These included: a general cover letter, a Leadership Opinion Questionnaire, a general information sheet, ranking importance of ten specific tasks, and direction and method of interacting to accomplish the ten specific tasks. Since the enveIOpes were coded, it was possible to identify each questionnaire of the foremen. The two production supervisors, on the other hand, were asked to provide some additional information. They received an envelope containing the questionnaires 82 in the same manner as the foremen. Once again these folders were coded for identification purposes. Three different pieces of information were included: first, a general cover letter was read orally to them by the graduate student administering the questionnaire. This letter explained the purpose of the study, its relation- ship to graduate research at Michigan State University, and the importance to estimate what they ordinarily expect of their foremen in relationship to interaction patterns for ten specific tasks. Second, like the fifteen foremen, they were asked to rank in the order of importance the tasks they consid- ered important for foremen to perform efficiently the duties and responsibilities of their departments. And, finally, they also filled out information related to the direction and method of carrying out each of the ten specific tasks. Their answers or reactions to these areas of concern were to represent what they expected of their foremen. The foremen, on the other hand, estimated what they actually performed in relation to these specific tasks. The productivity ratings for each of the fifteen foremen were supplied by the Manufacturing Superintendent. He was asked to evaluate the productivity of each foreman. The term "productivity" was defined as: the ability of the foremen to get out consistently the required work over a period of time with good quality, organize their 83 department in order to achieve organizational goals, and establish rapport with their sub- ordinates. A number "1" was to be given to the most productive foremen; a number "2" to the individual who was second most produc- tive, etc. This productivity rating provided a bases upon which to compareif high productive foremen possess inter- action patterns for ten specific tasks different than low productive foremen. These ratings also could be compared to the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire for reliability and validity analyses. In short, the foremen were asked to estimate their interaction patterns during the course of a week; the pro- duction supervisors were likewise asked to estimate what they expect of their foremen; and the Manufacturing Superintendent classified or rated the productivity of each supervisor. CHAPTER V RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The data collected from the questionnaires which were given to the foremen and their immediate superiors can be analyzed by: (l) examining the interaction patterns for each of the ten tasks, and (2) considering the summation of these tasks. In relation to these two major areas, it is possible to sub—divide the data and categorize it into four specific groups: (1) all of the foremen, (2) what their superiors expect, (3) reactions of the most produc— tive—rated foremen (top twenty-seven per cent), and (4) reactions of the least productive-rated foremen (bottom twenty-seven per cent). The interaction patterns of the subjects in this case study were analyzed in relation to the following ten tasks: 1. Maintaining quality and quantity of production. 2. Planning and scheduling of manpower and produc- tion; planning and using supplies economically. 3. Training workers; giving job information to workers; getting the right people on the right job. Adjusting and handling grievances; promoting cooperation; building morale. Promoting safety; maintaining good housekeeping. COOperating with other foremen and departments; reporting matters to management. Explaining company policy. 1:— \JO\U'I 84 8. 9. 10. 85 Engaging in social conversation. Analyzing costs of production. Analyzing efficiency of your department. In order to determine what interaction patterns are neces- sary to perform these specific tasks, the foremen (and their immediate superiors) were asked to estimate for each task the amount of time devoted to nine specific categories. 1. 2 o O\ \OCDNI The amount of time devoted per week to each task. The rank order of importance of each task (in relation to the total number being evaluated) to supervise efficiently and productively. he amount of time spent interacting with their superiors. The per cent of interaction with superiors which is written. The amount of time Spent interacting with their subordinates. The per cent of interaction with their sub- ordinates which is written. The amount of time Spent interacting with other foremen. The per cent of interaction with other foremen which is written. The amount of time spent on each task that does not require any interaction. The actual and expected interaction patterns for each of the above ten tasks will be described in the next section, followed by the over-all interaction patterns of foremen for a forty-hour work week. Interaction Patterns for Each Task Task Number 1: "Maintaining quality and quantity of production." The following table summarizes the interaction patterns for all the foremen, for expectations of their supervisors, and for the high and the low productive foremen. 86 m.em Ao.mav w.ma AS.H V :.m: Aa.m v N.HH 0.0: m>apoeeopm zoo m.mH AH.Hmv m.m Ae.omv o.mo Ao.mav H.HH a.mm m>apoeeowm swam o.ma Am.mmv S.MH Ao.omv m.em Ao.o:v m.mH m.ma whoma>wmsem soaposoopm m.aa Am.mmo m.ea Ao.OHV H.3m As.HHv o.ma m.mm emsmpom Hue mmwwmm Amwwwwmmv Aemppawzv Acmppfipzv empo>mo oz nonpo OB mmpmcfippoozm OB mpoapmosm OB mEHB Ampcmo poo CHV .cofiuosoopo mo muapcmoo new mpHHmSU wcficfimucfime no“ mcpmppmo cofipombmch||.m mqm¢9 87 Task number one was ranked the most important task in performing efficiently a supervisory job by all of the fore- men (including the high and low productive foremen). Their immediate superiors, however, considered this task to be of lesser importance. They listed planning and scheduling (task #2), and training and locating workers (task #3) of more importance than maintaining quality and quantity of production. As the preceding table illustrates, production super— visors likewise do not agree with their foremen in relation to the per cent of time devoted each week to this particular task. This suggests a correlation between the importance of the task and the amount of time devoted per week to each task. This will be discussed in more detail in the second major section of this chapter. The amount of time devoted to this task by all of the foremen is considerably more than that expected by the production supervisors. Likewise, the lower productive foremen spend forty per cent of their work week on this task, while the higher productive foremen spend only twenty- eight per cent. However, when combining the amount of time devoted to the first three tasks, the high productive foremen invest 69.1% of their efforts while the low produc— tive foremen spend 71.3% of their work week. When comparing all the foremen with the production supervisors on this point, they differ significantly. The average time spent 88 by all of the foremen is 64.2% and the production super- visors expect 48.8% of their efforts on the first three tasks listed previously. The interaction patterns with superiors for this task appear to differ little between the four groups. However, there is a noticeable difference in the per cent of inter- action which is written to superiors. The production supervisors expect forty per cent of the interaction to be written, while the foremen estimate they spend only 11.7% of their efforts on this form of communication. The lower productive foremen, on the other hand, use written interaction 9.1% of the time, which is below the average for all of the foremen in the sample, and the results obtained from the high productive foremen. There is a high correlation between all the foremen and the production supervisors in relation to interaction with subordinates. They suggest that in order to maintain quality and quantity of production it is necessary to interact with their subordinates over fifty per cent of the time devoted to this task. However, a small per cent of this interaction is written, although the high produc- tive foremen spend significantly more time in written communication than the lower productive foremen. As a whole the high productive foremen appear to be more independent in performing this task since they interact less with superiors and other foremen than the 89 lower productive foremen. Only 8.3% of the amount of time devoted to this task requires interaction with other fore- men, although 31.1% of this is written. This correlates highly with the expectations of their production supervisors. The lower productive foremen, on the other hand, devote less time interacting with subordinates and interact more with other foremen; and spend more time not interacting with anyone. Likewise, as in the case of interaction with superiors and subordinates, they do not use written com- munication with other foremen to perform the task of maintaining quality and quantity of production. Therefore, the production supervisors expect more written communication than actually being used by the foremen. Second, the high productive foremen are more independent and depend less on interaction with superiors and other foremen and devote 62.0% of their efforts inter- acting with subordinates. Whereas, the low productive foremen direct less attention to subordinates and spend more time interacting with superiors and other foremen; and 24.2% of their time required no interaction. Task Number 2.--"P1anning and scheduling of man- power and production; planning and using supplies economically." Production supervisors ranked this task the most important in performing efficiently as a foremen. The foremen, on the other hand, classify the previous task as 90 the most important and consider this task third in impor- tance. The importance of the task and the amount of time devoted to it, however, do not affect the findings in the summary table (Table 7, p. 91). For this particular task, the foremen devote more time than that expected by their immediate superiors, even though the foremen do not consider this task as important in their weekly activities as the production supervisors. Especially is this true with the high productive foremen who spend 20.0% of their week planning and scheduling whereas the lower productive foremen devote only 11.9%. The expected interaction patterns of the production supervisors reflect a balanced contact between foremen and superiors, foremen and other foremen, and no interaction at all. Therefore, they suggest that the foremen should work with their superiors, other foremen, and independently when plann ng and scheduling production. The foremen, on the other hand, appear to consider it less important to deal with superiors, other foremen, and subordinates. They wish to be more independent and, therefore, do not interact with anyone 25.8% of the time they spend on this task. Considering the per cent of time devoted to planning and scheduling each week, the lower productive foremen reflect a pattern related to that expected by their super- visors. They depend more on interaction with superiors, subordinates, and other foremen, with only 13.6% of their l 9 m.ma AH. v m.sm AH. V 5.3: Am.mmv H.5H m.HH msfiposoosm 30g H.mm A:.m V m.wm Ao.owv m.Hm AH.HHV H.3H 0.0m m>apoj©0hm emfim m.:H An.©mv :.Hm Ao.mav m.m: Am.mzv :.Hm m.na whomfi>hoasm m>auoswopm m.mm AH.~ V m.sa Am.mav s.o: Am.:HV m.ma m.~a cosmsom HH< COHpom Acmwmwmww Acmsoapzv Acmpufiszv emso>mo Ihmch oz hospo OB mmpmcfibponzm OB whoapqum OB oEHB Ampcmo poo CHV .maamoHEocooo mmfiHQQSm means new wcficcwaa MCOHposnopq pew pmzoocme Mo mafiaspmcom new wcficcmad Lop mcnmppma cofipompmchll.m mqmde 92 time requiring no interaction. Thus, the high productive foremen appear to be more independent than the low produc- tive foremen. As was noted in the previous task, the production superivsors expect more written interaction than that actually used by all of the foremen. This is especially true in relation to interaction with superiors and other foremen, but the reverse exists in communicating with subordinates. Although for all of the foremen only 18.6% of the interaction with subordinates is written, there is a noticeable difference between the high and the low pro- ductive foremen. Eighty per cent of the interaction with subordinates by the high productive foremen is written, but only .1% by the low productive foremen. In short, the production supervisors suggest that foremen should work with their superiors, other foremen, subordinates, as well as independently in planning and scheduling. The foremen, on the other hand, devote more time to self—evaluation, especially when compared to the expected per cent of interaction with superiors. Likewise, the high productive foremen are more independent in their efforts than the low productive foremen. And finally, the productive supervisors expect more written communication with superiors and other foremen than is actually being used by the foremen. The low productive foremen tend to parallel this eXpectation,whereas the high productive 93 foremen devote most of their written communication to the subordinates. Task Number 3.