MSU

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

LJBRARJES your record. FINES w111
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped be1ow.

“27.x.
L4.“

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATIONS
IN PREPARATION FOR CHANGE IN AN
INSURANCE COMPANY

by John E. Nangle

This investigation was designed to explore in a setting of change
the effects of intraorganizational communications and reSponse to these
communications upon both immediate and subsequent attitudes toward
change.

The research site was a medium-sized insurance company in the mid-
west with approximately #00 full-time employees. The company maintained
a large branch office in addition to the home office. In December, 1957
an IBM 650 electronic computer was installed. This installation was
destined to initially affect home office personnel the most, particu-
larly in the IBM key-punching, accounting, office-systems, and internal
auditing departments. The computer was utilized to check agents' comp-
utations and to process policies written in the home office.

An attitude questionaire was administered to the employees of
this company on two successive occasions. The first survey was con-
em‘ber, 1957 and the postest survey was carried out in

ducted in Nov

May 1958 A total of 283 employees reSponded in the pretest, and
, O

“a n a . ‘.r~
. Igfe-WUVPR ‘F p
s, .nvu-vuuv-n a... .5
l A

u r I 9

.... Qua“ CA.” can ‘

”in :nv-o 'auv. 0‘ 5-4 4
.

‘ I
0.6 .. .P j p

‘4‘. v. 5“-

‘.'..“'-:
......._,.
. A ‘
w- a. ‘3 "D v-
a.-a. g w.“ w.

us...
.

 

 

.v vi ‘ L‘J“

3.” . .
u- a :8. :55 “a V ‘
U. *V 5:94
C..
k:

hViv... : V. L V

“ U
"-.'I in...“ ‘
n.“v A A”
-"s‘ ‘n‘
alafl‘ er

......." ?a:‘. ‘n

 

 

 

 

John E. Nangle

29S responded in the posttest. The experimental population represented
both supervisory and non-supervisory personnel from both offices. A
total of 21.16 respondents remained after adjustments were made for faulty
returns.

Prior to the computer's introduction, the company carried out an
information program for its employees to familiarize them with impend-
ing changes and with the computer and its capabilities. This information
program consisted of bulletins from the company's president, a series of
five articles in the monthly house organ, and a number of special infor-
mation meetings which involved home office personnel exclusively.

From the content of the company information program, a lmowledge
test (rtt a .73) was constructed which required respondents to indicate
for a series of 16 statements of "factual" information, whether or not
the company had made the statement or had said something Opposite. Total
scores reflected awareness of what the company had actually done. This
independent variable was called the Degree of Informed Awareness.

A companion set of items asked respondents for their own beliefs re-
garding 8 statements of "fact." These same statements had earlier ap-
peared in the knowledge test. By a comparison of awareness of manage-
ment statements with Opinions! on these issues, a measure of belief in
commnications was Obtained (rtt - .611). These measures were assigned
weights to indicate divergence of belief depending upon a perceived know-

ledge of what management was thought to have said. This independent

n v c '5
_;_.;.,: fa- -
acifl
.°‘L‘C'~
g-gob. uoeb
F "
_V 2 w ..3‘ A
5.1 ; -Uv-l H

. ‘.
.:.?.‘.‘. .pA
. .-

—--..._.5 v... u..u-.v .
n . \
-. c;
‘ ': ‘fih pAhA 4: -
~m. “v. . b-5—
U IOMU~ ‘ o
I
In... . g ‘
_ V d-nn
._.;: -- "2:: "
.0 -'~-~l~nvu\— .
g .
. l
a . ‘ :- ~V~~«~o l
4 so».. > ‘-
‘—.o~.¢-.. .
n ‘ ‘
'P-a - ‘
. .. I-I-
--a~-.’ .::‘-‘=: ."
w
‘ vtq~' av

 

1..
\.:I. " a.“
.""‘ Q

to... u _
.-

‘..‘ fn‘
' 5“...
I v» V

‘ ‘5; .Q

g s

2. 5-! ~-
m-‘ "
c CAA“:
' 95". v

‘
a.

l
e \2‘..

.. $
2 we

5 ’2 :‘~°~'
0-»: a.-- '

f.

a a
>12“ Q— .
‘v.. VA.-

Va-.‘

 

 

John E. Nangle

variable was called Belief-Disbelief in Communications.

Difference scores were obtained between pre and posttest measures
on a 9 item scale (rtt - .h2) composed of Likert-type attitude items
measuring the amount of general readiness to accept non-specific change
on the job. These difference scores formed the dependent variable,
Change in Readiness for Change.

A 3 item index (rtt = .72) was used to measure the second dependent
variable, response to change introduced by the computer. The total
score, based on cumulated Likert type item scores, was taken as an
indication of the Affective Response to the Computer.

Four basic hypotheses were tested, each predicting a positive re-
lationship between the two independent variables and each of the change
or dependent variables.

The investigation was conducted within a naturalistic setting where
experimental control of all relevant secondary variables was impossible.
From an initial group of 7 a priori selected secondary factors, h were
empirically found to be related to the main variables through use of a
screening process utilizing a factorial analysis of variance procedure
treating score frequencies as scores. These secondary factors were:
occupational level, location (home or branch office), expected involve-
Inent in the changeover, and number of contacts with sources of informa-
'tion.

The main analysis was accomplished by use of multiple analyses of

. -
unar- :rn; Ann .p

. F f
"1...-..avv, .- \r-d Gad.-

' ‘ '
:9- . q:':'~:" F‘ Q.
A 3 us-wauwou on ._
.
‘ ' I I 1
"' ‘1; "‘:r;n~cn‘ 1‘
.' N uuv~».-‘“" -.
.
It . . ' .
" a. ‘
'5 E 2". ‘A 0*

Nov be. I! no. U U u ‘ -

t . . ‘
q‘:.'- '5‘: “A. ‘: fi.. _
-'- 'I.‘ “y . V‘GU-.
.
it“: ’ C na-~~& -‘ '_
e ~ ~ fie yv....‘.-'_'. '-
0. t
.‘ Q.” .
‘-‘.. “2:“: Au q:._
~..' "' “0 u~‘.
“ u
_‘:‘~~ ’2‘- . :1:
' 5" \. -
V. - - ,
‘ Q
"" :.’ ‘: u ‘
x '- -" :no
“" ‘be-

 

q
C“ a:
~¢ ..:

 

 

. _ a.
'~ " V .
: :2 n9.'”
v F , .
“.."E 9. Q.v
J ~.
.1“ ’1
u v’
.v. 3. :I‘;
“fin' I!
F. I"\
V "M a 'A“
A.“ l-
. ‘
“
s
‘I.
av \ A
"a: “:55,
.5VV.. :_'\-. _"
a ..
».-“ ‘
‘. '
:1“.K‘ ~
"*.‘ . o
a‘ ~‘
V» - W
s‘lg“ ‘ '
"“ vC ..
“
\: 5" q
"1. 9"

I“...
‘ .'~.
’\
~ .
.~:\ «a
u“ V q t
‘ \"A I. Q
‘5' H ‘g
‘Q‘ v-o“
K
“v

John E. Nangle

covariance, each analysis involving from 3 to h relevant secondary factors
and a dependent and independent variable, where treatments were variations
in the independent variable.

The extent to which employees were knowledgeable about a prOposed
change bore no relationship to either a specific response of like-dislike
towards the computer and its expected effects (F = 0.31, p = >'.05), or
to an increase or decrease over time in readiness to accept general change
in the job (F = 0.88, p '3 >.05).

Belief-disbelief in communications was found to be significantly re-
lated to Changes in Readiness for Change (F = b.62, p I (.05), but not to
Affective Response to the Computer (F a 1.06, p =J>.05).

Those employees who were high disbelievers decreased the most in
their general readiness to accept job changes when compared with high
believers. ‘Workers who manifested only moderate belief in communications
remained relatively stable, however, in their readiness to accept or re-
ject change as a part of the job.

It was recommended that in implementing a change program, more at-
tention be given to building up realistic confidence among employees in
the way changes are handled, and less in merely focusing attention on a

‘program of factual information directed at the work-force.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATIONS
IN PREPARATION FOR CHANGE IN AN
INSURANCE COMPANY

By

John E. Nangle

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1961

the av‘W- «,1- d C ..

‘hau. -U ~

 

. ‘r u .
a “Aves h‘gatl"

:zt‘TC“n‘ ‘ 1
- numb we: ~J arnl
on

:21: ‘3. .
., ... "aCk SHE-o
y-_._~
”39:31:33‘ec‘ a
U U a- ‘-
em.
' ““r 0: Du p‘

t. \NO"
| ~‘fv“¢
\ ‘0
N. (‘7!

ram-n of t
a.

“:55: L.

e tee fid’fi‘ a
a ‘5
37.36;

k, T,
muting; c:

g
.‘nn
0.» with“
"r 3.130

,: no‘h
"er a !
p
fleets '
. "
2"” O “"
\y ‘

’ %
tha
‘t
u b
"38fi‘
\ v \
a. ‘
‘ \ A
\.E‘::‘ ‘rq
n.‘ 5
VJ ‘A
vl‘ L:
s. A.
\in.‘ A
n‘. : cw:

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to a number of individuals for their support
and assistance. In particular, he is appreciative of “the guidance, sug-:
gestions, and encouragement offered by Dr. James S. Karslake, Chairman
of the doctoral guidance committee and director of the thesis research.
Thanks are also extended to the other members of the committee, Dr. Carl
F. Fr'ost, Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson, and Dr. Donald M. Johnson of the De-
partment of Psychology for their constructive comments.

The investigation to be reported was one in a series of studies be-
ing conducted by and under the sponsorship of the Labor and Industrial
Relations Center, Michigan State University. At the time this study was
done, Dr. Jack Stieber was the Director of Research for the Center. The
research project of which this study was a part was under the dual man-
agership of Dr. Eugene H. Jacobson of the Department of Psychology and
Dr. Einar Hardin of the Economics Department. The author found most
valuable the thinking of these latter two on the research design and
conceptualization of the relevant variables.

The author also wishes to express his thanks for the help offered
by other members of the research team who worked with him on this par-
ticular project: Gloria L. Cheek, Dr. William A. Faunce, Dr. Donald A.
Trumbo: and George Won.

A special degree of recognition is due Dr. William D. Baten, Re-
search. Professor, Dopartment of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State

University for his consultations on statistical problems arising in the

thesis research.

ii

    
 

.- J 4 u
:33. 321388. .-CI".

«1’. flaw"

t..:, .a.’ , Over the
"'19) _ # t
... :3" secre.a.. In“
72.: nct :. ve tee

5;.. l..- ‘
~-- 533:. to tne re

.
"Sewn
-~-=-.e (20:1;33 w‘v‘

by.

Certainly no acknowledgement would be complete without my eXpres-

six»: of appreciation for the unfailing moral support given to me by my

'wife, Gail, over the entirety of this effort. I would also like to
thank my secretary Mrs. Eldona Holtzclaw, for her help as typist.

In conclusion, it needs to be emphasized that the entire study
would not have been possible without the Splendid support and c00pera-
tion given to the research team by the management and employees of the

insurance company which served as our research setting.

iii

' C I
"""' :fi-‘c—aw.
. S

u
:0»... L

-uua-.,v." .
in ~ ‘ ‘
sh. . a-
“z' 3‘ ‘a‘uM—D I O
'~'~ ..~ :- ”-55
w' ‘1 Oc'cuhv . .
e. .
at. -’ ‘FSF-‘Q ”c:
‘6 b. ”V'-0¢au‘~~

.

y
'90 ”a '?

 

 

‘\
\ _ ..
I. .:.E ~I A...- ‘-
aa I..- 5“:
1 \
V
b. . CA “‘_'
N ~ ‘
Q... .5 ‘
‘l
i. .'.ea~ \‘:“‘ ‘
b “‘6 ‘
H
. ‘
i- a
V. “,2‘hq'n ‘ 1
. “ \ga‘ ‘
q
q
7. qreޤ~ .
v “
1“ ."
‘9
\g. 9‘“
“k-“ “u, A.“
»‘
\..
‘I‘I
‘ .‘~‘ ‘
“‘5‘ 2'9?
5“J .

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . .

LiSt Of Figures. 0 e e e e e e e e e e

LiSt Of Appendices e e e e e e e e e 0

Chapters
1.
2.

3.

h.
S.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Introduction. . . . . . . . .

Prior Research and Literature

The Experimental Setting and Data Gathering

O O O 0

Survey.

PrccedureSe e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

The Variables Examined. o e e e e e e e e e

The Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Measuring the Independent variables . . . .

Mbasuring the Dependent variables . . . . . . .

Empirical Selection of the Secondary variables.

Treatment and Analysis of the Data. . . . . . .

Summary of Results and Discussion . . . . . . .

Bibliography'. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

iv

Page

.v
.xiv

.XV

.1
.15

.35
.514
.7b
.87
.131
.161
.177
.192

.207

 

H v-
"“al :3.
a. . A'vv .
.1.-. ‘0
- a
.I D“' 'U! . . .
can ~ .
- P ” 'RA-~
’.‘-‘. I A cubs...
— ' u-
"“'o' 5. Ubua.
. .I V-
a ‘FG
N"! ew- _ .
av. o5.l..¢a1.. .-

 

'
... 1‘ v “F4
. - I . v-

3.3; ~. ..e&.s .-
=“"""‘ fl:,: ac .-
«3...»... U---5- ...
~ ‘A .. .: AR
”41‘3qu ‘ y-‘~

“. d -

.. . ‘ . r‘ “ t

“l ‘ q
‘A'H‘c :Fn 0'9
'Va.‘ '- ..~.E '00» 1
~ 9.10:“
u'I~Iu_.. . . .
2‘... p n“‘.“ :
o‘.-v v. ..a‘ ‘l
g
..F a tag‘
M"‘-euu d- e

.\

:3. I‘ I»; ‘

.. . A g

0--- . “Aura ‘3‘
9
I. .

.3!- O,‘ a
."“ ‘4: g “‘f\
"A
\- a
“Le . ' e e e

9-. p

:‘ a- I:

n-Q‘: V. S:3"’“: .I‘

c “.3 .
I
a.
‘2‘ iI‘G'MS SC“- ‘
vQOV~ k‘

.3... C
a.

q

.k ._

\v I. “es:r““
. ‘.- v.
1 Q .
J;~ c.1‘ a,”
"a..~u a.“c
“ v.
:"c q,‘ ’
.u‘ ‘
v «av. ‘icfih !‘-.
‘ Va.‘ r“-’:‘.
2 he -
Ni. «e5."gg
. _~
\“
I
.::‘e ‘Rfi .
~ . dz'er‘3 3:. I
‘xv
1.”:4 _ ‘ h-
I Vi &‘~ ‘-
E‘ U ‘1 c..
0E5
Q‘gns ‘a“~_
s.‘
.v
Q ‘
Q: : ‘.|
~ ' $ ‘
‘ -(. “‘Q‘ .
Q \\~‘ ‘. ‘
\A.‘ ‘ .
U‘Ke “~‘a_ ~
Q I.
~‘5 :
Q '-
‘.
I..-
e‘fi‘e ‘I: .'
‘J. ‘
‘ ~ “Ex-u.
I; . ‘ ‘
A -
\v“ QH‘ A‘
\q .“ ‘K‘
I," ~ “HR E
\ Q .‘~‘ .
b§~ “S ‘.
:v M:
‘ l
e,_~
‘K\: ‘1-
. N5. DC“: ~
a. .‘
“15 ‘ 5*‘8‘2‘ .
‘3 ‘ \.
Vt. 4“: Y“;
v ;\S ’0
Va

List of Tables

Table 1. Total POpulation at Research Site involved
insmeyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Table 2. Compensations to Experimental POpulation
for Terminal and PiCk-up Cases. 0 e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 3. Characteristics and Composition of the
surveyPOPUlationeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeee

Table h. Means and Standard Deviations for Home and
Branch Office Employees on Selected
Characteristics.......o..o.........

Table 5. Exposures to Formal Company Communications
concerning the Installation of the IBM 650
Computer........................

Table 6. Factual Status of Items comprising "Degree—
Infomed"Scale....................

Table 7. Intraclass Correlation between Ratings on ll
Items for 8 Judges on the "Degree-Informed"

Seal-e O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Table 8. Scoring Key for the Degree of Informed
Awarenessscaleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeae

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for the Degree of
Informed Awareness Scale (N-2l7). . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 10. Item Analysis Data for the 11 Items included
in the Degree of Informed Awareness Scale . . . . . . .

Table 11. Average Total Scores for ReSpondents selecting
Keyed and Non-keyed Alternates on each Item of the
”Degree-Informed”5cale.....o..........

Table 12. Inter-item Correlation for the ”Degree-Informed”
Scale using Tetrachoric Coefficients. . . . . . . . . .

Table 13. Item-Total Score Correlations for the Degree of
Informed Awareness Scale based upon Upper and Lower
27% Grmps (NB63) O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 0

Table 1h. Reliability for the "Degree-Informed" Scale based
onAnalysisofVarianceoo...............

v

Page

. .141

. .91

. .93

. .95

O .96

. .98

. .99

. .lOO

. _
0-. ed -a‘-—-O;‘
... ~ _‘ .4 ‘~
' O ~uv~._.-
afl-U -1
" "r.-. a
. . .. . "‘U
.:.-. -U. . .~~ -v

a
u ‘AO;~
u-.-.-..g-1"‘
I ~ ~ . I I
.' A w‘A-O- -.
- vU..-*.-'GV"
... IF I
.a a 1 v “:5. 0.-“
oh-v out. o 0‘-“ .v_
u. ' ‘
“9:“...31 _ _
U... v‘-_-‘~ '
-
.‘RQO. A“
-
an“: “v“ . .

we =1“ 9..-
U-‘ -'.
in .
..¢:Icuo:.‘_‘. _
“-vsba‘.-d':‘ -
'e
O. . 9“
n.: 5'. tmaq‘ a.‘
.Vyv -‘-
‘I‘
no.“ _ '
.Q :‘2'.Q.‘c‘: -
up. u'-:"‘ .
s
u
.I .- . ‘I a
‘n *‘I- “2'. .rc
h‘ 5“»
I

 

 

Table 15. Estimates of Scale Reliability. . . . . . . .

Table 16. F'Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories

Differentiated on the Basis of the Number of Contacts

with Information Sources. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 17. F Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Perceived Location
in Communications NBtWOTk e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 18. F Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Communicative
Interaction e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 19. t Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Occupational Level .

Table 20. t Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Perceived Problems
in the Way the Company'Handled Changes. 0 e e o e a

Table 21. F Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Expected Involvement
in the Change 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 22. Scoring System for Belief-Disbelief in
communications Scale. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Table(23. Descriptive Statistics for the ”ED” Scale
N=227 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e.- e e e e e 0

Table 2b. Item Analysis Data for the 7 Items comprising
the "Belief-Disbelief 30313 e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 25...Average Total Scores as a Function of Item
Scores on the "Belief-Disbelief" Scale. . . . . . .

Table 26.

Inter-item Correlations fer the "Belief-Disbelief"

Scale using Tetrachoric Coefficients. . . . . . . . . . .

Treble 27. Item-Total Score Correlations for the Belief-
Disbelief in Communications Scale based upon Upper

and Lower 27% Groups (N361) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 28. Reliability for the "Belief-Disbelief" Scale

based on Analysis Of variance 0 e e o e e e e e e e e o e

Page

.102

.101;

.105

.106

.107

.109

.110

.115

.116

.117

.119

.120

.121

00... ('1'. d b Q ~
uan g ‘ a P
‘00:.C‘OQ2 a“
o..-v.voou--~. .- .

I
~~~vss

uu-u we. . . . . .

 

 

-
-“ s ..l a-
" O'H
.' 4-. U .5.“ --
' I
\. 0“}.‘A‘... .. “a
' "’ A '-
--.'.UOI'-“'~~‘ -
0v . ,
Al ‘A0. Qa.~.:~’
.I‘. " A

'-b-_.. .___.-

 

 

-
. ' .1 ‘ q
. : 0 :a‘ a“!-
" V .'~V -C.
' I
I
- o:‘:-O~.._‘: A
0...». .,."-,- .— '-
OU‘u '-
I
O. .
. “Wows.- ~-
A“
‘0' ‘

 

 

Table 29. EStimateS Of Scale Reliability. 0 e e e e e e o a

Table 30. t Test for ”Belief-Disbelief“ Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of High-Low Dogmatism

scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Table 31. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of High and Low General
JOb satiSfaCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0

Table 32. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of High and Low Confidence
intheCompany..e..................

Table 33. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of High and Low Confidence
inSupervision...o.................

Table 3b. F Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of "Degree-Informed"

scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Table 35. Descriptive Statistics for Readiness for Change
seal-e (N.237). V C 0 0 . O O C C C O O O C O 0 . C 0 0 O C

Table 36. Item Analysis Data for the 9 Items comprising
the Readiness for Change Scale (Nu=Nl=6h). . . . . . . .

Table 37. Average Total Scores as a Function of Item
Alternates selected for each of the 9 Items. . . . . . .

Table 38. Significance of the Difference between Pretest
and Posttest Mean Total Scores on the Readiness for
Change Scale (N=237) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 39. Item Intercorrelations for the Pretest Readiness
for Change Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table hO. Item Intercorrelations for the Posttest Readiness
for Charlge Sede . . C O C C O C C O C C C C O C C C C 0

{Fable hl. Item-Total Score Correlations for Readiness for
Change Scale (NugNl=6lJ)e e e e e e e e e 'e o e e e e e 0

Table 112. Analysis of Variance Estimates of Reliability for
the Pretest and Posttest Readiness for Change Scale. . .

Table 1.13. Reliability Estimates for Pretest and Posttest
Readiness for Change Scales determined from Nean
Inter-'Item correlations. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

vii

.127

.130

.135

.1ho

.lhl

.1h2

.1h3

Table hh. A Comparison of Reliability Estimates for the
Readiness for Change Scale. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table hS. Descriptive Statistics for the Affective
Response to the Computer Index (N82l7). . . . . . . .

Table h6. Item AnalySis Data for the Affective Response
to the COmPUber Index (Nqu1368)e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table L7. Mean Composite Total Scores as a Function of
Item Alternates selected for each Item. . . . . . . .

Table h8. Item Intercorrelations for the Affective Response

to the Computer Scale 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table h9. Item-Total Score Correlations for the Affective
Response to the Computer Index. ....... . . . . . . .

Table 50. Analysis of variance Estimate of Reliability
for the Affective Response to the Computer Index. . .

Table 51. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective
Response to the Computer for Subgroups based on Like-
Dislike for Effects of Machines on Jobs . . . . . . .

Table 52. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective
ReSponse to the Computer for Subgroups based on Like-
Dislike for Rate Changes are Taking Place . . . . . .

Table 53. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective
Response to the Computer for Subgroups based on
Desirability of Rate of Technological Change. . . . .

Table Sh. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on.Affective
Response to the Computer for Subgroups based on
SpGCifiC JOb SatiSfaCtion e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 55. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective
Response to the Computer for Subgroups based on
Acclimatization to the Changeover . . . . . . . . . .

Table 56. Comparison of Mean.Affective Response to the
Computer Index Scores for Groups based upon Perceived
JOb‘WOrth e e e e e a e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 57. Score Groupings on variable Measures used in
Analysis of variance Multiple Contingency'Tables. . .

viii

. . .1h7

. . .lh8

O O 0 lbs)

0 O .1119

. . .150

. . .151

O O .153

. . .le

. . .155

e e 0156

. . .158

. . .160

.166vl67

g
i“ 0 ‘7..‘ O -' -
n- a .‘ !
.:--: Ii.-. ..~U¢-:-
e a .-
.O’Q~I:R "“:' r

_; '

”v...-d “1‘- vgou-l
. a

no“ “10".“fij DA ‘5".

v. Ubisn‘n: '9.

dA
l:‘_': _. '; av... 00::
.0... ('v05. 0:." --.
. M
a..- '3: f.“"‘
331.-..-.«5 ‘ V“"‘

0-~ Iii-I

:.= __ 1,L.‘-.'..‘ .
no.-. 11". a.“ U-h-.\
'.’...-1 9...

h . ‘ V‘
anov' 6-0‘1- E..EE

RLQQQ

I.

I a
V ‘."..b -

‘1.

v... a: -5 A.
U- v-

 

-' .-
-‘
e‘u ‘
4“: 1 \‘~‘..’ ‘
.-. F
. '“U-b-:
. a
~v‘a.~: ‘v2‘c"a 1'
.‘~
RA
5 ." 9*” A
‘7" §~ UQJ :t‘,.‘e
‘:'_-= :‘A A
No .'.C. A's-2‘”?! c
r ec“ ‘ ~-‘
0
me.

‘3»..558 x sci-uh.
t‘n‘ . .
I:

I‘ O

. . . . .

' I
.z‘ : " e.
... u-.;. “-\ '
9. -
link 3‘:
M'i‘o-a ' ‘
Q... :8 "
.. . ' x v: ' ‘
:‘T O ”Is. I . ..
v ‘ \‘“ ‘
I‘b k~.g :Ca‘ ‘
‘1‘:
I... “
.L‘E :

"-O “1“: ‘
u-‘~ .. “:.§‘
“i... a". A... ‘

.‘ ‘
k~ ‘ “c“ erc‘
'9.“ -
‘Q'h Q“
0 “ .
O
t. I
.h.
'.‘\E (‘
V4,.
0 A‘s“
"a. ‘k?°‘.t

Ikzh- U V‘\

was:

" x C~“

I“. y7‘:
'I‘é (a

.4. 3.,\

m 2"»,
if“:- ~ d'“ v "‘
‘:\\:C ‘ .. v.

‘
V 5:12“
.'_- , 7
.- A
‘s: Cu \
a. a
4538‘. Du.
' \=“ R3
.1. V‘
u' ’
.5 ~
*0 Q..\
a. n V‘ "
Ml ‘."‘N
‘ ‘N . (‘5
“~72“: ‘ . b§
‘e ~7‘n
‘
‘. “Nee V~~
is I “in
\‘5 .3- '
" I
n r. dha‘x

‘ O. , I
V35“..- \ [8‘4 Q

..\\" ‘.. ‘5' A

\¥ah‘ P“ v.
I.‘ ‘-“S 2“
. I I \
\t «K ‘
- o
a‘~i
| Q‘
\gasafl ~ ~‘S a.
"g“ V-
5‘ “s an,‘ x
‘\‘= :5 ‘ ::
bl. .
a. 4: ~
“745n‘. ‘a‘?s"
mp: ' ‘S

Table 58.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Tenure x Age showing Frequencies
OfOb‘bainedScoreS....................

Table 58.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
AwareneSSXTen'UIGXAgee e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e 0

Table 59.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness 3: Office x Education showing
Frequencies of Obtained Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 59.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness X Office x Education. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 60.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Communicative Contacts x
imperflsoryStyle....................

Table 60.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness x Communicative Contacts 3: Supervisory

Style 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Table 60.3. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness 3: Communicative Contacts x Supervisory
Style using Pooled Interactions as the Error Term . . . .

Table 61.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Occupational Level x Expected
Involvement.......................

Table 61. 2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness x Occupational Level x Expected Involvement . .

Table 62. Summary of Results for Screening Procedures as
applied to other Main Variables (Entries = F Values). . .

Table 63. Design of Multiple Analyses of Covariance. . . . .

Table 61;. Summary of Results from Multiple Analyses

Of covariance used in teSting Hy'pOtheseSe e e e e e e e 0

Table 65. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Comunications and Change in Readiness for Change . . . .

Table 66. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in Com-
munications and Pretest Scores on Readiness for Change. .

Table 67. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in Com-
munications and Posttest Scores on Readiness for Change .

ix

.169

.169

.170

.170

.171

.171

.172

.173

.173

.175

.180

.180

.182

.18h

.185

 

”=55. Analys- ”s

 

.3... :7. “Fig
harness and'

. A ‘ '
.t'a ”NJ. ‘13.:318
' ow ;

”Ann“

0
O. P“
V8a<:;cau-v“

 

 

,‘La ‘na“
eLoe 7"». Ir‘ve. 'J‘

W

v'L“.5.‘-€S . . .

1’ “N '-
2' =
..~.: "0145.“. a...

w . ,

I... ‘

.LQLLE . . .

fin . ‘
:a' t . W rs“ .‘“
No I}... “U-~_“

:‘ nio.3.ica.‘:‘

3: .:‘ “ed SC" ‘2‘ e:

' M " l . .
" 24. “ ”a.
use n J.‘. a‘.a " ti-
". ' :L‘
"N” e.
dk.‘hca"3:s
... '
.3: F: 7 " \g“ ‘ _ ‘
-. ~Ot. “KA v‘
.' q .
In . ~ ‘ _ -
7‘ “M". Cant
A0 - ‘

Table 68. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness and Change in Readiness for Change. . . . . . . .

Table 69. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness and Affective Response to the Computer. . . . . .

Table 70. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications and Affective Response to the Computer . . .

Table 71. Intercorrelations between the Major Experimental
variables 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 72. Item and Total Scores on the Main and Secondary
variables 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 73.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications x Tenure x Age showing frequencies of
Obtained Scores 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 73.2. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
. CommunicationsxTenurexAge...............

Table 7h.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications x Office 3: Education showing Frequencies
Of Obtained Scores. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 7b.2. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
communications x Office x Education 0 e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 75.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications x Occupational Level x EJcpected
IHVOlvement e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0

Table 75.2. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications x Occupational Level x Expected Involvement.

Table 76.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications 3: Realization of Expectations 3:
Communicative Contacts. 0 e o e e e e e e e e e e e e 0.. 0

Table 76.2. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Comunications x Realization of Expectations 3:
Communicative ContactS. e e e .7. o e e e e e e e o e e e 0

Table 76.3. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications x Realization of Expectations x
Comrmmicative Contacts using Pooled Interactions
88 the Error Term 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e o e o o e

Page

.185

.185

.187

.189

0215

. 218

. 219

. 219

. 220

o 220

.221

.222

. 223

.223

Page

Table 77.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change szenure x.Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22h

Table 77.2. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x.Tenure x Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Table 78.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in
Readiness for Change x Occupational Level x Office. . . . . . 225

Table 78.2. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x Occupational Level x Office. . . . . . . . . . . 226

Table 78.3. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x Occupational Level x Office using Pooled
Interactions as the Error Term. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Table’79.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in
Readiness for Change x Expected Involvement x
Degree of Informed Awareness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Table 79.2. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness for
Change x Expected Involvement x Degree of Informed
Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

Table 80.1. ‘Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change x Communicative Contacts x Education . . . . . . . 228

Table 80.2. Analysis of variance of Change in Readiness for
Change x Communicative Contacts x Education . . . . . . . . . 228

Table 81.1. ZMultiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Tenure x Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Table 81.2. Analysis of variance for Affective ReSponse to
the CGmPUter x Tenure X Age 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 230

Table 82.1.. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Occupational Level x Office . . . . . . . . 230

Table 82.2. Analysis of variance for Affective Response to
the Computer x Occupational Level x Office. . . . . . . . . . 231

Table 83.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Education x Communicative Contacts. . . . . 231

treble 83.2. Analysis of variance for Affective Response to
the Computer x Education x Communicative Contacts . . . . . . 232

Table 811.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Expected Involvement x Degree of
Informed Awareness. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 232

xi

 

Sails 33.-.2. Louis:
to the Cmputer
Infested Aware:

$12.1. Yam;
kalysis of C:

11- 3!

“-2.2. 3133 of
h? ‘ tion- of 1

 

M.
fikvi§s Of CC...
I A
a -fi
v- "V. H‘
.cc' ‘ ‘ ‘
a—a.icn ea
‘D‘n‘ R
‘3‘! I, q ‘
v'.J. ..L.U‘. “
‘u.
I... .
‘2‘: n‘ ‘
e we”... F :eS&
U
.'~
“‘5 35-3 Sn
0 ““1
~ ‘
o k‘e.

~41ng Vt“ L
h ‘. . ‘ \.
3.313 6“ “A
vs
- 37 2
H. . 3‘33 0
A, x ' ‘
Vari'lan c!
ans '3
v' ‘3. y. a
N ‘_ ‘4 ‘.
s't::tes‘.L\-‘:
'0'. s n:
.fi‘e
4.4. M
1:.“ ‘es:
“~E "I u-
an": «new
aria-4C ‘ P‘e

Table 811.2. Analysis of Variance for Affective ReSponse
to the Computer x Expected Involvement 1: Degree of
InfomedAwa-renessooeaoooeooooeoooooo

Table 85 .1. Variable Data used in Preparation of Multiple
Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis I . . . . . . . .

Table 85.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products used in
Praparation of Multiple Analysis of Covariance. . . . .

Table 85.3. Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis I.

Table 85.14. F Test for Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . .

Table 85.5. Supplementary data for Analysis of Covariance. .~ ,

Table 86.1. Variable Data used in Preparation of Multiple
Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis II. . . . . . . .

Table 86.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products used in
Preparation of Multiple Analysis of Covariance. . . . .

Table 86.3. Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis II

Table 86.11. F Test for Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . .
Table 86.5. Supplementary Data for Analysis of Covariance .

Table 87.1. Variable Data used in Preparation of Mtfltiple
Analysis of_Covariance for Hypothesis III . . . . . . .

Table 87.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products used in
Preparation of Multiple Analysis of Covariance. . . . .

Table 87.3. Multiple Analysis of Covariance for
HypothesisIII....................'.

Table’87.14. F TOSt for M3318 Of covarimce a e a o o e a

Table 87.5. Supplementary Data for Analysis of
Covariance......‘H.................

Table 88.1. Variable Data'used in Preparation of Multiple
Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis IV. . . . . . . .

Table 88.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products used in
Preparation of Multiple Analysis of Covariance. . . . .

xii

Page

. 233

. 236

. 238

. 239
. 2140

. 2170

. 2112

. 2143
. 2113

0 2,4,4

«.9; 2C 1 c 4.: .3
.3... two}. A" v-8-

:vqu 1-

'I'F.fi :8 ‘ M ‘
4-: "IL. F .63..
9 - "R J

:1 : n1 Q‘Vv-n“ 1»
'“fl ".2. U6» y‘a.
. A
i I
3"!" IA
'.

“3" "000'

 

Page

Table 88.3. Multiple Analysis of Covariance for
HypOth8318 IV a a o a a a a e a o a a e o o a o o o a e o o 0 02h;

Table 88.14. F Test for Analysis of Covariance . . . . . . . . . . .2145

Table 88.5. Supplementary Data for Analysis of
Covariance. e o a a o a o o a a a a o a o o o o o o o a o o 0 .2L6

xiii

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. IBM 650 computer generalized work flow for
use in the insurance industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Figure 2. Belief-disbelief Continume o e a o e a a o o o o a e e 113

Figure 3. Two-dimensional representation of interrelation
between belief-disbelief and knowledge of other Opinion
Unanissue.........................113

Figure h. Relationship between "ED" scores and average
change in Readiness for Change scores for total
groupandsubg'roupS.....................l83

Figure 5. Relationship between "ED" scores and average
Affective Response to the Computer index scores for
tOtalgroupandsubgrouPSroease...ease000000188

Figure 6. A series of progress reports on the installation

of the IBM 650 appearing in the monthly house organ . . 25h

Figure 7. Bulletins issued by the company's president and
the LIRC regarding the computer and plans for an
attitudequeeeoeaaaaoeeaoeeaoeec.0255

Figure 8. Minutes of meetings held in the home office
dealing with preparations for the computer
installation.........................256

Figure 9. Communications from the information.meetings. . . . . . 257

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Item Responses and Total Scores on
variable Measures for All Subjects. . . . . .

Appendix B.
Variables..................

Screening Procedures for the Secondary

Appendix 0. .Multiple Analyses of Covariance. . . . . .
Appendix D. StatiStical Formulae a e a o o o o o o o 0
Appendix E. Exhibit of Company Internal Communications
Appendix F. .Attitude Questionnaires. . . . . . . . . .
Section.l Pretest Supervisory Form . . . . . . . .
Section 2 Pretest Nonesupervisory'Form . . . . . .

Section 3 Posttest Form. . . . . . . .

XV

O O O 0

.21A

.21?
.23b
.2h7
.253
.258'

.259
.300

.338

o a ‘y-~-.
‘0':'J' h. a.-.‘

 

 

a
vb. g‘y . h .
w ' ‘ F a
no” - u.‘-‘ A Syn
. h ‘ ‘ U .‘
‘-.\.V ~-a~-g.v..
e
.a -
I a! Q‘ .‘_C ‘W .‘
.4..-.... k.“ 8» e.
‘ q . ‘ § -
0.. oh. -:p.: P". .
. u. .-
~e .\. ..‘.. ‘1‘
0.
'- a ~~nc =::
.0— v..a-d. ‘ H ‘
‘-
“a‘cA‘R Q.
a
“ o
.v‘. .

 

.
g
s... “'35 ‘ Q eh
‘ boa~e3. -~ ~ -
"h. ~ .
' .t.‘u~
“°~ ‘z.
5
n.
'R ~" ‘I. ‘
aer- ’ l=‘ ~' ‘
' h ’ “a .
‘I
N-
. ~ ,
" 'L‘r.‘ Q‘Neh‘ .
-..v u». 4'».‘
“a.
U
‘ ‘R. -4 I
\_ § :5. ‘ ‘ t‘ V
~. g. ‘
\.
Hg '
. h ‘ . .
.. _ y
\.~.. N 'av" ‘F A...
.K»:. v..’.
Q-
‘0
..‘-.:’...‘:‘
sag-1“'c?
v~.
1 ‘ . ‘
‘2 :~.‘ ~“‘ ‘
. ~a " I, A.
L ~K... "
.:..\
-‘ I
xx H... ‘ ‘:‘
:- "= .‘ ‘. on Q
' a
a V. v“
'N
s.“
.
' ““:V-s‘ ‘
~. “-4 a. 5A..
‘l '
. ..:IE h
a
C
.
. ' ‘
‘ a
..
c H”
uagv I". f
\
‘9
x"":?
.‘u‘

 

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Almost all industrial workers share at least one thing in common -
exposure to and involvement in job-oriented change. If one were asked
to search out an attribute of the employment situation which is both
highly persistent and pervasive it well might be changes that take
place from time to time in what one does or in how it is done. Indeed,
the fundamental quality of life itself is organismic, evolutional change.

_ The employee sees many changes going on around him. Some of these
affect him personally or are perceived as only affecting others. The
onset of change is seen as rapid or slow, the rate as accelerating or
diminshing.

The worker, in reacting and adjusting to change, brings into play
his current perceptions and attitudes, his expectations of how changes
will affect him, and his actual past experiences with change and the
manner in which changes were introduced and implemented by management
representatives.

A major bulk of research in the area of industrial psychology has
dealt primarily with either the antecendents or the effects of change.
Only recently have research studies been geared to the systematic ex-
ploration of the change process itself and Specified responses to those
changes.

Questions are now being asked about the identity of the correlates

arm.conditioners of response to change; what are the variables upon

 

 

a

-
.--. 9“.
1‘“.

 

A“.‘~"Wo*v
a. .c—uv...'. ..
a ~
on 5.-.. 1:."
- , ‘
."I i‘ 'hhv av

a
.u:.. “I.” .'
.~-.-v~‘--H.. ‘

 

. I
.V‘.‘ n.
d, .I U
I
'a Q

- ”A

‘
a.--

a ‘d-
"2 -0,
a
- a- I
.._ ‘I -r
u.... a.-. ‘..?
.
- .‘ -‘
I .\ q ‘I-
\y ‘ a ‘-‘“
O
“>.‘ ‘A“- ‘
‘._.‘ . . ‘
. .~
‘ -\
.c0~_“ .: ‘I
‘a < A ‘
‘C ““
F_““
- h ‘
Q.‘~ E
\
. de\
~:“
.g‘ -
5“ ‘5
Va
‘ f‘
v‘ I :‘
, ‘
5‘", a
\ ‘ ' ‘
V ‘ I
P.“

 

 

which we can base reliable predictions about differential reSponse to
change, and what are the dimensions of change?

What has led to this current concern about the phenomenology of
change? Two :ignificant epochs in the history of industrial mechanim
zation have been chronicled. One took place in the 1800's, the other
is contemporary. I refer to the 19th Century Industrial Revolution
and to what some (Mann & Hoffman, 1960, p. 191) have referred to as
the "Second Industrial Revolution." These periods have been marked by
an acceleration in the degree of mechanization of industrial processes
and methods, and by the extensity of these innovations.

The latter so-called "revolution" refers to the impact of automa-
tion upon business and industry dating from approximately l9b6
(Killingsworth, 1959). While technology of an automated sort has
actually been on the industrial scene for many years, its recognition
conceptually as a modern cultural entity is quite new.

Automation means many things, certainly, to many individuals.
lbnn and Hoffman defined automation as; "application of control devices
of a feedback nature to provide self—regulating production processes"
(1960, p. 191). Killingsworth differentiated factory from office autom
mation in his bifurcated definition: "mechanization which emphasizes
automatic control," and ”mechanization of computation, data-processing,
and record-keeping" functions (1959, p. 2). It is this latter defini—

tion which we shall make use of when the term "automation" is used.

This form of technological advancement we call automation has been

Tesxmnsible for innumerable changes on the business and industrial

. “9
3:29. 5:3... ‘ dwelt

'us. ‘ $- .1».
2.1.5....‘1’3 2‘8, 1..

5:51, c-:"ice space

.
£3? "E at 32-1.8” w

in", .‘Mlo .' v. a

“cash, C:.&‘ge'

.
‘§-....‘ &-:;DS~ :H As

U

I...
4- 5.9:." a.“ t“. _
‘ as

*‘U av, '

‘<h..'«“s #:F‘: +L
‘mcu V. he:

'|
‘Pa 9
a
v. ‘ta .
.5 m: “I! 0,
, h‘ h.

:'
~‘. 53“ 0 ~
«~ Vases, :r:°-:

..
\
I.'

I‘V N‘.
‘ 9""..7' Q. '
Ems an:

s.‘ .

t. o
“is .5 a l
*‘Vs- “ ‘hwy- S: .

P25. ‘Adn
\- -7~:h1 “‘ “
I U/ r. .H\ .‘
‘i

in

kbgf

 

‘
‘3ng ‘h j
by '5‘
‘w‘_

33‘
'23:?!5 0‘
a ‘x Q“ 1
‘1“

0“?! ‘l?

‘ 'a e {y
.3. 3“
\ “In“

‘

‘I
.1]
I
. ‘1.
to
—

 

scene. Significant and wide-spread changes are required in organiza-
tional structure, internal training, allocation and recruitment of per-
sonnel, office space, and office procedures often before an automated
process is introduced, checked out, and integrated into the work flow.
Once the automated process has been incorporated into the production or
work routine, changes are often observed as resultants of the changeover.
Further changes in organizational structure cutting across various de-
partments ensue, as well as changes in the hierarchical line structure.
Employees find their work changing, the composition of old work groups
being altered, and the meaning of their work to others and to themselves,
in some cases, drastically altered. It is of little wonder, thenthat
psychologists and sociologists have focused attention upon man at work
under these circumstances. Commenting upon this upheaval and change,
Faunce (1958b) predicted that the investigator of industrial behavior
will be forced to look afresh at many of his previous findings. These
were derived from quasi-static, non-automated settings. Automation is
fashioning such an altered industrial environment that a serious ques-
tion can be raised as to what extent old findings and ”principles“ will
apply and can be generalized to the automated setting. This type of
comparative investigation should eventually lead to an accumulated body
of knowledge describing isolable differences in a number of variables
between the automated and non-autmsated industrial contexts.

The research to be reported here is a direct outgrowth of this con-
cern and interest in the phenomenology of change. As indicated in the

”Acknowledgements,” this study was conducted as part of a series of pro-

l
'Aq‘h :uo’2Qo
‘. 'v‘; m'vuv
v”.

N ,
a you R‘P: ~.‘I \
3":‘ I" ~..-:.:1.. U vc
Urn-y.’ a- .-

. ' we
.— on::: -“'-“ACC + a
II- Dav-h- uon‘h‘~ Va;
' I
0!: §-.an+ a: ‘Afi‘rr ~.
8.. fi.-:vi J- Utyaa..-_
3::
§I~.
‘- . . . .
he: “Q... ~.‘
‘5 !a- 9‘
U :‘~ 3-x.“ 3‘
. l
9“ .
“ ‘ela
h

1‘8
.. 3.... a...ch 9:1”
25““
i

n‘ . .
Hg‘CQQ Q. .“
U' H
‘ y“
3‘. n.
s
I .a.. anI.‘
~ --
i.
-:.:- f“.

‘:
.a_‘

£33.“.

"a '~ 5
‘ a u ‘
lac“? '-..
I “c
:z‘e'

 

 

jects investigating the effects of technological change arising out of

the planning, efforts, and support of the Labor and Industrial Relations
Center, Michigan State University. These projects have, as their gen-
eral purpose, the isolation of correlates of reactions to technological
change, the exploration of patterns of reSponse to change, the develOp-
ment of indices of response to change, the examination of relationships
of these indices to other classes of variables, and the description of
the impact of technological change upon organizations and their employ;
ees.

This particular investigation had, as its general goals, the fol-
lowing:

l) A productive investigation of the dynamic interaction between
a set of empirically obtained situational variables as they operate to
alter and affect employee reaction in a setting of change. A subsequent
control of these situational variables is implied.

2) The assemblage of a descriptive picture of the insurance worker
faced with a particular, specified kind of change.

3) An.exploration into a "White-collar" semi-automated setting to
ascertain exactly what factors and ”change-agents" were empirically rel-
evant; i.e., ”action variables" in the sense that they significantly con-
tributed to the variance in the independent and dependent variables under
investigation.

h) The accumulation of data for the confirmation or rejection of
certain a priori hypotheses, and the providing of results which have spe-

cific implicationsfor future research and for the implementation of change-

.Aeki'

~11- :1'357335 a- *“‘

:- :aiiral min 5

:.r v. 30*
:5.3: we are-Iver.

. ‘.& J ' ‘
rd. a new if on.

izzutins for the

 

 

over programs within an organization.

The industrial subs-culture of today emphasizes change, progess,

and improvement. A ”good" industry, corporation, or plant in terms of

our national value system is one that is progressive and steadily Chang-
ing for the better. Leaders in business and industry subscribe to this
point of view if only because they must be sensitive to technological
innovations for the sake of self preservation and co-existence with
economic competitors. Certainly automation is seen as a means, after
initial outlay, of cutting operating costs, lessening the burden of in-
creasing wage and benefit packages for employees, and of providing rapid
and quality service for the consumer.

Machine Operations of a self-regulating, self-maintaining, and self-
feeding nature have taken over what used to amount to many separate tasks
performed by a number of operators. Today old jobs are accomplished by
newly mechanized techniques with less production people involved and in
a shorter time. Commensurately, quality control procedures have been
provided with a greater deyee of reliability. The physical layout of
plants is changing, the size and composition of the work force is being
altered, work-flow is modified, supervision is changing, and a multitude
of related changes are taking place. With respect to the temporal qual-
ity of change, they may be gradually introduced or their onset may be
quite sudden. Changes, once implemented, may represent an accelerating
succession of innovations, while others may represent something merely
sporadic in nature.

All of the foregoing can be seen as potentially, and indeed in

fact, providing a most momentOus and significant impact upon the

233:1. '13::
hair AA Q Q” ‘

j .s it.-.“ a}:
tags :craritg tr;

'3'." .n. O

_.-.... la? 0:13:79 iv-

9‘”

‘f--ve mange

‘0
"s‘

r::w~ 0‘4 1 ax“?

‘fiob ‘
val - Q.“

"'~ ‘57 3r 3““0“ 9

U.

N: -
. D
\.a .. ‘
\ i‘ ?.$I.~
~~.‘:S to
5-.
u.
.
-.
""5? 3“.“
c 0" 4
-
g
k.
.
l
(Pr-a \
3'1 2:-—~:,
‘ Q' ~ ‘
:s.‘. \C"
V
UV
.1!
:‘::\§~ \
-. a
'5
«are Vu'
\- ‘V‘ a
a V‘..~Bfi
‘ I‘
‘1 A g I .
5. ‘s‘
a. v-
kw. ,_
VN.Q‘I 0‘
v. n
'I

I

’D

f

4’

{i

’5
I
O
a.
T‘

i — _— —

“‘6:-
a.“
M: hula;
\r
e W fl
\V
1.98.}
V.'
I.“ K“
”.315.
~
-. lg.
h vv.r a‘
V
I 1V g
N
E.“
I‘VE“
..
a,“ 7 V ‘
h
‘ “LCM
J. . " .~
Rh.
'\~.‘
“, 1’3"
vi \h
”"3 v
\‘_ ‘ vVh‘
|I . ~ _
‘~ 3;“.
g A
~‘%:‘a
" \
|I ‘ivee fi‘
\‘» ‘ ~.
. R‘
~\
- 'Q
U late; a
"ku‘a A

 

industrial worker. Of course, some pe0ple experience great changes in
their jobs which take place with rapidity,while others find only minor
changes occuring which take place slowly. Still others experience no
particular change in the way they carry out their job responsibilities,
but perceive change as affecting others around them.

Organized labor, economists, and manufacturers have all joined in
one way or another through means of mass media to focus upon the effects
of automation as a topic of contemporary and immediate concern. This
new attention directed toward the change process should not obscure the
fact that change as a temporal event and as a factor influencing worker
behavior and attitudes has always been with us. Automation represents
just another instance of ongoing changes which are continuous in indusm
trial and business Spheres of activity. One of the most consistent
characteristics of industrial effort is that, in perspective, it is
always changing. Several researchers in the area of automation and its
effects have pointed out that there always exists some mixture of autom
nation with other forms of technical advancement which means that methm
oddlogically we are unable to study the effects of automation in true
isolation from other simultaneous changes.

The public recognition of automation as a technological entity,
and concern over its effects, was reflected in hearings held by the
Congressional Subcommittee on Economic Stabilization in October, 1955,
December, 1956, November, 1957, and by'a collection of papers solicited
bYthe subcommittee on Automation and Energy Resources from participants

in the above mentioned hearings (Joint Economic Committee, 1960).

O I
. n
- .

e."-
Viv

' a . . II o
:=a;l.'=' 5 I.
II““““‘ .‘

CC‘I

's was

pa

M‘
g...

v
u
I~VU.

as...
.-

L
|
|

Q. '4‘
Ca’r‘h‘ T

q“ o ‘
gait: A..C:‘ N
u... re. 4.‘ “Eu

‘ V
a“ »¢.v. V~

N.

.-;:....

.

6.."

Q
P A
a- .'

A,
s e. these c

I
.-
vaov'u .I'

1

g.

.l’

 

c.
r.
U

in
"at

‘o

:4
a'v‘

‘ Ma‘
Me. ‘1'..."
“I
‘ I
L. “

a.

'With resPect to the reported study, it is well at the outset to

establish qualitatively what kind of an effort was put forth, namely,
to define the investigation in terms of the kind of research it repre-
sents. This was essentially a field studyl or "natural experiment"2 as
differentiated from a field eXperiment.

In this instance the changes were introduced by the organization
itself. Our efforts were primarily geared to a determination of the
effects of these changes on the organization and its constituent mem-
bers. The industrial concern that served as our setting was not a
"laboratory“ in the sense that we could manipulate and hold certain
variables constant, while systematically varying other factors. ‘What
was under our direct control, however, was the problem under examina—
tion, the kinds of observations made, and the measures taken.

Fdllowing Katz's (1953) categorization of field studies it can be
affirmed that this study represented a combination of both an explora-
tory'and an hypothesis-testing study.3

 

l. J. R. P. French indicates that "the essential factor which differ-
entiate the field experiment from ~-- the field study is the design
of the research. The field experiment involves the actual manipu-
lation of conditions by the experimenter in order to determine
causal relations, whereas in the field study the research uses the
selection of subjects and the measurement of existing conditions
in the field setting as a method of determining correlations"
(l953, po 99).

2. D. Katz defines the "natural experiment" as "a change of major
importance engineered by policy makers and practitioners and not
by the social scientist" (1953, p. 78).

3. Katz's definition was as follows: Exploratory'study'- "find out
what relationships exist"; vaotheSis - testing study - "obtain
proof for the predicted rela ionShipiflwahe exploratory type of
field study has two levels: discovery of the significant vari-
ables in the situation, and the discovery of relationships between
variables.

 

 

he of the prir.
natural :ocio-i.
r32: the dynamic int
hm. Tmse factor

31 give rise to it:

 

'1' Oh

‘* “9 imstigatar
time t llice oi

mil-:3 In: which

 

One of the principal conditions under which psychological research
in a natural socio-industrial atmosphere is carried out is that it deals
with the dynamic interaction between many factors, both known and un-
known. These factors differentially impinge upon persons in their work
and give rise to differing consequences. Nothing really stands still
for the investigator in the area of the study of industrial behavior.
To examine a slice of behavior at a particular point in time is to view
something from which some of the vitality has been partially extracted.
This is of special concern to those desirous of studying some change
process, change agent, or the effects of a change. We are here con-
cerned with three broad aspects of change: 1) what the study of change
phenomena means to experimental methodology; 2) the investigation and
eventual understanding of explicit variable relationships in a context
of change as encountered by researchers in industrial situations; and
3) the investigation of change itself which is a direct outgrowth of
the introduction and utilization of automated equipment and methods.

In order to provide a research design that can adequately cope
with the phenomenology of change in a natural field setting, two con-
siderations required satisfaction. The design must encaupass the tem-
poral aspect of change; i.e., a longitudinal study is required, and
secondly, a multivariate analysis and treatment of the data is called
for.

Any longitudinal investigation contains certain inherent methodo-
logical problems to be overcome. Campbell (1957) discusses at length
the kinds of uncontrolled variance which can operate to produce differ-

ences between observations or measures over time which may be mistaken

’n .-'; 2"=”o- 3’ o

"a use ""~' '

u“ _' ‘ae‘qr ‘?
....‘,...: we“, "

R‘:"

Q!
”r, .5- Inc“
v.- v U.‘

. G
a..l..'" ' v

Q
. o
a' = ": rcrc‘
my Us" evw".
.

u“; g..." u.

‘ n
n-.. ‘~.ly’ ‘49 .3:

.
0,001. o “A ‘O
:..:.‘:Eu'l'.s.ves:

v

a I '
_c{:IAA n.9,.-
. '.‘-sa.: ‘2 .‘GI L
”as... ' ' ‘
‘16..” a...
.

‘v
1 ends “.9

t
l.
(w.
as
an

E‘s

., .
5 ‘
k» “eta"

‘ U'acce c, l
.
!

he
I‘ ‘
'~ g‘ C“.
5 2f 1.
“;.a.‘
, '9
k: 3:539“ g
a Va. ‘8‘ a7
.

 

for the effects of the independent variable. He outlines these as his-
tory, maturation, testing, instrument decay, regression, selection, and
mortality, respectively;

‘While the reported study is not an experiment in the sense as de-
fined above, the research design utilized is in many respects similar to
a Pretest-Posttest Control Group design paradigm as presented by CampbellJ‘
In essence we have 01 and 02 representing a sub-pOpulation which holds an
expectancy that the change within the organization will affect them directly.
I is present in the form of an introduced change, and O3 and Oh are present
in the degree that they represent a sub-pOpulation which holds an expectancy
that the change process will not directly affect them.
1 Our design deviated from Campbell's paradigm to the extent that we
were also examining relationships between variables measured prior to X,
in the presence of X, butrnt necessarily directly associated with mea-
sures in terms of X. Hence, a more explicit design model might be gra-
phically presented as follows:

I 01 X 02
Y 03 Oh

 

f

h. Campbell's design No. b (1957, p. 300) was expressed as follows:

01X02
03 Oh

where: 01, 02, 03, 0h represent pretest and posttest measures or
observations taken over time. X represents an intervening or
conditioner variable. The difference (01-02) - (O3-Oh) is equi-
valent to the effects of X.

 

 

»
r

~fi
a... ‘
s"

a 9m
U.
U
’.n A“
U.““

,—

V -
Q
Q U-“

fi""" ’
vectors
- ‘5

a. “V

n,-
..

.-

..‘ on-

H.—

A
,4

¢‘.'

woauvo~<
-

a:

N

‘s
5‘.

5“,

10

Where Y = an independent variable which is present before and during
the change for all groups. It is possible to have, then, an examination
of the relationships between rsol, YAOZ,‘Y-O3, Yeoh, 01-02, and OB'Oh'

The design calls for a simultaneity of 01 with O3 and 02 with Oh'
This was achieved. This particular design also permitted the examina-
tion of experimental mortality over time. One could examine the pre—
test scores for lost cases and the posttest scores on pick-ups, check-
ing on their comparability;

For Design h, a means of encompassing all four measurements (01,
02, O3, &.Oh)'was achieved by computing for each subject a pretest-
posttest difference score on one of the dependent variables and then
examining the relationship between the independent and the dependent
variables while taking into account perceived involvement in the change-
over, along with other variables.

This design additionally controls for the effects of maturation
and history through the simultaneity of 01 with 03 and 02 with Oh‘

Our design provided for, and this is its major advantage, an opportun-
ity to study the relationship of pretested variables or attitudes to
the kind and amount of change in other variables over time.

The other central aspect to our general approach, other than the
research design employed, was the belief that the utilization of a
multivariate method of data analysis would prove to be the most mean-
ingful and productive. This was particularly true in light of the re-
search goals and uncontrolled natural setting within which the inves-
tigation was conducted. Interest was directed toward an exploration

of the possible relationships among a number of variables in a context

A 22:6: era‘s.
0“,:

rdtivari a: 7

a ‘Anm';n‘ .." F
J—du.ab-m o- -

 

~‘.
A... “.3 fi"
s
i‘ver. DESC“‘
a.
say-‘2; “z“
'.
‘8“ One C‘
“‘Q. ‘
\':'a.:..“
”‘7‘

11

where extraneous factors were largely uncontrolled.

A number of authorities have stressed the value and necessity of
using a multivariate approach. Cattell (1958), for example, argued for
a consideration of studies in which a particular variable is investi-
gated in the company of‘a whole group of variables. It was his Opinion
that serious omissions occur when multivariate findings are neglected,
and that one single multivariate study will sometimes yield more infor-
mation on the validity or non-validity of a set of hypothesized rela-
tionships than will a number of univariate studies. A single experi-
mental study using a multivariate design with n variables will normally
deal with as many relations for a given variable as will n different
studies of a univariate nature. Hence, we can point to economy of pro-
cedure as one gain.

If one research goal is that of exploring the relationship between
variables, the experimenter is desirous of getting as "true" an estimate
of the real relationship obtaining between these variables as is poss-
ible. In a natural field setting the interaction of variables with each
other is often obscured by the presence of accompanying variates which
interact with one or both of the experimental variables, dependent and
independent. As DuBois pointed out, "events to be studied transpire in
an interacting web of variates completely out of the control of the in-
vestigator" (1957, p. 158). He was concerned with the effects of extra-
neous variables or concomitant variates. It is the job of the experi-
menter to ”somehow take them (extraneous variables) into account. What
we actually desire to do is to reduce to zero the correlations between

Conditioner variables and the dependent and independent variables." To

 

:: it nether F327: *

r'“: 'iate £12753

I“:

.... 3: that they be?

‘J: ‘HA\

3' o3f¢:7/0

a . - I .9 0
.9 fi' . P? -Q n r “
fie- :93. U v-3“, . A q- :

13"“ . :-
5‘

‘a
has .. “:18 BS?

 

 

12

put it another way, the problem is to ”find the correlation (through
multivariate analysis) between any pair of experimental variates modi-
fied so that they become uncorrelated with extraneous variables" (1957,
PP- 158-159).

In discussing the place of multivariate designs in psychological
experimentation, Wrigley (1957) highlighted some of the other benefits
accruing from the use of such techniques. Guidance is provided in sel-
ecting the independent and the dependent variable from a set of examined
variable relationships; a method is provided for the examination of in-
teractions, and as a means of statistically manipulating the effects of
extraneous variables in cases where actual experimental control is diff-
icult or impossible to achieve. It is exactly this latter quality of
multivariate analysis which suits it so well to the research to be re-
ported. This same investigator (Wrigley, 1957) indicated that such an-
alyses were useful when the concern was with multiple independent (pre-
dictor) variables and multiple dependent (criteria) variables. The mul-
tivariate model provides a more realistic abs traction from the total
psychological situation thanddoes a univariate analysis.

In conclusion, a word should be said about the classes of vari-
ables which formed the nucleus of the investigation. These variates
fell within three categories; there were two dependent variables, two
independent variables as well as a number of situational or conditioner
variables.

The dependent variables represented two distinct, although related,
kinds of response to technological change. One was a global, generalized

attitude toward non-specific work-related change in terms of readiness or

issitaty to accept

m an
9......‘.‘

o
‘A. "Q
“so-tunnel- nltd‘ ah -

a . ‘ .
-" .. "h“!e v- -
Oob-o: a; V“: J . '

u" nu .
\- K
n... ‘5'. «may n.

. va- ‘5 g _
:-‘"‘~ U. a). EVE-Q U
. H

e a n .
-. ‘3 van.
I

.m. ....c:. vs 58:

 

‘
" n
N r RA “I
‘3 3.1.6.
.
'q ‘n‘.
W .a A“
‘..“'-".S “‘5‘ 'V‘

l3

hesitancy to accept such changes. The other dependent variable was an
attitudinal measure of a bipolar, affective reSponse to the change-in-
ducer itself, in this instance a data-processor. This latter dependent
variable actually reflected liking or dislike for the expected effects
of a Specified imminent change, and was measured prior to the change it-
self. The former was measured as a difference-score based upon a com-
parison of pretest and posttest responses.

The independent variables were related to an intraorganizational
factor which was felt to be of theoretical and practical significance in
fashioning attitudes towards change within a setting where a changeover
was taking place. This factor was a company'initiated and implemented
commmnications program whose tOpic was the impending change.

One of the independent variables was a.measure of the extent to
which employees were factually informed about the upcoming changeover.
In more Specific form this reflected the degree to which the experimen-
tal pOpulation was aware of public pronouncements regarding the change
via company communication channels. This was further restricted in that
the pronouncements were ones which company management officials agreed
were actually made or not made to their work force.

The companion independent variable was a derivation of the first
in that it provided a.measure of the extent of belief or disbelief in,
or acceptance or rejection of, the information about the changeover as
(xmveyed to the employees through the media of the in-compamy communica-
tions program.

The set of intervening or situational variables referred to factors

‘Whjnh were found to be empirically related to the independent and/or

":57: ”makes.

"u...

- ~v ‘ é 'o A:
"1" 3"."- .338 vs v

. -
“use I *1“

' ‘ ‘ C. 09
a .:~:ate:, verse- . n

‘.. W ‘ ‘
3:972:qu lever , a,

"*c ef’sn‘ 3 Cf

any véog¥v

.

a
I. ae-vwnw. "r
"“ «in v .‘_ '

Jan»...
a

9 .- ’
.2.“- " 'vnv

‘UR-r‘“

laav

-
.:\."
....

V I
an 1 0 a
L ... M .1” ' V‘ ‘

--Uvu Lea Bah}?
‘;:a..3fiQ a“‘ 9‘sq‘.

71153 ES 'u'BI'C accrx.

-a.

 

1h

dependent variables. These situational or personal-data variates in-
cluded such facets of the work setting as the office where the employee
was located, perceived involvement in the change, supervisory or non~
supervisory level, age, and education.

The effects of these factors on the dependent and independent
variables were accounted for in a multivariate analysis, since they
could not be experimentally controlled.

In the following chapter we shall review some of'the significant
research cited in the literature which deals with the concepts of com-
munications, attitude change, automation, and their varied interrelaw

tionships.

QR- «

 

an

80-51.-
T‘ = ‘I m!‘“‘
" -v w‘ 5* L

 

 

 

u; “‘55::cq A» 3“:-
k. hit-us 4- adv-
"q‘ . .‘s
1“~‘ 4 a ‘: qu:
VII, ant-a Quyhv..~‘
.
"an... a
38“ :: .‘i‘nnfg "
§ 5 am ~au..~‘ _‘ ~
'a
.l
’ ~|
<— a':‘ I: A. o,» :
‘ .‘ “.. U...—
u y -
VA
L
._ a
\U\
- . M .
‘- " 51¢!“ =“AC vu-
~d nanny» “

 

 

!' .
‘Q
.' Rn
a: 27“». ... .
unselvu :
-‘.' .
a. ,.
.\2 2: ‘
\-
.
V
a~~~ ~-
~' ‘ ~‘-.& ‘
y k’ :
3"». 5's."
v.
w.
.
i.‘
~“ ~' a
.
.‘ .
:‘\‘:"\q“ ‘ f...
‘1‘
! ~,
‘5
-A
‘-\ 2‘. ‘9
n... I: ":t‘
“' n A “

 

CHAPTER T’t'JO

PRIOR RESEARCH AND LITERATURE SURVEY

It is the purpose of this chapter to review the major and signifi-
cant research efforts carried out to obtain a better understanding of
the process of attitude change, the effects of communications upon atti-
tudes, and response to job changes with particular emphasis upon such
changes as induced by automation. In addition some of the cogent mater-
ial bearing on the impact of automation, and on the use of multivariate
data analysis with primary emphasis upon multiple classification analyh
ses of covariance will be offered.

Contemporary popular periodicals and trade publications are replete
with references and articles on office and factory mechanization classi-
fied as automation of one sort or another. In the former instance one
finds particular emphasis upon the use of commercially available elec-
tronic digital computers for data processing and record keeping (Osborn,
195b, Ridenour, 1952; vanselow, l9Sh). In the case of factories, the
concern is with the introduction of automated production methods making
pmssible continuous and automatic production through self-feeding, inte-
£¥ation of production steps, and self control or regulation of the pro-
duction flow. ‘A description of such factory operations can be found in
numerous sources. For example, Harder and David (1953) discuss automa-
tion at the Ford Motor Company, Halsbury'(l955) talks about his concern
‘With the impact of automation upon the factory working force, and Ewing
CL951) discussed his interest with the requirements for management "re-
thinking" in the face of the automatic factory.

15

l

we

 

 

 

. . . . .c ..
.l C . T . . . [K
9 ... a. a... a. C. a. .Q
.2 a a C E s n. C. Ia... a
-... .. r. a. .C e . \w .e . a
“a 3 a .. C . a a. a 6
u. a . a a m. J. .. S T C .l
e t C. v . a . a. n .1 a a e
to O I T 2 .3 .. . .. ._ “a. ..:. a a H
.. A. e .n. . a . t.
o.. e m. I.” .m‘ . ‘ n—‘ s A: \ ‘
a. a. ... L. r. m. ..
. a a...“ 3 no A.“ nmJ . s. 4 ‘ .. —
J A. u u \
a a .e. t : .. .. a. a a. x-
v . ... a... .J a... 4‘ u ... ... . was a
S. e. :- N'. .1... .V 3. . A a
J“ an «a r. a t . f .C .
. .. . . .3 .. a .a .. ac

 

16

Reported research of a more serious and sophisticated nature may,
for the sake of convenience in discussion, be dichotomized as being re-
lated to either the factory (production methodology) or the office
(clerical, computational, and record-keeping functions). The greater
portion of exploratory investigations, systematic research, or merely
careful observation of phenomena associated with the advent of factory
automation have been conducted most frequently in automobile production
factories (Faunce, 1958a, 1958b, 1959), steel plants (Walker, 1957) or
in public utility power plants (Mann.& Hoffman, 1960).

Activities of an analogous sort have been carried out, in the case
of office automation, primarily in the accounting departments of vari-
ous organizations (Craig, 1955; MBnn, 1955) and within insurance compan-
ies (Faunce, 1960; Hardin, 1960a, 1960b; Jacobson, Trumbo, Cheek, &
Nangle, 1959; U. 8. Dept. of Labor, 1960).

As an aggregate, investigations of the sort cited above have in
general supported the following broad notions about employee response
to technological change:

1) Changes associated with a 30b are amenable to study and

attitudinal reactions to such changes can be quantified.

2) The dimensions of change (kind, rate, intensity) and reac-
tions to these can be described in a meaningful way.

3) Job related changes act as agents producing differential al-
terations in employee perceptions, expectations, and attitudes
about the jdb and attendant changes.

h) Employees differ in the way they perceive changes, in their

feelings about job changes, and in their responsivity to

C

e

6
v

e‘

"A"
“we.

serve

{'37

Q.
5‘

“ac

O
-

S

a 1- V
5.2 ant
c-o

JSL‘

I
R..
5,:

I

;\
v;

'3‘
.-\.«‘

rela‘e

ab

6‘

vs
I

*v‘ ‘
fiQ‘

«9‘9

‘5.“

--~§. a

I».
.u-‘v

h... I

-b..

-c A.“
.-.

e 33955 3

5

non
vVa.

\.

1?

changes 'when they occur.

5)- Correlates of worker response to change are identifiable and
may serve as predictors of differential response to change.

6) Systematic differences in attitudes toward and about changes
on the job have been found to be related to personal back-
ground factors and intraorganizational variables.

7) Satisfaction with imposed jdb changes has been found to be
related to such factors as disruption of the work group and
concomitant changes in the amount of jdb interest, respon-
sibility, and control over work-pacing.

8) Response to automation is similar in kind and degree to that
exhibited toward other forms of technological change.

Three areas of investigation particularly germane to the study

hereinreported1 concern the process of attitude change, per se, cer—

tain organizational communications studies, and the applications of

multivariate analyses of variance or covariance.

Since we shall be talking primarily about attitudinal data as the

”raw material” of the study, the concept of attitude ought first to be

defined. .An attitude is a more or less stable opinion2 or predisposin

 

1.

For a discussion of'empirical research conducted by the Labor and
Industrial.Relations Center of Michigan State University as a part
of an ongoing series of investigations into the impact of automa-
tion upon insurance office settings see: Jacdbson, et al. (1959),
Hardin (1960a b), Trumbo (1958) Faunce (1960), and Hardin and
Hershey (1960).
.An opinion being the expression of an attitude; i.e., the overt
written or verbalized behavior supposedly reflective of and gen-
erated by, an underlying predisposition or latent attitude.

o u
v
us..-
N-v Oat-“flit -4-
.

1" .

a . ~§—u‘-.

..—.. .vv .4 . v
I

' ' I v,- a...

..oo.~..~: ,. .—

, .. fl . ‘
11-1.4-“ ”V -

- -
n....'~. ‘
» .-

.-
I...-...u-vu

 

‘ Q- - .‘
“"\"- A. :q o .,
pic‘s ‘13-.-b‘ - __
. ‘ . . .-
..:.-v-\. .',A‘.. .
. ‘ h .
"'-¢'.¢o v..- 4- . _.
I

. .
="‘f‘: ’raw .
~~¢vv a..-"

 

I
“3" ~~

 

V'Iaw- .

 

.A‘.‘ q - .
“3 H ..
"U : ~- -,.
.
" n..:. u .
. ‘ “NA ‘
.— .--.v“: -s 53-.0
-.y
A."": a
‘Q ~ .
"' F A . a
~§.‘. ~‘ ‘1' "~§.
.

 

 

‘-
._~ 9“"
N . I
‘o.‘ ‘ “Q: .fip-
"\ ...,
'-.._-
'o
I
“ h n
~:_—':‘~ . n
”N. a
' v s‘fic
h"'«-

 

18

tion toward making some particular response, or as Hovland stated it:

"attitudes are viewed as internalized anticipatory approach or avoidance
tendencies toward objects, persons, or symbols" (1951, p. h27).

Doob called for a redefinition of attitudes in terms of existing
behavior theory. He placed attitudes within the province of learning
theory, since they are something acquired through learning. His defin-
ition of an attitude was that it represents "an implicit, drive-produc-
ing response considered socially significant in the individuals society"
(Doob, 1957, p. 136). The analysis as offered by Doob emphasized that
an attitude is some implicit response with a particular drive strength
occuring in an individual as a reaction to stimulus patterns which af-
fect subsequent overt responses. As such, attitudes are related to
classical principles of discrimination and generalization gradients.

The focus taken here shall be upon changes elicited in attitudes
as a result of some antecedent or intervening condition, occurance, or
experience. The literature in the area of attitude change is indeed
abundant. A classical and traditional approach has been to effect at-
titudinal change by the planned manipulation of communications of one
sort or another (Fine, 1957; Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957; Janis &
Feshback, 1953; McGinnies & Altman, 1959; Robinson, 1951;; Scott, 1957).
The changes thereby induced are consequently related to correlates which
Serve as predictors of the effects of communications in terms of the a-

171cunt and direction of the change in attitude, and assist in formulating
Ein.explanation accounting for attitude changes under varying, Specified
Seats of conditions.

The instrumentality for examining attitude change takes essentially

.~ I
I
I)
1
I)

' !

ID

U)
'3

5
3n
U‘l

)
. '

1
(I)

I
.
S
_ 0
~‘

A; 9k ." :C ‘ a
:5“, we Sue“ —C V;

n O '
Ian-9:53.. *I AFN
:.........\...t‘..i. Lou

. .
”-5....
n-

. u
. "tF‘l‘fiV‘e‘
"we“. c. as! y u.

. .
- ' b ,
...-. “3' 3’. " a“ .

O
‘

I
“cu-'0'

521's arrears to c

I

eo- . ~
_ ::”= -.AN 0.—
‘~-u..~ ‘31:“

 

' v'
+‘.
Hg.
*1 h',‘ I ‘
a N
‘5 too: ¢.::‘.“"‘ A’
v :n.‘ u“‘ U-
I.‘ '1
., .
:‘ flu...‘
”‘6.“‘1 ' .AR". --
"‘4“ u‘CDcaa‘
»
u.“

I Ag: ' \
h ‘

~.' "v “‘ inV“ '
~ ~¢q\,.‘v ..

u.

9 .

N. .
\: 3""! 1

:‘ «g .5 egg:- L‘

 

Ch. I
h‘- .
"a ." , n
~ ‘» U‘D“ k”

-‘ -
.‘
K‘K.‘q 3...“ Q
'. :‘\aL ‘ .
v HDQ.‘
A ‘9 51..
“i. E)““\‘ A ~
‘ I ' h
‘-

 

h.
\H b
mu.‘ Q ~‘ ‘
q
s V“: Ray.
\.b v.
I
.. :_. I
\i.‘ ‘ A“ \
”LI“.
’1 ‘o
O i' "
“‘5

 

19

two forms. The research designs generally call for either an experimen-
tal or a sample survey approach (Hovland, 1959). In the experimental ap-
proach, the subjects are given a controlled and predetermined exposure to
a communication and the effects are evaluated in terms of change in the
attitude produced. In the case of a survey approach, information is se-
cured through interviews and/or questionnaires both concerning the respon-
dent's exposure to communications of a specified sort and his attitudes
on issues related to the communications; i.e., the object of the communi-
cations. Some of the reported studies merely limit themselves to measur-
ing the magnitude of a change as a function of the gross content of some
communication message. Frequently a control group is used to assess tem-
porally coincident attitude changes not associated with the communication.
This group is experimentally denied exposure to the communication in
duestion.

In connection with the investigation of attitude change a number of
methodological questions require attention.

For example, Tannenbaum (1953) demonstrated that changes in attitude
toward the source of a.message occurred along with the main.changes (at-
tfltude toward the object of the communication), and generally followed
the same pattern. This researcher also obtained data indicating inter-
mfifion effects between attitude toward the source and attitude toward the
txmcept of the communication, hence suggesting that an experimenter ought
“MDtake into consideration the subjects' attitudes about the source of the
c0mmunication as well as the Opinion directed toward the object of the
Inessage.

Another consideration, and potential problem, has been posed by'

Ifliviand (1951). This revolved around the observed phenomena that some

:titn‘e stages art

1.95 are 20““ n:

he».-.

Q
......,,.:,,"P 1" a a _
~......__,;.. _“

- -

hey. o. ARV-fin... 0‘5”
‘ .—

."'--r a... VVOnV§L d

-
' *— ~-.» C o.

. W .
~2r'."‘ “' v- '79 ‘ha-
..o.:..v‘-~.. ..a‘ \- ‘.

hr! :85: EW“. In

V“M'. -»“‘
.

———“-_

u. .‘f‘r
rot“? set 3’
.A‘A\ §

:3 ‘
I... Se..“‘ \ .

"n‘ u ‘.
5". “~ A

"b

.§~os " “g,“
‘ _ §
16 £§ no ‘
OA‘VU J

t‘wt A: '
.5. H " PC83-
3‘ ‘83 ii:
U

K? a+¢ L‘
. .‘n “'23 “t‘hT

u
a... 3". “he E's-.1“. '
F . -‘

 

20

attitude changes are widely generalized to new situations, while other
changes are modified in the communication situation, but do not appear
to function in a closely related way to actual life situations.-3 varia—
tions in concept formation skills and motivational levels were used to
eXplain these particular differences.

Some of the other complicating factors in this general area of in-
vestigation have been variously said to be: the influence of cumula-

tive past experience, personality variables, perceived credibility“5

 

3. Another set of discrepancies has been pointed out by Hovland
(1959). These concern differing results frequently obtained from
experimental (laboratory) studies as opposed to survey (naturalis-
tic setting) studies. He spelled out seven explanatory factors for
these differences: the size of the communication unit studied
(single vs entire communication program), biased or representative
sampling of population, the time interval used in evaluation, the
types of communicators used (sponsorship of communication), the
amount of post-communication interaction between subjects, the types
of issues discussed in the communication, and finally the types of
populations utilized. Essentially the divergence can be accounted
for on the basis of different definitions of the communication
situation.

(p For a description of a study dealing with the influence of source
credibility upon the effectiveness of communications, see Hovland
and Weiss (1952). Their investigation lent support to the notion
that some data on post-communication changes in opinion can be
explained by assuming equal learning of the content whether pre-
sented by a trustworthy or an untrustworthy source, but with ini-
tial resistance to the acceptance of the material presented by an
untrustworthy source. This initial resistance diminishes with time
while the content is forgotten more slowly.

3. Also, see the research reported by Fine (1957) who failed to find
a relationship between opinion change and an expressed know1edge
of the communicator's position or credibility.

J.’ m-‘A «a A'-
’: 5...”.5 V. CV'

1 ' ‘
0.. ”q -l- “.W
425’ $.u «.e o -5-

'l'. 1:4: av ,:
”.9 VL-‘- U.‘4 V-

.:.'..'... $3,. 1:¢¢‘. “
"- .0: .Jv --uu-- f.

P”... on o A.‘.",, ..
‘- v.- V a
u' ' V V. v-..

. QA ‘ H o

- - ‘n', N.‘ .—

.....». 3..." “fl“- .
O

o.

'- 8...:
o. A Q 1
\ '-
-. nus. »a:e, .3 a:

Q t
I
:5 ."fl NVVv-
‘.

'8
.‘.b, V Um.»

. a; .
,~:o.:’..¢a: ‘fi
"~

I

n... _ u-

. . ..“-a~ ,
-v

:1 .\;,~ ‘.fi k - '
...., «a ver. ,

«-

I
‘ I
.

 

”U :y.
‘A D‘VQQ ‘
n_ 1“ I‘ u“ ‘.
'~. ‘ K
‘bt-a ,

"I

21

of the source of communications, intelligence levelfS duration of the
change, and the regression phenomenon.7?

The validity of attitudinal data has frequently been a tOpic re-
ceiving too little attention in the reported research. Many studies
appear to tacitly accept the prOposition that the items used in fact
tapped some underlying latent attitude. Two questions are combined
in this case, and are in need of resolution.

One, do the survey or questionnaire scale items actually measure
some identifiable, independent attitude along a meaningful continuum,
and two, do verbalized or written Opinions represent an isomorphic re-
lation to overt behavioral data?

In discussing the relationship between responses to questionnaires
and subsequent behavior, Doob relates that:

”the question may be answered genuinely --- but because
the individual may change in the interim, because he
does not think things through in advance, or because

he simply cannot anticipate how he will react in a
future situation that is unknown to him or out of his
range of experience - the future overt reaponse will --—
be a function of other drives or attitudes that are not
aroused by the question" (1957, p- lh8).

. 'With respect to this variable, Hovland (1951) found that brighter
persons were more likely to have their opinions changed by'a com-
munication than were the less intelligent when Opinions were based
mostly upon factual information. However, when the acceptance of
the material was the principle determinant of attitude change, the
less intelligent were more apt to be influenced, since they'tended
to accept practically anything communicated to them. Brighter per-
sons were a great deal more skeptical in acceping information and
drawing conclusions from it.

'7. McNemar (1956) refers to the ”regression fallacy” which can account
for shifts in attitudes over successive testings. The regression
effect gives rise to differential effects which would erroneously'
be attributed to the experience or conditions introduced.

1.. ‘Lc:‘ ‘ ‘.
.‘(1'10 “"4 030.

b one measu:

'1 u '
:«-~~ .

"'-fioue .s gage: .

.-
~u .‘

u“ ’1‘:
5;“. 'C H A ‘Q
N FEJS '

5

-; h "'2‘ A 0‘ Q
" “w ~..ere: :
'3‘.“ ‘ .

o ,D- ‘

he h».. SEC U-

(Ill
LI’

 

22

Two workers who have been concerned with methodological considera-
tions in the area of attitude change have been McNemar (19116) and Katona
(1958). Their tack had taken the direction of a concern for the manner
in which one measures pretest-posttest differences and ascribes signifi-
cance to the obtained deviations or shifts between them. The change in
attitude is generally measured by the difference between the mean pre-
test and mean posttest score, if one has pretest and posttest scores
for the same sample of individuals. Other variations to this approach
have been offered by the above authors.

The next section of this survey of pertinent literature deals with
reported studies that treat certain communication variables and related
correlates both in and out of a setting of change. A multitude of ar-
ticles and books have been written on the subject of communications in
business and industry. It is a p0pular tepic of concern as a focal
point for improving employee morale, promoting organizational effec-
tiveness, develOping management and supervisory skills and for creat-
ing worker approval and acceptance for company initiated changes. Its
inportance is underscored by the pronouncement of Bevalas and Barrett
that "communication is not a secondary aSpect of organized activity,
but rather is the basic process out of which all other functions de-
I‘ive” (1951, p. 367).

Communication in the sense in which it shall be used in this inves-

\J'

tigation, and as used in the majority of other studies, is taken as the
transmission of information initiated by management for consumption by

all or specific levels of employees. In this sense the communicative

 

«ma-'6. a... a“)

"‘8..- v» . y
5

Ja" Efltlrlja‘

 

" o p
'1. ‘m.v “A
u: ..-,..QC x”: a

'a‘.‘

-\\.V

} .
~11 a: of 5‘

V

t I ‘
I'm» ‘ ‘I
a. 12‘»- :] a

._a ' u
as so“,

-. “y".‘1 ‘ ‘ ‘.
f, ' Hh .
lvt‘ UV“ 31“

I"; .‘ .
n \p a..- ' v‘. V U -

1‘ . ' ‘
~ 0
inch; 3v F.Q‘ ..
‘ Uta- Q

h V! ’Q‘ ’,9
\IL. «K C..lc. wfl‘
x. V.‘

e; +
u. “‘1” :C‘. Q

..,L C

.
“I ' v4 . .
'3.- fvsnye: IN" 1

in“.
X“ .
\.~ ‘
Ingara U‘ cé‘h“vs
v. . -
A.

A
: ~Ii
.- \ ~l
‘ I I '
\~L. a; ‘
‘E sh. a
a
h ‘~‘ H
-‘§. 3. “
q ." a
‘ “.e “‘."
.,_ a

23

acta is here delimited to a downward flow. This form of communication
is additionally limited in that it is differentiated from specific "job
know‘ledge'I because it does not constitute an immediate necessary pre-
requisite for effective work performance on the part of the recipients.
Some empirical data bearing on the importance of communications
was compiled from a review (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell,
1957) of sixteen studies that encompassed over 11,000 subjects. It was
found that out of sixteen job factors, such as wages, job security, in-
terest in the job, etc., communications ranked twelfth as a contributor
to overall job satisfaction. In another comparative study by the same
authors eleven job factors were compared for office and factory workers
in terms of their significance to the overall job. Communications ranked
ninth for office workers and seventh for factory workers. It was con-
cluded that formal communications played an overall subordinate role.
It was pointed out that of the studies which gave evidence on the con-
tribution of communications, this particular aspect of the job was men-
tioned only as a reason for disliking a job, never as a specific reason
for liking it. In addition, there appeared to be a differential per-
ception of the importance of communications depending upon: 1) occupa-
tional level, 2) ”blue-collar“ or “white-collar" jobs held, 3) supervis-
ory level, and )4) educational level.

—_

8. Newcomb defined a communicative act as "a transmission of
information, consisting of discriminative stimuli, from a
source to a recipient. The discriminative stimuli have a
discriminable object as referent” (1953, p- 393).

I'I

' \
.. , (~pJ2 :“.'
.-A _
‘ - ~.'
o‘v-d *‘p,, ’

 

 

 

. . . ‘\
<-u- ~,... -.'~-_

" ." ~3v-\-¢“- _‘

.
- a ..

"" ~-“fl"‘v- --
'. 'z'-"‘;“---a .
.

. ._ ' I ‘.
,1... .- Q. *Q.- q_~
- I‘d- ~- .4--— -M _"
. . -
-§~:. ~"“‘F-\c .-
.~.v- §-.-‘_."- '-

'.:- l‘n-J‘ ‘
.A,
U ‘H ‘-
.~.
'.. \-. ,n"
. 5
u.. . , ‘
_-:~ ‘-~‘ :_' .‘"
,.--s... '.HV-"
' L

.

u, "A . ‘ V .

';- ‘ ". "N o. —
~— - .
a». “-4 v. ~

.

.. *~.

‘-
M‘A :‘.ha\. n
, -.. _$

nu .
NU.“ '~
-.
n.
—. AA - I
a“. "L‘“ .-_
w. -..5 ‘. ..
.A‘ I
' "a A . ‘
". h A. “
‘_.. A ‘ fl-
5" ~ ‘

 

 

 

.a‘.'
- ‘- .
u
.. ,.
s, _
s~t¢ .._. firv“ ‘
v—.‘h-.
{. .
a.
“L. -“
.
~ " ‘V...,_‘
'.
. fi
.-
“a:‘~
“" ‘ v--.
v.‘ .‘c _. .
‘ v-‘ ,-
. _‘
‘ \-
‘u
-. ~\.'
\
“‘y‘ "V‘ ‘

 

2b

In a study dealing with the railroading industry, Stagner, Flebbe,
& Wood (1952), investigated the relationship between job satisfaction
and the receipt of formal company communications. Their results failed
to show a significant relationship between formal communications and
mean job satisfaction scores. Neither was there any agreement between
job satisfaction and the reading of company communications. However,

a highly significant correlation between job satisfaction and the re-
ported incidence of being kept informed by the foreman was obtained.

Nilsen (l95b), while interviewing personnel in offices and facto-
ries, found employees complaining that they were not being told why cer-
tain work had to be done, or done in a particular way; they were not be-
ing given adequate information.

The concern with communications as a job factor and possible de-
terminer of job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness can be
said to have taken a fairly specific course and form. Most of the at-
tention has centered around the barriers to and distortions in the trans-
mission of information. An equivalence has often been implicitly or ex-
plicitly posited between communication effectiveness and the accurate
transmission of the "message."

A number of investigations (Davis, England, & Dunnette, 1958;

Funk & Becker, 1952; 0diorne, l95b; Perry & Mahoney, 1955; Shepherd &
Weschler, 1955), in one way or another, have attempted to evaluate the
effectiveness of communications and study related phenomena. These in-
Vestigations have been structured along roughly five lines: 1) "clinical"
Observations over an extended period of time in order to "get the feel"

0f the group and thus be able to make subjective judgements about

, . l '
o-c—wo' A-.‘ *V‘ “5“

J. ‘....‘.v-.... «a!!!
a

'9" an: ‘na‘e fl9+nv~

.aUI- v- i...

.... . .
O
- ~ .9:- cn—g cflp'
.'~-‘~hn 'v‘v' “UN
U

 

I
‘1”W"V-‘4 vow-fl!-
_

. .. .~ ._ :-
---.¢"-u.adv fl». ‘— a.

~:‘: ”Q -~-::-\ "L:
...... a. ..y‘.;’ In...)

I .
I. g I a
. :; fl“w-i..-:

.4
~""~“V~av-d

U
a. ‘ I

a. f. can.“ '4‘:A.r
‘5‘. {VG-a.“ rt..-\‘

'
An‘...‘ .

 

 

 

.
fl. \
U

25

communication patterns:9 2) a determination of who communicates with
whom and how often, by the use of interviews and/or questionnaires

utilizing some sociometric technique;10 3) a determination of whether

respondents were satisfied with particular kinds of information and

types of media, which supposedly gives some idea of the effectiveness

of the communications;11 h) communications studied as they pass a par-
ticular point which provides information about the flow of information;12
and 5) the recording and studying of communication sequences or chains.

This latter approach focuses upon some unit of information and follows

it chronologically through the organization.13

 

9. For a complete description of this method applied to a factory
setting, see Roethlisberger and Dickson (195h).

10. The reader is directed to Jacobson and Seashore's article (1951)
for an expanded description of this treatment as applied to a gov-
ernmental organization where the organizational structure was con-

ceptualized in terms of communication patterns and events. Also,
see the work of Shepherd and Weschler (1955).

11. See, for example, Stagner, Flebbe, and'Wood's study (1952).

12. See Davis (1953) for a discussion of this approach. In addition
the reader is referred to the work of the University of Minnesota
(1955) and 0diorne (195h) on the triple audit attitude scale for
the study of communications which may be applied to this approach.
The triple audit consists of a communication information test, a
check list of communication policies and practices, and a Consensus
Scale which supposedly measures the degree of common understanding
and belief among workers about company goals, procedures and
policies.

13. Davis (1953) developed a technique called "ecco-analysis" for in-
vestigating communications channels within organizations in terms
of the chronological spread of a particular unit of information,
within a time limit, from its origin to specified persons in the
organization..

I: the process
25:92:: has been .
z: c.’ an infer: ‘.

. . ‘ . .
" "V." we ya 6 ‘y.
3.2.0.. .s‘ . e Va -

" I .9
gnaw-m .5. .‘ a '1’
nil-v LA. cave. - L.)
I U .

 

 

.A..‘ r a ‘e
noevigna.ess C- F

11 £15 reter“ on

"“‘ J.‘ t

5' .e a
. I w a A A
. e V- v“.
so ‘ I
"5' -"~ ' ““b D‘-

26

In.the process of investigating the effectiveness of communications,
precedent has been firmly'established for the administration of some
sort of an information test to measure the amount of factual knowledge
received and retained as a result of an organizational communications
program. HOpefully this would afford some quantified index of the
effectiveness of the program as defined as accurate and timely recep-
tion and retention of information units by particular recipients.

This use of some kind of an information or knowledge test is re-
flected in numerous studies (Dahle, 195h3 Funk & Becker, 1952; Jacobson
& Seashore, 1951; 0diorne, 195h; Perry &.Mahoney, 1955; University of
Minnesota, 1955). In this connection accumulated results have pointed
to certain general conclusions. Negligible correlations of a disap-
pointing sort have been found between employee attitudes toward the
company and their knowledge about the company. Differences in informa-
tion test mean scores have, however, been found between work groups
and between occupational levels (supervisory versus non-supervisory).
There is the possibility that the total amount of information trans-
mitted to employees, rather than retained knowledge, may be related to
attitudes about one's organization. .Also, certain crucial areas of
knowledge may be related to attitudes about the organization. Neither
of these latter two suppositions have received sufficient empirical in-
vestigation to support or reject them on the basis of the literature
surveyed. Another conclusion, far from surprising, has been that, gen-
erally, employees were far from being well informed about company pol-
icies or practices.

This latter finding may find its roots in either or a combination

a 5'
£371: manna .

5
u ‘L
re easily ya...

 

meats of any

0.

: .- o v
.=.: of somatic:

M”. u”; “a".
Lou-U 9..-; 3.5;.st e

. ,.
r”" “’ 9 ”n7 a».
‘v.-d" 0‘ “and. J ~

"e- . ‘ a ‘ ~
~'.~£T 133 Call tr:

 

27

of four explanations. Firstly, employees at levels below supervision
are generally apathetic, paying very little attention to company pro-
nouncements of any sort. Workers, secondly, take heed only of those
bits of information passed on by the management which appear to directly
affect their sphere of work activity. Thirdly, and this refers to a
minority of employees, because of previous bad experiences with what the
company has told them, the employee learns to discount, reject, or ne-
glect all future and subsequent company announcements as they are per-
ceived as being untruthful, untrustworthy, or misleading. Fourthly, it
may be that commications just are not properly filtered down to all
echelons as they were meant to be, or they may have been subject to

some distortion as they passed through the organizational communications
network.

It is perhaps not what we know about the doings of our employer,
in terms of factual knowledge, per se, but is rather how we perceive
the motivation behind, and trustworthiness of , his communic ations that
bears a singular and significant relationship to feelings and attitudes
about the company as a whole and about specific topics which form the
object of a barrage of formal comunications.

Having discussed in some measure the area of communications effec-
tiveness and how it is assessed with particular emphasis upon the usage
of information tests, the next step will be to discuss the part of com-
munications in settings more closely allied to the research setting
dealt with in this study; i.e., a setting of change.

A management decision to introduce some changes in the way things

are done, and the implementation of these changes, offers a clear-cut

as: for launch

‘0‘.-

.-a.\ .

“-v :V sec-“‘3‘:

5“"

five. “o a-

p

‘O
‘ neat-I- O A
.,,-" mucabeu,

{.5 .-'..,.'.....:‘.,, a
' J 0-

" ub-b-:‘~ v
v

---; :zcezures

’

‘1
“Ev-a“ ‘ HA
J v. (,C‘ ‘

vi...
0

P... I‘.’« ' a
s... ,.Era:‘7'
‘ a
‘ .’-‘
I... J .M‘I. -:
“‘ v. a. ‘.
J.‘ . .
. an. .:
--.. "" n
U a“: ~a‘
a ' ,
a .
‘nu-D' n‘ q

wttlafi:
.‘fih
v§:;‘\ ‘
\. <
a,”
“S
’ ,
Q‘ \‘Q
\4 -.

.’/a

C
ar-

A

k.

OT.

)

“-
L

 

28

reason for launching a communications program. As Jacobson and Seashore
(1951) indicated, commmications are important "because of their func-
tion in a situation where attitudes are not yet crystallized because of
the ambiguity of the work setting" resulting from various changes in
work procedures, policies, etc.

Cooper (1953) has expressed his impression that the worker wants to
know Operating plans and changes that may affect him, changes in person—
nel who work with him, and anything that may directly or indirectly
affect his pay, status, working conditions,career Opportunities, self-
esteem, or interpersonal relations.

Some observations and data have been presented on communications in
a setting of change. McLean (1955), who was interested in the effects
of a relocation of personnel in a hospital, commented that both disrup-
tion and anxiety were engendered by the transmission of day-to-day
thoughts on the situation by management. In order to reduce the likeli-
hood of anxiety resulting from "before the fact” communications, the
timing of such communications should be geared to when "you can answer
more questions than you raise." In a study carried out in a plant in
Sweden (1956),it was found that the workers were eSpeciale anxious to
be informed in advance about changes affecting their own work conditions.

Meredith (1955) was concerned with the problem of resistance to
conununications in the face of a change situation. The willingness to
accept and understand cammications was found to be dependent upon an
appreciation by the employees of the consequences of understanding the
communications in terms of a required change of practice. A corollary

of this was that if there is resistance to a change there will be a

4 - ' a 1 :
"Nil“: ‘K'fl‘Aa...

‘ " W 'z‘. RA

0... ..\.~¢

 

. , .

w- on: ’5 .1 I“,

Ch; ca... got \ h
. -

3“ :. ’N‘V ‘: ‘ a,- ‘
“D. . .

«v .v‘n‘ U.- ‘

'F-vood v

|
-.o‘..a“~' - 4" “
a.....-.:-..1_ E‘s ‘

’- I
’ x A “‘0'!“
. I‘. “"~

ate C:

"‘.”B‘¢'fl A ‘
~
‘...—..~E5 an 3.“
V L.
a
-. . .
I! ~. ‘
\
~-~-S.a*::e t~
.
\
C‘s. ‘
~-._ . v- “
"u. .
’ ~35 figure:
e.‘;~
‘T ’ O‘ ‘i ‘
I, as

I? ‘
‘ VQvué‘ ‘eazs t_
:.‘L‘
N .5 “‘
-4 k‘e .a “
‘

 

29

concomitant unwillingness on the part of the employee to understand or

even read the communications regarding the change.

Mellinger (1956) investigated certain communication variables in a
governmental medical research institution that was significantly'alter-
ing the focus of its research activities, thereby affecting all person-
nel. He found that communications, per se did not necessarily lead to
greater agreement or mutual understanding between employees because of
interpersonal distrust. This latter variable imposed a barrier to the
flow of accurate communications to the extent that there were status
differences and depending upon the nature of the issues involved.

Resistance to change, besides being an inherently interesting phe-
nomenon, has attracted the attention of a number of investigators pri-
marily, I think, because it has generated so many problems and a solur
tion often leads to dramatic consequences and improvements. The class-
ical example of this is a study conducted at the Harwood Manufacturing
Corporation (Coch & French, 1959) in which essentially an investigation
was made into the best way of communicating a change in working proced-
ures. It was ascertained that it is possible for management to alter,
reduce, or completely remove group resistance to a job-related change
‘if that management effectively communicates the need for the change and
provides for and promotes group participation in planning the change and
its implementation.1h’

‘While we have been discussing communications as they are relevant

to settings of change, we have as yet not Specifically looked at the

 

Jle Levine and Butler (1952) found that group decision was superior
to formal lectures in overcoming resistance to change. In this
instance, the change referred to merit rating behavior among a
group of industrial supervisors.

i ‘ .

O
. - I
-'-".‘"‘ A“ ‘0 T
.L;IQHU.VO‘ \r.

l .
..e' no.”
LLB: :e-sb- ' en}.

 

I ' D
'aq-ng...‘ “F A.

M! Iiwuv-.U.Vfi. v-
.

' ‘ I
"c 'I Jo" :v 1 a v-
he o .n.. ‘.. ‘ “-

 

 

Q
.‘fiupo. .,_
“ «As-a ‘

“-'A\..

.V
”a ‘9» nu .-
out “- _. ~15...»

W
";

..~...- . _ . _ ‘
~~L.:T.I°' ‘Q Fa ar
- V‘ at

na-E..

 

 

'ga .flWei.‘
‘ §aav.:.:
»

er

'Qv.‘

   

 

 

a
I.
. ,6
‘1
-\- ‘
§ ‘~ . .
"~.. ‘ ‘u-Q'A‘
\- .~ _..u—-
'v-
. u"\. q I
. «e . -
".t. a. \~
D.‘H r
v “v.
1
~ . , ‘\
~11 '\ ‘F'
V. s
~
'!
h".-
. 2f" h‘
'.' . V\~_
"-- Q
N‘ '-
.
.
O
a ‘: :
' «.4 ‘Aav‘
‘7
\g. .
"a a
.
‘. ‘

 

 

.hy
'n': .
..~ ‘
'Q -
«“3 “at!
'
's‘a"§
'»
a
3..
\. “‘
‘ a
N. ,. -e
e“ .
”s ‘42...
.~ 4..
e
"‘V

30

transmission of information in a strictly automated work environment.
Besides relatively drastic changes in the way a job is performed, in
the composition of the work group, in the layers of supervision over
the worker, and in such things as work pace, job interest, and reSpcn-
sibility, there have been sizeable alterations in the man-to-man and
man-to-machine zelationships. All of these changes necessitate some
kind of information program to insure an orderly transition.

The importance of keeping the employee informed about an automated
changeover is highlighted by Ronken (1951), who said that a "lack of
social integration in modern technology emphasizes the need for communi~
cations as to: 'where do I belong'?, and 'what does the boss think of
me'?"

This is further emphasized by a statement of Walter Buchingham,
Director of the School of Industrial Management, Georgia Institute of
Technology (1960), who pointed out the importance of gearing a parti»
cipatory communications program to the introduction of automated equipm
ment. It is important to inform not only all those directly concerned,
but also peripheral groups of workers not directly involved.

Within the automated factory, research workers have recognized
barriers and obstacles to communications which were direct outgrowths
of introducing automation. Faunce (1958b) pointed out that in the auto-
mobile industry the disruption of work group structure resulted in dif-
ficulty or impossibility in carrying on verbal communications among
workers. The effects of the isolation of workers from one another, and

disruption of established interaction patterns upon communications, has

0
j.:‘ ';_F flcpfiwn '-

A.
-II .Dubl O uhvu: .-

 

a. «0' +3... _.

,—
buu a. “In- .

. . . .
"' ’i‘a’ u. ”a “‘
' >— \ 'H
“I ~1.u.- v, p-
O
I \
u u. . A
3 ' 'vww r" .,
~-.—.. “ V“ U..v .4.
.
. .
'I a - ‘
.‘ v. r‘ " AV—
. u. . ._ 4
‘ I ~- w.» *-

 

 

‘ I
‘ :OLQ ‘ a... "r
--¢._._‘ 5-- ‘H r.
I .
:‘l‘ I
I“... ‘Ffi.. ‘
“--.-..v-—t¢ u..:r .
I“. l
’ : - V' Ahg,~ :
"' ~- . ‘-- . v
‘3‘ ~ s..
Q
. . “
no .:—\ '1“‘A "
s. a
.“ 5‘ ‘.
.‘ "‘ M‘ I w
‘ ‘
‘- uh ‘ 5|“.A" r
v "‘""G.:‘ J
‘ s
I
fi
‘v.‘-.‘: '
J""- ‘ A.“”‘.
.““-'
'O
O
n.‘ .. .
I “ m .

"- ‘ NA .
.‘y —: ‘ '“‘
I i» V t

.-v.
... ‘
u“ A
‘ '-:.
I
I.
\s
~15 .a ‘._ . ‘
' u
" \
I.."‘ “h ‘._
U‘~ ."
.h
s‘ 3“.“
". 4‘- .
"u.*’s"“ ‘F “
i '-\,

 

 

31

also been recognized by others (Levine & Butler, 1952; Walker, 1957).

One of the most recent, and certainly one of the most extensive
and intensive, pieces of research in the area of the effects of auto-
mation upon the worker has been that conducted by Mann and Hoffman
(1960). In the area of communications they found that personnel in an
automated plant were significantly'more satisfied with the amount of
information they received on both the plant and company in general than
were employees in a non-automated plant. They Speculated that this was
at least partially due to the elimination of some levels of organization
in the automated plant.

Contradictory results were presented in another study which peri-
pherally dealt with communications in an automated context. Hardin
(1960a) found that when differences in satisfaction with specific as-

15

pects of the job were examined for affected and unaffected departments,
the employees in the affected departments were significantly less sat-
isfied with the amount of information they received. This was after the
automated equipment was introduced.

Many of the changes which constitute the dynamic business and in—
dustrial scene take time; they'are not introduced, implemented, or in-
tegrated into the existing organizational structure overnight. This
fact places a requirement on the investigator interested in the pheno-
menology of change to make use of a longitudinal research design to

account for the chronology of change events.

 

15. .Affected and unaffected departments referred to those which
respectively were or were not changed in some manner by the
introduction of a computer.

‘
,1
at.“ o“
a
“
Q ‘1 no”:

‘ . "a v.
‘W' F \— uv..
o-n: il- Hg;

‘ I -

\I n V“! ‘0‘-“

ll.“ u .--._,.
'..c.~‘ ‘

'u

Q Pd;\
:ini’wi“I V‘yj.
~~~v.oq‘. -l/

