AN EXPEDRATORY STUDY OF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TGWARD CHANGE AMONG A. l. D. TECHNECAE. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Thesis for the Dogma of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNSVERSITY William Vliiey Frank 1965 l mass m LIBRARY Haws M'chi an Stan: \ \ 0\\\\\§;\§\\\§\ llniércrsity 1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘ ' Au EXPLORATORY STUDY 0? SELECTED ATTITUDES' AND PERCEPTIOHS TOWARD CHAHGE Avonc AID TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAT PARTICIPATTS presented by William Viléy Frank has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in_______ Communication // VJ Date April 2§1_ 0-169 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD CHANGE AMONG A. I. D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS By William Wiley Frank As one of the major purposes of a large majority of cross-cultural education programs is to provide a basis for the introduction of change by the returning program participant, considerable attention must be placed on factors relating to the increased probability of change ac- tivity. 0n the assumption that there will be a greater probability.of a returning participant introducing change if he feels optimistic about his personal ability to introduce change, this exploratory study attem- pted to identify individual variables which were felt to have a bearing on the participant's perceived ability to introduce change. The major purpose of the study was to enumerate and describe the differences between participants in terms of reported ability to intro- duce change upon return to their home countries after completion of a cross-cultural training program. The investigation was based on the construction of a question- naire containing 99 Likert type items, 13 demographic items and four open-ended questions. The instrument was administered to eight groups of A.I.D. Technical Assistance Program Participants (N = 381) repre- senting fifty-two different countries attending communication seminars prior to their return home. Ing A sex interviews Change Age] duce Chang Resu high expec with favoi Cerning S‘ Perceptio haVe util t0 introc Th< ’1- Will iam Wiley Frank In general, independent variables in five areas were considered: Attitude toward Change Perceptions of Supervisory Behavior Influence of Physical Factors Training_£rggram Relevancy Background or Demographic Factors A seven-item scale designed on the basis of pre-tests, personal interviews and item analysis was used as the operational measure of Change Agent Efficacy or the participant's perceived ability to intro- duce change. Results of correlation and analysis of variance indicated that high expectations of success in introducing change occurred in relation with favorable attitudes toward past change activity. Measures con- cerning supervisory behavior were generally not supported, however perception of the supervisor's attitude toward past change appeared to have utility as an effective predictor for expectations about ability to introduce change. Those participants who felt that physical factors (money, equip- ment, etc.) would be an obstacle in their attempt to introduce change felt less confident in their ability to introduce change. On the other hand, influence of physical factors in the past did not appear to be an effective predictor concerning future change ability. In terms of relevancy of the United States Training Program, participants reporting high relevancy also reported high expectations of change agent ability. As a result of individual analyses eight variables were combined to provi. ability generally "i tation of (T: 6 They did favorable Supervise this Chan indicated iCPOrtanc Sex feund the SamPle t. in the t In to Predi ables We nigh and William Wiley Frank to provide a generalized description of participants in terms of perceived ability to introduce change. On the basis of this analysis, eight typ- ologies were developed ranging from participants classified as generally confident in their ability to introduce change to those classified as generally pessimistic. A general description of those participants who hold high expec- tation of their ability to introduce change would be as follows. (These participants felt that their training programs were relevant. They did not perceive physical factors as obstacles. They also held favorable views concerning past change. Furthermore, they felt their supervisors would agree with their particular viewpoints regarding this change activity. In regard to ideal supervisory behavior, they indicated that consideration toward subordinates is of considerable importance. Several demographic variables were also of importance. It was found that participants described as the more optimistic among the sample tended to be older, higher in their organization, and had been in the United States a relatively shorter period of time. In general, however, the background variables added only slightly to predictability. The results indicated that the attitudinal vari- ables were of prime importance concerning differentiation between high and low groups. ASGE AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS TOWARD CHANGE AMONG A. I. D. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS BY William Wiley Frank A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1965 This velopment. possible. Director 01 adzinistrat I owe titude of 1 an constr A Sp lroldahl f Efforts cc by the am My ; Patience an extra ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was supported by the Agency for International De- velopment. My appreciation goes to those officials who made the study possible. I would also like to thank Professor Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Director of the Seminars on Communication, for his assistance, both administratively and conceptually, in conducting this study. I owe a great deal to Professor Eugene H. Jacobson, for a mul- titude of reasons; not the least of which is for his generous counsel and constructive advice in directing this dissertation. A special acknowledgment must be given to Professor Verling C. Troldahl for his assistance in research methodology and for his efforts to eliminate the excessive amount of jargon insisted upon by the author in earlier drafts. My greatest debt is owed to my wife Nancy, for having far more patience and understanding than I could ever hope to have. Finally, an extra thanks to Janet, Kirsten, Tommy and Nora. C’ikl’fER II III IV VI REPE REN C E TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES Rationale Hypotheses II RESEARCH DESIGN Background of the Study Data Gathering Procedures Questionnaire Construction Single‘Item Scales .: -6 III RESULTS Description of the Sample Characteristics of the Sample Hypotheses of the Study IV ADDITIONAL ANALYSES Demographic Data Analysis Measures Related to Attitude toward Change Perceived Agreement with Supervisor Physical Factors in the Future V GENERAL ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTION Method Procedure Followed Summary and Discussion Analysis of Attitudinal Variable Relationship VI CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Conclusions and Discussion Conclusions and Discussion of General Descriptive Analysis Suggestions for Further Research REFERENCES APPENDICES iii 21 21 22 23 44 45 45 45 48 67 68 72 78 82 88 88 89 98 99 104 104 114 121 131 134 TABLE 10 11 12 13 TABLE 10 11 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Educational Background of Participants work Experience of Participants Sojourn Length at Time of Seminar Attendance weeks Remaining in Program Comparison of the Mean Change Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Work-Related Change Comparison of the Mean United States Trip Satis- faction for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Training Program Relevancy Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes Toward United States Training Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Consdierable and Little Change Activity in the Past Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Involved in Considerable Change Activity with Different Attitudes toward Ease or Difficulty of Task Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Score for Participants Involved in Considerable Change Activity with Different Attitudes toward Task Satisfaction Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward the Consequences Resulting from Past Change Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Comparison of the Mean Change Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward In- fluence of Physical Factors in the Past iv Page 46 47 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 TABLE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Perception of Relation between Influence of Physical Factors in Future and Influence of Physical Factors in Past in regard to Change Activity Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants under Three Levels of Described Supervisory Initiation of Structure Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants under Three Levels of Described Supervisory Consideration Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Combinations of Authority Level and Supervision within the Organization Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Perceptions as to SuperVisor's Attitudes toward Past Change Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Agreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Favorable or Unfavorable Attitudes toward Past Change Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Agreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Favorable Attitude and for Partici- pants Disagreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Attitudes toward Past Change Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Degrees of Agree- ment Between Described Supervisory Behavior and Their Own Supervisory Behavior Philosophy Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Degrees of Agree- ment Between Described Supervisory Behavior and Their Own Supervisory Philosophy Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Time in the United States Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Age Comparison of the Mean Change Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Geographic Area Page 57 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 69 70 TABLE Page 26 Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Occupational Background 70 27 Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Past Change Activity 74 28 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Three Different Attitudes Toward ' Past Change Differentiated by Amount of Change 75 29 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Three Different Attitudes toward Past Change Differentiated by Perceived Supervisory Attitude toward Past Change 75 30 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Three Different Attitudes toward Past Change Differentiated by Discrepancy Between Perceived Supervisor Attitude and Participant Attitude toward Past Change 77 31 Subgroups of articipants by (l) Perceived Agree- ment with Supervisor, and (2) Attitude toward Past Change 79 32 Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores between Participants who Perceive Agree- ment or Disagreement with Supervisor's Attitudes Toward Past Change 30 33 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physica1_Factors in the Future Differentiated by Attitude toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Past 83 34 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Participant's Attitude ' toward Past Change 34 35 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Amount of Time in United States on Current Training Program. 35 vi TABLE 36 37 38 39 TABLE 36 37 38 39 Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward‘ Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Relevancy of U.S. Training Favorable and Unfavorable Attitude Groups for Eight Predictor Variables Favorable and Unfavorable Scores for Eight High Frequency Cells Expected Relationships between Attitudinal Variables vii Page 86 9O 93 100 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE Page 1 Examples of Cell Make-up 91 2 Analysis and Breakdown of High Frequency Cells 91a viii CHAPTER I RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES W The field of cross-cultural education and training, in the past ten years, has become of major interest in a number of disciplines and related research areas. Lundstedt has recently written: The study of human behavior in cross-cultural travel and exchange is now a defined field....But growth in public awareness and in the number of actual exchange programs has increased the need for more precise information about the human problems associated with international travel, exchange, and communication. (1963, p. 1) This point is generally supported by the fact that in the United States during 1963 there were over 80,000 foreign citizens either attending universities or involved in some non-degree training activity within the country. (International Institute for Education, 1963) The fact that the Federal Government is by far the largest single sponsor of foreign nationals studying in the United States suggests the concern of the United States with the educational and developmental problems in other countries. The purpose of these technical assistance pro- grams provided by the United States is basically to increase the economic strength of the cooperating countries through this exchange of technical information. (U.S. Department of State, 1963) As these programs are designed not only for learning on the part of the individual but also for the introduction of change within his home culture, there are a number of questions which must be considered in regard to the subsequent value of the programs. There have been a number of studies dealing with various aspects of cross-cultural education ranging from the effects of orientation programs, (Selltiz, Christ, Havel, and Cook, 1963) adjustment problems in cross-cultural situations, (Morris, 1960; Deutsch and Won, 1963) social relations and attitude change, (Selltiz et a1, 1963) to diffi- culties encountered by participants returning to their home countries, (Useem and Useem, 1955; Watson and Lippitt, 1955; Scott, 1958). Many of these have touched on how the individual participant views his home situation in regard to his subsequent re-entry into it. (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1963). Few however, have dealt with the participant's perception of his home situation as it relates to the subsequent intro- duction of change. They have not been directly concerned about the probability of introduction or application of those things learned dur- ing the participant's sojourn in the United States nor the possible subsequent results of the training program of the visitor. Factors Affecting Subsequent Change Obviously, the results of any training program can be measured by the extent to which the training was adequate in helping the par- ticipant understand, interpret, adapt and implement United States techniques and methods in his own country. It would certainly be neces- sary for any participant to learn the required skills by which the innovation must be brought about. As Kelman has suggested, a training program should provide the participant with "a professionally useful experience, yielding new information, new ideas, new contacts that can enhance his professional work." (1963, p. 63) Although the formal training situation and the content material are important, concern about the effects of training is not limited solely to considerations about the presenation of subject matter in’the immediate physical situation. This training takes place in some larger social en- vironment. Although interaction takes place between the trainee and the trainer in the immediate learning situation, other factors such as host- culture, the trainee's home culture, experience, profession, and social relationships also condition the learning or training. We may also expect that there will be a number of factors occur- ring inthe pre-arrival stage which will influence the impact of the training. In other words, certain things will happen to the participant or will have happened to him prior to his coming to the United States which will bear on the training effectiveness. Attitudes toward change, both work-related and in general, will make a difference in the view- point or outlook of the participant toward his training program. Studies in selective retention indicate that attitudes toward the material presented to subjects will determine, partially at least, the amount of information retained. (Klapper, 1960) Directly related to training program effectiveness will be those situations in which the participant was involved with change activities, particularly if they were satisfying experiences. Trumbo (1958) found, in studying the effects of the introduction of data-processing equipment within a com- pany, that favOrable reactions toward past change activities were re- lated to generally favorable attitudes toward change. In relation to this, other factors to consider would be how often the participant has introduced change, his general satisfaction with change activities and the problems he has encountered in bringing about the changes. The consequences resulting from past change, as well as the personal con- sequences accruing to other people within his organization, are factors which also have a bearing on the training experience. The subsequent impact of the training will also be influenced by factors which will be in operation in the participant's home country Igfggg the completion of this training sojourn. In effect, the impact of the United States training program is influenced by the situation or environment froulwhich the participant comes and to which he will re- turn. (Jacobson, 1963) Watson and Lippitt (1955) have suggested that attitude. change, although beginning with a situation in which influence and change are possible, is crucially tested in a situation which is far removed from the area of influence. The participant may develop a favorable attitude toward some process which is utilized in the United States. However, upon return home he is faced with the question of whether or not he should maintain the change in the home culture. "If the original change situation has included full awareness of the home context, the problem of maintenance is minimized." (1955, p. 147) The training program effectiveness then may be a function of the perceived relevance of the training material in terms of the participant's home environment. Although the work has been done within an industrial climate in the United States, studies by Fleishman and his associates (Fleishman, 1953; Harris and Fleishman, 1955; and Fleishman, Harris and Burtt, 1955) provide a basis for the consideration of the effects, values, and impact of the home environment on people engaged in a training program. Fleish- man et al., (1955) found that foremen who had attended a human relations training program at a centralized school location had changed in their