--"Training workers; giving Job information to workers; getting the right peOple on the right Job." Both the production supervisors and the foremen consider this task to be of equal importance in their weekly activities. Although they differ as to the most important task, they agree that this one is the second most important. There is some disagreement, however, on the interaction pattern as illustrated by Table 8. There is a strong Correlation between the impor- tance of the task and the amount of time devoted to it. As Table 8 illustrates, there is little difference between the amount of time spent on this task by the foremen and the expected amount by their immediate super- iors. The high productive foremen, however, spend less time on this task than the low productive. This is in reverse of the preceding task related to planning and scheduling. Training and locating workers requires a great deal of interaction with the subordinates. The foremen rely on the advice of their superiors; but only 5.9% of the time. The majority of the time they depend upon 9M m.mm As.mmV m.mH As.© V m.mz Am.mV m.HH s.mH m>asoseonm 304 o.mm It: 0.0H Am. V o.mm III 0.: m.mH m>fipoSU0Lm can: 5.0H Ao.omV 5.0H Ao.mmV s.Hs Ao.mV H.s m.sH msomfi>smasm cofiuospohm ~.mm Am.HmV m.m A:.m V w.Hm A:.mV mm.m m.wH cmEmLom HH¢ coup a soapom A coswpww Acmppfian AcmupHL3V Umuo>ma upmch oz hmspo OB mmpmcfippoosm oe whoapqum OB mEHB Amucmo pom cfiV .non pgwfip who so maqoma pzmfip on» mafipumw mmpmxpoz 0p cofimepoucH ooh wcfi>fiw mmpmxaoz mcficfimpp pom mcpmppma coauomnmchlu.w mqmaposponm 304 0.0: Inn: III: Amm. V p.02 all: m.ma >.: o>Hpozwonm swam ---- no.0mV a.sa 10.0:V a.ss io.mmV k.ss m.k whomw>smasm :oHposwonm 0.0m Am.m V m.H As. V H.3m Aom.s V H.mm H.m cosmsom HH< cofipom Acmwwwmww AcmpufinzV AcmppfinzV nmuo>60 numch oz pmcpo oB mmpmcfinaopsm OB mnofinoazm OB mEHB Amocoo nod :HV .mamnoE mcfinafisn mcofiumamaooo weapoEopa mmmocm>mapm wcfiaccm: new mcfipmzmwm Lou mcpmppmn cofipoMmecHnu.0H mqm¢e 100 Once again the high productive foremen are more inde- pendent than the low productive foremen, eSpecially since they spend less time interacting with superiors, other foremen, and subordinates; but devote more time not inter- acting with any level of authority. The low productive foremen, however, devote 71.4% of their efforts in the direction of their subordinates, with an additional 15% toward superiors. The remaining 14% they divide between interacting with other foremen and with self evaluation. The productive supervisors place a great deal of emphasis upon written communication upward, downward, and horizontal in the organizational structure. In relation to contact with their superiors, the low productive fore— men (and the production supervisors) place strong reliance upon written channels, but differ significantly in relation to interacting with subordinates and other foremen. The high productive foremen, on the other hand, do not consider written interaction of any importance in solving grievances and building morale. They rely on verbal communication and independent study (which requires no interaction). Therefore, even though the importance of this task and the amount of time devoted to it differs little between the foremen and their immediate supervisors, their interaction patterns are not parallel. The foremen depend more on their superiors than expected by their production 101 supervisors; although the high productive foremen depend less. Likewise, the low productive foremen appear to be more dependent on superiors, subordinates, and other foremen, whereas the high productive foremen once again are more independent. And finally, the foremen, especially the high productive foremen, appear to be less concerned with written communication in comparison to the production supervisors. The latter expect approximately fifty per cent of the interaction to be written. The foremen, how— ever, do not devote any more than five per cent. Task Number 5.—-"Promoting safety; maintaining good housekeeping." The ranked importance of safety and good housekeeping is approximately of equal importance for both the production supervisors and the foremen. The latter rank this task of fourth importance, whereas the production supervisors suggest it should be either third or fourth. The amount of time devoted to this task per week correlates with the rank of importance according to the results received from both the foremen and the production supervisors. However, as Table 11 illustrates, the high and the low productive foremen direct less attention to this task than the average of all the foremen and the pro— duction supervisors. 102 o.mm Ao.omV H.HH Ao.ooV m.mm Am.m V m.m o.m m>Hpossosm zoq o.mm -- o.m -- 0.0m Ao.mmV 0.0m m.m msfisossonm amfim H.s Ao.osV s.mm As.ssV a.ms 15.0mV s.Hm m.m whomsssmasm cofiposvonm m.sa Am.oHV o.HH Amm.HHV 0.0m Am.s V m.ma m.m smashes afia cofipom Acmwwwmww AcmppfiszV AcmspfingV smso>mo unmch oz nonpo oe mmumcfipnoosm oe whoapmdsm o9 mefle Amucmo pma cfiV .mcfiammxmmzoc noow wCHcHMchmE mmummmw mCHuoEopq you wepmppma coapompmch-.HH mqmauog©0hm swam 0.0m A0.00V 0.0: -- -- A0.00V 0.0: 0.0 mnemw>nmasm coaposcopm m.m A0.m V m.Hm A0.0V m.m Am.0HV 0.0m m.0 cothom HH¢ coapom ACWWWWMMM Azmppfisz AcmppHLzV Umpo>m0 unoucH oz umzpo 09 mmpmcfinuonzm OB mLOfiLodsm OB oEHB Ampcmo pom :HV .pcoEmwmcmE o» whoppme wcfiup006n mmucosppmaoc 02m cmEmpow pmcpo 20H: mafiumpoaooo pom mcnmppmd soapompmch-I.ma mqmge 107 The high productive foremen spend twenty-five per cent of their time interacting with superiors and other foremen, and twenty per cent with subordinates, but do not interact with anyone thirty per cent of the time. This suggests that they consider such matters of balanced importance in all directions. The low productive foremen rely more heavily upon interacting with other foremen, with the remaining twenty-five per cent of their time directed to their superiors. The subordinates in this case are not contacted. Only two foremen listed any interaction with subordinates: one in the high productive group, the other in the "middle" group. The production supervisors once again suggest that foremen should invest a high percentage of their time on written communication. Sixty per cent should be written to their superiors and eighty per cent to other foremen. The foremen, however, actually consider approximately ten per cent of the time sufficient. However, the low produc— tive foremen rely more on written communication than the high productive ones. Therefore, the interaction pattern for coordinating the departments and management in relation to miscellaneous subjects emphasize the following points. First, the production supervisors do not expect any interaction with subordinates, but equal amount of time directed toward superiors and other foremen. Second, the foremen spend 108 more time interacting with other foremen than with superiors; with some communication with subordinates. Third, the written efforts of foremen do not agree with the expectations of their production supervisors. However, the low productive foremen rely more on the written channels than the average foremen. And finally, the high productive foremen keep more matters to themselves than the low productive foremen. Task Number 7.——"Explaining company policy." The largest rank difference between the rank of the importance of a specific task for the production supervisors and the foremen occurs in relation to the importance of explaining company policy. The foremen consider this task as one of the least important (ninth) function of their weekly activities, whereas the production supervisors rank it fifth. This rank variance is apparent in relation to the amount of time spent per week by the foremen and the amount of time the production supervisors expect them to devote (see Table 13). There is little difference between the amount of time Spent by the low and the high productive foremen. The major disagreement is between the expectations of the pro— duction supervisors and the actual time spent by all of the foremen. This task presents some unusual interaction patterns. Since the nature of the task is explaining policy, it null null N.mm -- m.:0 -- III- m.m o>apodnonm 304 0.00 null null -- m.mm -- -- 0.0 m>Hposponm swam 0.00 “0.0mV 0.0m A0.0:V 0.00 -- -|- m.0 mpomfispodsm coaposcopm 0.Hm -- 0.0 -- H.00 -- u-I- m.m cosmaom HH¢ cm A. eofipom A cwwwsww AcmssfinzV AcmspfiszV smsosmo upoch oz pmzpo ow mmpmcfiuaonsm oe whoapmazm OB oEHB Ampcmo nod cHV .zOHHoQ zcmano maficfimfiaxo you menoppmq coapompmchI-.ma mqmde 110 could be predicted that little, if any, interaction took place between the foremen and the superiors. The inter- action in this case would be an explanation from the superiors to the foremen. Even the expectation of the production supervisors emphasizes this point. The foremen direct seventy per cent of their time toward explaining policies to subordinates, with an addi- tional ten per cent directed toward each other. A remaining twenty per cent suggests a need for individual understanding of the procedures and policies which do not require any interaction. These interaction formations parallel those expected by the supervisors. An unusual contrast exists between the high and the low productive foremen. The high productive foremen direct only one-third of the time devoted to this task to their subordinates and two-thirds require no interaction. This pattern does not correlate with the average of all the foremen, nor the patterns of the low productive foremen. The latter directs sixty-five per cent of their efforts to the subordinates and the remaining amount explaining policies to other foremen. Only three of all the foremen sampled listed "no interaction," but two of these were in the high productive group. Thus, a possible reason for the difference in patterns. In no case did the foremen consider the written explanation as part of their duties. The production 111 supervisors, however, expected that forty-six per cent of the interaction with subordinates be written, but only twenty per cent of the communication with other foremen. The explanation of company policy by the foremen, therefore, suggests that it be directed primarily to sub- ordinates and other foremen. The remaining efforts would then require no interaction. Only the production super- visors suggested that written communication be used. The foremen did not rely on this channel for any interaction. Task Number 8.--"Engaging in social conversation." The importance cf'engagingin social conversation by the foremen received the same rank of importance from the foremen and the production supervisors. Both ranked this task the leas mportant. The next least important task, according to the foremen, was explaining company policy, whereas the production supervisors considered analyzing costs of production. Table 14 illustrates the difference between the foremen and their immediate superiors as to the amount of time that should be devoted to this task. The foremen consider social conversation to demand as much of their weekly time as that of explaining company policies. The production supervisors, however, place it on equal time with adjusting and handling grievances, and promoting morale and c00perating with the workers. The high 112 -- 0.0: -- 0.0m -- m.mm 0.m 0>40000000 304 -- -- 0.0m -- 0.00 -- 0.00 0.4 0>Hpos0o00 0040 -- -- 0.0m -- 0.00 A0.0mV 0.00 0.0 m0omH>0masm 0040050000 0.: A00. V n.0m Am.mV :.m: A00. V :.mm m.m C08000m HH< eofipom AmwwwwmmV A0000403V Aemppa03V 0000>00 I00ch 02 00:00 08 000000000030 OB 000000030 09 0549 AmpC0o 000 cHV .00400000>:oo 400000 :0 00400000 000 00000000 0000000000H-I.:4 M4049 113 productive foremen consider it less worthy of their time than the low productive foremen and the production super- visors. Of the time devoted to this task, the foremen and the production supervisors agree that approximately fifty per cent of the communication should be directed toward their subordinates. The remaining time will be divided between conversing with their superiors and other foremen. The high productive foremen, however, placed a little more emphasis upon engaging in social conversation with other foremen than expected by the production supervisors. The low productive foremen, on the other hand, engage in social conversation primarily with other foremen, and approximately thirty per cent of it with superiors and only twenty-two per cent with subordinates. This suggests the possibility of a lower production rating by management with this amount of social conversation with superiors. There is little written communication suggested by either the foremen or the production supervisors. The latter expect this type of conversation to be written only to superiors, whereas the foremen show some form of written interaction with superiors, subordinates, and other foremen; although of no significance. One foreman out of the sample allotted time to "no interaction"; which is difficult to explain at this point. 