o. ' fi

0 . _ ‘
"QO. ‘V. R“ 2‘12: 3
a.» v-’- “'5 v.‘ y.

' I
c ’5‘~-.. “‘- H- v- 7
:.":'~:-. “-4 .:
I . v n .
5......A 1.:‘F2‘
hits-“v... b-‘v ‘.
4‘ ~ .
‘n. -A‘ A!“ A
k“- V a aSSVL-‘a
u‘.. ' .
. ”fiv- “‘5:
'9‘..-‘~ . _
HI.“ 3 ‘ .
. h
...
l . «a A a .‘- n
en‘nl F“ :‘UC V. ‘L
.
~:‘-~o“. . h". ‘
~‘g~=;¢ Ut‘ . '

 

 

C.
~
~n .,
I" ’r:"': :
.t‘h *fiu‘ :EL
a“.
C Av, ‘ W ' '
“bl “ G‘s».
‘Av ”-5.
‘Qfih
‘,‘h {‘2 ‘I‘. ‘
. H V A” r.
\»U .‘V‘ ‘.
y“
H
”hi:
\§¥;'I‘::‘r a“ s‘k‘.
.i't;‘s
\\ '
“7‘35 .
Va A ’-
v s: ..as
3....
I‘:. ”I 1§ “
sin. '4‘ “:15 6‘50:
‘\
:.‘.. .
{‘5 ‘H v
H
N. Ru. CCrt ‘
C
K
c-‘.
‘: an.
\NLVTC S"N .
‘4“‘6 “s
a“
‘ I
\‘.Q‘ a
.‘- . I.
\ \ e ‘2'“ '
“'\‘US hr
‘
.‘. |
\- M
”$337: a
Q‘s. ‘ac‘o‘
V c
." 9"“ C
\ Ih I
We

 

32

A number of the studies dealing with change have been of a longi-
tudinal nature. 'We have already cited Coch and French's (1951) research.
Some of the other studies which take time into account have been reported
by'MOrse and Reimer (1956), Fleishman, Harris, and Burtt (1955), and
Lieberman (1956). Morse and Reimer investigated attitude and work pro-
ductivity changes associated with an induced organizational structure
change. Fleishman, et al. studied the attitude changes resulting from
a foreman training program when they were exposed to the actual working
situation. Lieberman was concerned with attitude changes over time
which were associated with role changes in the work situation.

Utilizing pretest and posttest measures in a two year investigation
Vwithin an electric utility company during a period of intensive change,
Baumgartel (l95h) found that positive attitudes about change were re-
lated to the perception of positive changes in the job.

The third major t0pic area which will be included in this survey
of relevant literature covers some of the analytical and statistical .
procedures which have been utilized in this study} viz., multiple class—
ification analysis of covariance.

Sutcliffe has stressed the gain in results accruing from a consid-
eration of the effects of an independent variable upon a dependent var-
iable in the context of other independent and "intervening" variables.
He listed some virtues of the approach: 1) "it enables estimation of
all;main effects with the same precision as would be achieved for one
in a single factor experiment of the same size; i.e., it is economical";

20 "if there is an interaction between treatments, the factorial arrange-

II- ' ‘
.z a casement Vi

1.’-‘3‘:.‘Y‘ ‘$‘AV‘ at

”"I-Oh-‘ ~Vu0

:zitim for the

.5! lml‘Ca’~ A
a. ”‘u
.‘e3 o .
“Jung 3. Vmu"
A\
it I.

 

“c.€:.
~
a". V. .
x."
l ‘ '
‘
*‘u ”‘w:
““-sa-. ~
“~ ll‘aL‘
\
‘n
S 1‘ V
\. \r‘“
- $4“ r§c- e
“I -
‘
\
Q
“a... r.
~ ‘3 —
mun
...C
. .5:
\‘ 7.3
¢ ‘ ‘
.5
L.“ t:-
‘v
~_~
T:- .
I‘vs a A ‘
he“ an .
a
e

‘5‘: ’5 A‘ IU
w'
s
4 D, ‘3:
‘
t

J x
a.
"‘I Q
\
sage to '
.1. l:
"'x‘
“‘9 CC\
."‘z:ina‘
a ‘ “
Q ‘ ‘.;<
K /~
3 \‘3
)5. ’3
.\ ‘
We‘3’“.
~23 Q.
?s s I
‘\Z;‘:_
\v‘fi

“ I
\‘Q'
‘3
\I
- i:-~
‘ \
:3" ~
‘3

33

ment enables its isolation and evaluation, setting limits of generali-
zation”; 3) ”it can specify the effect of the independent variable
upon a dependent variable in a variety of contexts"; and h) "provides
information about the relative efficacy of different combinations of
conditions for the production of given effects" (1957, p. 13h).

The application of multiple classification or factorial designs for
analysis of variance and covariance has long been a familiar member of
the arsenal of statistical tools which the agricultural statistician has
used. Goulden (1939) provided examples of multiple classification an~
alyses of covariance as applied to.agricultural phenomena and subject
matter.

In the biological sciences, for example, Smith (1958) made use of
a.multivariate analysis of covariance in investigating the effects of
drugs upon muscle tissue.

Once researchers in the behavioral sciences became aware of the
techniques and the benefits to be derived from their usage, statistical
anaLyses based on such methods began to appear in the literature. An
application in the area of educational psychology was reported by Johnson
and Tsao (1915, 1959), who performed a 2X3X3X3 factorial analysis of co-
variance. In a study cited earlier Robinson (1955) made use of analysis
of covariance to investigate attitude changes and their relation to per-
suasive communications.

Triandis (1959) explored the possible relationship obtaining be-
tween measures of cognitive similarity, perceived effectiveness of com-
munications, and liking between two peOple by utilizing a triple classi-

fication analysis of variance. He mentioned in passing that some diffi-

. C $
1:; as eateries:

Other exanp‘.

mince deal w:

TA. w

,, ,‘
5.3.3.an 33333:“
.' an. 9 a

3;; rayszs cf

'Lr‘q ’9 ‘
L-‘n gooec b8 u: I.

9 .
o. '
.1 a. "Q‘ .
.v. v‘A t .
‘ "n- Vaaaye v:'

I
“‘An

‘1‘ .

“'~I:.. . a°e a“.f\.

. ‘ .v.. D ‘. v“.
o

‘m, L”.." fa-

“vaa, L

U
.fiu

"Wail.-. 3 COT..-

9‘. u“
b. _SBԤ.4

a. n.5" ‘.‘
r:flu ‘ .. b

‘ b
3*. ‘I H
5 ' H -a‘ ‘ o
‘- ‘
a V.:‘

 

3h

culty was encountered by the presence of unequal n's.10

Other examples of the use of multiple classification analyses of
covariance deal with designs of a 2X5, 2X2, and 2Xh type (Review of
Educational Research, l95h). Hoyt (1952) employed a 2XhX3X3 factorial
design analysis of covariance in investigating teaching methods and
their effects upon the drawing abilities of school children. In this
latter instance the researcher encountered the problem of handling dis-
prOportionate frequencies in data subclasses.

This, then, concludes the coverage of what appears to be major and
representative contributions in the literature concerning attitudes to-
ward change, the impact of automation, communications as a variable re—
lated to industrial change settings, and methods of multiple analyses

of covariance.

 

16. The use of multiple analyses of variance and covariance has
presented methodological problems to the behavioral scientists
which do not generally plague the agriculturalist; viz., missing
cases or cell entries, unequal treatment n's, and inability to
obtain multiple replication of measures.

flay- recy'u-‘u
V'_- - y 1
‘a- o‘.-. —.-

 

I”
‘I

Q
“q‘: “‘0”
vnv .4 .a‘ v;-

‘ no

”Av-5:”:

s.‘

I ‘ ~

.b- suns .‘ ..~.;
‘4

.
.
'h t‘...
‘ J-
~' '0!».
.’ . .
a c 3"" “V.
"' ~Is... ..
h.n.
a
“"0. ~ c .
- p’.
Ifn': 5 :‘2‘3‘ .‘. ‘r
“ V.~"’ .
. .
'~'&'.- .
I
1.. - 3.. ‘
d. r- '?"%..‘
'5
~.. ,_. .

 

 

3
. t‘. v
\ R
"t. A\ .
1 j ‘
‘4‘ H

 

CHAPTER THREE
THE EXPERIMENTAL SETTING.AND DATA GATHERING PROCEDURES

In this chapter we shall set forth a detailed description of the
research setting within which this study was conducted, the manner in
which it was conducted, and the composition of the experimental pOpu-
lation.

Before progressing with such a description, however, a word is re-
quired concerning the rationale underlying the original selection of
the site.

The Labor and Industrial Relations Center (L.I.R.C.), of Michigan
State University had already begun a series of office automation studies
within the insurance industry; There was a desire to maintain continuity
in the sense of carrying out additional investigations in a number of
sites. The systematic accumulation of research data, and its subsequent
analysis, would hopefully provide the substance for comparative studies
of the impact of office automation within the industry, and across com-
panies. In this manner one might be able to isolate and identify some
_important organizational variables that account for major differences in
the way changes are introduced, handled and reacted to. An additional
benefit of this approach is that by such an accumulation, one can with
greater confidence draw broader conclusions and make generalizations of
greater representativeness for a particular industry.

The site chosen afforded a unique Opportunity in a naturalistic

field setting for carrying out a longitudinal investigation. This con-

sisted of the collection of both pretest and posttest data coordinated
35

(0'

' 1— .
-
"'2 Anna“ .-
""“ “-~-O .....
.9

I
. lap“ y. t“- t
'3 '*‘~a--~u..-.
.

rn$,c‘ ‘2.“ A
Lav“.-. . -C1:

4'» ,. ~
.. , ‘ ‘
”" l“ 5.. (BC
I.
I
i q '\ A a .
%5_".—:"-~' “-
A “-v.. .
‘ a
I: “’“45. fl‘t‘
“" 0‘ \ .
w
“5 :‘n ‘
0... UV

.“‘
C
P. ‘
n ‘1. V
V. ‘a .
VJ ~
L83 0‘ ‘
:---.
35a .
V".“ I."
“hat 2'»!
C"
a; ‘
h
‘. I u,
“ 'e‘e a
C F ‘
lg o :
L;
4;‘
“a‘.°“
‘.; sca‘
.IJE‘IQ V
‘ '3.
‘I
J“.
‘.
4“ ‘GA
§h°352t ‘

 

. ~‘.
‘5 “yfi‘. ~
r.» A‘,’
5. . c
\1.
("‘-“!',.I
-.‘ .‘
~‘\~ ”a
‘ .‘ tLQQ
.‘y f
\
.k
\
..q k.
. “aaa
‘~.i~v a-
‘. J) .1:
a ,A
- b \.' .
‘.““‘
1J6.

 

36

and referenced to the introduction of data processing equipment into
the company.

An.attractive feature of the location from a research design point
of view was the existence of a large branch office in addition to the
home office. This configuration invited potentially interesting kinds
of comparisons.

Another reason for the selection of this site, one that became
apparent only as time went on during the preparatory phases of the
study, was the receptiveness of the company'management and their over-

all cooperation in assisting our efforts at conducting the study.

The Study Site

The study was conducted in a medium-sized general insurance company
located in the midwest. The company has its home office in a small town
in a rural area, and maintains a branch office in a large industrial
metrOpolitan area in the same state. The company has been in business
since 1915, starting as a mutual automobile insurance company; It opera
ates entirely within the state where it is located, although it is lim
censed to also Operate in one other state. The home office staff repre-
sented about 275 persons, the branch office about 120 employees, and
there were in addition some 35 employees located in claims adjustment
offices scattered about the state.

'With reSpect to the formal organizational structure, there were
three distinct governing and administrative bodies. The constituent
nembership of these groups, however, overlapped to a considerable de-
gree. IELrstly, there was the board of directors. Secondly, the execur

tive committee, and lastly, the Operating committee. The president,

executive vice president, secretary, and treasurer of the company were
on all three committees. Also a member of the three groups was a legal
assistant to the president. An additional member of the operating
committee was the man who was in charge of the branch office.

The branch office was run by'a quartet of four persons, with a
rotating managership of about one year duration; i.e., each of the four
members in turn spent a year as chairman of the branch office operating

committee.

The Introduced Change

 

The company management decided to install an International Business

Machines (IBM) 650 digital computer1 for electronic data processing.
The computer was installed in the home office during December, 1957. In
preparation for the arrival of the computer a number of things were done.
Several employees were sent to an IBM school in April, 1957, and an area
had to be prepared for the computer equipment requiring building alteraw
tions.

The company, as do most modern insurance firms, had been making
standard use of electronic data processing (EDP) equipment right along.
There were the usual number of sorting, punching, and printing machines.
While a computer was to be introduced, it represented just another addi»
tion to the EDP equipment already in use, although in this case it repre»

sented an addition of some magnitude and cost.

 

l. The IBM 650 consists of three components: the Power Unit, the
Read-Punch Unit, and the Console. Information is stored on a
magnetic drum.memory, and inputuoutput is achieved by use of
punch cards.

949’ ‘k ‘
are: as I.

232313 c‘m‘r

U
a v-
..V "w:

"W": ”H ace

_ H‘h'
a

1.3;”: flea; “a

"h" U--‘VU,

.“V OOv».

' ‘ a ..
1....“ ' ‘r‘ L
‘gu‘u...

U4.» ‘.‘

f\)

eel“

. U ‘i/«I

I PM ..
.. ‘ N. “A“
.8. I H‘Jyvs

a ‘ ‘
1:3 vii-IS f3;
A:.~:~

fl
i-¢.~.s, see

 

 

38

'When the IBM 650 was installed, about two weeks were spent in e~
quipment testing and program check-out. The computer was used for such
tasks as checking premium computations performed by agents, computing
premiums and assembling policybdeclaration data for policies written in
the home office, and compiling statistical and accounting reports.

The checking of agents' computations and the processing of policies
written in the home office were completely automated by the beginning of
May, 1958.2

 

2. For a discussion of the impact the computer had on procedures
and tasks for different departments in both the home and branch
offices, see Hardin (1960b, pp. 926-927).

__ \
—“ a. HL
— . ¢w A» s
,
w s. a. a;
.. 'u ‘. “Q
a - .
n v a E—
; . T. 3
w . «1
.r.;.. a. .lu‘
- . c
.«u 4.1.1..
n o .
.1 3m

 

‘4
“
; .ll- v
I «\u
a... A. \W ~\~ em
a. .. .‘\ no. u». a.»
Q“ “t .a \.\ .1 7 .
a. . . u. 5.. ..
o.,\ \. 01‘ i. at aua‘
-. Q I

 

39

Below in Fig. l is a representation of the general work flow for

the IBM 650 when applied to insurance policy preparation.

Senior Underwriter

Checks acceptability'

Orders investigation reports
Codes class

Adds endorsements

 

 

Code Clerk Detail Coverage Card
Completes coding used to prepare
Checks dates statistical repoits

i

Egy Punch Operator

 

Punch IBM rate
Card &.name card
for agent's

 

 

account

éég \/ Policy'Typing

Computes rates, Types Policy
amount of Separates & IBM
commission, ———-) distributes ——) Cards —)
and punches c0pies of
IBM cards poliqy

 

Agents Account Card

 

used to prepare
agent’s statement

Fig. 1. IBM 650 computer generalized work flow for use

in the insurance industry.

-.:’:fi§:': c‘ a C s

w -‘—o -~ 5.

 

The researc

l O
:.= :“h I‘fiq .1 A,“
""V ~00 -‘ 05v“

.\
On... p“
.v.:: «E and Ufa
‘
39""05 n9 «
c~ *Vv ‘1‘
’9. “a is“ A.

‘0 ~ ‘ ~A a .
’N‘ Q \
. =T:.9 V
n «mat-‘5’ , “'15

q.
.s, ‘ .
"L-aC. tna

‘ .
1":“5Aglogfi .
\:va «2". '11 DC“. ‘

" ‘
‘ .

 

4:i *i

Q55, 02‘ on:
f: a;

‘1

 

3.. I
. (a:
his :C:It ‘.h
v“ ' 0- a
U
‘ Q

 

 

hO

Characteristics of the Experimental POpulation

The research design for this study called for both a pretest prior
to the installation of the computer as well as a posttest sometime after
its introduction. It was the intention of the research team to include
' as many persons from the home office and branch office in the survey as
possible and practicable.

Because of problems of administration and the questionable involve-
ment of part-time employees and those who spent more than half of their
working time outside of the company offices (claims adjusters and agents,
for eMple), these persons were excluded from the study.3

The fact that this was a longitudinal study meant that problems of
experimental pOpulation mortality had to be dealt with. During the in-
terim between pretest and posttest certain employees terminated their em-
ployment for one reason or another. For this group there were pretest
responses, but no posttest results. Theobverse of this was represented
by the picking up of new hires. Again, during the period subsequent to
the initial testing but antecedent to the posttesting the company took on
new hires, or employees who had been sick or on vacation at the time of
the first questionnaire administration returned to work. These circum-é
stances meant that there were posttest questionnaire responses for some
' persons, but no corresponding pretest results. The. solution to this
problem was the drOpping of all "terminals" and pick-ups“ from the exe-
perimental population.

 

3. Members of the company's tap management level did not participate
in the study.

9v 3 o
as Ii" 'V‘V‘
0.0V V. -0...

I I I
I-91- on.- 4' “I“ 1
uv-“SH-Uo‘ G. e

9:.
an

‘
-=~-5 .Lo 4"
“I‘—
\—

O
‘0
endow
. V‘Vubvag

a
.3“ c ‘ v .
15“ - ““\ ‘

K.»
‘
I

I

I. “a. I

O H
v in ‘:.‘a= ‘.‘

i

.v

x: 3“.”

b. _ A.
It 5. u
\- :‘.5:‘.‘
a "
~ ~.
':'~.::‘€ ‘, ‘
Ivy 0., Hq-%
”UV“ Y“
O
o

':I_;’A‘n ‘
J“ A
\ O
c323 a,
‘.:
p"
h I- A
\ A
‘U ‘-
V“. ”:1 ~
u
in.
'~.. \.3.
A i 4_ a-
U‘ ‘-
v ".9 .
x.“
N.
t\“‘..“
\.u .6'3“ "
‘tL ' -
“a.
.
‘ \
\‘\‘;\. ~
' A
\.\..‘S '9
MA
“U “h
.
\l
..~.' I
\ .
. 'I‘fifiAl
\.«‘h:
‘0

 

 

bl

The original figures for the experimental site with respect to the

population are reflected in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Total Population at Research Site Involved in Survey

 

 

Location Level Pretest Posttest
Administration Administration

 

Home Office Supervisory 35 37
Non-Supervisory' 157 158

Branch Office Supervisory 15 17
Non-Supervisory' 76 83

Totals 283 295

 

Table 1 includes all employees who took either or both of the
questionnaires at the times of administration. In order to arrive at
the "true" experimental pOpulation; i.e., those employees for whom re-
Sponses to both pretest and posttest questionnaires were obtained, the
"terminal" and the "pick-up" cases had to be subtracted out of the ori-
ginal total. Table 2 shows this corrective step in terms of an adjust-
ment made to the original pretest and posttest pOpulations. Such an ad-
justment meant that the total experimental pOpulation (N=2h6) contained
individuals who responded to both the pretest and posttest forms of the

questionnaire.

:‘~
~.

‘0
.

.‘5.

I
2" 'D:
~iv.‘ en

I
n‘. .‘a
“h

CC)“ “* o‘

M

‘ -
W‘q
C
A“ '
A

‘ ‘
V ,4 “F
.u‘

“PK“,
um,“
‘

Iable 2. ?
animal 2:“

 

o
.

" *AV V-

 

h2

Table 2. Compensations to Experimental POpulation for
Terminal and Pick-up Cases

 

 

Administration Group Original Adjusted
DrOpped N POpulation Population

 

Pretest Terminals 37 283 2h6

Posttest Pick-ups L9 295 2&6

 

In conjunction with this adjustment, the investigator examined the
experimental population to determine its characteristics and composition.

This information is enumerated in Table 3.

man “
.uie )0

 

53-0-— n‘ w:
3.» v

4.4.. -—

 

r;
t. u
“‘5 ‘3‘
vi I‘D“
“labs
a. ~ us
‘5... a
I ».8 (T: P
H 7; ,
\\. - t
1' :. f

h3

Table 3. Characteristics and Composition of the Survey Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home Office Branch Office Total
Characteristic (N - 171) (N - 75) (N - 2&6)
N z N % N %

Level
Supervisory 35 20.5 lb 18.7 b9 19.9
Non-Supervisory' 136 79.5 61 81.3 197 80.1
§E§
ns1c bl 2h.0 11 18.7 52 21.1
Female 130 76.0 62. 8s. 3 19h 78.9
Age
Under 29 91 53.2 57 76.0 1h8 60.2
Over 30 8O b6.8 l8 2h.0 98 39.8
Education
At least high

school 133 77.8 59 78.7 192 78.0
Some college

or more 38 22.2 16 21.3 5h 22.0
Tenure (Hire Date)
1952 or before 76 hh.h 8 10.7 8h 3h.2
1953 or after 95 55.6 67 89.3 162 65.8

 

As one would normally expect in the case of an insurance company,
the data reflects a preponderance of female workers as compared to male
employees (78.9% versus 21.1% reapectively). In this company the major-

ity of the male employees functioned in some supervisory capacity.

.cl 1 c C G. ”
$223103L'v ,

' ' a..-”
.. . y, _
be 83.5 -L. _
.4q '7'
3'"a 1Ch ‘ ‘-

‘I'c‘ ‘0 ‘
.u‘fllwhs ‘Ir; 17-!
4; ‘~

F I
1“. 5k! Cs?“
n”: ‘-

“ O
‘0 3:31“
vise. ‘L ‘
N g. :50-
J

hh

Additionally, the bulk of the employees were young (60.2% of the total
were 29 years of age or younger). A significant proportion (65.8%) of
the work force was made up of individuals who had been with the company
since 1953. This means that at the time of our testing about sixty-six
per cent of the personnel had been with the organization for four years
or less.

Differences of some magnitude were found in two characteristics of
the p0pu1ation.when the home office group was compared to the branch
office; i.e., age and tenure. Employees of the home office represented
an older group of peOple than was found in the branch office (h6.8%
versus only 2h.0% who were thirty years of age or older). The home
office personnel had, percentage-wise, been with the company longer than
workers in the branch office (hh.h% of the home office people had been
with the company since or before 1952, whereas only 10.7% of the branch
office had been with the company that long).

To provide some indication of the average or mean differences be—
tween the home and branch office, table h was prepared.

Table h. Means and Standard Deviations for Home and
Branch Office Employees on Selected Characteristics

 

 

Characteristic Inter- Obtained Inter- Obtained Inter- Obtained
preted Mean SD preted Mean SD preted Mean SD
Mean Mean Mean

Education(yrs.) 12.22 6.22 0.81. 11.93 5.93 1.21 12.13 6.13 0.99
Age(yrs.) 32.h3 32.b3 12.16 25.hh 25.hh 8.61 30.29 30.29 11.83
Tenure(yrs.) 5.69 52.69 7.68 0.23 57.23 h.79 3.08 5h.08 7.35

 

I
‘a
3v.

4

a

A
-t 0

Q ‘0“

‘V

rear

- 0" i
9‘ -.
c
Q
.
:{V‘IA
'v‘uA'»

.8.‘

24»:
a b
aha-'1-

g

V
2"-
v.
.8
.g‘.

.
o

‘9
.23
‘10
.u-fi‘l
, 8 C159 C
m

t

1
'.
tau-.0
05:}
.~ .

;.
.“.

J

e Nora

y
‘1. .

e YRS 9

fl‘
~§

1:5

The mean age for all employees was 30.29 years. The average amount
of education was 12.13 years of schooling. The mean length of service
with the company for all personnel was just over three years (Mn - 308).
In the case of age, the standard deviations suggested that there was
quite a bit of spread in this particular characteristic. Table h re-
vealed that personnel in the home office, on the average, were slightly"
better educated, were older, and had been with the company quite a bit

longer than their counterparts in the branch office.

The Communications Program

In order to prepare their employees for the impending installation
of the IBM 650 computer, the management decided to launch a communica-
tions program. This program was designed to be implemented during the
pre-installation time period. It was to serve the explicit purposes of
providing information to employees about the IBM 650 equipment, how it
Operated, the planned use of the equipment, and the progress of the in-.
stallation. It was also designed to allay'fears, rumors, and anxieties
about possible adverse effects of the computer; e.g., a reduction in the
size of the work force through layoffs.

'There was extensive discussion among company officials during the
planning phase of the information program concerning what form the pro-
gram Should take, its timing, and content. A series of articles on the
computer installation appeared in the monthly house organ, written by
the internal auditor. In addition to the appearance of information in
the house organ, other media were used. At various times bulletins were

issued and information meetings were held.