attitudes toward leadership practices. Subsequent measurement indicated that after return to their jobs for a few months, the foremen had moved back to their pre-training attitudes concerning leadership practices. The authors conclude that the behavior taught in a specific school may be in conflict with the behavior expected in the actual work experience, and if this conflict does occur, the stronger influence of the work climate will predominate. They point out: Leadership behavior is not a thing apart but is embedded in a social setting. Besides, the foreman is actually being "trained" everyday by the rewards and examples pro- vided by his own boss. We are apt to lose sight of the fact that this everyday kind of learning is more potent than a "one shot" training course. (Sutermeister, 1963, p. 423) A study of Lippitt (1949) dealt with basically the same problem, i.e., conflict between formal on-the-job training and off-the-job pressures. Although the basic issue in this case was whether or not people trained as part of a team could withstand these pressures more than those trained as individuals, Lippitt's recognition of the conflict or differences be- tween the training situation and the work situation again suggests the same kind of concern cited by Fleishman, Harris, and Burtt. The major point to be made concerning these studies is not that there are serious deficiencies in many approaches to training programs, but rather that the climate or tenditions to which the trainees must re- turn is a major factor in effective training for functional results. The difficult question, hOWever, is: What is the climate to which the participant returns? lhere are a number of observations which might be made concerning the situation to which he returns; the nature of the governmental structure, the type of organization with which he is associ- ated, or various economic variables. However, these are observations normally made and classified by others and not by the participant him- self. We are concerned with how the individual participant faces his re- turning environment, and his attempt at introducing innovation into this situation. It is his behavior within this area which is of crucial con- cern. In considering factors influencing training effectiveness and the probability of change activity, this paper takes the position that behavior is governed not by any set of objective facts itself, tut by the individ- ual's perception of those facts. This behavior is determined to a great extent by the way the individual perceives himself in relation to the situation or situations in which he operates. In effect, he developes a frame of referenCe within which to operate. His behavior depends, to a considerable degree, upon his definition of the situation. In relation to this, the consiscent defining of the situation is dependent upon some organized perspective or an organized view of the individual's world. As an outgrowth of this, he is able to develop a moderately well-ordered, and reliable stability within a world in con- stant change. (Shibutani, 1960) Toch and MacLean make a similar point in suggesting the notion of expectation development: Each experience or perception nelps to provide us with unconscious expectations or assumptions about reality. We expect the world to behave in accord with these assump- tidns. Like the data supplied in a racing form about the performance of horses under particular conditions, the accumulation of our past experiences provides the basis for bets as to success or failure of our intended enterprises. These bets are repeated or discontinued depending on whether they pay off or fail to pay off. (1962, p. 58) Stogdill (1959), although primarily concerned with group theory, has sug- gested that the concept of expectation is fundamentally an individual activity, which is essential in considering group and individual purpose. Following Kelly (1953) in his basic postulate that ha person’s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events," Stogdill proposes: Expectation, defined as readiness for reinforcement, is a function of drive, the estimated probability of occur- rence of a possible outcome and the estimated desirability of the outcome. (1959, p. 63) The primary concern in this case is with the estimates of desira- bility and probability of outcome. Expectation, in this sense, is par- tially determined by (1) an individual's prediction of the likelihood of a given event occurring,(2) an individual's judgment as to how much he would like the event to occur. The participant in a cross-cultural edu- L~ cation program is faced with the fairly difficult decision of determining what aspects of his United States training may be introduced into his organization or community. The change or changes that he might possibly make must be placed on some kind of desirability continuum. At the same time he must consider the various factors which will influence the proba- bility, of actually initiating and bringing about a proposed change or series of changes. Not only must the obvious physical and financial factors be taken into account, but the psychological and social factors as well. Even though the participant°s desire to innovate may be high, he is still faced with whether or not it is socially possible. As an example of this, Joshi (1962), in studying values of Indian peasants, found that adoption of a new or a changed mode of technOIOgy depends primarily on the receptivity of the cultjre and its people rather than on the material and technical resources. In the Watson and Lippitt study (1955), one result indicated that the return to Germany by the program participants resulted in a reduc- tiorl in the amount of explicit interest in democracy. The authors sug- gesc one possible interpretation. Although the departing Germans showed an interest in democracy and were willing to give it a trial, (desirability) after returning to Germany and realizing the difficulties involved, (proba- bility) they gave up the idea. How the participant sees the situation and makes these estimates results, to some extent, in a ”readiness for reinforcement," a preparation for certain experiences. Merton, in discussing the Thomas theorem, has suggested that: ...once they (men) have assigned some meaning to the situ- ation, their consequent behavior and some of the consequences of that behavior are detremined by the ascribed meaning. (1957, pp. 421-422) Part of this meaning is developed by a consideration of the expectation of the people of the home country for the visitor's ability to return with usable and functional ideas and techniques. The participant, how- ever, is exposed to a vast array of techniques, practices, and procedures which could be utilized within his occupational or social system in his home country. But there are a number of problems which arise in regard to these various procedures. A number of them may require facilities, equipment, and financial resources which are not available in the home country. Another group may, in the long run, be usable but in terms of present usage would require a great deal of adaptation. Some may be quite adequate for transfer with little or no adaptation. A very care- ful and continuous reality testing system must be utilized in the adap- tation process on the part of the participant. An evaluation of what the home situation will permit is required if a training program is to be effective. Zimmerman and Bauer (1956) supported the hypothesis that material vfliich was incongruent with the imagined attitudes of a prospective audi- ence would be less well remembered than material which was congruent with those imagined attitudes. In the case of the participant, the anticipated audience may very well be the people in the home environment with whom.he must work. The imagined or anticipated attitudes are undoubtedly influ- enced by the participant's past experience with these people. This influence may be due to the fact that roles within formal or- ganizations tend to be highly detailed, relatively stable, and usually defined in fairly explicit terms. Related to this is the fact that the role is not only defined in considerable detail but also is generally known in considerable detail by a nlmter of people who have contact with the individual filling the role. A (hange in behavior affecting the individual's role in the organization will not only be considered by the individual and his superior but by many of his associates as well. The participant also knows their roles. The environment of others surround- ing the individual becomes fairly stable and predietable. The extent to which the individual sees his activities as a change agent as being in conflict with this environment will function as a conditioning vari- able in his perception of himself as a change agent. The kind of supervisory climate in which the participant has been operating is another factor whioh has a bearing on the effectiveness of his training. In particular, the kinds of management pra tires his super- visor has engaged in, and the extent to whi2h he was satisfied with them, should influence the impact of the training. The participantis percep- tion of the supervisory struct;re of his organization, primarily super- visory relations and work activity iniependence, is also relevant. Im- portant in this sense as well, are the a-titudes that he has developed regarding his own supervie;ry behavior and phi10sophy. it) As Hollander (1961) found, there was an inverse relationship between accorded status and disapproval of deviant behavior. Therefore, the general positional level and the participant's place in the organiza- tional hierarchy prior to the U.S. trip, the number of people directly affected by the change and the number of people supervised will also be related to the eventual impact of his training experience in his role of change agent. The Concept of Change Agent Lippitt, Watson, and Westley (1958) approach the concept of change agent in terms of what they designate as planned change. In their terms, planned change develops from a decision to make a deliberate effort to improve a system and to obtain the help of an outside agent in making the improvement. The outside agent, in this case, would be designated the change agent. In this scheme of things a distinction is made between planned change and such change which comes about through a system mobil- izing its resources to improve its own operation; or through normal pro- cesses of maturation or by movement to a different environment or by changes in the external environment. A number of qualifications to this approach have been suggested. Bennis, Benne, and Chin (1961) take exception to Lippitt g£_gl, and sug- gest that the view expressed by them is much too narrow because it re- stricts the role of change agent to someone Outside the system. In their view, change agent refers to a helper, person, or group, who is attempting to effect change within some client system, i. e., an individual person, group organization, or community or culture. Loomis (1961) defines change as a role function suggesting that the term "change agent" might conveniently serve as a way of designating an actor or representative of some social system who attempt to consciously bring about some directed or planned social change. Rogers (1961) regards a change agent as a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he feels is desirable. Rogers suggests that a particular type of change agent is the technical assistance worker in his attempt to transfer new ideas from one culture to another. The definition of change agent, as applied to a technical assistance program participant, must account for the case of an individual returning to his same position upon completion of his training, and whose change activities will be primarily centered within his own work group. On the other hand, it must take account of the professional person, who, although from the same general social system as his client system, will be expected to initiate change in some sub-system of the generalized system. The definition must also make no restriction on the magnitude and implications of the change activity of any one individual participant. It must also include the person whose change activities might have sig- nificant ramifications in the social or economic course and activity of the country. A number of the points made thus far by others may be combined to provide a definition for use in this paper. A change agent is a person who attempts to influence adoption decisions, within a client system, in a direction that he feels is desirable. He may be either a representative of a particular social system, or he may be a professional person outside the system, who is either requested or directed to initiate or direct change within the system. 12 Focus of Study This study is exploratory in nature. It is not intended to support any one specific theoretical position. However, it does have, as a general purpose, the testing of a number of hypotheses which are felt to be of interest and value in understanding those factors which would ap- pear to influence the introduction of change following cross-cultural education programs. If these programs are to be successfu1,then the introduction of 9” new techniques, methods, processes, and systems must take place as a re- sult of the programs. In effect, the introduction of change into other countries becomes a measure of program suCcess. To evaluate these pro- grams, it would be important to attempt to determine whether or not innovation had taken place within the cotperating countries as a result of this transmission of technical information and knowledge. However, there are other considerations which may be helpful in predicting whether innovation would follow the training program. One such approach would be to consider the likelihood of whether the probability of successful introduction of change may be partially dependent on the participant's expectations about the situation to which he will return. In effect, how does he see himself as a change agent? If the participant expects success or perceives himself as being able to introduce a particular change; that is, in having the ability to bring this about, then the probability of it occurring, other things be- ing equal, should be greater than if he feels he will be unsuccessful. Despite the influence of experienced success on the future, the partici- pant's perception of success or failure will have an effect on the probability of innovation occurring. Gebhard (1948) suggests that both 15 expected and experienced success increases the attractiveness of a task, and that the attractiveness of an activity is decreased by expected and experienced failure. Research dealing with the differential effects of experienced and expected success and failure indicates that the attrac- tiveness of an activity is reduced more when failure is expected than when the actual failure has been experienced. (Cartwright, 1942) In effect, the participant's evaluation or estimate of his expected inno- vational success within his home situation is an important factor to be considered in the overall assessment of the technical training pro- gram. It is also important to consider the participant's general satis- faction while engaged in the training activity. The value of having a participant take part in a training program in a climate of general sat- isfaction, as far as he is concerned, also influences the eventual ap— plication of the program material. An activity does not occur in isola- tion but rather in some kind of social context. In this case, the performance of the trainee takes place within a total societal setting within the United States, and is influenced, to some degree, by his feelings concerning his overall satisfastiyn with his trip. Although the general relevancy and value of the pr-gram is of major importance in determining utilization of the training, the participant's general satisfaction with his U.S. sojourn shculd temper or influence the like- lihood of the utilization of the training to which he has been exposed. Hypotheses 1. Participants with favorable attitudes toward work-related change should feel better able t) introduce change into their organizations than those who do not have a favorable attitude. 14 In considering whether or not an individual sees himself as a change agent, a major factor must be his generalized attitude toward change within the work situation itself. If the participant sees change as a negative value, then it might be expected that he would not place a very high value on his participation in the role of change agent. Trumbo (1958) found that favorable attitudes toward change are re- lated to the individual's capacity for adjustment to change. In the case of the participant, we might expect a similar result; namely that attitude change bears a direct relationship to adjustment to, and intro- duction of, change. 2. Participants who have favorable attitudes toward change in general should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who do not have favorable attitudes toward change. There is a broader dimension to attitude toward change than merely that aesociated with the work situation. Although the participantgs attitude toward the work-related change is the more important, a measure in regard to his overall attitude toward change should be taken. 3. Participants who perceive their United States training as being relevant and purposeful for their needs shOuld be more satisfied with their United States trip than those who perceive the training as irrele- vant and with little purpose. In essence, the proposition presented in this case is that if the purpose of the trip is fulfilled, then the participant's satisfaction and favorable feeling about the entire trip should be increased. As the participant has been sent by his country to be trained in some par- ticular process or procedure, it is generally expected that his value to his organization will increase as a result of the training. The 15 training program, is essential in helping to fulfill these expectations. Kelman suggests that: Perhaps the key factor in a person's satisfaction with his experience abroad is how much value it has from the point of view of his specific professional concerns.... In the final analysis his satisfaction with the experi- ence will depend on its relevance to his specific prof- fessional concerns. (1963, p. 104) Even though there may be other factors involved in overall trip satis- faction, if the participant sees the training as being valuable to him in terms of applicability and practicality, then his trip satisfaction is increased. 4. Participants who perceive their United States training as being relevant and purposeful should feel better able to introduce change in- to their organizations than participants who do not perceive their United States training as relevant. This hypothesis is based on the fact that if the training is per- ceived as providing a basis for bringing about the change, then the par- ticipant should feel that he is better prepared to take the action involved in making the change. 5. Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change ac- tivity in their past roles should feel better able to intrsduce change into their organizations than those who have not been involved with change activity in the past. This hypothesis should be modified, however, in regard to perceived difficulty of bringing abOut change and the degree of satisfaction in- volved with change activity. Although the participant may have acted as a change agent in the past, his perception of future change activity should be affected by whether or not he found his activity hard or dif- is ficult. By the same token,whether the participant enjoyed, or was satis- fied.in, engaging in the activity will also have a bearing on his estimate of his future change agent ability. 6. Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change ac- tivity in their past roles and have found it to be an easy task should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who found it to be a difficult task. 7. Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change ac- tivity in their past roles and have found it to be satisfying should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who felt it to be unsatisfying. 8. Participants who perceive the consequences and effects of past changes as being favorable should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who see the implications and effects as unfavor- able. If the participant's experience with the subsequent results of past change has been favorable, then he probably would place a higher value on future change activity. His observations of and experience with the various phases and steps in the change process may increase his degree of confidence and understanding of how to bring about further change. Another important feature influencing his estimate of his change agent ability would be his perception of the results or benefits accruing to the people who have introduced or initiated changes in the past. If these people have not benefited as a result of the change, then he may feel that change activity is not well thought of within his organization. If he has seen other change agents punished or not personally benefiting ll from change, he may feel that his change activity might result in similar consequences to him, and thereby not feel favorably inclined toward bring- ing about change. 9. Participants who feel that physical factors will be obstacles in in- troducing change should feel less able to introduce change into their or- ganizations than those who do not feel that physical factors will be obstacles. Physical factors such as materials, equipment, money, men, time, and travel requirements must be taken into account in considering change activity. However, whether or not these are perceived as obstacles by the participant will influence his perception concerning his ability or efficacy as a change agent. The assumption made in this case is that there is a correlation between the amount of confidence a person has in his ability to introduce change and how he perceives the influence of physical factors on his intended change activities. 10. Participants who feel that physical factors did not make it diffi- cult to introduce change in the past should feel better able to introduce change in their organizations than those who feel that physical factors made change difficult. If future expectations are a function of past experience, then the participant who considers physical factors as having hindered change activity in the past should expect problems in the future. This would tend to make him feel less confident in his own ability to bring about change. He sees many more problems to overcome based on those problems which he has already encountered in the past. 11. Physical factors will be a greater problem for the participant's future change activity than they were for his change activity in the past. 18 The participant has completed a training program.in the United States which has dealt with more advanced and complex procedures and techniques than those which he has used before. The nature of the problems for which the trainee is being trained are more involved and of a larger scale than those with which he has already dealt. Although physical factors, such as money, material, etc., were important considerations in the past, the increased magnitude of the change activity for which the participant is being trained increases the magnitude and importance of the physical factors necessary for the change to take place. The participant sees these factors as larger or as more of an obstacle in future change ac- tivity than they were in his past experience. 12. Participants who feel that their supervisors structure or determine the requirements of the jobs of subordinates would feel less able to introduce change into their organizations than those who feel that their supervisors do not structure or determine the requirements of their sub- ordinates. l3. Participants who feel that their supervisors are considerate to subordinates should feel better able to introduce change into their or— ganizations than those who feel that their supervisors are not considerate. l4. Participants who see their change activity as involving only them- selves or a few other people should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who see their change activity as in- volving more people. However: 15. those who hold higher positions in the organizational hierarchy should feel better able to introduce change than those who hold lower positions. 19 16. those who supervise relatively fewer people should feel less able to introduce change than those who supervise more people. 17. those who expect to introduce change at or below their positional level in the organizational hierarchy should feel better able to introduce change than those who expect to intro- duce it above their positional level. If the change that a person has in mind may take place if only he or a few other people must change, then one problem in introducing an in- novation is reduced considerably. 0n the other hand, if the change pro- posed involves acceptance by a large number of people, then the complexity of the problem is increased and, in effect, the task becomes more difficult. The participant then, realizing the difficulty of attempting to change a number of people in regard to the innovation he has in mind, will per- ceive himself as being less able to operate as an effective change agent. The participant's position level in the organization will have a bearing on the ease with which the change is made and the participant's perception concerning the ease. Secondly, the number of people whom the participant supervises will make a difference in his perception of ease or difficulty of the change to be made. Both of these qualifications may be made in regard to the extent of authority he may utilize in bring- ing about the change. Finally, the level at which the participant ex- pects to introduce the change will also affect the change agent efficacy of the participant. Stated in another manner, what differences will there be in the perceived difficulty of introducing change if the people involved are subordinates or peers rather than supervisors? 18. Participants who feel their supervisors perceive change made within their organizations in the past in a favorable manner should feel better 2 U able to introduce change within their organizations than those who feel their supervisors perceive change in an unfavorable manner. 19. Participants who feel their supervisors agree with their favorable attitudes toward past change made within their organization should feel better able to introduce change within their organizations than those who feel that they agree with their supervisor's unfavorable attitude toward past change. 20. Participants who feel that their supervisors agree with their favorable attitude toward past change made within the organization should feel better able to introduce change within their organizations than those who feel that they disagree with their supervisor's attitudes. 21. In regard to initiation of structure, participants whose supervisory philosophy agrees with that of their supervisor's should feel better able to introduce change than those who disagree. 22. In regard to consideration, those participants whose supervisory philosophy agrees with that of their supervisor's should feel better able to introduce change than those who disagree. CHAPTER II RESEARCH DESIGN Background of the Study The Agency for International Development (AID) has stated that one of its purposes is to "...attempt to provide training and the exchange of technical information...between the United States and those countries which have shown a serious desire to use this assistance." (U. S. Den partment of State, Participant Handbook, 1963, p. 1.) Specifically, providing participants in technical assistance programs with effective technical training, adequate information, techniques and methodology, and encouraging them to utilize this training in their home countries are among the major methods of pursuing this purpose. To achieve this purpose, AID, based in part on reports of former participants, saw the need to develop a seminar which would assist re~ turning participants with the task of successfully adjusting to the home situation and successfully introducing ideas generated through their study in the United States. The AID sponsored Seminars on Com: gynication as a Tool in Effecting Change are designed to provide pri- mary emphasis on change as a necessary ingredient for economic and Social development. Secondarily, they are designed to provide the Participant with a sharpened understanding of the role which communiu (Mltion must play if he is to successfully transmit to others his newly aC-quired knowledge and skills when he returns home. In general, the ainns of the Seminars are: to stimulate and motivate the participant 21 2.2 through creating an awareness of (l) the need for improvement in communi- cation practices, (2) the nature of the processes of change, and (3) the role of communication as a tool of planned change. The Seminars are one week in length, during which time they deal with (1) a range of communication methods and practices appropriate to developing countries,(i.e. mass media, audio-visual techniques, inter- personal techniques), (2) the nature of social change, technological change and methods for handling resistance to change (i.e., economic, physical and social obstacles to planned change), (3) the use of com- munication practices as a tool in dealing with management, government, and the public of developing countries, for the introduction of orderly change and the related problems which may be expected concerning these, changes-m' The Seminars were started in 1958 and are under the direction and administration of the Department of Communication of Rfichigan State University. Data Gathering Procedures This study includes collection of data from all participants who attended eight Seminars held between April 19 and June 27, 1964, at Cacapon Lodge, Cacapon State Park, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. 0f the ten Seminars held during this period, two were not included in the sample. One Seminar was made up of participants who spoke only Spanish. The other Seminar which was not used was one in which admin- 18 trative difficulties and scheduling necessitated a change in pro- cedure. It was therefore not convenient under the circumstances to adnninister any measuring instrument at that time. The eight Seminars Welre made up of groups of participants ranging in size from.26 to 67. All AID participants, as part of their training program, are supposed to attend a Seminar on Communication. Training or Project Managers schedule participants for the Seminar unless there is a conflict between available dates for the Seminars and other training activities. There is no attempt on the part of the Project Managers to send people from the same country to any one particular Seminar. From time to time, how- ever, there are groups from a particular country who are sharing the same training program and, thus, are scheduled for the same seminar. The source of data utilized in the present study was a self- admdnistered questionnaire. (See Appendix A) The questionnaire was administered during a special session held Sunday afternoon, following registration of the participants, but prior to the first official ses- sion of the Seminar held on Sunday evening. All participants completed the questionnaire during the session in the main meeting room of the Lodge. Other than the instructions provided by the questionnaire it- self, a brief introduction and explanation was made by the experimenter, which dealt with these four points: 1. Instructions for marking answer preference for an item. 2. Brief explanation of research arrangements between Michigan State University and the Agency for Inter- national Development. 3. Assurance of anonymity of participants. 4. Brief comments explaining that the questionnaire dealt with attitudes and opinions. A cover letter signed by David K. Berlo, Chairman of the Department of Communication reiterated points 2 and 3 above. (See Appendix A) Questionnaire Construction The questionnaire used in this study was a revision of other materials pre-tested and evaluated prior to its administration with 24 the eight Seminar groups. Two pre-test measures were taken on two dif- ferent Seminar groups. (N - 28, N 8 60.) Both measures contained most of the items subsequently used in the final questionnaire. In addition to specifically constructed items, a number of open-ended questions were used in order to ascertain how the participant explained his feelings concerning change and his home situation, in his own terms. Individual interviews were also conducted with eleven participants in order to probe deeper in regard to specific answers provided by them on the pre-test questionnaires. These interviews also provided sug- gestions for simplification of grammatical structure and vocabulary. The above procedures were useful in providing new material for items, identifying inadequate or poorly constructed instructions and for iden- tifying ambiguous terms. The questionnaire1 administered contained (1) 99 Likert-type items; (2) 13 demographic items, and four open-ended questions. Items were systematically reversed within each section to reduce response set effects. Following the collection of the data, item inter-correlations were obtained through item analysis, and a number of items were deleted prior to analysis. The following explanation of the variables used in this study will report the items retained and any items dropped. In all cases, the rationale for dropping those items was based on the results of the item analysis performed after the collection of data but prior to analysis. Items dropped were those with low or negative correla— tions with the others in the scale.2 The complete questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A. All ref- erences to items comprising scales, as well as those which were not retained will be made by citing the code number on the right side of the items. See Appendix B for the rationale of this procedure. 25 Change Agent Efficacy As stated in Chapter I, a change agent is a person who attempts to influence adoption decisions, within a client system, in a direction that he feels is desirable. It was suggested that one possible way to deter- mine the possibility that returning AID participants would introduce a change into his organization would be to determine the degree to which he feels confident in his own personal ability to introduce desired change. In effect, other things being equal, how the participant per- ceives himselfas a change agent should be a determining factor in the eventual physical results which may occur as a consequence of his efforts. Following this reasoning, it would then be possible to predict, to a limited degree, that those participants who feel they have the personal ability to introduce change upon returning to their organiza- tion would have a greater chance of success in actually introducing change, than those who feel they will not be able to introduce change. As there was no established scale which could be used in this instance, a major requirement was to develop a scale which could be utilized as an indicator of Change Agent Efficacy, or the perceived ability of a participant to function as an agent of change. If a participant expects to be successful, or perceives himself as being able to introduce specific and planned change into his organization, we might say that he has high perceived ability or efficacy in his role of change agent. However, there are undoubtedly a number of things which might influence the participant's judgment about his change agent efficacy other than his own ability or lack of it. There- fore, in constructing items for this particular scale, a number of 26 considerations must be made in order to focus attention on the area of change activity which generally might be labeled as "being within the participant's own power." It is necessary to take into account a number of factors which might affect the participant's perception of his ability to introduce change which were beyond his personal control. Factors such as insufficient amounts of money, lack of an adequate or- ganizational position for bringing about the change, or political pressures brought to bear against the participant could not be included in this general measurement scale. Also in developing this scale, emphasis had to be placed on future activity rather than on the past, even though the past would influence the future considerations. Development and construction of the finalized scale was based primarily on the two pre-tests, personal interviews, and the item an- alysis discussed above. In all, fifteen items were constructed and tested in connection with the development of the Change Agent Efficacy scale. Of these fifteen, seven items were used in the final analysis.3 Methodology On the pre-tests, total scores were determined for the items in the Change Agent Efficacy scale. Two groups were established on the basis of a median split. Then each item was examined in terms of the mean item score for the above median and below median groups to de- termine whether or not the item discriminated between the two groups. Where the results indicated that it did not, the item was dropped. On the basis of the first pre-test, several changes were incor- porated prior to the second pre-test. Generally, a number of modi- ¥ See Appendix C for a complete description of the items used in the Pre-tests. 