114 The above patterns illustrate the following conclu- sions. First, both the foremen and the production super~ visors suggest the need for social interaction. They differ in the amount of time that should be devoted to this task, with the production supervisors expecting almost three times as much as the foremen experience. Second, the low productive foremen engage in social con— versation more than the high productive foremen with superiors and other foremen but less with subordinates. Third, little written interaction takes place, although the social conversation with superiors is expected by the production supervisors to be twenty per cent. And finally, the high productive foremen direct only twenty per cent of their conversation toward superiors, with the remaining eighty per cent to subordiantes and other fore- men. Task Number 9.--"Analyzing costs of production." Even though the production supervisors rank this task ninth in importance and the foremen eighth, they expect their foremen to devote more time to this task than the foremen consider important (see Table 15). The production supervisors consider this amount equal to that expected in relation to explaining company policy (task #7) and cooperating with other foremen, and reporting matters to management (task #6). The foremen, 115 0.00 -- 0.40 -- 0.40 -- 0.40 0.0 0>40030000 304 0.00 -- 0.00 -- 0.04 -- 0.00 0.0 0>40030000 0040 0.00 40.00V 0.00 00.0V 0.0m 00.00V 0.00 0.0 00004>00020 0040030000 0.00 A04. V 0.44 004. V 0.04 40.4 V 0.40 0.: 0000000 440 004000 Acmwwwmww A0000403V A0000403V 0000>00 I00009 02 00000 09 000004000030 09 000400030 09 0649 “00000 000 04V .0040030000 00 00000 004004000 000 00000000 0040000000HL-.m4 04009 116 however, consider it more important than spending time explaining company policy (task #7) and engaging in social conversation (task #8). The interaction pattern expected by the production supervisors is fairly well balanced. Sixty per cent of the total time devoted to this task is divided equally between superiors and subordinates, with the remaining forty per cent divided equally between interaction with other fore- men and self interaction. The foremen direct more communi- cation toward superiors and self interaction, and less toward subordinates and other foremen, than expected by the production supervisors. Only twenty-seven per cent of their time requires contact with subordinates and other foremen. The low productive foremen correlate closely with the pattern of interaction expected by the production supervisors. However, the high productive foremen, appear to be more independent and self reliant. Only twenty-two per cent of their interaction deals with their superiors and the same amount with other foremen. Of the remaining fifty—four per cent, thirty-eight per cent require no interaction. They consider contact with the subordinates of little importance when analyzing costs of production. Neither the low nor the high productive foremen use written interaction in attempting to analyze production 117 costs. The small percentage recorded by all the foremen stems from those included in the ”middle" productive group. The production supervisors, however, emphasize the importance of written communication to other foremen, with twenty—six per cent directed through this channel when interacting with superiors. However, a small portion of the time is expected to be written when con- versing with their subordinates. Therefore, some consistent patterns are seen in relation to this task. First, the high productive foremen are more independent than the low productive foremen, and the expectations of the production supervisors. Second, the production supervisors expect a higher percentage of written communication than the actual practice of the foremen. Third, the foremen are expected to be more com- municative with their interaction in seeking to analyze cost of production. Required self interaction and contact with superiors, subordinates, and other foremen are all important. The foremen, however, rely a great deal on their superiors and self interaction. And finally, the foremen appear to rely on oral interaction to receive additional information. Task Number lO.--”Analyzing efficiency of your department." As previously mentioned, the widest difference in task rank of importance existed when explaining company 118 policy. However, the second most discrepant deals with analyzing departmental efficiency. The foremen rank this task as fifth most important--between promoting safety and good housekeeping (task #5) and cooperating with other foremen and reporting matters to management (task #6). The production supervisors, however, classify this task as eighth inimportance. This would place it between analyzing the production costs (task #9) and cooperating with other foremen and reporting matters to management (task #6). Thus, the difference in ranked importance for this task by foremen and production supervisors is three positions (see Table 16). Even though the production supervisors consider this task less important than the foremen, they expect more time to be devoted to it than the foremen estimate they spend. The per cent of the total weekly activities expected by the immediate supervisors is equal to that devoted to promoting safety and good housekeeping (task #5). The general pattern expected by the production supervisors reflects one of independence. They expect thirty-five per cent to be self—evaluation with additional contact with other foremen and subordinates. However, the least amount of time should be directed toward superiors. The foremen, on the other hand, portray a more balanced distribution. The majority of interaction is with superiors, with a high per cent dealing with self- evaluation and contact with other foremen. Twenty-one 119 o.mm III: w.m4 III: m.4m III: o.mm o.m 0>40030000 300 m.mm nun: 0.0: nus: m.m Ao.omV 0.04 0.0 0>40000o00 0040 0.00 00.0:V 0.00 00.00V 0.40 00.00V m.:4 0.0 00om4>00000 0040030000 m.0m 404. V m.mm III: 0.00 40.04V m.mw 0.0 0080000 440 c00000 Asmwwwmwm 00000403V 00000403V 000o>00 100004 02 00000 08 000004000030 09 00004>0003w 08 0049 400000 000 04V .0000000000 030» 00 0000404000 004004000 000 00000000 00400000004ll.04 0400B 120 per cent of the total require communication with their subordinates, which parallels that expected by their pro- duction supervisors. However, they differ significantly as to the amount of interaction with superiors. Prior to this tasks the high productive foremen have been quite independent. When analyzing the depart- mental efficiency, they direct forty—five per cent of their time interacting with other foremen. Seventy-eight per cent of their efforts require contact with other foremen and self—evaluation. Only twelve per cent is directed toward their superiors, and even less to their subordinates. The low productive foremen appear not to discuss their departmental functions with other foremen, but rely on contact with subordinates, superiors, and self- evaluation. This reinforces their patterns displayed thus far with reliance upon others to carry on duties or tasks. The production supervisors once again place a great deal of emphasis upon written communication; especially with superiors and other foremen. Approximately half of the interaction with superiors and other foremen is expected to be written. The foremen, on the other hand, use but ten per cent and this is directed toward the superiors. [U F“ ‘04 The low productive foremen do not list any time devoted to written communication. However, the only written contact made by the high productive foremen was directed toward the superiors. Departmental analysis appears to be one task that production supervisors would like to have done indepen— dently by the foremen. They expect most of the analysis to be self-evaluation with additional help from subordin- at s and other foremen. The least amount of interaction (D should be with superiors. The foremen, however, take a more balanced approach by interacting with superiors, self-evaluation, other foremen,and.even subordinates. Third, the low productive foremen depend more on sub- ordinate interaction than communication with superiors or other foremen; whereas the high productive foremen rely heavily upon other foremen. And finally, production supervisors expect the written form of interacting to be used primarily with superiors and other foremen. However, the foremen find this method important only with super- iors—-and this to a small degree. Interaction P tterns for All Tasks m In the preceding section interaction patterns for each task were analyzed according to: all of the foremen, what the production supervisors eXpect of their foremen, the high productive foremen, and the low productive foremen. 122 In the following section these four categories will be examined in relation to the overall interaction patterns for all of the ten tasks sampled. In contrast to the results reported for each task, the following data will provide a more complete and overall pattern for the work performed during an average work week for an industrial foreman. . r +- 71' 1 me en. Per week C kit- _A 4 J. CigK D The foremen were asked to estimate the amount of time they devoted each week to each of the ten tasks sampled. The production supervisors also calculated the time they expected their foremen to spend. From the data collected, Table 17 can be constructed. According to this table, the majority of the time spent by the foremen, as well as the expected time, can be found in relation to tasks one, two, and three. All of the foremen, as well as the low and the high productive foremen devote the largest per cent of their time to maintaining quality and quantity of production (task #1). The production supervisors, however, list tasks two and three as the ones requiring the most time. According to them, planning and scheduling of manpower and production (task #2), and the importance of training and locating workers (task #3), should receive the most attention. 123 o.m o.m m.m m.m 4.: ©.m 2.: 3.04 0.44 0.0: 0>4003000m 304 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.m 0.0 0.: 0.04 0.00 0.00 0>40osno00 0040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.04 m0om4>00030 0040000000 0.0 2.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.04 0.04 0.00 0000000 440 040 00 0% 0* 0% 00 :0 0* mm 4* 40000 000 04v .0000 0000 00 0003 000 00000 0840 00 00:0E0 009:1.04 mqm0e 124 The high and the low productive foremen do not agree on the second and third most time consuming tasks. The high productive foremen consider planning and scheduling (task #2) worthy of more time than training and locating workers (task #3). On the other hand, the low productive foremen place these two tasks in reverse order. Even though they disagree as to the order of the first three tasks, they correlate highly on total time devoted to these tasks per week. The high productive foremen spend 69.1% of their time, whereas the low productive foremen exceed this amount by spending 71.3%. These figures contrast with those for all of the foremen and what the production supervisors expect. All the foremen devote 6H.2% of their time to these first three tasks, whereas the production supervisors expect them to be occupied only u8.8% of the work week. Even though it may appear that the production supervisors' eXpectations may differ significantly from those of their foremen, this does not necessarily hold true for the ten task sampled. A Spearman rank correla— tion coefficient (rs) was computed to test the rank correlation between all of the foremen and the expecta- tions of the production supervisors for each task. For the ten tasks, the relation between these two groups for the amount of time spent on these tasks and the amount of time expected is rS = .85l6, which is significant at the .01 level of significance (one-tailed). Therefore, there is a high rank correlation between the rank order of time devoted to the ten tasks. he Spearman rank correlation coefficient was also used to compare the data collected from the high and the low productive foremen. The value of rS was .9546, which is higher than the rank correlation of all the foremen and the production supervisors. This coefficient too was sig— nificant at the .01 level of confidence (one-tailed). Therefore, considering the results of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs), it is possible to con- clude there is a high association between foremen and production supervisors, and high and low productive foremen, in the amount of time devoted to each of the ten tasks. The majority of this time is invested by the foremen in the first three tasks; and approximately fifty per cent was expected by the production supervisors. Importance of Each Task The subjects in this case study ranked each of the ten tasks in order of importance for performing their weekly activities. The task they felt the most important in performing an efficient supervisory Job received a number one ("1”) ranking, with the next most important receiving a number two (”2”). The production supervisors also calculated their rank order. Table 18 summarizes the results. 