Q

”-‘N

«mu ........,

 

- .:.'.:Q

~-. _
. ' o9.--

 

1‘ .;‘
C- o!
A“ Q a
V.¢ -

‘
LS:

1L6

There were three memoranda issued by the president of the company.
The first of these represented a formal announcement to all supervisory
personnel on 17 April 1957 that an IBM 650 computer was to be installed.
This memo also outlined in general terms the new responsibilities and
personnel changes associated with the introduction of the computer. The
other two memoranda, distributed to all personnel, brought attention to
the fact that an attitude survey was going to be conducted, and indica-
ted the times and places of administration. Such a memo was issued pri—
or to both the pretest and the postest. In the case of the former, it
was accompanied by’a letter to the employees from the L.I.R.C. explain-
ing the survey. The reader may refer himself to Appendix E for copies
of these bulletins.

On 20 July 1957 the first in a series of articles on the computer
appeared in the company house organ. These articles were in the form
of a series of progress reports to employees on the impending introduc-
tion of the IBM 650. The principle themes appeared to center around the
fact that: l) the company encouraged, and would be glad to answer, any
questions which employees might have; 2) the computer would permit more
rapid and accurate servicing of policies; 3) information would be col-
lected on a.more timely and accurate basis; and b) no one need fear loss
of employment because of the computer. The articles on the IBM 650 ran
consecutively for five months (from 20 July 1957 to 25 November 1957).
For the articles, the reader is referred to Appendix E. It should be
noted in passing that the research team was informed that the monthly'
flmagazine"was read with great interest by the employees.

tflth respect to orientation, information, and planning meetings

which affected other than just the t0p echelon of company management,

6...;

""= we a e-

.
O V.

. n‘
”.- 5-..-,.q-;.‘ .
a; a» \r

'. -t..u-~

. ,. g F
‘a- .-fi.. ”W" \ ‘
-;~ :1:- v-vo.~d.

.
““ .:"-- 9. ‘ A l

'_ U l
”1" I -V-.. -

. ,.
'1 “A.
a. ‘
O 4-- 'i

 

> I
~: 0 “ A-' -.
‘ V — t—
: .. --.__,‘ w
~fi...’ ‘~
ig‘ \ ‘2‘.“
a .0 - ~>‘;-
V
A ‘-
_ 5 'Q‘
o. v,“»-
. A .
‘I: ‘. .9“... ‘
‘..\- ‘ h. ‘
a«s“,~ U-V
1“
h‘ t.. .
'4'. — ‘»‘K
‘

 

b?

there were a total of six distinct meetings held. The first of these
was conducted on 2 October 1957 for personnel of the IBM key punch and
tab sections. The purpose Of the meeting was to familiarize the people
most likely to be affected by the changeover with the computer and its
eXpected Operation.

A meeting was held on 15 October 1957 which was attended by a num-
ber of the first line supervisors and management personnel. ts purpose
was tO review the progress made on plans for the installation, to discuss
specific areas Of utilization for the computer, and to settle certain
questions regarding personnel.

The other four meetings represented separate sessions held in the
home office to acquaint all employees with the installation of the IBM
650. A11 home office personnel attended one of the four sessions which
were conducted on the same day, 11 November 1957. The four sessions were
exactly the same. The branch office personnel were not involved in simi-
1ar information meetings. These meetings included a formal talk by the
company's programming supervisor about the computer and what it was ex-
pected to do. This was followed by'a question and answer period. Availe
able to the attendees were three hand-outs regarding the computer and
how it Operated. COpies Of this material is found in Appendix E along
with a transcript Of the notes from the formal talk and a listing of the
questions asked by employees in each Of the four sessions.

A special IBM 650 demonstration was held for tOp management on 9
August 1957 at IBM's data processing center in the same city in which

the branch Office was located.

C
v

1
P
‘0

 

l

.uCt‘u A." ".
‘I‘uu U-U‘—.-¢-‘

,-
.—

 

..-v

‘$

03

\
YC"
.05 U U

Q.
i'v‘

h
G»
v. .
Q "K
A
a. .. a
M... .. m.
A. N (J s:
.. _\»
x . .

h8

The Questionnaire and its Administration

Beginning in April, 1957 a number of preliminary planning sessions
were held between company'officials and representatives of the L.I.R.C.
to work out the details of the study. The research design called for
both a pretest and posttest measurement. Since the computer was scheduled
to be installed in December, 1957, it was decided to administer the pre-
test attitude questionnaires on 19 November 1957. The date of 20 May
1958 was set as the date for the posttest questionnaire administration.
This temporal arrangement meant that there was an interim of six months
between questionnaire administrations. The initial testing occurred ap-
proximately three weeks prior to the installation of the computer, and
the final testing took place about five-and-one-half months after the
computer was introduced.

The questionnaire was the result of the efforts of a research team
to construct an instrument to assess employee attitudes on a number of
issues. Research interests of the team members were different, and as
a consequence the questionnaire presented a variegated appearance. The
questionnaire provided basic data on such variables as employee percep-
tions of change, expectations about change, and attitudes toward change
as a job-related phenomenon. In addition to these, there were sets of
items and scales measuring such variables as supervisory practices, per-
sonality factors, job satisfaction, and group cohesiveness. The final
page of the questionnaire requested personal data information such as
age, tenure, education, salary, etc. The reader is referred to Appendix

F for copies of the questionnaires.

h9

The questionnaires used in the pretesting were in two forms: a
supervisory form and a non-supervisory form. The supervisory form had
a blue cover sheet to distinguish it from the non-supervisory form. Be-
cause some items were relevant only for supervisors, or for non-super-
visors, and due to a difference in frame of reference ("my supervisor"
versus "my subordinates") a differentiation between forms was required.

Beneath the blue cover sheet of the supervisory forms, and as the
first cover page of the non-supervisory forms, was a letter from the
L.I.R.C. This cover letter pointed out in very general terms the pur-
pose of the study, the need for frank responses, and that respondent
anonymity'would be insured. At the bottom of this cover letter was a
printed section designed to be torn off by the respondents after com-
pletion of the questionnaire. This strip of paper (called the "name
ballot") contained the respondent's name and a pre-stamped code number.
The face sheet had another stamped code number in the upper right-hand
corner which corresponded to the number on the "name ballot." Upon de-
parting the respondent deposited his questionnaire at one pointand
drOpped his "name ballot" in a box. Only the research staff, in posses-
sion of both the questionnaires and "name ballots," could later match up
the prOper completed questionnaire with the correct "name ballot" by com-
paring code numbers. The company, of course, did not have access to this
information, hence anonymity was assured.

The "before" questionnaire contained a total of thirtyaseven pages,
while the "after" form of the questionnaire contained seventeen pages.
The disparity in size of pretest and posttest forms was primarily due to

the fact that certain areas of information and classes of data did not

afiecflla:
In the ho:

'-.."

' I
F Qp ‘ a
chain... Gm . D‘.

.nh.
-e. *‘rervi
w- b‘. t '

a: a litdn
53 3’ a ‘ ‘
l” 1.. my.
“‘ch2" 3:.
a m U."
“37mg to a
Q“ ‘ I “I
I6urlal
“: 01‘“
ft h .

w‘. I n.
\323 ‘te Q
3:8“- att‘
it: " , we are
’2'. ordq‘! \
‘1": and ,I
u r D Q. .A h
3.“ .letl a‘
“or “d “K
b; ”a .toIh‘A

SO

require collection more than once.

In the home office the administration of the questionnaires was
carried out in two separate sessions on the same day in the basement
lunch-room. Seating was arranged so that there were four persons to a
table. Supervisory personnel were asked to sit together in several rows
so that they would be separated from the non-supervisory personnel.

When all personnel were assembled the questionnaires and pencils
were distributed. Instructions were then read to them over a public

address system set up for the occasion. These instructions are repro-

duced below:

”I am of the Labor and Industrial Center
at Michigan State University, and this is (these are)

,from the Labor and Indusm-
RelatIons Center. HI”suppose that all of you received a
letter from us recently explaining the purpose of this survey
and a little bit about what we hope you can do for us today.
As you know, the Labor and Industrial Relations Center at
Michigan State is carrying on a broad program of research
having to do with people working together effectively in in-
dustrial organizations. Much of this research consists of
getting the ideas and Opinions of peOple about their jobs.
We are asking you to fill out a questionnaire for us as a
part of the series of studies dealing with insurance canpany
employees. in the Midwest. Your answers, along with those from
peOple in other organizations that we have already surveyed
and will survey in the future, will be analyzed to help us
discover what things are most important in making the working
situation better for the people in it. We would like to em-
phasize the third and fourth paragraphs of the cover letter
that you have on your questionnaire. The conclusions that _
we draw about your attitude and Opinions will be of value
only to the extent that they reflect your really frank Opin-
ions and attitudes. As you can see on the bottom of the face
sheet, we are asking you for your name. This is essential to
us in order to properly analyze the questionnaire, but your
name and number will be re-coded immediately after the survey
and positively no one other than the research workers at the
Labor and Industrial Relations Center will ever be able in
any way to identify you in connection with your answers. We
absolutely guarantee that no one connected in any way with
--- will ever at any time be aware of how you answered the

 

tear.
$

180C

oIZCe
9.

Law -"

‘.

., Ufi-h-LO

«on
f
‘7': h'.”

9-...
A o“
D.

\

w as 3”:

“UV.

RA!“

eecs‘: fl
U--

Q

‘i'
‘
93.3 to =

«‘3 hours w

Q
o

q
‘I‘
f:-

n' a

..
9
-, 53‘ "
us..“'
‘A
V: Ul‘
.

 

1......

bg‘la

‘
a; .9

r P
, h
.

s
K.

A
6 Eu“:
“Ma; ,

U“

+1.
‘1
Vg‘

."P

Va.
.F,‘

.§»

-u-.'&
p

‘1':-
‘ i“.

3
Re

923 a

s
I
J

questionnaire.

We will be available to answer questions that you may

have once you have started answering the questionnaire. Be

sure to answer every question. When you have finished, tear

off the bottom half of the face sheet and place your name in

the ballot box and your questionnaire in the large box at the

door as you leave. You may begin."

After the instructions were read and the employees began working
on their questionnaires, several administrators circulated among the
respondents to assist in answering any questions which arose.

Two hours were alloted for each group to complete the questionnaire,
most employees taking about an hour to finish. After the administration
the ”name ballots” were collected from their deposit box at the lunch-
room exit. The names of respondents were checked off by a. member of the
research team against a revised, up-to-date company payroll list in or-
der that a list of absentees could be compiled.

0n the same day several members of the research team administered
the questionnaire to branch office personnel. Because of space limita-
tions at that location, employees took the questionnaire at their work
desks. As a result only one session was required. The same administra-
tive procedures, in general, were applied to branch office personnel as
were used for the home office.

On the following day research team members visited both the home
and branch offices in order to administer the questionnaires to those
who had been absent or could not conveniently take the questionnaire at
the regularly scheduled time.

Essentially the same procedures were followed at both the pretest-

ing and posttesting administrations of the survey.

:o‘“ [‘9
v-

n .
‘ U- vé.

.
u... ,o
.z-b‘

.. 0“ “.s uh“

.: fi. 3 T. 2.. :c .x ..§ 3 2.. xi 2.. \C
u. o S T. . . 3 ._.. .5. he a... I. at C. a.»
:. _.. 3 2.. at a. .1 v.. Q a: E
C u a. .1 e a . M o a: «I E r «to
$0 :~ to to L . a. .3 ‘ .2 . no
: .. a S o. .. .. E D. 2 .. a .o ..... a. n
u a . a. - . it E. w a: 3
“My a“ ~ Wk a: 5.. new a G» La 5 . .a... WW
. o . a .3. w .
Ma :3. Pa 1 “a 0 Ant. h. {K 5 . a: 9K a .s .N»
V. a n... he Tu .nu .—
C» a: a .. . 4 . Na. .
n. .2 ...~ 1 u. .C _.. . I :0
s. E. r. .L .2. .L . . ,

52

Tabulation of Questionnaire Data

 

Each questionnaire was given a code number for identification pur-
poses. The code numbers corresponded to the names of questionnaire re-
apondents. Coding was done in such a way that all numbers up to and
including 2991‘ represented individuals who had been involved in the
first administration of the questionnaire.5 Code numbers 301 to 6286
were used to represent employees who took gnly the post-installation
questionnaire.

All items comprising both the pre-installation and post-install-
ation questionnaires were pre-coded and numbered in such a way so as to
indicate the location of the item in a particular deck of IBM punch
cards. The Roman numeral indicated the card deck and the Arabic numer-
als denoted the column or columns on the card where the response to the
item was punched. For example, item II-16 signified that the reSponse

to this particular item could be found in card column 16 in deck II.

 

h. The identification codes were assigned to the experimental
sub-groups as follows:

Home office supervisors a l-ho
Branch office supervisors = SO~67

Home office non-supervisors = h9 68-223
Branch office non-supervisors - 22 -299

5. .An exception to this was code numbers 39, h0, h5, h7, and 66;
these represented individuals who took the posttest questionnaire,
but 323 the pretest questionnaire.

6. These numbers did not run consecutively; there was some discon-
tinuity because all questionnaires within this code range were
not used in the survey.

 

'F.-."a‘ 'q - ~r,v-
i- U uv-.
‘ '.
an. n p, CO
:vLe: \v- 5 v g
-

‘ .
' 32 a.t

. . -
.62". C” .-7
v. y" -' .‘~
' o

. ‘ ‘ o .
‘DA.

- .c":fl - -
-:v“ SQ‘V‘ - "

 

 

-V.
c. .
R!- ‘.
’ ‘a ,\ ,-
" Us-“
kw.
a.
£93:- -a
V‘

a-
N.
I“ V“
“.“U l“ $‘t‘-
U ~~
:‘.\0 ‘u
v' Q. Q ‘
" ON
u cs“
2:.~.
-“ ‘1“ ~.
‘ s
“ ‘
“~,“‘

 

u
.2?“ ‘.
“‘ 3
‘Q \ P ‘
u
.
I
\
'. .1
A
‘ .h

53

Space was allotted on the cards to enter a group code,7 the indiu
vidual's identifying code number, the item score, total scores for
scales or sets of items, and the number of non-responses.

Each alternate of the multiple-choice format attitude items was
given a code number so that responses to these alternates could be en-
tered by key punch onto IBM cards for storage, tabulation, and analysis.
Openpended items were treated differently. All answers to this type of
item were fitted into some meaningful and convenient set of response
categories for which code numbers were assigned to represent each cate-
gory.

It should be noted that prototype items covering some of the con-
tent areas of the survey questionnaire were administered to a sample of
M.S.U. Tabulating Department employees in November, 1956. The subse~
quent and substantial refinement, modification, and addition of items
eventually led to the construction of an attitude questionnaire which
was administered in an insurance company in February, 1957.8 This
questionnaire, changed and altered to a considerable extent, formed the

basic instrument used in the current investigation.

 

7. Home office supervisors 8 h121
Branch office supervisors 6 h122
Home office non-supervisors n hlll
Branch office non-supervisors= h121

8. For a discussion of this study, see Jacobson, et. al. (1959)

ttej t,

U.o ‘

Ba

“5? A,

«a tne var;
‘k'a ' ‘ n
«D. 5 tie ray:

swig“ a ‘me‘ ‘
“TL. .“huflv
.cey “~.

“.5" ‘: : . ‘ ~
Q
-b-ey.‘ Ln 7‘.

 

-:
«0. W“ “L
c“. “L‘
\. I
"' .t‘.‘_e
‘5 .a ..
flu“ L h. _
l_q
a}
I. he‘o
ti':§.‘;‘
"“5 a"
'\
all» h
v“
M L 3“.
‘ Z
".-
'.."c‘:
l'~" .‘
\Vl‘s, a A
x e
‘ n
"n .
“a a“) .
‘J‘. t!

CHAPTER FOUR

THE VARIABLES EXAMINED

In the latter part of the Introduction there was a cursory descrip-

tion of the variables to be examined in this study. This chapter will
discuss the rationale behind the selection of the variables as well as

provide definitions for them.

The Independent variables

The influence of persuasive communications upon attitudes in terms
of eliciting changes or shifts in these attitudes has been widely doc-
umented in the literature. Some principal workers in this area have
been Hovland at Yale, Lazarsfeld at Columbia, and an active group at
the University of Michigan, the latter's emphasis being upon communi-
cations in small groups.

'When investigating employee reaponse to change an important fac-
tor would seem to be intra-organizational communications. In a setting
of change or of prOposed change, communications become crucial from the
standpoint that they function as a force to integrate, coordinate, and
direct the work force in such a manner as to facilitate a smooth tran-
sition with a minimal degree of friction, resistance, and misunderstand-
ing. A major purpose of formal intra-organizational communications is
to establish, maintain, and perhaps eliminate or modify certain kinds
of attitudes and expectations held by employees about a proposed change.

When an organization embarks upon the introduction of automated
cmerations, a communications program becomes important in that it should

Ifltwide for the transmission of the following kinds of information to
Sh

Li a---
J
9:--.

‘
‘.“.F‘ a :
=H-'.-‘ I C

--_v

‘vg .

A;-
b -‘S‘A‘
EL, 1
‘a o
-\= F‘A ’
N.‘ 0‘
9’ n
- ‘v-O
. 8k
‘h‘ e
W‘ “12‘“. 4,‘
\v’ ’ b“;

 

 

55

employees: 1) procedural changes they will encounter on their jobs;

2) the purpose and reasons for the introduction of the automated equip~
ment; 3) assurances regarding job security; h) details of the change
as to when and where it will take place, and 5) training programs, per-
sonnel changes, etc. which are prerequisites to the change.

The belief in the intrinsic importance of an information program
of some sort as a precursor to a changeover was exemplified in the for-
mal program initiated by the company in which this study was conducted.
Management frequently believes on a priori grounds that the success in
terms of employee acceptance of a proposed change hinges to an extent
on the presence of an information program.

The assumption is made that resistance toward some job-associated
change originates from an insufficient understanding of the changes.
This kind of an assumption leads frequently to an increase in the flow
of information directed to employees about the change. It is true,
certainly, that once a prOposed change has been agreed upon, increased
communications can help employees better understand the change and the
way in which it is expected to effect them.

In this particular instance, employees were informed about a pro-
posed change once the decision was made by tOp management. There was
very little to be seen of what has been termed ”employee participation."
In this context the formal communications program Operated to inform
employees of changes and.decisions made by others. As Mann and Hoffman
(1960) opine, a lack of understanding about some change may contribute
to resistance to change, but perhaps this same lack contributes only'

very little to positive acceptance of a change.

2:72, is to

:9 ‘1‘" 6""

-.’ HI“ .‘ V v.‘
.. 9::
-5 11". a-nv"

. ‘V '

$ ‘q' 0';
1152.3...025 n-

’ Q‘
I .Ztg‘e re"-

U.”

I... 37" 31524.
The inns
:fcfa'ge is s

A
4. b a
s U 0‘ c::-~,~.,
run.
I: ‘L
' o~e 2%
"an.
E“- c
‘ la art
ad ‘ab‘?
‘.
v!

 

56

One function of information about a change, directly or indirectly,
is to create a set or prediSposition toward the object of the informa-
tion. The psychological consequences of this process, if it is Opera-
tive, is to structure expectations. This molding of expectancies is
in turn eventually related to a realityhtesting in the sense that there
is an affirmation or negation of expectancies based upon empirical con-
tact with the change. If one experiences something contrary to the ex-
pectations which were elicited by the information, then we may expect
a future response to communications to be characterized by skepticism
and even disbelief.

The investigation of formal company communications in a setting
of change is seen as a potentially important issue. This is particup
larly true when such communications are viewed in relation to attitudes
about proposed changes and to attitude modifications related to the
change.

The research carried out was concerned with an empirical investi-
gation of communications about a change, and with a Specified response
to the communications as both of these relate to attitudes about change.
To what extent does the act of being informed or not being informed a-
bout a change affect employee attitudes about the changes they may per-
ceive as taking place? Is there a relationship between one's reaction
23 the information contained in an information program about a change
and the attitude toward the change itself? These were questions the
present study attempted to answer.

The basic premise was that some dimension or dimensions of formal

commumbations about a change ought to be important in producing meaw

I! n
z" * n .4‘ M7:
I- .‘V U‘-U\~.

my. .' i .
...3 3.3826;
grad- s, .a: .: _.

UV oaJ‘h-

LT: iisiinct i:

q
of”?! 0" T“'fi”~

. is... V.

:32: M" ..

“a.“ g |
4' F k ‘
:n :‘L: ‘Uj‘dv t.

- t
d"
.'. .33 “f

k
-e (‘11..
U-.
s
I a '
\y ‘V‘a.

(I)

 

57

surable effects upon attitudes toward that change.

The independent variable was considered as being reflected in two
separate entities. These were examined separately and were treated as
two distinct independent variables. They are specifically discussed

below.

Degree of Informed Awareness

As discussed in detail in the preceding chapter, prior to the in~
stallation of the IBM 650 computer the company initiated an information
program about the computer for the benefit of its employees. This con-
sisted of meetings, bulletins from the president of the firm, and a
series of articles in the house organ.

From these media of formal communications a set of sixteen factual
statements were drawn up. For example, "the computer cannot correct
errors that exist in the data it receives," and "one of the immediate
tasks of the 650 programmer is to develop a procedure for figuring pay-
roll on the computer.” The majority of these items correctly represen»
ted the information as directly extracted from the meetings, bulletins,
and articles. Some items, however, were purposely incorrect. They
were factually wrong and directly contrary to what the company had act~
ually'said, or they were manufactured in the sense that the company had
not actually said anything on the topic.

The reader is referred to Appendix F for the instructions and ori-
ginal set of sixteen items used in the pretest form of the questionnaire.
These items for both the supervisory and nonmsupervisory'questionnaire

are numbered III-13h through III-S9 on pages 111 and 15.

-,~- g, -
.CE “'3 a

a. ‘v'. .‘u

vuv..v'~

y a
3“” no a as;

9‘ 53-: ¢Oang q,“
IV“ A VAL: “a
.

t l .. ‘
“" .. IEQO‘
‘5... .3

.m
‘4. .y‘V I
o O

73.313 stat er. =

mt the chats.

(

a . . ‘
‘B‘. I‘ I ‘
v». u: '1 is

“ A's ‘ .
"a “K on t:

Bee's.

V

Va.
0 m y. .
3“, J. ‘2‘. -3“:
--C...

-’.- 1
LE 5?

“rev-3".
fie..."

..r. 3'

.-

‘ ”"3" = .

.. ~ ‘3'. a ‘
sumae‘. ,

V IL‘.
‘x-fl ~.
‘
a. 3.1253: .3...
1&5 -‘ n‘-

 

.:,.- :4
:2: A} ..
' 's in.
"‘v 1“»
U‘
4. ..
,\ §
k, r. ‘>
“Ra. ‘ N“.-
“V O
“-G
19:“
a V
~as‘L 5?, v
‘v‘ be
v-JE
M} :-
4. 5'-

 

 

S8

The format of this particular knowledge-of-information test re-
presented a departure from those used in other studies. This test
placed focus upon what the company had done in the way of communicating
with its employees. Yet, by asking how the company had acted on the
various statements, one also obtained a measure of the knowledge held
about the change-over as mediated by the information program.

Certain key management officials were used as judges to ascertain,
as a check on the experimenter, whether or not the company had in fact
made or not made a statement, or had pronounced something contrary to
the statement appearing in the questionnaire. Data on these comparisons
is presented in a subsequent chapter. On the basis of these judgements,
the sixteen information items were keyed in terms of what the company
had acttally'done; i.e., made the statement, not made the statement, or
said something opposite.

An important aSpect of the company information program was that the
tone of the formal statements was of a definitely positive nature. That
is, the information pointed out that the impending change was very'benw
eficial for the company and that there was to be no loss of jobs because
of the computer's introduction.

In a naturalistic setting of the sort in which this study was con~
ducted the experimental subjects, except in the case of required atten~
dance at various meetings, exposed themselves on a voluntary basis to

formal communications rather than being fully eXposed through control.l

 

l. Hovland (1959) refers to this phenomeion as "selfwselection of
exposure“ to communications.

 

. O.

..
tr
'1
(D

I - I
I "van O-ny
" .a

"-‘~-- V-Vfi
.'.. :V”‘~n‘a
&- tun-v. ne‘v‘

L "' * !
via-re 9:1! 3“

."fl!\ '
Aiezgvnqe‘

.
7'3 3.9,.
e... ~“\

U
“I
'9 u .,
‘h’fi .9: ‘a‘v-
~ K;

“a“; ‘
‘ w
~A ‘
"l.a;:‘fl‘.? “
- ""“efl- ‘ y
I .’
v. ‘1. 5‘“ A -
. a.“ t‘. ‘
v
‘
‘N. “Go:
-_-‘

 

59

With respect to the temporal relation existing between the formal
communications program and the administration of the knowledge test,
the information meetings for home office personnel were held seven days
before the questionnaire administration. A total of four articles ap-
peared consecutively in the company's monthly "magazine" before the
pretest. The fourth appeared about four weeks prior to the question-
naire.

The information test, from which.the Degree of Informed Awareness
was derived, represented the agreement between what management said it
had told its employees and what the employees said the company had told
them regarding the changeover. In this sense, the scale actually was
the amount of congruence between respondents' Opinions and those of
management representatives as to what information had been transmitted
to the employees.

The definition for this independent variable shall be: the "degree
of informed awareness" is the extent to which designated recipients of
formal company communications are aware of specific factual pronounceu
ments made by the company regarding the installation of the IBM 650.
This degree of awareness of factual information was taken as equated
to the degree to which these recipients were personally informed about
the impending change.

The definition does not exclude the use of this measure as one of

communication effectiveness.

Belief-Disbelief in Communications
The second independent variable was essentially an extension of

theiflrst. ‘As a derivation, it could be considered a component of

1‘

‘F‘vfi 5".“ cm
"H... a... v,

.. ‘ ' .
~s..,,. a." '.
king's aVVflIU
':"'--v.. d. 5

's' I‘ ‘7'“?

"“V‘h.
if.“ v
p.

a .lu'vCe “‘23.

V

Degree of Informed Awareness.

It was reasoned that, although the amount of factual information
one may know about an impending change may be related to attitudes re-
garding that change, it was also a good possibility that one's attitudes
toward the communications themselves would be related to consequent at—
titudes about the change. This attitude toward the communications was
specified in terms of a dimension of acceptance (belief) - rejection
(disbelief) of the information contained in the communication.

A set of eight items were written as companion items to a corres-
ponding set of eight items in the information test. The items compris~
ing the belief-disbelief measure appeared in the questionnaire immedi-
ately following the information test. The reader may refer to Appendix
F where these items, numbered III-60 through III-67, are found on page
16 of both the supervisory'and non-supervisory forms. This set of
items was prefaced with the instructions:

“Now we would like to know what you personally think will

happen as a result Of the computer. Below are several

questions. Mark your answer in one of the columns 'yes',

'possibly‘, and 'no', depending on your Opinion.”

In reality, then, one was dealing with eight pairs of items. For
example, from the information test we have: "The company will be able
to issue policies more quickly thanks to the computer." - the respond-
ent indicating if the company had said so, said the Opposite, or had re~
mained silent on that tOpic. Then, from the belief-disbelief test,
"In.your Opinion, will the company be able to issue policies more quick-

ly thanks to the computer?“ - the respondent indicating 'yes, 'possibly‘

or 'no'.

61

As will be discussed in greater detail in a later chapter, a
weighted scoring system was devised for these eight pairs of items.
This scoring scheme was designed to reflect the extent to which an in»
dividuai's expectations or beliefs about an impending change deviated
from management's belief on various issues regarding the forthcoming
computer installation. For example, if the company said it would be
able to issue policies more quickly, and the employee agreed that the
company said this, but personally indicated that the computer would not
make policy issuance more rapid, then disbelief was registered for this
particular item of information. Of course, if the employee believed or
expected that this would occur, then belief in the company's pronouncem
ment was indicated. A system of assigning varying positive or negative
weights was used to score combinations of responses on the eight pairs
of items in such a fashion as to reflect degrees of beliefndisbelief in
company statements in conjunction with whether or not the respondent

was aware that the company had made or had not made the statement ori~

The is inition for this second independent variable, "Belieanisw
belief in Communications", shall be: the degree to which an employee's
expectancies or beliefs about an issue deviate from management's belief
on the same issue as expressed through formal ”inmplant" communications.
This variable was reflective of a general readiness on the part of emm
ployees to accept, or inclination to reject, what they were told by the
company.

Since a communications program can be considered as a means, either

lfififlicit or explicit, for structuring employee expectations regarding

 

v}: A"!':‘A+ [‘9

a. vs"..& V.

l.: .9 -C. r. II
1.5. '.‘.5 ct...

F “We 1,:

!

c.

' r

6.. g...»
H

u . 4 .
'7' 3"“H-uyq V“
“ "" ”En—.1
A":"' A: ‘3'!)
wahi' V- d..-..
r‘m‘

q.
..
..
5 '."‘.:
“‘va. “A.
.
”‘1.’ 3: -. _ .
N--"-“‘;\. -
a -
U. “ V
..~: "fl‘.—_...‘
.. ‘1 ’ k
«"uuw_v_-
‘.’q T‘
" ' ' Fan
.1... w .

LEJ

 

fish.“ '1
-‘. : h
¢-~5‘~L ‘C’:
o ,y
"‘s n
.
- \le. c-3153
‘5
.l.‘ .
‘k :‘3‘ h‘:
v u. ‘T‘a-
\.
is
y . “‘c Q!
‘4
-
5. :‘
Vb
‘ 1
. . 3"». Q.
-. ~‘
.,
I" a
K' A
. ‘ '2. ,

 

'3 ‘n‘.
v-‘wa
{h
“H: C‘ ,
U V ‘ .h ‘
‘ “.5 ha-
.
'1.
‘n a
Q‘ ‘\ ‘
‘s Y‘
\.?e-‘\
x.
‘2
.v‘h: ,
"‘u :V‘s
. ““U v.“-
~
L
I! I
.
'u I. ‘
\. a.

62

the object of the Communications, one could suggest, with regard to
Belief-Disbelief in Communications, that this was also a measure of
the degree to which the communications program had succeeded or failed
in structuring expectations about the change. At any rate it was indi~
cative of the agreement or diSparity between management and employee
expectations about the impact of the IBM 650 upon company Operations.
There was certainly some reason to expect on logical grounds, that
belief-disbelief in what the company said was one facet or component of
some hypothetical general factor one might term “confidence in the com»
pany.” It may also be indicative of general job satisfaction and "mor«
ale.”

The Dependent variables

A central integrating theme in the series of investigations of
which this study was a part, has been the exploration of various psy-
chological responses to technological change. Chapter Two pointed out
that the classical approach to the study of employee response to change
had been primarily centered around the phenomenon of resistance to

change. The emphasis followed here has been more global and encompass-

ing in approach - and hOpefully more fruitful. In this series of studies
the focus has been on the perceptions, expectations, and attitudes re-
lated to job-associated changes, the agent for the change, and the efw
fects of the change.

This investigation was concerned with response to change as the
dependent variable. As with the independent variable, it was decided

1x>include two factors to be treated as two distinct dependent variables.

‘91- s .
. Onlu‘.’ C
”‘1va o

urcru ‘

owns-w..- V

V
D! o '
d. .0 a

vo.v 4

-v
I...

raw 4»:

‘I
6v. _._ v-1

:fi‘ A’ ‘ ‘

.4. LC!

Ml ,,
-:
‘r‘Q
.‘
.
' t
i." ‘3 a
4‘ ‘
K
\
.h“
‘\ y.‘
w

63

Although one was not derived from the other, both represented forms of
response to change. One dependent variable had a general referent and
represented a change over time, while the other had a specific referent
and represented a condition at one point in time.

A specific response to change, either to the effects of the change
or to the agent producing the change, is taken here as representing a
differential condition arising out of reactions to some alteration or
set of alterations consequent to exposure to a Specified change in a
specified situation. At a theoretical level, a response to a Specified
change can.be seen as a partial conditioner of future responses to
change depending upon: 1) a gradient of generalization linking the
changes as common in some aspects, 2) the characteristics of the ori-
ginal response to a change (highly positive or negative, neutral,
stable or unstable), 3) the effects of the change upon the individual
in terms of either positively or negatively reinforcing the response
made to it, h) personality factors resident within the individual, 5)
perceptions of the way in which the changes were handled in the past
and are likely to be handled in the future, 6) interim factors of an
unapecified, unknown nature, and 7) the perceived consequences of the
changes.

‘With regard to general response to change we are dealing with a
generalized predisposition to accept changes or to maintain the "status
quo." This is differentiated from a specific response to change by the
degree of influence exerted by the process of selectivity; In the lat-
ter instance (specific changes), they'sre reacted to on a selective

basis - some are responded to in a positive manner while others are

 

‘ ~
31:22: t 11953

I
H .5 Q n
1'. :5 DE. tC-Ve
a

' O
‘ . fir
‘I‘a up ““I.
-'v.'e.....v ~.

. ' . .
‘aun‘ ‘.~ F. .. 7‘

'.‘¢ “I“... U

3“ng

"n.” “a
La "I b
b...“ “a

‘ ' ' a!
~Q: awn ~F°.".
"" N u..l_‘

i. is reaqau .L‘

" “Nit...

.:.._

Q
_ FA ‘.‘ “‘
V. 1“ “:'
.
2‘2”“ “'“hfi‘.
«we we 5. “y ‘ v
u n
I
M" ‘ V...’
. is. | h‘;

""A‘ ‘ ~
. Rh
key “e 4":
-.'

5 o
“r C: S‘cn- 9:

:“'“,‘
e, ‘
“',\‘
u a Syaat. re‘

A
UH \l
u. . "‘
"if“ ‘ 4 a.»
u" ‘Vu ¥-.
.‘ .
u
.u -8 T‘Eas
;: 0.; .
. ‘ ‘A “
N~e ‘1‘ ”I.
." I
\ '“E S ‘\:a
a“ e_
.fie:
."e‘- 5. ‘
\|v aestah
a “e
\-
D. ‘ ‘ .
hil‘e‘: s 3":
5“ 1e.
1," ’
.ai'e ‘g‘L
\‘I‘. a
I.‘
., ‘
\

'i

V. s . .
' Ae- ,
\I._ is: ‘

‘O

.

\{TI‘ .

"3 7v-

6h

reacted to negatively and some are met with impassiveness depending up-
on the perceived implications of the change for the individual and his
involvement in the change. In the former (general changes), the indi-
vidual maintains an attitudinal set towards changeas aclass of events -
either they are inherently beneficial or they are on the whole disrup-
tive and inevitably lead to difficulties. In general response to change
it is reasonable to suppose that the individual may easily tolerate
minor and relatively insignificant changes, but will resist changes of
a major proportion. Certainly personality attributes are an important
factor in this instance as well as past experience.

The interaction between Specific and general reSponse to change
cannot be overlooked. It is just as valid to assume that a constella-
tion of specific changes, and the resultant response to them gives rise
to a general readiness to accept or reject change, as to assume that a
generalized acceptance or rejection of change dictates specific responses
to specified changes.

It is reasonable to assume, though, that one certainly influences
the other to the extent that a generalized readiness to accept changes
in one's "life-Space" is accompanied by, on the whole numerically, more
positive reSponses to Specific changes. The obverse would hold in that
a generalized unwillingness to accept changes conceptually is often as-
sociated with a greater frequency of negative reSponses to specific
changes.

Another factor which theoretically at least would appear cogent is
that connected with controllability. The individual should perceive

changes in a more favorable light when he is in a position to exert

 

 

'~‘x‘ a
a. Q “A“
“'-‘U yfl
. ""
~. ‘ ‘
2": ‘73-” “C2“
..§.¢._h ‘vw

V
‘3‘ e . .
‘Qv‘i mfi ~3:_-

65

control over or influence the course of a change. The greater one's
control over his environment, either factually or imagined, the less
likely will changes in general be perceived as representing a potential
threat to the person. This, it would seem, is one of the major reasons
why "participatory management" has been successful in combating and re-

ducing resistance to change.

Readiness to Accept Change

 

This particular dependent variable represented an attitude of gen-
eralized readiness to accept job-related changes of an unSpecific na-
ture. It also reflected an Opposition or resistance to accept unspeci-
fied but job-related changes. This variable, and the scale from which
it was derived, has been used in previous studies.2

In this particular investigation a measure of the general readi-
ness to accept job related changes was obtained through the use of a
nine-item scale which was administered in both.the pretest and posttest
questionnaires. The reader is referred to Appendix F for these items.
On the pretest form for both supervisors and non-supervisors this scale
is represented by item I-56 on page h and by items IV>hO through IV;h7
on pages 17 and 18. On the posttest form of the questionnaire the items
are III-16 on page 13 and items I-39 through I-h6 on pages h and S.

The actual variable measure utilized in this investigation is de-
fined as: a shift or change in the general readiness to accept job

—;

2. The reader is referred to Trumbo (1958) and Faunce (1960).

66

related changes over time in terms of pretest and posttest discrepan-
cies on the nine-item scale. This shift in general readiness to accept
change was measured on dimensions of both direction and magnitude. Ex~
perimental subjects could thus be categorized as becoming more or less
ready, or remaining static, in their general acceptance of job-connected
changes over a six month period of time. 'It was during this six month
period that the computer was installed. The static group represented
some who were eager to accept changes and remained so, those who abhored
changes and continued to feel that way, and those who fell at intermed-
iate points and did not shift from pretesting to posttesting in their

positions.

Affective Response to the Computer

Besides having a.measure of a more generalized, global response to
change, it was reasoned that another important kind of response certainly
would be that associated directly with the introduction of the computer.
A set of three items was selected from the pretest form of the question-
naire that represented an affective response (on a like-dislike contin~
unm) to the expected effects of the computer. These three items were
the second component in a set of three pairs of items. The first item
in each pair asked, reapectively:

1) “Which statement best describes the effect you eXpect the com-
puter to have on you.in the next six months?"

2) “Do you think that the computer will influence your job in the
next year or two?"

3) ”What is your general feeling about the fact that the company’
has decided to install the computer?"

 

sav“ .

.06
.-
7...:
"8* .:
"‘V ’5‘
he, e
. s.“
”we

a ‘
rue"
‘,
Q a‘
‘~ v. \I
.

it
‘A
3‘".
rage
‘
.
§“ “
F.
V!
~'
\
~l“
'- ‘w-
‘4;

If. [l1-

67

Each of these items was followed by the same item asking, "How do

you feel about this?‘' It was this latter triad of items which were
utilized as a measure of Affective Response to the Computer. The reader
is referred to.Appendix F where these items can be found numbered II-SZ,
II-Sh, and II-SS on pages 10 and ll in both the supervisory and non-
supervisory'forms.

In the case of items II-52 and II-Sh, like or dislike responses
were used in a fashion independent of the expected effects of the com-
puter. In other words, employees may have indicated a liking for some
expected effect 2E they may have_indicated a.liking because their exp
pectations led them to believe that the computer would have 22 effect
upon them. (In both cases the respondent liked3 the effect of the com-
puter. The ”effect“ in this sense phenomenologically was expressed by:
it will or will not have some expected impact upon.me as a worker in
this company. ‘Psychologically, then, the presence of an expected im-
pact on the worker or absence of expected impact were both effects of
the computer's introduction.

The definition, then, for this variable is: the affective re-

sponse toward the computer and the expected effects upon the employee.

The Intervening or Secondary variables
During the course of investigating and exploring hypothesized re-
lationships obtaining between independent and dependent variables, it

seemed of some importance to become cognizant of and control if possible

 

3. A similar case may be drawn for respondents who report dislike or
indifference to the expected effects of the computer.

‘ “‘ 4' V ne-
l'v'rZJQ' ’3.

hi. “

--—‘...,.:.1

ea:
$4.4. SE _ __

o. 99“. ’0“ --

3.. L: dew a:

' :

.

a. ' 3‘7"“: Wgrv
I.“ "N" bum...

:.. N e. I

‘ .

367.2: +‘. .

Vb.“ . .
4» rm A.
sete‘g‘
.--' :;
N .'E:t‘ a ‘L .-
Q be.:
3
a. .
. ”‘n
.. ‘ RA “
’ M Sewn:
"‘e '
* u. .
"w w ‘0 .
N \ H ‘ ‘.
“Vad‘s .‘
m a
k ' a “we:
r-
a.‘e ‘
.' :5 ‘l
\. it.
- s“ ‘11"? E“‘ V
.‘
:‘e
...I A: ‘
§ \ ‘
3' v‘ «P9
.1
N
J .A *\
\\O r“ A
\r k.:rt
.'.'
. in ‘
‘\v: ‘3‘“ Q:
~ C fan:
‘9‘“
\‘_.
‘V in
\ 'VTSEFJu
\‘g
?‘
"e
~a ' \I
e ‘V.
.‘M'
'V‘T‘.~\
": el'
J U
\I

 

68

the effects of various secondary factors. These factors represented

“extraneous“ variables in the sense that they were intrinsic to the ex~
perimantal setting, were variously related to the experimental variables,
and were not amenable to experimental control. It was seen as important
to, in some manner, account for their effects, when statistically'examin~
ing specific relationships between the independent and dependent variables.
There was the possibility that the uncontrolled effects of these secondary
variables could act to either mask or artificially produce relationships
between the main variables - in either event distorting the "true” rela-
tionship obtaining between these experimental variables.
Two specific problems at once arose: first, how can one isolate
and identify the secondary variables whose effects should be controlled
for, and secondly, how should one achieve this control. Both call for
certain statistical Operations which will be recounted in a later chapter.
On an a priori basis it was possible to arrive at a list of so~
called intervening or secondary variables which might potentially af-
fect any of the main variables.
Since there was no way of knowing in advance which secondary vari-
ables were significantly related to the main variables, a series of in-
itial screening analyses were performed and are reported in chapter 8.
The a_priori list of potentially Significant secondary variables
consisted of the following:
1. Age
2. Education

3. Tenure

h. Occupational level (supervisor or
non-supervisor)

5. Office (home or branch)
6. Expected involvement in the change

69

7. Number of contacts with formal

communications
8. Supervisory style
9. Realization of expectations

At this point suffice it to say that, of these variables, subse-
quent analyses proved: perceived involvement, occupational level,
office, and contacts with communications were significantly related to
one or more of the main experimental variables. Each of these secondary

variables will be identified more Specifically;

Expected Involvement

This indicated what employees expected to happen to their jobs
because of the computer. One may expect no changes, some changes,
drastic alterations, transfer, promotion, etc. resulting from the in-
stallation of the computer. Subjects were categorized, on the basis of
their responses, into those who thought they"would be greatly affected,
those who expected negligible or no involvement, or those who had no
idea. The item was II-Sl on page 10 of both the supervisory'and non-
supervisory forms of the questionnaire. It is reproduced below:

"Which statement best describes the effect you expect the
computer to have on you in the next six months?

1. I expect to be promoted
2. I expect to be transferred to a different job.
3. I expect to keep the same job, but with the
work greatly changed.
h. I expect to keep the same job, but with work
noticeably'changed.
S. I expect to keep the same job with the work
only slightly changed.
6. I expect to keep the same job with no change
‘tr file
7. I don't expect to be affected for I plan to quit.
8. Other (describe)
9. I have no idea."

 

 

 

 

 

:3 hm:

\uny'v
.

a o ' "_
£1.82 .11 ”3)::
O

“"6 " New: *4»
i“- oeDuvaa'ue;aL
O

inmate E, i;

L.)
1

‘
‘
:‘SC‘h l
M v‘
, In I
Q
g.
3.. a .-
‘Lr. m. I
‘. lhs ‘
a.‘.‘
I
.-‘-‘- a:
'I 4‘»

35‘.
T?!
t
“‘3 Var:
~15:
“I! Ix",
‘1“!

 

 

70

A response to alternates l, 2, 3, and h placed the individual in
the ”expect change" group, a response to alternates 5, 6, and 7 repre-
sented the "expecting no change" group and a reSponse to 8 or 9 placed
the respondent in a third group. If a respondent, by his response to
alternate 8, indicated an expected effect, then he was placed in the
group expecting a change of some sort. Thus there were, for analytical
purposes, three groups:

Group I - Respondent expects a major change

Group II - ReSpondent expects only a slight
change or no change

Group III - ReSpondent has no idea

Occupational level

 

This secondary variable indicated whether or not the respondent
was a supervisor or functioned in a non-supervisory'capacity; The com-
pany personnel department provided identification information on this
matter. In addition, when the questionnaires were administered, superu
visors were requested to Sit as a group separate from non-supervisory
personnel, and they received distinctively different forms of the ques-
tionnaire. Thirdly, all employees were asked in question X-lO, 11 on

page 36, "What is your present job title?"

Office

 

This variable merely referred to whether the reSpondent worked in

the home office or in the branch office.

antacts with Communications

This was an empirically derived index reflecting the number of

:mcts wick

' '= v ' u
:1: intn ne

2 tfiition tc

n,» 3
9 :1:

I'\.) rx)
( ")
I) "
5b u
n
p I \ v 1
—

t
:1-
.

.4

y
(

.+
a‘ :‘veffy
I an ‘ a
N U ‘.
\. - a
vu~er
551:.“
w
t
I“
U'“Jbgw 1
. 1, ‘ .L
’ JC‘A}. 4
h r "492
4’33 .
1 h».
yI .
yer

 

 

 

71

contacts which employees had with formal company communications that
dealt with the IBM 650 computer installation.

The company provided the experimenter with copies of all bulletins,
memos, and issues of the house organ which were distributed to employees.
In addition to this material, a resume' of the content of information
meetings and a listing of all personnel attending these meetings were
provided.

Below in Table 5 is a summarization of the communications tO‘WhiCh
employees were exposed in prelude to the introduction of the IBM 650.

Table 5. EXposures to Formal Company Communications
Concerning the Installation of the IBM 650 Computer

 

 

 

 

 

Communication Media Location and Level
Home Office Branch Office
Super- Non-Super- Super- Non-Super—
visory' visory' visory' visory'

 

House organ

20 July 1957

20 August 1957

20 September 195?
2b October 1957

it

***

***>"
****
***“¢<

Meetings

2 October 1957
15 October 1957
11 November 1957

***
***

hflletins

17 April 1957 * *
15 November 1957 * * * *

 

if'
The entry (*) indicates an exposure to the particular communication
1’ or a specific location and level.

    
   
   

An index

.«n t L
we go uh

a! the cmpute

are, being b

N
V. a ‘
.. "‘
“View
4‘.
a,
‘\ ch!

 

72

An.index of contacts was prepared based upon actual or likely ex-
posure to the various formal communications. For each employee, every
Opportunity for exposure to formal information about the installation
of the computer was given the value of one. These values were cumula—
tive, being based upon the total number of presumed or actual contacts
with formal sources of information. As Table 5 above indicates the
total number of contacts for supervisors could have ranged from none
to nine, while the total number of contacts for non-supervisory'per—

sonnel could have theoretically ranged from none to eight.

The Constellation of variables in Perspective

Partly because this investigation was of an exploratory nature,
and partly'because it was conducted within a naturalistic, largely un-
controlled setting, the context may be described as an Open system where-
in a conglomerate of variables were interrelated to unknown extents.
Dealing with relationships in such a setting often proves difficult be-
cause of the multiplicity of inter-meshed factors. 'Where a constella-
tion of interacting and uncontrolled variables exists, the nominal as-
signment of "dependent,” "independent," and "intervening" to variables
is somewhat arbitrary. For the purposes of interpretation and understand-
ing however, one must relegate variables to one of these three classes.
This is generally done on the basis of: 1) prior research findings,2)
a certain theoretical position, and 3) purely a priori hypotheses.

'Within such a constellation of interacting variables it is some-
what a matter of choice which ones are called independent, dependent, and
intervening simply because, depending on the relationship focused upon

a . v
ya.- a ‘ r 0.? e
..:.." U- Uaav ' é

. a u ..
a_F .J.,, y,- -
H , V
v... ~~~o° Vat-

0 v ,
. ..
:~ 2? “may
d “A

‘a—V ,y v..‘.
6

"-e- bu Uvav

a ‘
5' G 9“! ““77“
an» 1“ “,3;
7' --\-ue.'
4.. nu ..

‘
~“Av4
“.5 ‘..d.-

». 'va

0 n
‘ 32".; !
~ “‘3' gain '

 

73

many of the variables could reasonably function interchangeably; at one
time being the dependent variable and at still another time functioning
as an independent variable. A direct consequence of this state of af-
fairs is the relative safety (interpretatively) in Speaking of concomit~
ance and covariation between sets of variables, but the relative danger
in pointing out cause-and-effect relationships between selected factors.
With these notes of caution, the dependent, independent, and in-
tervening variables were selected as discussed in this chapter. In the

following chapter we shall look explicitly at the relationships posited

to exist between the main variables.

,. ‘0 ‘Bq
ta‘s ‘.‘

" w .
:ii'ZZ-OLII' 5:11,

3"" " r” a:

“a" u ‘6‘ U...
PM : ' y
mi Yr-a:‘.-es.

:
‘1 a a. “
J. 'f‘

.‘ V”
'1. 93

‘u‘

l

ya.
"NԤ
V

‘I‘

7343-93, th‘?‘

“NEH“ ‘
5:453 Of

C28;

‘l": '0 ' ' a
‘= “13-95 .

 

In .
'DSI'N ‘K
V‘ .
U o
‘L
4 Ward H
V
\ a
“$334
H
‘
Q‘s

svfler
\
".
J{LI-
. ~
\y‘ a.

 

CHAPTER FIVE
THE HYPOTI-IESES

This chapter will outline the major hypotheses tested in this
particular study; As was pointed out in the preceding chapter, there
were two distinct independent variables as well as two separate depend-
ent variables. Such a configuration led to the establishment of four
major postulated relationships.

In addition to the hypothesized relationships between the main
variables, there were a number of sub-hypotheses constructed for the
purpose of characterizing expected relationships between the interven-
ing variables and certain of the main variables. This set of sub-hypo-
theses formed the rationale for the a priori selection of a number of
secondary factors which later were subjected to empirical analysis to

ascertain their relevancy.
The Main Hypotheses

It was reasoned that differential response to change and readi-
ness to accept changes in one's job were partially influenced or condi-
tioned by the degree to which one was factually informed about the pro-
posed change. The general expectancy regarding this assumption can be
expressed by: the better informed one is about a change, the greater
the likelihood that the response to that change will be positive; the
umre poorly one is informed about a change, the more likely'a response
Vfill.be either neutral or negative. This kind of relationship would be

markedly affected by the extent to which the information was couched in
7b

:4. '
33S.ul'v'e 02' ng

 

aq q
\ fl
lea-15y.

here ‘n’fJ

Q . ‘
"f" F m ‘P A
’65. V edge .
a
.. .
.OA.‘~"+

"ma-w 0f as

a
a7. v+ !
.L. k3 fi "CES

   

s
3!? is Davin

v-
V. ..a.

a
.

“al.‘
p
f- . wt. 9"“
.

 

V. ,
k ‘ ”Jr “a s
".l‘se 3::
.revers.

\ ‘»
hm. *1
U ‘ A

\d ~.
EQ:\\ 3
N a‘e n
k WY».
‘ \-

75

positive or negative terms; i.e., the degree of threat posed by the
message.

There were several reasons why the above general relationship
would be expected. Firstly, being informed about a change can be
thought of as reflecting the act Of self-preparation for the change.

One who makes efforts to become relatively well prepared for some change-
over is perhaps less likely to manifest resistance to that change. This
preparedness may be the result of positive expectancies about the change,
or may be derived from the insight that a realistic adjustment is re-
quired.

Secondly, the way in which events are interpreted when they occur
is frequently determined by the way in which the individual was prepared

for the event.1 Thus, positive preparation in the form of providing

factual information which points out the benefits and positive aspects
of a change should.be related to positive reactions toward the change.
The reverse, of course, would also hold true.

There is a third factor which would lead one to posit a relation-
ship between the informative level Of employees with regards to a change
and their concurrent or subsequent attitudes toward the change. As
Hairs (1956) discussed with respect to communications in business, the

mechanism of perceptual defense Operates in such a fashion as to cause

1. Hovland (1951) pointed out that preparatory communications which
build up optimistic Opinions might have the effect Of making
people more resistant to accepting the implications of bad news.
However, when people have been influenced by'a preparatory commun-
ication containing Optimistic arguments that are subsequently

shown to be unfounded, the ”bad“ news might be all the more in-
fluential.

sale to sale
is current vi
Liz. agreemn
facts 'u'tich 11'
2352 who are
:95 it": would
5.2306 3! and:
fins are the

Tzese a:

Q

11:: 3f the f0

0‘ ‘
..h ‘
“er .2 ge..€
\ .a.
b. .s‘ie.
‘ ?n
II h .
ms

 

}.
I‘.‘ .
‘s . a. ,
5‘ “‘3 it e»
‘ Ex
‘3,
\e‘ ‘4.
"“u‘lt Va,
\'
5“
\JQ.
\
1‘ ‘
M.
.43 t
A
‘53.:
' ‘u M»
““a \‘A
,1. at:
V
Ts ,.
"a_‘h
\.

 

76

peOple to select information which: 1) presents facts in harmony with
the current views and beliefs of the individual, 2) presents that which
is in agreement with currently held factual information, and 3) presents
facts which are already fairly well understood. To this degree, then,
those who are well informed about a change are also likely to be the
ones who would respond with favor toward the change. Again, the like-
lihood Of such a coexistence is enhanced by the fact that the communica-’
tions were themselves of a positive nature.

These arguments have to some extent supported and led to formula-

tion Of the following two major hypotheses:

I The extent or degree of informed awareness on the part of an
employee about a change will be related in a positive manner to an in-

crease in general readiness to accept job-related changes over a period

of time.

II The extent or degree Of informed awareness on the part of an
employee about a change will be related in a positive manner to the

Specific affective response to the computer prior to its installation.

The second set of major hypotheses are intimately linked with the
first two in that the same dependent variables are Of concern, and the
independent variable is a reaction to the content of formal communica-
tions.

It has already been sufficiently stressed that the internal in-

formation program Of the company was, primarily, Of a positive sort in-

dicating benefits to be accrued and rejecting any really adverse effects

s
- 9&4 .,,‘.
. v w '
-a
Jon-r 0..
3""
a

 

e

' m

“"‘. ‘ RI _
0' ‘-‘.u g-.._

 

'dhu s",

Q Q ‘ a

u. -.__~ .~

L“ .-_.,--_-
O

“"‘AQ~ a A

. _ *\ ‘

"*~-a- l..- a-

- . .
u..~ « a... v.—
\ :\

K-~ ~‘~-~, I
I -.
'..“‘\I
awn“

u. ‘ .

.:. l... “‘A_ ,

.a.. :‘h . ~ .

'v. .A‘

‘IU

“:"\ ~".“
'1 Una. ~- _“
w
‘1 .
\‘v ‘ .
-.. ,:‘H‘ ‘v
—§~I§..\'~ _

   

u
1":
‘D‘ o
‘ s .
"‘ ~ '- .“._~
‘ " "-. .~
'I. I
~‘ .‘ :~ . I.
H.“ ‘51 \ '~ .
‘~ “..
‘ |.
:~._ ,_ .
k...- I ;_ UHF- ‘
.._
ah“.-~
‘a
a
. ". I
\ ~ _ N‘.‘_-
g‘ .
Iv
. \.

 

“~—
U‘
-‘_‘
v
._ :I
. C
\ ‘ ‘
‘9‘ "N.“
'~~

 

 

77

upon the work force resulting from the installation of the computer.

It would seem almost axiomatic, then, that belief in what the company
said would be analogous to positive expectancies regarding the change,
and disbelief in factual statements would be equivalent to negative ex—
pectations about the effects of the computer introduction. It was on
this basis, partially, that two other hwfotheses were constructed.

Another consideration given to this relationship of belief-disbe—
lief and responses to change concerned the fact that, in all probability,
acceptance or rejection of company information was related rather closely
to one's general regard for his company. This may manifest itself in
confidence in what the company does, general job satisfaction, and/or
what one may refer to as "morale." If one believes what the company
says in terms of generally trusting the validity of its pronouncements,
then it is likely that this trust is associated with a personal belief
that the kinds of changes the management decides upon are, from an over-
all standpoint, ones which are for the "good" of the company and its
employees.

As Beumgartel (l9Sh) indicated in his discussion of perceived change
and its measurement, the more favorable a person's attitude about some
given object or situation, the more likely will the person also tend to
perceive positive changes in that object or situation. In this study we
may consider belief in company'pronounccments about the changeover to the
IBM 650 as representing a relatively positive attitude toward the computer.
Hence, expressed belief in these management-initiated statements was hypo-
thesized to be positively related to actual reSponscs toward the computer

arui toward general

'uwrr

 

1 g.
"Q a
*1. a...

'2“”‘C "a I 9‘

H u
..-v..~ “~

.' ‘5ha«
u. .'|~'
'
J c,“ "5““
\ .
F. ‘V -‘V
. ‘ ' ‘
my. ‘. 1:: -‘fi-
~ - .0 \
| 7

1° .‘JA
an.» V1,"-

 

.
a: ‘I‘ufi':a°
”stew“

h . “n
”a
4‘4. “c
.
In
I Q ‘
«l. NK‘A“ ‘
‘J I‘ ' HQ
I .I'Vv‘

 

‘5 ‘
‘P
‘I Q
5“»
.'l
U“
.‘ N“ ‘
a, “a”. ‘
" “we.
‘
th‘:b;‘ 3
III I ~
“~ L‘nfl
3‘.
.-
ausrs "c
y
y.
‘E \\“
\:“:u.?~':
“‘\*":

78

change as a component of the job.

In another instance Nilsen (195h), doing some research into com-
munication problems existent in office and factory situations, isolated
factors he termed ”ego-reducing." These were: failure to be kept in-
formed, not receiving recognition for work done, and not being told why
something had to be done. “Ego-reduced" employees reacted by distrust-
ing information and by reduced motivation to understand the information
actually received. In our context we could perhaps eXpect to have some
of these "ego-reduced" employees. They would make their presence known
by high "disbelief scores." It is also likely that they would respond
to expected changes in a negative way.

The two hypotheses relating belief-disbelief in company statements

and reSponses to change are indicated below:

III The belief or disbelief in companybinitiated pronouncements
about proposed changes will be related in a positive manner to an in-
crease in general readiness to accept job-related changes over a period

or time.

IV' The belief or disbelief in companybinitiated pronouncements
about proposed changes will be related in a positive manner to the

Specific affective response to the computer prior to its installation.

The Sub-hypotheses
There were a number of secondary hypotheses which specified the

relationships expected between the intervening variables and the main

 

:Y‘sw' For“
in.“ a "war

I 1
age was:

79

experimental variables. These sub-hypotheses formed the rational basis

upon which the original selection of intervening variables was made:

1. Age

It was expected that age would play some part in shaping responses
to change. In the experimental setting the maj ority of employees were
young women (78.9%). Their attachment to the job and longevity in the
work situation were limited, certainly, but at the same time they were
the one's who most likely stood to have their jobs altered by the com-
puter's introduction. It was known that some job layoff rumors had been
circulating. It was reasonable to expect that the younger employees felt
that they would be the ones ”replaced” by the computer if such layoffs
actually materialized.

Older workers, in general, were holding more responsible positions,
were in higher level Jobs, and had some sort of job security associated
with tenure. Hence, the following two sub-hypotheses were formulated.

1.1 There will be an inverse relationship between employee chronow
logical age and resistance to change as expressed in an increase in the
general readiness to accept job-related change.

1.2 There will be an inverse relationship between employee chron-
ological age and resistance to the change as expressed in specific af-
fective response to the computer prior to its installation.

2. Education

It was reasoned that education would have some effect upon re-
sponses to change. The better educated employee generally possesses a
better understanding of the potential of business computers, and per-

 

...'.... .....,.
. -.

...l.- an»...

1
o
:nula:oo q“ a

nobovna afi.

 

D.
v
. n
“ “ act‘-
1'. _‘ 5"
~' “" Q-u...
o. "h
P al.-‘t
it 1....”
-~
1:. I, 'u
-\ “a
no .5 5“
...,_
, t

u
a ..

," u A” .
c‘u- ~~-J“

 

.. “
Cz“‘v‘. ”.
..--,.k. .
.p‘n ‘-
a 3‘. ya Ya
. '- V‘ \-
‘ \
st. .
FAA A
...::9 :15
a
I 1 w
u.‘
1'.-
1 a. ’fi
Ks." v) 2'
~-
A}...
1 r-
._ _
«(':.
.
I ‘ N
'-
"< ;.

 

 

 

.“

\I. n'

‘n u .-
‘\:‘A C

80

ceives such innovations as beneficial. The employees with a higher
education also, generally, occupy supervisory positions and have posi-
tions of greater responsibility. On the other hand, the young workers
are at lower levels, performing routine tasks which could conceivably

be taken over by a computer. In addition, less educated employees are
not as well informed regarding industry usage and eXperience with office
automation - in a sense they are intellectually unprepared for auto-
mation. Those with less education, as a group, probably are more likely
to perceive a tenuous grasp on their positions within the labor market.
For these assorted reasons the following were hypothesized:

2.1 Employee educational level will be related in a positive
manner to an increase in the general readiness to accept job-related
changes.

2.2 Employee educational level will be related in a positive
manner to the specific affective response to the computer prior to its
installation.

2.3 Employee educational level will be related in a positive
direction to the degree of informed awareness about the introduction of

a computer into the company.

3. Office

 

Whether or not the employee was located in either the home or the
trench office was, on an a priori basis, thought to be related to both
fluaamount of factual information held about the computer changeover

andafleo to the degree of belief in what the company said about the

.
.r f. a
“1.56:.

r~0’fl“ A:
in any... ‘1.

an” g0:

UO-QVH u

Jae-'9' we

"".~-a.A-’

' .I
n- Aa9~ Av-
-~M~14-V‘_

.
r"...

t ' ~
..._. 3‘
-

I

.m
“3..

:Tfl'er‘
C...“

v...

6 ‘D '
by: 2“ AV
K- v.
'5
' 3
4"
rq“: u
. 5‘
\‘ ~-&'
v‘~‘:.; ‘
‘
‘1‘: 3'4
“
¢ 5
a
4.,
n
‘-
‘-

 

 

81

changes. A frequently observed phenomena concerns itself with the
”branch-office syndrome" wherein there is mistrust of what the home
office does, lack of understanding into motivations behind corporate
decisions, a perception of being left out, and other problems of com-
munications. It was a fact that the branch office encompassed in this
study was not involved in information meetings, nor did the company
management expect the branch office to be involved in the computer
change for some time. On this basis the following were expected:

3.1 Home office personnel would be better informed about the in-
stallation of the computer than would branch office employees.

3.2 Home office personnel would have higher "belief" scores than
would branch office employees where the referent for belief was company-
initiated communications about the computer's introduction.

3.3 Home and branch offices would differ in the amount of change

in expressed reSponse to change.

mm

Being a supervisor, or functioning in a non-supervisory capacity,
was seen as possibly exerting some influence upon both dependent vari-
ables and both independent variables. The individual who is a super-
visor, because he is a part of company management, is more likely to
be a primary recipient of information regarding the change-over, and
to believe what he is told. In addition he would be more likely to
perceive company implemented changes as positive advancements with
fewer adverse effects than would be the case with non-supervisory'per~
smnufla The supervisors, in Opposition to non-supervisory personnel,

are less likely to perceive their jobs threatened as a result of the

 

.
. o
9'.“" '3‘
u......a'vv. O

.

:n-3 r
M MOI a.

b... c\.

' I
u" =‘"'
..
.

u
'o'lA IAA'

*- a
4'. hr"-

we.

~00-

 

an?

o. '- :3.

{A l

~90;

it.

we.

va

.. , :‘?‘Y‘ A.“
v..‘

a “V

(I

 

~04
b. ‘
. A.
., ~
“-‘ .:
‘._“.
y

 

d

s

n I
Q

‘l

h, :

‘v
as

 

5
5“». t
. ‘~ ‘Q .
. ‘~ L
3’
\ \-
5““.
u. A“
‘U

82

computer. In fact, some stand to gain status by its introduction. It

is not absurd to eXpect that some supervisors' jobs will actually be

made simpler by the installation of a computer. Thus, several hypotheses
have been formulated based upon the above discussion:

h.l Occupational level is directly related to the degree of in-
formed awareness. Supervisors will be better informed about the change
than will non-supervisory personnel.

h.2 Occupational level is directly related to belief-disbelief
in company pronouncements. Supervisors will be more accepting of company
pronouncements whereas non-superVisors will be more skeptical (less be—
lieving) of company information.

h.3 Occupational level is directly related to general response
to change. Supervisors will, over time, show a greater increase in
their general acceptance of job-related changes than will non-super-
visory'personnel.

h.h. Occupational level is directly related to Specific response
to change. Supervisors will reflect more favorable affective responses
toward the expected introduction of the computer than will non-super-

visory personnel.