2} fications were made in the language structure. The style of the state- ments was constructed in terms of simple declarative statements wherever possible. Secondly, the statements were changed to indicate a more specific concern with changes within a particular organization rather than merely change in general. Thirdly, a future orientation was in- troduced by the use of such phrases as "in the future" or "upon my return home." In the case of both pre-tests, personal interviews indicated that in some cases, ambiguity resulted due to the use of certain words in the statements. Changes were made in relation to this in order to re- duce as much of the ambiguity as possible. Several items were dropped because they could be interpreted as indicating problems of introducing change as a result of factors other than the participant's confidence in his ability to introduce change. In all, there were eight items used on the final questionnaire admin- istered to the participants. These items discriminated between the high and low groups on the basis of the pre-tests and were felt to measure the participant's perceived personal ability to introduce change in the future. After administration of the final form of the questionnaire, the responses to the eight items were analyzed through inter-correlational item analysis. One question: I expect to encounter a good many problems in bringing about this change upon my return home. did not correlate positively with the other seven items. Upon review of these items, it appeared that the seven items remaining provided a much tighter scale than when this item was included. With the ex- clusion of this item, the remaining items tended to fit more closely together, with a much higher degree of correlation. 45 Part of the difficulty concerning this item may be understood in the reactions of the participants concerning it. On an informal basis considerable difficulty in understanding this item was expressed by al- most all the groups involved in the research. Primarily, the difficulty centered around the use of the word "encounter" and the participant's understanding of it. These instances occurred often enough to warrant concern over the use of the item. On the basis of the points mentioned above, this item was deleted from the scale for analysis purposes. Then the scale was based on the seven items listed below. Item 24. I have more ability to introduce change than to carry out pre-planned activities. The following six items were contained within one section preceded by these specific instructions: Briefly describe below what you consider to be the most important change which you wish to introduce in your organization upon your return home. In relation to the change you described on the page before, please answer the following questions. Item 72. My background and training in my particular field should be very helpful in the future in attempting to bring about this change within my organization. Item 74. Upon my return home, when I discuss this change with a friend or fellow worker, whose views differ from mine, I feel that I will be able to get him to accept my views. Item 75. Difficulties in introducing this change upon my return home will probably occur more often because of my lack of ability and skill than for other reasons. Item 76. I feel that in the future I will be generally re- garded by my fellow workers as a good source of advice on the introduction and effects of this change. Item 77. I feel that the energy and effort required by me to bring about this change will be so great that it will be a major obstacle. 29 Item 78. I expect that most of the ideas I developed during my U.S. Trip, concerning this change, will be ac— cepted by the people in my organization upon my return home. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing scores across the seven items. U.S. Trip Satisfaction A second dependent variable was considered in this study; the participant's reported satisfaction with his United States trip. This variable was, by design, of secondary concern in the research. How- ever, it was felt that an attempt should be made to determine, to some degree, the relationship between the perceived value of the training program and the general satisfaction with experiences of a more social nature in the United States. There are aspects of the partgcipant's experience in the United States which do not bear a direct relationship to the subject matter and design of the training program, but rather exist somewhat apart from it. However, they might very well influence the overall effect of the sojourn experience. The scale was designed in such a way that the relevancy of the U.S. training program was not directly included in the measure. It was designed to measure the social nature of the participant's U.S. sojourn. Items used for this measure were constructed and tested on the basis of the two pre-tests. In total, there were eight items Which were designed to measure this factor. Of these eight, four did not adequately discriminate between above and below median groups and, therefore, were not used in the final form of the questionnaire. 30 The four remaining items which constituted the scale are as follows: Item 2. I made many close personal friends in the United States. Item 9. I was very satisfied about the amount of time I had available to do some of the things I wanted to do in the United States. Item 17. I did not enjoy the food in the United States. Item 20. I was very lonely during my United States trip. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the four items. Attitudes and Perceptions of Change Activity One of the major assumptions stated in Chapter I was that the par- ticipant's perceptions and attitudes concerning change activity would influence his outlook concerning his ability to introduce change upon return home. However, to consider this general attitudinal area, it was necessary to examine more specific aspects of it in detail. With this in mind, several different measures of attitudes toward change needed to be constructed. Scales were needed for (l) a generalized measure of the participant's attitude toward change, and (2) his attitude toward specific past change activity. By this approach, several hypotheses could be measured directly and wherever possible, Where results might warrant it possible com- binations of these scales then could be utilized in an exploratory analysis of influence of attitudes toward change on the participant's Perceived ability to introduce change. Attitude toward Change In order to measure this variable, two separate scales were deVealoped. A nine-item scale developed and reported by Trumbo (1958) Was used as the basis for measurement of how the participants per- 31 ceived changes occurring in the work situation. Based on pre-test data, three of the original nine items were deleted as they failed to adequately discriminate. The grammatical construction of the remaining items also was altered based on pre-test interviews with participants. One item on Attitude toward work-Related Change was as follows: I would rather stay with a job I know I can handle than to change to one where most things would be new to me. Each subject's score was obtained by summing across the six items. 4 As not to confine the investigation of attitude toward change to only change within the work context, and to provide a measure toward change in general, three items of a four item scale developed by Kossoff (1961) were used. The results of the item analysis indicated, however, that the three items did not positively correlate. Therefore, the measure was dropped. Past Change Activity A number of hypotheses in Chapter I were based on past change activity within the work situation. For purposes of analysis in con- nection with them, three specific areas of the participant's change activity were considered: extent of change activity, satisfaction with the activity, and difficulty with the activity. To assist the participant in his consideration and to allow him to focus on a particular change, the participant was asked to respond to these instructions: Briefly describe what you feel was the most important change which you introduced within your organization during the year before you came to the United States. 2:_ :1 iflne Attitude toward Work-Related Change index contained the following 8 x 1 , tems' Numbers - 8, 13, 19, 22, 25 and 29 No items were deleted as a result of the item analysis. 32 A series of questions followed this which was prefaced by the instructions: Please answer the questions in this section with this change in mind. To obtain an index of the extent of the participant's past change activity, the following item was used: I did very little of this kind of thing in my job. Each participant then was asked to respond to the following item.in order to provide an index for satisfaction with past change activity. It was very satisfying for me to be able to do this kind of thing. A third area considered to be important in studying past change activity was one dealing with the ease or difficulty in bringing about Change ‘within the organization. The following item was used as a measure to index difficulty of past change activity: It has been hard for me to make changes within my or- ganization in the past. {These items were not combined into a single measure for analysis purposes 111 this context. However, they were so designed that they might possibly be: utilized in developing a scale for Participant Attitude toward Past Change if the results of the individual measures so indicated. Consequences of Change by Others Another measure of attitudes concerning past change activity was developed in order to take into account the participant's perception Concerning change as it affects others. Two items were used in this regard; one which was directed toward the participant's perception of the general results and subsequent effects of changes introduced by Others within the organization, and one which was designed to determine Ihii‘ perception of the personal consequences resulting from the intro- 33 duction of change by others. The following two items were used: The results and effects of changes made within my organiza- tion by others in the past have been generally valuable. (general results) People who have introduced changes within my organization in the past have received recognition for their efforts. (personal consequences) Each subject's score was determined by summing across the two items. Expectations of Others about Change Activities To provide a more complete picture regarding past change involving the participant, a scale was developed which attempted to measure the expectations others held toward the participant in regard to his change activities. Three items were designed to index whether or not the par- ticipant felt others expected him to introduce change in his job. The three areas and the items are as follows: Expectations of the organization in general: I was expected to introduce change as part of my job. Expectations in regard to job requirements: My job required me to make many changes. Expectations of the supervisor: My supervisor expected me to introduce change or changes within the organization. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the three items. ilpervisor's Attitude toward Past Chflgg Another measure concerning past change was developed. This measure attempted to index how the participant's supervisor might feel about past change activities within the organization. To do this, the Participant's report of his perception of his supervisor's attitude toward past change was used. To develop this index, four of the past change items cited above were used; difficulty of past change, satis- faCtion with past change, and the two items dealing with change con- 34 sequences resulting from changes made by others. Several modifications in the structuring of the items and the responses were made. The sec- tion in which the items appeared was prefaced by this statement: In this section would you please answer the following four questions in the way that you think your immediate super- visor would answer them. All four items were of the same general construction, i.e., It has been hard for supervisors to make changes in this organization in the past. The responses provided for these items followed this form: My supervisor would strongly agree. My supervisor would agree a little. My supervisor would neither agree nor disagree. My supervisor would disagree a little My supervisor would strongly disagree Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the four items. By utilizing these four items in the context of both the parti- cipant and the supervisor, it was possible to determine a discrepancy measure between the sets of items. Each subject's score was arrived at by subtracting the sum of the Supervisor's Attitude toward Past Change index from the sum of the Participant's Attitude toward Past Change index. Thus, it is possible to view a participant's perception of his ability to introduce change based on positive and negative atti- tudes toward change of both superior and subordinate as well as taking into account conflict or agreement. Attitudes toward Supervision Despite attitudes toward change and the desirability of intro- dUC-ing it, there still remains some concern about the participant's expectations of the probability of introducingshangeny A major -_...__ S lhe Supervisory Attitude toward Past Change index contained the following items: Numbers 63, 64, 65, and 66. No items were deleted as a result of the item analysis. 35 element of consideration in regard to how the participant feels about his ability to introduce change then must be the general area of supervision. The participant's perception of the supervisory climate in which he will work is an important concern in attempting to understand his perceived ability to introduce change. In order to attempt to examine this area, three separate measures were included in the analysis of perceived supervisory practices: Super- visory Consideration, Supervisory Initiation of Structure, and Supervisory Interaction Style. §upervisor Consideration To measure the participant's perception of his supervisor's be- havior, an abbreviated form of the Fleishman Supervisory Description figglg was used. Fleishman (1953) developed a 48 item scale which iden- tified two basic factors regarding the description of supervisory behavior, one of which is "consideration." Consideration is defined as: Indicative of friendship, mutual respect, a certain warmth between the supervisor and his men, and a con- cern for their feelings." (Harris and Fleishman, 1955, p. 21) The measuring instrument was constructed on the basis of a factor an- alYtic study by Fleishman (1953). On this basis, eight items were chosen for iruzlnasion in the questionnaire. However, pre-test data indicated that two of the items did not adequately discriminate; consequently, they were Tthi included in the final questionnaire. AUn.:introduction to the section containing the items on supervisory c0HSidelz'ation was as follows: 36 This next section contains a number of questions about your supervisor or superior or "boss." Please answer them in relation to the man to whom you were directly responsible--that is, the person who would be con- sidered your immediate superior. Representative of the items following this statement and constructed to measure Supervisory Consideration is the following: He was friendly and could be easily approached. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the six items.6 Supervisory Initiation of Structure A second measure of supervisory behavior was also adapted from Fleishman (1953). This measure was based on the factor of Initiation of Structure described by Harris and Fleishman in this manner: The extent to which the supervision defines and facilitates group interaction toward goal attainment through its actions of planning, communication, scheduling, criticizing, and trying out new ideas." (1955, p. 21) The measuring instrument was constructed on the basis of a factor analytic study of Fleishman (1953). Of the eight items chosen for in- elusion in the questionnaire, pre—test data indicated that two of the items did not adequately discriminate; consequently, they were not in- eluded in the final form of the questionnaire. These items were system- atical 1y varied with the supervisory consideration items in the section which was preceded by the statement mentioned in the section on Super- Visory Consideration. Representative of the Initiation of Structure items is : The flipervisory Consideration index contained the following six items: Numbers 51, 54, 57, 58, 60, 62 No items were deleted as a result of the item analysis. 37 He insisted that people under him follow standard ways of doing things in every detail. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the six items. Supervisory Interaction Style A two item scale was adapted from the Nelson Leadership Inventory (1949) to provide an index of Supervisory Interation Style. This was designed to determine the style by which the supervisor exercises his leadership with his subordinates. The two items are: My supervisor seemed to depend most on his knowledge of organizational policies and his technical knowledge. My supervisor tried to get the work out by carefully directing and disciplining those under him. Each sub ect's score was arrived at by summin across the two items. 8 Supervisoryj’hilosophy Although it is obviously important to have the participant describe his supervisor's behavior, it is also important to try to understand how the participantfeels about supervisory behavior. By asking for his opinion as to what constitutes ideal supervisory behavior, it is possible to con- sider' not only descriptive supervisory behavior but normative as well. BY utilizing both types of measures, it provides opportunities to explore, not only the relationship between described and ideal supervisory behavior and Change Agent Efficacy, but the discrepancies between described and ideal behavior and their relationships to Change Agent Efficacy. —‘ The gipervi-sory InitiatiOn of Structure index contained the following Six items: Numbers 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, and 61. No items were deleted as a result of the item analysis. The Supervisory Interaction Style index contained the following two items: Numbers 46 and 48 I tern numbers 45 and 47 were deleted as a result of the item analysis. 38 The same set of 12 items mentioned in the sections on Supervisory Consideration and Initiation of Structure was used in order to construct a measure for the participant's own supervisory philosophy or for his description of "ideal" supervisory behavior. This section was prefaced by the following statement: Please think about the following questions when you state your agreement or disagreement with the state- ments listed below: How should a supervisor act? or How would an ideal supervisor act? Although the items were of the same general construction, a basic change was made consisting of a substitution of the words "an ideal supervisor" for the subject in each sentence. Also each item was changed from a des- criptive statement to a normative statement: Supervisory Consideration statement He makes those under him feel at ease when talking to him. Supervisory Philosophy statement An ideal supervisor should make those under him feel at ease when talking with him. Supervisory Initiation of Structure statement He insisted that he be informed on decisions made by people under him. Supervisory Philosophy statement An ideal supervisor should insist that he be informed on decisions made by people under him. EaCh subject's score for the two Supervisory Philosophy measures was ar- rived at by summing across the appropriate six items.9 With measures The fizpervisory PhilosothConsideration index contained the following six items: Numbers 89, 90, 93, 94, 97, and 98 No items were deleted as a result of item analysis. f The flipervisory Philosophy-Initiation of Structure index contained the °11°wing items: Numbers 88, 91, 92, 95, 96, and 99. No items were deleted as a result of item analysis. 