126 0 0 04 0 0 : 0 0 m 4 0>40030000 300 : 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0>40030000 0040 0 0 04 0 0 0.0 0 0 4 0.0 whom4>pmazm :040030000 0 0 04 0 0 : 0 0 0 4 swamhom 440 040 0 00 00 00 00 :0 00 00 40 0000 400200 L00 :HV .meu £000 00 0oCMpLOQE4 xcmp 058:1.m4 mqmfipoznopm m>Hp05U0hm whomfi>pmosm :mthom zoo nmfim coaposcosm HH< .memp Cmu QED. .HOIH thHhmadm SUHZ COHUOGQQPCH MO pcmo LGMII.NN mqmdfi 132 HMNNNO QNNONO" . ('D ('I -:T VVVVVVVVVV AAA/\A/‘AAAA o.mm m.Hm m.mm m.mm m.m o.mH m.HH H.5H >.HH Ao.omv Auuuuv Auuunv AIIIIV Aa.zfiv Am.mmv A----v Auuunv AH.HHV Ao.mHV m.mH m.mm 0.0m o.mm 0.0m m.mH 0.: H.3H H.HH I. Immm IONO |O\OCD “AAA ONOONO mmxo OKO mmxo O Vvvavvvvv :rzr m.:H 0.0m o.mm 0.0: :.Hm m.wa H.w :.Hm m.mH A AAAQAAANAA A Fm: O\O\O’W IO\M\O HO H vvvvvvvvvv r-‘l HzrmerO r-ir-i m.mm m.:m z.mm m.~m m.ma H.mm mm.m ~.mH w.ma can ow w} 5% mm mm 2% mm m* H% Acmupfiva o>fip0360hm 30a Acoppfip3v o>fip0360Lm swam Acoupfihzv whomfi>amdsm cofiposuopm HH< Acmppfip3v coEmhom xmme Amocoo poo CHV .mep comm you mpofipoosm :pfiz cofipomhouCfi go pcsoE¢nl.Hm mqmHpozooam m>Hposvopm whomfi>podsm coEopom 30a swam cofiposoopm HH< Apcmopoq QHV .mxmmp cop opp Lou mopmcfiopoQSm spa: coapompmchll.:m mqm<8 AuuuuV m.Hm A----V m.0 “0.0NV 0.00 A----V 5.00 005 AnnulV 0.Hm AnunnV 5.0a “5.0 V 0.0m A00. V 0.0a 0* A----V 0.00 AnnunV 0.0m AuuuuV 0.0m A0.m V 0.0: 05 AunuuV m.:0 A----V m.mm “0.0:V 0.05 AuuuuV 0.00 5* AuuunV u--- AuuuuV 0.0m AluuuV I--- “0.0 V m.m 0* A0.00V 0.0m AnnluV 0.00 A5.00V 0.00 A00.HHV 0.00 ms A00. V :.H5 A00. V 5.00 A0.00V 5.00 A0. V H.0m :5 A5.0 V 0.00 Am. V 0.0 A0.0mV 0.H5 A0.m V 0.00 ms AH. V 5.2: A0.00V m.Hm A0.maV 0.00 A0.0HV 5.0: ma A0.H V 0.0: A0.0mV 0.0 A0.0mV 0.00 A0.0HV H.0m Ha Acoppfisz o>Hpoonpm Acmppfisz o>fip0300Lm Acoupfith whomfi>mod3m Acoppfisz coEoLom xmme zoq swam coauoso0Lm HH< Apnoo pod :HV .mmpmcHULOQSm spa: coapompopcfl mo pczoEpodzm Acmpufime coEopom xmme :ofipozoopm HH¢ Acopufip3V o>Hposo0Lm Acmppfith m>Hposnohm zoq cwam Augmo poo :HV .cothom Locpo spa: coapomhopcfi ho pcsoeHuoSUOLm AxcmmV o>Huozuopm szmmV nsonfi>honsm AxcmmV coEmsom xmme 300 gmnm cofiposeopm Ana Apcoo pod cHV .cofipmaoucfi o: mcfihflsvoh oEHp mo pcsoemut.5m mqmdB mm The figures in Table 27 relate to the per cent of time each week which requires no interaction for each task. This refers to the per cent of the total week. The figures in parenthesis rank the percentages in accordance with the greatest amount of time devoted to the ten tasks. All of the foremen tend to be more independent than expected by their production supervisors. Likewise, the high productive foremen are more independent than the low productive; as well as the average of the foremen sampled. 'T‘ J. (U LE 28.-—Summary of the amount of time requiring no interaction for ten tasks. f n All Production High Low Foremen Supervisors Productive Productive Per cent of total devoted to ten tasks 22.6 13.1 26,6 21.0 requiring no interaction In the previous analysis, the high productive foremen have been less dependent on superiors and other foremen, and more dependent upon subordinates than the low productive foremen. This independence also exists in the preceding table. Approximately twenty-seven per cent of their weekly activities require no interaction with superiors, subordin— ates, or other foremen. The low productive foremen, 145 although more dependent on others, spend twenty-one per cent of their weekly efforts on self-evaluation or activities requiring no interaction. These figures are greater than the thirteen per cent expected by the produc— tion supervisors. Considering the amount of time devoted to each task, a Spearman rank correlation coefficient was computed to determine the relationship between the ranks in the above table. There was no significant rank correlation between the production supervisors and their foremen. The same results were computed between the high and low productive foremen. For example, when explaining company policy (task #7), the high productive foremen spend sixty-six per cent of their time on self—evaluation, whereas the low productive do not indicate any time. A similar contrast can be seen in relation to cooperating with other foremen and reporting matters to management (task #6). The high productive foremen estimate thirty per cent of their time requires no interaction. Comparative examples can be noted between all of the foremen and their production supervisors. Analysis of production costs (task #9) does not require interaction thirty-seven per cent of the fore— men's time, but the production supervisors only expect twenty per cent. The training and locating of workers (task #3) involves thirty-four per cent of the foremen's time, but their superiors expect only eleven per cent. 146 Therefore, the amount of time requiring no interaction for the ten tasks provides an interesting picture. First, the foremen depend more on themselves than subordinates, superiors, or other foremen; this is more than expected by the production supervisors. Second, both the high and the low productive foremen are more independent than expected by their superiors. Third, the tasks requiring no interaction do not correlate between all of the foremen and their production supervisors, nor between high and low productive foremen. And finally, the foremen's indepen- dency varies according to the task being performed. Relationship of Questionnaire Sc 4,. The Fleishman Leadership Opinion Questionnaire given _A_ to each foreman measures two independent variables of supervisory leadership: ”structure” and "consideration." The first of these scales measures the tendency to initiate ideas, to plan, or to lead individuals toward specific goals. The "consideration” scale, however, evaluates the extent to which the foreman has the ability to establish rapport with his workers. A comparison was made to determine if the produc- tivity ratings of the foremen would correlate with the results on the Leadership_Qpinion Questionnaire. If a high rank correlation occurred, then this questionnaire 147 might be used to predict the productivity ratings of fore— men instead of the subjective evaluation used by the manufacturing superintendent. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was computed to determine this relationship. However, the rank correla- tion coefficient was not significant (rS of .2072) between the productivity ratings and the "consideration" scores of the foremen. A similar result was computed between the productivity ratings of the foremen and the "structure” scale. A rank correlation coefficient (rs) .3547 likewise was not signifi— cant at the .05 level of confidence (one-tailed). These rank correlations were determined by comparing the pro- ductivity rating given to each foreman by the manufacturing superintendent and the rank of scores in relation to the other foremen obtained on each scale. An additional correlation was computed between the foreman's rank on the "consideration" scale and the "struc- ture" scale. According to Fleishman validity and reliability studies, these two scales should not be correlated; but be independent. These findings were substantiated since they were not significant at the .05 level of confidence (one- tailed). Therefore, it can be concluded that the Fleishman Leadership_gpinion Questionnaire cannot be used in place of the productivity evaluations of the manufacturing 148 superintendent since the rank correlations were not sig- nificant. Overall Interaction Patterns From the above data, Considering the amount of time spent on each task (as well as the importance of each task), a summary table can be constructed to illustrate the overall interaction patterns of the foremen in this case study (see Table 29). These patterns,oral and written, can be compared to the expected networks of the production supervisors. All of these tasks require upward, downward, horizontal, and self-evaluation channels. A detailed overall interaction table for all of the foremen, the pro- duction supervisors, the high productive foremen, and the low productive foremen can be found in Tables 31 to 34. The foremen as a whole devote less time interacting with superiors, subordinates, and other foremen than expected by their production supervisors, however, they spend more time than expected on activities requiring no interaction. Second, both the foremen and their immediate superiors agree that approximately one-half of the work week requires contact with subordinates. Third, the high productive foremen are more independent and less dependent on superiors and other foremen than are the low productive. This same characteristic can be seen in relation to activities requiring no interaction. And finally, a 149 Lasso 00 0.Am A0.0AV 0.0m Am.0 V 0.0: A5.0mV 0.0A m>wposeow0 200 0.0m Ao.m V m.oa AH.HmV 0.0: Am.:HV m.aa m>flposuopm swam H.ma A5.mmV 0.0m Am.omV n.5n AH.m:V H.ma whomfi>nodzm soap03©0hm 0.00 A0.AAV m.0A A0.0 V 0.00 A:.0 V 0.0A essence fine :ofipom AnpwompmV Acoopame Acopufipr ImoucH oz :nerhcm mwumzfipmohsw ob whofihoasm OB Apzmo mod :fiV .mCLmuuMQ coapthmch Hammm>OIl.mm mqmmQ XmmB oz c0000 new: new: new; mocmppoaeH mane coHuompoch coapompoucH :ofipomhoch mo pczoe< .mpcoo mom :0 memoppmo cofipompoucfiuucothom HH¢II.Hm mqm¢e 153 5.0m A0.50V 0.0m A0.00V 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 0 0.0 000 0.0m A0.00V 0.0m A5.0 V 0.0m A5.0mV 0.00 0 m.0 00 -- A--V 0.0m A--V 0.00 A0.00V 0.0. 00 0.5 00 0.00 A0.00V 0.0m A0.00V 0.05 A--V -- 0 0.0 50 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 A--V -- A0.00V 0.1- 5 0.0 0. 0.5 A0.00V 0.0m A5.00V 0.m0 A5.00V 0.0, ..m 0.0 V0 -- A0.00V 5.00 A0.00V 5.00 A0.00V 5.00 0 0.5 00 5.00 A0.00V 5.00 A0.0mV 0.05 A0.0 V 0.0 a 0.50 00 0.00 A5.0mV 0.0m A0.00V 0.00 A5.00V 0.0 0 0.50 as 0.m0 Am.mmV 0.m0 A0.0mV 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 0.0 0.00 00 :00pom coEoLom mome0ULoosm m000poazm menu no flzno>ea Anne ImeCH oz hmcpo £u03 C003 Spa: vascuAQAEw :QOH :00pompoucH :00pomhoch :00pommoucu no pczoem 11%|! ll. .mpcoo pom C0 mchoppmm :00pomhop20lumhiu0phumnn ngumquchm-.mm mange 154 0.00 A--V 0.00 A--V 0.0 A0.00V 0.00 0 0.5 000 0.00 A--V 0.00 A--V 5.00 A--V 0.00 5 0.0 00 -- A--V 0.0m A--V 0.00 A--V 0.00 00 0.0 00 5.00 A--V -- A--V 0.00 A--V -- m 0.0 5* 0.00 A0.00V 0.0m A--V 0.0m A5.00V 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.00 A--V 0.0 A--V 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.00 A--V -- A00. V 5.00 A--V 0.00 0 5.0 00 0.00 A--V 0.00 A0. V 0.00 A--V 0.0 m 0.00 00 0.00 A:.m V 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 A0 00V 0.00 m 0.00 00 0.00 A0.00V 0.0 A0.00V 0.00 A0.00V 0.00 0 0.00 00 c00pom :oEouom mome0ULoosm m0000oqzm xmme mo ompo>oa xmme -empC0 oz emcee 000: 0002 0002 moemppoas0 0&00 c00powmoch c00pomhmch CO0poMLopsH mo pczoE< .0200 mod :0 mzpoppmd co0pomnmpC0-coEopom o>0pospoho zw0m-.mm m0moo xmme ImouCH oz hocuo £003 Cp03 £003 oocprOQEH @809 :000000mch CO0poMLmuCH c00pomhopCH no uczoe< .pcoo 0mm C0 memopumo CO0pomLopZ0-Icothou o>0pozooma 200-.:m mange CHAPTER VI SUMHARY AND DISCUSSION "7" vf S ULu-Aar‘z The basic purpose of this case study was to examine the interaction patterns for ten specific tasks of foremen in an industrial setting. These tasks provided a method of examining the direction of interaction for each function but also outlined weekly communication patterns. The foremen were asked to estimate the amount of time spent each week interacting with their superiors, subordinates, other foremen, and the time devoted to activities requiring no interaction for each of these tasks. Their patterns were then compared to those expected by their immediate superiors. The channels--written or ora1--used for these functions were also examined. Not only were the patterns compared between the production supervisors and the foremen, but likewise between the high and the low productive foremen. The pro— ductivity ratings were foremen ranks provided by the manu- facturing superintendent. The high productive were chosen as the top twenty-seven per cent of the total sampled and the low productive foremen consisted of the bottom twenty-seven per cent. 156 157 Therefore, ten specific tasks