5. Perceived Involvement of an Expected Nature

It is reasoned that those who expect some sort of a personal change
in their job as a result of the computer will be predisposed toward be-
ing more critical in their attitudes towards the computer. This same
gxmp is also predisposed toward preparing for the change by accumulating

information, and be being relatively more attentive to the content of an

 

:p’.~.‘ : q,-

unuav‘uuua

.1. ’A‘ n-wn.
‘v' ~~V '4

.y‘v
.

 

‘ a
'“ "“ch n.
H “‘h Mb. ‘.

. I ‘
'fl" ~1- Au ..
""' on-I‘.‘

‘
nah.‘ “Y‘
Via-b. “L-

a

"
. -’ V‘
It. ':vfl .Fal
U ' V dd

k. 43

Q . '
I i 1254“"‘1

4....

l" a _
n I
/.~ ‘
"“...t‘ ‘4‘
“‘c_. l‘
‘ b
an. ”
-"'-‘ =.'\n
' " ~-~:.
h h-
V. b_
‘
.F “"“I
‘ {~a‘
~
N“; a": 1..
. ‘»V “
‘l
. .=‘~"‘ “
. ‘ .. F
fi... ‘
U 'u.

“M
‘Jg re
.‘
I
\“hat.~‘h
‘g‘
A‘. ‘
Ni Q a
.\_Q A
2" «e n.
N'l
(
q', i
' '!
‘L-I .‘
2- ‘z
a 1
I
I
I
e a‘:“ ‘
.‘_>
who". ’, “
”*1 \l
A
H,-
\" s
.3 .
eg‘in‘
. a“.
'v.‘
.
\ .
\‘-,Q h“
K“ ‘ .
a

83

information program regarding the installation of the IBM 650. Those who
do not eXpect to be involved in the change-over actually have no reason
to harbor negative attitudes about the effects of the computer. Rather,
they should respond in either an impassive or positive manner. On the
other hand, within the group of people whose expectations lead them to
believe that the change will affect their jobs, some will eXpect effects
of a detrimental nature. The hypotheses below were develOped:

5.1 The expected degree of involvement in the changeover to the
computer is related in a positive fashion to the degree of informed
awareness.

5.2 The eXpected degree of involvement in the changeover to the
computer will be directly related to the specific response to the ex-

pected effects of the computer.

6. Contacts with Sources of Communications

In this instance it was hypothesized that the number of contacts
employees could be expected to have had with discrete information sources
regarding the introduction of the IBM 650 would bear some relation to
how well these peOple were informed and to their acceptance of the in-
formation received. Also, the more contacts one has with sources of
information the more likely will his resultant attitudes toward the
change be positive. The successive communications, which discussed the
change in a positive vein, should reinforce one another. Those having
relatively the greatest number of contacts would also probably be the
cmes to perceive themselves more central to the changeover and better

informed. The Specific hypotheses were:

 

h .
V. &
"fin: -& .

P?" m- 39

nus—u v.

' ‘ A.
“"1”... .

“e...:".

L ‘2 '
JQJ ‘
‘ e

‘ .-‘\Vl fi‘
“taut .J-
. 3‘: ‘f‘ a
levy. Iv \

f I

I .

v.“
HI :

.. ~‘-_. v
.
9
la .1
‘
~n
‘P‘. A
Q“. l

V

3 r 1.
‘u. «as US!
+- a
.h a
I ' ‘
s Q v‘ ‘35
t_ s.
4 I

u‘, more

1'

"SE 3 ”ea
-,_‘

RA‘

1".

t-kfita

 

8h

6.1 There will be a direct and positive relationship between the
number of communicative contacts and the degree of informed awareness.

6.2 There will be a direct and positive relationship between the
number of communicative contacts and the degree of belief in factual
information received with respect to the IBM 650 introduction.

6.3 There will be a direct and positive relationship between the
number of communicative contacts and an increase in the general readi-
ness to accept job-related changes.

6.h There will be a direct and positive relationship between
communicative contacts and the specific affective response to the

computer prior to its installation.

7. Tenure

 

The case with tenure is much the same as with age. The longer
one has been.with the organization the more likely they occupy a posi-
tion of responsibility at a supervisory level. They are more likely
to be more deeply attached to the company, and less likely to fear ad-
verse effects in their jobs as a result of the computer. The sub—hy-
potheses were:

7.1 Tenure will be positively related to an increase in the gen~
eral readiness to accept job-related changes.

7.2 Tenure will be related in a positive manner to the specific

affective response to the computer prior to its installation.

subsidiary'Variables
Several secondary variables were chosen on an a priori basis for

examination with specific independent variables. These are discussed

P M‘s-

.
.I
“‘0' Von. v -a

-1
.'3 5"“,

it "as hf:
U

3 1
9.;
' e
3.1 bar‘“
UL v1

#9“

.:.e e

I s

u
N I
“Q s‘

3 v.“
RR“ hi.
v.‘
0‘ H .’
' F,
N Q, w
.
3| PM:
‘Jt a 4:
r, g.
‘ Ad.
| ‘.‘,‘
\‘Jl' ‘
'. IO
.
his!“ ‘
. “a.
\
ugh»:

85

below.

8. Supervisory Style

It was thought possible that supervisory style could influence
the extent to which employees were informed about changes. Although
the amount of knowledge about the changeover was predicated upon con-
tacts with formalized sources of information, it was plausible that a

human relations oriented supervisor2

would do more to keep his subor»
dinates informed than would non-human relations oriented supervisors.
It was hypothesized that:

8.1 Those perceiving their supervisors as human relations oriented
will Obtain higher scores on the Degree of Informed Awareness scale
than will the employees seeing their supervisors as non-human relations
oriented.

9. Realization of Expectations

The extent to which expectations were perceived as being met or
realized over time was believed to be related to one's belief or dis-
belief in communications. Expectations took the form of expected
changes (an increase, decrease, or no change) in specific aSpects of
the job. Subsequent perceptions of what changes had actually taken
place were indicative of the extent to which expectations were met.
Those who were either very high or very low believers would see less
of their expectations met than would employees who exercised discrimi-

nation in what they believed. The hypothesis arising out ot this, was;

It For a discussion of this variable and its measurement, see Trumbo
(1958). A human relations style was equivalent to democratic and
ideocratic practices, while a non-human relations style was char-
acterised by bureaucratic and autocratic practices.

FT

5'

03

[0‘

q I
f‘""“ ‘
“Vial ~fi.‘ I

i. ,
N ’n a
. e ..

U8. I“

86

9.1 There will be a relationship between Belief-Disbelief in
Communications and Realization of Expectations such that the extremes
on the “ED” scale will reflect less realization of expectations than
will the group of employees scoring in an intermediate range on the

”ED” scale.

CHAPTER SIX

MEASURING THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

In Chapter Four the main variables as well as secondary factors
were described from a conceptual standpoint. In this chapter the inn
dependent variables will be treated in terms of the means by which they
were empirically measured and on the basis of the statistical charactm

eristics of the measuring instruments themselves.

Degree of Informed Awareness
This particular independent variable was defined as: the extent
to which designated recipients of formal company communications are
aware of Specific factual pronouncements made by the company regarding

the installation of the IBM 650 computer.

Selection of Items and Construction of the Scale

An initial set of sixteen statements were written. These items
were constructed to conform to three conditions of communicating: l)
a particular fact had been communicated, 2) a particular fact had not
been communicated, or 3) a particular fact was diametrically Opposed
to what had actually been communicated. Each statement had three rem
sponse categories, "The company has: said so, said the Opposite, said
nothing about the subject.”

All formal written internal communications concerning the computer
installation were collected and scanned for statements of a factual
rmture. From the monthly house organ, bulletins, and information meetm

11188 a set of six statements were drawn up which accurately portrayed

87

 

an... .-

1 , a
‘Ii'C‘ :

tyl x t
“a.-.
-U-

 

88

factual pronouncements made by the company to their employees.

'With a background of accumulated information actually distributed
to employees during the course of the communications program, it was
possible to create synthetic "factual statements" which were Opposite
in nature to what had actually been transmitted. There were four items
of this type. It was also possible to manufacture a set of six state-
ments, the subject matter of which had not been dealt with by the com-
pany in explicit form.

Below in Table 6 is a resume' of the Degree of Informed Awareness
items identified by their status as factually transmitted information.

Table 6. Factual Status of Items
comprising "Degree-Informed” Scale

 

 

Factual Status of Statements

Company Made Company Said Company Said Noth-
the Statement the Opposite ing on the Subject

 

III-hha III-h? III-he
III-hS III-L9 III-ha
111-50 111-51 III-Sh
III-52 III-S3 III-56
III-55 III-s7
III-S9 III-58

 

8Entries are item numbers from the scale.

Such a categorization of items provided a first-approximation
basis for establishing a scoring system. Individual responses could
be compared to the experimenter's evaluation of each item as to whether
cm'not the statement had been made, or whether the statement was Op-
posite to the presented facts.

The set of sixteen items in all were included in the pretest form

0f the Questionnaire.

 

W‘s-é ‘ A:
NaVvaaU U.

«If,

V q“
La. .33“
l

I
g. 4'

'I'FII
oua...‘ ‘Qv‘.

a.‘~-‘
7".
«.9 ‘
.
k” e

e
.
v“. “

89

Upon receipt of the completed questionnaires, the results for a
selected group of supervisors were examined in order to ascertain the
extent to which this group's judgements agreed with the experimenter's
with respect to the factual status of information test items.

The selection of a group of management personnel was made on the
basis that these were the individuals who had been most intimately con»
cerned with either or both the introduction of the computer and the in»
formation program. Their selection was premised further upon the asu
sumption that the raters as a group possessed very similar or identical
kinds of valid information about the changeover. This reservoir of in~
formation was brought to bear when they responded to the items in the
"Degree-Informed” scale.

I The following list provides a description of the positions held
by each of the ”judges” within the company:
Judge number 1 Internal Auditor
Treasurer
Programming Supervisor
Personnel Manager
Director of Training
Manager, Underwriting Department

Manager, Claims Department
Assistant Programmer

(EN O\\JIJ:‘\JJ N

This select group, then, represented raters who "judged" the
factual status of the information statements in terms of their reaction
to the item reSponse categories. Their ”judgements” were then compared
to the initial categorization of items as originally'made by the ex~
jperimenter. Gross discrepancies between this group of management
”judges” and the experimenter in the manner in which items were re»

Sponded to, reSulted in particular items being discarded from further

Mr :14 ,
tmah.‘e‘

"l

ten

IQ
"ABC-n.
*‘J'gd'
.

WM, '- ‘4

. .

u. g 4‘
.

‘A‘ "n‘.’
‘J..\' R

. -.,
“a

u
L! Ivy-3‘.
‘5 v.

I: fine
5‘.”

9O

conSideration.

The degree of inter-rater agreement was determined in order to
provide data on the reliability of the judgements made by this selected
group of management personnel.

In the process of comparing cognizant management responses with
the a priori categories of response established by the experimenter,
an arbitrary level of at least 80 per cent agreement was set. This
agreement referred to the number of judges responding, for a particular
item, in like fashion as compared to the total number of judges being
utilized. Since the manner of reSponse was dictated by the experimen-
ter's original selection of a "correct" response for each item, this
comparison indicated how many judges, in effect, agreed with the way
the experimenter classified each item as to factual status. Using 80
per cent as a cut-off point, five items were thus eliminated.

For the eleven items retained, the percentage of agreement ranged
from 80 to 100 per cent, and for the five items deleted the agreement
percentage ranged from 50 to 75 per cent.

In Table 7 is presented the results of an intraclass correlation;
used to establish the reliability'for the mean ratings on the retained
eleven items in the ”Degree-Informed" scale for the eight raters. This

represented an estimate of the average intercorrelation between ratings.

 

14 For)a discussion of this technique, see Guilford (l95h, pp. 395-
397 .

'8

a”,

95¢ R0 ‘

5“” v. ‘

I r

. . ‘

“(I 0’
K

g
. ‘7'.“ .‘l
igvi". .L

‘1» ~.. , .
I.~ A
. 3mg v81
m.
~33 {re
Ib‘

 

91

Table 7. Intraclass Correlation between Ratings on
11 Items for 8 Judges on the ”Degree-Informed" Scale

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df variance rkk

Items h8.82 lO b.88

Raters 1.89 7 b

Remainder 15.73 70 0.22 .95
Total 66.hh 87a

 

aDegrees of freedom (df) based on an item-rater matrix
of llx8. Total df ' 88—1.

bThe intraclass correlation based on Ebel's formula;
see Appendix.D.
The results of the intraclass correlation indicated that the de-
gree of reliability associated with the ratings was satisfactorily high
(rkk - .95). As a result of these comparisons and ratings, a scale of

eleven items was used to measure the degree of informed awareness.

Scoring73chema

 

It was the Objective here to obtain a score which would reflect
placement along a linear scale or continuum of acquisition-retention
of specific information distributed by the company about the introduc-
tion of the computer. The score should be subh that it would permit
comparative statements of a reliable nature to be made about particular
persons being better or less well informed than others.

The method for scoring was rather straightforward. The scoring
key was derived from the response alternates selected for each item by
the ”judges" who were in at least 80 per cent agreement with the experim
menter on.which was the "correct" response category. The scoring key

is reproduced in Table 8.

92

Table 8. Scoring Key for the Degree of Informed
Awareness Scale

 

 

Item Number Keyed Response Alternate

 

III-Ah
III-hS
III-h?
III-hB
III-52
III-53
III-Sh
III-SS
III-S7
III-58
III-S9

h>cacab>cnoja>c3uj>*¢'

 

Individual reSponses on the items were then compared to the scor-
ing key; A weight of one was assigned each item if the subject's re—
sponse agreed with the scoring key; A weight of zero was given for
each item if the testee's response was not the same as that on the
scoring key. The weights were summated cumulatively, yielding a pos-
sible score range from O to ll. A low score was indicative of a poor
degree of informed awareness, while a high score reflected a well in—
formed individual with reSpect to knowing about the introduction of
the computer as mediated through his awareness of company pronounce-
ments.

A problem existed in cases where response omissions to.certain
items occurred. One or two omissions out of eleven items was acceptable
in terms of deriving a total score for the individual. An adjusted

score was determined on the basis of the following formula:

total score obtained x number of items in scale

adjusted score ' number of;items actually respondedto

 

a.
136

fin ‘ an

vé Vy$n

”5‘ PT’Q'

.' 1:.
“11.4-9

‘_ ‘l .
~ ‘.
«951‘. "

q
333*
O
y!
named

r
.-ect§d -'

93

The original pretest population comprised 283 persons. However,
when terminal cases (N - 37) and omission cases (N - 29) were deleted,
the experimental pOpulation contained 217 cases on this particular

variable.2

Descriptive Statistics and Scalability

Based upon an analysis of 217 cases responding to the Degree of
Informed Awareness scale, the following results were obtained as re-
flected in Table 9.

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Degree of
Informed Awareness scale (N n 217)

 

 

 

Statistic value
Score Range (actual) 3-11
Mean Score 6.56
Median Score 6.79
Standard Deviation 2.19
Skewness Index -O.32a
S.E. of Measurementb 1.11

 

aThis value may vary from +1 to -1, where zero
indicates no skewness.

bSee Appendix D.

 

2. This figure (N I 217) underwent a further reduction resulting
from cases being omitted on other variables with which Degree
of Informed Awareness was to be associated during subsequent
statistical manipulations.

 

;

g

0‘ :1

cluster

6‘

states

-'5

9h

The score frequency distribution was fairly symmetrical with some
clustering at the lower end of the scale (scores 3-5). However, the
skewness index of -.32 indicated only a slightly negative skewing pro-
bably'resulting from the clustering mentioned above. The index of
skewness can be found in Garret (1937, p. 115), the formula is listed
in Appendix D.

In order to provide some evidence for the scalar quality of the
measuring instrument itself, the relationship between individual item
scores and total scale scores was examined. This procedure was predi-
cated upon the fact that a scale should possess characteristics which
are monotonically increasing functions of the underlying continuum of
knowledge about the computer installation. The more one knew about
the installation, the higher the expected score for any particular
item, and the higher the average total score should be for those re-
sponding correctly to any item.

The first approach to the accumulation of such evidence was to
compare item scores for upper and lower 27 per cent subgroups as ab-
stracted from the total score distribution. The results of such an

approach are to be found in Table 10.

 

I n 1 In la : an» A v a. Awlv e!-
. « a: J a -a v x e. N . ..\ a: D».
.. .. m. a... .3 .. a a c. .0 .. a is

o . -n \ eh. h fle\ a.» “l& ”as «an at v!
A}. 4:. M .« -eu p.\

w. a a. u in ,e m e {w a a He .0 SJ

2.. ma. AV nu k :2‘. a. \\ \a .\
m m 4 kg. N .9. . I a . .. a. a. up... >x .:\
a . P ’— W4} 1h» fie) It u 7‘ a.) . are) afi u an ‘ n.\. . \..~ . .K v . as. an a p... . . v . \ ..

 

9S

\ l
I.

Table 10. Item Analysis Data for the 11 Items in-
cluded in the Degree of Informed Awareness scale

 

 

Mean Item Score

 

 

Item Upper 27;: Lower 27 7: Difference p
(N=63) (N=63)
1 0.97 0.32 0. 65 12.05 4.01
2 0.92 0.11. 0.78 16.55 4. 01
3 0. 62 0.03 0.59 10.30 <.01
h 0.92 0.79 0.13 2.hh (.05
5 0.89 0.114 0.75 1h. 63 4. 01
6 0.82 0.16 0. 67 11. 69 (.01
7 0.21 0.05 ' 0.16 3.21; 4. 01
8 0.82 0.1.1 0.171 6.16 (.01
9 0.79 0.69 0.09 1.11. 7.05
10 0.98 0.811 0.11. 3.1.0 Q 01
11 0.82 0.27 0. 56 8.82 4. 01

 

8The formula used for deriving the t value can be found in
Appendix De

bP was based upon tabled values of t at the 5% and 1% levels
of confidence where the degrees of freedom - N1 + N2-2 (df 8 12h).

The t test of significance used was based upon a consideration
of the upper and lower 27% groups as representing essentially inde-
pendent groups.3 The data compiled provided some evidence of the mon-
otonic quality of the items, since higher item scores were signifi-
cantly associated with higher total scores in practically all instances.
The<wfly'exception to this was in the case of item number 9 where a t

vahmaof l.hh'was not significant at the 5% level of confidence.

 

5. The reader‘is referred to Edwards (19h6, pp. 181-183) for a dis-
cussion of the t test of significance involving independent groups.

'...
S...

A 3'
nish. C 0.
"~35”:
eat/d.“

ID’YV‘

.1 ad .5. 1...».

. m . S T a an...
Mm t .7!‘ 2 3 ‘Illu S IHL 5:! hit“. fiw/ MJ u \
a.» ‘7 a a. § at
fi‘U
ID!
A U

96

Additional evidence to support the contention of the monotonic
nature of the scale is_provided by Table 11. The average total scores
should show a consistent increase when such scores made by those choos-
ing an "incorrect" alternate are compared with total scores achieved
by those responding to the response alternate keyed "correct." As can
be seen in Table 11 below, this was indeed the case.

Table 11. Average Total Scores for Respondents

selecting Keyed and Non-keyed Alternates on each
Item of the "Degree-Informed" Scale

 

 

Average Total Score ‘

 

 

Item . Keyed Alternate Non—keyed Alternate
l 7.32 5-31
2 7.39 b.73
3 8.19 5.81
h 6.6h 6.02
5 7.52 5.28
6 7.50 5.22
7 7.88 6.23
8 7.03 5.h2
9 6.60 6.15

10 6.59 5.51

11 7.27 b.35

 

the SCa

RTE Ga

97

Item Intercorrelations

In order to provide an indication of the degree to which items in
the scale were interrelated with each other, item intercorrelations
were calculated. Because the scale scores represented a set of con-
tinuous measures which were empirically distributed in a normal fashion,
it was decided to utilize the tetrachoric coefficient of correlation.
Data was artificially reduced to two categories. In this instance the
dichotomous categories were 1 and 2-3 which represented response cate-
gories for the items themselves. The rtet was estimated by using Pear~
son's ”cosine method,” the table values for which are given by Edwards
(19Sh, p. 510). The cosine method was derived from a cosine-pi approxm
imation formula as given by Guilford (1950, p. 336). Table 12 shows

the item intercorrelations.

 

 

aupfnflv7rclfiLaL .QOMv My-“ 7N0..~uv.~.....vfi\.u.09~» ”wandsnflz. r.» ~ gnu-Aw. as~ehvtaohavtw -N|
Invmvohvmihvfi~ : Aw ~L\« tHa.»L% punt—re a“ J C. —. myoHvHfivh» Castes. Tickle... .ah. 04.. 4. me ~ eh TEN.

 

98

49.3“ 8. we» a... afieafidamt
.Heeea mo. at e... seepage?

 

 

ao.+ oa
wo.+ **oo.+ m
ies... tum... tan... a
eamm.+ eamm.+ po.+ *swq.+ a
so.u **mm.+ eo.+ eamm.+ eama.+ 0
exam .+ $3 .+ S... 5.3 .1. teen .+ and... m
**ON o... imo c... kinda” o... .xnxbw o... .xt Om. o... «TKQH 0+ ifim o... J
00. **::.+ e om.+ ao.n oo. mo.u ao.+ .semm.+ m
saem.+ aaom.+ mo.+ **FN.+ so.+ sawm.+ **04.+ *amm.+ mo.+ m
eamm.+ **ma.+ **:~.+ **NN.+ **mm.+ _**mm.u eemm.+ mo.u aaom.+ .**m~.+ H
3 S e m e e m a m N esfi

 

 

nmmnwmn= esp you escapeamauoo sensuaman

mummHoHHMmoo caponownpme means mason ameAomsH

. NH 3“an

 

I
e.
An‘
w
IF A” I

.a: a"...

0
’2' (he .
v...” ,

t’ 3

0,
"he. 4
-"':e.:

Chane

Ivy. "

99

These fiftyafive item intercorrelations ranged from +.89 to -.52.

The average item intercorrelation for the degree of informed awareness

scale was +.26.

Item-Total Score Correlations

In order to further assess the extent of scalar internal consis-
tency, item reliabilities were determined for the eleven items where the
criterion was an upper and lower 27 per cent group based upon the total

score.
Table 13. Item-Total Score Correlations for

the Degree of Informed Awareness Scale based
upon Upper and Lower 27% Groups (N - 63)

 

 

 

Item Correlation'With Total Score
1 .7h**
2 .76**
3 . 7193(-
h . 2h
5 .73**
V e . 65*”
7 31.4““
a .hh**
9 .12

10 .h0**
11 .55**

 

**Significant at or beyend .01 level of confidence
where degrees of freedom - 61(N-2).

 

J $
set.

were 1

I.” :7:

9/ .

l
'5

100

The procedure as outlined by Thorndike (19119 , pp. 315-351) was used
in obtaining the item-total score correlations. These item reliabilities
were in the fom of estimated product-moment correlations. Two items
failed to show a significant correlation with the total score. The av-

erage item-total socre correlation was found to be +.55.

Reliability

This section will review the several steps taken to ascertain the
reliability for the Degree of Informed Awareness scale. More than one
approach was taken in determining reliability so that several estimates
could be compared, thus affording some idea of the reliability of the
scale reliability measure itself.

Four separate means of obtaining a reliability estimate were used.
These were: Hoyt's analysis of variance method, split-half reliability,
reliability based upon the average inter-item correlation, and reliabil-
ity derived from use of the Rulon formula.

The analysis of variance method, the results being given in Table
11;, provided a reliability estimate of .711.

Table 11;. Reliability for the ”Degree-Informed" Scale
based on Analysis of Variance

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Variance rkk
Persons 1460. 70 216 2 . 13 . 714
Items 507 . 22 10
Remainder 1181. 96 2160 .55

Total 21119.88 2386

 

I“ “Hart's method” may be found in Guilford (1951:, PP. 383-385)-

 

$..

 

'au'

h:“‘“a
a

n. a... _,

 

~
'3'
.
‘. I $.'
.“I vs '
‘
u
‘u
“1
5;.
.‘.A
K... afi‘
“V4
:Th-A H_
\“S
'.
‘I I
l ‘u '>
{“ch
a”
‘h
\*:‘.714 .‘
-

s’
x
u. .FA
.“:
I
l
1| 5
1»
“
Q
Ja

10].

The split-half (odd-even) reliability was determined from a 6 item
- 5 item split by means of aPearsonian product—moment correlation. The
uncorrected reliability was .38. When this was corrected both for length
and an uneven split, the reliability was found to be .72. For the for-
mulae used in these calculations see Appendix D.

The third distinct effort at obtaining a reliability estimate was
centered around the calculation of rtt based upon the average inter—
item correlation. All item intercorrelations were first converted into
Fisher's Z coefficients5 in order to provide a normalized sampling dis»
tribution. They were then averaged arithmetrically and the resulting
mean Z was converted to an average r. The average inter-item correlau
tion ($13) was .26; the reliability was found to be .79. The formula
for rtt when figured from the mean inter-item correlation will be found
in Appendix D.

Finally, reliability was estimated on the basis of Rulon's formula.6
The estimate provided by this technique was .81.

In way of recapitulation, then, Table 15 summarizes the reliability
estimates arrived at via the four approaches discussed above. Taking
into consideration the fact that the split-half and Rulon methods may
overestimate rtt’ and both the item intercorrelation and analysis of
variance techniques may underestimate the actual reliability, the. like-a
lihood is still good that the reliability is sufficiently high for in-

clusion of the scale in the study.

F'

5- The reader is referred to Table H in Guilford (1950, p. 616).

6- For the appr0priate formula, see Appendix D.

 

102

Table 15. Estimates of Scale Reliability

 

 

 

Method rtt
Analysis of Variance .7h
Split-Half .72
Ave. Item Intercorrelation .79
Rulon Formula .81

 

Validation

 

As is the case with so many attitudinal research efforts, there
was a sparsity of objective and independent data which Could be utilized
as criterion measures for the purpose of validating the scales. It was
hence necessary to resort to an internal means of collecting evidence
to support the validity of the scales. The means selected goes by sev-
eral names: logical validity, construct validity, or the validity of
known groups.

Perhaps the most intensive and explicit treatment of so-called logm
ical or construct validity is that provided by Cronbach (1919; 1955).
His definition for this specie of validity calls for validity to be es-
tablished:

”inductively'by naming the trait (traits) represented in the

items at hand, or deductively by showing that the test cor-

responds to the definition of the trait intended to be measured.

If we have a clear definition of a trait the test is supposed

to measure, we can.exnmine the items to see if they conform to

the definition" (Cronbach, 1959, p. h8).

Operationally, one comes up with indicators of relationship be-

irmreen.the test and behavior which the test should "predict" as predicated

6, u
we . a
‘7' m"- ‘5

a.
'I
‘M
.
a
It
“sh“. P
.

¢ I
.

103

upon the definition formulated. The interpretation or definition of

the trait (construct) generates testable hypotheses which are a means
of confirming or rejecting the test as a measurer of that particular
construct or trait. The definition of the construct measured by the
test leads to a series of interrelated associations which permit an
examination of relationships. In this respect logical or construct
validation moves in a direction from the purely conceptual to the ob~
servable and predictable.

A similar approach has been suggested by Hyman (1955), who advo-
cated the use of ”internal checks" in the validation of attitude sur-
vey results. According to this source, the checks are made by examin-
ing items or questions whose contents the analyst has reason to believe
should correlate in some defined manner with the item or set of items
whose validity is being determined.

The material to follow is built around an attempt to provide evi~
dence for the logical validity of the "Degree-Informed" scale. The
general schema followed was to make some cogent hypotheses regarding
predicted relationships between the scale in question and other vari-
ables based upon an understanding of the "trait" or construct which the
"Degree-Infonmed” scale was supposed to measure. Scores on the "Degree-
Informed” scale were then examined for subgroups differentiated on the
basis of their responses to these other variables to see if the hypoth-

case were in fact substantiated.7

 

7. This technique for assessing construct validity was used
throughout the study in validating the main variables.

I
"0‘ .
we .
.
.
d
-
u
C
h
n
.
L.
L
i
Q.
‘.
il‘ I
‘v. fi.‘
.'\7
§.
§
‘b
I“.
at: ‘3'3:
\’
.eahiu
“~u i

10h

Contacts

The reader will recall that communicative contacts was one of the
secondary variables earlier discussed. Aside from its consideration in
this regard, it was hypothesized that if the ”Degree-Informed" scale
was actually a measure of the level of informed awareness about the
computer installation, then the score on this variable should vary de-
pending on the number of contacts with sources of information regarding
the change. The table below substantiated this prediction, indicating
a significantly higher ”Degree-Informed" score was associated with an
increasing number of contacts with sources of information.

Table 16. F Test for ”Degree-Informed” Score Categories

Differentiated on the Basis of the Number of Contacts with
Information Sources

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df mean Square F P
Between 238. 69 2 119.3h 39. 61 4.01
Within out. 72 2;}; 3.01

Total 883.h1 216

 

Perceived location within the communications network

It was reasoned that the amount of information one possesses about
the changeover should be directly related to the position one occupies
'within the organizational communications network. The more central a
position one enjoys, the greater the likelihood that the individual will
be well informed, and conversely, the more peripheral a location held

the better the chances that the individual will be poorly informed.

105

While no objective measure of location was available, there was a set
of four items on both the supervisory and non—supervisory forms of the
questionnaire designed to obtain information on employees' perception
of their location within the network. Location was determined by re-
sponses which dealt with when information was received, and how much
was received in general. These items were II-h2, II-h6, III-ho, and
III-Ill respectively. Summated scores for these items were obtained.
Below in Table 17 is the results of an F test showing that those per-
ceiving themselves in a central location made significantly higher
”Degree-Informed” scores than did those who perceived themselves as
occupying a relatively peripheral position.

Table 17. F Test for “Degree-Informed" Score Categories

Differentiated. on the Basis of Percein Location in
Comunicatims Network.

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P

 

Between 120.99 2 60.29 17.01 4.01
Within 71111.29 » 239 3.511
Total 8611.88 212

 

Cummicative interaction

This variable concerned itself with assessing the amount of com-
municative interaction employees engaged in. It was the resultant of
WC kinds of activity which the items attempted to measure: the total
number of peOple one interacted with during work, and the extent to

which information about the computer was discussed and exchanged.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

The four items constructed to serve this purpose were II—hO, IluLl, and
III~h2 in both the supervisory and ncn~supervisory forms, and III~L3 in
only the supervisory form. Summated scores for these items were obtained.
The items appear in Appendix F.

If the Degree of Informed Awareness scale actually measured the
level of information one possessed about the change, then it was hypoth~
esized that the scores on this scale should demonstrate a positive cow
varying relationship with the amount of reported communicative interacm
tion. Table 18 below bears out this expectation. The mean "Degreeu
Informed" scores increased significantly and in the predicted direction
as the amount of communicative interaction increased.

Table 18. F Test for ”Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Communicative Interaction

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between 112.h6 2 56.23 15 .79 4:. 01
‘Within 758.20 ‘21; 3.56

Total 870.66 215

 

Level

 

As was the case with communicative contacts, occupational level
also served as a secondary variable. This factor functioned in a dual
capacity in that it was also used for purposes of demonstrating logical
validity; It was predicted that those in a supervisory capacity would
show significantly higher ”Degree-Informed" scores than would those oce

muting'non-supervisory'positions. This was based upon the reasoning

 

4
-oav0

 

.I
:1"- ~-
“.3

 

 

(I)

107

that: 1) since communications about the computer installation were
channelled by management in a downward direction, supervisors would be
closer to the source and be more likely to receive information in an
undistorted fashion, and 2) it was a fact that supervisors were more

frequently recipients of information about plans for the computer than

were non-supervisors. The prediction was born out as can be seen in the

Table below.

Table 19. t Test for "Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Occupational Level

 

 

 

Mean 6’14 Ml-Mg 15;] d t dfa Pb
7.21. 0.29 0.86 0.33 2. 61 215 <.005
6.38 0.15

 

adf - n1 + n2 - 2 . 217 — 2 . 215

bone-tailed test of significance

"Don't know" responses

To furnish further evidence of the construct validity of the "De-
gree-Informed" scale, another sort of predicted relationship was examined.
It was reasoned that if employees were very well informed about the in~
stallation of the computer, then they probably were fairly well informed
about a number of issues. Conversely, those who showed a lack of awarem
ness about the computer might also be unknowledgeable concerning other
t0pics as well. A measure of the extent to which respondents were preu

gmred to give an Opinion on an issue versus their lack of information

 

 

 

 

 

.
I
i
u
‘-
a
S. , :0
.
HI
os'
.' ‘w,‘
i":~ .
U
'u
(1‘. ‘
g
., d ~ :
‘-
-
- \.
"wi; v-
N g
.
‘~ V
8:; ‘n;
"e
u
‘ ‘ .
v ‘ 1
1'“ . i.
“.
~.
5'
vs
. ‘-
\\ ‘5.
,-
‘M

 

‘- -
A ‘5.
\: F ‘
t.~'~
x.
u
t
v' \.
‘A
c x
‘-

108

to express a definite opinion was constructed., This consisted of a
straight talley of all item "don't know" response categories checked by
each respondent for the entire questionnaire. These summated "don't
know" scores were then compared to the "Degree-Informed" scores.8 A
significant relationship (x2 s 8.59, df = 2, p =‘<,02) was found indi-
cating those who were well informed with regards to the computer were
the ones who, with reSpect to other issues, made relatively few “don't
know" responses. Those who were poorly informed about the computer in«
stallation were found to have a greater number of "don't know" responses

than the well-informed group.

Dissatisfaction with communications

 

It was reasonable to presume that those who were poorly informed
would be more likely to perceive that communications were not handled
in a satisfactory fashion within the company, while those who were rel-
atively well informed would reflect no dissatisfaction with the way they
were kept informed by the company about impending changes. A postest
measure of employee dissatisfaction with the implementation of changes
was obtained from an Open-ended item that read: ”What are the things
you like least about the way changes are handled in this company?"
This was item III-l8 in the postest questionnaire; the reSponses were
categorized into seven distinct classes. One of these categories ree

flected employee dissatisfaction with the way they were kept informed

 

8. The number of elicited "don't know" responses in the questionnaire

ranged from zero to twentyesix.

 

A «~-
in“!

0‘"
a...
K

b

U-sv

t

I!

L?

.b

109

concerning changes. A dichotomy was established in which one group in-
cluded those who reSponded that problems in communications were the
reasons they disliked the way the company handled changes. Those ex-
pressing other reasons for disliking the way in which changes were im-
plemented were put into a second group. These two groups were then
compared for a difference in mean "Degree-Informed" scores. Table 20
below shows the results of a t test indicating that those who felt
comnnmications were a major contributor to poorly handled changes were
also the ones to obtain a significantly lower Degree of Informed Aware-
ness score when compared to those who attributed to other factors the
poor way in which changes were implemented.

Table 20. t Test for “Degree-Informed" Score Categories

Differentiated on the Basis of Perceived Problems ingthe
Way the Company Handled Changes

 

 

 

Mean an Ml-Mg fid t era Pb
7.15 0. 22 0.79 0.29 2.77 136 <.005
6.36 0.18

 

gar-.1 + n2 - 2 - 138-2 .. 136

bone-tailed test of significance

Expected involvement in the changeover

We are dealing again with one of the secondary variable: which
served a dual purpose, being also used for validation of the ”Degree
Informed” scale. As stated in Chapter Five, those who expected to be

personally involved in the introduction of the IR"! 650 would be more

 
 
 
 

« .LH 3.. «We:
. . . . 1. n a .r\ a w e In L. u\ s
2. val. M4 2» v.2» fly? .3 .ae . R new“
9 u ‘1 0.. .C «Wu M6; £4. a. . is a? 7 u s
Awe A i? v o t u t A. u
A. u .6 w . M . *6 o u hf Aa/\ 'L "A “K o u\ I» .‘

 

 

llO

prone, hypothetically, to prepare themselves. These employees may'be-
come sensitized to the extent that they would pay increased attention
to, and assimilate more of, the information passed down to them about
the plans for introducing the computer. On this basis, then, one would
predict that those expecting to be affected would have higher "Degreew
Informed” scores than would the group of employees not expecting to be
affected by the change. This prediction was confirmed as seen in Table
21 below. Those expecting to be affected received significantly higher

"Degree Informed" scores than the employees who did not expect to be
affected.

Table 21. F Test for " Degree-Informed" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of Expected Involvement in the

 

 

 

 

Change

Source Smm of Squares df Mean Square F P
Between Mb 69 2 22.35 5. 97 4.01
Within 793. 79 212 3. 7h

Total 838.88 21h

 

‘We have examined seven distinct predictions arising out of the
definition of degree-of-informed-awareness. If the scale in fact meas»
ured what it was said to measure, then certain hypotheses based upon
this definition should prove true. These hypotheses linked the ”Degreeu

Ikiformed” scale to other variable measures by means of explicit, expected
relationships. In all instances these predicted associations were found

and confirmed. On this basis, then, construct or logical validity has

been demonstrated.

 

isne

4%. ~
'91.. U

I.
1..“ ‘
.Ut“ c
I
‘5‘; ,-
I' —
I‘d
I05“
~‘u. I

111

Belief-Disbelief in Communications
This second of two independent variables had earlier been defined
as: the degree to which an employee's expectancies or beliefs about an
issue deviate from management's belief on the same issue as expressed

through formal internal communications.

Selection of items and construction of the scale

This variable was designed as a complement to the Degree of Informed
Awareness scale. The "Belief-Disbelief" scale ("BD" scale) used seven
pairs9 of items. The first member of each pair was a "Degree-Informed"
item and the-second member was a "BD" scale item. The "BB" items were
written so as to directly reflect the content of one of the "Degree—
Informed" items. For example, one "BD" item read: "Will the computer
change the work methods in all parts of the company?" The "Degree-
Informed" item read: "The computer will change the work methods in all
parts of the company.” In the latter case, the respondent was to answer
(on a predetermined basis) either that the company had: "said so," "said
Ithe Opposite," or "said nothing about this subject." In the former in-
stance, the employee was to respond with: in your Opinion "yes," "pos-
sibly," or "no." The "ED" scale was arrived at independently of what
management had actually said. In the case of the "Degree-Informed"
scale, the a priori scoring of items was compared to actual management
responses to these items. Any serious divergency meant: the item was to
be dr0pped. The "ED" scale, on the other hand, was based purely upon

perceptions rather than on some empirical basis. If a subject said the

9. One item (III-66 on both forms of the questionnaire) was eliminated
from further consideration because no clear-cut referrent in the
‘ "Degree-Informed" scale could be found, hence scoring was indeterminate.

 

CE:

.'4.
’i

(D
51

"“‘q
‘Qvgv

112

company had made a statement on an issue, and then didn't believe this,
disbelief was registered irrespective of what management might have
really indicated on the particular matter. The "ED” scale items used
in the scale appeared in the pretest questionnaire and can be found
in.Appendix F as items III~60 through III-67.

Scoring schema
The scoring and resultant keying of the ”BD" scale was based upon

the relationship obtaining between the two members of each item pair.
The basis for establishing a scoring system involved the following
rationale. An individual, on a particular issue, may be situated at
some point along a continuum of belief-disbelief, depending upon the
Opinion elicited from the respondent. The expressed Opinion can re-
flect placement on the continuum from strong belief to strong disbelief.
In addition, one may express opinion which is analogous to indecision
or no opinion on the issue. Another dimension, which would appear to
be intertwined with belief-disbelief, is that of awareness of others'
opinion. One may express belief in some issue, both without informa-
tion on the issue and/Or without knowledge as to what beliefs are held
by others. This would seem to be a different situation than the expres-
sion of belief (or disbelief)in the face of a knowledge about the issue
and/or information regarding the beliefs of others on the same matter.
It was the writer's contention that belief-disbelief, in conjunction
with knowledge about others' beliefs on issues, represented a more ex»
treme position on a continuum than did belief or disbelief in the ab-

sence of knowledge about the beliefs held by others. This is represented

.I‘

-L

113

 

in Figure 2.
Area of
indecision
I .l 1 In J
r 1 1 l I
Belief Belief NO Disbelief Disbelief
with without Opinion without with
knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge

Fig. 2. Belief-disbelief continuum.

A theoretical interrelation between the two dimensions of belief-disbe-

lief and informative status is given below in Figure 3.

Belief

knowledge of
other Opinion

 

 

no knowledge of
other Opinion

Disbelief

Fig. 3. Two-dimensional representation
Of interrelation between belief-disbelief
and knowledge of other Opinion on the issue.

The representation in Figure 3 permits a point to indicate any com-

bination of placement on both the belief-disbelief and knowledge-of-

other-Opinion.

 

a... \.

'c-‘!

”5“"

.
‘0
”2, :
nub-r.

A.

” C

an. a. \-
.

v .
V‘;r

.H‘.

21‘2";
‘3...»

.
:‘ -Vfi

1:."
F04

0.
£1
(1"
.

.

‘
tfif '.
‘~

 

 

‘3
AI
‘I
w
“1 x

11b

The scoring system shown below takes into account both the extent
Of belief on an issue as well as the subjects' perception as to whether
the company'had said something on the issue; i.e., awareness of manage-
ment's belief on the same matter. 'With regards to the "ED" scale, it
mattered little if the subject really knew what the company had actually
expressed in the way of information. In this instance, we were solely
interested in the employee's beliefs in relation to what he thought man-
agement had said on the issues.

Table 22 depicts the scoring schema used for the seven items com-
prising the ”BD" scale. There were seven scorable categories reflected
in the data analyses. The scoring weights ranged from +3 to -3, reflect-
ing belief to disbelief. Item scores were first summated algebraically
for each subject. Then, in order to change all total scores to like
Sign, +5 was added. The theoretical uncorrected total score range was
+21 to -21. A low score on the "ED" scale indicated disbelief in what
was thought to hate been said by the company regarding a particular tOpic
concerning the introduction of the IBM 650. A high score reflected be-
lief in what was perceived as having been said by the company'with re-
gard to the forthcoming change. Responses on the "belief" portion of
the questionnaire (items III 60-67) actually represented expectations
about the effects of the computer on the work environment.

In order to account for one or two items which may have been omitted
in a set of seven items, an adjustment was made in the total score. The
fOrmula for such an adjustment was provided the reader in an earlier porn
tion of this chapter. Any omissions over two lead to the elimination of

that subject's score or partial score from further consideration.

w |

 

1

Response

 

Belief wj

Belief wi
Informati

 

Belief
Response

Indecisi
Informat

Indecisi
Informat

Indecisi
Prior Re

Disbelie
Prior Re

Disbelie
Informat

Disbeli
Informat

 

as]
bNo r

expe
°x in

 

115

 

 

Table 22.

F1
,g
um

Scoring System for Belieanisbelief in Communications Scale

 

 

 

Scoring Combinations for ItemmPairs

 

 

Response Category 1 2 3 h 5 6 7

IIIhh-éC IIISl—él IIISS—62 III56—63 11159néh IIIh9n6§ IIISh~67 Score Weight
Belief with Information A—C,B—-Aa A—A,B-C A~A,B—C A—C,B—A A~C,B~A A—A,B—C A—A,B—C +3
Belief without
Information C~C C—C C-A C—C C—C C-C CnA +2
Belief w%thout prior
Response XC—C X—C X—A X-C X—C X—C XuA +1
Indecision with
Information A—B,B—B A—B,B—B A—B,B—B A-B,B—B A—B,B~B AuB,B—B A-B,B-B O
Indecision without
Information C—B C—C C—B C—B C-B C~B C-B O
Indecision without
Prior Response X—B X—B X—B X—B X—B X—B X—B O
Disbelief without , -
Prior Response X—A X—A X—C X—A X—A X—A X—C -1 K
Disbelief without 2
Information ' C—A C—A C—C C—A C—A C—A C—C —
Disbelief with
Information A-A,B-C A—C,B—A A_C,B—A A—C,B<A A—A,B—C A—C,B~A A~C,B-A ~3

 

 

aA,B, and C refer to response alternates (first, second, and third) on both scales.

bNO response on companion—item from "Degree—Informed" scale, although respondent registered

expectation of computer effects in “BD” scale item.,

CX indicates non—response to a ”Degree—Informed" item.

 

 

116

Some further clarification is due regarding the response categories
developed for the "BD" scale. Belief or disbelief with information indi-
cated that the reSpondent had, on the "Degree-Informed" scale, said that
the company either had made the statement, or had said something Opposite
to it. Belief or disbelief without information was registered when the
respondent, on the "Degree-Informed" scale, indicated that the company'

had said nothing on the subject.

Descriptive Statistics and Scalability

There was a total of 227 reSponses of a legitimate nature to the
"ED" scale. The original pOpulation (N = 283) responding to this scale
was corrected for omissions and terminal cases which drOpped out between
the pretest and postest phase of the study. Table 23 below shows a sum-
mary of descriptive statistics regarding the "ED" scale.

Table 23. Descriptive Statistics for "BB"
Scale (N - 227)

 

 

 

Statistic Value
Score range (actual) 1-26
Mean score 13.61
Median score 13.h5
Standard deviation b.82
Skewness index +0.10
S.E. of measurement 2.90

 

Same evidence was accumulated to support the contention that this

117

set Of items represented a scale. The approach called upon for this
purpose was a demonstration that the item scores were monotonically re-
lated to the total scale scores. The first procedure was to make a com»
parison between item scores for upper and lower 27 per cent groups as
calculated from the total score distribution. The results of this com-
rarison are entered in Table 2b. The second procedure was to compare
average total scores for different obtained item scores. That is, all
those responding to an item with "belief" should reflect a higher averw

age total score than would those who responded to an item with "disbelief."
The results of this latter method are shown in Table 25.

Table 2b. Item Analysis Data for the 7 Items comprising
the "Belief-Disbelief" Scale

 

 

Mean Item Score
Item Upper 27% Lower 27% Difference t Pa
- (N==61) (Nsél)

 

 

1 2.71 0.93 1.78 9.58 ‘<.01
2 1.79 0.16 1.6b 7.73 ‘<.01
3 2.26 0.55 1.71 7.18 ‘<.01
u 2.00 0.86 1.1h 6.66 <.01
5 2.26 O.h§ 1.81 7.8h <.01
6 2.38 0.58 1.79 10.21 '<.01
7 12.99 0.93 2.06 8.83 '<.01

k

adf - 122-2'. 120

 

' ‘3

“

‘P

 

 

Table 25.

118

Average Total Scores as a Function
of Item Scores on the "Belief-Disbelief" Scale

 

 

Item Alternate Scoring Weights

 

 

Item +3 +2 +1,0,-1 -2,3a
1 15.50 13.50 9.71 9.h0
2 16.85 13.h3 12.51 8.82
3 15.61 12.33 11.33 11.07
b 16.37 1h.0h 11.h6 9.33
5 15.88 13.06 11.50 8.9h
6 17.05 1h.07 10.27 7.00
7 16.96 16.67 13.39 10.77

 

aItem scores (assigned weights) -2 and -3 were
combined because for some items the frequency
of either -2 or -3 was very small, ranging
from 1 to h.

The data in Table 2b suggests that the "BD" scale items were mono—
tonic to the extent that higher mean item scOres were consistently and
significantly assoCiated with lower total scores. Likewise, lower mean
item scores were significantly associated with lower total scores in all
instances. The upper 27 per cent and lower 27 per cent subgroups based
on total score formed the criterion groups for this comparison.

Supplemental evidence concerning the monomnic nature of the "Belief-
Disbelief" scale was supplied by the data in Table 25. It will be noted
that the average total scores were consistently an increasing function of

"higher" item scale scores. That is, for any item, the average total

score was highest for the group reSponding in such fashion as to merit a

A. it

I . 3. w v f\ :u e urt Ale
4:] W. I .o.‘ M Q .~ I. ...§ 1
.

~‘h

.
m a!» i u u
1 :M e U

M g
V.
“
J

.1,

,2

u

 

 

119

+3 weight for the item. The mean total scale score decreased in a regu-
lar progression so that the average total score was lowest for that
group of respondents who, by their response combination, obtained a -2

or -3 score weighting for the item.

Item Intercorrelations

A 6x6 intercorrelation matrix was prepared in order to portray the
interrelationship between the seven items in the "Belief-Disbelief" scale.
As discussed earlier, the tetraohoric correlation coefficient had been
selected to estimate the relationships. The data was reduced to artifi—
cial categories where the underlying scale measures were normally dis-
tributed and continuous. The dichotomous categories were l-h and 5-7,
which represented item scores corrected for sign. Table 26 gives the
set of intercorrelations.

Table 26. Inter-Item Correlations for the "Belief-
Disbelief” Scale using Tetrachoric Coefficients

 

 

Item 2 3 h 5 6 7

 

l -.12* +.28’"“* +.09 +.36*""‘ +.28’"‘* «15“

2 -.16*‘* +.20*’" +.08 +.20** +.01
3 -.02 -.O8 +.27"“"‘ -.02
u -.02 +.25** «15“
5 ‘ +.2l’"“* +.02
6 +.06

 

*Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .01 level

 

h...

A. w.

. I
at.“

I
:11
Va

 

120

The intercorrelations for these twenty—one pairs of items ranged

from +.36 to -.16, the average intercorrelation being +.l8.

.Item-total score correlations

As a means of securing additional information concerning the in—
ternal consistency of the "ED" scale, item-total score correlations
(item reliabilities) were determined for the seven items. The criterion
used were upper and lower 27 per cent subgroups based on the total score
distribution. These item reliabilities took the form of product-moment
correlations as estimated by'a technique suggested by Thorndike. The
obtained correlations ranged from .38 to .62, with the mean item-total
score correlation being .5110. All of the scale items correlated at
better than the one per cent level of confidence with the total score.

Table 27. Item—Total Score Correlations

for the Belief-Disbelief in Communications
Scale based Upon Upper and Lower 27% Groups

 

 

 

(N - 61)

Item Correlation with Total Score
1 . 62”

2 . 171*"

3 . h 89:65

h .38""’“

S . 1429531“

6 . 61*”

7 . 603:”)?

 

**Significant at or beyond .01 level of
confidence where df = 59 (N-2)

 

10. Fisher’s Z coefficients were used_in determining this value.

.d

 

iv v.

‘9 bu

£1,3—

121

Reliability

 

As was the case with the ”Degree-informed" scale, four separate
methods of assessing reliability were utilized in order to establish the
presence of a stable reliability estimate for the scale. Hoyt's method,
splitehalf reliability, reliability based on the mean inter-item correm
lation, and the Rulon formula were all used.

Hoyt's;method resulted in a reliability estimate of .6h as reflected
in the data of Table 28.

Table 28. Reliability for the "Belief-Disbelief"
Scale based on.Ana1ysis of variance

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Variance rkk
Persons 852.02 226 3.77 . 614
Items 592.11 6
Remainder 18115. 52 135 7 l. 3 6

Total 3289.65 1589

 

Another estimate of reliability was made by using the Split-half
(odd versus even) method. The resulting reliability figure was subse-
quently corrected for length and for an uneven split (LL-3). The uncorw
rected reliability (rtt '3 .311) was corrected and was found to be .51

A third avenue used to examine reliability was via the mean item
intercorrelation. The reliability based on this methodlturned out to
be .61

Finally, the Rulon formula based upon differences in scores on two

«V 0 N1.
n ‘1. A: v a. ¢
5. av 0‘ I . a.
n OV a Q was

V

HIM

a phU
«NM 8 c
,3. z. r
a» . unop‘w‘
9% \ .ul

 

 

122

halves of the scale was utilized to estimate reliability. No correction
for length.was required for this particular method. The reliability was
.70.

Table 29 below summarizes these four estimates of the scale reliaa

bility.

Table 29. Estimates of Scale

 

 

 

 

Reliability
Method rtt
Analysis of variance .6h
Split-Half .51
Ave. Item Intercorrelation .61
Rulon Formula .70

 

Considering the fact that the "Belief-Disbelief" scale was actually’
a combination of two sets of measures (with unreliability probably being
compounded), and that it consisted of only seven items, the obtained mag-

nitude of rtt was not surprising.

Validation

As was discussed earlier in this chapter, the best course to pursue
with regards to establishing the validity of the scales (in this study
at any rate) seemed to be that of providing evidence fer construct vali-
dity; Explicit hypotheses generated on the basis of a definition of the

scale were tested. The results are presented below.

 

o”

0.. ,

-
II.

.-
.-
0 3“

['11

1

I‘.‘

0“

 

h

 

123

Dogmatism
One attribute or personality trait for which there were measures,

was dognatismll. This particular trait, among other things, includes

the conceptualization of highly dogmatic individuals as persons who are
relatively'more accepting or rejecting of others depending upon whether
or not they agree or disagree with their own beliefs. It is not diffi-
cult to translate this partial definition of dogmatism into terms rele-
'vant to the study, and Specifically to response towards communications.
There are direct implications for response to the "Belief-Disbelief"
scale in the assessment of dogmatism.

It was hypothesized that if the "ED" scale actually measured one's
belief in what he thought he had been told, then scores on the scale
should show marked differences for groups which were differentiated on
the basis of the personality trait of dogmatism. The reasoning went
thusly: the highly dogmatic individual, when requested to reSpond by
indicating his acceptance or rejection of some issue of "fact" in terms
of his personal belief system or set Of eXpectancies, would be found to
occupy a more extreme position in this acceptance or rejection than
‘would an individual low in dogmatism. This more extreme placement on a
continuum of belief-disbelief is an Operational reflection of a greater
unwillingness to accept ambiguity or to tolerate a middle position on
some issue. These persons either agree or disagree. In addition to

predicting either a high or low, but not intermediate, score on the "ED”

 

11. For a full discussion of dogmatism, its conceptualization and
measurement, the reader is referred to the work of Rokeach (1956).

 

 

‘V
.-

lv-‘

Q .
u...

ha...

 

 

"‘1 ..
x,‘:~

12h

scale, the direction of Obtained scores was also predicted. It was
additionally deduced that the highly dogmatic subject, in the face of
an unstructured situation (an impending change which was yet to occur)
would more likely respond by disbelief than be belief in what they were
told in general about the change. Those low on the dogmatism scale
would conversely demonstrate a greater overall acceptance (belief) in
what they were told about the change. The greater likelihood of dis-
belief being registered by the high dogmatics was a result, theoreti~
cally, of a greater degree of selectivity (perceptual defensiveness)
and a lesser degree of permeability to the new and unique.

The measure of dogmatism was obtained from an eleven item abbrev-
iated form Of Rokeach's Dogmatism (D) Scale. These items are VI h0-50
in both the supervisory and non-supervisory forms of the questionnaire
(Appendix F). For a complete discussion concerning the construction and
scoring of this 11 item scale, see Trumbo (1958, pp. 87-91).

Table 30 presents the results of a t test in which groups differ—
entiated on high-low dogmatism were compared on mean "Belief-Disbelief"
scores. The high dogmatic group had a significantly lower "ED" score
than.the low dogmatic group, indicating greater disbelief for the high

dogmatic group. This substantiated the original hypothesis.

 

‘4.

My

125

Table 30. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score
Categories Differentiated on the Basis of High-
Low Dogmatism Scores.

 

 

Mean 4n Ml-Mg (“d t dfa' pb

 

1h.06 0.11).; 1.51 0.68 2.20 1149 (.025

12.56 0.52

 

adf - n + n - 2 I 151-2 3 lh9
bone-tailed test Of significance

General JOb Satisfaction

 

Another predicted relationship arising out of the implications of
the definition for the "ED" scale centered around general job satisfac-
tion. It was thought that the extent to which one believed, or placed
confidence in, company pronouncements also reflected one facet of on-
the-jOb ”morale” or general job satisfaction. The individual who was
disgruntled and dissatisfied with his job more likely would also react
in a negative fashion to communications from management; i.e., express
greater disbelief than those who were generally satisfied with their
'work.

General job satisfaction was measured by means of a one-item index,
X-39 on both forms of the questionnaire:

“Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you.with your

36b? 1. Completely satisfied
2. Very satisfied
3. Quite satisfied

h. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied"

 

 

~.
-
L

i.
I. I.

 

 

126

The item, conforming to the Likert-type format,12 was scored from 1 to
6, indicative of increasing job satisfaction. "BD" total scale scores
were compared for two groups, those responding to alternates 1 and 2
(completely or quite satisfied) and those checking alternates h and 5
(somewhat satisfied or not satisfied). A t test (see Table 31) indicated
that those quite satisfied with their jobs also believed to a signifi-
cantly'greater extent what they thought they had been told about the
computer than did those expressing low general job satisfaction.

Table 31. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Scores

Differentiated on the Basis of High and Law General
Job Satisfaction

 

 

Mean 6m . Ml-Mg ‘md t dfa pb

 

13.72 0.3h 1.7h 0.71 2.h6 150 <.025
11.97 0.62

 

adf-nl+n2-2'152-2=150
bone-tailed test of significance

Lmidence in the com

Another variable which is in some degree another facet of general
on‘the-job ”morale," at least theoretically, would seem to be confidence
exPressed in the company one works for. Just as those who profess high

J°b Satisfaction are the ones who tend to believe what the company tells

t}:
an, the ones who express confidence in their company are also likely

\

12,

155113 reader will find a full discussion of this kind of item in the
ext chapter.

CG!

127

to be the ones who believe what their management tells them. Certainly,
one Operational measure of confidence in the company would logically
seem to be a predisposition to accept as valid the pronouncements made
by the company, particularly when this concerns a major change.

There were five Likert-type items used as an index in measuring
confidence in the company. These items appeared as I3h-38 on the post-
test questionnaire (See Appendix F). A low score indicated high confi-
dence and a high score reflected low confidence. Table 32 below shows
the results of a t test between groups varying on expressed confidence
in the company. ”ED” scale scores for the high-confidence group were
significantly higher than fOr the low-confidence group, indicating that
the high confidence group were more prone to believe statements perceived
as made by the company about changes than.were those who had relatively'
little confidence in their organization.

Table 32. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Scores

Differentiated on the Basis of High and Low
Confidence in the Company

 

 

 

Mean 6:}: Ml-Mg 6nd t era pb
1h.01 0.39 1.38 0.58 2.39 180 ‘<w025
12.63 0.h2~

 

adf - n1 + n2 — 2 - 182-2 - 180
bone-tailed test of significance

Confidence in Supervision
A fourth hypothesized relationship concerned the association ex-

pected between "Belief-Disbelief" scores and scores on a measure of

128

confidence in supervision. An Operational indication of confidence in
one's supervisors would seem to be the extent to which belief was placed
in what management said about various issues, since supervisors are man~
agement representatives. Therefore, on these grounds, a prediction was
made that those expressing a high degree of confidence in their super-
visors would also be more likely to believe what had been.told by the
company'with respect to the change. This prediction was born out by the
data as shown in Table 33. The items used to measure confidence in sup»
ervision were of the Likert type, being scored by attaching weights of
from 1 to S to the response alternates. Low scores indicated high conm
fidence. The index for this variable was a cumulative score for four

items, identified as I-30 to I-33 on the posttest questionnaire in Ap~

 

 

 

pendix F.
Table 33. t Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Scores
Differentiated on the Basis of High and Low
Confidence in Supervision
Mean 5 m Ml-M2 51nd t dfa pb
11.86 O.h§

 

3dr - n1 + n2 — 2 - 173—2 r- 171
bone-tailed test of significance

235396 informed

One final relationship was examined in an effort to provide evidence
of construct validity for the Belief-Disbelief in Communications scale.
The predicted relationShip in this case involved the other independent

 

0H

'9.

w-

u-

N“
UV

H"

'G

.A

t..-
3'

I
J

129

variable. It was hypothesized that those persons who were better in-

formed about the impending changeover to the computer were more likely
to believe what they were told. Those who were poorly informed were
more likely to display disbelief in what they were told. Enployees
possessing relatively greater information about the change, in terms of
knowing what the company had actually said with regards to certain is-
sues, were also probably the one's in a position to know what was going
to happen. They were also more likely to be serving in a supervisory
capacity and to have been personally involved in some way in planning
the transition. Those who were highly knowledgeable were also likely
to manifest a more intelligent discrimination between fact and fancy.
The ”Degree-Informed” scale has already been described at length.
An 1“ test was performed to investigate whether or not the means on the
”Belief-Disbelief“ scale for groups varying in the Degree of Informed
Awareness differed more than would be reasonably expected if they had
arisen from random sampling fran a common population. The F test (F a
12.02, p - (.01) indicated that the means did differ siglificantly,
thus supporting the hypothesis that those who are better informed are

also the ones who are more likely to believe what they are told.

130

Table 31;. F Test for "Belief-Disbelief" Score Categories
Differentiated on the Basis of "Degree-Informed" Scores

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

 

 

Between 526. 783 2 263.392 12. 02 <. 01
Within h689.530 21h 21.911:
Total 5216.313 216

 

A set of five hypotheses constructed on the basis of implications
of the construct "belief-disbelief-in-communications" were examined.
In all cases statistical confirmation was achieved, suggesting that the

”ED” scale does in fact possess construct validity to an acceptable ex-
tent.

r————ii7

L.

‘4‘.

 

 

 

q.‘

a—

.m»
it

.\

 

 

 

CHAPTER SEVEN
MEASURING THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES

This chapter shall follow in principal the same organization of con~
tent as used in the preceding chapter for presenting specific information

on the manner in which the two dependent variables were measured.
Change in Readiness to Accept Change

This variable was defined as: a shift or change in the general
readiness to accept job-related changes of an unspecified nature. The
measurement of this variable involved securing a set of deviations based
upon differences obtained in scale scores on the pretest and posttest
_versions of the questionnaire for the Readiness for Change scale.

As was discussed in Chapter Four, this dependent variable was de-
signed to probe employee response to change as a generalized, global kind
of predisposition. A companion dependent variable was also constructed
in order to obtain a specialized reSponse to change where the focus was

an actual change occuring in the workers' job environment.

Selection of items and construction of scale
Before progressing with a discussion of the actual steps taken in
construction and evaluation of this scale, some general attention will

1 for the con—

be first directed toward the usage of the Likert technique
struction of the Readiness for Change attitude scale. The method has

been described as follows:

 

1. The technique was devised and originally outlined by Rensis Likert
(1932).
131

132

"the task set for the subjects is such as to allow individual
differences with respect to the attitude continuum to be expressed.
Subjects respond to each item on the basis of the extent to which
they are willing to endorse the item. Stimuli are selected so as

to increase the individual differences with reSpect to the attitude

continuum. Different weights might be given to the stimuli ---- on

the basis of their power to discriminate between subjects, and not

on the basis of their relative positions on the attitude continuum"

(Torgerson, 1958, p. b7).

The original procedure set up by Likert for scoring responses was
based upon a determination of scale values for each of the alternates
for every item. These values were a function of the response distribu-
tions to the item; i.e., standard scores for each response category were
determined. These standard scores were then summated for all items come
prising the scale to provide a scale score for each subject.

Likert found that scores based upon the relatively simplified assign-
ment of integral weights or interval values correlated .99 (Edwards,

1957) with the more complicated system of weights. Response classes were
weighted so that responses made by individuals with the most "favorable”
attitudes always had the highest positive weight. The total score was
obtained by simple cumulative addition of the individual item scores.

In this study, the Likert scaling procedure was deemed as an adequate
means of assessing a latent attitude continuum. It had the additional
benefit of being a relativeLy easy procedure to utilize. The simplified
means of scoring item alternates, and thereby deriving scale scores, was
adapted so that an item score of ”l" was indicative of a negative response
(resistance to change), ”2” was a negative-neutral response, "3" a neutral

response, ”h” a positive-neutral response, and finally, a "5" indicated

a positive response (readiness to accept change).