39 being taken for both observed behavior of supervision and ideal supervisory behavior, it is possible to determine discrepancies or disagreements be- tween observed and desired behavior. Operationally the discrepancy measures were determined by subtracting the sums of the supervisory philosophy in- dices from the corresponding supervisory behavior indices. The possible range of discrepancy scores was from 0 to 48 due to the fact of adding a constant of 24 to each summated score. Influence of Physical Factors One aspect which appears crucial in considering relative optimism participants express concerning change activity is that dealing with adequate resources. Apart from any other consideration about the probability of change, there must be some concern about the physical necessities required for change to take place. Factors such as the amount of money needed for the change, availability of equipment, manpower, and time are all impor- tant, not only for the actual change activity itself, but for the par- ticipant's attitude about the change. There are two considerations to be made concerning the physical factors; influence of these factors in the past on change activity, and their possible influence in the future. To measure both of these vari- ables, the same set of four items was used. To measure the influence of physical factors in the past, the four items followed this general introduction: Briefly describe what you feel was the most important change which you introduced within your organization during the year before you came to the United States. Please answer the questions in this section with this change in mind. 40 This was followed by this statement: There are a number of things which have made it difficult for people to introduce change within their organization. How did the following things affect the introduction of your particular change? The following is representative of the items used: It was very difficult to obtain the materials, equipment and tools needed to bring this change about. To measure the influence of physical factors in the future, the same general format was used except that the statements and items were changed to future tense. An example of the items used is: It will be very difficult to obtain the materials, equipment and tools needed to bring this change about. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across each set of the four items.10 A discrepancy measure also was arrived at by subtracting the sum of the Physical Factors-Future from the sum of the Physical Factors- Past. Target of Changg Another attitude which was felt to be important was whether the participant felt a greater interest in change which involved people directly or in change which was of a more technical nature. The measure for this index was four items developed from a pre-test group of eight. Basically, the items presented the participant with an "either..or" situ- ation, and forced a choice between social change and technical change as targets. One item in this index was: 10 The Physical Factors-Past index contained the following four items: Numbers 32, 33, 34, 36. Item number 35 was deleted as a result of the item analysis. The Physical Factors-Future index contained the following four items: NUmbers 67, 68, 69, and 71. Item number 70 was deleted as a result of the item analysis. 41 I feel thatttechnical change is more important than social change. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the four items.11 Another measure related to target of change is the extent or degree to which participants were involved with the two general target areas; people or social change and physical or technical change. Two scales were developed: one containing two items which attempted to measure the amount of activity in which the participant was involved with people. The second measure was made up of three items dealing primarily with physical or technical systems or operations. All five items were prefaced by the following statement: Listed below are different kinds of change activities. Indicate to what extent you will be personally involved with these kinds of activities upon return home. The five statements all followed the same basic structure: I will be changing.the attitudes of people. I will be changing equipment or introducing new equipment. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing over the two items and the three items respectively. Training Relevancy The items for this variable were designed to attempt to determine, in part, whether the purpose of the U.S. trip had been fulfilled. In effect, was the training useful or applicable in terms of what the par- ticipant saw as his future occupational aspirations and requirements? This scale was intended to measure satisfaction with the relevancy of the material and education provided for the participant in the United States. 11 The Target of Change index contained the following four items: Numbers 1, 7, 12 and 27 Item number 15 was deleted as a result of the item analysis. 42 A five item Training Relevancy scale was constructed on the basis of the pre-test data, from an initial group of eight items. The pre-test data indicated that three of the items failed to discriminate adequately; therefore, they were not included in the questionnaire in its final form. An example of an item from this measure is: My training program'has been very important in preparing me for the job I am returning to. Each subject's score was arrived at by summing across the five items.12 Authority Level As suggested in Chapter I, the organization, and the ramification of the change within the organization, must be of considerable concern. As all the participants are returning to an organization in their home country, some consideration should be given to describing the position to which they will return in terms of authority. The measure constructed to accomplish this was made up of two items. The items differed in certain respects. The major difference was that one attempted to establish the level of authority at which the participant's position fell, and the other attempted to determine the number of people supervised, or the number of people over whom the participant had authority. 12 The TrainingiRelevancy index contained the following five items: Numbers 6, 9, 18, 23, and 26 No items were deleted as a result of the item analysis. 43 For the first item the participants were given the following in- structions: At the right is a chart which represents levels of an or- ganization. Assume that this represents your organization. Please do the following: Place an "X" on the level of the chart which best I I indicates your position I ~ - 1 in the organization upon your return home. I The second item was as follows: How many people will you supervise? or, How many people will be accountable to you? The responses provided were the following: None 1 to 5 people 6 wo 25 people 26 to 50 people Mere than 50 people Each subject's score was arrived at by sunning across the two items.13 F ‘The Authority Level index contained the following two items: Numbers 84 and 86. Item numbers 85 and 87 were deleted from this index as a result of the item analysis. 44 Singigiltem Scales In addition to the multiple-item scales mentioned above, there were five single item scales used: Expected Change of Supervisor, Length of Work Experience under Supervisor, Supervisory Agreement about Training Relevancy, Expected Position Change, and Satisfaction concerning Position Change.14 Demographic Information The following items were used as a means of acquiring background information about the participants, as well as for possible use in ex- ploring relationships in combination with other variables.15 Name of Country Months in United States Weeks remaining in the United States Age Sex Education Highest Degree Organization Position within Organization Experience in field of work Time in other foreign countries Number of countries visited 14 For the items used, See Appendix A. The respective item.numbers are 44, 43, 50, 30 and 31. 15 For the items used, See Appendix A. Items 1 through 13, Section 9, Of the questionnaire. CHAPTER III RESULTS Description of the Sample In total, data was collected on 381 participants. However, twenty completed questionnaires could not be used in this study because of in- complete data on the dependent variables. An additional twenty-eight questionnaires were not used because they were completed by students without previous work experience. Because the nature of this study places heavy emphasis on past work experience, it was felt that this group did not lend itself to analysis purposes. Of the remaining com- pleted questionnaires, sixteen participants failed to complete the sec- dons dealing with past change experience. The reason given for this was that they had experienced no past changes within their organizational activity. In reviewing frequency distributions of response, means and standards deviations for this group and for the balance of the group which had completed the entire questionnaire, no significant differences were found in regard to the completed sections. Elimination of this group of questionnaires resulted in an N of 317 for use in analysis. Characteristics of the Sample A summary of the characteristics of the sample indicates that the participants represent 52 different countries which, as defined by the United States Department of State, are considered to be underdeveloped economically. The largest single representation is that of Indonesia, Which constitutes 14.4 percent of the sample. Fifteen of the countries, 45 46 on the other hand, are represented by a single participant. (See Appendix D for a complete list of participants by country.) By far, the majority of the participants attending the Seminars are male. This is also the case among those completing the questionnaire. Only thirty-six of the respondents are female, or slightly over 11 per- cent of the sample. Although the range in age of participants is from 22 to 53, the median age of the participants is approximately 34 years, with. an interquartile range of about 30 to 39 years In terms of educational background, 75 percent are either univer- sity graduates, or graduates of post-secondary schools other than a university. Table 1 indicates the breakdown of educational background of the participants. TABLE 1. Educational Background of Participants Highest Degree Earned Percent Secondary 10 University (or other Post- Secondary) 75 Post-Graduate 15 The occupational backgrounds of the participants are diverse and varied, representing some twenty-five occupational or governmental work areas. Two occupational areas, however, represent over one-third of the total sample: Education and Agriculture. Twenty-three percent list their job as one which could be classified as being in the general area of education. An additional thirteen percent had jobs which are pri- marily involved with agriculture or related processes. (See Appendix E for a complete listing of participants by position and occupational 47 area.) The median value for years of experience in the participant's field of work is approximately seven years. Table 2 provides a summary of years of work experience. TABLE 2. Work Experience of Participants Years of Experience Percent Less than 2 years 15 3 to 4 years 17 5 to 6 years 16 7 to 8 years 12 9 to 10 years 10 11 to 15 years 16 Over 15 years - l4 The nedian length of the United States sojourn, at the time of at- tendance at the seminar, was approximately 9 months. Although there were participants who indicated that they would be remaining in this country while on their program for a prolonged length of time, most of the par- ticipants were very close to the end of their sojourns at the time they completed the questionnaire. Sixty-seven percent of the group indicated that they had less than three weeks remaining before they returned to their home countries. Tables 3 and 4 summarize time spent in the United States and time remaining on scheduled program. TABLE 3. Sojourn Length at Time of Seminar Attendance anths in United States Percent Less than 3 months 19 4 to 6 months 22 7 to 9 months 17 10 to 12 months 18 13 to 23 months 17 Over 23 months 7 48 TABLE 4. Weeks Remaining in Program Weeks Remaining in United States Percent 1 week 25 2 weeks 31 3 weeks 11 4 to 10 weeks 13 11 to 20 weeks 10 Over 20 weeks 10 In terms of travel experience in countries other than their own, 57 percent of the group indicated that they had spent time visiting other countries prior to this United States sojourn. Over 17 percent had spent at least one year in countries other than their own, prior to this United States sojourn. Hypotheses of the Study The hypotheses in this study were tested primarily by two methods: product-moment correlation and simple analysis of variance. Tests for linearity were made for each hypothesis. Where these tests supported a linear relationship existing between the independent and dependent vari- ables, correlational techniques were used. Where the tests did not support the assumption, the measure of statistical significance used was analysis of variance. The product-moment correlations were based on a sample of 317 sub- jects. With a sample of this size, a correlation coefficient as small as .11 would occur by chance only five in one hundred times, and a co- efficient as small as .15 would occur only once in one hundred times if there actually were no relationship. The analysis of variance measures differed in terms of degrees of 49 freedom and are therefore reported individually. In regard to this, in cases where the order of the means of the various groups is not in the predicted direction, the hypothesis will not be considered confirmed be- cause the predicted linearity did not occur. Nevertheless, when the differences between the means seem substantial, additional analysis will be done to explore whether or not the observed curvilinear relation- ship might be significant. Hypothesis 1 Participants with favorable attitudes toward work-related change should feel better able to introduce a change into their organization than those who do not have a favorable attitude. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .05, which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore, the hypothesis is not Supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of the Subjects' Attitude toward work-Related Change. Al- though no statistical tests were performed, Table 5 indicates the mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. TABLE 5. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants with Different Attitudes toward Work-Related Change (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with unfavorable attitudes toward work-related change ' 20.2 123 Participants with neutral at- titudes toward work-related change 20.4 113 Participants with favorable atti- tudes toward work-related change 21.0 81 * See Appendix F for description and results of the variables correlated. 50 Hypothesis 2 Participants who have favorable attitudes toward change in general should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who do not have favorable attitudes toward change. The hypothesis was not tested. The results of an item analysis in- dicated that three of the four items comprising the scale did not posi- tively correlate, therefore this measure was dropped. ,Hypothesis 3 Participants who perceive their United States training as being relevant and purposeful for their needs should be nore satisfied with their United States trip than those who perceive the training as irrelevant and with little purpose. Three groups of subjects were formed on the basis of total score in regard to Relevancy of United States Training. A simple analysis of variance was performed resulting in an F value of 21.5,* which is sig- nificant at the .001 level. Therefore, the hypothesis is supported. Table 6 contains a summary of the mean United States Trip Satis- faction scores for the three groups classified in terms of Training Relevancy. Table 6. Comparison of the Mean United States Trip Satisfaction for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Training Program,Re1evancy (N = 317) Mean U.S. Trip Group Satisfaction Scores N Participants whose training pro- gram has low relevancy 9.2 85 Participants whose training pro- gram has moderate relevancy 10.4 130 Participants whose program has high relevancy 11.8 102 * With 2 degrees of freedom between and 314 within, an F value as small as 7.31 would occur by chance only 1 time out of 1000. 51 Hypothesis 4 Participants who perceived their United States training as being relevant and purposeful should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than participants who do not perceive their United States training as relevant. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .24, which is significant at the .01 level.* Therefore, the hypothesis is supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of the Subjects' Perception of United States Training Pro- gram.Relevancy. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 7 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. TABLE 7. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants with Different Attitudes Toward United States Training (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel U. 8. training had low relevancy 19.0 85 Participants who feel U. S. training had moderate relevancy 20.5 130 Participants who feel U. S. training had high relevancy 21.7 81 Hypothesis 5 Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change activity in their past roles should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who have not been involved with change activity in the past. Two groups of subjects were formed on the basis of total score in regard to amount of change activity in the past. A simple analysis of ‘ * See Appendix F for description and results of the variables correlated. 52 variance was performed resulting in an F value of 13.1,* which is signifi- cant at the .001 level. Therefore, the hypothesis is supported. Table 8 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for two groups classified in terms of past change activity. TABLE 8. Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficiacy Scores for Participants with Considerable and Little Change Activity in the Past (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants involved in little change activity in past 19.2 94 Participants involved in con- siderable change activity in the past 20.8 223 Hypothesis 6 Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change activity in their past roles and have found it to be an easy task should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who found it to be a difficult task. A simple analysis of variance was performed, resulting in an F value of 1.8,** which is not significant. Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. Table 9 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores T With 1 degree of freedom between and 315 within an F value of 11.38 'would occur by chance only 1 time out of 1000. ‘** With 1 degree of freedom between and 221 within an F value as small as 3.92 would occur by chance only 5 times out of 100. 53 for participants involved in considerable change activity with different attitudes concerning the ease or difficulty involved in the activity. TABLE 9. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants Involved in Considerable Change Activity with Different Attitudes toward Ease or Difficulty of Task (N = 223) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel past change activity was difficult to do 21.0 116 Participants who feel past change activity was moderately easy to do 20.3 34 Participants who feel past change activity was easy to do 21.3 73 ,Hypothesis 7 Participants who have been involved in a great deal of change activity in their past roles and have found it to be satisfying should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who felt it to be unsatisfying. A simple analysis of variance was performed, resulting in an F value of 16.0,* which is significant at the .001 level. Table 10 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy' scores for participants involved in considerable change activity with different attitudes to relative satisfaction derived from engaging in the activity. ;: With 2 degrees of freedom between and 314 within an F value as small file 7.31 would occur by chance only 1 time out of 1000. 54 TABLE 10. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scoresfor Par- ticipants Involved in Considerable Change Activity with Different Attitudes toward Task Satisfaction (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with low satisfaction in regard to change activity 20.6 66 Participants with moderate satis- faction in regard to change activity 19.9 62 Participants with high satisfaction in regard to change activity 22.1 95 Hypothesis 8 Participants who perceive the consequences and effects of past change as being favorable should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who see the implications and effects as unfavorable. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .14, which is significant at the .05 level.* Therefore,the hypothesis is supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of the Subjects' Perception of Consequences and Effects of Past Change. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 11 in- dicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. ¥ *' See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. 55 TABLE 11. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants with Different Attitudes toward the Consequences Resulting from Past Changes (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with unfavorable at- titudes about consequences of past change 19.9 109 Participants with neutral attitudes about consequences of past change 20.5 135 Participants with favorable attitudes about consequences of past change 21.4 73 Hypothesis 9 Participants who feel that physical factors will be ob- stacles in introducing change should feel less able to introduce change into their organizations than those who do not feel that physical factors will be obstacles. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .18, which is significant at the .01 level.* Therefore, the hypotheSis is supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of attitude toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 12 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. * See Appendix F for description and results of the variables correlated. 56 TABLE 12. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes Toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel that physical factors will be a problem in the future 20.1 109 Participants who are undecided as to whether or not physical factors will be a problem in the future 20.1 121 Participants who feel that physical factors will not be a problem in the future. 21.5 87 Hypothesis 10 Participants who feel that physical factors did not make it difficult to introduce change in the past feel better able to introduce change in their organizations than those who felt that physical factors made change difficult. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .09, which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of attitude toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Past. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 13 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. * See Appendix F for description and results of the variables correlated. 57 TABLE 13. Comparison of the Mean Change Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Past (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel that physical factors made change difficult 20.5 94 Participants who are undecided as to whether or not physical factors made change difficult 20.1 105 Participants who feel that physical factors did not make change difficult 20.8 118 Hypothesis 11 Physical factors will be a greater problem for the par- ticipant's future change activity than they were for his change activity in the past. A t-test was performed which resulted in a t value of -2.43,* which is significant at the .01 level. However, the result was signi- ficant in the opposite direction to that hypothesized. Thus, the hypo- thesis suggested is that physical factors will be a lesser problem for for the participant's future change activity than they were for his change activity in the past. TABLE 14. Perception of Relation between Influence of Physical Factors in Future and Influence of Physical Factors in Past in regard to Change Activity (N - 317) Total Difference in Scores on Scales Group (Future-Past) N Influence of Physical Factors will’ ,be greater in Future 328 108 Influence of Physical Factors will be lesser in Future -478 152 Influence of Physical Factors in Future will be no different than in Past 57 * With 316 degrees of freedoma t value as small as -2.43 would occur only 1 time out of 100. 58 Hypothesis 12 Participants who feel that their supervisors structure or determine the requirements of the jobs of subordinates should feel less able to introduce change into their organizations than those who feel that their supervisors do not structure or determine the requirements of their subordinates. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .10, which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. For futher information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of perception of the Initiation of Structure of the Super- visor. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 15 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. TABLE 15. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants under Three Levels of Described Supervisory Initiation of Structure (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with supervisors rated high in initiation of structure 20.4 79 Participants with supervisors rated nedium in initiation of structure 20.2 136 Participants with supervisors rated low in initiation of structure 21.1 102 Hypothesis 13 Participants who feel that their supervisors are con- siderate to subordinates should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who feel that their supervisors are not considerate. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .11, * See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. .59 which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of perception of the Consideration of the Supervisor. Al- though no statistical tests were performed, Table 16 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. TABLE 16. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants under Three Levels of Described Supervisory Consideration (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with supervisors rated low in consideration 19.9 89 Participants with supervisors rated medium in consideration 20.4 119 Participants with supervisors rated high in consideration 21.1 109 Hypothesis l4 Participants who see their change activity as involving only themselves or a few other people should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who see their change activity as involved more people. However, Hypothesis 15 those who hold higher positions in the organizational hierar- chy should feel better able to introduce change than those who hold lower positions, and Hypothesis 16 those who supervise relatively fewer people should feel less able to introduce change than those who supervise more people, and * See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. 60 Hypothesis 17 those who expect to introduce change at or above their positional level in the organizational hierarchy should feel better able to introduce change than those who expect to introduce it above their positional level. The results of an item analysis indicated that of the four items which were to be used in constructing a general scale to test the above hypotheses, two of the items did not correlate positively. Also, the participants expressed considerable difficulty in interpreting and an- swering the items concerned with Hypotheses 14 and 16. Therefore, they were deleted from the scale. The remaining two items deal with position in organizational hierarchy,,and number of people supervised. As a result of this Hypotheses 15, 16, 17, and 18 were not tested directly. However, the two remaining items were combined to provide an Authority Level Supervision measure.* The following hypothesis was then tested. Hypothesis 14 Participants who hold higher positions in combination with supervising few people should feel better able to introduce change into their organizations than those who hold lower positions in combination with supervising many people. A simple analysis of variance was performed, resulting in an F value of 4.5,** which is significant at the .05 level. Table 17 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for participants according to differing degrees of this measure. * The Authority Level Supervision index contained the following items: Numbers 84 and 86. (See Appendix A) ** With 2 degrees of freedom between and 314 within an F value as small as 3.07 would occur by chance only 5 times out of 100. 61 TABLE 17. Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Combinations of Authority Level and Supervision within the Organization (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants low level in organiza- tion, supervising many 20.5 106 Participants middle level in organ- ization, supervising medium group 19.8 116 Participants high level in organ- ization, supervising few 21.4 95 Hypothesis l8 Participants who feel that their supervisors perceive change made within their organizations in the past in a favorable manner should feel better able to introduce change than those who feel their supervisors perceive change in an unfavorable manner. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .22 which is significant at the .01 level.* Therefore, the hypothesis is supported. For further information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of perception of Supervisor's Attitude toward Past Change. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 18 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. * See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. 62 TABLE 18. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Perceptions as to Supervisor's Attitudes toward Past Change (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with supervisors per- ceived as being unfavorable toward past change 19.6 67 Participants with supervisors per- ceived as being neutral toward past change 19.9 124 Participants with supervisors per- ceived as being favorable toward past change 21.6 126 Hypothesis l9 Participants who feel that their supervisors agree with their favorable attitudes toward past change made within their organization should feel better able to introduce change than those who feel that they agree with their supervisor's unfavorable attitudes. A simple analysis of variance was performed, resulting in an F value of 16.9,* which is significant at .001. Therefore,the hypothesis is supported. Table 19 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores between the two sub-groups of participants classified as to per- ceived agreement concerning attitudes toward past change. * With 1 degree of freedom between and 224 within an F value as small as 3.92 would occur by chance only 5 times in 100. 63 TABLE 19. Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Agreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Favorable or Unfavorable Attitudes toward Past Change (N = 177) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel that their supervisors agree with their unfavorable attitudes toward past change 19.0 91 Participants who feel that their supervisors agree with their favorable attitudes toward past change 21.3 86 Hyppthesis 20 Participants who feel that their supervisors agree with their favorable attitudes toward past changes made within the organization should feel better able to introduce change than those who feel that they disagree with their supervisor's attitude. A simple analysis of variance was performed resulting in an F value of less than l,* which is not significant. Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. Table 20 contains a summary of the Mean Change Agent scores between the two sub-groups of participants classified as perceived favorable agree- ment and perceived disagreement. * With 1 degree of freedom between and 224 within an F value as small as 3.92 would occur by chance only 5 times in 100. 64 TABLE 20. Comparison between the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Agreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Favorable Attitudes and for Participants Disagreeing with Perceived Supervisor's Attitudes toward Past Change (N = 226) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who feel that their super- visors agree with their favorable at- titudes toward past change 21.3 86 Participants who feel that their super- visors disagree with their attitudes toward past change 21.0 140 Hypothesis 21 In regard to initiation of structure, participants whose supervisory philosophy appears to agree with that of their supervisor's should feel better able to introduce change than those whose philosophy appears to disagree. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .07, which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore,the hypo- thesis is not supported. For futher information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of levels of Philosophy of Supervisory Initiation of Structure. Although no statistical tests were performed, Table 21 in- dicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. * See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. 65 TABLE 21. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores far Participants with Different Degrees of Agreement Between Described Supervisory Behavior and Their Own Supervisory Behavior Philosophy (N 8 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants whose supervisors provide less initiation of struc- ture than participants feel is ideal 20.3 93 Participants who feel that their supervisors initiation of struc- ture behavior is ideal 20.5 123 Participants whose supervisors provide more initiation of struc- ture than participants feel is ideal 20.6 101 Hypothesis 22 In regard to consideration, those participants whose super- visory philosophy appears to agree with that of their supervisor's should feel better able to introduce change than those whose philosophy appears to disagree. Based on ungrouped data, the correlation coefficient was .02, which is not significantly greater than zero.* Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported. For futher information, the data was classified into three groups on the basis of levels of Philosophy of Supervisory Consideration. Al- though no statistical tests were performed, Table 22 indicates the Mean Change Agent Efficacy scores for the three groups. * See Appendix F for description and results of variables correlated. 66 TABLE 22. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Degrees of Agreement Between Described Supervisory Behavior and Their Own Supervisory Philosophy (N 8 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants whose supervisors provide more consideration than participants feel is ideal 20.4 100 Participants who feel that their supervisor's consideration behavior is ideal 20.4 106 Participants whose supervisors pro- vide less consideration than participants feel is ideal 20.6 111 I'll-I'll}! 1"] CHAPTER IV ADDITIONAL ANALYSES Although the hypotheses suggested in Chapter I were, for the most part, confirmed, they represent only individual relationships. In effect, this results in a situation by which only limited predictions nay be made concerning the type of person who feels able to introduce change upon return to his home country. Although these have value, there is still a need to attempt to identify the kind of participant who might best be described as "optimistic" about his future change activity. Conversely, it is also important to attempt to indicate the type of participant who may be described as being "pessimistic" about future change activity. In order to do this, several relationships between independent variables and the dependent variable Change Agent Efficacy must be ex- amined with certain other variables used as controls. Secondly, a num- ber of relationships confirmed in Chapter III need to be examined fur- ther so that more specific predictive statements may be made concerning them. Finally, an attempt must be made to combine related variables in such a way that a broader measure is developed. There were four general areas in which further analysis under these conditions appeared profitable: l. Dempgraphic Data Analysis - a descriptive examination of possible relationships between background factors and Change Agent Efficacy. 2. Participant's Attitude toward Past Chapgg - Develop- ment of a scale for Participant's Attitude toward 67 68 Past Change combining the measures of Consequences of Past Change, Ease of Change in the past, and Satis- faction with Change activity in the past. This com- bined measure is used in relation with other indepen- dent variables to attempt to further analyze Change Agent Efficacy. 3. Discrepangy between Participants' Attitude toward Past Change and Perception of Supervisor's Attitude toward Past Change - Further examination of those hypotheses concerned with perception of attitudes toward change held by participants and supervisors (Hypotheses 19 and 20). 4. Influence of Physical Factors in the Future and Change Agent Efficagy - Utilization of other indepen- dent variables to further examine the hypothesized relationship between these two variables. Demogrgphic Data Analysis With the possible exception of Authority Level, no specific hypotheses were formulated concerning Change Agent Efficacy utilizing any demographic. or background variables. These factors, however, are worthy of consideration for at least two reasons: to provide some predictive ability concerning the type of person who feels most able to introduce change, and for use in combination with attitudinal vari- ables in attempting to develop a more complete description of this type of person. 