were chosen to be used for interaction analyses. These patterns for the foremen were examined according to their relationship with super- iors,subordinates, other foremen, and self-evaluation. A comparison could be made between patterns of the foremen and those expected by the production supervisors, as well as between the high and the low productive foremen. Four primary variables were considered. Relying on the SMCR theory, the following variables provided the foundation for this study. Source = foremen/production supervisors Message = ten specific tasks Channel = written or oral interaction Receiver = superiors/subordinates/other foremen/no interaction required ! In relation to the "source,' the productivity ratings by the manufacturing superintendent determined the difference between the most efficient and least efficient foremen. Likewise, the ”source" was examined according to the scores on the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. The "message" variable was defined as the ten specific tasks. These served as the content of interaction for the foremen and the production supervisors. Previous research (such as the work of the Dale Level and Darrell Piersol) have attempted to determine the im- portance of the written versus the oral forms of interaction. This same evaluation was defined in this study as the "channel" of relationship between levels of organizational 158 positions. In contrast to the "source” of the interaction, the "receiver” became the fourth variable to be considered in this case study. In the first chapter, a review of the organizational trends and managerial concepts was presented to provide a foundation for this investigation. The principles empha— sized by the early influence of the scientific management theorists, the human relationists, and the revisionists outlined the three major areas of theoretical exploration. The basic principles of the theorists included in each group were also combined to form common threads woven throughout the previous years of research. These key points provided the springboard for the basic questions examined in this investigation. The second chapter focused on these basic concepts which have been researched to evaluate further their basic purposes and criticisms. A review of the literature accented previous investigations that related to the examination of interaction patterns found in formal organizations, and the human characteristics affecting the patterns of behavior relevant to the "source" of interaction. The basic purposes and major questions of this case study were researched in a medium-sized machinery manu- facturing plant located in the midwest. Two levels of auth- ority were chosen from the total employment of eight hundred persons. Fifteen foremen and two production supervisors 159 provided the basic data used in this study, with additional assistance from the manufacturing superintendent-—who supplied the productivity ratings. Each of the foremen received an envelope containing five major items. First, a cover letter described the basic purpose of the questionnaires as well as the proposed use of the results. Second, the foremen were asked to take the (I) Leadership_0pinicn Que tionnaire to evaluate their scores on the ”structure” and ”consideration” scales. The latter scale refers to the ability of the foremen to emphasize rapport; whereas the "structure” scale measures their tend- ency to initiate ideas, to plan, or to direct a group toward prescribed goals. Specific information concerning the descriptive characteristics of the foremen constituted the third portion of the enclosed material. This included such in- formation as length of service, length of time on supervision, age, and educational training. Fourth, the ten specific tasks were to be ranked in order of importance as the fore- men considered them in supervising efficiently their department. A number "1” ranking was marked next to the task most important in the weekly activities. The second most important task received a number "2" marking on this form. And finally, the subjects were asked to examine these tasks in relation to: the amount of time spent per week on each task, the direction of interaction necessary to carry out 160 efficiently the task; and the manner of carrying out the task-—written or oral. Data collected from this portion of the questionnaire provided the majority of the needed information to examine the patterns of interaction for each of the ten tasks, as well as the overall patterns. A comparison could then be made between the foremen and their supervisors, and the high and the low productive foremen. Thus, the foremen gave their reading on the inter- action patterns used to perform each task, and the produc- tion supervisors outlined the exoected patterns for their foremen. A further comparison was made by the productivity ratings. .. '1 «I Conclu ions (I) Chapter III outlined the basic questions for this investigation. From the results presented in the last chapter, some conclusions can be drawn in relation to these specific questions. Ranked Importance of Ten Tasks The first two basic questions relate to the rank order of importance for the ten tasks, as perceived by the foremen and their immediate superiors. The perceptional differences of task relationships between foremen and production super- visors influence the desired and actual interaction patterns, as well as the productivity ratings. Sometimes a close However, superiors consider each task of equal importance, 161 mind is advantageous for the production super- 0 5.. ey make subjective evaluations of the foremen. same time if every foreman and his immediate autocratic tendencies may exist and create limitations of new concepts and procedures. In thl between the significant foremen and nificartly; Hovetpp, in Chapter III the foremen 3 case study, there was a high rank correlation and the low productive foremen which was th .01 level of e confidence. All of the their immediate superiors also correlated sig- the coefficient was not as high. relation to the two basic questions proposed in there is a significant rank correlation between and the production supervisors for perceived importance of the ten tasks, with the primary disagreement relnted to the importance of explaining company policies (task #7) and the importance of analyzing departmental efficiencie I“ foremen a ~ 0 policies, bu departmental efficiency. the producti similarly. (task #10). The high and the low productive reed on the importance of explaining company t disagreed with the significance of analyzing Thus, as a whole the foremen and on supervisors perceived task importance Considering the background of the foremen and the production supervisors, it was predicted there would be no significan ifference. All but one of the foremen, 162 including the production supervisors, had been promoted from the rank-and-file. Therefore, their training as to the importance of these tasks came while on production jobs, as well as instructions received as a foreman. Like— wise, something could be said about the atmosphere of freedom within the organization. Perhaps the air of agree— ment is good from the standpoint of perceiving activities alike; however, the strength of this relationship depends on the comgany's goal. If the production supervisors are trained to promote these prescribed goals, the high correla— tion would be productive. If the supervisors disagree with these goals, this relationship would not be beneficial. Importanc ask and Amount of 6’ PM , C" .0 $411. Vgtrnt (D The importance of each task and the amount of time spent each week on a specific task composed the basis for three questions proposed in Chapter III. A significant rank correlation was computed for the foremen, the produc- tion supervisors, and the high and the low productive foremen. However, the correlation for the production super- visors was significant at the .05 level of confidence, whereas the others were significant at the .01 level. The production supervisors and the foremen correlated highly on the first three tasks. However, since the super- visors expected a more balanced approach for the tasks requiring the minority of the work hours, the rank 163 correlation was not as significant as the relationship of the foremen. This would suggest that foremen understand the thinking of their immediate superiors in relation to the most important tasks and attempt to direct the majority of their efforts in this direction. However, the foremen consider the tasks of lesser importance worthy of less time but not necessarily in order of importance. The high rank correlation for the high and the low productive foremen accents the fact that foremen with similar backgrounds and positions know how to impress their superiors on the most important tasks, but are not as con— cerned with those of lesser importance. The highest rank correlation between the importance of the task and the amount of time spent was expressed by the high productive foremen. Therefore, the production supervisors and their foremen correlate significantly on the ranked importance of the ten tasks, but they do not agree completely on the distribution of time in relation to the importance of each. The foremen devoted more time to: maintaining quality and quantity of production (task #1); planning and scheduling (task #2); and training and locating workers (task #3) than expected by their immediate superiors. Likewise, the other seven tasks did not receive the expected attention in accordance with the ranked importance. I64 Perhaps there is some correlation due to the background of the foremen and their immediate supervisors. However, the disagreement on time distribution may result from the fact that when the production supervisors were in the position of the foremen, they perhaps saw a need to spend more time on the tasks of lesser importance but could never organize their activities to fulfill these needs. However, when they were promoted to a higher position, they expected a more conscious attempt in this direction. Patterns of Interaction The sixth and seventh basic questions for this case study related to the interaction patterns of foremen with their superiors, their subordinates, other foremen, or self- interaction. The production supervisors expected a more balanced pattern than displayed by the foremen. They ex- pected these "marginal men” to spend forty—seven per cent of their work week interacting with their subordinates, with an additional twenty per cent with other foremen, and eighteen per cent contacting their superiors. The remaining time of the week's activities should require no interaction. The foremen, however, were less dependent on their superiors, their subordinates and other foremen. Twenty- three per cent of their weekly activities did not require any interaction, although they spent the majority of their time communicating with their subordinates. This pattern 165 was eSpecially true in relation to training and locating workers (task #3), and planning and scheduling of manpower (task #2). There were only two tasks that the production supervisors expected more time devoted to activities re uiring no interaction. The first of these refer to the .L') importance of cooperating with other foremen and reporting matters to management (task #6). And the second, relates to the foreman's responsibility to analyze the efficiency of his department (task #10). According to the overall patterns reported in the previous chapter, the high productive foremen were more independent than the low productive foremen. The latter devoted more time to communicating with their superiors and other foremen, with fewer activities requiring no interaction. This trait was especially true with tasks that required analytical thinking, such as production costs (task #9), departmental efficiencies (task #10), and adjust- ing and handling grievances (task #4). However, even though the low productive foremen were more dependent on upward and horizontal channels than the high productive foremen, they devoted less time interacting with their superiors than expected by their production supervisors. Therefore, from an overall standpoint, the foremen were more independent than expected by their immediate superiors. And secondly, the high productive foremen were more self-sufficient than the low productive foremen. The position taken by the production supervisors stems from a belief that foremen must devote approximately half of their work week i t :3 (D racting with subordinates, and depend as heir superiors. However, the fore- (D .3 m 01 CT much on other forem men spend more time than expected on functions requiring no nteraction and depend less on their superiors and other foremen. The exposure of inefficiencies would be one reason for this interaction pattern. Especially could this be true with the high productive foremen who interact only eleven per cent of the work week with