 

as u

up“

A
H v:

U
u “on
an“...

mire

Q
°Ml ”'I‘
Q'. -

Ana

.a. "‘
V ..
W '\

‘:e ‘v
.a

\‘l

133

The reader at this point is referred to Appendix F where he will
find the scale under discussion identified as items I-56 and IVéhO to
h? on both the supervisory'and non-supervisory forms of the pretest ques-
tionnaire. The identical nine items are repeated in the posttest question~
naire as items III-16 and I-39 to D6. Each of the nine items constructed
for inclusion in the scale require reSponses of agreement or disagreement
to statements expressing either a proclivity toward desiring changes in
the work situation, or an intolerance toward the ever-changing quality of
the job. Change in the jdb is conceptualized as a general attribute inn
herent in the employment situation; i.e., the dynamic or static overall
quality of the work setting in which one is embedded.

Scoringgschema

Responses to the nine items in the scale were coded serially from
one to five with the item scores reflecting favorable or unfavorable
change attitudes. Summated scores for the items were taken as the scale
score.

While this sufficiently describes the scoring of the Readiness for
Change scale, there remains the description of procedures followed in
arriving at a change score reflecting alterations for each questionnaire
respondent in the way he reSponded (comparatively) to the Readiness for
Change scale from pretest to posttest administration.

The measured deviations were used to indicate changes over time in
readiness to accept general job-related changes. These deviations were
Obtained by calculating the arithmetric difference between the total scale

scores on the pretest and posttest versions of the scale for each subject.

 

 

‘I”

a"

4'
t

I

13b

The difference-score range for the scale was found to be -19 to +15,
where a.minus value reflected a decrease in readiness for change and a
plus value indicated an increase in readiness for change. In order to
be able to deal entirely with scores of like sign, a constant (+20.0)
was added to all difference scores. This resulted in an adjusted range
of entirely positive scores (1-35, where l - -l9 and 35 - +15).

‘With respect to the occurance of response omissions to some of the
items in the scales, two omissions were accepted out of nine. An adjusted
total score was calculated according to the formula presented earlier.
More than two non-responses in the set of nine items resulted in the dis-
card of the scale score for that individual.

A resume' of the scoring schema is presented as follows:

 

Empirical score chagge Inferred respgnse class
increase from pre to post (+) increase in readiness for change
decrease from pre to post (-) decrease in readiness for change

Descriptive statistics and scalability'

Since changeeinpreadiness-to-accept-change was a derivation of dif-
ference scores from the pretest and posttest administrations, any omitted
cases in either the pretest or posttest had to be reflected in the equiv-
alent and opposite set of data. The original pretest population (N - 283),
when corrected for terminal cases (N - 37) and omissions (N - 9), was re-
duced to 237 cases. The original posttest pOpulation (N - 295) had to
be adjusted for cases added since the pretest (N - h9) and for omissions
(N - 9), leaving a total of 237 cases (N pretest - N posttest e 23?).

Below in.Teble 35 are included various statistics which describe the

 

M-
uL.C

752
.0

saw

 

 

13S

characteristics of the change scale, and the pretest and posttest Readi-

ness for Change scales.

Table 35. Descriptive Statistics for Readiness for
Change Scale (N - 237)

 

 

 

 

value

Statistic Pretest PoSttest Change

Scale Scale Scores
Score Range (actual) 13-h5 l2-h3 1-35a
Mean Score 27.3h 26.h3 19.10
Median Score 27.hl 26.17 19.0h
Standard Deviation 6.h2 6.11 5.66
Skewness Index +0.00 +0.13 +0.03
S.E. of Measurement 3.36 2.62 b.29

 

aDeviation scores adjusted to like sign by addition
of +20 to all scores.

With respect to securing evidence for the monotonic quality of the
items in the Likert scale, Trumbo (1958) provided ample support that
higher item scores were associated with higher total scores in all in-
stances. He also demonstrated that average total scores for respondents
choosing each alternative for each of the nine items consistently in-
creased from one alternate to the next (going from "1" to "5," reSpec-
tively).

Data is supplied here regarding the same kinds of relationships as
immediately mentioned above, but applying to the population in this in-
vestigation. In Table 36 are the results of an item analysis relating
mean pretest item scores to criterion groups composed of the upper and

lower 27 per cent on the total score (Nu= Nl- 6h).

136

Table 36. Item Analysis Data for the 9 Items comprising
the Readiness for Change Scale (Nu - N1 - 614)

 

 

 

Item Uppeer‘ Difference t p8
1 3.95 2.86 1.09 7.61. 2 .01
2 2.92 2.05 0.88 3. 67 4.01
3 3.91 1. 83 2. 08 10. 71 4 .01
h h.03 2.09 1.9h 11.27 ‘<.01
5 b.37 2.18 2.18 13.00 <.01
6 3.72 2.142 1.31 6.08 4.01
7 3.95 ~ 1.65 2.31 13.h2 <.01
8 Me 2.15 2.28 16.01; 4.01
9 ‘ h.29 2.1.0 1.89 9.51 <.01

 

adf-nl-n2-2-6h-r6h-2e126

As can be quickly seen, the internal consistency of all items was
demonstrated by a significant difference (p -<.Ol) between item mean
scores when comparisons were made for the'upper and lower. 27 per cent
criterion groups based on the total score. The, upper 27% subgroup ob-
tained significantly higher average item scores for all items than did
those in the lower 27 per cent subgroups.

I Average total scores for respondents varied in a regular and consis-
tent fashion with the particular item alternate responded to. The high-
est average total scores were obtained by those responding to the alternate
with a weight of +5, while those answering to an alternate with the weight

of +1 received the lowest average total scores. For these results, see

1..

 

 

 

137

Table 37 below.

Table 37. Average Total Scores as a Function of Item Alternates
selected for each of the 9 Items

 

 

Item Alternate Scoring Weights

 

 

Item 1 2 3 _h 5
,1 19.00 23.10 25.38 29.56 3h.08
2 26.31 2h.91 26.06 30.53 32.75
3 21.78 25.37 27.1h 30.60 33.75
h 20.86 2h.09 26.97 29.56 35.83
5 19.27 23.32 25.8h 28.58 33.8h
6 22.0h 25.71 25.96 28.81 33.02
7 21.09 25.51 28.38 29.87 36.5h
8 18.87 23.55 2h.89 29.h5 35.00
9 23.95 2h.22 25.95 28.71 32.66

 

Difference in mean pretest and posttest scores

In the process of obtaining deviation scores to be used as an in-
dicator of changes in the readiness to accept changes, it was a logical
step to investigate the significance of the difference between the mean
scale score obtained on the pretest administration of the questionnaire
and the mean scale score obtained on the posttest for all subjects.
The table below shows the results of such a comparison. The difference
between means on the Readiness for Change scale over administrations was
found to be significant (p a‘<.05), suggesting that a real shift in atti-
tude towards acceptance of job-related changes took place sometime between

the pretesting, introduction of the computer, and the posttesting. The

138

direction of the change in the mean scale scores additionally suggested
that the experimental p0pulation as a whole shifted toward becoming
slightly less prone in their readiness to accept generalized changes
as an inherent component of the work environment.

Table 38. Significance of the Difference between Pretest

and Posttest Mean Total Scores on the Readiness for Change
Scale (N 8 237)

 

 

 

mean Mean Difference 6d 6nda t pb
(Pre) (Post)
27.3b 26.h3 0.91 5.66 0.37 2.h8 4.05

 

aBased upon S.E. of mean difference for matched pairs, see
appendix D.

bdf = N-l = 236, where N is number of pairs.

Item intercorrelations

Some information regarding the degree of interrelationship exist-
ing among the matrix of items making up the pretest scale is offered in
Table 39 below. The intercorrelations ranged in magnitude from -.3h

to +.62, the average item intercorrelation being +.23.

139

Table 39. Item Intercorrelations for the Pretest Readiness for Change
Scale

 

 

 

Item 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9
l "311%” +.17’v‘* +.19** +.36’H" -. 519’" +31.“ +.37"‘* +.09
2 -.03 +.06 +.03 -.09 +.20** +.lO +.o3
3 +11“+.“19+.“21+.-==*12+.1s9<-.“33
h +.hl** +.lh% +.3h** +.53** +.ll*
5 +.30** +.62** +.bsas- +.32ss
6 +.10 +.18*x' +.0h
7 +.h8m“ +.23**
8 +.19**

 

atetrachoric coefficients.
*Significant at the .05 level.
“Significant at the .01 level.

The posttest Readiness for Change scale provided the following set
of inter-item correlations. The range of correlations for the posttest

set was -.06 to +.72, with the mean intercorrelation being +.33.

 

 

PO

5

 

 

 

lhO

Table hO. Item Intercorrelations for the Posttest Readiness for Change
Scale

 

 

Item 2 3 i h 5 6 7 8 9

 

1 +.66a** +.31** +.06 +.58** +.20** +.59** +.56** +.l2*

2 +.17** -.06 +.13* +.l2* +.29** +.18** +.16**
3 +57% +15“ -.03 +.h3""’“ «58” +.27**
h +.30**' +.2h**' +,35** +.53** +.07
5 +32% +59“ +.57*"“ .00
6 +.21** +.l9** +025**
7 +.72** +.05
8 +.26**

 

atetrachoric coefficients.
”(Significant at the .05 level.
'H'Significant at the .01 level.

The intercorrelations were in the form of tetrachoric coefficients,
where the item scores were artificially dichotomized on the basis of re—
sponse alternates into two groups: those responding to alternates l and

2, and those responding to either 3, h, or 5.

Item-total score correlations

To provide information on the extent to which item scores were re-
lated to the total score, Thorndike's method was used to ascertain esti-
mated product-moment correlation coefficients between each of the pretest

scale item scores and the total score. Table bl presents this informa-

tion.

1111

Table bl. Item-Total Score Correlations
for Readiness for Change Scale (Nu=Nl=6h)

 

 

 

Item Correlation with Total Score
1 .5h”‘”“
2 .thx
3 . 68"“
ll . 7 O-X—X-
5 .68‘
6 .50’“
7 .68 19
8 . 80'”
9 . 61°17“

 

**Significant at beyond '01 level,
df a N—Z = 62.

All of the nine items in the Readiness for Change scale correlated

at well beyond the 1% level of confidence with the total score.

Reliability

 

The Readiness for Change scale, as was indicated, has been used in
previous studies. For an extended discussion of reliability data for
the scale in another context, the reader is referred to the work of
Trumbo (1958). In his usage of the scale, it was found that the product-
moment rtt between two half-scale scores, when corrected for length by
the Spearman-Brown formula, was .79.

As has been the practice with the independent variables, several

estimates of reliability were obtained in order to not only assess the
reliability of the scale, but to shed some light on the stability of the
reliability estimate itself.

Hoyt's method was used to determine reliability for both the pre~
test and posttest sets of scores on the Readiness for Change scale.
These are shown below in Table h2.

Table h2. Analysis of variance Estimates of Reliability
for the Pretest and Posttest Readiness for Change Scale

 

 

 

Scale Administration “apersona verror rkk
Pretest b.57 1.23 .73
Posttest 11.50 1.18 .711

 

av - variance

These reliability estimates agreed with each other quite well, sug~
gesting stability over a six month period of time.

Another estimate of reliability was based upon a product-moment r
between scale scores on the pretest form of the questionnaire and on the
posttest form (N - 237 pairs). The test-retest reliability was found to
be .60, which was somewhat lower than either of the reliability coeffi~
cients found for the pretest and posttest sets of scale scores.

A third estimate of reliability was accomplished by determining the
split-half (odd versus even) reliability based upon a correlation between
half-scale scores for the pretest and posttest administration. The uncor-
rected correlation between half-scale scores was .58 and .57, reSpectively.

When these were corrected for both an uneven split (5-h) and for length,

1h3

rtt was found to be .7b and .65.

In concluding the exploration of the reliability of the measuring
instrument for Readiness for Change, average item intercorrelations were
used. Both pretest and posttest sets of scores were invelved. The re-
sults of this fourth method are shown in Table h3.

Table h3. Reliability Estimates for Pretest and Posttest

Readiness for Change Scales determined from Mean Inter-
Item Correlations

 

 

 

Scale Administration r138 rtt
Pretest .23 .72
Posttest .3h .82

 

aria - mean item intercorrelation

Table hh was prepared to summarize these estimates. Reliability
estimates for the pretest set of scale scores varied from .72 to .7h,
while the reliability for the posttest scale appeared between .65 and
.82. Reliability estimates for the pretest scale appeared to be more
stable than were those for the posttest scale. It was suspected that
perhaps the manner of splitting the scale into half-scale scores may
hare contributed to some erratic alteration in reliability, such that
the posttest split-half rtt was somewhat aberrant when compared with the

other estimates of posttest scale reliability.

1th

Table hh. A Comparison of Reliability Estimates for the
Readiness for Change Scale

 

 

Scale Administration

 

 

Method

Pretest Posttest
Analysis of variance .73 .7h
Mean Item Intercorrelation .73 .82
Split-Half (odd-even) .7h .65
Test-Retest .60

 

In addition to obtaining reliability estimates for the scale itself,
it was necessary to secure an estimate of the reliability of the deviation
scores themselves which represented changes in readiness to accept jOb-
related changes. The reliability of a difference score, as given in
Appendix D, made use of the reliabilities of the pretest and posttest

sets of scale scores2

, and the intercorrelation between the two scales.
This data provided an estimate of the reliability of the difference score
obtained from two total scores (r - .h2).

From an accumulation of the above data, it was determined that the
scale had a sufficiently high level of reliability. The scale was fair-

1y stable, and the items comprising the scale were internally consistent.

validation
Information concerning the construct validity of the Readiness for
Change scale has already been provided. Extensive and rather convincing

evidence for the validity of the scale was demonstrated by Trumbo (1958).

 

2. Estimates based on the analysis of variance approach.

«sly ‘

 

1L5

Trumbo was able to show that employees who responded favorably to cur-
rent, past, or future changes in their jobs scored significantly higher
on the Readiness for Change scale than did employees who responded un-
favorably to such changes. He also demonstrated that workers who liked
jobs which they perceived as having a change component, scored higher
on the ”Readiness” scale than did those who disliked such jobs as well
as employees who liked jobs associated with a relatively low change
component. Another finding which arose during the course of validating
the scale was that employee preparation for change, through plans to
take special training, was found to be positively related to the Readi-

ness for Change scale.
,Affective Response to the Computer '

Just as Readiness for Change dealt with change as a general phenom-
enon inherent within the work setting, Affective Response to the Computer
deals with change as a specific entity with a definite change-agent in
focus. This dependent variable was defined as: the affective response

toward the expected effects of the computer upon the employee.

Selection of items and construction of index

The measuring instrument for this main variable differs in some
degree from those used to measure the other major independent and depen-
dent variables. It does not represent a scale in the true sense of the
word, but is more closely aligned to what may be thought of as a numeric-
al indicatorcnr index. This index was comprised of three separate atti-

tude items written in the Likert format. These items were designed to

lh6

assess the degree of like or dislike for the IBM 650 computer and its
effects as explained in Chapter Four.‘ To mention the items again, they
were II-52, 5b, and 55 in both the supervisory and non-supervisory forms

of the pretest questionnaire.

Scoring schema
The three items were scored according to the Likert method of as-
signing interval values of one through five to the five response classes
so that the weight of "1” indicated ”like it very'much“ and a weight of
*5” indicated “dislike it very'much.' The actual reSponse categories
for all three items were:
1. I like it very much
2. I like it
3. It makes no difference to me
u. I dislike it
5. I dislike it very much
A discussion of the referrents for these affective reSponses was
given in Chapter Four.
A total score for the index was obtained by summating the individ-
ual scores for each item. The possible range of scores for the index
ran from 3 to 15. A low score was indicative of positive response

(liking) toward the computer, while a high score denoted a negative

response (dislike) for the computer as a change agent.

Descriptive statistics of index

The original pretest respondent population of 283 cases had to be
adjusted in,a downward direction to account for terminal cases (N - 37)
and for any'mmissions (N - 29) occuring. This provided a base working

population of 217 cases. This figure underwent further reductions as

1b?
the index was related to other variables for which only N's smaller than
217 were available.
Below in Table h5 are presented descriptive statistics providing

information on the characteristics of the Affective ReSponse to the

Computer index.

Table h5. Descriptive Statistics for Affective
Response to the Computer Index (N - 217)

 

 

Statistic Value
Score Range (actual) 3-15
Mean Score 7.17
Median Score 7.21
Standard Deviation 2.06
Skewness Index . +0.06
S.E. of Measurementa 1.09

 

a based on analysis of variance estimate of rtt

This section presents some evidence of index internal consistency,
as it existed for the three items.

Table h6 below provides information on item discrimination. Mean
item scores were compared for upper and lower 27 per cent (Nu . Nl I 68)
Subgroups on the basis of composite total score distribution. Because
the index was comprised of only three items, any one item separately
would correlate quite highly with the total score of which it was a

part. One way to adjust for such an inflation of ritB due to spurious

‘

3° rit - item-total score correlation.

lh8

overlap was to calculate a set of composite total scores which in turn
omitted the item in question (the one to be correlated with the total
score) from calculation of the total score. Thus, when item II~52, for
example, was correlated with the index composite total score, it was
actually being correlated with only the total score derived from items
II-Sh and II-SS.

Table h6. Item.Analysis Data for the Affective
Response to the Computer Index (Nu - N1 = 68)

 

 

Item Mean Item Score
Upper 27%) Lower 27% Diff t p8

 

1 2.90 1.93 0.97 7.11: <01

 

2 3.18 1.81. 1.31. 11.53 <.01
3 2.56 1.65 0.91 6.29 <.01
3dr - 131;

For each of the items, mean item scores differed significantly when
upper and lower 27% subgroups on the basis of total score were compared.

Another approach to internal consistency was the derivation of aver-
age composite total scores for each item on each response alternate. A
consistent increase in average total score was found as a function of
item alternates responded to (one through five). The data showing these
relationships is in Table h? below.

lh9

Table h7. Mean Composite Total Scores as a FUnction
of Item Alternates selected for each Item

 

 

Item Alternate Scoring Weights

 

Item 1 2 3 h 5
l 3.37 h.25 S.hh 6.00 7.23
2 2.86 b.0h 5.10 6.01 10.00
3 3.78 5.07 S.h5 6.2h 8.50

 

Item intercorrelations

Table h8 provides information about the extent to which the three
index items were interrelated. It was expected, on a priori grounds,
that item II-52(l) would correlate most highly with II-5h(2), since
these two items were more similar in terms of content than was item
II-55(3). The average item intercorrelation was +.h9.

Table h8. Item Intercorrelationsl for the Affect-
ive Response to the Computer Scale

 

 

 

 

Item 2 3
l + . 62"x'X‘ + . 377%.)?
2 +.h7""’"
1

product-moment correlations.
**Significant at beyond .01 level, df = 216

llfflkitotal score correlations
In estimating Tit: the problem of spurious overlap was discussed
.anci 61 solution was offered in an earlier section. Rather than calculat-

iILg’ El part-whole correlation, a part-remainder correlation was determined.

150

This was done by correlating an item score with the composite total
score where the item in question was omitted from the calculation of the
total score. There correlations are presented below in Table b9.

Table L9. Item-Total Score Correlations for the
Affective Reaponse to the Computer Index

W

 

Item rit
1 .583“
2 .66**
3 . b6**

 

a part-remainder product-moment correlations.

** Significant beyond .01 level.

The item analysis and other internal consistency checks provided
evidence that this set of three items forms a fairly cohesive, intern-

ally consistent index.

Reliability

In determining the reliability of this index, the number of ap~
preaches which could be used.was limited because of the small number of
items in the index as well as the fact that the entire set of items were
not repeated’in the postest administration to allow for a test-retest
estimate of reliability;

The two methods which were used, however, provided reliability
estimates as determined from the average item intercorrelation data and

from the analysis of variance approach.

151

The average item intercorrelation procedure gave an estimate of .7h
as the reliability (based on r13 ' .h9) for the index. Hoyt's method
provided an estimate of .72 for the index reliability. The data for the
latter estimate is given below in Table 50.

Table 50. Analysis of Variance Estimate of Reliabil-
ity.for the Affective Response to the Computer Index

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Variance rkk
Persons 29b.56 216 1.36 .72
Items 1h.86 2

Remainder 156.b7 h32 0.38

total b7b.89 650

 

For a set of only three items, the two reliability estimates were
fairly high. This is explained on the basis that the rij's and.rit's
were all quite substantial. Such a reliability supports the contention
that the index is sufficiently stable to be used as a measure of this

dependent variable.

Validation

 

The construct or logical validity of this particular index serving
as a dependent variable was supported by the following five predicted

and confirmed relationships.

Effect of machines on job

 

The first relationship stemming from the construct subsumed under

6

152

the Affective Response to the Computer index deals with the interaction
between reSponse to the computer and response to the perception that
machines are causing jobs to be done differently. Specifically, the
association predicted was that employees liking the idea that machines
will cause them to do their jobs differently (as compared to other jobs)
would obtain significantly lower Affective Response to the Computer
scores than would employees who dislike or are indifferent to the idea
that machines will in some way alter the way their jobs are carried out.
Remember, that for this index, a low score is coincident with a high .
liking for the computer and its effects, and a high score is indicative
of dislike for the computer and its effects. Table 51 below confirms
this hypothesis. Those who respond favorably toward the computer are
also the ones likely to react positively to expectations that business
machines of some sort will cause them to do different work in their

jobs.

153

Table 51. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective Response to the
Computer for Groups based on Like-Dislike for Effects of Machines on Jobs

—7 A
_

Are the chances that a mach-

ine will cause you to do dif—

ferent work on your job great- Response Cate o

er or less than for most jobs Greater Than for Most Jobs
in this company? (I-SO)

 

 

How do you feel about this? Like Indifferent
(I-51) or Dislike
N 51 28
Mean Index Score 6.12 8.25
Ml-M2 2.13
{md .32
ta 6.614
pb 2.005

_A

a one-tailed test of significance

b
df-nl+n2—2-77.

Rate of Change

 

This particular variable was selected on the reasoning that differ~
ences in the way workers reacted to the perceived rate of changes would
be reflected in variations in response to the computer. Tables 52 and
53 below show that, indeed, favorable reactions to the fact that the
perceived rate of the introduction of changes, both in general and on
the work scene, was rapid is related to specific affective response to
the computer.’ Those employees liking the fact that changes were making
their appearance at a relatively rapid rate obtained significantly higher

"liking" scores when the computer was the referrent. It was presumed

15h

that a general feeling tone or attitudinal predisposition toward change
exists which conditions explicit responses to concrete changes on the
job.

Table 52. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective ReSponse to the

. Computer for Groups based on Like-Dislike for the Rate at which Changes
are Taking Place

 

 

Check the one statement that
best describes the rate at

 

32:2: igagfizsw:::dt::::§. More Rapiziyégfign Before
(I-hO)
How do you feel about this? Like It Dislike It
(I-hl)
N 1h3 35
Mean Index Score 6.92 8.23
Ml-M2 1.31
63%, .3b
ta 3.8a
pb 4 .005

a one-tailed test of significance

b
df 3 nl + n2 - 2 176

155

Table 53. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective Response to the
Computer for Groups based on Desirability of Rate of Technological Change

 

 

 

32.133.31.23: $335133: :33 —P——Res “5“"
methods for doing work are Less Rapidly' More Rapidly
taking place? (I-h3) Than Desirable Than Desirable
N b3 39
Mean Index Score 6.5h 7.77
on .30 .28
I‘ll-M2 1.23
63%1 .hl
ta 2.99
pb <.005

 

aone-tailed test of significance
bdf a n1 + n2 - 2 = 80

Specific job satisfaction

 

It was hypothesized that job satisfaction as applied to specific
job aspects would be related to specific response to change. Table 5h
points out an expected inverse relationship between these two variables.
Those highly satisfied with specific aspects of their jobs were the ones
who liked the computer and its expected effects, whereas employees dis-
satisfied with specific aspects of their jobs obtained significantly
(p - ‘<.Ol) higher index scores on Affective Response to the Computer,
indicative of dislike for the computer and the expected effects.

Specific job satisfaction was measured by responses to items

Iv;53 to 66. To each one of fourteen job aspects (see Appendix F),

156

the respondents were aked to check how satisfied they were with it by
placing a mark in one of five columns from "Completely satisfied" to
"Not satisfied." A weight of "l" was assigned to "Completely satisfied,"
"2" to "Very satisfied," "3fl to ”Quite satisfied, ,, "l." to "Somewhat
satisfied," and "5" to "Not satisfied." These weights for the fourteen
items (aspects) were then summated to give a total specific job satis-
faction score. Scores ranged from lb to 60. Two groups were formed
from this score range, using the extremes. Group 1 reflected high
satisfaction (lb-29) and group 2 represented a high dissatisfaction
(h5-60) subgroup. Comparisons were then made on the basis of these two
subgroups.

Table 5b. Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective Responses to
the Computer for Groups based on Specific Job Satisfaction

 

Place a check mark under
the statement which best

 

describes how satisfied Regponse
you are with the aspect
of your job. (IV-53 to 66) Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
N 57 66
Mean Index Score 6.81 7.62
6m .22 .19
M1442 0. 81
67nd .29
ta 2.73
pb 4.005

 

a one-tailed test of significance

b

157

Adjustment to change

 

In this examination of construct validity, an item from the posttest
administration questionnaire was selected. If the Affective Response to
the Computer index actually measured what its name implied, then the
scores on the index should manifest a particular fluctuation when exam-
ined for groups which have been differentiated on the basis of self-
assessed adjustment to the computer.

Respondents were asked, in item II-hO, how long it took them to
"get used to" the changeover to the computer's installation. The spe-
cific hypothesis was that employees quickly adapting to the changeover
would show significantly lower mean index scores on Affective Response
to the Computer than would those who responded that they were having
difficulty adjusting to the changeover. Table 55 below indicates that
this was the case. Persons who quickly got used to the computer liked
it and its effects, while those who expressed some difficulty in this

area disliked the computer and its effects.

158

Table 55.

Comparison of Mean Index Scores on Affective Response to the

Computer for Groups based on Acclimatization to the Changeover

 

 

 

How long would you say it ReSponse
took you to get used to the
change? (II-b0, postest) No More Than Not Really Used
One Week to It Yet
N 29 32
Mean Index Score 6.72 8.12
5m .39 .39
Ml-M2 1.140
end .55
ta 2.56
b
P .<.OZS

 

a one-tailed test of significance

b

df.nl+'n2-2=S9

Job worth

This concerned a self-appraisal of the value of one's job and of

one's performance in terms of perceived importance, recognition, and

replacement value.

There were four items in both supervisory and non-

supervisory forms of the pretest questionnaire which were used as an

index for "Job Worth."

be found in Appendix F.

These items were V-73, 75, 76, and 77, and can

The job worth index was prepared by summating

item scores for the four items in such fashion that a low score indicat-

ed high job worth and a high score was indicative of perceived low job

worth.

It was predicted that those assessing themselves positively; i.e.,

159

perceiving themselves and their job as of relatively high worth to the
company, would also obtain higher Affective Response to the Computer
index scores than would a comparable group which was low in perceived
job worth. This sort of covariation was predicted upon the basis that
employees registering high job worth were relatively secure, at least
psychologically, in their current jobs, and would in general welcome
the challenges attendant with a major change. On the other hand, those
expressing self-assessed low job worth were employees who, by their
admittance of low worth vmre indicating a form of insecurity, These
workers, rather than regarding the change as something favorable,

would perceive it as an additional threat to their already jeopardized
job security. Table 56 below supports this contention that high job
worth was associated with liking for the computer and its effects, while
low job worth was associated with dislike for the computer.

The data presented in this section attempted to supply some sub—
stantiation for the construct validity of the index. On the basis of
this data, it is believed that the index does in fact measure fairly
reliably and validly specific response to the computer in terms of like

and dislike of the "650" and its expected upon the employee.

160

Table 56. Comparison of Mean Affective Response to the Computer Index
Scores for Groups based Upon Perceived Job werth

 

 

 

Statistic Response
High Job Worth Low Job worth
N 67 24
Mean Score 6.33 7.62
0?. .22 .31
Mil-NZ 1030
(find .38
ta 3.1.0
pb ‘:.005

 

a one-tailed test of significance

b df - n1 + n2 - 2 - 68

CHAPTER EIGHT

BENEFICAL SELECTION OF THE INTERVENING VARIABLES

It has been pointed out that one of the serious hazards involved
in field studies within naturalistic settings is the uncontrolled
presence of factors which influence the obtained relationship between
dependent and independent variables. Too frequently these extraneous
variables are not recognized and isolated, nor are they prOperly taken
into account in subsequent analyses.

Two Specific problems are posed by this situation; namely, how
can one isolate and identify the intervening variables whose effects
should be controlled for, and how is this control to be achieved.

The procedures outlined in this chapter represent the efforts to re-
solve the first problem mentioned. The solution to the second problem
will be discussed in detail in Chapter Nine.

‘We have already reviewed the a priori selection of the secondary
factors resident within the research setting. These variables were
"visible" in the sense that they were either inherent components of
the work-force and environment, or were measurable responses of ex-
perimental subjects.

The variables initially examined were described in greater de-
tail in Chapter Four. It will be noted that one potentially'impor-
tent secondary variable was not dealt with. This was sex. Because
of the highly uneven ratio of male to female employees, any subse-
quent multiple analyses of covariance would have, if they accounted
for breaks on sex, presented very difficult problems in terms of small

161

162

or missing cell entries.

The efforts to isolate those secondary factors which were signif-
icantly related to the main experimental variables took the form of
utilizing statistical procedures to screen through the initial set
of intervening variables. This screening process involved ascertaining
if a relationship existed between intervening variables and the main
variables.

The screening procedure permitted the experimenter to arrive at
an empirically determined set of four intervening variables which were
in fact found to be significantly related to the dependent and inde-
pendent variables.

The reader will be provided with an explicit example of this
screening procedure for one of the main variables, as well as a summary
of the results for all screening. Appendix.B presents the statistical

data concerning the screening procedures for the other main variables.

The Method

 

The instrumentality for the implementation of this screening
process was a factorial analysis of variance technique.

It was believed desirable to make use of some technique which
would.provide an estimate of relationship between proposed variable
measures as well as, if possible, entail the economy of a factorial
design because of the many relationships to be examined. Another
important consideration at the time of the screening, was a lack of
knowledge as to whether all the variable measures were amenable to

scaling, or whether they'wero going to be normally distributed.

163

For some of the secondary variables, such as location and occupational
level, the distributions were obviously bipolar in nature. In light
of the limited knowledge of the underlying quantitative properties of
the measures, a technique was sought which, if possible, would combine
a factorial design with a non-parametric approach.

A perusal of the literature soon turned up a statistical procedure
reported by Wilson (1956). The method permitted a use of counts or
score-frequencies within given categories; i.e., in this case the
number of subjects obtaining scores above and below the median on a
series of measures. As Sutcliffe stated, "there is no logical hindrance
to the use of factorial experimentation with these phenomena" (1957,

p. 13h). In this context, then, frequencies were treated as ”scores."

Both Wilson (1956) and Sutcliffe (1957) presented a means of
treating frequency data in a factorial design by use of the chi-square
test. Their procedures called for a partitioning of the total X2 into
components for main effects and interactions for an AxBxC design, along
with appropriate degrees of freedom. Such a decompartmentalization of
total 12 and degrees of freedom provided independent, additive compon-
ents attributable to the main and interaction effects.

The technique as reported by Wilson and Sutcliffe underwent further
modification, or more precisely, generalization. The basic premise upon
which this generalization was based was that contingency association is
the analogue of interaction in analysis of variance. The method for
assessing multiple contingency frequency data was an adaptation of the
F test to a distribution-free situation. Sheffield (1957) regarded cell

frequencies as "scores," then performed the usual two-way classification

16h

analysis on these "scores.” A breakdown was made into row, column, and
row x column interaction sums of squares with apprOpriate degrees of
freedom. 'Within-cell variance was used as the error term.

Two assumptions underlying the F test were taken into consideration.
For each multiple contingency table for which an F was obtained,
Bartlett's test of homogeneity of variance (Edwards, 1950) for groups
with unequal n's was used.1 Since, on the variable measures, a number
of subgroupings were used, it was assumed that for the variables in
question there was normality of distribution for the original parent

populations.

Groupings on variable measures

 

The entries in the multiple contingency tables, which formed the
"raw data" for carrying out the screening process, were score frequen—
cies for natural or arbitrarily arrived-at categories based upon the
total distributions. In order to construct contingency tables which
were faily manageable from the standpoint of the number of cross-breaks
involved, variable measures were reduced to either two, or at the most,
three score-range subgroupings. In the case of location and occupation-
al level, only two subgroupings could be used. However, in a number of
instances a three-way categorization of variable measures was possible.
In general, for each variable measure, the total score distribution was
divided into upper, lower, and middle thirds. In several instances the
score frequency distribution provided cues as to where cut-off points

could occur.

 

1. This became iMportant when we wished to pool higher-order inter-
action sums of squares.

165

Application of the method - an example

The example chosen concerns the independent variable, Degree of
Informed Awareness. It was selected because, of the possible secondary
variables which might have been related to the major variables, three
of them were actually found to be related to this particular independent
variable.

Before showing the analyses, groupings on the appropriate measures

will be given. For these, see Table 57 below.

Table 57.

166

Score Groupings on Variable Measures used in

Analysis of Variance Multiple Contingency Tables

 

 

 

Variable Subgroup Score Range Interpretation
(if appropriate)
Main
Degree of Informed I 3-5 Poorly informed
Awareness II 6-8 Moderately informed
III 9-ll ‘Well informed
Intervening
Level I Supervisory
II Non-supervisory
Office I Home office
II Branch office
Communicative I l-3 Few contacts
contacts II h-é Many contacts
Expected I l-b Expect to be affected
involvement II 5-7 Expect not to be
affected
III 9 Don't know
Tenure I l-2 Hire date 1956-1957
II 3-5 Hire date 1953-1955
III 6~7 Hire date 19h7-l952
Education I l-S Some education through
llth grade
II 6 Completion of high
school
III 7-9 College educated
Age I l-2 Under 20 to 29 years
of age
II 3-b 30 to b9 years of age
III 5-6 50 to 60 and above

 

(Table continued on the next page)

 

1.
a} 1"}
~—’- ’
I
F“ W‘
-30.

O

 

. .. a
S ..
Hui I.., use

5....
eye. I
e

a‘
. $.17 »

«qt-1
Di.
A
\n
elk

Table S7.

167

Score Groupings on variable Measures used in

Analysis of variance Multiple Contingency Tables

 

 

 

 

variable Subgroup Score Range Interpretation
(if apprOpriate)

subsidiary

Supervisory style I Democratic-Ideocratic
II Intermediate
III Autocratic—bureaucratic

Realization of I 0—13 Most expectancies met

expectations
II lh Many expectancies met
III 15-25 Some expectancies met
IV 26-hh Few expectancies met

 

168

Three variables were examined in any one analysis, providing an
AxBxC factorial design. More specifically, configuration ranged from
a 2x2x3 design, to a 3x3x3 design, or to a 3x3x2 design.

Replication was not used, hence sums of squares for higher order
interactions were used to obtain an estimate of the error variance. In
some cases the mean squares along with their associated degrees of free-
dom, were pooled for higher order interactions if evidence provided by
Bartlett's test supported the assumption that respective mean squares
for the interactions were estimates of the same common variance. If
higher order (first-order and second-order) interactions were found to
be not significant, they were pooled to give an estimate of the variance
for within groups. This meant that in some cases only the second-order

2 while in other circum-

interaction (AxBxC) was used as an error term,
stances, the second-order interaction was pooled with first-order inter-
actions (AxB, AxC, or 8x0) if they were not significant, and if homo-
geneity of variance had been demonstrated.

The tables in sequence below provide data on the results of the
screening procedure applied to the secondary variables and one inde-
pendent variable. When the analysis was concluded, three of the inter-
vening factors had been found to be related to the independent variable.

These were: communicative contacts, expected involvement, and occupa-

tional level.

 

2. An assumption with an AxBxC design without replication is that
the second-order interaction is not significant, and can be used
as an estimate of the error mean square which would have been ob-
tained with replication.

\~..~

.I\ III. b...‘ .i‘ E
M; \ a: \h\

169

Table 58.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Tenure x.Age showing Frequencies
of Obtained Scores

 

 

Tenure (B) Age (C) Degree of Informed Awareness (A)
(3-5) (6-8) (9-11)

 

(1-2) 29 27 S

(1-2) (344) 1 S 3
(5-6) 1 0 0

(1-2) 15 18 7

,(3-5) (3-h) S 13 b
(5-6) 2 3 0

(1-2) 5 13 6

(6—7) (3‘11) 5 26 9
(5-6) 0 10 h

 

Table 58.2. Analysis of variance for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Tenure x.Age

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares ' df Mean Square Fa pb

A 32.2.88 2 171.11. 9.28 <.01
B 6.89 2 3.hh 0.19 NS
0 612.66 2 306.33 16.58 <.01
A x B 186.20 b 36.55 1.98 NS
A x 0 181.77 b hS.bh 2.b6 NS
B x c 1.13.76 1; 103.11; 5.59 <.01
A x B x c M _g_ 18.1.8

Total 1852.00 26

 

aBartlett's test: x2 a b.35, df s 3 for interactions, p = NS,
Ho accepted.

b
Same results obtained when pooled interactions were used as the
error team.

170

Table 59.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Office x Education mowing Fre-
quencies of Obtained Scores

 

 

Office (B) Education (C) Degree of Informed Awareness (A)
(3-5) (6-8) (9-11)

 

(1-5 2 l. 1
Home £6Q___ 20 69 26
______ (1:2) 1 26 8
1-5) 7 2 0
Branch £92... 25 10 1
(7-9) 8 5 2

 

Table 59.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Office x Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares Fa pb
A 528.77 2 26h.38 2.52 NS
B 522.72 1 522.72 b.99 NS
0 1613.141. 2 821.72 7.814 (.05
A x B 816.78 2 b08.39 3.90 NS
A x c 339.23 b 8h.81 0.81 NS
B x 0 588.78 2 292.39 2.79 NS
A x B x c b19.22 b 10u.81
total ‘ZEEZTEZ I7-

 

Bartlett's test: x2

- 2.56, df - 3 for interations, p - NS, Ho
accepted.

Same results obtained when pooled interactions were used as the
error term.

71

Table 60.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Communicative Contacts x Supervisory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Style
Communicative Supervisory Degree of Informed Awareness (A)
Contacts (B) Style (0) (3-5) (6-8) (9-11)
(A) 32 15 2
(1-3) (B) 3 2 1
(C) ’9 1 3
(A) 11 56 17
(8-6) (B) 3 15 2
ggl__ 2 2b 12
Table 60.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of In-
formed Awareness x Communicative Contacts x Supervisory
Style
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Squares F pa
A 506.33 2 253.16 3.08 NS
B 308.22 1 308.22 3.71 NS
0 lObh.33 2 522.16 6.36 NS
A x B 918.78 2 859.39 5.30 NS
A x 0 277.38 b 69.38 0.8h NS
B x C 36.78 2 18.39 0.22 NS
A x B x 0 328.22 b 82.06
total 3816.00 1;—

 

Results differed when pooled interactions were used for the error
term; see Table 60.3 below.

172

Table 60.3. Analysis of variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness x Communicative Contacts x Supervisory'Style
using Pooled Interactions as the Error Term¢

 

 

 

Source of variation Sum of df Mean Square F pb
Pooled Interaction Squares

A x B 918.78 2 1159.39 7.15 <.05
Pooled Interaction 6h2.3h 10a 68.23

Pooled Interaction 1283.78 8 160.h7

B x C 36.78 2 18.39 0.12 NS
Pooled Interaction 152h.3h 10 l52.h3

 

1
Main effects (A, B, or C) were not examined in this manner, be-
cause of the lack of meaning for these effects in the analysis.

adf a sum of degree of freedom for the constituent interactions
which were pooled.

bBartlett's test: x2 = 5.7L, df = 3 for interactions, p = NS,

Ho accepted.

173

Table 61.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Degree of
Informed Awareness x Occupational Level x Expected

 

 

 

 

Involvement
Level (B) Involvement (C) Degree of Informed Awareness (A)
(3-5) (6-8) (9-11)

(1-8) 0 5 3
Supervisory (5-6) 5 2O 10

$92 1 2 0

1-8 18 29 5
Non-supervisory' S5—6) 26 86 18

(9) 16 13 3

 

Table 61.2. Analysis of Variance for Degree of In-
formed Awareness x Occupational Level x Expected
Involvement

— _
_ 1

A

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df’ Mean Square F‘ pb

A 506.33 2 253.16 29.57 <.01
B 858.22 1 858.22 99.79 ‘<.01
0 739.00 2 369.50 83.16 ‘<.01
A x.B _ 210.78 2 105.39 12.31 <.05
A x 0 221.53 8 55.38 6.87 «<.05
B x 0 56.78 2 28.39 3.32 NS
A x B x C 38.22 b 8.56

total 2622.86 :7—

 

Bartlett's test: x2 - 8.51, df e 3 for interactions, p . NS,
Ho accepted.

Same results obtained when pooled interactions were used as the
error term.

178

There are several points concerning the above set of tables and
their preparation which require explanation.

In all cases where multiple contingency tables of score frequencies
were constructed, and all of these involved an AXBxC factorial design,
a further set of subtables were prepared from which AxB, AxC, and BxC
second-order interactions were calculated.

With respect to the degrees of freedom employed in these analyses
of variance, all first-order interaction df's were determined by the
product of the degrees of freedom for the variables involved in the
particular interaction. Second-order interaction degrees of freedom
were determined by the product of all of the df's for the constituents.
The total degrees of freedom were formed by a summation of the degrees
of freedom associated with all of the main effects, first-order inter-
actions, and second-order interactions.

Attention in the screening process centered upon the interactions,
which in this case provided evidence of a relationship between a major
variable and secondary variables. Since cell entries were frequencies
of obtained scores on the basis of two or three-way breaks, the main
effects, per se (A, B, or C) were merely indicative of the manner in
which scores on one of the three variables distributed themselves in
either of two or three score-categories. Significance of a main effect
as found.in the analyses of variance only meant that there existed an
appreciable difference between the frequency of scores in one category
as opposed to the frequency of scores in another category for a partic-
ular variable. As a result of this interpretation given to the main

effects, they were essentially neglected from further consideration.

This 1
teraci

9 .L
.fect

mi-
ab] 93 8':

-§ ien‘
fE«lef.

1: ~
“were 1

 

 

175

This was the case when pooled interactions were used. These pooled in-
teractions were utilized only to reexamine interactions, but not main
effects.

While Appendix B provides all of the data for the screening of sec-
ondary factors as relevant to the remaining major variables, Table 62
below shows the results of these other screening procedures in terms of
F tests. It will be seen that office, communicative contacts, and ex-
pected involvement were significantly related to two of the other major
variables. None of the conditioner factors were found to be related to
Change in Readiness for Change, however.

Table 62. Summary of Results for Screening Procedures
as applied to other Main variables (Entries = F values)

 

 

Main In- Realiza-
varir Educa- Con- volve- tion of Ex-
ables Tenure Age Office tion tacts Level ment pectations

 

Belief-

Disbelief 1.21 2.25 11.11* 2.16 5.83* 2.88 3.12 0.37
in Commu-

nications

Change in
Readiness 0.68 1.01 1.00 2.37 3.72 2.10 0.97
for Change

Affective v
Response 0.13 1.36 0.59 3.82 0.58 0.27 26.73%”
to the

Computer

 

*Significant at .05 level
**31gn1£1cant at .01 level

176

On the basis of the results of this pragmatic means of identifying
those secondary variables which are related to the dependent and inde-
pendent variables, adjustments were made for these latter variables.
Such adjustments took the form of partialling out the effects of relem
vant secondary variables from the relationship between dependent and
independent variables. This was done by using a multiple classification

analysis of covariance which is discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER NINE
TREATMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter is concerned with an attempt to explore the extent to
which the independent and dependent variables were related as Specified
in the major hypotheses set forth in Chapter Five.

As the last chapter described, a screening procedure yielded four
secondary variables which were significantly related to the major vari-

ables. These were:

Main variable Secondary variable

 

 

Degree of Informed Awareness Communicative Contacts
Expected Involvement
Occupational Level

Belief-Disbelief in Communicative Contacts
Communications Office

Affective Response to the Expected Involvement
Computer

Because uncontrolled fluctuation in any or all of these relevant
intervening factors may'have operated to directly influence the rela~
tionship between dependent and independent variables, some means was
required to either hold the effects of these secondary variables con-
stant, or to partial out their effects altogether. In this instance,
statistical control was being substituted for control which would have
been provided by'a true experimental design. In the naturalistic set~
ting within which the investigation was conducted, no steps could be

taken to obtain the kind of rigorous control thought desirable.

177

178

The most apprOpriate statistical methodology available seemed to be
analysis of covariance. Since, in any one examination of a major hypo-
thesis, at least two secondary variables were involved, a multiple analy-
sis of covariance was called for.

A complete discussion of the analysis of covariance, along with ex-
amples, can be found in the works of Edwards (1950) and Goulden (1939).
Unfortunately, these authors only considered designs providing both rem
plication and equal n's for subgroups. The multiple analyses of covari-
ance in this study, however, involved a design where no replication was
possible, nor were there equal n's for treatments. Because of these
complicating factors, consultationl was sought as to the best way to
proceed with such an analysis.

The results of all multiple analyses of covariance are summarized
in this chapter, although the statistical treatment of the data itself
is found in Appendix C.

There was a total of four analyses of covariance corresponding to
the testing of each one of the major hypotheses. For every analysis,
there were at least five variables involved: the dependent and inde-
pendent variable, and three variables whose effects upon the major vari-
ables were being partialled out.

Cell entries in these analyses were scores on the dependent vari-
able and secondary variables. Treatments were subgroupings on the basis

of score-range categories for the independent variable. In those analyses

 

1. Statistical advice was obtained from Dr. W. D. Baten, Research
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, and statistician
for the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State
University.

179

involving Change in Readiness for Change, pretest scores on the Readi-
ness for Change scale were used in the design to adjust the "Change"
scores for variations on the initial set of Readiness for Change scores.
This had the effect of holding constant initial readiness for change so
that deviations over time in readiness for change were taken from the
same base for all subjects; i.e., respondents were "matched" on initial
Readiness for Change so that deviations reflected actual, relative dif-
ferences between subjects in their increase or decrease in acceptance
of general job-related change.

Table 63 shows the variables used in the analyses of covariance as
well as the treatments based upon independent variable measurements.
The multiple analysis of covariance, in partialling out the effects of
various secondary variables, was in effect making adjustments in the
treatment means for variations in the secondary variable-measures found

empirically related to the major variables.

Table 63.

180

Design of Multiple Analyses of Covariance

 

 

Analysis
(Dependent Variable)

Treatments
(Independent variable)

variables used
for Adjustment

 

I Change in
Readiness
for Change

II Affective
Response

to the Computer

III Change in
Readiness
for Change

IV Affective
‘Response
to the Computer

Degree of Informed
Awareness

6:?
8-11
Same as I

Belief-Disbelief

in Communications
—I‘II—_"'

12:15
16—26

Same as III

Expected Involvement
Communicative Contacts
Occupational Level
Initial Readiness for
Change score

Expected Involvement
Communicative Contacts
Occupational Level

Communicative Contacts
Office

Initial Readiness for
Change score

Expected Involvement
Communicative Contacts
Office

 

Results accruing from a testing of Hypotheses I, II, III, and IV'

(as stated in Chapter 5) by means of multiple analyses of covariance

are presented below in summary form.

hypothesis will be found in Appendix C.

The complete set of data for each

Table 68. Summary of Results from Multiple Analyses
of Covariance used in testing Hypotheses

 

 

 

Hypothesis P value Significance
I 0.88 NS
II 0.31 NS
III 8:62 < .05
IV 1.06 NS

 

 

181

As one can quickly see, only Hypothesis III was confirmed. The
analysis of covariance supported Hypothesis III by providing evidence
that Belief-Disbelief in Communications was in fact related to changes
in Readiness for Change (F = b.62, p = <;.OS). However, the data for
both observed and adjusted treatment means suggested that the relation-
ship may be a complex one. Those employees who disbelieved what they
thought they had been told by management obtained significantly lower
Change in Readiness for Change (RFC) scores; that is, over a period of
time they tended to become less ready to accept general change as a
part of their job. Those obtaining very high scores on the Belief-Dis—
belief scale became, over a six month period, somewhat less ready to
accept change, but not to the extent of the high disbelievers. (Employees
who obtained intermediate scores on the "BD" scale had the highest mean
scores on the Change in Readiness for Change scale. Those employees who
both believed and disbelieved some of what they perceived as having been
told them by management remained essentially unchanged in their recep-
tiveness to change relative to both high believers and high disbelievers.
High believers did, however, obtain slightly higher Change in Readiness
for Change scores than the high disbelievers.

Whereas the analysis of covariance examined the possibility of a
relationship between belief or disbelief in company communications and
changes in one's readiness to accept change when adjustments were made
for relevant secondary variables, a straightforward analysis of variance
might throw light upon the effectiveness of the multiple analysis of co-
variance. If there is a difference in findings between the analyses of

covariance and variance, then it is presumed that the covariance approach

182

revealed a ”purer” estimation of the actual relationship obtaining be-
tween the independent and dependent variables. A finding of no differ-
ence would suggest that the selected secondary variables did neither
contribute to, or artificially mask, the actual relationship between
the main variables. Such an analysis was done, using four treatments
based upon "ED" scores. The results are reported in Table 65.

Table 65. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Commications and Change in Readiness for Change

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

 

Between 372.28 3 12h.09 3.91. 4. 01
Within 7026.73 223 31.51
Total 7399.01 226

 

Essentially, the same results were secured, although the obtained
difference reached a higher level of significance (p - ‘.Ol). Figure

I; shows a graphic representation of the relationship between scores on

the two variable measures.

183

°———-0 Total (NH227)

.___.__-.Supervisors(N=h6)

w r' ------ -*N0n-Supervisors
(N-181)

23 fi-
22+?
21-»
ZOjr
19J
18-
174
lédp

15-.

Tfir

T

 

Ave. Change in Readiness

for Change Scores

1 1 1 l

119 10113 Ihlié 17126

Disbelief Belief

 

Belief-Disbelief in Communications Score Groups
Fig. h. Relationship between ”ED” scores and average
Change in Readiness for Change scores for total group
and subgroups.

The rather striking divergence of the supervisory subgroup from
the total and now-supervisory"profiles"I is very probably a fluctuation
arising from the small n's (5, 10, 10, and 21 respectively) available
for determining the average Change in Readiness for Change scores. The
same general finding held for the total group and non-supervisory sub-
group‘with respect to the relationship between the two variables. Some
evidence to support the contention that the relationship was linear

came from the calculation of an eta coefficient (correlation ratio)

18h

2 This test (x2 e 6.06, df = 11, p =

and chi-square test of linearity.
NS, where 7' .17) suggested that the complete regression of Change in
Readiness for Change scores on Belief-Disbelief scores was in fact linear.
Two further steps were taken on the basis 0f the established re—
lationship between belief-disbelief and alterations in one's readiness
to accept changes. If scores on the "ED" scale actually predict changes
in readiness to accept change to the extent that disbelief and belief in
communications were associated with decreased readiness to accept change,
and intermediate scores were associated with essentially no change in
readiness to accept change, then "BD" scores would more likely be re-
lated to posttest "RFC" scores than to pretest "RFC" scores. Tables 66
and 67 suggest that more confidence can be placed in "ED" scores being
related to posttest "RFC" scores than to pretest "RFC" scores.

Table 66. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications and Pretest Scores on Readiness for Change

 

 

vi

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Between lh3.15 2 71.58 1.7h NS
Within 9237.76 32g hl.2h

Total 9380.91

 

See the formulae provided in Appendix D.

185

Table 67. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications and Posttest Scores on Readiness for Change

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Between 358.27 2 179.111 11.99 < .01
Within 80h8.32 22h

Total 8h06.59 226

 

Below are the results of analyses of variance for both Hypotheses
I and II.

Table 68. Analysis of Variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness and Change in Readiness for Change

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

 

 

Between 7.82 2 3.91 0.12 NS
'Within 6658.11 g1; 31.56 .
Total 6665.93 213

.-

Table 69. Analysis of variance for Degree of Informed
Awareness and Affective ReSponse t0 the Computer

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

 

Between 10.36 2 5.18 1.20 NS
‘Within 882.35 125 8.32
Total 852.71 197

 

186

These results, coupled with the findings from the multiple analyses
of covariance, for Hypotheses I and II suggest strongly that the degree
to which an employee was factually informed about the impending change-
over had nothing to do with either immediate and Specific response to
the computer, or with subsequent and slowly evolving alterations in
general reSponse to change as an inherent job component. Neither of
these two kinds of response to technological change could be predicted
on the basis of scores on the Degree of Informed Awareness scale. Ap-
parently, knowledge about a change, at least in this instance, did not
condition or influence affective responses toward the change-agent it-
self, nor were differential amounts of factual knowledge held by em-
ployees about a change related to an increase or decrease in their gen-
eral readiness to accept or resist the dynamic quality of work. In the
latter instance the factual knowledge disseminated to employees was
primarily favorable and Optimistic in tone. It was earlier reasoned
that those knowledgeable about the change would have been influenced in
a positive way by such information, and consequently would have become
generally more accepting and ready for change in the job. This was not
born out by the results of the study.

An analysis of variance for Hypothesis IV is presented below. The
multiple analysis of covariance had failed to support the hypothesis
that Belief-Disbelief in Comunications was positively related to index

scores on Affective Response to the Computer (F - 1.06, p - >.05).

187

Table 70. Analysis of Variance for Belief-Disbelief “in
Communications and Affective Response to the Computer

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

 

 

Between 19. bl 3 16. 147 h.12 <. 01
Within 823. 76 322 3. 99

 

The data in Table 70 appear to suggest that in a much less rigor-
ously controlled setting, from a statistical point of view, belief or
disbelief in comunications about the change might be positively related
to specific response of an affective nature toward the computer. H0' -
ever, in comparing this result with that found in the analysis of co-
variance, the proper interpretation would seem to suggest otherwise.
When the relevant secondary variables (expected involvement, office, and
frequency of contacts with sources of information) were permitted to
fluctuate uncontrolled, they interacted with the main variables in such
fashion as to give rise to or enhance the measured estimate of relation-
ship between "ED” scores and response to the computer. In this context
it would appear, then, that such intervening factors were quite impor-
tant contributors to any relationship obtained between these two main
variables.

The complete regression of Affective Response to the Cmnputer scores
on "ED" scores was found to be linear (7- .08; test of linearity : x2 =
7.15, or :- 10, p - NS).

188

Figure 5 below provides graphic information about the relationship
between the main variables for Hypothesis IV for the total response p0p-
ulation and for subgroups based upon four score-range categories on the

"BD" scale.

1 Total (N=2lO)

_ _ _. Supervisors (N=h2)

 

 

 

 

.. ....... . Non-Supervisors (N=l68)

O

.p

o 8"—

0)

§..

000) .—

ss 7“

6:2

.2:

:8 6‘7

«28

“*8

«O s—Ih—

as

“‘9 I L L l
T I l |
1-9 10-13 lh-l6 17-26

Disbelief Belief

Belief-Disbelief in Communications Score Groups

Fig. 5. Relationship between "ED" scores and
average Affective Response tothe Computer index
scores;

‘4;

189

For the total group and non-supervisory subgroup, the relationship
between belief-disbelief and response to the computer was fairly linear.
The discrepancy shown by the supervisory subgroup was probably a function
of the instability in means arising from small group n's (h, 9, 10, and
19 respectivehy). It would be incongruous, indeed, for those who were
most extreme in their disbelief of what they had been told to manifest
the strongest liking for the computer as compared to other subgroupings
on the Belief-Disbelief scale.

Intercorrelations for main variables
In order to answer the question, to what extent were the main vari~
able measures interrelated?, the following table of intercorrelations

was prepared.

Table 71. Intercorrelationsl between the Major Experimental Variables

 

 

 

Variable Belief-Disbelief Change in Affective Response
in Communications Readiness to the Computer
for Change
Degree of Informed
Awareness +.35** +.02 -.15*
Belief-Disbelief U
in Communications +.03 -.21**

Change in Readiness
for Change ‘ +.ll

 

lPearson product-moment correlations
*Significant at .05 level

**Significant at .01 level

190

These intercorrelations were calculated on the basis of total N's

varying in size from 197 to 227. All total scale score distributions
on the variables were essentially normal.

As one can see, the table of intercorrelations presents data which
to some degree is at variance with earlier findings. For example, a
just-significant negative relationship (r - -.15, p - <:.OS, N - 197)
'was found between Degree of Informed Awareness and Affective Response
to the Computer. This relationship, which was in the expected direction,
had not been found in either the multiple analysis of covariance or in
the analysis of variance for these two variables. Additionally, a non-
significant Pearson r(+.03) was obtained between "ED" scores and Change
in Readiness for Change. This was in contradistinction to the findings
of both the multiple analysis of covariance and analysis of variance.

A significant r(-.21) was obtained between the "ED" scale scores and
Affective Response to the Computer. This latter relationship was in
agreement with the analysis of variance (see Table 70), but at odds with
the finding from the multiple analysis of covariance.

By way of explanation, it seems plausible that we have here what
amounts to further evidence that findings are to a large degree a func-
tion of the courseness or refinement of statistical technique in terms
of the control of "extraneous" factors as they impinge upon the inter-
relation between.main variables. The Pearson r's were calculated on the
basis of an uncontrolled examination of the relationships, whereas the
multiple analyses of covariance were based upon the controlled investi~
gation of the relationships where the influence of relevant conditioner
variables was eliminated. Such a difference may mean that in one in-

 

191

stance secondary variables, allowed to vary without control, assisted
in creating a significant relationship between level of informed aware-
ness and response to the computer (r - -.15). This same difference may
also mean that in the case of belief-disbelief in communications and
changes in readiness for change (r - +.03), relevant intervening vari‘
ables were interacting with the major variables in such fashion so as
to mask the "true” relationship between the main variables as uncovered
by the multiple analysis of covariance.

Some of the discrepancy may be associated with the differences in
the formation of subgroups. In the analyses of variance and covariance,
there were either two or three subgroups used based upon score intervals
of from 2 to 11 score points. In the correlations, however, there were
as many groups as there were discrete score values for the variable
measures.

There is the problem of the correlation of homogeneous or heter-
0geneous groups of subsamples. Both figures h and 5 stongly suggest
that the subgroups made up of supervisory personnel was rather divergent
from the non-supervisory subgroups. This was thought to be a result of
the small n's involved. Regardless of the cause, it appears as if the
subsamples (supervisors and non-supervisors) represent heterogeneous
groups. As such, depending upon within and between correlations for
the subsamples, and upon the respective means on X and Y for the sub-
samples, the composite total group correlation may be excessively high
or low.

The next chapter will discuss in some detail the implications of

the findings as-reported here, as well as present some conclusions
arising from them.

CHAPTER TEN
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The contents in this final chapter distribute themselves generally
into four areas: a summary and discussion of the results, conclusions
drawn from the study, implications for future investigations, method-
ology, and suggestions for the implementation of change programs.

The results permit discussion from two frames of reference, hypo-
thesis-testing and the efficacy of the statistical techniques utilized.
While the results of testing hypotheses were presented in earlier chap-
ters, they have yet to be viewed as an aggregate.

In order to place the results in some perspective, let us address

ourselves to the original questions posed in the Introduction.

Main Variable Relationships

Two basic questions had been asked as reflected in the four major
hypotheses I, II, III, and IV. The first question was, does the act of
being factually informed about a change bear some direct relationship to
either immediate or subsequent reSponse to change? In the study, of
course, two distinct kinds of reSponse to change were examined. The re-
sults (see table 61;) indicated that such a question, at least based upon
this research, had to be answered in the negative. Those employees who
were knowledgeable about the upcoming installation of the computer, as

mediated through formal management statements, did not manifest any

192

193

greater liking or dislike for the computer and its expected effects than
did those who were poorly informed about the impending change, nor did

the better informed workers alter over time in their readiness to accept
general job-associated changes to a degree different from the unknowledge~
able employees. Varying responses to change, then, could not be differw
entiated on the basis of the degree of informed awareness. .

Knowledge, per se, did not seem to be related to an attitude about
the Object of that knowledge. Factual information in and of itself con-
tributed little or nothing to the etiology of particular change attitudes.
It is suggested that the particular change attitudes under examination
were ones whiCh just were not related to the variable, Degree of Informed
Awareness. Perhaps other indices of response to change would be influe
enced by the degree of knowledge held about the change. Another possi-
bility is that the information program as implemented did not represent
sufficiently influential communications in the sense that they did not
seem to have an effect upon attitudes toward change as measured.

One could speculate that perhaps specific items in the "Degree-In—
formed" scale, reflecting potentially crucial kinds of information, might
individually bear a relationship to responses to change. The differential
prediction of responses to change based upon such a conception would re-
quire each item in the scale to be weighted according to its actual cor~
relation with a specified attitude-toward-change measure. In this sense
the set of information items would be treated like a battery of tests,
where weights assigned to each item would serve to maximize the correla~
tion of the total "Degree-Informed" scale with a.measure of response to

change.

19h

A communications program may well function much in the same way as
does pay in relation to job satisfaction (Herzberg, et. al., 1957); i.e.,
it serves as a factor in contributing to negative attitudes, but is not
effective in creating positive attitudes. To this degree, the presence
or lack of a communications program may contribute differentially to an
. attitude about the Object of the communications. That is, an information
program does not contribute substantially to the creation of positive re-
actions to the change, but if the program were missing altogether, or if
it were impr0perly handled, it might contribute significantly to the de—
ve10pment of negative response to the change.

The question arises, does the act of being informed have an effect
upon anything? subjects did differ considerably in the extent to which
they were informed, as measured by the Degree of Informed Awareness scale.
These differences in turn were found to be related to belief-disbelief in
communications, and were associated with differences in such factors as
communicative interaction and perceived location within the communications
structure of the company.

In retrospect, to have Optimized the opportunity for a relationship
to appear between the Degree of Informed Awareness and responses to change,
it would have been advantageous to have had a pre-measure of attitudes toward
change prior to the start of the company‘s information program. Such a
measure could have been compared to response to change measures obtained
after the information program had been concluded (equivalent to our pre-
test administration). Shifts or changes in response to change could then
be examined in light of variations in.Degree of Informed Awareness. In

this instance, aoy'shift in attitude toward change would have a greater

19S

probability of actually being associated with the information program.

The second question'was whether a specified response to the communi-
cations themselves would bear some relationship to responses to change.
The results suggested that an affective reaction to formal communications
(in terms of belief-disbelief in individual statements) was related to
changes in readiness for change. The nature of the relationship between
Belief-Disbelief in Communications and Change in Readiness for Change sug-
gested that resistance to change could be predicted from the ”ED" scores,
but perhaps not ready acceptance of change. High disbelief of what one
was thought to have been told was related with a relative decrease in
readiness to accept change, while high belief in what one was told did
not necessarily lead to an increase in readiness for change as a general-
ized feature of the job. In fact, it was very likely to be associated
with a decrease in "RFC" scores over time.

It was interesting to note that the employees who were intermediate
in their belief of what they were told, being neither high believers or
high disbelievers, were the ones to shift the least in their attitudes
about accepting change in the job. This "ambivalent" subgroup, which ap-
parently reacted selectively to company pronouncements, were the ones who
maintained a fairly constant attitude toward acceptance of general change
in their jobs relative to either the high believer or high disbeliever sub~
groups. This intermediate group perhaps represented a sampling of a larger
population of persons who typically'react with.moderation, manifesting
their presence by stability in reacting to the world about them - in this

instance, to a set of attitude items directly and to change indirectly;

196

'We have as yet to account for the fact that both the high belief and
high disbelief subgroups decreased in their general acceptance of change
over time. Those who were high disbelievers are likely to be rejecting,
apprehensive, resistant, and dogmatic types of individuals. These persons
are likely to be disbelieving of a great deal, including the premise that
the computer was highly efficient and would not have harmful consequences
for employees. Those who were high believers, however, presented (hypo-
thetically) another picture. These persons are perhaps what might be
termed "high-assimilators" - they readily accepted practically anything
the company told them. Persons in such a group are more likely to see
things turn out differently from the way they had been led to believe.
This disillusionment might lead to a decrease in their willingness to
accept changes at a later date. Preparatory communications which build
up Optimistic opinions might have the effect, if they were believed, of
making peOple more resistant to subsequent changes, if all the favorable
expectations were not met and fulfilled.