0f the possible variables which might have been chosen, the following seemed the most important and promising for our purposes: Age, Educational Level, Job Experience, Amount of Time Spent in the United States, Occupational Background of the Participants, and Geo- graphic Origin of the Participants. Tables 23 and 24 are illustrative of the analyses performed concerning Age, Education, Years of Experience and Time in the United States* * Tables representing the analyses performed concerning Education and Experience are reported in Appendix G. 69 TABLE 23. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants Differentiated as to Time in the United States. Time in the Mean Change Agent United States Efficacy Scores N Six months or less 21.3 129 Seven months to one year 20.3 111 Over one year 19.4 77 F ratio F = 6.1 P = .01 TABLE 24. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Age Mean Change Agent AGE Efficacy Scores N 22 to 29 years 19.6 78 30 to 40 years 20.6 174 Over 40 years 21.3 65 F ratio F = 3.1 P = .05 Of these four investigations, only two cases resulted in signifi- cant findings: Age and Time in the United States. It appears that older participants feel that they have more ability to introduce change than do younger ones and that those participants who report having been in the United States the longest period of time report the lgggfi ability to introduce change upon return to their home country. A slightly different treatment was given to Occupational and Geographic Background of the participants. Tables 25 and 26 provide a summary of the analyses of these two factors. 70 TABLE 25. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Geographic Area Geographic Mean Change Agent Area Efficacy Scores N Central Asia 22.2 49 South & Central America 20.5 67 Africa 20.4 32 Middle East 20.2 55 Indonesia 20.0 47 Southeast Asia 19.8 49 Others 19.6 18 F ratio F = 2.0 P = N.S. It can be seen from the above table that the differences in Change Agent Efficacy for these groups were not great enough to reach significance. A different picture results, however, when we consider Occupational backgrounds. TABLE 26. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Occupational Backgrounds Occupational Mean Change Agent Areas Efficacy Scores N Manufacturing 22.2 25 Communication/Transportation 21.9 32 Natural Resources 21.3 27 Agriculture 21.0 44 Public Health/Medical 20.7 26 Community Development 20.1 15 Government Services 20.1 41 Education 19.7 74 MHlitary/Police 19.3 32 F ratio F = 5.8 P = .001 71 Table 26 suggests that people with different occupational back- grounds report different attitudes toward their ability to introduce change. With this significant finding, however, further examination seemed justified. One difficulty arises in regard to these findings. It involves attempting to determine whether each group is significantly different from each other or whether the overall results are primarily due to certain groups. To attempt to answer that question, an analysis was performed in order to identify which specific groups differed from the other groups in their perception of their ability to introduce change.* The results of this examination indicated that not all groups were significantly different from each other but rather that only the extreme groups were different. Three groups, Manufacturing, Communi- cation/Transportation and Natural Resources are significantly higher in reported ability to introduce change than almost all the others. At the other extreme, the Military/Police group is significantly lower in reported ability to introduce change. To summarize this section, two variables stand out for possible use in attempting to describe participants with high expectations of change agent ability: Time in the United States and Age of the Par- ticipants. Although Occupational Background appears to have some value for further use, it would certainly be in a limited sense. It would be possible to use the four occupation groups cited above in further analyses, however, it would necessitate reducing the sample size and the generalizability of the future predictions. In view of this, Time in the United States and Age of the Participant are the only two factors which will be seriously considered later in this study. * This analysis is reported in its entirety in Appendix H. 72 Measures related to Attitude toward Change A tentative conclusion may be reached in regard to participants' attitudes toward change activity based on the hypothesesreported in Chapter III. It appears that, in general, those participants who report favorable attitudes toward change activity feel better able to intro- duce change than those who report unfavorable attitudes. Five hypotheses were stated in this area, of which three were supported. They related to: . Attitude toward Work-Related Change (not supported) Amount of Change Activity in the Past (supported) Ease of Change in Past (not supported) Satisfaction with Change in the Past (supported) Perception of Consequences Resulting from Change (supported) UIJ-‘wNI—t Despite the general support, it is difficult to make many broad statements from these results without considering the nature and possible relationships between them. From an examination of the nature of vari- ables under consideration, it appeared that one possible differentiation between them was whether they were more closely related to either (a) philosophy of change activity or (b) attitudes concerning specific past change activity. Using this approach, only one hypothesis was specifi- cally concerned with (a) philosophy of change activity. The relation- ship between Attitude toward WOrk-Related Change and Change Agent Ef- ficacy is primarily concerned with the participant's generalized view of change. On the other hand, the remaining four hypotheses were pri— marily directed toward consideration of the relationships between par- ticipant attitudes about specific change activity in the past and the participant's belief in his ability to introduce change. Further consideration of the remaining variables indicated that Amount of Change Activity in the Past appeared to be of a different .7'3 nature than those concerning Ease of Change, Satisfaction with Change and Perceived Consequences of Change. Although the question of how much change activity in the past is judgmental, it may be related more closely to physical measurement than can the others. In another re-w spect.itdiffers in terms of value judgment. In the case of amount of past change activity, no request was made of the participant to in- dicate his feeling concerning the amount of activity in which he was engaged. In view of these considerations, it seemed that the three vari- ables: Ease of Change, Satisfaction with Change, and Perceived Conse- quences of Change, could be logically combined as Participant's Attitude toward Past Change.* A major question, however, is now presented: Is there a relation- ship between this combined variable and Change Agent Efficacy? Do those participants who report favorable attitudes toward past change also report greater ability to introduce change? Based on the experi- ence resulting from the investigations dealing with the three separate variables making up this measure, it was expected that the answer would be yes. From an examination of Table 27 it may be concluded that there are significant differences in reported change agent ability among * The intercorrelations are mixed concerning these three predictor variables, in regard to significant relationships. They are as follows: Correlation Coefficient East of Change and Satisfaction with Change .18 Satisfaction with Change and Perceived Consequences of Change .07 Ease of Change and Perceived Consequences of Change .02 74 groups classified in terms of how they view past change activity. This suggests a relationship between the two variables. TABLE 27. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Par- ticipants with Different Attitudes toward Past Change Activity Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants with unfavorable attitudes toward past change 19.5 84 Participants with neutral at- titudes toward past change 20.0 121 Participants with favorable attitudes toward past change 21.8 112 F ratio F = 9.1 P = .001 Given the significant results indicated in Table 27, it now seems appropriate to investigate the relationship between Attitude toward Past Change and Change Agent Efficacy under more controlled conditions. One logical area in which investigation should be continued is in regard to the amount of change activity engaged in by the partici- pant in the past. A possible consideration is that those participants reporting favorable attitudes toward past change activity and high perceived ability to introduce change might be concentrated among those participants who had been involved in a great deal of change activity in the past. In order to determine whether or not the general hypothesis needed qualification, an analysis was done dividing the par- ticipants into two groups based on past change activity. Table 28 provides the results of this analysis. 75 TABLE 28. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Three Different Attitudes Toward Past Change Differen- tiated by Amount of Change ‘ L i ‘ ‘ '3 - . . - ~I‘aitbic'ipant. At’ti'tfids. {@554 .PaSt Chess? . . --- . . . m. -— Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Past Change Activity Cell Means Little Activity 18.4 19.7 20.2 Very Much Activity 20.6 20.1 22.0 Cell N's Little Activity 37 41 16 Very Much Activity 47 8O 96 F ration E;- P Attitude Toward Past Change 5.2 .01 Amount of Change 12.3 .001 Interaction 1.7 N.S. The relationship between Attitude toward Past Change Activity and Change Agent Efficacy remains even when the participants are grouped according to whether or not they have been involved in much change activity in the past. Although the relationship between Attitude toward Past Change and the participant's perception of his ability to introduce change might be influenced by a number of factors, one seemed particularly important. The supervisor's perceived attitude toward past change certainly must be taken into account in any consideration about the participant's attitude toward past change. A possible consideration might be, is the relationship be- tween favorable attitude toward past change activity and reported ability to introduce change a function of the participant's perception of his supervisor's attitude toward past change? A second consideration in regard to this overall relationship is whether or not the participant felt his supervisor would agree with him 76 concerning past change. In other words, is the participant who reports high ability to introduce change the one who feels that his point of View regarding change is also a reflection of his supervisor's point of view? Two factors were used as controls in this circumstance: (l) per- ceived attitude of the supervisor (Table 29), and (2) a discrepancy measure between how the participant feels and how he thinks his super- visor feels (Table 30). TABLE 29. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Partici- pants with Three Different Attitudes toward Past Change Differentiated by Perceived Supervisory Attitude toward Past Change (N=317) Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Perceived Supervisory Attitude Cell Means Unfavorable 19.1 19.0 21.1 Neutral 19.4 19.4 21.3 Favorable 20.5 21.5 22.2 Cell N's Unfaborable 25 28 13 Neutral 36 56 34 Favorable 23 37 65 F ratio .1. _P Attitude toward Past Change 5.3 .01 Perceived Attitude of Supervisor 4.1 .05 Interaction less than 1 N.S. 77 TABLE 30. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Three Different Attitudes toward Past Change Differentiated by Discrepancy Between Perceived Supervisor At- titude and Participant Attitude toward Past Change (N = 317) Participant Attitude Toward Past Change Unfavorable Neutral Favorable Discrepancy Cell Means Disagreement - Participant more favorable 20.0 19.1 21.6 Agreement 18.3 19.7 21.5 Disagreement - Participant less favorable 20.0 21.2 23.2 Cell N's Disagreement- Participant more favorable 2 31 55 Agreement 19 57 43 Disagreement- Participant less favorable 63 33 14 F ratio ...F... L Participant Attitude toward Past Change 4.7 .05 Discrepancy 1.7 N.S. Interaction less than 1 N.S. In both these cases, the differences between groups based on at— titudes toward past change were significant. These results suggest that the relationship between attitude toward past change and perceived ability to introduce change remains and is not strictly a function of the per— ceived attitudes of the supervisors. There are, however, some further considerations and relationships which should be examined. The results stated thus far do not clearly consider the various relationships between participant-supervisor agree- ment and perceived attitude of the supervisor. 78 Perceived Agreement with Supervisor Favorable attitudes toward past change suggest perception of ability to introduce change. Generally speaking, participant-supervisor agreement also suggests perception of ability to introduce change. How- ever, further qualifications appear necessary. First, the Discrepancy measure (Table 30) does not reveal speci- fically'wha't particular combinations of agreement and attitude might pre- dict high Change Agent Efficacy. Secondly, questions were raised in Chapter III when consideration was given to what the participant felt his supervisor's attitude was concerning past change. It was expected that if a participant's at- titude toward past change was favorable and if he felt that his super- visor's attitude was also favorable, than his perception of his ability to introduce change would be higher than if the situation was one where the participant viewed past change as unfavorable and perceived agree- ment with his supervisor's views. However, the group which perceived that their supervisor would tend to agree with their favorable attitude toward past change did not feel better able to introduce change than the group which indicated disagreement with their supervisors. The results of these two hypotheses suggested that cumulation of participants on the basis of perceived agreement with their supervisors would not.be warranted and that a further breakdown should be cons idered. Therefore, two factors demanded consideration: Attitude of the Partici- pant and Perception of Agreement with Supervisor. On the basis of the results obtained in this area, it would appear that different combin- ations of these two variables might suggest different levels of optimism 79 among the groups. To investigate this further, the following structur- ing of groups was determined. TABLE 31. Subgroups of Participants by (1) Perceived Agreement with Supervisor, and (2) Attitude toward Past Change Perceived_Agreement Perceived Disggreement Group 1 Group 2 Participant's Attitude toward Past Change Favorable la 2a Unfavorable 1b 2b Now it is possible not only to compare agreement and disagreement as well as favorable attitudes and unfavorable attitudes, but also favor- able agreement, favorable disagreement, unfavorable agreement and un- favorable disagreement. In the earlier investigations, no specific comparison was made between those participants who felt that they agreed with their super- visor's attitude toward past change (Group 1) and those who felt that they disagreed (Group 2). Therefore, this analysis was done and re- ported in Table 32. Thus, it can be seen that although the difference between the two groups does not indicate satistical significance, it does approach it. 80 TABLE 32. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores between Participants who Perceive Agreement or Disagreement with Supervisor's Attitudes toward Past Change (N = 317) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who perceived agree- ment with attitude of Supervisor (Group 1) 20.0 177 Participants who perceive disagree- ment with attitudes of Supervisor (Group 2) 21.0 140 F ratio Observed F F = .05 P 3.6 309 N03. As one part of the agreement group (Group la — those holding favorable attitudes) has already been compared to the disagreement group (Group 2), the next logical comparison would be between those partici- pants who held unfavorable attitudes toward change among the agreement group (Group 1b) compared to the disagreement group (Group 2). The results indicate that a significant different occurs between these groups.* The comparison indicates that those who disagree feel more able to introduce change than those who feel that they agree with their supervisor's unfavorable attitudes. The mean Change Agent Efficacy scores are 21.0 and 19.0 respectively. This is somewhat under- standable when we consider that disagreement indicates that either the supervisor's attitude is perceived as favorable. In the unfavorable agreement group, neither is favorable. It would appear that in terms of expected ability to introduce change, perceived agreement with the supervisor is not as important as a favorable attitude toward past change held by one or the other. * The results of these analyses are reported in their entirety in Appendix I. 81 Now another question is raised: Is there a difference.‘ in Change Agent Efficacy between the different directions of disagreement? In other words, among the disagreement group, do participants who are more favorable toward past change than their supervisors (Group 2) report greater ability to introduce change than those who report less favor- able attitudes than their supervisor's (Group 2a)? The results* in- dicate that there is a slight difference, but not significant. Those participants who feel that they are less favorable have a mean Change Agent Efficacy of 21.2 in comparison to 20.8 for the group that feels more favorable. It appears that From these analyses, several findings emerge. one group of participants differs from the others significantly in this area. The major conclusion reached is that those people who hold unfavorable attitudes toward past change and who perceive their super- visor as holding unfavorable attitudes as well feel less able to introduce change than any of the following groups: Perception of Supervisor's Attitude Part icipant ' s Att itude Favorable Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Favorable Unfavorable Tentatively it might be stated that Favorable Agreement is slightly better, in terms of Change Agent Efficacy, than is Disagree- ment. Although Disagrement is better than Unfavorable Agreement, it does not make any difference whether the participant has Favorable or Unfavorable Attitudes toward Past Change in this relationship. From this series of analyses, it is apparent that different results in terms of reported ability to introduce change occur under different combination of variables of Attitude and Agreement. * The results of this analysis are reported in their entirety in Appendix I. 82 Physical Factors in the Future Another area which appeared to be of general interest, but in which further examination seemed necessary was Influence of Physical Factors in the Future. There were three hypotheses developed in regard to the general area of Physical Factors, two of which were directly related to Change Agent Efficacy. In general, the results were: 1. Participants who felt physical factors in the future would not be a problem reported greater ability to introduce change . 