superiors and seventeen per cent with other foremen. However, twenty-seven per cent of their activities do not require any interaction. Perhaps they are more efficient and secure than the low productive foremen in the eyes of the production supervisors; however, if more contact was made with superiors and other foremen the same productive ratings might not be given. This explana- tion may not be valid. It would appear, though, that the high percentage of activities requiring no interaction could be a combination of the two positions explained above. As for the low productive foremen their interaction patterns sug- gest dependence on superiors and other foremen which would provide an opportunity for their efficiencies to be examined more thoroughly. In short, three positions can be taken to explain the difference between the low and the high productive foremen. First, the high productive do not interact as much with 167 superiors and other foremen and, therefore, cover their weaknesses. Sec 0 nd, the high productive foremen are more skilled and require less contact with other positions of authority. Or third, a combination of these may be the valid explanation. From a directional standpoint, there are several irst, the foremen interact with O (1 (I) (D *3 (i g- ( f H (3 :‘S U) ( f O (1 (D .1 L1) L) (D *Ii superiors primari'v in relation to tasks requiring analyses. This refers likewise to the high and the low productive foremen. Second, interaction among the foremen appears to be focused on tasks requiring analysis or of a lighter nature such as social conversation. The tasks requiring the most time each week for the foremen are accomplished without much reliance upon other foremen, and this is less than that expected by their production supervisors. The high productive foremen rely a great deal on other foremen for analysis (task #10) whereas the low productive foremen achieve added support from their superiors. The social con- versation for the high productive foremen is directed to the subordinates primarily, but thirty per cent with other foremen and twenty per cent with superiors. In contrast, the low productive socialize the majority of the time with their superiors and other foremen. Third, the foremen and the production supervisors agree that approximately half of the work week should require interaction with their subordinates. This 168 correlation can be examined more closely for each task. There is little variance for subordinate interaction between the amount expected and the time spent on each task. And fourth, more weekly activities require no interaction than expected in relation to topics concerning planning and training (task #3), handling of grievances and building morale (task #4), and the promotion of safety and good housekeeping (task #5). The production supervisors expected these tasks to require no interaction, but the foremen accomplished these by depending on superiors and other foremen. Therefore, several conclusions can be drawn about the interaction patterns of foremen. First, the foremen are more independent than expected by their immediate superiors. Second, the high productive foremen appear to be more inde— pendent than the low productive foremen, but they rely on other foremen to help with analytical situations. Third, the foremen in total rely on superiors for analytical tasks. Fourth, approximately one-half of the total work week requires interaction with subordinates. And finally, the foremen depend less on other foremen than expected; especially the Luv productive foremen. Method of Interaction Perhaps the most significant conclusion that can be extracted from the data collected in this case study relates to the method of interaction. The production supervisors expected more written communication between foremen and superiors; between foremen and subordinates; and between foremen and other foremen than considered essential by the foremen hemselves. he production supervisors expected the greatest per cent of the written interaction to be with superiors. They expected forty—two per cent of the contact with superiors, whic; was approximately four times the time spent by the foremen. A similar contrast can be seen between the foremen interacting with other foremen. Approxi- mately forty per cent of the communication among foremen is eXpected to be written. However, the foremen estimate it is important to rely on this form of interaction only twelve per cent of the time. The least amount of written communi- cation is expected by the production supervisors with sub- ordinates-—only thirty per cent. A comparison between the high and the low productive the following conclusions. The low produc- U) foremen support tive foremen rely more on written interaction with superiors and other foremen, but spend one-third as much time as the high productive foremen when contacting subordinates. However, if an analysis was made in relation to the total amount of hours worked (including "no interaction") compared to the per cent of this which requires written interaction, the results would demonstrate the production supervisors expect four time more written communication 170 than the foremen utilize. The high productive foremen, on the other hand, rely more on this channel than the low pro- ductive primarily because of their emphasis on using written ‘ I communication with suborO‘nates (twenty-one per cent of the time). Even though the low productive foremen use this retnod more than the high productive with superiors and other foremen, as a whole the latter used the written channels more during a week's activities. Therefore, there is a difference between the use of written channels between the foremen and the production supervisors, as well as between the high and the low productive foremen. Relation Eetceec Objective and Scientific Productivity Ratings The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire did not correlate " or the ”consideration" scales on either the "structure with the productivity ratings of the manufacturing superin- tendent. If there would have been a high rank correlation D of scores, this questionnaire could have been used in place of an subjective evaluation for predicting the productivity of prospective foremen as well as an instrument for evalu- ating the present foremen. However, the relationship between these two methods of evaluation was not significant. One explanation for this difference could be that the manufacturing superintendent evaluated the performance of his foremen, whereas the questionnaire deals with the potential on both measurement scales. This would mean those 171 *3 (D O eiving a high productivity rating from the manufacturing superintendent might be closer to their potential than the lower rated foremen. And a second explanation might be that g. pile IT. nufacturing superintendent based his productivity a) ratings on the agreement between his personal guidelines on productivity and those patterns agreeing with his. Rather than use the definition provided for this investigation, he may nave CD'SiOEPEd a foremen productive if he supplied him .itn Key inormation about various matters of the plant, or if he .as influenced by the foreman's extent of experience. These variacles would not be included in the leadership potential measured on the Fleishman questionnaire. In any event, another scientific measure must be used if the productivity ratings of the manufacturing superinten- dent are to be correlated. In the meantime, the Leadership i lg” Questionnaire could be utilized for sampling From the data reported in the previous chapter, and from the conclusions discussed in this chapter, there is ufficient support for the statement that organizational U) channels are complex and require a series of specific studies at locations with a large sample to draw generalized conclu- sions. This is especially true since the structure is correlated with the personnel, and the human elements are influenced by the organizational structure. However, in this case study the primary purpose was to describe and 172 1 analyze the interaction patterns for ten specific tasks. U The above statement report the results, although there are (I) *3 avenues for exploration. These will be discussed in +‘ Cur. (‘ ‘f ‘ P a 1 U V '- fl he following section. “ges the available mental capacities and measuring .struments. Since the orga.ization is composed of individ- uals, the individuals became the key variable. Many factors affect the behaviors of individuals and it is not always possible to define, to measure, or to determine their impor— tance from a sample. however, with the advancement of “ters and behavioral science research the challenge can be approached more scientifically. In this case study attention was directed to the ‘rce, the message, the channel, and the receiver of weekly activities of industrial foremen. Several additional research projects can stem from this investigation. First, this study should be duplicated with a larger number of foremen and production superiors. With a small sample, it is difficult to generalize to different types of industrial settings. These tasks exist in other opera- tions and, therefore, the adaptability to another setting woul be possible. Second, with a larger size sample it would be possible to examine the interaction patterns of foremen in different types of departments. For example, do the foremen with l73 technical knowledge have the same or similar patterns as those not requiring these skills? Foremen supervising machinists perhaps would encounter different problems than those supervisors overseeing the activities of employees not stationed a one location. Third, interaction patterns should be compared and examined at other lchls of the organizational structure. Do general foremen and department heads interact with suneriors subordinates and other foremen on the same ratio :4 3 , as the manufacturing foremen? What difference exists between the eXpected and the actual patterns at these levels in re elation to their immediate superiors? Since an organiza- tion has varying levels of authority, the interaction pattern cou‘i d be examined at each level and compared. Fourth, a comparison could be made at the foremen level as to the ‘se of the formal and the informal channels, as well as the most d esired patterns. The formal channels are designed by management to achieve a specific purpose. However, the informal structure often becomes the guiding pattern. A third structure may exist if the foremen express the most desired structure. Then a comparison could be made between the suggested relationships and those designed by management. Fifth, many theorists have devoted their efforts to studying the organizational structure from the management point of view. Perhaps a similar evaluation should be 17“ considered from the position of the labor union. What formal and informal channels are used by their committee- men? What interaction patterns do the union officers use to accomplish their designated goals? If it would be possible to thoroughly examine the organizational structure in the same location from the foreman's level and from the union's level, some interesting observations could be discovered. One of the weaknesses found in studying an industrial structure is the lack of definite goals. What interaction patterns are used to accomplish specific organizational goals at each level of authority? It would appear that the most productive supervisor, or foreman, would be the most perceptive of the company's goals. In this case study ten Specific tasks were used to examine interaction patterns, but a similar analysis could be made in relation to com- pany goals. Thus, there are several additional studies that could be explored by utilizing the four variables of this study: the source, the message, the channel, and the receiver. These could include investigation of more psy— chological and sociological factors of the foremen; more refinement of individual backgrounds being sampled (tech— nical versus non-technical); more comparison between the .2 formal, informal, and desired interaction patterns; com- -. Y_ ‘,- o y L: ‘— or L’ A o ~J J- -l .A v‘ . U) I r s "z. -. ‘- 7“ LC d. r‘ ‘ -.; ._, r a Q l (f l J J \1 0 p4 f1) 175 well as organizational goals; and with a larger sample, consider the interaction patterns of the labor union and management in the same organizational structure. BIBLIOGRAPHY 176 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Understanding Organizational Behavior. Home- wood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1960. Baker, Helen, Ballantine, John W., and True, John M. Transmitting Information Through Management and Union Channels. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer- sity, Industrial Relations Section, 1949. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938. Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960. Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin (eds.). Group Dynamics. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1962. Davis, Ralph Currier. Industrial Organization and Manage- ment. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940. The Fundamentals of Tonganagement. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1951. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 195U. Fayol, Henri. Industrial and General Administration. Published under asuspices of the International Manage— ment Institute. London: Geneva English Publishers, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1925. Fleishman, Edwin A., Harris, Edwin F., and Burtt, Harold E. Leadership and Supervision. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, 1955. Follett, Mary Parker. Dynamic Administration. Edited by H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 19u2. 177 178 Gantt, Henry L. Work, Wages; and Profits. The Engineering Magazine Co., 1910. Haire, Mason. Organization Theory in Industrial Practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Latham, James L. Human Relations in Business: A Behavioral Science Approach. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 196U. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civiliza- tion. New York: Macmillan, 1933. McFarland, Dalton. Management Principles and Practices. First and Second editions. New York: Macmillan Co., 1964. Mooney, J. C., and Reiley, A. C. Onward Industry. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1931. Re- written as The Principles of Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1939. Hewman, William H. Administrative Action. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. Peters, Raymond W. Communicatio; Within Industpy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Scholtz, William. Communication in the Business Organiza- tion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Taylor, Frederick W. Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937. Thompson, Victor A. Modern Organization. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Urwick, L. The Elements of Administration. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19A3. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Martin, Norman H. Industrial Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. 179 Articles Angrist, Arthur W. "A Study of the Communication of Execu- tives in Business and Industry," Speech Monographs, XX (November, 1953), pp. 277-285. Bavelas, Alex. "Communication Patterns in Task—oriented Groups," Group Dynamics, edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1962, pp. 669-682. Boulding, Kenneth E. "General System Theory—-The Skeleton of a Science," Management Science (April, 1956), pp. 200-202. Guest, Robert H. "The Nature of Authority in Perspective," Organizational Change: The Effect of Successful Leadership. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, a, ) Kelman, Herbert C. "Processes of Opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 25 (Spring, 1961), pp. 57—78. Koontz, Harold. "The Management Theory Jungle," Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 4, No. 3 (December, l9ol), pp. 17A—188. Moreno, Jacob L. ”Who Shall Survive?" Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental Diseases Publishing Co., 1934. Perry, Dallis, and Mahoney, Thomas. ”In—plant Communica- tions and Employee Morale," Personnel Psychology, 8 (Autumn, 1955), pp- 339—346. Scott, William G. "Organization Theory: An Overview and and Appraisal," Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol. 4, No. 1 (April, 1961), pp. 7-26. Unpublished Materials Allard, Marvel Jane. "A Study of the Relation Between Orientation Toward Authority and Susceptibility to Influence." Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1960. Dahle, Thomas L. "An Objective and Comparative Study of Five Methods of Transmitting Information to Business and Industrial Employees." Unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, Purdue University, 1953. Eddy, William B. "Dimensions of Organization Behavior." U publioxed Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Funk, Frank E. ”Comm1uniCatinn Attitudes of Industrial Foremen As Related to Their Rated Productivity." Unpublished 'h.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 14:6 Gross, Charles hobert. ”An Observational Analysis of Supervisory Behavior." Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. Kilgore, William Carroll. ”A Study of Attitudes of Business and Industrial Supervisors Toward Their Speech Tasks." npublished M.A. thesis, Purdue UniJersity, 1953 Lawric, Jo... “ uation of Role Occupants as a Function ta tion Reciprocity.” Unpublished Ph.D. n, wayre State University, 1963. e Ar rt1ur, Jr. "A Case Study of Human Communi- ons in an Urban Bank." Unpublished Ph.D. e tation, Purdue University, 1959. Nilsen, Thomas R. "The Communication Survey: A Study of Communication Problems in Th1ree Office and Factory Units.” r1publis he d Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1953. Piersol, Darrell T. ”A Case Study of Oral Communication Practices of Foremen and Assistant Foremen in a Mid-Western Corporation.” Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Purdue University, 1955. Ross, Raymond S. "A Case Study of Communication Break— downs in the General Telephone Company of Indiana." Unpublished Ph.D. issertation, Purdue University, 1954. Simons, Herbert William. ”A Comparison of Communication Attributes and Rated Job Performance of Supervisors in a Large Commercial Enterprise.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1961. T1 wVL rd .1 1 APPBIIDIX I ,‘o Ham-'r‘v‘ClvFO’w v—q‘q .. .. n ’. -. "‘ *“13‘ *‘V‘ :."'TT\* Va HW‘LV.‘5‘hLA’L¥ké—J 'JIJa—AA‘ lo $tAI-L FUR ' 1‘ HA AL—J (‘1) m 183 This is a study designed to obtain your opinion on super- visory responsibilities, time spent to accomplish various tasks, and some of the things you ordinarily expect of yourself as a supervisor at . The questions asked are for research purposes only at Michigan State University. Naturally, people perceive their activities and responsi— bilities differently. For this reason we are asking your careful and honest opinion so that an overall impression can be obtained based on your responses to this question- naire. There are no right or wrong answers since you will be expressing your personal opinion. The individual reSponses that you give will be held in STRICT CONFIDENCE, and only general information will be released to the management of Please take your time to read each question carefully before you answer. There is no time limit, but be sure to answer each question. Do not sign ypur name. 18A Please mark an "X” next to the most appropriate category. PART I: General Information 1. How long have your worked with this company? Less than 5 years. 5 to 9 years. 10 to 19 years. 20 to 29 years. 30 to 39 years. 2. How long have you worked as a supervisor? Less than 5 years. More than 5 years but less than 10 years. More than 10 years but less than 20 years. More than 20 years. 3. How many people are you directly responsible for? Less than 10 people. 10 to 19 people. 20 to 29 people. 30 to 39 People. A0 to A9 people. 50 or more. A. What was the last grade you completed in school or college? 8 years or less. 9 to 11 years 12 years (high school diploma). 1 to 3 years of college. A years of college (degree). More than A years of college. 5. What is your age? 20 to 2A years of age. 25 to 29 years of age. 30 to 3A years of age. 35 to 39 years of age. A0 to AA years of age. A5 to A9 years of age. 50 to 5A years of age. 55 to 59 years of age. 60 or over. ' —_-‘--r~¢—'.-_ I f I h I. I——_-—1 I- iI ,. I $1 [:1]: U I I I I 3 : ° | n . I . I I ; . i I 3 I I I ;c' s .9 g '3 ' “I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I l I- 15 I I I I I ,, I I I I i i I I I IE I I I 1 I I I I I . l ' S O s ‘5‘ ° 0 l u Norms Group Score %-tile Scale 185 tin/£097. , ”LLQSIZOWVLCMTQ by Edwin A. Fleishman INSTRUCTIONS: For eat-h item. ehoose the alternative uhieh most nearly expresses your opinion on how frequently you should (In what is «lest‘ribeil by that item. Always imlieate yshat you. as a super- visor. or mariager. sineerely believe to be the desirable ysay to act. Please remember there are. no right or wrong answers to these questions. Different supervisors have different exl'ierienees and we are interested only in your opinions. Answer the items by marking an "X" in the box before the alternative that best e\presses your feeling about the item. .Ilm'k only one alternative for eat-l1 item. If you wish to ehange your answer. draw a eirele arouml your first "X" and mark a new "X” in the aliipropriate box. SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 259 EAST ERIE STREET, CHICAGO II, ILLINOIS Copyright © I960, Science Research Associates, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. Reorder No. 7-6SI All rights reserved. '99 y little ree y IIIIIe IiIe ,ree Iy little I. Put the welfare of y our unit abm e the welfare of any person in it. 2 Give in to your sulmrdinates in diseussions with them. 3. Encourage after-duty work by persons of your unit. 4. Try out your own new ideas in the unit. 5. Back up what persons under you do. 6. (Iritieize poor work. 7. Ask for more than the persons under you ean aeeomplish. 8. Refuse to compromise a point. 9. Insist that persons under you fol- low to the letter those standard routines handed down to you. 10. Help persons under you with their personal problems. DDDDD CIDCICICJ DECIDE] DDDDD DDDDD DECIDE] DECIDE] DECIDE] DDDUD DECIDE Always Often Occasronally 186 Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very Seldom A great deal Fairly often To some degree Once in a while Very seldom Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasronally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom II. Be slow to adopt new ideas. I2. Get the approval of persons under you on important matters before going ahead. 1:;. Resist changes in ways of doing things. 14. Assign persons under you to par- ticular tasks. IS. Speak in a manner not to be questioned. 16. Stress importance of being ahead of other units. 17. Critii‘ize a speeifie aet rather than a particular member of your unit. 18. Let the persons under you do their work the way they think is best. 19. Do personal favors for persons under you. 20. Emphasize meeting of deadlines. UDDDD DECIDE] DECIDE] DECIDE] DECIDE] [JUDGE] DECIDE ClClClClD DECIDE] DECIDE] Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all ”VIUIIIII "I WIUUUI ' 43210 SUEDE 5 II,- 43210 DDUDD S an 43210 00000 43210 DDDDD s 43210 0000 c 43210 00000 c 01234 00000 C 43210 00000 C 43210 SUEDE 5 2 1 CC)‘ 0 3 g) b o .3392. .8. 0.... ..c :5... a... a: «one; 3......— -c...Eu e...» c. 5.6.3. :33 9...... 3.2.9.9 £09.00 $53.39.. .832 o... as .8: 0.5.3 .33 o... E :U: .2... :m: .5. 0.53 1.3 o... 6.500. “:3 01.3 :03 5.. 3.50.. 5:38 on: E... J8EE. 0.3 :U: .23 :m: 3.. 8.33 5.5—8 .1. 92.3 .m. 43210 01234 43210 DDDDD 5 r» S C .5an 5.5.8 o... 3:. 60...... .6: use: 0.59. n I .55. 0... 4.3... ..c 53.2. 0.... 2. none.— 05 :. Stucco. 3:... 5.3 8.89. 3.05 9:. 38 min ouch o... .0 no. 05 as 8.09. 402.0 05 “:83— .m: 1 a v5. :33 05 2. Smog. on... 3:. .:E...~oo...o~o E :U: a... :m: 3.. S... 28.. on. .o 53.- .EOQS a w.— 453 :5 18:0 .v 43210 43210 01234 00000 C 653.8 :0: ..c :52»... e... 2. :U: 1.... :J.: 59...... «9.9:. 6 1.5.5. «z... 2.55.9. 09.... .03.: c... .5. 37:... 9;. E «z... 5.5.. o... a. 3:. 0.5.! o... 3.. .5...» 2...... 0.... :— ....:...c.. e... .0 553.. a... .- Ex. 0.58 :U: o... 5 5:: o... .3099. 1.... 37...... E 3...»... 95.1.... .25.... e... 1... .— Eta—GU ..c mo. 0... a. $5.53.. 52:. .m .5539. e... ..... .55.... c _ 2. Ex. .t:.1:.£...=.. :. .5... of $.52: .. 5:33 a. new»... a... E 2...... 95.1.: ...:_..::. a... E... ._ :EEcU ..c ac. a... :5... 5.35. .N .® 3.355.. .c: 9.... 92:53... .2: .r... 7.7:... ....../... .2: «Ed .92.. .6 .9. 3...... c. .332... :X: 0:: 3:: .2. 3.5.... 9.2:. 59.9.9. 3.5.... 02:... 2.... E .832... 5. .3... :3: .5 :J... cc 5.2.1:. 9.3.3... .9... 13...... .95.: 521...... a a. J.:... no Ex. £23.... 0...... Eu... .5. :3 .17... 2...... 2... 19.3.... o»... e... a. 55...... no.2... .9»... .2 5.3. E tau—3...... 9... 3.9.... 1.... CE... 3.2:. .=....:z......n==..» 2... .5»?! 9.; 5...... c. 5.72.09? :.../.: 1.... (hag-.51. h... was?! 0.... 9.5:. c. 18...; :37... .AH.. 5.25:3».52 43210 @0000 DODGE 00000 43210 DDDDD DDDDD SUEDE 5 s s 01234 DDDDD 01234 00000 C 43210 00000 01234 00000 ..:..o:o 6.... Am. {3.5.1 5.. 25 .33.... 6.3. .591 tic—528:0 .55. ._ "JZA,=.—.C;=.—.m2_ OZ.KCU.J. 43210 DDDDD s 43210 00000 C 43210 DDDDD s 01234. 00000 43210 DUUDD 01234 00000 00000 C C 43210 DDDDD 01234 01234 00000 43210 DDDDD S 43210 DDDDD 43210 DDDDD m 21. Insist that you be informed on decisions made by persons under you. 22. Ofl'er new approaches to problems. 23. Treat all persons under you as your equals. 24. Be willing to make changes. 