A comparison of the relationship between."BD" scores and both the
pretest and posttest Readiness for Change scale scores revealed the same
general sort of relationship between high believer, high disbeliever, and
intermediate subgroups. "ED” scores were significantly (p =<.01) related
to the posttest "RFC" scores, but not to the pretest "RFC" scores. It
should be mentioned that the high belief group obtained somewhat higher
scores on the "RFC" scale than did the high disbelief subgroup.

Belief in communications was related with lower (like) scores on the
Affective Response to the Computer index, while disbelief in communica-

tions was related to higher (dislike) scores on the same index. Employees

197

believing what they thought they were told were more positive in their
reaction to the computer and its expected effects than were workers who
did not believe what they thought they'had been told by the company. It
will be recalled, however, that this relationship was not statistically
significant for a multiple analysis of covariance, but was significant
when a straight analysis of variance was performed. This suggested that
perhaps in the latter analysis, uncontrolled variations in expected in~
volvement, contacts with communications, and/or location may have interm
acted with the main variables in such a way as to enhance and strengthen
an otherwise weak relationship between belief-disbelief and reactions of
like or dislike toward the computer.

‘When both sets of data were taken together, (see Figures h and 5)
they presented an apparent inconsistency; The high-belief group in one
case registered a slight decrease in readiness to accept job changes, and
in another instance liking for the computer and its effects. This reprem
sented a "betweenwanalyses" kind of examination. 'Within each analysis
the high-belief group, in comparison to the high-disbelief subgroup, o —
tained a difference in score on the response to change measures in the
expected directions.

The "between-analyses" inconsistency, however, may be, to a great
extent, a function of differences between the two kinds of response to
change. The fact that change in Readiness for Change was correlated with
Affective Response to the Computer to the extent of .11 suggested that
each tapped a fairly independent facet of response to change. Whatever

configuration of factors was responsible for a pretest attitude of liking

198

of the computer and its effects was apparently not the same as the one
responsible for a change or shift in readiness for change, or at the very'
least the factors operated differentLy. .Apparently'a group (the high-
believers) can have an initially positive response to a particular object
of change (or change-agent), and yet over time display some decrease in
their willingness to accept changes as an inherent characteristic of the
job. It is hypothesized that the high-believers, since they expressed
confidence in management's pronouncements about the change, would naturally
perceive the change in a favorable light. At the same time the high-be-
lievers were thought to be a group which perhaps tended typically to be-
lieve too much, and who over time did not see all of their expectations
materialize, hence responding by decreased readiness to accept change as
a part of the job.

It should be mentioned that the high-disbelief subgroup, in comparing
"ED” scores for the two kinds of response to change, were consistent in
their reSponses. This particular subgroup had the lowest mean score on
the Change in Readiness for Change scale as well as the highest mean score
on the Affective Response to the Computer index. The high-disbelievers
not only decreased in their readiness for change over time, but also be-
fore the change took place, they did not like the computer and its eXpected
effects as much as the other subgroups.
Secondary variable Relationships

'With reapect to an empirical exploration of the relevancy of a set
of seven secondary variables selected on an a priori basis, four were
found significantly related to dependent and independent variables. Com-

municative contacts, expected involvement, and occupational level were all

199

related to the Degree of Informed Awareness in the hypothesized directions
(see Chapter Five). Both office and communicative contacts were related
to Belief-Disbelief in Communications, and expected involvement was related
to Affective response to the Computer. These were all in the hypothesized
directions.

A somewhat surprising finding was that none of the seven secondary
factors were related significantly with Changes in Readiness for Change.
It appears possible that none of these particular factors acted in such
a way as to condition the shift in readiness to accept or reject change
as part of the job. Parenthetically, it might be added that investiga-
tions by Trumbo (1958) and Faunce (1960) had found a significant relation-
ship between levels of education and measures on the Readiness for Change
scale. No relationship was obtained by this investigator when an associ-
ation was examined between Change in Readiness for Change and a posttest
index of involvement in the changeover (see item II-hS in the posttest
questionnaire,.Appendix F).

Another rather surprising result, or lack of result, was the fact
that neither age, tenure, nor education were found to be significantly'
related to any of the main experimental variables as was originally hypo-
thesized. Apparently these personal-data variables had no effect on the
dependent or independent variables. Another investigator1 had failed to
isolate a relationship between either age or tenure and Readiness for
Change.

 

1. From a personal correspondence with D. A. Trumbo, Kansas State
University, who was preparing an article for publication based
upon a portion of his doctoral dissertation.

1.

200

To summarize the major findings with regards to the intervening or

secondary variables, it was found that employees who were relatively well
informed about the impending changeover to the computer were character-
ized from the poorly informed workers in the following ways. They had
had a greater frequency of contacts with sources of information, they
functioned generally in a supervisory capacity, and were expecting to be
personally involved in the changeover.

Those who believed what they were told by management, as Opposed to
those who disbelieved what they were told, were likely to be employees
from the home office rather than the branch, and were also likely to have
had a greater number of contacts with sources of information about the
change.

Employees who responded favorably to the computer and its expected
effects, by both liking what they expected to occur and the fact that a
computer was to be installed, were also the ones who thought that they

would be personally'affected in some way by the use of the computer.

Construct validation Relationships

Another category of findings involved the relationships discovered
while attempting to substantiate the logical or construct validity of the
major variables.

It was found, for example, that those who were knowledgeable about
the impending change interacted with others in terms of discussing the
issue to a greater extent than did those who were not as knowledgeable.
Additionally, those who were well informed perceived themselves as cen-

trally located within the company communications network, were satisfied

201

with communications, and responded to the questionnaire with significantly

fewer "don't-know" responses.

Employees who believed most or all of what they thought they were
told were less likely to be dogmatic personality types, were generally
satisfied with their jobs, and expressed confidence in both the company
and supervision in terms of looking after the best interests of the em-
ployee.

The dependent variable, Affective Response to the Computer, was
found to be associated significantly'with specific job satisfaction (based
on satisfaction with fourteen job factors) in a direction suggesting that
insurance workers who liked the idea of a computer being installed and its
attendant effects were satisfied with specific aspects of their jobs.
Likewise, those expressing positive attitudes toward the computer liked
the idea that maChines cause jobs to be done differently, liked the per-
ceived fact that the rate of change in the world was rapid, and thought
that the rate of technological change should be more rapid than it was.
The group liking the computer, as Opposed to those disliking it believed
that, in retrospect, they adjusted very quickly to the changeover. The
former group also expressed a perceived worthwhileness and importance of

themselves and their jobs.

Statistical Methodology

.Another and final, although certainly of major relative importance,
set of results was concerned with the statistical methodology used in the
study. These results are more properly in the form of an evaluative state-

ment regarding their efficacy in uncovering relationships and in accomp-

.L

202

lishing a degree of statistical control over relevant secondary factors.

The technique used to screen out the relevant conditioner variables
from among the initially chosen factors was of questionable use. It,
first of all, is admittedly not as powerful a device as a regular analy-
sis of variance F test in detecting effects.2 Additional to this, how-
ever, is the economy involved. The method requires quite a bit of time,
although one needs to remember that two secondary variables could be ex-
amined with any one of the main variables simultaneously. A total of
four such analyses were required for any one major variable. A number
of chi-square tests would have been required to be equivalent to the four
analyses of variance for each main variable. It is an unanswered question
whether the chi-square method would have required more or less time than
that required by the analyses of variance.

There is much to recommend the multiple analysis of covariance,
however. The usefulness of this particular method appeared to be rela-
tively clear-out. In a naturalistic setting where a rigorous experimental
design with its attendant control is not attainable, the multiple analysis
of covariance was able to exert a statistical form of control over the
empirically relevant secondary factors. As an example of the comparative
difference such an analysis can make, the reader will recall the results
pertaining to Belief-Disbelief in Comunications and Change in Readiness
for Change. In this case, the multiple analysis of covariance found an
association between the two variables which was significant at the .05
level, whereas an analysis of variance found the same association signi-

fican+a at the .01‘ level. ‘In another example, there” was no significant

 

2. For a discussion of this, see McNemar (1957).

203

relationship found between Belief-Disbelief in Communications and Affec-
tive Response to the Computer via the multiple classification analysis of
covariance. However, when an analysis of variance was performed, the re-
lationshipewas found to be significant at the .01 level of confidence.

Both examples tend to suggest that the multiple anatysis of covari-
ance is more stringent in its isolation of relationships which would be
termed significant. This attribute is presumed to reflect the applica-
tion of limitations by such an analysis through the partialling out of
relevant or extraneous factor-effects which act to either mask or enhance
any'”true" relationship obtaining between the dependent and independent
variables. The method, once one becomes familiar with it, is fairly
straightforward. It does entail extended computation time which would
readily be reduced if such an analysis, including the solving of sets of
simultaneous equations to determine regression weights, could be programmed
for computer processing. Such analyses could then be carried out at a
much increased rate for research data obtained from naturalistic settings.

From the examples given above, it can be seen that if we had settled
upon only the results accruing from an analysis of variance, the research
findings would have been somewhat different than those predicated upon
multiple analysis of covariance results. This by itself argues for use
of the more sophisticated methodology.

It would appear, from the above discussions, that this study has
met the goals as originally set forward. The interaction of empiri-
cally determined secondary variables with both employee responses to
change and with the independent variables was explored. Control was

subsequently exercised for such intervening factors. ‘we have assembled a

 

20h

general picture of the way in which employee knowledge about changes,
and reactions to communications conveying this knowledge, were related
to change attitudes. Factors which seemed to concomitantly vary with
differential reSponse to change and with varying degrees of knowledge
and reSponse to communications were also examined. This took the form
of a pattern or constellation of variables interwoven in relationship
with the main variables. The investigation has confirmed or rejected a
number of specific hypotheses as set forth in Chapter 5.

In reference to the findings, it should be stressed that they are
tentative from the standpoint of generalizing to other industries or pop-
ulations. Some systematic replication in other experimental sites would
be required as well as repetition in the presence of other combinations
of variables to ascertain how far these initially found relationships

can be generalized.

Implications

 

There would seem to be some implications in this study with respect
to the implementation of a change program. It is perhaps predominantly
a waste of time merely informing employees about prOposed changes if the
object is primarily'to promote positive expectancies and attitudes to-
wards the change. Being informed may surely contribute to more efficient
job performance, but it doesn't seem to signify much in the area of at-
titude modification, at least in this instance.

A more fruitful approach to the creation of positive attitudes con-
cerning a specific change may well lie in the area of promoting general

employee trust and confidence in the company, its pronouncements, and in

205

the way it implements changes. This was not accomplished through this
communications program, unfortunately. In order to do this, the company
should behave in such a manner so as to create an image, through action,
whereby the employee views his cornpany in terms of its sincere efforts to
be fair and look after the best interests of the employees.

The evidence accumulated in this study suggested a complex relation»
ship between belief or disbelief in what the company said about a change
and consequent resistance to or acceptance of change. Those extreme in
either belief or disbelief were more likely to manifest over time a de-
crease in readiness to accept generalized change in the job. Those who
exercised some discrimination in terms of both believing and disbelieving
some of what they were told, indicated no particular shift in their read-
iness for change. Measures on the "BD" scale may have some potential as
a predictor of subsequent resistance to change, but it is highly doubtful
as a predictor of temporally contiguous or simultaneously Specific reac~'
tions to a change.

It would be interesting to further examine high, intermedi ate, and
low belief subsamples in an effort to further differentially characterize
them in terms of specific expectations about changes and their subsequent
realization, personality factors, and on other change attitudes. From the
data on validation it seaned apparent that Belief-Disbelief inCommunicam
tions is one facet of a? general factor of "Job confidence.”

Lastly, the more frequent use of multiple analyses of covariance in
industrial psychological and sociological research would seem to be a

wise course to pursue for the many reasons cited in the study.

206

In this investigation, then, an attempt was made to eXplore parti-
cular kinds of relationships in a setting of change with particular emphaw
sis on the effects of intraorganizational communications and reSponse to
these communications upon both immediate and subsequent attitudes towards

change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baumgartel, H. An analysis of the validity of perceived change
measures. Amer. Psychologist, 195b, 9, 328.

Bevalas, A., & Barrett, D. An experimental approach to organizational
communication. Personnel, 1951, 27, 366-371.

Campbell, D. T. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in
social settings. Psychol. Bull., 1957, SD, 297-312.

Cattell, R. B. A need for alertness to multivariate experimental
findings in integrative surveys. Psychol. Bull., 19 8, 55,

253-256. ‘

Coch, L. & French, J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change. In S.
D. Hoslett (ed.), flumgn,Fgctors in_Management. New Yerk: Harper
& Bros, 1951. Pp. 2&2—268.

Cochran, W. G. Analysis of covariance: its nature and uses.
Biometrics, 1957, 13, 261-281.

Cooper, S. D. An outline of communication practice. Personnel, 1953,

29, 1122-1430.

Craig, H. F. Administering'a conversion to electronic accounting.
Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1§351

Cronbach, L. J. Essentials 2; psychological testing. New York:
Harper & Bros, 1959.

 

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. Construct validity in psychological
teStSo P§20h010 Bull., 1955’ 52, 281'fl3020

Dahle, T. An objective and comparative study of five methods of
transmitting information to business and industrial employees.
g§peech Monograph, 19Sh, 21, 21-28.

Dahlstram, E. Information P5 arbetsplatsen. Studiefdrbundet
norigslis och samhalle. Stockholm, Sweden: P. A. Nerstedt
& sonar, i536.

 

Davis, K. A method of studying communication patterns in organizations.
Personnel ngchol., 1953, 6, 301-312.

20?

208

Doob, L. w. The behavior of attitudes. Psychol. 3233., 1957, Sh,

 

135-156.
DuBois, P. H. Multivariate correlational analysis. New York: Harper
8t Bros, 1957.

 

Edwards, A. L. Statistical anal sis for students in psychology and
education. New York: Rine & Co., l9h6.

 

 

Edwards, A. L. Experimental desi ‘in psychological research.
New York: Rinehart & Co., 1950

Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Rlnehart E 00., I955.—

 

Edwards, A. L. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York:
Appleton-Centurthrofts, Inc., 1957.

 

Ewing, D. W. The automatic factory; Harvard Business 223., 1951,
152, 15-26.

Faunce, W. A. Automation and the automobile worker. Social Problems,

1958, 6 (l). (‘)

Faunce,'W. A. Automation in the automobile industry: some conse-
quences for in-plant social structure. Amer. 223' 351., 1958,

214(k). (b)

Faunce, W’. A. The automobile industry: a case study in automation.
In H. B. Jacobson & J. S. Roucek (Ed.), Automation and society.
New York: Philosophical Library, 1959. Ch. h.

 

Faunce, W} A. Social stratification and attitude toward change in
job content. Social Forces, 1960, 39, 1hO-lh8.

Fine, B. J. Conclusion-drawing, communicator credibility, and anxiety
as factors in Opinion change. .J. abnorm. 32g. ngchol., 1957, 5D,
369-37 0

Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. Leadership_ and super-

vision in indust Columbus, Ohio: Bureau 0 Educational Research,
URIB'BtZte Univ., 1955

French, J. R. P. Experiments in field settings. In L. Festinger &
D. Katz (ed. ), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New
Yerk: The Dryden Press, I955. ‘P5'982135.

Funk, H. B., & Becker, R. C. Measuring the effectiveness of indus-
trial communications. Personnel, 1952, 29, 237-2h0.

 

209

 

Garrett, H. E. Statistics in holo £12 education. New York:
Longmans, Green, & Con-1.9%.

Goulden, C. H. Methods 2!: statistical analysi . New York: John
Wiley 8: Sons, 1939.

 

Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics _in psypholog 2'29. education.
New York: McCraw—Hm, 1950.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1951;. —""""

 

 

Hairs, M. Psflholog _ip management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Halsbury, E. Technical and “human problems of the automatic factory.
The automatic facto - what does it mean? London: The
Institution 0 uction EEgIneer's': Report on conference
held at Margate, June 16.19, 1955. Pp.23-28.

Harder, D. 8., & David, D. J. Problems of the automatic factory.
Automotive Industry, Apr. 15, 1953, 1l0-122.

Hardin, E. Computer automation, work environment, and employee
satisfaction: a case study. Industrial a_n_d Labor Relations
3.9.1..) 1960, 13, 560-5670 (8') .

Hardin, E. The reactions of employees to office automation. Monthly
Labor 3231., 1960, 83, 925-932. (b)

Hardin, E., & Hershey, G. L. Accuracy of employee reports on changes
in pay. :1. appl. Psychol., 1960, M, 269-275 (c).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, E., Peterson, R. 0., & Capwell, Dora F., J92
attitudes: 5 review of research and Opinion. Pittsburgh:
PschoI. Service of PTttsEurgh, 1957.

Hovland, C. I. Changes in attitude through communication. J. abnorm.
322' ngchol., 1951, 146, 14214-1437.

Hovland, C. I. Reconciling conflicting results derived from experi-
mental and survey studies of attitude change. Amer. Ps cholc ist,
1959, 11;, 53-17.

Hovland, G. I., Harvey, 0. V., 8: Sherif, M. Assimilation and contrast
effects. in reactions to comunicaticn. and attitude change. _J.

. ‘bnome 220-0 P22211014, 1957, 55, 2hh~2520

Hovland, C. I. , & Weiss, 'W. The influence of source credibility on
comurgication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1952 , 15 ,
635-6 0.

210

Hoyt, C. J. A comparison of two methods of instruction in beginning
drawing. J;_£§p; Educ., 1952, 20, 265-279.

Hyman, H. Survey design 229 analysis. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press,
1955.

Jacobson, E. H. & Seashore, S. E. Communication practices in complex
organizations. J; social Issues, 1951, 7, 28-b0.

Jacobson, E. H.,Trumbo, D., Cheek, 0., & Nangle, J. Employee attitudes
toward technological change in a medium sized insurance company.

g, appl. Psychol., 1959, b3, 3b9-35b.

Janis, I. L. & Feshback, S. Effects of fear-arousing communications.
J; abnorm. soc. Psyghol., 1953, b8, 78-92.

Johnson, P. 0. Statistical methods in research. New York: Prentice
Hall, 19b9.

 

Johnson, P. 0., & Tsao, F. Factorial design and covariance in the study
of individual educational deve10pment. ngchometrika, l9h5, 10,
133-162 e

Katona, G. Attitude change: instability of response and acquisition of
experience. Psyghol. Monogr., 1958, 72, No. 10.

Katz, D. Field Studies. In L. Festinger &,D. Katz (Ed.), Research
methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: The Dryden Press,

1953. Pp. 98-135.

Killingsworth, C. C. Automation in manufacturing. LIRC Re rint Series,
1958-1959, Mich. State Univ. publication, 1959, 53, No. 15.

Levine, J., & Butler, J. Lecture ve group decision in changing behavior.

Lieberman, S. The effects of changes in roles on the attitudes of role
occupants. Human Relations, 1956, 9, 385.

Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch.
Psyghol., N Y., 1932, No. lbO.

McClean, A. An industrial psychiatrist looks at employee communications.
Personnel Journal, 1955, 33, 3h0-3h3.

McGinnies, E., & Altman, I. Discussion as a function of attitudes and
content of a persuasive communication. J: eppl. Psyghol., 1959,

b3, 53-59.

McNemar, Q.h Opinion-attitude methodology; Peyghcl. Bull., 19h6, h3,
289-37 e

211

McNemar, Q. On Wilson's distribution - free test of analysis of vari-
ance hypotheses. Psyghol. Bull., 1957, 5b, 361-362.

Mahoney, T. A. How management communicates with employees. Personnel,
195b, 31, lO9-1lh.

Mann, F. C. The impact of electronic accounting equipment on the white
collar worker. Comments made as a panel member on "Automation in
the Office” at the society.for appl. Anthropology conference on
Man and automation. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. of Mich. Institute for
SOEiET—Research,v1955.

 

Mann, F. C., & Hoffman, L. R. Automation and Eh: worker. New York:
Henry Holt & Co., 1960.

 

Mellinger, G. D. Interpersonal trust as a factor in communication.
J; abnorm. soc. Psyghol., 1956, 52, 30b-309.

Meredith, c. P. The flow of information. Occupational Psyghol., 1955,
29, 99—103.

 

Morse, N. C., & Reimer, S. The experimental change of a major organi-
zation variable. J; abnorm. soc. Psyghol., 1956, 52, 120.

Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol.
RQVe ’ 1953, 60’ 393-h0b0

New views on automation. Papers submitted to the subcommittee on
automation and energy resources, Joint economic committee, Congress
Of the U.S. Washington, D.C.: U.S. ch't. Printing Office, 1960.
Pp 0 119-75 0

Nilsen, T. R. The communications survey: a study of communication
problems in three Office and factory units. Speech.Monogr., 195b,
21, 153-15h.

0diorne, G. S. An application of the communication audit. Personnel

Osborn, R. F. G. E. and univac: harnessing the high speed computer.
Harvard Business Rev., l95h, 32, 99-107.

Perry, D., &.Mahonex,T. A. In-plant communications and employee morale.
Personnel Psyghol., 1955, 8, 339-3h6.

Ridenour, L. N. The role of the computer. Scientific American, 1952,
187, 116-130.

 

Robinson, M. Attitude change as a function of communication intensity
and audience predisposition: an experimental study of emotional
appeals. Doctoral dissertatibn, N.Y.U., l95h. Dissertation Abstr.,
15, Part 1, 1955.

212

Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker.
Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1939.

 

Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism: an alternative to the
authoritarian personality. Psychol. Monogru,1956, 70, No. h25.

Ronken, H. 0. Communication in the work group. Harvard Business Rev.,
1951, 29, 108-11h.

Scott, W; A. Attitude change through reward of verbal behavior. g;
abnome SOCe PS he, 1957, SS, 72"?Se

 

Sheffield, F. D. Comment on a distribution-free factorial-design
analysis. Psyghol. Bull., 1957, St, u2o-628.

Shepherd, C., & Weschler, I. R. The relation between three interpersonal
variables and communication effectiveness: a pilot study. Reprint
No. h9, Institute of Industrial Relations, U.C.L.A., 1955, Pp.103-
110.

Smith, H. F. A multivariate analysis of covariance. Biometrics, 1958,
1b, 107-127.

Stagner, R., Flebbe, D. R., & Wood, E. V. 'Working on the railroad: a
study of job satisfaction. Personnel Ps chol., 1952, 5, 293-306.

Statistical methodology in educational research. Rev. educ. Research,

195b, 2h, nun.

Sutcliffe, J. P. A general method of analysis of frequency data for
multiple classification designs. Psyphol. Bull. 195?, 5b, 13h-137.

Tannenbaum, P. H. Attitudes toward source and concept as factors in
attitude change through communications. Doctoral dissertation,
Univ. of 111., 1953, Dissertation Abstr., Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ.
Microfilms, 1953, 13.

Thorndike, R. L. Personnel selection. New York: John'Wiley'& Sons,
Inc., l9h9.

 

Torgerson, W. S. Theor and methods of scaling. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 19 .

Triandis, H. C. Cognitive similarity and interpersonal communication
in industry; pg, appl. Ps hol., 1959, h3, 321-326.

Triple audit attitude scale. Industrial relations center. Minneapolis:
Univ. of Minn. Press, Bulletin No. 16, 1955. Pp. 13-15.

Trumbo, D. A. An analysis of attitudes toward change among the employees
of an.insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mich.
State Univ., 1958.

213

U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Adjustments to
automation in two firms, In act of automation. 'Washington, D. 0.:
U. S. Gov't. Printing Office, Bulletin No. 1287, 1960. Pp. 81- 83.

Vanselow, A. C. Programming the computer for clerical production. The
impact_ of co uters on office management. New York: A.M.A., Office
Management Series, No.1%, 1951;. Pp. 264.10.

 

‘Walker, C. R. Toward the automatic factory: '3 case study of men and
machines. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1957.

warner, W}, & Law, J. The socials system_ of the modern factory. New
Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 19b7.

 

'Wilson, K. V. A distribution-free test of analysis of variance
hypotheses. Psychol. Bull., 1956, 53, 96-101.

 

wrigley, C. Multivariate designs in psychological experimentation.
Paper read at a symposium of the Amer. Psychol. Ass., Sept., 1957.

APPENDIX A

215
Item and Total Scores on the Main
iables

9

Ce

and Secondary var

Table

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

.,
1
p.
‘ 1 ;
. _. ,1 .. . . .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 1. . 1 1
. _ _ . .1 r 1 . . . g r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1.. 1 . 1 1 .1.1..r..1 r1 ‘1. v.1.1u1,rul,, l1 . 1..A.11u14<111 1111,1111 4.141.(.1,‘.1.11,.1~1.u.1111,.111;12L).u1d1ut...l:1111.1.(,1111..r11u1nthaln!...r)¢.ifl<.ld)1uInh'uhlfllu
.
.
g
.. , 1. 11 . 1 . . . .
. . . . 1. ,, 1 1 .1.... . ......111.r :e ...1. 1.1.1.1.... 1.5.1.21 - .11.111.1,1.11.1.11:r1r1,.11. ...1./11.1,: 11.111 111111.... ~11)?1.,,ch7.1.17.151.2lhv/<,s.nl~o1..\1./2)251uql)ldzla’.
. _
1 .
1 * 1 1 . . a . . . 1 ., 1,... .. .....11111. To .111 , 11.11.11 .1111. ... 1.. 1111.. ...-Lara, 1 1.. 1.1!..11,/.I 1“] It ..1..f. 11.11.1111,.u31 1...;li,,al¢.<.l.£.‘.a.(.11h)1)1.f)63<;5?3
, 1
.. 1 . . v a . a . 1 11 1 . n 11,1 1. . :1. 1 1, .. r 1 1 I1... 1 . ~11/ ,.1 1. a1 1/ .1.... .1 1.11.1.1: 1.. .1.. .1.. 1.11145 1 (.1 6,. £13.» axl . ... CL.A.£A.S(‘.KL..§
r .
. 1 1
, , 1 _
4
. . 1
.M H
—
_
H 1 1 1. 1. 1 . . , . . 11.1 11 ...1 1 .1.1,,1 ,1 ., 4.1 1.1.? 11 1,. ..1. ....8 .11171711111, .. 1..1.or.r.11.¢.1.1kl4fi..rllv1..
1 . ~ . o. . . . 1 .. 1 . ..1. . -.1 .1 . ., . 1.1 1. . 1 ,1, . ..1.. .11 J 1,,11,11.1.. 1. :1. 1.11.. 7.11.1.1 111.11 1.151..
1 .
.
W . .
. .
.. 1
l - . 1 I
N 1 1. e 1 . 1 . . 1 1 ... ,1.-.. .. .. .7.11.41.11.11?s...(11).(1~.l1.1.2:?21...].
.
, 1 _ 1 . . 1.)..11. .1... 11.1.11121 .ax).l\.oV/\.3
. _ , _ .
* _ , 1 . , 1 1 .11.. .11 1.. .1, 1.111....a111«_11 . 1. 1.1)»11. .1.....(1.~1¢1
. 1 1 .
_ . .. ., ,1 . .1, , ,1. , . .. .,. ,113. 1 2111.11.15.71;.31.}...111111.)
. . . A ,o1 ,
1 1 _ .. . . 1 . . 1. ..1 1,11.11.111.11.Al..1....1..?.1.....411
1 . .. .
r m _ , , 1 _. . 1 1 . 1 11., 1 ...1 .13......1\,~1.121(..:1 1.211....(V2
_ .
1 1 , , . . . . . . ..1. .1 1. 1.1.1, 1 ..11....1...3.1.11...1,~).\.3.1.2..’:a,.32
t . . 5' , . .. 1.. . .. . _ . 1 1 . . , ., . . 1 . 1 11. ~11 . 11. . .1. 1, . . .r.~,..n171.1n..1.l.n 7.1., .7711. 6714.! 71
. 11.... .
. 1. .. ‘1.1.\n 1 .1.... . . 1 11.111. . 1 1 , 1... .1 , . , ,. . 11.3.. ,1 1, ,,..J .1] \1...1,...11.11.111... 1.1.1.511.151.71.113.11.;1..1|a.1a1.,1
. . . 3.3 . . . , , , _ .. , , 1 1 , _ ,. .. . .11) ..1,....1...1: .1. ...1 .1. 1 1.11.1....,.....1,,..1..1.,..1.:11; 11.1..)
1 l. . 1 1. . . . .. .. . 1 1 . .1 1 . , .. 11 111 1 v) . .1.,. .1 . ...1. .111. 11.1 ..1; ... ......11..1.\1.1.11. 1 us..1..,\,.1 w‘......
r 1. . \L. ._ 1 1. . ... , . .,. .. . . 11 . 1 . ,11. .1 .. 1.1 . . .1 1.1.1.111wa, . . 1.,..11. .4..1.11...11.111..1..‘..,.1,‘.1..11‘11111J‘11 1.41111
m1. .. a! .1 , ._ . . .. .1 . 1 . J. . ...1. 1..1. ..1...1.....1.1/.111.,11.1«.1..\...,1,1~..11s1\x
r . . . .1... . . , . ,., ,. ...1.. fit. .,1 ...1 .1. ,, 1 ..1...........,1..1....1........\.. .11 .?.,.1...(...~1.~a.
. 1.. . . .11 _ 1 1 .. .. . . . . . . .1 .1.1 .. . J . 11.111 .,1...., 1.1111111: ...11.1.1|. ,,1.1...1..1.1.,11.\. 1
J 11 . . . 1 . ,. ,,11 1 .. .1 1. . .111 .1 1, ..- -1,,1 .1.1.\ .1 11.31:. .1 1 11.11.15.111
1 . . ..1.... . . . . . . _. 1 1..1 . . ...14. . . 1. 1., 1.....1....1.1.1 11.111111...1...1...,..1.-.,.
. . , ... 1 . . 1 .1. . . . , . 1 .1 71..., 1 1....1.111.111.111..,.,..111. 1...11...1..111...1...1.1..11...$
_. 1. ..1.. . . . , .. . . .. . .. . . . . 1 . . . 1. . . . 1. ..1... .1 ..1.. 111.11,...1......1111.1...1.1 11.1.1.1..111..1...2
. 1.1. 1o..111. 1... . 1 1. .. . .11. .... ..1 . . ,, .,, .. .1 . .. ... .1 .1 ...,..,1 .3...1...1...1....e..../~...1...1.1..a...‘1..1.11,91«..11..2.1.;
.1.. ..1.. 1. 1. 11. o .. . . . ..,,. ,l 1..., .1. . . . ....1,..1....111 1.1.11... ......11..~....1.....1;..11:1L..1...1a
. . . 3. e1. . ,1 r . K 1 . . 1 . /1. .. 1 1 . 1L. . r \a . . .1. .1. .. .. K 1 . ..9....1 ...1....1...11., 1.1.0,. .1.
t . . a ,. . .. 1. . s .. . ..1. 1 . 1. . f, ./,n 1 1 . ...1 e1. . . 11 .r..1..7rnwn1.1u 7.1..rr.1.tl..1.(11.0~1-
. . .. . ..
. .1 .. .. 1. . 1. 1
1 1 1 , . 1 .11 . .... 1,1,1 ..1.... .. 1.1,. ,11 11...,1 11.11....)1,1u..:1i~.¢~....17111.11.19...
. 1. , ,. 1 ... -. . 1
., 1 1. . , . , . . 1 1. . .1 . . 1 111 114. .11.. 1, . 1.. 11. ,,..1.....!.v.e ..1.1.. ..1.... .1. 1.1.1
1 .1 . . . 1 1 1.. 1 . , . _ . ,
.1 ... 1. n1 .1 , 1 , 111. .. .,..,1.., .1111 . 1.1.1........a.11....r. 11.1.1...1.,. .111
‘ 1. , 1 1 , ,
. z ... ... ...1 .1 .1. . I r, ,. .1. . .1 1 .. 1 . 1 . . 1 . , .1. . 1 . .. ., .. 1 1nd. 11“.,t..a...a.11m.,< ......xffi.
. 1 . 1. ., .1.. ..1. 1 1 . . 1.. 1 .1 ., 1 . ..1 . . .. 11111.1... . 1.11.......1....11.11.1....1(11.1.31...
h;
\
1
.
u . . T . .1. 1 . 1 , . , . I 1 1 1 _1 . . . . 1 ,1 1 1 . , 1 1 1 1. 11 1 . . . .1 1 ..1. . 1 . 1. .1... ,1... ..1.. ... ..1.. 1.114... .. 1. If... .1.,111111...,.1.._.1.u1'. «1.11.51.11.11.
0.. .1. . .. , 1 , ,. . . , . . , , 1 1 1., 1.. 1 1 . .. .. 11., 1 1.. .1.. 1.,... ......111........1~...1.}... .. .1..,,r r.
a - 1 ... .. .1 1. .. , 1 1 , ., , . .1 a .. .r, 1 , . ,1 11, 1. . , .1 .,... 1. 11... ...1....1..1.1. ..1.,11...r..,.1.1.:. E
.... .1 . .1 ..1 ,. 1 . 1 a l 1 1. 1 . 1 y ...11. 11. , 1.111....4...f. .1..1,..1). ..rr
.. r .. 1 .1 . . r. 1.1 . 1 1. .. 11. , 11 , . . r . . 1 .. .1 1 1.1.1 1 1.1.; 111.141 11.11.11. ..1. 1.11.1.1 (I
.1 ,. . . ,
. . r . .1 . r .. 1 1 . 1 . , 1 1 1 .. 1 1 1 1 1. v a 1 . 111...! ...1 .11.: A; ...1/11
. r .... 1 , ... , . . . 1 .1 1 r 1 , 1. 11 . . : 1....... ...1.. . ..1 ...1 .1 1.11.1). (1
4 .f .. . 1.. 1. 1.1111. . 1.. 1 . .1 1. . . . . I... .a . 1. 1,..1 .11111. 11... 111.1. 11.13.11... .1.}
I 1. ,r. 1 1 . 1. . .. . _ 2 a. 1 1 ..1 .. 1.,! .11. . ..u\.\,11.. 1111.1f. ‘.3‘1.a,1u
.-
....
- . r 1. t . s. .. .. .. r 11 1.1. . ... 1.1.... .1 . .111 .1 .. 1 1. . s ,1 w . ... .. . 11 , . ...1. n1. 1 r. 1.1. r .1
.. 1.1. A 1.1 1 1 1 . .1. 1. .
I. . a r 1 r . 1 1. 1 1 , . r .. r ,. . 1 , . ., ... . 1. .11 (1,1..1
1 1f. . .I 111,. ,.1 1.... ,a ... . . . 1
I 1 1. . .1 , . 1 1. . , . 1 . 1 1... . 1 . . . .
. 1 a .1.. 1 o 1 .~ 1 1.
rr . ., r r 1 r . . 1.. ...1. , 1.. . 1 1 1 1 1r 1 . 1 .1 11 ..11111 ...
. o s . .11. 1 . 1 _ . .1 1 r . .1 . . 1 1 . .1 . . . 4 . r o... 1 1 . _ 1 1 . .. 1 . . _ .1...1. 1., 1.
1 , ... 1. . 1
r 1 . 1 . 1 a 1 . 1 .. . . .. 1 1. .. _. 2 .1 ..1, . 1 1 .. u .1 . . . ,1. . .,1 ..
. .. ..f ..11. . 1 1 ..1 ,1. 1 .. . . 111 1. . 1, .1, .... ..1 . . 1 K . . . .4 fl .. . 1 . .1 1.. .1 1 1 . . .1. .1 1 1.
. 1 1. .1. 1 .11 1 1 o 1.. ,1. .... 1 .
. . .. ,1 .1 . 1. 3 , . 1... . .1 1 . , .. .. .. 1,, .1 .. 131. .1
.1 .A..1...1..(1.111.1. .n1.. .. . n 1. 1.1.. .1.. ... .1 1 . ,
. ,, , .. , ... .(I 1 .1 1 a. 1 1, . ., . 1.. .1 1. 1 . ... . .16 .1 . .,. _
1
1.,1411..1.c,~.r1.1. . 1 ,. . . 2 . , .
u. ..1! .4. ( q .1 a . ..1. 11 . .1.. r 1.. 1 n o 7. A
1. 11 11 a 1 . 1 I I 1. 1 . . . . . . 1 1 1
11.1...1...1...11.x1r.§ ..1.. . 11.1.} 1 1.1 .1 . . 1.11.. 1.. 1.1... . f. {A u n 1 l 1 ..1... 1. V. . H1 . ...1.... . ... .. 1.11 .1 1 .1. ....1 1 . .1 1 I .(, .. ...... 1 r 1.... ,. 1... I
. 11 _ 1 . .v 1 , .1 .,.1...1J,....... ..,........1..11.11, .14
1 ...1.... ..1...l11111111........1..o.1.....1.111-..a.11. .A
JIJIII! 1 '. 1

 

 

 

 

2115

   

‘ n
I-“_— films-Ira}! - Jm—~

o1

 

‘T

V

1}
1‘ 111

LhSIIh-hhvfl‘lhluldl-Id’lflIILL-Ifl ’Illflldlfliflll’hlfllflllh<uJIu-rdffld$hh‘

1")":’22LLM214‘.’22222‘a’zIHO‘Iu-‘zt‘JS‘AJlltlfiA-‘lz’z

1‘lu61u662351.61531236467‘6 166‘52525173621133135...

675.5Q110lv651l.11661161..Au66t1.f1.1<65 Léivé 6‘51?” 711163C66fl16/116

7 311.95 3757 bh¢r.-ué57?32)t,1 1?...A9 r1117 1u197<9
U11 1 Illnll 11.1 1.31.1111 n , 1H1 1D.11

11222221 .1..1-3‘.- 323211? ‘.:1\.11132~.121.2?1.2.1.1..3112117 1.}
I)’.lr.§l1".i._1\—~l‘}‘r1,‘n.1|,.LV‘) \l,‘....-4‘J~.)\O.I,2\ ‘.\1.II‘J\I.\/fi‘5¢1.2‘)fl. “4‘1‘11‘,
212,‘4.-1.VL543.1114~1L1.;1‘5711.‘.1..

1.. 11,111)? .1.—... ..1. 1.1. 11.1.1, 1,11. .1 11.111.11.21. ...1...)

2211121) ufias. ..1. 1.1 1.1..11.5n...\.1.. 1I1\,77.1).~..I.\1\111\1..1.1 1.\,«01..5..1L.11.. 3.9.3.3

1

2‘.....5\...1,,.111.1 111.115.1111.}...111.111111.11.11111.1.,<.21L1..119.1.11?11.11141

2\.fl; ...1....11. ‘.anl.11\u: 11.14.115.131... 741.1: \.n1161\5111;.3,fi_2.31:). .1123}\..1
3

5‘2‘.11.3:11.12314‘,‘,V11.7V ‘.3.1,211)..).l I 3.3.1113: 1..1).<.1l)2.\ 1.1:...)

(I 1.. .I 100.54 p $161!.V11w ...1.. 71l41,114( 11... r, .1». .1.,.n K 7'19 437171.33 a1w1
1.

...,1..1 1.1.1.1.111311; .1..1... 1.111111 11.11. .11.... .1

 

11.1 1 ... 1.....1.11.). 1.\..\..111.1.1.1, 1 1 ..1 1 .1..1..11. 1..........1,.....
..\...1.1...1.11.. 1 1 .1 . .1I1.,, .1. .1..1,11, .1.... ..,,,,11.,,......1. .111 . 11.9
\..1111.1 . ...111,1.. .1 . .1..1... 1 ...1 ..1...1,.,1 ,.1..1 1 1 ..1 1. .
1.1.1.... .1 ...1 1.,. .1..1...1111....1...1111 . I. 1 .1 . 1 1
‘;q...1..11... ,.\a¢.11..1...1. ,,..~.,..,...~1.s..:1.. . .1 ..1
I 11 1 .1 1 . 1 .1.... . 1 111.1. 1 1. . .1.. 1 . 111
1 .\ ... 1 11,111.11} .1, .1127... .1.... ..1 . 1 11 1 1 1
11 1111.1. ..... 111 3.11.11 .11, .11. ‘1... 11.111.13.21. _\ .... ..I1 .. 111...,1.,..11
1 w 1 113.211.111.111....11....1.1\.117,... . 1.. 11111.11...,11.1....11,1.1. .
.111.11.11.1\1.11.L...1.111.11 .11. ..1..11.1..1....1.1. .1..1... 11.111.111-311
..nuZ...........1n..« 11.111.111~ :1_«.1.~1....1.5.1.7.».1 ...1....11... 1. \.,. ,. .
~11. 1.11.... 1.1.11 ...1 ..,1.1.1.1..11....1. ...11111 1........,1. .......... .1
14(.11.6r.r.11..1f1rs ...1K. r 1 1. 1t. . . . . 1. a . a
1 ~11. .al I ..n n p Aw .. . u r 1 I 1 a . u

.1. s
51 . 1 1. .11 ..1 .1 .1 .1 :1 1 1 . 1
1 I. .. .1 i1. ...,?.1 1 a 1 1 1
4.1.2 - 1 «.1 ~ .1 .1. .11 a s. 7 \1. .. 1 1. .111.
.1. ”in ,..../..1,w.t .11.....n1f.. 1 .,..El1. . .. .1111; 1 r.,((. 11. 1 A \z I
1;11.Iu.....11....1..1...~,..k..~1..~...1 ~. 111. 1,. 11,...1.Y,1..1.11.. .1

s1.!..<.115|‘~.1:<.Af)<11.111 31.11.15.711..11,1.1.11...1.1. 1 .1.,

Lu}...1,.11,<.,:1.(1.1l.1(1,61 1.r1,\1.r...1.r.111..... 1 1 (...1.. ... 1 .1... ..r
2'»11?~ls.1l,l11 1.1111}: ,1..111517,1,.~111..... .1..1 1-1111 1 1 1. 1lu’
.Jn:11r51‘1q111114!.11111~1..113131.11.1131. 1 1.11. l . 1.. 1. ... 1...}.1 .1. 1.}... 1}.
13‘;<11111<§1.:<<.ul.,.1111111.1.11 ..1111.1.1..u.r, ..1.,1.r.. r . . 1r.
411.11.! 1).}...31. .1.. ‘1.11.,( 1.. 1 1 7,1.r ....\ 11, . 1 r 1 1 .. .

21111 K...<a2~.(11.1.2.1.1111...11,.\ ....11.1.11.1..11 1....-. -1111... . .1..11 . .
<.Ih1..!,l141a1411.11.1.2<1.1.1.1.?1111..1....1.1...,. k ”,1..1..1....1....111....1..... .

JLK.)1zlaluaslq1.1.\.711331131113} 5:11 \ .1 .11 . .1 p . .4 1 1. V n

S ‘old\lr?\/2 Jain-1.9.1.114455111113223 1..11 .1.-1111:; 11lun17. 1...1.'\1€)r. ...I..,1r1 1.1:. ,1.
r

52‘11L11.Iz¢)2.1.111.111|111.b?‘.uo7.121.u1..: ,.1 .11 11114111.p11.< ...1..

  

‘5 1h}:3l~:1§.l..1.2111....(.2...3.|..1«¢11.. 11......15.1.1.1...112rfi1331.11.11.:
2 a.11142).1~L5‘.Iu11.\.1.,9“22( 1A.:.....11....l<.1.1_1.. C 111...,1_< 1.21... 1.1!, .\
(IoA"~¢.142Jias<1|n90)411u.1.I..A.1,\.ul'1.141111..1.:1uv1:1.1....11115m 1,....1..I,1,....(;
Al 1t13}L22-l’211<.3<. a..(alld\.~1 1.11.1)2q111ql: 1.1.1.1.. \...~(1A..2..r.,fi.p. F
21!“.hfi52191hh|u1.u11.: 11:1.u2:...1/11.31119.1.,«113111.14.17...E.,(.Iu!..l..u1....r.
t.JIX’JLllbkr2111x.~.\.n{!.1.1,1.«114.11211.1.1.1111.1...11.‘.141A..J|.1J(..r
z)IIHJJZL122])!111113233\.2.....‘41LI..\.~.1.14.1.1...1J1L1.1A2\}11:1

1‘9
‘ fl
2

1."

19$
'5
{I

I. o .2. J’uf..f I... «z.
.... 7.11. 717.777.;wm.
\ ...1 ‘A\.1Q¢‘A‘1¢‘1A11

mmmmmmmmmwmmmmmm1mwm

I14- '..1 I ’III“

 

 

 
 

!
‘1h12212‘:1122122\LLlln‘1312L2112'211110L’21..1-(J12

/

 

lulu’33]”’JJ”’,)J3.)”)3’.)”””J’33,J”J’311\4 .

.

_

V)J-1IIJ‘/\..Vl~1.‘l)‘l3‘4),

22W§Jlfitflcfll‘.221‘412

6141‘.11¢.1122).?1.119.).310.9.77:261132’31111‘.14212111.21_ (5.11.1.113153111321

I‘1fbd. T6<66<‘.(4...(r¥<.’Ild‘sluvlJ-O1?!Uf1.16¢lv‘u'dsylo7166!.1’46‘I58141J
O

11".211‘. ‘7 9.1,.) “ .91.. .u . «.10 1).. 1.1e.<l 7.61 fja .. 1.1/ 1.1111
1.11111 . .1, ...u H.111} 2 .1.. 1
.

11A). .11 .71 ...)2...11«...1- ...1./1.1A‘.~411.1n.1.~1 . .23.}.111111115... .1.... .
111/1. 1.. .~/\..1,1.7..1 ). .1 .s111.,:_.....13.111.123.111 ...1...«,..‘.. . ...14. .11.

1.11.1. .. 3.11.11. .1... 21 1.11 . 11.11 ... 1n 1. 1.\.~ .1 11.. .. 1 .\..11
1.. ...111...1._...-.141. 1. ,.1...)...... .1. _ -1......1 31111111. .1113?
1 111 .. 1t.1.1..l..11. -1«.1.1 111.111.111.111 .1..1.11121.1..111 .11. 1‘
. ... .1. ..1 ,.1.1...11.....\1.1.1.1 1.1..\...1,.:.111/~1.«_~1.f1..1.111...... 11. .1 \,
141.3. . ..11? .111 ..1.... 1.1..51,1.11.12......1.....1..1)~11.1. .1.n...1..¢«1‘11 .11.... ......fi.
R r... 1).... . . u». .»i11.1.7.r .r,..r 1,¢11.1.../.1~11.1\.. .1,1.7..I._71(1.r .95 .../w..l,.1
1.1114319!) . . .111 .11 J‘V; .1311.1A\.)11.‘.’. .1.1‘.13\,\11~1.11)1.
. ‘1‘)“ . . .S.\..11..1.\.111 .3111 «(1.31111 1.. u‘.\1J.J\,1...-(.... 1
a. 1.\,11,.....11,.11J1 111.1.111111\1.1.11..11111..1111..1.\.1.1
1.11.19... .....-11\ .V4.1.¢. 11.191.711.11111.-\11..\..11 1.11).].11111
11 11111111....11).1111 ..1—1.111111111113111 ...1...12.1)1...l..111.«..1..
.11 1.31/...1 3...).1,1~11L... 1.111... 1111.1. . .1..1...3a11111lza....1.]
1.11.1 a 1}. . .\.\...11.1 11.11.11 1111.11.11 1.. ..11111 .1..1..1113 .1.. .1.
1.13.1 .J. . .1..1—711.111.1115.]:11;)11‘... 1‘ ..|.o,..1,. .11.... .1111,..1
V1.11? «11:. - ..1.-...111-111..-u11.111. 11.1.11.1.11. - .31., .1111,.-..~. 1.\
1.111 .11.....11.11L.1..1.1.1,.111L.1111L.1112.111.11.-\.~1. 13.11.}.11V11.
1.11.1 . 11.1. .c .\.,1 .1A.....1.1.,1.1L1A‘z1n11..a;.l..\.nr1.111.}..1..1).11/1..1l.. .1111...

2211nt).nn211291~122~l722..Im.~...1.~t3.«.stfi.acal~1~a 1.512.117.91711.1112~.412).

1.1.1.1111?...,..(.1....w1..1.. 7.1.1.7117}. «.1./11.11.57,. 5...)....1...,..1..11.~..~l.1:..
lar. .11... 1 .15 .1.,» 101$.C1U..1,Cr111.1.l. . 111151... .. 2.17.11.11/ A., .. I C 1. .‘r.€ (1'56 {1 (...!
71,..Av., . .A'. .. s1 ... 1.1...)1u211- gh‘ln'111 .1Lrfi». a .910 Q31Vl1120 3:,» .r
11 .1 ..1 1.
,Q‘.]\I1..131.‘1.2‘-1‘.1‘1‘111(1.~m11«~.1)«3‘1£ql11«.ht‘u1 Na..l“.,\L11‘L-‘~t\‘L11‘1l I]
1
3,111 \I.\1 n‘lnl.1\01.- Au1~,411u.11~. .....z‘A~Aq,.~L1 «..1l‘../..AW11.‘1~I.1,.A\1.‘I<.‘.n‘.
ng111.\..11.1.«4.\n..V1 1.21/1.1.11.1..1.\.\..«(\.?.1.~..1¢11,14.111..1.l?.13\11:1nl .1.,
7f 0 ....11, .0.“ A.,? .1 \.t0lun1 ,1..1 .1 .- (.1H9IHA1IQ5‘ fl”. .7: n. 0.177.510.5571 .
1 1L 1...; 1L
.1..1 )‘.1.r1.1.1.1.l11..(1111,,n.11.‘.11_\.r .11....111u2.1....111.~..f1..1.¥u0.\.\1.3r1(Indiua.1.1(1.r.
)I1 .11r 1,1171 111111 13.1.11111...r1.1 ”1.1.1.111"1.11.......,.4.1,1...111,~r11...1.71.,er
l.....3....1..1..11111. 41111.1 .1111.11....1,.Z.11....3..1..1.1.1..1.1.1u1:1~111.1.1 3:1u.1r
..I.!m.... 1,1,‘1..11..11¢O..r..1.. 1.4“ 1.1111.1.L11r.1.....1..1... l1.1.1.1...1.. 1.111..f.,.u‘..|

11 ......1u131111.r.171.1.i1111 31.1r .....r1. ...hlirvui.‘ I.,.\ 1.. ..14\131,.1.1.‘..1u1u.121.

 

1,..~.1111..1.11(1 111.414.11.11r...11.r. 3,333.11. 11.11.11.1461. .r. 111.111.7111 1111
1...r.1....11<.,1111f 11C.\.....11.n{d1..11(._1.‘.J‘.A14..1,111.11.\.11.41.u ..1—(1.1.1.6 «117.1.
11111.. .1...1s......V1211.211.111.1111.11.14.111171.111.14211111L .1u1..1~.1251

1.‘.11.,..1...1:,.1..J.1 1111......) n ‘1 . ~111111.11113-31}?1.1,1.1\/,‘\U1¢,\1~l in.) .l 141..){3

3: 30.15'111‘15... ’C..\)I£.< fi1!)111d1$ifl~£12)7.2‘135.(/‘.fJILC.1lu(/1J2211
«tr..w,.1.3 2 5.1..11432 11.1..115.U?.11:.1(1.(,lu .1..,.1,.Mq. 1.1.5 ..1.)!7fifqr. 3 7 . .1-11211.
1.1111. 3. .1..1.I. \1IA\..11.¢.11 1n. 1»... 1.1.1 1.12.211d71 lfisjldld \.(1 \.1}<..¢)1.1...1 1.11111ulu7
«.(,11l1\121h1.2<1r11\11<< 361110;)..11.ar;1.1.J\z2I...31L.I/<.P 311u1473I45221J2
nun)??? 131.453.113.151. 3.1.1.5111 l!)2.h1h\1l)53115141115913331n1h1h1.1.
2" 2‘1 Vpa¢2 1437.32C1IMJ531/l41.2<1F)IMIJIM2J1’21H3¢)221./1HJIH1I.
1hr1.\.3111ulu112lulllfl<.1r1 7.1h1.25h22)11u1< a¢n1)5511.111u1121.
1A \i‘.\/(.,1o2 1HVdLu1)VA’-I411111.IUIH12J2 )0.u\‘1\l))‘p11'fl11'¢‘43".
23l414‘11319‘1 ZJhXJh‘A 331.“? ‘11A333333’Idlux22-lI/2 )t’IHIu-l‘l-ul

1

ufinmufivxmnwwwéflwwnumed1mwxsv:u23LS£711112389
. . 1 , .1 x...1 1 , ,
11111.1.111.11.11.1111211 Ky: 1.4351227. 1mnAnnmu~Annnm.1auuv

 

.
1
_
1
W

.

/.,l.1u/ l1t.1_|i/.!,.I.6ollrll

..1- .11..,t . 1.1.56???
.111“ .1 h.

.11

‘111.).111.. .1 .1.~.1111...AA

...1....1 ...1 ....1... .1 ..1.
~ 1. ,.. . . .. .14....11 . ....
11.11 ...1... ..,.....».......a
..1 .11.,111 .11 ...1...\,:.1.1~.
a 1.~...... a. .1...... .11....
«11.1.1.1... .1 .. ...1....q ...1.

\u1,)fl.f1 \J o .5331..—535

33".1,51.l. . . 1333‘s.},

1.31.1.5}. . .1)!.‘.\.2J..I.‘1
\.7 1,1,3] . .3123‘32311.
1‘.I.~A‘-\l’ - .VA‘.1.I1 -.\111
.11....11... .. .J . ..1.1..9.\.\..1.1

.111 1.1.\.}/. .1‘.!.,.. 1.1.1.

.1... 11.11....) .
1 ...1.! .11.].‘. .
\..1 u -1.11.-
1.111.311) .

1.1.1.111. 1...} .

1.:2filntzn.

. 2.31.1111.)
. 1.1.1.1.... 12.1.
- 9,111,311.\..111
- 31...).111531}

.111‘111.)1.\1‘1.

2 ..1 ..s A; 1.1.1. 9. n1.

‘1.1.11./~_~¢1.s.1.«1.d!.«..1§.

l,,1..uf1.l..n11 7’1) 1. (.9 a1. .1. {#19

14.561.11.71. .7.9.JI1.
‘ 111.

11.1.1.5...1.JJ..1t1/1..111q:.111
11421.7..,1I:1..1,1.1.-111,. .

lu?)‘.(;311. .2_1;1.1.J.

I1, 11.1.1511. 11117-5711.. 79
1 1 1121.11.11.2 1.1

(...x ~7l4 ..1 . V...4 1.1.1.1.;(11luz ‘.
C’V.\I.\_‘.§;11~l..,l!.n(.\l.\.’i1142‘_
.11... ...1..1111(12~11U111LJ
.1.. 11!.11? 11 .111..11.,..1.~1.l\/
..11141..,.1.1;1.\1t1..511..51.1u1h‘.
7..\.1A...~|11.I/1.1.1.~AIUQA2VI.
«.1111111)\31111.112J
1.t..1.11712«1\.11112111.7v)
-2~.IJ.11‘111111~)1‘/J‘4lfl

|1.r..11).1113‘.12.5<.1u)|u
<12LZZJ7 1.01.2 1541...;1J
<.(.,.121.1131.1.le.(1.an&
gr.l.}1.)JJ~n12<.,21/Iu
SEIHCH18311351~¢IHIJJJ
55:1u21A1/h‘224115210
SSIINIIIJIQJQIZZQQJ
1111253x13hh|d21
2.)? 23511431131132),

 

1r. ftp-fine” ht Eur-r

told Raf? <r. "ng.

'amx-

an“?

1

“new" “We to the

O mo(1-m,2-arm}

- mum-1' Lml (1 - unwound“ 2 - EJPIIWI'")

 

 

1
_
_
u

‘...—-(_ 8’

J .

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Screening Procedures for Secondary Variables

l. Belief-Disbelief in Communications

The subgroupings on the variable measure for use in the
multiple contingency tables were:

 

919112 Score rang Interpretation
I l-ll Disbelief
II lZ-IS Ambivalence
III 16-26 Belief

Table 73.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief in
Comunications x Tenure X Age showing Frequencies of Obtained Scores

 

— -:
T

 

 

 

 

 

Tenure (B) A ge (C) . Belief-Disbelief (A)
(1-11) (12-15) (16-26)

(1-2) 28 15 26

(1‘2) $2:£l_ h 2 3
3.5.162. l 0 o

il:£l.. 19 17 9

(3-5) 5% s 3 11
(5-6) 2 2 1

(1-2) 10 8 8

(6-7) (31h) 7 12 21
(5-6) 5 8 3

 

218

219

Table 73.2. Analysis of variance for Belief-
Disbelief in Communications x Tanure X.Age

m

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean.Square F p8
A 6.7h 2 3.37 0.26 NS
B 3.62 2 1.81 0.1h NS
0 778.30 2 389.15 29.89 .:.01
AXB 63.25 b 15.81 1.21 NS
1x0 117.23 b 29.31 2.25 NS
BXC 5’06. 36 b 126.59 9.72 <.01
AxBxC 10h.13 8 13.02
Total 1579.63 26

 

a Bartlett's test: xT- 9.101, df - 3 for interactions, p - <.05,
H rejected. Pooling of interactions not warranted because of
lack of homogeneity of variance.

Table 7h.1. Multiple Contingency Table for
BelieféDisbelief in Communications x Office x
Education showing Frequencies of Obtained Scores

 

 

 

 

Office(B) Education(0) 11.11) 8 212-12) (364:6)
ilzél 1 S h
Home £§l__ 36 hh hB
$1221 6 11 19
111) 8 ° 2
Branch S§2__ 2h 11 7
$1221 6 2 7

 

 

220

Table 7h.2. .Analysis of Variance for Belief-
Disbelief in Communications x Office x.Education

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa
A 8.11 2 b.06 0.113 NS
8 578.00 1 578.00 60.81. 4 .01
c 19h3.hh 2 971.72 102.29 < .01
1x3 211.00 2 105.50' 11.11 <L.os
AXC 82.23 b 20.56 2.16 NS
on 589.00 2 2911.50 31.00 4.01
AXBXC M _L_._ 9.50
Total 3hb9.78 _ 17

 

Table 75.1. Multiple Contingency Table for BelieféDisbelief
in Communications x Occupational Level x Expected Involvement

 

 

 

 

Occupational Expected BelieféDisbelief(A)
Level(B) Involvement(C) (1-11) (12-15) (lo-26)
legl 1 1 6
Supervisory $§:él h lb 17
$2)_._ 2 1 0
31:3; 17 19 15
Non-supervisory (5-6) 33 28 LO

\0 l

22 9 h

 

221

Table 75.2. Analysis of variance for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications x Occupational Level x Expected
Involvement

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa

 

w—v

 

A 8.77 2 14.38 0.26 NS
B 11011.50 1 11014.50 66.62 <.01
0 887.2111 2 1173.72 26.76 <.01
AXB 82.33 2 h1.16 2.h8 NS
AxC 207.23 is 51.81 3.12 NS
13120 100.33 2 50.16 3.02 NS
AxBxC 66.314 b 16.58

Total m 1.7-

 

aBartlett's test: x2 t 1.36, df - 3 for interactions,
p 8 NS, Ho accepted.

bSame results obtained when pooled interactions were
used as the error term.

 

222

Table 76.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Belief-Disbelief
in Communications x Realization of Expectations x Communica~
tive Contacts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realization of Communicative Belief-Disbeliengz
Expectations(B)a Contacts(C) (1-11) (12-15) (16-26)
(1-3) h 3 3
(0-13)
(h-6) 7 5 h
(1-3) 7 3 3
(1h)
(h-é) 8 10 12
(1-3) 12 6 8
(ls-25)
(h-6) 9 19 25
(1-3) 18 3 h
(26—hh)
(h-6) 12 22 20

 

 

aA score based on deviations between responses to pretest
items 1156-70 and to posttest items IIh8-6l. High score -
failure of expected changes in job to materialize; low
score - expected changes in job took place.

 

:. ‘w

223

Table 76.2. Analysis of variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications x Realization of Expectations x Communicative
Contacts

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa

 

 

 

A 14.32 2 2.16 0.10 NS
B 35b.1h 3 118.05 5.35 <.05
0 260.01. 1 260.014 11.79 <.o5
AxB 119.00 6 8.17 0.37 NS
AxC 188.35 2 92.18 14.18 NS
Bxc 55.75 3 18.58 0.81 NS
AxBxC 132.35 6 22.06

Total 1039.95 23

 

aResults differed when pooled interactions were used for
error term, see Table 76.3 below.

Table 76.3. Analysis of variance for Belief-Disbelief in
Communications x Realization of Expectations x Communicative
Contacts using pooled Interactions as the Error Term

 

 

Source of Variation Sum of df Mean Square F pa
Pooled Interaction Squares

 

AxB 119.00 6 8.17 0.21; NS
Pooled Interaction 372.h5 11 33.86
AxC 181.35 2 92.18 5.83 (.05
Pooled Interaction 237.10 15 15.81
BxC 55.75 3 18.58 0.71 NS
Pooled Interaction 365.70 1h 26.12

 

aBartlett's test: x2 - 5.59, df B 3 for interactions, p = NS,
.Ho accepted.

22h

2. Change in Readiness for Change
The subgroupings on the variable measure for use in the multiple

contingency tables were:

 

Group Score range Interpretation
I —3 to -19 Become less ready for
change
II 12 Essentially no change
III +3 to +15 Become more ready for
change

Table 77.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change x Tenure x Age

 

 

Tenure(B) Age(C) Change in Readiness for Change(A)
(-3 to -19) (12) (+3 to +15)

 

 

 

 

 

(1-2) 33 28 1h
(1-2) 53:91_ 3 5 2
55:6;_ 1 0 0
(1-2) 21 11 18
(3-5) (3-h) 9 9 7
151-21 0 2 3
(1-2) 9 8 10
(6-7) 1(3-h) 15 13 13

 

 

(5-6)' h .11 1

 

 

225

Table 77.2. Analysis of Variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x Tenure x Age

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p8
A 57.56 2 28.78 1.68 NS
B 6.23 2 3.12 0.18 NS
0 888.00 2 222.00 25.28 <.01
AxB 87.55 8 11.89 0.68 NS
AxC 71.11 8. 17.78 1.01 NS
BxC 583.77 8 185.98 8.31 <.05
AxBxC 180.85 _8_ 17.56

Total 1798.67 26

 

aBartlett's test - x2 - 56.55, df - 3 for interactions, p - NS,
Ho rejected. Pooling of interactions not warranted because of
.1ack of homogeneity of variance.

Table 78.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change x Occupational Level x Office

 

 

 

 

Occupational Office(C) Change in Readiness for Change (A)
Level (B) (-3 to -19) (t2) (+3 to +15)

Home 12 13 10
Supervisory

Branch 5 6 3

Home 87 88 81

Non-Supervisqny
Branch 31 20 '10

 

 

226

Table 78.2. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x Occupational Level x Office

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa

 

 

A 129.50 2 68.75 8.11 NS
B 1825.33 1 1825.33 115.89 <.01
0 768.00 1 768.00 88.76 <.05
‘AxB 66.17 2 33.08 2.10 NS
AxC 31.50 2 15.75 1.00 NS
BxC 283.00 1 283.00 15.83 NS
AxBxC _3_1_._50_ _g 15.75

Total 3095.00 11

 

aResults differed when pooled interactions were used for
error term, see Table 78.3.

Table 78.3. Analysis of variance for Change in Readiness
for Change x Occupational Level x Office using pooled Inter-
actions as the Error Term

 

 

Source of variation Sum of df Mean Square F pa
Pooled Interaction Squares

 

AxB 66.17 2 33.08 0.58 NS
Pooled Interaction 306.00 5 61.20

AxC 31.50 2 15.75 0.23 NS
Pooled Interaction 380.67 5 68.13 ‘
BxC 283.00 1 283.00 11.29 <.05
Pooled Interaction 129.17 6 21.53

 

aBartlett's test: a? - 8.28, or - 3 for interactions, p - NS,
Ho accepted.