2. There was no significant difference in ability to introduce change between participants who felt phys- ical factors had been a problem in the past and those who felt that they had not been. 3. Participants felt that physical factors in the future would be less of a problem in the future than in the past. A general interpretation of these results might very well be a statement of the following nature. Although physical factors appear to have been more of a problem in the past than they will be in the future, those who feel that they will be a problem in the future will report significantly less ability to introduce change than those who feel that they will not be a problem. This difference did not occur in regard to the Influence of Physical Factors in the Past. On the basis of these mixed findings, it appears worthwhile to examine the significant relationships between Influence of Physical Factors in :he Future and perceived ability to introduce change. One concern in this area, obviously, is the effect of the par- ;icipant 's attitude toward past events. To what degree do these Lttitudes influence the relationship betwaen his perception of physical Factors in the future and his ability to introduce change? It would 83 be important in attempting to answer this question to measure this re- lationship while taking into account the different attitudes partici- pants have concerning (a) the influence of physical factors in the past, and (b) the different attitudes they hold toward change in the past. Table 33 indicates the result of the examination of the relationship between Influence of Physical F'actors in the Future and Change Agent Efficacy when the participants are divided into three groups on the basis of their attitudes toward Physical Factors in the Past. From an examination of this table, it appears that the general relationship holds even with the use of the control factor of Physical Factors in the Past. TABLE 33. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Attitude toward Influence of Physical.Factors in the Past (N - 317) Influence of Physical Factors in Future Will be a , Will not be Influence of Physical Problem Undecided a Problem Factors in the Past Cell Means Were a problem 20.3 20.4 22.2 Undecided 19.7 19.9 20.9 Were not a problem 20.2 20.1 21.8 Cell N's Were a problem 57 28 9 Undecided 31 45 29 Were not a problem 21 48 49 F ratio F P Influence of Physical Factors in Future 3.9 .05 Influence of Physical Factors in Past 1.0 N.S. Interaction less than 1 N.S. 84 The significant relationship between Influence of Physical Factors in the Future and perceived ability to introduce change is not retained when the Participant's Attitude toward Past Change is introduced into the analysis. This is indicated in Table 34. TABLE 34. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Participant's Attitude toward Past Change (N = 317) Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Will be a Will not be Problem Undecided a Problem Attitude Toward Cell Means Past Change Unfavorable 19.4 19.3 20.7 Neutral 20.1 19.7 19.9 Favorable 21.1 21.1 23.2 Cell N's Unfavorable 39 29 16 Neutral 41 49 32 Favorable 29 43 32 F ratio _F_‘_ _P_ Influence of Physical Factors in Future 2.6 N.S. Attitude Toward Past Change 7.7 .001 Interaction less than 1 N.S. From an examination of this table it appears that whereas the relation- ship between Physical Factors in the Future and Change Agent Efficacy holds in general in the Unfavorable and Favorable Attitudes group, it does not in the Neutral Attitude group. One group, in particular, draws attention. This is the combination of Favorable Attitude toward Past Change and Physical Factors perceived as not being a problem. In this case, the Mean Change Agent Efficacy score of 23.2 is considerably 85 higher than any of the other cells. This provides some indication that a combination of these variables may be quite effective in predicting participant optimism concerning the introduction of change. From the earlier results obtained in Chapter III, it appears that, in general, physical factors will not be such a great problem.as they were in the past. Taking this into account and considering it in terms of perceived Influence of Physical Factors in the Future, leads to the conclusion that utilizing sojourn factors as controls may provide additional insight concerning this overallrelationship. Two factors suggest themselves as possible controls in this area: Amount of Time in the United States and Training Relevancy. Tables 35 and 36 provide the results of this analyses. TABLE 35. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Amount of Time in United States on Current Training Program (N = 317) Influence of Physical Factors in Future Will be a Will not be Time in U.S. Problem Undecided a Problem Cell Means Six months or less 20.4 19.0 23.5 Seven months to 1 year 19.8 20.5 20.4 Over 1 year 20.1 19.5 18.8 Cell N's Six months or less 41 49 40 Seven months to 1 year 33 48 30 Over 1 year 35 24 17 F ratio F I;_ Influence of Physical Factors in Future 2.4 N.S. Amount of Time Spent in U.S. 3.4 .05 Interaction 5.0 .001 86 From an examination of this analysis it is evident that the rela- tionship between the Influence of Physical Factors in the Future and Change Agent Efficacy is not retained when time spent in the United States is introduced into the analysis. This finding occurred because the relationship between perceived Influence of Physical Factors in the Future and Change Agent Efficacy is influenced very much by the amount of Time spent in the United States. This is indicated by the significant interaction effect. Participants who have been in the United States for less than one year indicate, in general, a relation- ship between increased perception of ability to introduce change and decreased concern with the Influence of Physical Factors in the Future. The opposite is true with the "over one year" group. Those partici- pants who report that physical factors will be a problem are the ones who report greater ability to introduce change. TABLE 36. Summary of Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Partici- pants with Different Attitudes toward Influence of Physical Factors in the Future Differentiated by Relevancy of U.S. Training (N = 317) Influence of Physical Factors in Future Will be a Will not be Problem Undecided a Problem Training Relevancy :Cell Means Low' 19.3 19.2 17.8 Medium 20.4 19.9 21.2 High 20.7 21.2 23.2 Cell N's Low 34 38 13 Medium 48 ‘ 44 39 High 27 39 35 F ratio F P Influence of Physical Factors in Future less than 1 N.S. Training Relevancy 13.3 .001 Interaction 2.4 87 Dividing the group on the basis of their attitudes toward the rel- evancy of their training brought about similar results. No significant differences occur among groups classified as to attitude toward physical factors in the future under this control situation. However, the group indicating high training relevancy follows the general pattern of the relationship between low Influence of Physical Factors in the Future and high Change Agent Efficacy. This suggests the possibility that the relationship between these two variables is influenced by the differing 'levels of attitude toward Training Relevancy of the U.S. Program. PHysical Factors in the Future -- Summary Four control variables were examined in this area: Attitude to- ward Physical Factors in the Past, Attitude toward Past Change, Time in the United States, and Training Relevancy. With the exception of In- fluence of Physical Factors in the Past, the relationship between Physical Factors in the Future and Change Agent Efficacy was insigni- ficant in the control situations. Although Influence of Physical Factors in the Future appears to be a moderately successful predictor variable, it should be viewed in combination with these control vari- ables so that the differential effects of the control are fully utilized. CHAPTER V GENERAL ANALYSIS AND DESCRIPTION As suggested earlier, the major purpose of this study was to pro- vide at least a generalized description of those participants who might be considered "optimistic" concerning future change activity. An attempt along this line was made in Chapter IV. From the analyses done in that chapter, certain clusters of variables appeared to provide the means of predicting;whether or not a.participant sees himself as being able to introduce change. Now, in turn, it seems reasonable to combine these variables so that statements concerning expected ability to introduce change may be more precise and take into account limiting, but needed, qualifications. This will also provide a framework within.which dif- ferent combinations of variables may be viewed on a comparative basis. Method Eight variables were considered as possible predictors in regard to the Change Agent Efficacy of participants. The basis for the choos- ing of the eight variables was primarily statistical, as all eight were significantly related to the dependent variable Change Agent Efficacy. In addition to this, the first six of these variables listed below ap- pear to be valuable in the considerations examined in the analyses in Chapter IV. The remaining two, Philosophy of Supervisory Consideration and .Authority Level, were added to attempt to take into account organiza- tional or work situation influence. Authority Level also has another 88 89 advantage. It provides, in a qualified way, another background or des- criptive variable in addition to Age and Time in the United States. Correlation Coefficient between the variable and Variables Used F Value* Change égent Efficacy ** 1. United States Training Relevancy .24 2. Influence of Physical Factors in the future .18 3. Perception of Supervisor's Attitude toward Past Change .22 4. Participant's Attitude toward Past Change 9.1 5. Time Spent in the United States 6.1 6. Age .12 Philosophy of Supervisor Consideration .15 8. Authority Level 4.5 Procedure Followed Median total score values were determined for each of the above variables. On the basis of this, participants could be designated as either high or low depending on their score on that variable. Then, in 'view of that, a determination could be made as to whether the score on the variable could be considered as indicating a favorable attitude to- 'ward ability to introduce change or an unfavorable attitude. Based on these considerations, the following breakdown occurred: * With two degrees of freedom between and 314 within, an F as small as 3.04 would occur by chance only 5 in 100 times. ** For an N of 317, a correlation coefficient as small as .11 would occur by chance only 5 in 100 times. 90 TABLE 37. Favorable and Unfavorable Attitude Groups for Eight Predictor Variables Number in Number in Variable Favorable Group Unfavorable Group 1. U.S. Training Relevancy 162 155 2. Influence of Physical Factors in the Future 162 155 3. Perception of Supervisor's Attitude toward Past Change 162 155 4. Participant's Attitude toward Past Change 154 163 . Time Spent in United States 161 156 6. Age 140 177 7. Philosophy of Supervisor Consideration 175 142 8. Authority Level 157 160 To analyze the data, two groups were formed on the basis of Train- ing Relevancy: Favorable and Unfavorable Training Relevancy. After this, these two groups were again subdivided. This was done on the basis of the participant's score on Influence of Physical Factors in the Future. There were four groups after this split: (1) Favorable Training Rele- vancy-Favorable Influence of Physical Factors; (2) Favorable Training Relevancy-Unfavorable Influence of Physical Factors; (3) Unfavorable Training Relevancy-Favorable Influence of Physical Factors; and (4) Unfavorable Training Relevancy-Unfavorable Influence of Physical Fac- tors. This same procedure was followed for the remaining six variables, ‘which.resulted in.a breakdown of the participants into 256 cells after consideration of all eight variables. Each of these cells was made up of participants of a different combination of favorable and unfavorable scores on each of the eight variables. Examples of the cells are: FIGURE 1. Examples of Cell Make-Up Variable Cell 1 Cell 77 Cell 256 Training Relevancy Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Physical Factors Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Perception of Supervisor's Attitude toward Change Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Participant's Attitude toward Change Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Time in the U.S. Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Age Favorable Unfavorable Unfavorable Philosophy of Super- visory Consideration Favorable Favorable Unfavorable Authority Level Favorable Favorable Unfavorable With 317 subjects distributed over 256 cells, it is apparent that most cells are made up of very few or no participants. As it would be fruitless to attempt to examine all the various cells, only certain cells were considered. The basis on which this determination was made was size. On an arbitrary basis, those cells which contained five or more participants after consideration of all eight variables were con- sidered for further study. Figure 2 provides a summary graph of those cells which contained five or more participants. It also indicates how the participants in each of the cells were rated on each of the eight variables (Unfavor- able or Favorable), the number of participants in the cell at a par- ticular variable level, and the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Score for the participants in that cell. As can be noted in Future 2, the eight high frequency cells are ranked in numerical' order on the basis of Change Agent Efficacy Scores. These eight cells account for 13 per- cent of the total sample. However, they account for only 3 percent of the total 256 cells. a... .n 3.! 4. 0.." a g 9}": MM. ”1 in. Hz 302 5" >(l k}: >31 \ Q \ .0" 0 UN bouZ 0e n2 3n! 3‘"! ~35 2E ul: >(u £3 massed 49: an injects .23 «1.1.2: I o. 53: Cum . e w M a... m. M; .~. \ ..L o. t Nan d \N \ «tau 0. ~ Ten ,Mu? vut M H? hm} but 10...? cu? m at soared 26.1 39‘ 5.34 204 20.. 304 204 :9: hut—9.3.3 .N N cog-303260 . o o.0~ .\ .. 4 . n w n \V "2 a» "2 ”"2 m ”2 m\ u hMOMuZOA—sm .423 >(u >wu. >P‘€>P‘U1P‘\Jhip‘U1\l¢>h3h‘h‘0‘h‘\lUDhJU1BDBJP‘O\03€>\I H H 163 164 Country Venezuela Viet Nam West Indies Yugoslavia Zanzibar Unanswered Number of Participants 1 UHVHU‘O‘ APPENDIX E Occupational Areas Represented by Participants Completing Questionnaires Occupation Area Education Agriculture Agriculture-General Forestry Veterinary Service Military or Police Military Police Health or Medical Hospital or Medical Public Health Government Services Clerk Typist Government General Government Accounting Government Judicial Foreign Affairs Treasury of Finance Public Administration Communication and Transportation Air Traffic Railroads Communications Natural Resources Electricity Gas-Oil Mining Water Resources Manufacturing Engineering Manufacturing-General 165 Number of Participants 74 15 ll APPENDIX F Correlation Coefficients for Independent Variables and (1) Change Agent Efficacy, and (2) U.S. Trip Satisfaction Correlations Change Agent U.S. Trip Variable Description Efficacy Satisfaction Target of Change-Activity .04 .00 Training Relevancy .24 .33 Attitude toward Work-Related Change .05 .02 Expectations of Others .20 .06 Consequences of Change .14 .13 Influence of Physical Factors-Past .08 .09 Change Agent Efficacy-Past .33 .20 Supervisory Interaction .04 .09 Supervisory Consideration .ll .14 Supervisory Initiation of Structure .10 .04 Supervisory Attitude toward Past Change .22 .10 Influence of Physical Factors-Future .18 .14 Target of Change-People .21 .03 Target of Change-Things .23 .01 Authority Level .12 .02 Philosophy of Supervisory Initiation of Structure .02 .09 Philosophy of Supervisory Consideration .15 .04 Discrepancy.between Philosophy and Description of Supervisory Consideration .02 .ll Discrepancy between Philosophy and Description of Supervisory Initiation of Structure .07 -.03 Work Experience under Supervisor .04 .03 Satisfaction with Past Change Activity .17 .06 Amount of Change Activity in Past .11 .05 Ease of Change in Past .07 .06 Supervisor Agreement about Training Relevancy .32 .16 Satisfaction with Position Change -.01 .10 Months in United States -.16 .03 Weeks left before Returning Home -.06 -.05 Age .11 .03 Education .03 .05 Experience ~.08 -.07 Time in other Countries -.01 -.07 Number of other Countries Visited -.06 -.05 Participant Attitude toward Past Change .19 .ll Discrepancy-Supervisor and Participant Attitude toward Past Change .01 -.01 166 APPENDIX C Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to (1) Education Level (2) Job Experience 1. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Education Level. Change Agent Education Level Efficacy N High School 19.6 32 Bachelor Degree 20.8 238 Post-Graduate 19.8 47 F ratio F - 2.0 P B N.S. 2. Comparison of the Mean Change Agent Efficacy Scores for Participants Differentiated as to Job Experience Change Agent Years of Experience Efficacy N 0 to 4 years 20.1 103 5 to 10 years 20.4 116 Over 10 years 21.0 98 F ratio F = 1.3 P - N.S. 167 umu< aoHuomooooxwo mono: homowmmm oomw¢,owam£o awesome umoH owomm mamwuanz cocoon m Nanmmm¢ .Hamu 03o Ho>oH mo. um ucmoamwowam a nu ooHHom\%umuHHflz m. nu coaumooom w. o. u: moou>pom ucoaouo>ou w. a. a. an uaoEmoHo>on zuacoaaoo s¢.H o.a o. o. a: apogee: \suamom oHHoom sm.~ sm.~ a. m. m. .. monufiouauw< «o.~ so.H *N.H sN.H o. m. In moouoomom Honoumz so.~ ¥~.~ kw.H sm.a «~.H m. o. u: soaumuuoomcmue \ooaomoacaaaou sm.~ an.u *H.~ sH.~ sm.H s~.H m. m. -- wcausuummscmz moaaom oceans ooa>uom ucoaooao> ouamom ouauaso mouusomom oowumuuoomcmua wcauouomm \mumu nova acme non how oHHoom nauw< Housuoz \aoaumoHG:EEoo noon: so wwu< node: nouo>oo ucoaaou wuwaso wléflwr, . . ,1.) .Ialltll' Pill APPENDIX I Comparison of Mean Change_égent Efficaey Scores between Participants Who Perceive Agreement with Unfavorable Attitudes and Those Who Perceive Disagreement (N = 231) Mean Change Agent Group Efficacy Scores N Participants who agree with per- ceived unfavorable attitudes of Supervisor (Group lb) 19.0 91 Participants who perceive dis- agreement with attitudes of Supervisor (Group 2) 21.0 140 F ratio F a 13.1 P = .001 Comparison of Mean Change_egent Scores between Participants Who Perceived Disagreement with Supervisor's Attitude Classified as to Participant's Attitude toward Past Change (N = 140) Mean Change Agent Nature of Disagreement Efficacy Scores N Participants less favorable than supervisor (Group 2a) 21.2 79 PartiCipants more favorable than supervisor (Group 2b) 20.8 61 F ratio F = Less than 1 P = N.S. 169 "liiiiifli'iil‘i‘iiii