25. Talk about how much should be done. 26. Wait for persons in your unit to push new ideas. 27. Rule with an iron hand. 28. Reject suggestions for changes. 29. Change the duties of persons un- der you without first talking it over with them. 30. - Decide in detail what shall be done and how it shall be done by the persons under you. DECIDE] [JUDGE] DECIDE] DDDDCI DDDUD DECIDE] DECIDE] DECIDE] CICICICICI DDDDD Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 31. See to it that persons under you are working up to capacity. 32. Stand up for persons under you, even though it makes you unpop- ular with others. 33. Put suggestions made by persons in the unit into operation. 34. Refuse to explain your actions. 35. Ask for sacrifices from persons under you for the good of your entire unit. 36. Act without consulting persons under you. 37. "Needle” persons under you for greater effort. 38. Insist that everything be done your way. 39. Encourage slow-working persons in your unit to work harder. 40. Meet with the persons in your unit at certain regularly scheduled times. EDCICICHII UDDDCI DECIDE] DECIDE! DECIDE] CIDCJEICI DDUUD DDDDD DECIDE] DECIDE] i Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Always Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom A great deal Fairly much To some degree Comparatively little Not at all Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never Often Fairly often Occasionally Once in a while Very seldom Always Often Occasionally Seldom Never 187 In order to carry out the responsibilities of your position at you must perform a variety of tasks. The im- portance of each task and the amount of time devoted to each will vary according to the department in which you are located. Below are listed the major tasks of supervisors. While there might be others, according to previous research these tasks form the basic framework of supervisory responsibilities. Which one do you consider the most important in doing a good job in supervising your department. That is, which one do you consider the most heavily? Mark that task with a number ”1." Then, which task ranks second in importance in carrying out your duties and responsibilities. Place a number "2" beside that task. Number all the tasks in this way. 29 not I 1 use the same numoer twice. For (D xample: Auditing and evaluating your manpower. Analyzing monthly expenses. Socializing with others. 2 Handling human relation problems. ii” Bank the following ten tasks in this manner. The most im- portant will be number "1," and the least important will be number "10." Maintaining quality and quantity of production. Planning and scheduling of manpower and production; planning and using supplies economically. F3 raining workers; giving job information to workers; getting the right people on the right job. Adjusting and handling grievances; promoting COOperation, building morale. Promoting safety; maintaining good housekeeping. Cooperating with other foremen and departments; reporting matters to m nagement. Explaining company policy. Engaging in social conversation. Analyzing costs of production. Analyzing efficiency of your department. 188 .93 3 “.38. .auoaphunoo ago» no hoaoaowuuo unashada< .o 63338." no 3.8 new»? .m .Sfiflgo H38. 5 museums...— ..m 08:8 also 3333 .e .vaolomdfiul o» whoaudl muHuHOAVh unpnoaphdnou and alleuou nonuo new: mnaaouonooo .w .mcwmooxooson coon muuaudvnwdl «avenue mangBOHm .m . .eHdAOI uaacaasn moody-honoou audacioun uncond>ouhu uaaacndn can mafia-:ac< .: .90.. 23s on» no Snood Eur. 3: madaaou «unease: o» ao«»nauoua« new maw>um Managua: nowadays .m .haadowloaooo uoaannso mafia: one maaacdam «noduosooun one hoaoaudl no udaasoonou can wdaacdam .N 50305693 go .3216 one .3356 22:33! .H APSE 9.8: 452 5me A5 93 u ogaou .930: 0.. on cases. A5 "I300 no Isa 05. c.9308: no c0335... 0» no A5 3300 5 schema one Hopi." 0.8.3 .Amv 5400 3 and» no: ow find: Auovsual uov 9:6: .2500 on» 842 .23 I38 5 out: 3:3 :3 on» no no.» 3 not. .33 3 e 3 338 8» I: yo page. 23 3'3.- .H .vocusoua sundae one no ono«vuo:a noun» acaaoaaou on» 0v nuns-no on» ova-«an. so» use: on snag «use: on .Jmma .xooa and. you unououuwv on Ada: .nofiaoohoaca uc pound- on» and .ooouso. snowy.» ones» 0» vouoouac claw no unsold on» .uobosom .uolouou hence can .oounaacuonso ado» .quHuOA5- ago» new: unauoesescw B 3 338 8 v3.3 :33 3.3 :3 .5 £6 SE8 2 d? 8." :8: as; .32 mm a «o 8.38 2... manna 189 6.30.. .53... . . vacuole-no.0 .30» no 5003330 and»? .SEuseosn no 2:8 gang-5 5030035000 300. 0.“ Us; 0000 NCO-ash #038 3 vegan! . 50% 3 0.3.5. 33.3th «3.00.? 000 col-non 850. 5.? 3303900 .m 63.98.0000: 0000 mad—«060‘ Spout- uauublobm .m .030- 3333 «830909000 95008.3 «0000033 mung 000 60.3.3.2 .: 50.. .33.. on» 8 .30... 30.... 23 3.300» «0.31.33 0» 0030380.." 90“. 055m .8350, 9530.8. .m .3030. 03.39.- 9500 000 95000.? «003030.:— 000 al.033- uo sag 000 63000.8 .m .8333...— so 335.... one 333.. 3333! A 60.33008 Alana. .7009 A1909 EOE 830333 on is: E0 gag wing .23.. .30... «mums. A: .8 A5 a: .3 as 30.38 48 I38 1:... 33a. .33 no... can A: e5 £8 A5 A8 .3530 no n... on... .83335 3.. so use... :3 A: I38 3 83a .23.. a.» «0 .8 5? 8.5.805 a 23.3.. 00.. .80 £8,333... e S E 9.38 3 :5 one... Snatch .350 .m A5 338 3 cola»: .20 .38 unoaaefionam .30» .m E 9300 5 38...- .3» 83.. 2.8..»on .30» A "3.? 953?..00 .3 9530.305 8&- 8» 8 r..3|31.. .3 .28.... a. 3'3: Hones IS :2! 8.. .3 8.38 3 out: .13 no.8 .80 18» 38 no is! as: .93 0.. u 3 .33 as.» 3 888.. IS «a «:35 18» «5 v3.3... c. a. so» Eva-=30 8 .33 no! no»: .5 190 6.3 0.. 30.80. 000300000 .90.» 00 50033000 0303 .8303.“ «0 00000 030.3000 53000002000 3000 3 0300000 0 0 0 0 I‘- 0 0‘ O $0300 b.0030 033303 .3000. 00 0000000 030.8000 «0000300000 000 3.30 00000 03> 0300009000 . .0 03000000000 0000 053330- .33... 003008.. .m .3000- 05303 .8330003 0530080 «0000000300 00.3.0000 000 030003< .3 .00.. 202 03 8 3003 3.3.. 03 0030000 «0000.35 0» 030.0003 30a 0330 00000.00: 0330b. .m 5303000000 003.300 030: 000 0330 3300393 000 0000003 00 003000000 000 030030 .N .8033 00 33030 000 330.... 00333! .0 0003000 0332: 0 0300 033.; 0 0500. .330: 0 0300 3 830333 00 00-60 .500 0003060.... 0605.50 0030 .300 .0003. CV c: 2: CV A5 :5 A3 A5 A5 30.300 .2: 0.38 3 :3 830 .IIEE 0830335 33.5 3 3080 8» Iww «0 3 03 3.3 05 6333.238 .30» 3 003...... 080. 8» 003 00 000050 03 830 E 00300 8 .g .30» 03: 00000 3 00038030003300.8003on 30033033333330.3303 A3 05.3000 60000009000!— 00 00.80 00000 030: .8 .0030 000000 033.5 .0333 3000 .0300 0: 033.9 .3 3030-83 3 30. 800.30 .830 000 3333038 .900 .3033... .30» 30. 0830333 3.03 .300 00 3... .0: APPENDIX II QUESIIONHAIRE GIVEN TO THE PRODUCTION SUPERVISORS 191 192 This is a study designed to obtain your opinion on super- visory responsibilities, time spent to accomplish various tasks, and some of the things you ordinarily expect of our foremen as supervisors at . The questions asked are for research purposes only at Michigan State Xaturally, people perceive their activities and responsi- bilities differently. For this reason we are asking your careful and honest opinion so that an overall impression can be obtained based on your responses to this question- naire. There are no right or wrong answers since you will be expressing your personal opinion. The individual responses that you give will be held in STRICT CONFIDENCE, and only general information will be released to the management of Please take your time to read each question carefully before you answer. There is no time limit, but be sure to answer each question. 193 In order to carry out the responsibilities of their posi- tion at , your foremen must perform a variety of tasks. Eelow are listed the major tasks of manufacturing supervisors. Whic‘n ore do you consider the most important task for your foremen in order to supervise their depart- ment effectively. -hat is, which one should they consider the most heavily? Kark that task with a number "1.” Then, which task ranks second in importance in carrying out their diti:s and respor sibili ties. Place a number "2” beside itat task. Number all the tasks in this manner. g3 not u:e the sa"e number twice. For ekantle 3 Auditing and evaluatirg your manpower ; Analyzing mo.th ly expenses. 4 Socializing with others. i Handling human relation problems. Rank the following ten tasks in this manner. The most i";ortant will be number ”i," and the least important will be number ”13.” Xaintaining quality and quantity of production; planting and using supplies economically. Planning and scheduling of manpower and production. Training workers; giv ng job information to workers; g-ttirg the right geo 1e on the right Job. ‘ ; sti no handling grievances; promoting co— *eration; building morale. w W MP men and departments; agement. Explaining company policy. conversation. p. Q) F4 Engaging in soc Analyzing costs of production. nalyzing efficiency of their departments. oftiudiroatodto min to hovo throo ouootiao on tho ohorto moon. tho following hiringthoconroootoiOhonrvon-h'vook, mfmvinhomatthotuhooiotookoliotodincol- (A) by inter-noting vith tho]? ouporioro, tEir “Minot“, ond ethol- for”. m, tho thooo voriouo oonrcoo, ond tho unnu- ot intonation, will to «Rant tu- oooh took. am, no youooti-tothoonovoroto ofti-oyonoxpoctyo‘n-i’or-ontodovotoin Phoothototnlhonro(orumtoo)n-tto Cali-1 (I) no to 'ninutoo" I. Boti-to tho count in Golan (A). (3) mm. mo m (A) Column : um: 19“ q?— ———-—q, l 1 fl on! productian plot-Ling one! using occult-1mm. 3. 'i‘roining vol-horn; giving Job of production. 1. Itintoining qunlity ond mtity 2. Planning on! oohodnling of m‘ oupplioo on tho right Job. h. muting ond hondling griovnnooo; infor-tion to workoro; gotting right pooplo til pruating oooporotion; building Iorolo. «Input-onto; "porting nttoro to mount. 7. hploining coupon policy. 7 8. hgoging in oooinl convorootion. good houookooping. 6. Couponting with othor taro-on one! 5. Prunting ontotyx nintoining é. Wing oooto or production. .0. Wing omoionoy of you: Im: dopnrtnont. hOhro. ofthoohovo pnooinColu-I (I)thoononntofoolt l. (c), (i), (a), no (I) for oooh took ohould a." .g" ‘3 .3 :3 E3g533§3e $253.3? §5E3“2§§ gaiiigiéa gfi§=“s§§ ,:a§sg§ éwiszz equal Cola-1 (B) for oooh to (I) Roquirod (0) arm m- lo Intonation Totol (A) Colmo : TASKS : 195 l. hintoining quolity ond quantity of production. ond production; plonning ond uoing oupplioo ooono-ioolly. 3. Troining vorhoro; giving Job 2. Plonning ond ochodnling of W 3 «tune on tho right Job. infomtion to workoro tho right pooplo It. Adjuoting ond howling griovnncoo; is 5 5; 5.5-: a 3 f: 3 ME 3, a; a? 2% £23? mount. 7. kploining cm policy. , 8. lagoging in social convorootion. 9. Anolyzing core- of production. 0. Analyzing officioncy of your deport-out . ’ MAL: 196 .93 3 “.38 .9915; .30» no hon-303.3 and»? .830? no 3.8 as»? 5033.32.00 H300. 5 wow; O... poncho .5038 anon-Bo 9:333 Juan-al- ov 98.3. 33.393 no»; and Show .350 no...) 33809000 .w .mcwnuoxoooon coca mononoooul «388 no“; .m 67.83 333.5 «83.93980 wags—Dun 3005.523 $3.893 can $333.93 .: £2. £3." 2.... 8 3.83 £3» 23 933% 3.33.83 on cognac?“ new $35» «chino: moan—«n.5, .m .findooduonovo 2.3.3:. ”can: can moi—53A «83260.3 van .3393! no 3350033 can 9553.3 .m .oowuosoonm go heapnosd oco augaosv madcaoucfin: .A h—‘dL—_- fiy_ —-1—-1h— —d—dp —pqrfi _ _ i _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _ _ 09:30: :33»: * H.306 cover": * aouoa. 953.5 * 1309 EB: Swvogoaan on g g maang mSHfiADm m5: .292 “man; .5 :5 2: CV a: .5 .8 A3 c: 3538 A5 algae 5 .3» 8o: 6888 35o 33 332333 .53.? 3 333 33:. so on: no SEE on» on: 22 .3 .33» 3 933.5 3&- odooo 95 I: no EE .5 83o 3 338 3 .3 .305 a»? hon—on no now-.3280 no: 2000 upon- 33... non-non .26» in: so» on: g 338 3 out: 933 H33 3» no gin on» coo-3.. A3 538 on .ooUoooolauonon «0 slow .350 go: .8 30!! g 33.9 .3393 05A»... 332. ab< 3.3.75 3 2333-503 on do. 8.5.8 ~28 on. :SIEBE .33» .9323... .3vo no? BEES 58: 3:8 ho» no 38 .HE AN DIIE DIX III QUESTIOX"AIRE GIVE II TO THE FMIIUFACTURIIIG SUP ERIIITEIIDEIII I97 198 One of your responsibilities as a member of the management at is to evaluate the productivity_of your manu- facturing foremen. The "productivity" in this case refers to the ability of the foremen to consistently get out the required work over a period of time with good quality, organize their department in order to achieve organizational goals, and establish rapport with their subordinates. Considering the ability, the knowledge, and the consistency of each foremen, in what order would you rank the produc— tivity ratings of each of the following foremen. Place a gumber "1” before the name you would rate the most produc- tive. A number "2” should be written next to the name of the second most productive foreman. Rank all of the following in this manner. Do not use the same number twice. Don Albaugh ._____ Ken Kellogg _____ Carl Cavanagh _____ Clarence Krepps _____ Ken Carter _____ Harold Rademacher _____ Alan Hale ._____ Harry Siedelberg _____ Russell Hause _____ Wayne Stettler _____ Carrol Hawks _____ Bob Storm Al Keefer Bob Sumner Walt Keilholtz