227

Table 79.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change x Expected Involvement x Degree of Informed Awareness

 

 

Expected In- Degree of In- Change in Readiness for Change(A)
volvement(B) formed Awareness(C) (-3 to --19) ('52) (+3 to +15)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3-5) 2 1 8
(1-8) (6.8) 13 ll 6
(9-11) 2 1 2
(3-5) 7 5 5
(5-6) (6-8) - ‘3 5 8
(941) 8 5 3
(3-5) 18 13 8
(9) (6—8) 25 29 19
(9—11) 8 5 7

 

 

Table 79.2. Analysis of Variance for Change in Readiness for
Change x Expected Involvement x Degree of Informed Awareness,

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p3

 

 

A 33.85 2 16.92 2.61 ' NS
B 606.78 2 303.37 86. 82 <.01
c 350.52 2 175.26 27.05 <. 01
AxB 25. 08 8 6. 26 0.97 NS
AxC 32.59 8 8.15 1.26 NS
BxC 268.37 8 .66.09 10.20 «<.01
.AxBxC _51;§5 _§_ 6.88
Total 1368.96 26

 

8Bartlett's test: x2 - 57.18, df - 3 for interactions, p I=<.Ol,
Ho rejected. Pooling of interactions not warranted because of
lack of homogeneity of variance.

228

Table 80.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Change in Readiness
for Change x Communicative Contacts x Education

 

 

Communicative Education Change in Readiness for Change (A)

 

 

 

 

Contacts (B) (-3 to ~19) (12) (+3 to +15)
(111 20 7 3
(1-3) $§Q____ 3 5 5
(7-9) 0 3 1
(1-5) 29 26 6
(8-6) (6) 13 30 23
(7-9) 6 20 38

 

 

Table 80.2. Analysis of variance of Change in Readiness for
Change x Communicative Contacts x Education

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square Fa pb
A 82.33 2 21.16 ‘0.86 NS
B 1088. 89 1 1088.89 23. 60 4.01
C 61.00 2 30.50 0.66 NS
AxB 121.85 2 60.72 1.32 NS
AxC 667.67 8 166.92 3.62 NS
BxC 62.11 2 31.06 0.67 NS
AxBxC .4188525 ‘__8 86.18

Total 2228.00 17

 

aBartlett's test: x2 - 2.61, df - 3 for interactions, p - NS,
Ho accepted.

bSame results obtained when pooled interactions were used as
the error term.

229
3. Affective Response to the Computer
The subgroupings 0n the‘variable measure for use in the multiple

contingency tables were:

 

 

Group Score range Interpretation
I 3-7 Positive response to computer
II 8-13 Negative reSponse to computer

Table 81.1. Multiple Contigency Table for Affective Re-
sponse to the Computer x Tenure x Age

 

 

Tenure(B) Age(C) Affective Response to the Co uter (A)

 

 

 

 

 

(3-7) (8-13

(M) 38 ’ 30

(1-2) (3:8; 7 2
(5-6) 0 0

M 23 19

(3-5) (3-8) 12 11
(5-6) 0 8
'3g2_)_ 9 16

(6—7) (3-8) 26 ‘ 11

 

5- 6)

F

 

 

230

Table 81.2. Analysis of Variance for Affective Response to
the Computer x Tenure x Age

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa
A 16.06 1 16.06 0.71 NS
B 3.10 2 1.55 0.77 NS
0 1085.77 2 582.88 23.89 .<.01
AxB 5.78 2 2.89 0.13 NS
Axc 61.78 2 30. 89 1.36 NS
BxC 619.57 8 158.89 6.82 .<.05
AxBxC __22;§§ .5: 22.72

Total 1882.98 17

 

aBartlett's test: xf- 8.81, df - 3 for interactions, p - <.O2,
Ho rejected. Pooling of interactions not warranted because of
lack of homogeneity of variance.

Table 82.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer 1: Occupational Level 1: Office

 

 

Occupational Office(C) Affective Response to the Com ter (A)

 

 

 

 

Leve1(B) (3-7) (8-13
Home 22 12
Supervisory
Branch 9 1
Home 65 59

Non-supervisory '.

 

 

231

Table 82.2. .Analysis of variance for Affective Response
to the Computer x Occupational Level x Office

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa

 

 

A 36.12 1 36.12 0.76 NS
B 2112.50 1 2112.50 88.89 NS
0 1225.12 1 1225.12 25.80 NS
AxB 12.76 1 12.76 0.27 NS
AxC 28.18 1 28.18 0.59 NS
BxC 292.76 1 292.76 6.16 NS
AxBxC 11:89. _1_ 87.88
Total 3758.88 7

 

aBartlett's test: x2 - 2.80, df - 3 for interactions, p - NS,
Ho accepted. Pooled interactions gave same results for inter-
action effects; main effects ”B” and ”C” were found significant
at .01 and .05 level, respectively.

Table 83.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Education x Communicative Contacts

 

 

Education(B) Affective Response Communicative Contacts (A)

 

 

 

to the Computer(C) (1-3) (8-6)

g3-7) 11 88
(1-5)

(8—13) 5 19
(6) (3-72 13 27

8-13 9 26

g3-7) 11 6
(7-9)

(8-13) 22 18

 

 

232

Table 83.2. Analysis of variance for Affective Response to
the Computer x Education x Communicative Contacts

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square Fa pb

 

 

 

A 888.08 1 888.08 8.89 NS
B 88.67 2 88.38 0.85 NS
0 28.08 1 28.08 0.86 NS
AxB 866.67 2 233.38 8.86 NS
AxC 30.09 ' 1 30.09 0.58 NS
BxC 820.67 2 210.38 8.02 NS
AxBxC 108.66 _2 52.33

Total 1578.92 11

 

aBartlett's test: x2 I 1.97, df - 3 for interactions, p - NS,
Ho accepted.

bSame results obtained when pooled interactions were used as
the error term.

Table 88.1. Multiple Contingency Table for Affective Response
to the Computer x Expected Involvement x Degree of Informed
Awareness

 

 

Expected In- Degree of In- Affective Response to the Computer(A)

 

 

 

 

 

 

volvement(B) formed Aware- (3-7) (8-13)
ness(C)
(3-5) 9
(1-8) (6—8) 25 9
122.111 6 2
(3-5 17 13
(5-6) _(é-fiL 36 26
9-11) 15 10
(3-5) 11
(9) 52:2). 3 9

A
‘P
I:

V

 

 

233

Table 88.2. Analysis of variance for Affective Response to
the Computer x Expected Involvement x Degree of Informed
Awareness

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F pa
A 38.72 1 38.72 9.78 <5.05
B 733.77 2 366.88 103.35 <.01
0 878.10 2 239.05 67.38 <.01
AxB 189.78 2 98.89 26.73 <.01
AxC 80.79 2 20.80 5.75 - NS
BxC 185.57 8 36.39 10. 25 <.05
AxBxC _1_8_2_1_ _8_ 3.55
Total 1636.98 17

 

aBartlett's test: x2 - 7.19, df t 3 for interactions,
p -.<.O5, Ho rejected. Pooling of interactions not
warranted because of lack of homogeneity of variance.

A PPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C
Multiple Analyses of Covariance

The degrees of freedom involved in these analyses of covariance
were as follows:

 

Source d£_ ‘ Remarks

total N-l N I total number of cases
between n-l n I number of treatments
within N-n

adjusted sums of squares

Total N-l~r r = number of variables for which
adjustments were made; one df
Between n—l lost for each regression coef-

ficient calculated.
‘Within N-nar
I
The F values were obtained by dividing the adjusted mean square
between groups by the within adjusted mean square for the errors of

estimate.

235

236

Hypothesis I

 

Table 85.1. variable Data1 used in Preparation
of Multiple.Ana1ysis of Covariance for Hypothesis I

 

 

 

Treatment X1 X2 X3 X8 Y N
1 258 1880 197 91 989 52
2 306 1827 262 117 1193 68
3 309 1776 275 107 1223 63

869 5083 ' 738 315 3365 179

 

1'x1-Invo1vement; Xg-Initial RFC, X3IContacts, XhILevel, YIRFC
deviations.

Table 85.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products used
in Preparation of Multiple Analysis of Covariance

 

 

 

Sums of squares Sums of Cross Products'
x1 - 8883 1112- 28387
1113-= 3580
X2 ' 18953]. Xth' 1521
X2X3' 20887
X3 ' 3118 ' X2Xh' 8770
X3X II 1260
Kb I 587 X1 I 16531
X21 I 91322
I - 69157 X Y I 13802

3 . .
xhr 5919

 

I"

.——1.
“I

Source

.'_____.4 7

Total
Between

Within 5

_fi 7

 

237

 

'.——-—-

 

 

Table 85.3. Multiple Analysis of COVariance for Hypothesis I

 

 

y XiY X2Y X3Y XhY

Source df sle ssX2 sst ssXh X1X2 1113 Xth x2x3 xth X3Xh ss

 

Total 178 268.22 7853.63 108.19 32.67 135.50 23.38 8.28 207.88 108.55 31.67 5898.76 198.77 3880.76 3.62 2.68
Between 2 0.55 20.98 9.88 0.58 2.85 0.38 0.53 7.93 1.81 0.89 81.01 1.83 10.61 19.20 2.79
Within 176 263.67 7832.65 98.71 32.13 133.05 23.00 7.71 199.95 102.78 30.78 5857.75 192.98 3870.15-15.58 —0.15

 

Table 85.8. F Test for Analysis of Covariance

 

 

 

Source of Adjusted sum of df Mean Square F p
variation squares of estimate

Total 8083.60 178

Within 8082.38 172 23.50

Between 81.22 2 20.61 0.88 NS

 

 

 

237

 

 

 

 

 

Table 85.5.

238

Supplementary Data for Analysis of Covariance

 

 

 

 

 

Test for

Homogeneity Regression Weights Treatment Means

of variancea b b' Obtained Adjusted
x2 - 1.20 tl-++.57 +.58 18.25 18.26

at - 2 b2- +.89 +.89 18.68 18.57

p - Ns b3- -.62 -.78 19.81 19.87

Ho accepted

bu. “1.09 ”.88

 

8‘See Appendix D for formula used to test for homogenity of

variance.

Mypothesis II

Table 86.1. Variable natal used in preparation
of Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis II

 

 

 

Treatment {X1 Z X2 (13 (I N
1 289 193 90 362 51
2 297 260 115 819 63
3 287 259 100 397 59
Z 833 712 305 1178 173

 

ail-Involvement, Xz-Contacts, X3-Level, IIResponse to
Computer.

239

Table 86.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products
used in Preparation of Multiple Analysis of Co-
variance

 

 

 

Sums of Squares Sums of Cross Products
X1 - 8267 1112 - 3807
x2 ‘= 3038 1113 - 1857
x3 - 569 x213 - 1228
Y - 8708 1:11 - 5781
121 - 8776

X3Y I 2102

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm Hm.c NH.H m Hm.m nomapom
om . m $1” 8 ram fines:
mua mo.~mm Hopes
s a onmsom comm we opoewpmm mo mohosvm cowamfihmp
mo 25m poemsnca mo monpom
nu oocmwhmboo mo mflmbfime< Mom pmma b .:.wm manna
a.
m;.mm mm.mwn ma.umfl m4.oww NH.om7 06.0HI mm.omn w>.om mo.~m oo.mmw ova ewmpwz
mm.on mm.on 0m.m mm.w mo.HI mm.on HJ.OI mm.o £0.0H NO.H N cooapom
mH.mm mH.m~| mm.coa Hw.wm© ©N.Hmu mm.HH7 om.HN7 mm.Hm mo.~oa wo.©m~ NNH anoa
emu was was ems. mama mud“ «New momma seam Hemm no 8.58

 

HH mawonpomhm you mocmfiaoboo mo

negates. 3.1352

.m.om manna

Hypothesis

Table 86.5.

281

Supplementary Data for Analysis of

 

 

 

 

 

Covariance
Test for

Regression Weights Treatment Means
Homogeneity" b' obtained‘ adjuSted
of variance
X2 - 1.89 bl - +.81 +.81 7.10 6.93
df = 2 b2 . "eLI-l -O’4h 6065 6066
p 3 NS b3 3 +057 +052 '6073 6.86

Ho accepted

 

III

Table 87.1.

variable Data; used in Preparation of
Multiple Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis III

 

 

 

 

Treatment ixl £X2 2X3 if N
l 2036 275 113 1817 77
2 2063 306 88 1888 75
3 2280 336 98 1888 79
i 6339 917 .295 8393 231
1

RFC deviations.

X1 I Initial RFC, 12 I Office, X3‘I Contacts, Y I

282

Table 87.2. Sums of Squares and Cross Products
used in preparation of Multiple Analysis of Co-
variance

 

 

 

Sums of Squares Sums of Cross Products
11 = 183897 1112 - 25888
12 a 3860 1113 a 8115
Y = 90731 X11 3 116318
' XéY_I 17839

XBY ' 5523

 

283

.M.nom cannon name poemswpan

.Q xflpdomm< mom 1% mom opmeapmo mo mnonao mo monsoon Mo 85m popmsfipgm

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.v.~o.s mw.aoa N ms.m6m dooasom

oo.mm mam as.soms assess.

ANN 6H.moam asses

m m nohmsvm does. Mp mopwEHpmm Ho moamsvm Goapmwhn>

He saw sonnenea mo condom

moswwhmboo Mo mfimhawca pom pmoe m .:.~m manna

ma.ms- cs.am- oo.HaNs- os.moaa as.os- om.Hs- as.mmn so.~s Hm.ooN Hw.aoso awn assess
oa.sa- wm.a~ am.mm ma.mm mo.m- os.am- mo.am on.s as.ma oa.msa N nooseom
HH.~®- ma.o ca.mmms- ea.~maa oo.as- ae.aa ao.omm am.os ae.aam sa.sema omw Hopes
ems wax .eax _amm mama mafia «New mama «Nam Hana mo condom.

 

 

HHH nanoseoeam ace ooceanaeoo so aeoaHece ascends:

.m.ww magma

Table 87.5.

288

Supplementary Data for Analysis of Covariance

 

 

 

 

 

Test. for Homogeneity Regression Weifl Treatment Means
°f “”18““ b b' Obtained Adjusted“
12 - 1.22 » - -.86, -.85 18.80 18.35
df .. 2 - -.02, +.25 19.88 19.68
p I MS I -2.21, -1.82 18.88 19.07

Ho accepted

 

aSee formula in Appendix D.

Hypothesis Iv
Table 88 e 1 0

Variable Data used in preparation of Multiple

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Covariance for Hypothesis Iv

Treatment £11 £12 ZX3 if N
1 ‘ 289 198 73 _ 387 53
2 288 286 68 808 59
3 381 299 83 861 70
2 878 783 228 1256 . 182

1 .

x1 I Involvement, 12 I Contacts, X3 I Office,

I I Response to Computer.

Table 88. 2.

Sums of Squares and Cross

products used in preparation of Multiple
Analysis of Covariance

 

 

Sums of Squares

Sums of Cross Products

 

11 I 8868
X2 I 3187
X3 I 308

X

I 9378

1112 ' 35,49
X113 I 107 8
12X3 I 878
11! I 6188
X22! " 5086
X3Y ' 15,41

 

‘i‘ l' .....- D‘-

285

 

vI.

 

 

 

 

 

mz 002—” 0:.m m 00.0 Goozpom

HN . m 6: mm .mom cases:

0: mmdwm H369

a m 2380 Geo: Mp opmfipmm mo moawsqm Goavmwnmb

Mo :50 popmpmpa mo 60880

ooswfiamboo .Ho amending. mom smog. .m 3.00 manna

00.0... 00.0w: 5.30: 3.4% tummu mm.m mmému $.02 3.39” omfiom m: sHfiHE
no.4 be.aau ma.m- as.ma mo.m- mo.au NN.N ab.a Hm.a Nm.o N soospom
main mméwn aim: 8.02 02.0? RN 833.. Hm.mm 23m? 00.03 SH H309
ems 3 was Ann was mass New mean Nsmm damn so condom

 

>H mfimonponbnm new ooqmfiamboo mo 39355 30392

.m.mw oases

 

Table 88.5.

2h6

Supplementary Data for.Analyeie of Covariance

 

_L

 

'

 

 

Test for Eggressian‘weiggts Treatment Means
Homogeneity - '

of variance b b' obtained adjusted
X?“ 1.71 b1 - +.37 +.3s 7.30 7.19
df - 2 b2 - -1.05 -1.12 6.92 6.89

p . NS b3 3 '1.th “'lohll 6.59 6. 69

Ho accepted

 

A PPENDIX D

l.

3.

APPENDIX D
Statistical Formulae

Intraclass Correlation (Guilford, 1951:, p. 395).

where: r1ch 8 intraclass correlation for
r a M mean ratings from k raters

Vp - variance for items

Ve - variance for error

Skewness Index (Garrett, 1937, p. 115).

where: Mn - mean score

Sk .. M Mdn - median score
SD SD I standard deviation

of distribution

t Test of Significance (Edwards, 19136, p.182).

where: M a Mean score for Upper 27%
’ group
‘m M - Mean Score for Lower 27%
d group
6111 = standard error of the mean
d difference for independent

groups

'1'. . M1” M2

 

l4. Cosine- i A roximation for Estimatin Tetrachoric r (Guilford,
1930, p. 332;.

where: a, b, c, and d = cell frequencies

o‘V" in a 2 x 2 table.
rt 3 cos( 180 bc

cos - cosine
Vad + bc

2148

9.

21:9

Split-Half Reliability Corrected for Unequal Parts (Guilfcrd,
19 O, p. 36)
where: R - reliability
r - correlation between
Rain$+hpq(l-r) ‘3 the two parts
2 pg (1 - r2) p = proportion of total
test devoted tc one
part
q'l-p

 

 

Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula (Guilford, 1950, p. L92).

zrhh where: rtt - reliability of a total
rtt = i_:___—. test estimated from re-
rhh liability of one of its
halves
rhh - self-correlation of a
half-test

Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient of Correlation Calculated from

where: N 8 number of cases

rxy - NEH "' (2X) 2!) X - original measure-
ments on X
N'EX -(ZX) '(ZI) Y - original measure-

ments on Y

rtt Estimated from.Average Item Intercorrelation (Guilfcrd, 1950,
psh9h).‘

 

where: n - number of items
- 513 9 average item intercorre-

rtt - _____:ELJL1:___ lation
,1 + (n-l) r13

Rulon Formula (Guilford, 1951;, p. 379).

 

62 d where: rtt - reliability
rtt ' l " '37;- d - differences between two

half scores
63 - SD of those differences
6% - SD of the total score

10.

12.

13.

250

Chi flare (Guilford, 1950, p. 276).

2 where: f0 - observed cell frequency
3:2 . {(fO'fe) fa - expected cell frequency
2 L f6 J

2 .
(fo-fe) /fe cell square contingency

Standard Error of Measurement (Guilford, 1950, p. 1479).

where: ft” '- standard error of
6t“ - 6t Vl'rtt measurement
0?. - standard deviation of
obtained measure

rtt = reliability coefficient
for obtained measure

Standard Error of a Mean Difference for Matched Pairs

Edwards 191:6 . 17h .
’ ’ p ) where: 6‘ - S.E. of mean difference

md
63
("1d - __——_ 6d - so of distribution of
V N“: differences between pairs

N - number of pairs

Reliability of Difference Score (Guilford, 1951:, p. 39h).

r33 4- rkk - 2rjk where: rdd - reliability of
difference scores

2 (l-rjk) r33 - reliability of 1:3.

rkk - reliability of Xk

rjk - intercorrelation
between X3 and Xk

 

rdd '

1h.

15.

251

Calculation of Regression'Weights_gb and_b')
Three variables.

SSX12b1 + SP(X1X2)b2 + SP(X1X3)b3 - sp(x1¥)
SP(X1X2)b1 + SSX22b2 + SP(XéX3)b3 - SP(X2Y)

2 .
SP(XiX3)b1 + SP(X2X3)b2 + 53x3 b3 SP(X3Y)

Four variables

 

ssxizbl + sp(x:1x2)b2 + SP(x:1x.3)b3 + sp(x1xh)bh - SP(X1Y)
SP(X1X2)b1 + SSX22b2 + SP(X2X3)b3 + sp(x2xh)bh - SP(X2Y)
SP(X1X3)b1 + SP(X2X3)b2 + SSX32b3 + SP(X3Xb)bh . SP(X3Y)

- SP<X1XL)b1 + sp(x2xh)b2 + SP(X3Xh)b3 + ssxhzbh = SP(XhY)

where: b1, b2, b3, bu . regression weights for variables
SS = sum of squares for X1, X2, X3, and Xh'

SP - sum of products for X1X2, X1X3, X1Xh,
X2X3, XQXh, and X3Xh.

b weights found by solving simultaneous equations

Determination of Adjusted Treatment Means.
? ' E ' b1(Ti'ii)'b2(52-22) ' bn(fin'in)
where: Q = adjusted treatment mean
i - obtained treatment mean
b1,b2,bn - regression weights for X1, X2, and Xn
T1,T2,Tn - treatment means for X1, X2, and Kn
X1,X2,xn - total means for X1, X2, and Kn

16.

17.

18.

19.

252

Calculation of Adjusted Sum of Squares for Y.

SSyz-b18P(X1Y) - b28P(12Y)-b3 SP(X3Y)-bnSP(XnY) - adj. 5533

Correlation Ratio for Aggression of Y on X (Guilford, 1950,

p. 316)’ where: 7yx - correlation ratio for Y on X

67' . SD of P values predicted from
73X ' _L. x
y
6‘y - SD of total distribution for Y

Chi-glare Test of Linearity (Guilford, 1950, p. 320).
2 2 where: N - total number of cases
J:2 - (N-k) ' r
1 '7 k II number of columns (or rows)
r - Pearson r value
7 - correlation ratio
Bartlett's Test for Homogeneity of Variance for Groups with

x2 a 2.3026[£(n-1fl Eog égfif—fn] - £(n-1)(log 32)

where: n - number in each subgroup

 

x - sum of squares within each group

s - variance for each group

Z - summatim for each group
log - natural log
2.3026 - logelo, a constant

APPENDIX E

1

25b

"3'?“ mm m - l- I

73'. i tre {intersserieeetrtielsepl—sdtehspysem
1217:7233 of ear seem-s in estimation eith th t-tsllstiss st - eleetr-te

c: ":terecraon Muum'w. Isles.- “isles-lumen
lreuas e! the but. if esmsd meessery, m th .01- at
special bulletin.

E

2!! water is presently is ti. cease
plant. and is scheduled fer buses-y to a

Yes robebly knew that ?and—m ne- vutin is
caesiitv o!‘ arena-ans. hues of a prep-er mist at writing
procedural aerate). rue adeptlne the W.
nreofa statistieelrspertaeusemdhsesbeeesmeetedte
renata'GSO“ testinstelletim. Atthemesettin.bethmaseis1

theeeurse of final muiummmoqleti-einegeiabeemeetsltsa
-1!!!
.a23'
mane,

ran to assure 21193th .0 . - ,,

l.— ‘- irr' ..izcn as to the effect the electronic cor outer rill MN en 1
:-: ~:.l as tre reason for con‘tertinf: to e syster. of this .

vital icocrtim-e to you. Therefore, as present the following:

is of

- “- anti": Cc-rittce wishes to assure the: the installation or an
it corretcr rill ir no ray jeopardise your employment. with

l. .
n.7nA--.

of tcmy's co-oetition for 0306 insurahle risks of all types,
‘r~c.‘"e so arioltte ftt‘COC-S‘itf that panacea-fit receive accounting,
".- 7713;, at... etitir'ical refer-ts on the rest current tssis possible. '
‘ " "re-'2‘. elven-9m]. accox1'.t‘_:' r. m: 'eill nn‘. per-tit us to '

-. ..
.‘T.

   
   

'ch' t're remit-e". data as rrr'ot..7' u we need it sat, th-r-ciore,
" a c' an rlcctrO'u cr .' . ”er c'craticn var deer-rad a
_ rt“, is to achieve "a "mi o.’ continua-4. aromas
-- arm-"s n.te of increased cor-retitled.
' -' :7“, nature's: questions will arise in _vour'rinris as respects the
*.~ -‘._:‘-~. 2." °‘"e ‘ -';‘ an: '1'.- S‘TLT‘f‘I‘JGn' ecsntstion to our operations.
" ~"‘.'.' ‘ '-l "1:? - "av mutations you ray have. "s an by no near.

2 .'_'“ .

all ‘fir ;.:—.:. ‘rs, tut tecavse u will have accuse to {233's

-'. ‘ ” c-. t'e abject, r: f-el that .-,'.:- era c ~ for you. If you
'.'. "1 c*.:‘.f‘t. t: -:?'rr vcur avarice“: to car Personnel

‘ r, ‘9 -‘.'l err-r?" to have your questi r at a gram

‘ i'.‘.i'."..'.‘.‘ll 39315.

a." 1:112.- 'orr‘arc to your wholeherted eoooeration in ssslstinr the l
-r: ant trove rev-.‘rsi‘de {or the successful installation and
r ' '7'.":*. of .5, "-S‘T' elcctronic eon-puter.

. ...-,

 

 

“050" PRooncss REPORT 94 -. sr: —

Our "9.50" preparation schedule certainly gained momentum during this
past month. Here are some oi the highlights:

1. On October 2. 1957. gheld a meeting with all personnel
oi the l. B. M. Key Punch an abulating Departments. the program-
mcrs. an I. B. M. representative and yours truly. The purpose of
the meeting was two-(old: -

(a) To familiarise those present with the mechanical operation
01 the "650". .
1
(b) Speciitc ally stress the extreme importance of the team work ‘

and cooperation required to successfully install and subse-
quently operate the computer.

2.. On October 15.
was attended by

l957 the re rammers conducteda meetin which

     
   

       

nd your reporter. The purpose 0 thzs meeting was
to renew e completed programs scheduled for "650" apphcauon.
and the establishment 0! ar. educational program [or personnel to be
ailected by the "650" operation. Supernsors and interested personnel
wall be not-.fzed when the programmers have compiled the data neces-
sary to conduct the first educational session.

5. On October to. 1957. Mr.” l.B.M. 's Physical Planning
Engineer on Computer lnsta ation, v sited \Vlth us to determine our
rcadzness (or the installation by the scheduled delivery date. Pat
div-red a {cw worthuhde suggestions. for inclusion wzth our present
plans. and left us wzth the feeling that we Will be m complete readi-
ness prior to the "650" delivery date.

.‘JKCNZGAN SKATE ZS lN'll'lPl‘LSI'l'ID IN US

1' . . 7' " ‘ 'w H' .‘ 1Y1}! ‘.'.. T‘r- 3,..'ir‘1',;t,=.'.‘r~ wall:

“ .. -'. '_ .' r .. m}, . 1;. .1.‘ l 43v V.HT‘."’.~‘I’CG who thu-y are.
it :.- ;. t..- -‘.,:;.

The Labor and Indistrtal RP:.lKlOr‘.S Center at Mzchzgan State University
is mnkzng a scrzes of studies of new office pruccrinrcs md FQ'J'JXIN'YILI
They want to 11nd «Hut how these things. mil acnce the peopm in title elf-xv:
where they are installed.

The Center has asked-to let it come tn and observe what happens
when our IBM cSO computer comes in. The Company has agreed to i..-
opernte and to .‘et the Center make a study here. YOu will hear more noon:
the study later.

"I- — v»

Fig. 6.

L_.._..

«Ib—

ms: mr - It

Or Wears, * Conducted a .653. “meta-sum
at ”I Detroit Data Processinr enter on Aumst 9th.

fit

 

Prior to the actual nachine demtretion, resented a resume of tin
trot-recs ra‘ to date and also discussed are of the «oration: currently under
stair. dike-ire described m.- '553" and its comment units outlining the
specific function performed by each. a cooperative flow chart, reflecting steps
cum-1th! required under our present system and those under a '653' asthod, ms
exhibited to further explain the operation to be dencnstrsted.

Sari-.3 the course of t‘e deemetration,”opersted the '65:? an! I!
exclanstion, as to how the instructions a e cumin." the prone! are
recorie! on "‘e nth-retic atorare dnit, was riw-n. I. test-deck ras processed
tire-.4: :1: '65" for rachine conputetior. and the preparation of punched cards
acres-eta: t‘e remxlts o." the coenutations. The completed pinch-d cards
”.re sulse'mentl': :rocessed throurh en 15”.: 1:37 Printer and t): finished report
res rode available for scratiny by the from in attendance.

fhe question and answer sessions indicated that there existed a adult-
interest in the ‘653' and that overrun added to thir previous beam of
“the cor-_ueter.

, _.___ ___._.____ ME 7 .-

'650' morass cm a;;3y__.-

its you know, our :r::rerr.ers, *md
entered in prrrarinr for the ins’a a- or. of the " , scheduled for delivery

c.7127 the 1cm}. c.’ Deceoicr c! this year. 'le have been both pleased and
pro-if c! t: rrcrrese these tellers have been nakim' and since the last "650'
report we have been assured that our feelings wen Justified.

(‘3 Sepia-abs.- l‘l, 1°57, 3?.q insurance I

.52.“.{0'23 "achinc: Corporation, Visits with for the ",.I' ..e of evaluating
the tron-es: 71.1 to.- tc date. It was 2r. *consider. . :piLicr. that the
PrCf'TI‘f'J‘l’! “er: coin: an outstanding job and that our :rtp:.r:.t‘.r~r. :ctezule
u.- at least equz‘. to that o.’ carcanies ‘rith two year: of research pricr to
s “€52" instillation.

 

are busily

erpcr‘. nternaticral

cf
i?..
J

Per t‘ie bcc'it c! t'r-ee who ray not have read a: article cn auto—ation rhich
arsenal ir. a recent irrte o.’ the Interrreter, re would like to quote the
{cllczr'nct

" "hat Lute-ation F"! "cent to the T‘site Collar Torker:

A-oriczr. Past : avarice net-2 a curve; of 330 larre an: medium-
size: ccr:;:-s.°..r~.—.s who had too: qui'e active in. office enter-ation,
and the results were that after autrraticn equipment had been in-
stalled there were 2 per ccnt to 10 per cent ncro rhite collar e:-
pleyees that before. Also, ir. the rest ten years, during the great-
est period r.’ 0"“.ce mechan‘zcticr, clerical Worxere have tripled.

The nlai'. fact of the nat'nr has tecrht us that automatized office
cysts-.5 Help to keep ccnnanies crfigwtitive ty suit-”.171; 2.; office over-
atiors anv‘. providing for creator capccity, accuracy and versatility.

vs:-
I

redirects“? c! Pcrmnralt
m.—

I’ in the natural crecciecce that office nutcration and the up-
rra‘im‘ o.’ c'.”.:‘ f‘r-c'..'v~l s": “.17.: in but, .1'2‘. tits, of CC‘.1‘.’O

lea”: tc a rise i' 1.. scale c' It'd!“ $31.13 to :‘r fact that office
v:rkers relieved fro". r:~.t‘.'.», it‘difit‘tus a“ nu"'<.~~€‘.2r Vt: are
in tut-z Trrcd to in rcrt skillful types of “L71: a'zi a::.‘.-.r- increased

responsibility of a sore interestin.‘ a" rarir: '5“

.rL'.

 

_..._. ,. -..”-..

wso" PROGRESS REPORT .5 - BL!

 

This Will probably be the last progress you will read (1
actual installation of the "050" electronic computer.

slut. the last issue 0! the — the following activities have taken
p ace:

hope) prtor to the

1. On October )0. and ll. 1957. tests 0! "650" programs. at the

Detroit 1. 3.“. Data Processing Test Center. were completed.

On November ll. l957. "650" Information Sessions {or all

Home Ofltce personnel. were conducted by the Programmers and
the Personnel Department. The purpose of these sessions was
to explain the reason for the acquisition of the "650" and in-
cluded brie! explanations o! the computer's capabilities. Each
sesston was concluded with a question and answer period which
we hope proved beneficial to everyone. '

l. On'November ll, thru November 15. I957. attended
the Fire and Casualty Electronic Data Processing Seminar.
sponsored by l. B. M. at Poughlteepsle. New York. -advieed
us that the Seminar was attended by representatives of 36 in-
surance companies. In addition to the educational sessions. all
representatives were escorted on a tour at the entire 1. B. M.
plant which is also located in Poughkeepele.

 

A series of progress reports on the

installation of the IBM 650 appearing in the

monthly'house’organ.

.‘_-_—— .. ...-_—..

hymns.
belle-e“
To: mummmmMth-e-i

useless-her we buy—haste stseasdlsfistrtat Rebate-e Cesses el
Michigan State University was carry!“ a a broad progress: 01 research best-g

b do wt. people wwshhg elbelively bgefier h t-dueu'ial organise“. Tbey
requested has. and the Comp-y gave permission. (or his Labor sad

Hostess! Relations Cents - mahe a research ebady ol the ideas a‘ h m
fiat one people may have bad at his polio-e wt. the Company.

Or. who was In charge el .as research only bore. ash-ed b
Mateo-nee entrees panel.“ serteeelsbedaes. aadbosb Does-u

and the Company are geahlul tor the belp you gave them at that time. Dr.
-setls as tant hey are (ted-g the Normals-a very usetnl is hear research.

lea-wane banelspsed smoke-swan. l'es consummate...-
wasy have bee-endpbcbaage er cbaage inhegesersl cooditioaselwwebta
heukenubuybaveaflecbdywa. torso-dywa.e-~efierba-d. has
uybeusueee-ecbsage.

I is important. De. tater-sue as. is heir research to know whether I.
findings they obhaaed at eae same will remain true at a Laser date. The Labor and
Hostess! lehhoae Ceslsr are. Ibereloee. ashisg that you participate ta fie
second ebsdy and that the employee who have joined the Company since the first
survey and those employee who. lea eae reasoa or soother. could set participa-
bsloee ease past is Me see.

These-Ipeemeuyteeebed-ledaelouowe:

lbs-e out“ ~ May a. - h” l“. and h” '. I.
Place: Les-bloom

Detroit Ira-eh - my I. - [:30 ,.M.
Hace; Your Dash

This second guano-ire is considerably shorter use he use you may have tilled
sol is November. As is the tint study. the aaewere that you give so his quasi--
naire will be made available ealy so the lesearch Department 0‘ the Labor and
Mental Release-a Caster el batch-ages brass University. No ewe comcbd ta any
way wttb the Company will see or use any 0! tbs todavitasl question-sires or be
able b (is-i out the ses-re 01 he aaewers that you bevw givwl. The adorn-stun fit
you give. thereto". will be bell is strictest coalidesee by tbs Ceshr and the
results he. he sbsdy will be mind as a group basis only.

Areporte-Ibettedhgedfleeuya‘dhfleveubel IQS‘Iehdwallbewnde.

you by he eadol l0“.
— ”......

To: All Bane Mice and Detroit Drench Otlice Personnel

Tbs Labor sad hdeelrtal Relations Ceeter at Michigan hate University
have bees IIMIlI.‘ by the Michigan Legislature to conduct a research
program with the people employed in industrial organisations and In the
larger em..- el various types at companies.

bave requested. and we have gives. permission {or them to make
a research study at the ideas and the optsioee that our employees may
bare d their positions with the Company.

0- Tuesday. November l9. 1957. you will be eebed by the men from the
Labor and industrial Relations Center 01 the University. in: are doing
this study. to [ill out a questionnaire. This questionnaire will be seen
uly by these research men. No one in the Company will see the ques-
uosusaire nor be told what any Individual employee has answered. You
may. therelore, (eel absolutely tree to {ill out the gage stiannaire with
(«nylon sincerity and we would appreciate it t1 you would do so.

Tb. Cosmpsay would like to be cl as mucb help and assistance as we can
t- tbis research. as the findings 0! the as research then are intended to
estate a better “outstanding d be problems at people employed to

go cusses.

'osald you. .erelore. lreely esprese your individual views and opinions
to these research asses (run he University.

— "......
law-l
P. C. Nowell om“ - l 00 and 1:“ is lbs alter-ea
Place - Lunch loan
Detroit cam - l-ls nu.
Place - Desb

My luster illorsnatioo can be gives by your supervisor.

Fig, 7e

Bulletins issued

:‘ A >l.-79(llyfer' ., ; 4".“ 1;. |,e'-
“olti‘lfl u
lle IBM no Ltectrosu. Comp-m r

be can eflurte h- nube mar opera!“ as \I'.\ f...)'.‘g‘ mule eihc sent and in keeping

”(.0 with "any nl lhe' lasber not: parts: in mt n-Illstry, we have ‘K‘hl'.1|"sw
Mew 1* killer; shonal ll lain-(II L14- 3 l ies C-.-r'[\4ny inela.l in ”I .t‘nfl UUICC
an electronic (output-r shown by the had- '.a v.1 o1 "o‘iO". This cuvnwuy 5..
Inany leatures In t rulers-04 by the [nu ma: Lu... we va .u, but basically
perhaps its prim ipal lrat-.re II a "ns'l“--"" or»... In this sharing electronic
"nuns-sly" did": u an be stun-d a (rel-em: v..- an ”out .1! ut-llelwlil- tg and

'ren tun t [as-.1.. ‘ln n one “..1.. l; t’r ‘tINU‘ 'v Rum-P .s car-m.- hind. ul

statistical snlc-leliun "~70 up...“ than ..“ ,.n bell "mihaaflb and to parlor-v:
may [sanctions which these pre sent nus LIMI tar-v.0! do.

'Dalc w ' 6‘0" to sun- ttvvos (alts-d an "eh-(luv broth". II Is no! shot all I
brain- at LILs-n‘ t! um ll ~,an u'.i . vlv th. as '1I.‘I ehu t- .1.. told to do by business
.I‘ainl. II can or... vahs vflul“ hut. vs ecu-run, tn a very «umpire (ode
wired 500/. this "nvslnuivy" drnn, 0‘.ng ,. ug- val the" cud!!! directions is

be felt ol the eo—cslleri ",-ruLvan.rvxeve'. Dev a-..se the glidg'rsuirflwfe. m eflect.
write up a sort 0! war-1...”; n.an..ai lur I.la,‘.|u‘ [ha “550' t4 93..

“dear... My are being assigns-ti In the Methods and Proacdules beet“.

' our present Methods and Procedures Supervisor. ad “I.
0‘ W Underwriting Deparlnmnl. have been designated I. t.
programmers. II will be necessary [...-I Llwv labe spetial IBM tithing, bk
Iug| .(bool .uytua‘ April :1, 1357. Is. treu -t'fl It will be rscessar) “all

they all verso-us superman” tor pr.“- 9.: .re. unlumuti. n, and your etoleheafled

.upwl’! in ginng then, any Lelp you. car. in the se 'Ileilitarsly steps toward ”hang
the computer do tle seat "at we wan! ll to do at“ be greatly appreciated.

This plU'YOMWIIR.‘ wlll take the lull time oi bin-and u:.. M:-

will be assuming Us. ”invade and pro. rd nee duties
mu. «hatch. and y\ .. are eased to Me reee all menu-tie aad procedures corres-
pndena-e or questions I» bit.

because it is tell that this new IBM (uh pulse will be an integvel part of and

very important in out sales and neu haul-sing prupau. ‘ the “~‘C'flll preparation

lot “I shoullaltlln out be under the general ...,vvns-un ..t Latcu‘b" VKO President.
fly. 'urbir.‘ very closely with him, in addition to th- programrb. will
be our nut Auditor. his

Bocause 01 this and II cooy-eratson with the entire program. Me. was
Treasurer, is AIIJIV.I1‘.‘IM responsibility oi Pelt-sprawl and OIlice ences. TN.

‘lla involve no b-IOJL (taug- In the lacunnttl‘i‘ usgarnulioo, and “ham“
.ltll dilPi’l the [RM np‘lllaohl thrL-s...’ Miss m the IBM y

Pun. r. and Mr m the mu Tabulatmg pavtmente.

MICHIGAN IYAYI l'NlVlIHTV

-san-unsseswvvs-u-Oouelus-w

 

“alumnus—unem-

lad-15.1951

.. mun—wo—

mtabw—slahewtallshtiseemetmleh

peepl m tegetbw ettecttvely in cremation. u
.2 ea. as see is... use sea-use or role
“‘ I

sttbiesteflwwtbestaewiwodeceu.
momma-"ences. ltietwtasttogetyowreslfeel-
: - " b. ‘,: K. '

   

 

mam—IIRWMHM‘HDM
[wroulemutbemm

by the company president

and L.I.R.C. regarding the computer and plans for an

attitude survey.

256

‘ IIIIIIID mum ‘ lwnflr
'0 DAV.
(V ~L
- :‘Ogflcv 6’0 ~Qtln. Jul I g. ~‘_'.

m eon. 'IL. nc
nag-v

On October 2. 1037 a acting wan held for the personnel of l3! hey punch
and IBM tab aectiona. The purpoae of this ueting was to faniliariae
theae people with the 050 Electronic Cor-voter.

open the ueting with a few appenpriate rel-aria which atreaaed
the need for tean wort and the cooperation of everyone in the successful
lnntallation of the 050.

q, lit nalea repreaentatine, then explained the nechanieal
opera on of the 650. A blackboard waa need on which diagrane nere
placed to ahow the internal operationa of the 650.

I then explained the nethod of writing prograna and a little ahont the
operation codea contained in the prograna. he need for accuracy in all
phaaea of the work prior to ita being placed on the 050 was atreaaed.

nade a few appropriate renarha to clone the neting dining tench
he atreaaed the need (or tean wort. cooperation, and accuracy on the part
of all concerned in preparing the work for the 650.

Very few eueationa were preaented. - becaune of the newneaa of this 630
to the people who attended the neeting. m prinary purpoae of the neting
wan to create a tean apirit and nine to introduce then to the 650 coQuter.

__ _. ...—..Lfi

 

Dates lO-lO-fl

 

hbjectt Minute: cf beting

 

At elesen o'clrct ea Center ls. it”. a mting Ina held in "e Min
Duly Icon to fer-late one plane for l‘c ax-.eal ( the mu es:

       

I. oetin ctr-nevi with a brief reviev of that has been «nan-nee
'7 Hana eveezf. hie iarl» ed tie psogra- for tte rating

of co—rclal vehicle. 33' private pa-zo ..vr L‘t..‘)’.i'.... 5,, ”Mean"
“a are in their initial etazea a.: 'n .rrrtlr will u ncrutialned -
.6 “find by the hunt-ent mag-era a. - euprrnacre.

the (int question to he readied by the m .u iuet an bu:

near in
to he "oceanic-.1 the «173-hen :t arrfr-r ‘l tJe ni‘file of D-;-n:~-r_
Alter no. Macadam, it u ‘e'1"ei t 1 al. are anilcatfona t:- on
'ltten in the Wine fff'ce wI'nl-i he an: .r" :y ear of the Mr le
addition. renean' amnlicatisna h: the £- . fry-rs ’oficy euc‘. u. go 3.

converted to the reek-at ’olicv aLl. a‘s t.-
All other renewals frr _mivnte. 11.-”a. .(Or I 'v
vehiclea will he prtranez‘, ‘ry J»..- of the

t-r‘c-aaed by tau eyeten.
‘Zea and count-cial
:..-. t \"(e‘ur'l ne- ertabliehed.

At thin ‘r'tin. it -a eetldlrl .'-a'. t ~~ ..., .‘Vut 304‘ mar ' ‘ne Office
-ttten n.vpli:rti'=na 7: met an! a‘~~‘.t ' v-v a? arr‘tcationt for

All Feature palicien w" ch wn!‘ ‘1: U“! .L-1 to :2: Feature- ‘ilicv.
After ttia uetug. 1'54 l .- :. m 2 x .0 moot-Juice :‘ gurea
f- the past three .‘1L.’ am ft vzt‘ t~at Po renewal applicatir | which
'80 witten 1| tn 15*" Office 0:61.111 1 . -r‘ fan 1‘“ u" 2'- 3 pr

mt: Therefore, the roar- of warn-ea: 01;; wi‘l he ptrcc’le‘. by th
.30 at the etart will probably be brtnee. 1') u.‘ zox‘ appzicatioru per
net.

1'
Th '1' filth‘n Unit". tile d‘acutnefl. in UN nat’er of permeL After
cuaibrlhle diacueahn, it an maxi-"1.17 k- at. that it wea ‘an-Iaible
f- th "I. I‘ll augerv‘ahra to deter nun. t“ r peraoultel reeling-tn
0t thin tin. |fter the procetcxea reu- _ee: established, probable
tithi- theee or four urn-la, it in rvtanh - "bl. ar manner can he 'hrthccling
an to t. "tunnel require-nu of the variant! a: :tinna,
the last iten to he Macueaed at the eeetllg ccx'ral the e‘hacat‘on of L
th peep-l in the -le:~art-nte ani aec‘i ._.. exir . nil: he can affected i
by t- 030 operation. lt wae 'lecHeC the! ‘-"‘n.-i owl's he h-Ld with
the ”file in thene ratio-Ia (iv ng than a ‘:i-..' r'cture of the M” and *
th- “tenet" Iretiage would be crn'tlct-l L‘y tar aupninor of t.‘e
action for the pvtrpoar of el’ab‘intilt t -- M‘.‘ ploremttee. h- ordeal
-tm will laet no l~rger than one hm: mt vll; he cruel-net: he the
papa-re. The -etiega on the nyatrn ‘1 1'. b- cundnctea or tar net-vino"
C In." a! the depart-ante. Mlitiona‘. nap-Hr,- of thia groep
ml, elll h neceaaary to (or-late a tine ar‘ednle for the educatiml
.etingn ‘ he enable the gen. to keep their {true a t. develop-It of
~ Mttm f. 1h 630. .

h

 

Fig. 8. Minutes of meetings held in the home
office dealing with preparations for the computer
installation.

l~~ a" 11. in?

w mne- l-xu

690 cumi-

 

lv-r m1

nu. nun». are long; .a u «...-m . "ya.— uu the in! km linctrmie
_fllr mic! will 2! mainline in Mr lia- 01’le out LXI middle

urine u- p“ {—4 ,“n u.- in-urvn urn-1 l
live. this zap-uum 1.. r rm: u: m
:rrvl‘ucl un..,:G.12-.uu-,-~

poem

   

 

r-er’rJ-uI—d

on!“

very equi-

n r... rm.
urance :aqan m via- u- but
l.;, m. . um via new“ in nit-a.
hind Uni. nr ”Juli-nun an: use -6*(
mm angle .- u. ninuir am iqnu our perv vl. e w
the at u- (w um.

‘ cmur

i) an n ln an efficiency ma rum pup-nuns tr rvpnm an: pulley

m. and

 

:) :m L» m: :w only. heating to prepan mm me uni-um
puru u

at ent. irra-

 

r-khoo Drum-1 x :
Imam hum-m - -
(lrv‘nlla rm. \anu 'lwpile w
1M Can-"4

mh—evmeh “ill ».t.u|m Dr "elm
but). 0. input ...: an“ n xi‘e «4
fat are u- use. nu r cu

 

rr-r “—- «

MMthqMMW

1'

.——~- wh-a—

m: 55“-

 

 

when“.

n- for the Input ma mtpul «r ego
u up nf he ran!“ 1n: r—llm m r.
rue. y. , be m cont-an ...

aim:-

 

m unit u- mm
[In]! Cwuhu -n7 III.- "I
yon-er for u: nfun «mu-Wt u.

unn, u-

 

 

257

m lm’ mum sum.“ .2, nm- 1}- u, my

   
      
  
  
   
  

r lrfur‘L l “me as“ mu v: ing”!
. XW<EHIIMtaier| (- n
. A um, [hr a.“ , M m

'n. wrcn Output .u at c; in Au. u.

an a nu 1a a; H.,ao
A. ”r r , u.“

   

l , c;. n.-
y u war “jammy.

 

, ,1 A "nh r a.

, r-a Ll _ , . muni- am ,r—«m». mm TL!
x r n. . Inf; L1 .~ :a ‘1 u: an. in
ens-d m4 vlrn .m— Ln.’ mu mil nLcrv‘ u, u. n: in u

ml over-u n
r n M m w W.
w an: M.

I. ..
rvlhlft‘i x u n
..-, u» «er

 
 
  
         
 
 

 

 

mm. V. which
r 7 l . .: 4mm”. min
in narLlrv um (Lot u; can u z. u. cqumr
; v fut ln rerun. 1 m, Fowl-um A nLJeanuu: pruhlfl
unwr Du n u n

   

m m III-5 um: lluyrn

     

9r CALL) ‘perfer‘l in mm. Lt Illl hm. ...
~1(rll:l, ,~ n N nae am

1 . o." u (r v. u! re. ,.u— :«n mun-a
“a“ <.r . slzxm‘ n m .en la W- Le A»! u m-
.— :n u. Hanna: 0! m, or Brae Cm m.- n

,nu, m- an? in

   

UK “1:4! .nfrnl'm
mm.“ of
m- in
“Me .muw.
A u: n
mum of
.x ‘J’
- 'x.fa;anl;r ll vrrm.
to: o. My Man
an ln 5‘ F-llcn

 

DL‘lng z»: n’ n ‘er'n lbw-

 

:) -lr «min nil-ntzune In m. um
gun- a! a - LL'..nl.r‘; pr»: m u. lmuzgtlun of u. UN in beta-nor.

aagg‘EfiEE
252%:
E
: E‘s;
i 5}:
‘ 1:5}.
“4'
45‘;

iiifié‘iigififiéf’”
in“: mail
5 E; 2%???
Pg; fit};
2 rilfi
E; i‘ :g
i ' El

 

9. Communications from the information meetings.

APPENDIX F

259

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTER

Michigan State University

SUPERVISORY QUESTIOE‘TNAIRE

Project OE 112-E-h

.n... .
1" .

 

260

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING

 

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTER

’avm‘f'
“‘t.‘

Project OE 112-34; November 1957

To: Mloyees of ”Issuance Canpany

The Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State
University is carrying on a broad program of research having to do
with people working together effectively in industrial organisations.
Much of the research consists of getting the ideas and opinions of
people about their Jobs.

You are beirc asked to fill out a questionnaire as a part of this
series of studies. Your answers, along with those from people in other
organisations, will be analysed to help discover what things are most
important in making the working situation better for the people in it.

The value of this stow depends upon the sincerity and care with
which you answer the questions. It is important to get your real
feelings. We are looking for frank statements about your attitudes.

feelings. gpiniong and jMnts about certain aspects of your job.

The answers that you give will be made available only to the
research team in the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. No one

pomsctsd in an w with ur or anization will see or use 0
the individm sstionnaircs or be able in w to find out what
I633 0? answer on Eve ivsn. Your ificrma§on will be held in the
aghast cofidencs and E50 results of the stuchr will be tabulated
on a group basis only.

Reports on the general findings from the stuchr will be prepared
for you, the canpany and the general public.

 

 

Einst- Hardin

Research Associate

Labor and Industrial Relations Center
Michigan State University .

-----’-—“--’-------u‘-'“----------. ..... -. -------------- ---.-n-- ..... ‘-------

Please print your name below. When you have finished the questionnaire,
tear this part off and place it in the "ballot box" by the door. THIS
HWTION m1. BE USED 1'0 HELP US ANALYZE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IT WILL
NOTBEAVAILABIEI'OANIONEINTHEOONPANI.

(”.31

261

GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS QUICKLY. CHOOSE THE ONE ANSV THAT COMES
CLOSEST TO THE WAY THAT you FEEL. PLACE A CHECK MARK ( IN THE SPACE
IN FRONT OF YOUR CHOICE. PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION.

It-vc: Check the one statement that best describes the rate at
which changes are taking place in the world today.

 

...1...-
1.

 

Much more rapidly than before.
Somewhat more rapidly than before.
At about the same rate as before.
Somewhat less rapidly than before.
Much less rapidly than before.
Don't know.

7”-57 How do you feel about this?

I like it very much.

I like its

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

JTZJfiQ In general, new developments in machines and processes for
handling work:

 

methods

Benefit all of the people.
Benefit most of the people.
Benefit some of the people.
Benefit only a few peeple.
Benefit only a very few people.
Don't know.

rate do you feel new developments in machines and
for doing work are taking place?

Much less rapidly than is desirable.
Somewhat less rapidly than is desirable.
At about the ideal rate.

Somewhat more rapidly than is desirable.
Much more rapidly than is desirable.
Don't know.

262
2.

.I -H*/ Have new machines changed the tasks performed on your kind
of job in the past year?

1

LL] I

9

 

1m
\L
(3‘

l

Jll

Yes, to a very large extent.
Yes, to a rather large extent.
Yes, to a moderate extent.
Yes, to a slight extent.

No, not at all.

Don't know.

How do you feel about this?

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

So I dislike it very much.

,2: -A/(, Have machines caused employees in insurance companies to transfer
to different Jobs within the company in the past year?

1
2
____3
___h
______S

9

 

Yes, to a very large extent.
Yes, to a large extent.

Yes, to a moderate extent.
Yes, to a slight extent.

NO, nOt at all.

Don't know.

1:477 How do you feel about this?

1

LL!!!

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I diSlikO its

I dislike it very much.

I ~1/9’ Have machines caused employees to lose their jobs in insurance
companies in the past year?

1

9

 

nun

Yes, to a very large extent.
Yes, to a large extent.

Yes, to a moderate extent.
Yes, to a slight extent.

No, not at all.

Don't know.

I '17 How do you feel about this?

1

LLJJ l

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

 

i

263
3.

1‘50 Are the chances that a machine will cause you to do different
work on your Job greater or less than for most Jobs in this

company?

1.
"""32
"—51

9.

J

 

Much greater than for most Jobs.
Somewhat greater than for most Jobs.
Greater than some, less than others.
Somewhat less than for most Jobs.
Much less than for most Jobs.

Don't know.

How do you feel about this?

1.

LL!!!

195,? In your
machines in the past year?

1.

LUiU

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike its

I dislike it very much.

company, have employees lost their Jobs because of

Yes, to a very large extent.
Yes, to a large extent.

Yes, to a moderate extent.
Yes, to a slight extent.
Don't Me

I :53 How do you feel about this?

5.

h.

JL

I dislike it very much.

I dislike it.

It makes no difference to me.
I like its

I like it very much.

3:55? What will happen to the total number of people doing your kind
of job in insurance canpanies in the next five years?

*3

Cw

I

5 l

H
O

”UJJJ

UJJi

Greatly increase.
Slightly increase.
Remain about the same.
Slightly decrease.
Greatly decrease.
Don't know.

do you feel about this?

I dislike it very much.

I 41de its

It makes no difference to me.
I like it.

I like it very much.

.3

\h

26!.
u.

The Job that you would consider ideal for you would be one
where the way you do your work:

5.
h.

3.

2.
l.

 

Is always the same.
Changes very little.
Changes somewhat.
Changes quite a bit.
Changes a great deal.

' 0n the job that you have now, how much of your present work
involves the use of office machines?

1.

9.

Almost all of it.
A large part of it.
Some of it.

A small part of it.
Almost none of it.
Don't know.

On the job that would be ideal for you, how much of your work
would involve the use of office machines?

 

AJJTIOSI': all or its
A large part of it.
Some of it.

A small part of it.
Almost none of it.
Don't know.

Much more use of machines.
Somewhat more use of machines.

A little more use of machines.

No more use of machines than now.
A little less use of machines.
Don't know.

265
5 .

Jim/(C'- In general, how much change takes place from time to time
in the way you are expected to do your present job?

1. Much more change than for most Jobs.
2. Somewhat more change than for most Jobs.

About the same amount of change as for most jobs.
1;. Somewhat less change than for most jobs.

. A lot less change than for most jobs.

3.

LI

I‘ll] How do you feel about this?
5. I dislike it very much.
14. I dislike it.
3. It makes no difference to me.
2e I like its

. I like it very much.

266

On the next page you will find a list of statements about
aspects of your job. You are asked to answer two questions
about each aspect of your job. "Has this aspect of your job
changed in the past six months?" (Question "A"), and "How
do you feel about the change (or lack of change) in this
aspect of your Job?" (Question "B")

1. If you had the same Job title here aw
months ago, compare the way your Job is now with '
was six months ago on each of the job aspects.

2. If you had a different :job here am
months ago, compare your present job with the 30 you had
six months ago on each of the Job aspects.

3. If you have not been with #for at least
six months, indicate any changes who have occurred in the
aspects of your Job since you came ’03-.

Example: Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work.
If you are working more hours now ("A") and don't like it
("B"), you would check the spaces like this:

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION "A" QUESTION "B"
How has this aspect of your How do you feel about this
job changed in the past six change (or lack of change)
months? in your job?
m’uch 3 much / like dis-
more more :no {less glass / a don‘t ,dis- like
now now fchange jnow tnow lot like cars llike 2a lot ;
The hours
I work on

this jObeeee __ V”,

 

a-

 

 

7.

267

 

pea pea
e as mass ehee eh e eh
massage -eee a_eoe mafia axes

 

 

 

 

to:
mag” 30: owawno 30:
more who.” on ones

..I...n.on he no new H home no 9835 one

.llllseeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeQOfl “03.909
m 3 :owposonn .aom mooqmnc ...:

eeeeesoeeeeeeeeeeeeeenOfi he «HO
Heme H essences we assess any

llllleeeseeeeeeeeeeeeWGHQmQHQn-Hfiw Mun
MAS» he #023 on 09"me one

llllloeeseeeeeeeeeench E no 03 3
open H eeesween we assess any

II||._.eeeeeeeseeeeeeenflnx.e huh CO 8 OH.
when H magma no 9593 one

lesseeeeeeeeeQOh E inn. Umfigfiv
hpflawnwmcommch mo p565 one

eeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeenoh. mg
no eeeeee Hades he assess any
IlleeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeQOfi 2 GO 0.0%
H momecmzm mo passe 08..
leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegnfifioo 05
no.“ new be no 8:333 one
leoeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeexsflog

be no some 23 none H9550 h:

.Illlleoeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeego“. Ehfl.
coughing homage Ho commons one

leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenOfi unh— CO

linens.
.3? H
.NHQL.
.HwaH
.oalenm.
.meatn
.m S H.
.~.m..e-u.
.0 3H
.m mew-
.... .39
.m TE.
.N mahfi

.H «SH.

 

deacon macs mo assess one
sl-lleeoeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeseeseeoerox
be 5 humans> no #555 one
30:
once
:02: $25345 mama.

mo mug ~55 :9. 92¢

 

 

mpofi .505 5.” Aowfino he read .HOV
qumno was» poops How.“ so.» on row
..m: ZOHBmmSO

«whence 5mm 93% on» cum cognac

=3. mZOHHmHDO €73

non Boa mo pecans 9.23 no: 30m

:3. ZOHmeSO

268
SB.

The following questions are concerned with the contacts you have with
other people in your work and with how you feel about the information

you receive regarding changes in you Job.

SE““IO

SEMI

During a regular workday I generally exchange information
connected with my work with the following number of people:

1. None
2. 1 - 2
. 3 - 5
o 6 - 10
5. More than 10

,U

 

W job requires me to give information to my own superior:

1. Very frequently

a Often

. Sometimes

e Seldan

e Very infrequently

LIJH

5 13;- LQWhen there is some gossip or information in the "grape-vine":

1. I am always the first one to hear about it.

. I am usually one of the first to hear about it.

. I hear about it at about the same time as everyone
else does.

. I am always one of the last to hear about it.

. I never hear about it.

U Ill

5 113—1.: 3 How satisfied are you with the information you receive con-

cerning changes in the company and in your Job?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

LUJ I

611-1414 How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you

have to talk with the people you supervise?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

LUJ l

269

39.

3:1: H5 How satisfied are you with the opportunity you have to dis-
cuss things with your immediate supervisor regarding your

job?
1. Completely satisfied
2. Very satisfied
a. Quite satisfied
. Somewhat satisfied
_5. Not satisfied
3:11;..ng How much information has the compam' given the employees
this fall?
1. Much more than usual

More than usual

About the same as usual
Less than usual

Much less than usual

In the right-hand column next to each item, place a check mark under the
statement which best describes your satisfaction with the information
received from the company.

 

ASPECTS OF
IN FORMATION

T—

Satisfaction

 

nCompletel—y Very Quite Samewhat Not

 

‘7
Amount of

information. a e e e e e

I 8’
Accuracy of

information. e e e s e 0

fig

Understandability
Of information. . .

’50

Setting information
soon enough. . . . . . .

fi

 

 

 

 

 

 

satiscfjied satisfied satisfied satisfied _satisfied

 

H

...5'/

270
10 .

As you may know, your company is planning to install an

IBM "650" Computer in December. We are interested in how
you think this machine may affect your job here at —.
The following questions ask for your opinions as to what

the effects may be.

Which statement best describes the effect you expect the
computer to have on you in the next six months?

1. I expect to be promoted.
. I expect to be transferred to a different job.
. I expect to keep the same Job, but with the
work greatly changed.
1:. I expect to keep the same Job, but with the work
noticeably changed.
5. I expect to keep the same job with the work only
slightly changed.
6. I expect to keep the same Job with no change at all.
. I don‘t expect to be affected for I plan to quit
working soon.
. Other (describe)

 

. I have no idea.

 

Jr. ‘52.. How do you feel about this?

1. I like it very much.

. I like it.

. It makes no difference to me.
he I dislike its

5.

Do you think that the computer will influence your Job in
the next gear or two?

I dislike it very much.

 

1. It is very likely.
2. It is quite likely.
. It is possible, but not very likely.
h. It is not very likely.
It is not at all likely.
I have no idea.

0
6.
How do you feel about this?

L

 

l. I like it very much.

e I likB its

. It makes no difference to me .
e I dislike its

. I dislike it very much.

LU l I

271
11 .

112- 55 What is your general feeling about the fact that the
company has decided to install the computer?

1. I like it very much.

0 I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

___3.
h.

5.

12:-3 4 Why do you feel this way?

 

 

 

 

2’72 12 .

Now you are asked to indicate in what way you expect the computer to influence
each aspect of your present job within the next six months. Place a check mark
in one of the spaces under Question "C" for each statement about your Job.

 

QUESTION "C"
IN WHAT WAY DO YOU EXPECT THE COMPUTER T0
INFLUENCE THIS ASPECT OF YOUR JOB WITHIN
THE NEXT SIX MONTHS?

I think there will be ...
more less I

much more than no than much less have no
than now now change now than new idea
I: ”J7
l. The amount of variety
in my Workeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I]: "55;
2. The amount of work
required on my job. . . . . .

-L ' 5’7
3. The degree of accuracy
demanded by my jobeeeeee
41-420
)4. My control over the
pace Of my work.........
-1. ' (a I
S. The importance of my
30b for the COMPEHYeeeee
1:- 4, ,2.
6. The amount of super-
vision I get on my job..
II. ed 5
7. The amount of skill
needed on my job........
1: - .0 ‘7’
8. The amount of responsi-
bility demanded by my job _
Z]: ~./r 5
9. The amount of planning I
have to do on my job....
E 1%
10. The amount of judgment
I have to use on my job.
I: 4,. 7
11. The degree to which my
work is interesting”...
17: «(e-’5’
12. The amount of security
I feel on my jObeeeseeeO
E *6» ‘7
13. My chances for promotion
to a. better jObeeeseeeee
.1..“70
1h. The amount of pay I
get on W jObeeseeeesess

273
$13 .

'nle following items deal with company information about the IBM "650":

S IE'HO I can recall first hearing that the company was installing
an IBM "650" computer:

1. More than a year ago

. Between six months and one year ago

. Several months ago

. A few weeks ago

. A few days ago

. I didn't know until today that a computer
was to be installed.

up: I

5111‘ HI 0f the information distributed about the IBM "650" computer
prior to its installation I think I have received:

Is All or it
e Most or it
e Some or it
. Only a little of it
. None of it

Jll

5

 

SDI-‘12. I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others:

1. Very often
e Often

e Sometimes

. Not often
e Never

5 IIL‘LI 5 information I have received about the IBM "650" computer
’ prior to its installation I felt it was necessary to pass along:
Is All Of it
2. Most of it
'3. Some parts of it
. Only a little of it
5.

None of it

2'74

1h.

The company has made various statements and announcements in connection
with the preparations for the computer. Some have been made in

some have been made in special bulletins, and some may have been made in
information meetings or by your direct supervisor. We are interested in
finding out how well the information has reached you. In the table be-
low there is a series of statements. For each of the statements indicate,
to the best of your knowledge, whether the company has: (A) made am'

statement with that meaning, (B) made any statement with the opposite
meaning, or (C) not said anything about the subject.

 

The company has :

 

A E 5'?
STATEMENT
Said so Said the Said nothing
opposite about the
iubjgct

 

We}

The computer will not make any
Mistakes Of its owneeeeeeeeeeeee
.- L/5

The computer cannot correct
errors that exist in the data

it receives.....................

. 1/ (a

The IBM 650 programmer will
spend a lot of time preparing
coded instructions for the
MOhiDOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

+A/7
Most of the time the computer
will be operated by the IBM 650
programer.......................

4+ 47

One of the immediate tasks of
the IBM 650 programmer is to
develop a procedure for figur-
ing payroll on the computer. . . . .
’- ‘/ 9

The IBM 650 computer can be
operated properly only by people
who know some electrical
engineering.....................
- 50

It has become necessary to write
a detailed procedural manual for
preparation of data to be used in
the computer....................
- 57

The computer will change the
work methods in all parts of the
company.........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

275

 

 

 

15.
(Continuation of table on page 11:)
r I
s t The company has:
‘ A E f
STATEMENT '
I Said so Said the Said nothing
Opposite about the
subject
ZU: "

. 5W
Representatives of the IBM
Corporation say that -
is doing quite well in prepar-
ing for the computer............
[21 “53
The computer will be handled
rby the automobile underwriting
department...~..................
Jflfli-STS/
There will be a lot more peeple
needed in the IBM accounting
department as a result of the
computer...”...................
/TT '455'
””4 The company will be able to is-
sue policies more quickly thanks
t0 the COMPUtBreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ZZZ; - 0%
The computer will soon be used
for deciding which applications
the company should accept and
WhiCh it ShOUld reject. a e e e e e e e e
112,- 57
The computer will first be used
for figuring loss ratios for each
Of the agents...................
.122; - a" 8
The computer will figure out how
the company should settle claims
from a policyholder.............
.ZZZE‘TT9
The computer will not endanger
anybody' 3 employment at

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 1

276
16.

Now we would like to know what you personally think will happen as a
result of the computer. Below are several questions. Mark your answer
in one of the columns "Yes", "Possibly", and "No", depending on your
opinion.

 

Your answer

 

In your opinion:
Yes Possibly No

 

— to
E Will the computer make mis-

takes Of its Own?eeeeeeeeeeeee
.722.» (o I

Will the c omputer change the
work methods in all parts of
the Comm?eeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeo
_Zfliréwlv

Will the company be able to
issue policies more quickly
thanks to the computer? a e e e e e e
.1ZE-éi3

Will the computer soon be

used for deciding which appli-
cations the company should
accept and which it should
reject?.......................

.. é 4/
Will the computer endanger

abofi' 3 employment at
?OOOOIOOOOOIOOOIOOOOO
IDQZ- étT *'
Will the computer make jobs
too difficult to understand
for a lot of people?..........
11C. -' 6 4

Will a lot of people be able
to use more of their skills
as a result of the instal-
lation Of the comuter?eeeeeso
12:“- z, 7
Will the computer actually
help increase employment at

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

277

17.

Q

The following items deal with preferences about changes in your job:

1313-1%0 If I could do as I pleased, I would change the kind of work
I do every'few months.

5. I strongly agree

h. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

 

[Iiezy/ One can never feel at ease on a job where the ways of doing
things are always being changed.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree a little
5. I strongly disagree

 

E” 4/1 The trouble with most jobs is that you just get used to doing
things in one way and then they want you to do them.differently.

l. I strongly agree
. I agree a little
. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree a little
. I strongly disagree

 

jflziJ/j I*would.prefer to stay with a Job I know I can handle than to
change to one where most things would be new to me.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

3. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree a little

I strongly disagree

[0

S.

.ZZZ’WI/ The trouble with many people is that when they find a job they
can do well they don't stick with it.

1. I strongly agree

e I agree 8. little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LU l l

 

I ”z

278

18.

_UZ—A/j’ I like a Job where I know that I will be doing my work about
the same way from one week to the next.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree a little
3. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

L

,ZZL~V4'When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing
to have to change to a,new method.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LI II I

jflZ-Hvrlt would take a sizable raise in pay to get me to accept a
different Jab here.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LULI

fIETJ/Q'There are many unnecessary tasks performed in this company.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree
. I neither agree nor disagree
h I disagree

5. I strongly disagree

eEZLOW7 This company is slow in adopting more efficient methods of work.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

LU I I

279

19.

IIZ‘:SC> It is hard to gain acceptance of prOposals for changes that

‘i

51

would.lead to increased efficiency.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree
. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree

_____5. I strongly disagree

Mhny persons in this company are so used to doing things in the
present way that they cannot see the advantages of new methods
Of work 0

l. I strongly agree

. I agree
3. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree

5. I strongly disagree

 

QCEffidelPersonal interests are too often allowed to stand in the way

of improved.efficieney in this company;

1. I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

LU ll

g

280

320.

his purpose of the following questions is to get your idea about the
practical value of different supervisory practices for this organization.
We are not asking you which method would be ideal 921; which method is now
actually-being followed in your department. Instead, we are asking you

to tell us which memomu consider the most effective sgpgrvim method

in this organization.

Directions: Check the one answer which you feel would be the mo t effec-
tive supervisory method-far each situation. Sanetimes you may no see
much difference between two or more of the choices or may not like any
of then. Alwgs make a choice even if mu are forced to gas.

53,-Hams real function of staff specialists is to

1. provide factual material that the supervisor can use in
building up the technical efficiency of his own department.
. provide the supervisor with new ideas that he can use to
stimulate his men and keep them interested in improving
their efficiency.
. develop reliable methods and programs that the super-
visor can use and depend on.
. provide qualified people that the supervisor can call
on when his department needs help in solving problems.

I.“ C» IN

SELL! 3 When usual methods fail to get action on an important departmental
problem, the supervisor's best bet for getting results is

l. the advice and backing of his immediate superior.
2. the employees, who can informally back his request
for action. _
3. his own organized and forceful presentation of the facts.
'4. his informal personal contacts with key people in the plant.

511-1114 To understand how the employees really feel about things, the
supervisor should

I. maintain a frank, informal, give-and-take relationship
With them.

. keep objective records of things that reflect their

feelings - like production, absenteeism, suggestions,

and complaints. '

arrange for informal private interviews with each

unployee.

notice their reactions to the work, to him, and to his

orders.

LL Ll

281
$21.

sE‘LIS When a supervisor gets an order that doesn't seem Justified and

that the employees dislike, he should

1.

2.

l.

2.

3.

4.

from

study the order ; then either change it so that he can
personally Justify its enforcement or send it back up
the line with his objections.

realize that everyone makes mistakes, and save his
superiors unnecessary trouble by explaining the order
in such a way that the employee will accept it.
realize that there probably is a good reason for the
order, and that if future orders are to be respected,
this one must be carried out.

explain to the employees that as supervisor he must
see that the order is carried out, but that he'll help
them organize their criticisms of it for presentation
up the line.

5124/5 If official policies are really to be followed, they should be

clearly presented in the supervisor's handbook, with
the names of the authorities to consult when any ques-
tions come up.

presented as general guides for the employees, who
should be able to get unpopular policies reconsidered.
laid out as general rules that the supervisor is
authorized to interpret and apply in his department.
set up as general guides that the supervisor can
change slightly to fit individual cases and problems.

6144‘] The best way to get steady and dependable production is

praising employees when they deserve it, and appealing
to their desires for self-improvement.

careful direction and disciplining of employees.

to establish a pay schedule based on a Job evaluation.
through the employees' desire to be part of a satisfying
work team.

‘61-‘48 The best level of coordination between departments comes mostly

training supervisors to handle minor problems between
departments diplomatically, to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
selecting supervisors who really know their work and take
pride in competing with each other to get out first-class
work.

having a clear-cut delegation of authority for each depart-
ment so that there is absolutely no overlapping of respon-
sibility between supervisors.

developing supervisory planning sessions in which the
supervisors work out solutions to conflicts between
departments.

 

282
822.

SEL- qu The average supervisor needs development most in

l.

3.

l”

the proper use of official channels and forms for making
reports, filing complaints, handling transfers, requisi-
tioning, etc.

how to understand the employees' ideas, problems, and
standards.

the basic technical knowledge he'll need in the depart-
ment he's supervising.

the ways to deal with individuals efficiently without
causing friction.

$31-60 If several employees are led informally by a very uncooperative
individual, the supervisor should

ask the personnel department to have the leader trans-
mede

call them all in and talk the problem through with thm.
discredit this rival leader by showing the group how and
where he is wrong.

interest the leader in something else, and give the men
more individual attention.

$316 I When hiring a new employee, the supervisor should select a man who is

 

intelligent and has a good deal of drive.

a hard worker and who doesn't need much supervision.
open-minded and willing to share responsibilities.
agreeable and willing to follow the regulations.

31:5;When a major reorganization of the anployees' work is necessary
in his department, the supervisor should

ask the personnel department to reassign the employees
impartially.

call the employees together and get their stugestions
about the reorganization.

use this opportunity to shift employees to Jobs where
each of them will feel happiest and thus work best.
use his own Judgment and assign each employee to the
kind of work the supervisor knowe he does best.

supervisor should

avoid use of authority, and respect the employees' opinions
and attitudes while helping than to work out comon stan-
dards and methods of efficiency.

avoid making snap Judgments, and distribute both duties and
privileges impartially.

avoid "passing the buck" and make prompt, firm, clear
decisions that his employees will respect and follow.

avoid unnecessary conflicts, and use praise and personal
attention to help each individual develop his abilities .

lH
O

L

I?

l.

1.

3.

83’

283
$23.

$1.51; finployees will turn out the highest production if the supervisor

helps them work out departmental standards and teamrk
that fit current needs.

sees that the work is carried out according to the
specific instructions given by higher management.

uses psychology to aid each individual in developing
himself to his highest potential.

uses his practical knowledge, initiative, and organizing
ability to run his department at maximum efficiency.

6165 To maintain departmental discipline, the supervisor should

help the enployees work out a cannon standard of action
based on the rules.

treat all employees alike and according to the estab-
lished rules.

see to it that each employee learns company rules and can
therefore be responsible for his own conduct.

take direct personal action on anyone who canmits a
serious violation of company rules.

312-56: A smooth-running department depends mostly on

how well the supervisor helps each employee to realize
and use his abilities.

how well the supervisor plans and directs the work.

the understanding, responsibility, and teamwork developed
by the work force.

the systematic breakdown of the work load into separate
and clearly described Job duties for each employee.

3 1-57The rating or promotion of an employee should be based primarily on

the ambition and ability to learn that he has shown.
his technical knowledge and ability, and his depart-
mental experience.

objective records showing the amount of experience he's
had, his length of employment, and his Job skills.

the recomendations of a supervisor-employee merit-
rating committee.

$15ng an employee keeps coming in with an unreasonable complaint,

the supervisor should

1.

3.
h.

help him to become interested in sanething more constructive.
politely but firmly show him Just why the counplaint is

not Justified.

talk the problem over with him, trying to understand how

he feels about it.

send him up the line to the proper authority for an official
and final answer that the employee will have to accept.

28!.
82h.

5135‘? Informal personal relationships betwem supervisor and mployees

SE'OO

fol-(c4

should be

1. accepted the same way as any other friendship in which
there is mutual respect of one another's opinions and
individuality.

2. avoided, because a supervisor who mingles with his
«uployeee loses their respect of him as a fair and
impartial Judge of their merits.

3. generally avoided, except when the employee has been out-

standingly responsible in his work and would make a good
assistant in the department.

encouraged, so that the supervisor can get to know each
man's interests and stimulate him to develop his
abilities.

An employee‘ s suggestion for an improvement in the department should

passed up through the supervisor, whose knowledge of the
technical needs of the department may enable him to im-
prove the suggestion.

encouraged by the supervisor, so that the employee's
initiative is developed and supported.

passed around among others in the department for their
comments and suggestions before it' s sent up.

sent directly to the Operating Camdttee.

A supervisor should train a new emloyee by

showing him repeatedly how to do the Job, until the super-
visor sees that he' s developed efficient work habits in it.
making the Job interesting to him by praising him when he
does it well and correcting him tactfully when he shows
his weak points.

giving him a complete written set of instructions to stucw,
so that he can learn the right methods from the start.
explaining what the Job requires, than allowing him to
develop his own methods from the supervisor's suggestions
and his own experience and knowledge.

$31-64 When a new program begins, the supervisor should get

enough information and freedom in carrying it out so that
he can meet the personal needs of individual erployees.
firsthand information about his duties, and personal
authority to carry them out in the way he thinks best.
advance information about the program, so that he can

get his employees' ideas about it and then help develop it.
a clear description of his duties in the program, and a
statement that he'll have the official backing needed to
carry them out.

... ..-»-

 

285
szha.

$1.03 The supervisor can give out new orders and information most

effectively by

l.

L’ L L IH

discussing them with the employees and getting their
questions and comments.

sending written notices to every employee concerned.
explaining the orders or information to each employee
concerned.

telling each employee about them informally at the
appropriate time and place.

ESE-(AI A group leader would be most helpful to his supervisor if he

evaluated each employee' a complaints and passed on only
those which were legitimate grievances under the regulations.
helped the employees to organize and present their ideas
about departmental problems.

disciplined employees who took unfair advantages of regu-
lations to Justify loafing on the Job.

tried to help or advise individual employees who went to

him to discuss their personal problems and complaints.

$17. '05 When a man is recommended for promotion to supervisor, the most

important thing to consider is his

14.

LL L

 

IF
0

2.

ability to use practical psychology in getting things
donas

technical ability, initiative, creativity, and ex-
perience in the department.

understanding of, and respect for, official policies
and programs.

standing among the employees as a leader.

SEE-(file A new employee will get along all right if he

works with the other men in his department in turning
out the day's production.

follows the rules and regulations and is reliable.
really tries to take advantage of opportunities to
improve himself.

follows the stpervisor's instructions and develops the
right work habits.

286

25.

The following questions deal with your personal attitudes and opinions

about a number of important social and.personal questions.

answer to each statement below is your personal opinion.

Ill-HO
11--.,”
33:43.
17,1143

The best

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile
goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom
of certain political groups.

1.
2.
...—.3-
h.
S.

6.

 

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the
people who believe in the same thing he does.

6.

1.

l l LLI

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

It is only natural that a person would have a much better
acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.

1.
2.
3.
h.
S.

6.

 

In this complicated world of ours
going on is to rely on leaders or

1.

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

.IBL»HL|The present is all too often full of unhappiness.
future that counts.

6.
S.
h.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

the only way we can know what's
experts who can be trusted.

It is only the

II ‘4‘

1a

287
26.

IZL:L|5' It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause
that life becomes meaningful.

6. I agree very much.
E. I agree on the whole.
. I agree a little.
3. I disagree a little.
2

. I disagree on the whole.
. I disagree very'much.

 

IZLrLHg There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for
the truth.and.those who are against the truth.

1. I disagree very much.

. I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

. I agree on the whole.

. I agree very'much.

3.
h.

.L

 

fl-q‘] Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

l. I disagree very'much.

. I disagree on the whole.
0 I disagree 8. little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

0 LLII

 

If}? It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.

6. I agree very much.
. I agree on the whole.
. I agree a little.
. I disagree a little.
. I disagree on the whole.
. I disagree very'much.

HILJ

EZL4+Q It is better to be a dead.hero than a live coward.

6. I agree very'much.

. I agree on the whole.

a I agree a little.

. I disagree a little.

. I disagree on the whole.
. I disagree very much.

I I I IV]

 

SEE-50m main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.
1. I disagree very much.
2. I disagree on the whole.
3. I disagree a little.
a I agree a little.
. I agree on the whole.

. I agree very much.

 

LLU

‘\

 

 

288

27.

lfll’cil If something grows up over a long time, there will always be much
wisdom in it.
1. I disagree very much.
. I disagree on the whole.
. I disagree a little.
h. I agree a little.
5. I agree on the whole.
6. I agree very much.
3E1'5;llt bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily
routine.
1. I disagree very much.
2. I disagree on the whole.
. I disagree a little.
. I agree a little.
. I agree on the whole.
. I agree very much.
35L253 Young people‘would be a lot better off if they all received strict
discipline from their parents.
6. I agree very much.
5. I agree on the whole.
he I agree a little.
. I disagree a little.
. I disagree on the whole.
1. I disagree very much.

IIErSLJ

 

A.well-ordered‘way of life, with regular hours and an established
routine, is best for my kind of temperament.

6.
5.

HUI

l.

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very'much.

Bosses should say Just what is to be done and exactly how to do
it if they expect us to do a good Job.

1.

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

289

28.

311259 I am not, and never have been, the sort of person who would do
something dangerous for the thrill of it.

6.
“-1.2
3.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

316’? Do things here at work ever make you feel "Jumpy" or nervous?

Never .

Very seldom .
Seldom .
Sometimes.
Quite often a
Very'often.

ELI—3'3 When things get boring, I'm the sort of person who likes to stir
up sane excitement.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

El —5q Frankly, most things that happen to me don't affect my feelings
much one way or the other.

33:120.

1.

2.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very'much.

How hard do you usually have to work in order to get your work done?

I hardly ever get done, although I work very hard to do so.
I know I can hardly ever get done anyway, so I work at the
pace that seems most comfortable for me.

I sometimes get done, but I have to work very hard to do so.
I sometimes get done, and I work at the pace that seems
most comfortable for me.

I almost always get done, but I have to work very hard

to do so.

. I almost always get done, and I work at the pace that

seems most comfortable for me.

290

829 .

The following questions are about the group of pe0p1e you supervise.

egg-M7

l.

““52

JH

 

2

3-5
6-10
11-15
MorethanlS

About how many people are there in the group that you supervise
directly?

<1 T? —(,,% Do you feel that you are really a part of the work group you
supervise?

I 'm really a part of this group.

I'm included in most ways.

I'm included in some ways, but not in others.
I don't feel I really belong.

$32-14 If you had a chance to be a supervisor for the same pa in
another work group, how would you feel about moving?

1.

2.

3.
h.

S.

 

I would want very much to move.

I would rather move than stay where I am.
It would make no difference to me.

I would rather stay where I am than move.
I would want very much to stay where I am.

How does the work group you supervise compare with other work groups in this

company on each of the following points?

SLY: rldl‘he way members get

along together

gi-mThe way members stick l.____Better than

together

$3321 The way members help
each other on the Job

most

most

most

l.___Better than

1 .__Better than

2.__About the
same as most

Za‘AbO‘Ut the
same as most

2 eflAbOut the
same as most

30__R0t 8.5 Wen ‘

as most

3.____Not as well

as most

3 .__Not as well

as most

5;: qL, _ I feel closer to the peeple I supervise than to the people who
supervise me.

1.

ILU l l

I agree very much.

I agree somewhat.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.
I disagree somewhat.
I disagree very much.

291

8298.

s {1'15 111 things considered, how easy would it be for -
to find someone else to do the Job you are now doing? '

1. Very difficult

. Fairly difficult

. A little bit difficult
a Fairly’easy

. Very easy

. Don't know

LLU l l

IV: '75
3L- ,14.
311-7“:

292

30.

As far as you can tell, what do your slpervisors think
about your work performance here at _‘2

1.
2.

3.

 

They like it very much.

They like it.

They like most things about it, but there are some
exceptions.

There are several things about my work performance
that they don't like.

There are many things about my work performance that
they don't like.

Don't know.

How qualified do you feel you are to handle different Jobs
in this compare]?

1.

LLLI l

Much more than most employees.
More than most employees,

About the same as most employees.
Less than most employees.

Much less than most employees.

Considering what you want in a Job, how do the other Jobs for
which you are qualified compare with your present Job?

1.

2.

All are better than my present Job.

Most are better but a few are worse than my
present Job.

Some are better and some are worse than my
present Job.

A few are better but most are worse than my
present Job.

All are worse than my present Job.

293
31 .

The check list on the next page gives you an opportunity to express how
you feel about certain aspects of your Job. Consider the first aspect
listed in the column to the left. Place a check mark under the state-
ment in Column A which best describes how satisfied you are with this
aspect of your Job. Then decide whether you want an increase in this
aspect of your job, a decrease in it, or no cha_;_g_ in it, and place a
check mark under the appropriate statement in Column B. Then go on to
the next aspect.

Examle: Suppose the Job aspect had to do with the amount of illumina-
tion on your Job. If you felt "somewhat satisfied" with the
amount of illumination and if you wanted a decrease in i1-
lmnination (to reduce glare), you should put one check mark
under "somewhat satisfied" in Column A and one check mark
under "a decrease" in Column B.

32.

 

 

2L

000000000000000000000 90” E Qéhfi.

co sow H had no 9525 one .5”

000000000000000 DO“ 830‘. a MGMtaT.
op moweoeoem no.“ message P” .MH .

............. 90%. was SO H8“ 3..» H.
H herd—own Ho 9595 can. .3

........ mmwvmohoufi m.“ Anon m e- SH.

as new? on some 25 .fl
...... now he no on: 3 when NehHH

H homewonn no 9583 23. .OH .

eeeeeee p0“ guano Omv 8 mpg _.¢H
H panama we passed 25 .m

.53 as P adequate ends 3-
Janene?» Ho smooch o5. .m

000000000000000000 non b3 “0 TanHH .

moped: Hams no source:” on“. . w
............ no... he no #0» H «.961
downturns» Ho £588 one .0
eeeeeeeeeeee $9300 on». .HOH PMsa

new be ac commences.“ on“. .m
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee “Hg .3 HO meifi
some 23 hobo Hofinoo P— ....

000000000 0.0” he 3 deg WWI-a. .

hoogoom Ho 0953 05. .m

00000000000 90.” he no .00-Hg TM.-H.

new 3.33 no #523 23. .w

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3&03? MWQIE...

5.“ hang Ho £525 05. .H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omwouoop smudge snowmen.“ engages oofimmflem usages» moan?!” poamwpeo
e on ma son 92:68on 3.30 PM» 533980
a mom 3 and:
EMS: H pecans m3» Ham d EH00

m 85300

 

 

assume he.

 

 

- o.

X—Bén

X‘S?

111+?

H398

314.9

295 33.

How satisfied are you with the way changes are handled around

here?

Completely satisfied
Very satisfied

Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

How satisfied are you with the kind of work you do?

1.
2.
3.

h.

S.

 

Completely satisfied
Very satisfied

Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

How satisfied are you with the company you work for?

1.

JH

“-5:

Completely satisfied
Very satisfied

Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you
with your Job?

1.

LLLLI

E
5

you working?

Completely satisfied
Very satisfied
Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

 

If you received a large inheritance or a large sum of money
from some source, would you stillwork?

Yes

Why?“

No

 

 

If you received a large inheritance or a large sum of money
from some source, would you still work at _2

Yes

wm

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘32X'335

How easy would it be for you to get a Job as good as the
one you now have at some other company?

Very easy
Fairly easy

I don't know

How many supervisors in the company think that your Job is
more desirable than their own Jobs?

1.

Almost all
Many

Some

Few

Almost none

you expect to be doing five years from now?

Working at the same Job in this company
Working at a better Job in this company
Being a supervisor in some other company
Working at a nonsupervisory Job elsewhere
Running own business

Being a housewife

Retired

Other

Don't know

 

$31-90 Are you now taking any special training?

No, and I don't really plan to

No, and I don't know whether I will or not

No, but I plan to within 5 years

Yes, training to help me on the Job I'm on now
Yes, training for a different Job in this compamr
Yes, training for a Job elsewhere

Yes, training to help me enter a profession or
start my own business

$X~3 1 What do you think the possibilities are of your getting a
promotion in the next year?

Very likely

Fairly likely

Likely in some ways, not in others
Unlikely

Very unlikely

296
33h .
A little bit difficult
Fairly difficult
Very difficult
gr

4'.

 

 

 

2 7
9 35.

X '- 1'] How new years have you worked since leaving school?

1. Less than 1 year
. l - 2 years
0 3 " 5 years
. 6 - 10 years
5. 11 or more years

Jll

 

X "-1? How many more years do you expect to work?

1. Less than 1 year
2. l - 2 years
3 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
5. 11 or more years
I don't know ‘

 

3.
h.

9.

298

836.

X—s’l When were you hired by _3 Year Month

X _ H. H What is your present Job title? (example: department head)
)

 

X —I3 When did you start on your present Job? Year Month

x--Lg,3'3What is your section and department?

 

 

X — H Within the past 6 months have you tried to transfer from
your present Job to another Job or department within the
company? Yes No

X .— |5 Within the past 6 months have. you registered with any
employment agency or applied for a Job with any other
organization? Yes No

X .. (Q 3) Are you the 92.11 wage earner in your household? Yes No

 

X - Q A] Are you the main wage earner in your household? Yes__ No

 

X‘-41 .5 Could your household live adequately if you were 3123
‘ working? Yes No

X-st Is your household living adequately m? Yes No
)(__,Q'7 What is your present salary before taxes and other
deductions? dollars ~
Check whether this is per month , week , or 2 weeks .

X“ 6} Date of birth: Month Day Year

 

X .67 Sex: Male Female

X-- .7 Marital status: Single Married Divorced

Separated
Widowed

X‘ 37 How many years of school have you completed? Circle
‘ highest grade completed.

Some Graduate
7 8 9 10 ll 12 College College Work

 

Inlay-.343

 

299 37 .

X—Ifi Have you spent most of your life in a

1. farm area I; 7‘ ' .d ml
2. small town
30 city

556-10 What is (was) your father's occupation? (examples: farmer,
machinist, doctor)

 

x— ,2! What is (was) your father's annual income?

l. 1385 than 3000 dollars

. 5300 - 7000 dollars ‘
. 7000 - 15,000 dollars

. over 15,000 dollars

 

Jll

 

)(‘OIQ In your community do you consider yourself a member of the

1. upper class

. upper middle class
. middle class

. lower middle class
working class
lower class

Thank you for your cooperation. Now tear off the ballot at the bottom
of the cover page of the quesoionnaire. Place the ballot in the "Ballot
Box" and place the questionnaire in the box marked "Questionnaires".

1i~

 

300

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING

 

LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CENTER

3’" fix
‘1’

ProJect 0E 112-134; 1 ‘ November 1957

To: Employees of_ Insurance Company

w The Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State
University is carrying on a broad program of research having to do
with people working together effectively in industrial organizations.
Much of the research consists of getting the ideas and opinions of
people about their Jobs.

You are being asked to fill out a questionnaire as a part of this
series of studies. Your answers, along with those from people in other
organizations, will be analyzed to help discover what things are most
important in making the working situation better for the people in it.

The value of this stucb' depends upon the sincerity and care with
which you answer the questions. It is important to get your real

ftelings. We are looking for frank statements about our attitudes

feelings, gainions and JgggLnents aEut certain a ects of our ob.
The answers that you give will be made available only to the

'research team in the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. No one

cogpected in any way with ygur organization will see or use any 0

th indivi est onnaires or be able in an w to find out what
kind of an era ou have iven. Your information wifi be held in the
strIctsst confifince and the results of the stuchr will be tabulated
on a group basis only.

Reports on the general findings from the stuchr will be prepared
for you, the compaw and the general public.

 

 

Einar Hardin
Research Associate
Labor and Industrial Relations Center

Michigan State University

........ ebb--— an- bacon-------u-n-o-uno-----unna-uauna-nauuun-------------- -------------

Please print your name below. When you have finished the questionnaire,
tear this part off and place it in the "ballot box" by the door. THIS
INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO HELP US ANALYZE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IT WILL
NOT BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE IN THE COMPANY.

Name

 

a

GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS QUICKLY.
CLOSEST TO THE WAY THAT YOU FEEL.
IN FRONT OF YOUR CHOICE.

1290

301

CHOOSE THE ONE AN THAT COMES
PLACE A CHECK MARK ( ) IN THE SPACE
PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION.

Check the one statement that best describes the rate at
which changes are taking place in the world today.

 

Much.more rapidly than before.
Somewhat more rapidly than before.
At about the same rate as before.
Somewhat less rapidly than before.
thh less rapidly than before.
Don't know.

How do you feel about this?

1.

JH

5

 

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

ljl+fl2 In general, new developments in machines and processes for
handling work:

‘13“913

 

At what
methods

1.

Benefit all of the people.
Benefit most of the people.
Benefit some of the people.
Benefit only a few people.
Benefit only a very few people.
Don't know.

rate do you feel new developments in machines and
for doing work are taking place?

Much less rapidly than is desirable.
Somewhat less rapidly than is desirable.
At about the ideal rate.

Somewhat more rapidly than is desirable.
Much more rapidly than is desirable.
Don't know.

302
2 .

I -’7/'~/ Have new machines changed the tasks performed on your kind
of job in the past year?

1. Yes, to a very large extent.
. Yes, to a rather large extent.
. Yes, to a moderate extent.
1;. Yes, to a slight extent.
5. No, not at all.
9. Don't know.

 

j: - 4/5 How do you feel about this?

1. I like it very much.
0 I like its
. It makes no difference to me.
e I dislike it.
5. I dislike it very much.

Jll

 

.Z: “17% Have machines caused employees in insurance companies to transfer
to different jobs within the company in the past year?

1. Yes, to a very large extent.
. Yes, to a large extent.
. Yes, to a moderate extent.
. Yes, to a slight extent.
5. No, not at all.
9. Don't know.

3
h

 

13'5"? How do you feel about this?
1. I like it very much.

. I like it.
. It makes no difference to me.
I; I dislike it.

5

. I dislike it very much.

 

I ~- L/s/ Have machines caused employees to lose their jobs in insurance
companies in the past year?

1. Yes, to a very large extent.
. Yes, to a large extent.
. Yes, to a moderate extent.
1:. Yes, to a slight extent.
. No, not at all.
9. Don't know.

 

I — {7 How do you feel about this?

1. I like it very much.
20 I like its
. It makes no difference to me.
he I dialike its
5. I dislike it very much.

 

i

 

303
3.

1150 Are the chances that a machine will cause you to do different
work on your Job greater or less than for most jobs in this

company?

1. Much greater than for most jobs.

2. Somewhat greater than for most Jobs.
3. Greater than some, less than others.
. Somewhat less than for most jobs.

. Much less than for most Jobs.

9. Don't know.

 

«cw How do you feel about this?

H

1. I like it very much.

0 I like its
3. It makes no difference to me.
{.510 I dialike it.

I dislike it very much.
“1.354 In your company, have employees lost their Jobs because of
machines in the past year?

1. Yes, to a very large extent.
. Yes, to a large extent.

. Yes, to a moderate extent.

. Yes, to a slight extent.

0 N0, nOt at all.

9. Don't know.

LUH

 

I '53 How do you feel about this?

5. I dislike it very much.
. I dislike it.
. It makes no difference to me.
e I like its
. I like it very much.

 

313:; What will happen to the total number of people doing your kind
of Job in insurance companies in the next five years?

1. Greatly increase.

. Slightly increase.

. Remain about the same.
. Slightly decrease.

. Greatly decrease.

9. Don't know.

LUJ I

 

.1“: --::JHow do you feel about this?

5. I dislike it very much.

. I dislike it.

. It makes no difference to me.
e I like its

. I like it very much.

304

Llhxjé The Job that.you would consider ideal for you would be one
where the way you do your work:

I'm

\ C-

I23"

5.
h.

l.

 

Is always the same..
Changes very little.
Changes somewhat.
Changes quite a bit.
Changes a great deal.

On the job that you have now, how’much of your present work
involves the use of office machines?

1.

JH

"—53

9.

8

Almost all of it.
A large part of it.
Some of it.

A small part of it.
Almost none of it.
Don't know.

the job that would be ideal for you, how much of your work

would involve the use of office machines?

1.

LLJJ l

9.

 

Almost all of it.
A large part of it.
Some of it.

A small part of it.
Almost none of it.
Don't “We

Do you feel that your kind of Job will require more or less
use of machines by 1960?

1.

LLLJ l l

Much.more use of'machines.
Somewhat more use of machines.

A little more use of machines.

No more use of machines than now.
A little less use of’machines.
Don't know.

-.. ”...-..“
.4. .1

 

305
5 .

In? (1 In general, how much change takes place from time to time
in the way you are expected to do your present job?

1. Much more change than for most jobs.

2. Somewhat more change than for most jobs.

3. About the same amount of change as for most Jobs.
’4. Somewhat less change than for most :jpbs.

S. A lot less change than for most Jobs.

I‘Zr/ How do you feel about this?

5. I dislike it very much.
he I dislike its
3. It makes no difference to me.
2. I like it.
I like it very much.

1.

 

   

 

306

On the next page you will find a list of statements about
aspects of your job. You are asked to answer two questions
about each aspect of your job. "Has this aspect of your job
changed in the past six months?" (Question "A"), and "How
do you feel about the change (or lack of change) in this
aspect of your Job?" (Question "B")

1. If you had the same Job title here at m six
months ago, compare the way your job is now wit e way it

was six months ago on each of the job aspects.

2. If you had a different Job here at *' six
months ago, compare your present job with the 0 you had

six months ago on each of the Job aspects.

3. If you have not been with k for at least
six months, indicate any changes whic ve occurred in the

aspects of your Job since you came to .

 

Example: Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work.
If you are working more hours now ("A") and don't like it
("B"), you would check the spaces like this:

 

 

QUESTION "A" QUESTION "B"
How has this aspect of your How do you feel about this
job changed in the past six change (or lack of change)
months? in your Job?
‘ much ; [ jmuch like I die-
more more gno iless glass / a don‘t dis- like
‘ h lot like care lilg Pa lot

 

 

 

 

 

 

The hours
I work on ,
this 30b. I O O _ x—

\/

 

 

7.

307

 

lll.pon he so now H boa mo vanes—8 one .flnmw-H
Ioeoeeeeoeeeeeoeeeeeepnvfi “$0.909
o 3 sowwosoaa hoe noonogo E .mfixawH
eOeee.eeeoeeee000000.090“: guano
Home H hpfihacoo Ho 0583 one .NHQD.
IllleeeeeoeeeeeeeoeewzfipmooHQPCH Mun
as: be some; 3 eehee one .SSH
IcoeeeeeeeeoeeODOfi b: no on” 8
ohm: H pnoswcsn eo $855 one dash.

Isoeeeeeeeeeeeeepomw E :0 8 Ofi
oboe H gonna no 9555 one .m S... H

leeeeeeeeeeeepon E ~60. UQPUHHNEOU
eflflnfiosommon mo 955E.“ one .m S. H

eeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenwafi P
so vopoon 33o no #595 one .eseflu

Ill-leeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeenOfi b..— GO POM
H soonogzo no #595 one .Q 3- H

Illeeeeeeeoeeeoeeeeeeebhmnwfioo GAP
now Do... be no 33.89:“ one .m Cam.

I I all III III. II... III. III II: .lloeoo.ooooooooooooooooeeooounhg
he mo moon one. n96 H9580 e2 .4 new.

III. III. II. II ..III ....II III. lull all. .llloeeoeoooooo..ooeeooeeflo.fi EB

vovaosmfi Enhance no oohmou one .m T» H

...Illeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeopom.e 89 CO
vogue.” #33 no p388 o5. .w meme.
III III I III-II. III III IIIIII Illllu Il- [0.00000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOleoz

be 5” .333» no 9595 oge ..n 3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pea 90..“ So... Soc

o 3 92H opdo A: o a.“ mood to: ownono so: once
91330 omflo fcop ox: ox: noes mood on one: node wee—Baden. mmmme
mo mug :8 cm: 924
See. wooed cum Nomads... no xoma hog monpsoe can poem on» cw "Simmons :5 mzoeemMSO Ema

omcono own» pooch Home doe on 20m now .59» Ho voodoo 925 no: Sam

:9. ZOHemmSO =4: ZOHHWWDO

308

8.

The following questions are concerned.with the contacts you have with
other people in your work, and.with how you.fee1 about the information
you receive regarding changes in your job.

fli~1/0 During a regular workday I generally exchange information
connected with my work with the following number of people:

 

1. None
0 1 " 2
o 3 ' 5
h. 6 - 10

S. More than 10

 

IIi—SI/ My 36b requires me to give information to my supervisor:
1. Very frequently

2. Often
3. Sometimes
o Seldom

. Very infrequently

 

aflC"/4L When there is some gossip or information in the "grapeavine":

l. I am always the first one to hear about it.
2. I am usually one of the first to hear about it.
3. I hear about it at about the some time as everyone
else does.
14. I am usually one of the last to hear about it.
5. I never hear about it.

_jI:—fifij How satisfied.are you with the information you receive con-
cerning changes in the company and.in your job?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Not satisfied

“UH

 

Eli/V How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you
have to discuss things about your job with.your fellow employees?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Net satisfied

LUJ l

309

 

 

 

 

9.
_‘ZI- L/f How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you
have to discuss things about your job with your supervisor?
1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied
3. Quite satisfied
1;. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied
_sz-x/g, How much information has the company given the employees
this fall?
1. Much more than usual. . T:-
. More than usual.
. About the same as usual. __.
1;. Less than usual.
' 50 men 1888 than 1131181.
In the right-hand column next to each item place a check
mark under the statement which best describes your satis-
faction with information received from the company.
(I S ti f tion
ASPECTS OF I a 8 8°
mFORMATION Completely Very Quite Somewhat Not
. satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied: satisfied
I
o Almunt Of
information. o o c o o o o
‘?
. Accuracy of

information. o o o o o o 0

Ci

. Understandability of
information. 0 O O O o c oi

70

. Getting information
soon enough. . . . . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

.3‘/

310
10.

As you may know, your company is planning to install an

IBM "650" Computer in December.
you think this machine may affect your job here at
The following questions ask for your opinions as to w a

We are interested in how

  

the effects may be.

Which statement best describes the effect you expect the
computer to have on you in the next six months?

1.

"—2.
3.
h.

llLLl

9

 

I expect to be promoted.

I expect to be transferred to a different job.

I expect to keep the same job, but with the
work greatly changed.

I expect to keep the same Job, but with the work
noticeably changed.

I expect to keep the same Job with the work only
slightly changed.

I expect to keep the same Job with.no change at all.

I don't expect to be affected for I plan to quit
working soon.

Other (describe)

I have no idea.

 

I; ‘5 Q. How do you feel about this?

1.

LLLI

 

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

Do you think that the computer will influence your Job _i_n_
the next year or two?

1.
2.

LLJ I l

 

It is very likely.

It is quite likely.

It is possible, but not very likely.
It is not very likely.

It is not at all likely.

I have no idea.

How do you feel about this?

1.

LU l I

I like it very much.

I like it.

It makes no difference to me.
I dislike it.

I dislike it very much.

 

 

311
ll .

_E- 55' What is your general feeling about the fact that the
company has decided to install the computer?

1. I like it very much.

20 I like it.

3. It makes no difference to me.
14. I dislike it.

5. I dislike it very much.

 

12-3 Q Why do you feel this way?

 

 

 

ail

 

 

 

312 12.

Now you are asked to indicate in what way you expect the computer to influence
each aspect of your present job within the next six.months. Place a check mark
in one of the spaces under Question "C" for each statement about your job.

UESTION "C"
IN WHAT WAI'DO 0U EXPECT THE COMPUTER T0
INFLUENCE THIS ASPECT OF YOUR JOB WITHIN
THE NEXT SIX MONTHS?

I think there will be ...
more less I

much more than no than much less have no
than now' now change now than now idea
_IZL‘QT7
l. The amount of variety
in my work..............
.1'58’
2. The amount of work
required on my job......

_flCré57
3. The degree of accuracy
demanded.by my job......
41:"<%C‘
h. my control over the
pace or W Works-coco...
-VL'Q/
5. The importance of my
job for the company.....
;§:~/;;L
6. The amount of super-
vision I get on.my job..
JZI’émB
7. The amount of skill
needed on my job........
-£:*-4’¢
8. The amount of responsi-
bility demanded by my job __
ZZ“4~5
9. The amount of planning I
have to do on my job....
_ZZ'Z'?!’
10. The amount of judgment
I have to use on my job.
.122‘667
11. The degree to which my
work is interesting.....
ZZieéi?
12. The amount of security
I feel on my jOboooooooo
ZZZ-é»?
3. My chances for promotion
to a better jObooooooooo
LEZ'Z%9
1h. The amount of pay I
get on m Jabs-000000000

 

 

 

4

1'9
/""

313
13.

The following items deal with company information about the IBM "650":

1212*4A9 I can recall first hearing that the company was installing
an IBM "650" computer:

More than a year ago

Between six months and one year ago
several.months ago

A few weeks ago

A few days ago

I didn't know until today that a computer
was to be installed.

_IDL‘*// Of the information distributed about the IBM "650" computer
prior to its installation I think I have received:

1.

 

All of it

Meet of it

Some of it

Only a little of it
None of it

jCDC**A2 I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others:

1.

LU l l

Very’often
Often
Sometimes
Not often
Never

ZIP

m!

31!.
1h.

The company has made various statements and announcements in connection
with the preparations for the computer. Some have been made in-
some have been made in special bulletins, and some may have been made in

information meetings or by your direct supervisor. We are interested in
finding out how well the information has reached you.

low there is a series of statements.
to the best of your knowledge, whether the company has:

In the table be-
For each of the statements indicate,

(A) made arv

statement with that meaning, (B) made any statement with the opposite
meaning, or (C) not said anything about the subject.

 

The company has:

 

_-*

A 1.3. ..
STATEMENT
Said so Said the Said nothing
opposite about the
fisubiect

 

~ w

The computer will not make any
mismes or its Ownooooooooooooo
.1./5

The computer cannot correct
errors that exist in the data

it receives.....................

*QWQ

The IBM 650 programmer will
spend a lot of time preparing
coded instructions for the
"18011111900000.0000ooooooooooococo

- A/ 7
Most of 'the time the computer
will be operated by the IBM 650

r- 17’?

One of the immediate tasks of
the IBM 650 programmer is to
develop a procedure for figur-
ing payroll on the computer.....
L ,7

The IBM 650 computer can be
operated properly only by people
who know some electrical
engineering.....................
—.50

It has become necessary to write
a detailed procedural manual for

the conlputer....................

LIZ-5x

The computer will change the
work methods in all parts of the
company.........................

 

programerOOOIOC0.00.00.00.00...-'

preparation of data to be used in

 

l

 

 

 

 

315

 

 

15.
(Continuation of table on page 114)
l :
l i The company has:
a a” 97
STATEMEVT I
' Said so Said the Said nothing
opposite about the
_sglgiect

 

[Us 51:2.
Representatives of the IBM

Corporation say that
is doing quite well in prepar-
ing for the COITlputeroooooooooooo
121 ~53

The computer will be handled

by the automobile underwriting
department..."..................
Jflffuf‘l

There will be a lot more people
needed in the IBM accounting
department as a result of the

cc.nput-BI'........................
lQIL‘ 5:7
The company will be able to is-
sue policies more quickly thanks
to the computer.................
LDZ-cfié
The computer will soon be used
for deciding which applications
the company should accept and
WlliCh it should reJeCt..........
Lies?
The computer will first be used
for figuring loss ratios for each
fiOf the 83911135000000cocoocooooooo
H5?
The computer will figure out how
he company should settle claims
from a polic3"holder.............
ZZZL'<79

The computer will not end-n er
anybody's employment at &

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

316
16 .

Now we would like to lmow what you personally think will happen as a
result of the computer. Below are several questions. Mark your answer

in one of the columns "Yes", "Possibly", and "No", depending on your
opinion.

 

Your answer
In your opinion:

 

Yes Po ssibly Ho

 

.ZZL‘ 4'0

Will the computer make mis-
takes Of its m7.............
mp [a /

Will the computer change the
work methods in all parts of
the company?..................
.1271?- 6 1

Will the company be able to
issue policies more quickly
thanks to the computer?.......
IZZ ~ (r 3

Will the computer soon be
used for deciding which appli-
cations the company should
accept and which it should

reject/fun...................

”fl - é 4/
Will the computer endanger
he 's employment at

?OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
_ZZZ w» (.5

Will the computer make Jobs
too difficult to understand
for a lot of people?..........
are 6 a

Will a lot of people be able
to use more of their skills
as a result of the instal-
lation of the computer?.......
1171‘» (r 7

Will the computer actually

Wales employment at

   
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

317
17.

The following items deal with preferences about changes in your job:

ZGZ3-1%0 If I could do as I pleased, I would change the kind of work
I do every few months.

5. I strongly agree

h. I agree a little

3. I neither agree nor disagree
2. I disagree a little

1. I strongly disagree

 

17,: eL// One can never feel at ease on a Job where the ways of doing
things are always being changed.

1. I strongly agree
. I agree a little
3. I neither agree nor disagree
h. I disagree a little
5. I strongly disagree

 

.ZIf-gfi1_The trouble with most jobs is that you.Just get used to doing
things in one way and then they want you to do them differently.

l. I strongly agree
. I agree a little
. I neither agree nor disagree

h. I disagree a little
. I strongly disagree

 

<j§21¢/5 I*would.prefer to stay with a Job I knOW'I can handle than to
change to one where most things would be new to me.

1. I strongly agree
I agree a little
I neither agree nor disagree
I disagree a little
5. I strongly disagree

2.

3.
h.

Lf—A/z/ The trouble with many people is that when they find a Job they
can do well they don' t stick with it.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LU I I

318

18.

1124/5 I like a job where I know that I will be doing my work about
the same way from one week to the next.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree a little
. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

5. I strongly disagree

_ZZLv/é‘When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing
to have to change to a.new method.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

mUII

 

;Df—eq7lt would take a sizable raise in Pay to get me to accept a
different Jab here.

1. I strongly agree

0 I agree a little

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LLLU

_Zlfea/Q'There are many unnecessary tasks performed in this company;

1. I strongly agree
. I agree
. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree
5. I strongly disagree

III

 

453'5W7 This company is slow in adopting more efficient methods of work.

1. I strongly agree

0 I agree

. I neither agree nor disagree
. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

LU I I

 

 

319

19.

JIC‘JEQ It is hard to gain acceptance of proposals for changes that
would.lead to increased efficiency.

1.

5.

 

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

_ka‘oelPersonal interests are too often allowed to stand in the way
of improved.efficienoy in this company;

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

.. #5..

320

20.

Some supervisors are more likely to handle certain situations in one way
than in another way.

Check the 9332 answer which best describes the way your supervisor would
handle each of the following situations. Notice: "Supervisor" refers
to the person to whom you report directly.

E‘LIO What is your supervisor's name?

 

1.1.” How long has this person been your supervisor? years months

. —-. . When a question arises about how something should be done,
1 Ll,
my supervisor is most apt to

lid
0

2.

Insist that the individual should adjust to the work
in his own way.

Insist that everything be done in the supervisor's way.
Insist that the work group should come to a common
agreement about the work.

Insist everything be done according to company rules
and regulations.

11¢; 3 When my supervisor finds someone disagreeing with him, he is
most likely to

Refer to his own experience and.know-how to back up
his opinions.

Try to persuade those who disagree with him.

Refer to the company'policy and.procedures to back
his opinions.

Go along with the decision of the work group in
deciding the issue.

.171de W supervisor would prefer to hire a person who is

l.

_l.

 

Intelligent and has a good deal of drive.

A hard worker, who doesn't need much supervision.
Open-minded and willing to share responsibilities.
Agreeable and willing to follow the regulations.

and promotions in this department seem to be based on

A person's records which show his Job skills, length
of employment, etc.

A person's technical knowledge and experience in the
department.

A person's ambition and ability to learn.
Recommendations by both supervisors and employees.

321
21.

.17: "Me My supervisor is most apt to give out new orders and information
by

l. Discussing them with the group, getting the group's
comments and questions.

. Sending a written notice to every employee concerned.

. Ebcplaining the orders or information to each employee
concerned.

. Telling each employee about them informally at the
appropriate time and place.

fire/7143' supervisor seems most interested in deveIOping his ability to

l. Properly make reports, handle paperwork, etc.

. Handle any problems of work flow, machine Operation, etc.
3. Understand employees' ideas, interests and standards.
I4. Deal with individuals efficiently without causing
friCtiono
Evy/’7? My supervisor seems to feel that he should

1. Not use his authority -- respect the employees' Opinions.

. Not make a snap judgment -- be systematic and fair.

. Have employees respect his authority -- make prompt,
firm decisions.

. Avoid unnecessary conflicts -- give praise and personal
attention.

lied/filly supervisor‘s idea of training seems to be

To repeat instructions until he's satisfied that the
person is really efficient.

. To develop the person's interest in the Job by praising
his progress.

To make sure the person has a complete set of instructions
and Job requirements.

. To explain what the Job requires then let the person
develop his own methods.

0 O

L"

3222:?) If a major reorganization of the work in this department were
necessary, my supervisor would probably

1. Notify us that the personnel department would reassign
us as fairly as possible.

2. Try to persuade certain employees to take the new
assignments.

3. Ask the work group for suggestions on how the reassign-
ments should be made.

It. Tell employees they were being reassigned in the best
way to get the work out.

322

22.

32.197 My supervisor tries to get the work out by

Carefully directing and disciplining employees.

Appealing to the individual's desire for self-improvement.
Following plans for scheduling work in detail.

Trying to get employees to work together as a team.

I '54.; My supervisor seems to be most interested in

l.
2.
3.

I4.

A neat, well-regulated department.

A friendly, well-integrated work group.

An efficient, well-controlled department.

An ambitious, competitive spirit among employees.

1:53 If we decided on a new way to handle part of our work, our
supervisor would probably

Tell us to go ahead if he was sure it would be more
efficient.
Talk to us individually to see how each of us felt
about it.
Urge us to go ahead if none of us had any questions
about it.
Insist that we wait until he had consulted his boss
about it.

1‘5"! If a disagreement were to arise -- say, about vacation schedule --
my supervisor would probably

1.
2.

3.

h.

Remind us of the loyalty we owe to the company.
Emphasize the need for a c00perative settlement

by the work group.

Suggest that the ambitious person gets ahead in the
long run.

Enphasize the need to follow his (her) work schedule
to get the work out.

ZZZ—55 My supervisor seems to depend most on

1.
2.

3.

h.

His (her) knowledge of company policies and procedures.
His (her) ability to work with the employees as a
group.

His (her) ability to influence people to do what has
to be done.

His (her) technical knowledge of the jobs and the

work flow.

323

23.

:Ejagyg If one of us continued.to pester our supervisor with a minor
complaint, he (she) would.probably

1.

Help him to become interested in something more
constructive.

Politely but firmly show him.3ust why the complaint
is not justified.

Talk the problem.over with him, trying to understand
how he feels about it.

Send him up the line to the proper authority for an
official and final answer that the employee will have
to accept.

f” If I suggested an improvement in the section, my supervisor

would be most apt to

Urge me to send it directly to the Operating
Committee.

Urge ms to talk it over with the others for their
comments.

Ask to have time to go over it before he (she) makes
any'comments.

Go over it with.me; point out that this is the way
to get ahead.

In general, my supervisor seems to

 

1. Create an "I don't care" attitude among the employees.
. Make peOple antagonistic toward.him.
. Create cooperation among the employees.
h. Create competition between employees.
1- 57 The last time there was a change in our work routine, my
supervisor
1. Talked to each individual about the changes in his job.

jjiefic)

2.
3.

h.

 

Asked the group how the problem should.be handled.
Read (or posted) the instructions which he had received.
Told us how he thought the change should be handled.

My supervisor attempts to maintain discipline by

1.

2.

Letting each.employee be responsible for his own
conduct once he knows the rules.

Helping employees work out a common standard of
action‘based on the rules.

Taking direct personal action against serious
violators of the rules.

Treating all employees alike and.according to the
1‘11168 o

E'él

1'02

.1./.0 3)

.14., ‘1

32!.

2h.

Supervisors seem to be chosen around here on the basis of

1.

III

 

How well they are liked by fellow employees

Their ability to influence people to get things done.
How well they know official policy.

How well they know the technical aspect of the work.

I feel that the main reason my supervisor handles the above
situations the way he does is:

 

 

l. The attitude of his boss about supervision.
. The general company policy on supervision.
3. His own attitude about supervision.
I4. The attitude of his employees about supervision.
5. Other (explain)
_____9o I have no idea.
How do you feel about the relationship between you and your
supervisor?
1. Completely satisfied.
. Very satisfied.
. Quite satisfied.
____I4. Somewhat satisfied.
“5. Not satisfied.
How do you feel about the way your supervisor handles his
(her) Job?
1. Completely satisfied.

Very satisfied.
Quits satisfied.
Somewhat satisfied.
Not satisfied.

325
25.

The following questions deal with your personal attitudes and opinions

about a number Of important social and personal questions.

The best

answer to each statement below is your personal opinion.

JIL‘LJO
11w
11.-«Ii
IIIvLIB

_IEl~HL|The present is all too often full

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile
goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom
of certain political groups.

1.

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the
people who believe in the same thing he does.

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a. little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very'much.

It is only natural that a person would have a.much better
acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he Opposes.

 

going on is to rely on leaders or

 

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

the only way we can know’what's
experts who can be trusted.

complicated world of ours

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

of unhappiness. It is only the

future that counts.

6.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

326 26.

- IZI:L|5' It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause
that life becomes meaningful.

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very'much.

SZLeLHe There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for
the truth and.those who are against the truth.

 

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very'much.

jZL:q‘] Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

 

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

11%? It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.

6.

_‘s.
"—3:
2.
l.

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

EILqu It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

5.
h.
...—.3 °

2.

1.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

3211-50 The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something

important.
1. I disagree very much.
. I disagree on the whole.
3. I disagree a little.
h I agree a little.

“—5:

6.

I agree on the whole.
I agree very much.

Ill’o'l

327

27.

If something grows up over a long time, there will always be much
wisdom in it.

1.

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very’much.

III-5.1 It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily

III—SH

routine.

 

I disagree very much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I ages on the whole.

I agree very much.

Young people would be a lot better Off if they all received strict
discipline from their parents.

I I LLL

1.

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

A.well-ordered way of life, with regular hours and an established
routine, is best for my kind of temperament.

6.

l.

I I LLI

 

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

§§5L455 Bosses should say'Just what is to be done and.sxactly how to do
it if they expect us to do a good Job.

1.

I disagree very'much.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree a little.

I agree a little.

I agree on the whole.

I agree very much.

 

 

II

 

328

28.

Ill-SI. I am not, and never have been, the sort of person who would do
something dangerous for the thrill of it.

6.
S.
h.

3.

2.

U

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

XII-S"? DO things here at work ever make you feel "jumpy" or nervous?

1.

Never.

Very seldom.
Seldom.
Sometimes.
Quite Often.
Very Often.

”III-38 When things get boring, I‘m the sort of person who likes to stir
up some excitement.

1.
2.

3.
h.
S.

6.

I agree very much.

I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.
I disagree very much.

3]; -5q Frankly, most things that happen to me don't affect my feelings
much one way or the other.

I agree very much. ,
I agree on the whole.

I agree a little.

I disagree a little.

I disagree on the whole.

I disagree very much.

31:60 How hard do you usually have to work in order to get your work done?

1.
2.

5.

LI

0

I hardly ever get done, although I work very hard to do so.
I know I can hardly ever get done anyway, so I work at the
pace that seems most comfortable for me.

I sometimes get done, but I have to work very hard to do so.
I sometimes get done, and I work at the pace that seems
most comfortable for me.

I almost always get done, but I have to work very hard

to do so.

. I almost always get done, and I work at the pace that

seems most comfortable for me.

329

29.

1'0”] The following questions are about the group of people with whom you work.

1'0 if

111—0 ‘7

About how many people are there in the group with whom you

work?

1.

(LU I I

 

More than 15
I don't work with any one group of maple.

DO you feel that you are really a part of your work group?

1.

JII

"'“52

 

I'm really a part of my work group.

I'm included in most ways.

I'm included in some ways, but not in others.
I don't feel I really belong.

I don't work with any one group of people.

If you had a chance to do the same kind of work for the same
pay in another work group, how would you feel about moving?

1.

he

5.
___6

I would want very much to move.

I would rather move than stay where I am.

It would make no difference to me.

I would rather stay where I am than move.

I would went very much to stay where I am.
I don't work with arm one group of people.

How does your work group compare with other work grows in this company on
each of the following points?

[‘6in The way members get

along together

[—V‘H The way manbere stick 1.___Better than

together

11!"? lThe way members help
each other on the Job

1 .____Better than
most

2.__About the
same as most

3.__Not as well
as most

2 .__About the
same as most

3.___Not as well

most as most

l.___Bs tter than
most

ZcfiAbOUt the
same as most

3.___Not as well
as most

I4.__I don't work with am? one group of people.

1-,-7 3 All things considered, how easy would it be for P
do mg

to find someone else to do the job you are now

1.

III

“‘53
9.

  

Very difficult.

Fairly difficult.

A little bit difficult.
Fairly easy.

Very easy.

Don't know.

12.—'75

«M.

1'7“?

330

30.

As far as you can tell, what do your siervisors think

about your work performance here at

1.
2.

3.

 

 

They like it very much.

They like most things about it, but there are some
exceptions.

There are several things about my work performance
that they don't like.

There are mam things about my work performance that
they don't like.

Don't know.

How qualified do you feel you are to handle different jobs
in this compamr?

1.

I4.

WI
0

LI

Much more than most employees.
More than most employees,

About the same as most employees.
Less than most employees.

Much less than most employees.

Considering what you want in a job, how do the other Jobs for
which you are qualified compare with your present job?

All are better than my present Job.

Most are better but a few are worse than my
present job.

Some are better and some are worse than my
present Job.

A few are better but most are worse than my
present Job. ‘

All are worse than our present Job.

 

 

331
31 .

The check list on the next page gives you an opportunity to express how
you feel about certain aspects of your job. Consider the first aspect
listed in the column to the left. Place a check mark under the state-
ment in Column A which best describes how satisfied you are with this
aspect of your job. Then decide whether you want an increase in this
aspect of your Job, a decrease in it, or no change in it, and place a
check mark under the appropriate statement in Colman B. Then go on to
the next aspect.

M19: Suppose the job aspect had to do with the amount of illumina-
tion on your Job. If you felt "somewhat satisfied" with the
amount of illumination and if you wanted a decrease in il-
lumination (to reduce glare), you should put one check mark
under "somewhat satisfied" in Column A and one check mark
under "a decrease" in Column B.

 

 

 

 

 

332

ooooooooooooooooo ”H03 .55 HO GWIH

000000000000000000000 nah .? @twllfi!
no vow H when Ho 9523 one .3”
ooooooooooooooo DOW. 383.09 a mSIHfl
op 8.3883 .89 30:30 .3 .MH
ccccccccccccc 90... ME GO fish. 3.9 B:
H fiwgooo no unease one .NH
oooooooo wnflfiflmaflfi m.“ Aflg m ow- a
be noon: Op oohmoo one 23
...... now he no on: 3 obon NanHH
H pooawgn Ho 9505 one .2
....... no... .923 on 3 enon 3-fim
H gnu me 0:35 one .m
.32.. as we assess. has Seq
twosome?» Ho 9525 one .0
000000000000000000 pan .2 no TWIH
eoeoos ans. we assess one .2.
oooooooooooo DO“ he no #0“ H “Mia.
coed Eomon mo 95% one .o
cccccccccccc EQEOO 0H3. .HOH ~umsdan
nan be no 359.895 one .m

ooom on» hobo Honuooo .9 ....
ooooooooo no“. he E veg WWI-ta.

Swanson no oohwoo one .m
eeeeeeeeeee 90.0 he 30 Uwhflfiv TW-..EH

IOH #903 H0 #533 OFH. .N
oooooooooooooooooooo ”Hg b: mwua
5 epog Ho 9::an one ..H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Gen—H00

 

2.
3
oooonooo owoono oooonofi ooflofipeo nonsense oowmofipoo ooflnwpoo ooaenwpoo
s on no new ponsoeom 3H5 enobfl 3339.30
noon 3 one:
egos H pooooe menu woe < 5:38

 

 

pose: on.

 

333 33.

)(—3 d. How satisfied are you with the way changes are handled around
here?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Not satisfied

LUJ |

X-E'] How satisfied are you with the kind of work you do?

1. Cmnpletely satisfied

2. Very satisfied . up
Quite satisfied 5“
Somewhat satisfied 5

Not satisfied ‘

3.
h.

5.

 

.11.-

X -3 Si How satisfied are you with the comparw you work for?

1 . Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied

Jll

”s:

x _— 3q Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you
with yom' job?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Not satisfied

f LUJ I

fire 7 6 you working?

 

 

ISL-10‘?! If you received a large inheritance or a large sum of money
from some source, would you still work?
Yes No
r

E

 

 

331"“? If you received a large inheritance or a large sum of money
from some source, would you still work at”!
Yes No

Why?

 

 

334 3b-

How easy would it be for you to get a Job as good as the
one you now have at some other company?

1.

3.

h.
......5-

6

 

Very easy

Fairly easy

A little bit difficult
Fairly difficult

Very difficult

I don't know

How many employees in the company think that your Job is more
desirable than their own Jobs?

1.

LUJ l

Almost all
New

Some

Few

Almost none

What do you expect to be doing five years from now?

l.

53

6

,UI

cn

Being a supervisor in this company
Working at the same Job in this company
Working at a better Job in this company
Being a supervisor in some other company
Working at a nonsupervisory job elsewhere
Running own business

Being a housewife

Retired

Other

Don't know

Are you now taking any special training?

1.

LLUJJ I

"5"?

l.

LLU I

No, and I don't really plan to

No, and I don't know whether I will or not

No, but I plan to within 5 years

Yes, training to help me on the Job I'm on now
Yes, training for a different Job in this company
Yes, training for a Job elsewhere

Yes, training to help me enter a profession or
start 11w own business

t do you think the possibilities are of your getting a
omotion in the next year?

Very likely

Fairly likely

Likely in some ways, not in others
Unlikely

Very unlikely

335 35.

x ~11 How new years have you worked since leaving school?

1. Less than 1 year
a 1 - 2 years
0 3 " 5 years
a 6 - 10 years
5. 11 or more years

Jll

 

X ”I 7 How many more years do you expect to work?

1. Less than 1 year
20 1 " 2 years
3. 3 - 5 years
b. 6 ~ 10 years
11 or more years
I don't know

5.

9.

336 36.

X -- i R, When were you hired by- Year Month

What is your present job title? (example: key-punch
x “‘9,” operator)

 

X ' I 2 When did you start on your present Job? Year Month

X 4):? What is your section and department?

 

 

[X *[Li Within the past 6 months have you tried to transfer from
your present job to another job or department within the

company? Yes No

X - 15' Within the past 6 months have you registered with em
employment agency or applied for a job with em other
organization? Yes No

)g— up How many people do you supervise directly here at work?
people
X213 Are you the only wage earner in your household? Yes No

 

x a; L'Are you the main wage earner in your household? Yes No

 

X“ Q5 Could your household live adequately if you were not
working? Yes No

Xgfl, Is your household living adequately 2937 Yes No

x —,Q7What is your present salary before taxes and other deductions?
dollars
Check whether this is per month , week , or 2 weeks .

>< —fiDate of birth: Month Du Year
>(- Q. Sex: Male Female

X -- '7 Marital status: Single Married Divorced
Separated

Widowed

)<~8 How many years of school have you completed? Circle

highest grade completed.
Some Graduate

7 8 9 10 ll 12 College College Work

 

337 37 .

X—Ifi Have you spent most of your life in a

1. farm area
. small town
0 C ity

y—go What is (was) your father's occupation? (examples: farmer,
machinist, doctor)

 

X—‘Ql What is (was) your father's annual income?

1. less than 3000 dollars
___‘/_. 3000 - 7000 dollars
. 7000 - 15,000 dollars
1:. over 15,000 dollars

Y'QQ In your community do you consider yourself a member of the

1. upper class

. upper middle class
30 middle 018.88
1:. lower middle class
5. working class
6. lower class

Thank you for your cooperation. Now tear off the ballot at the bottom
of the cover page of the questionnaire. Place the ballot in the "Ballot
Box" and place the questionnaire in the box marked "Questionnaires".

333 ,,.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

Labor and Industrial Relations Center

May 1958

To: Enployees of -Insurance Company

The Labor and Industrial Relations Center at Michigan State University
is carrying on a .broad program of research having to do with people working
together effectively in industrial organizations. Much of the research con-
sists of getting the ideas and Opinions of people about their jobs.

Last November you were asked to fill out a questionnaire as a part of u".
this series of studies. We are grateful for the very substantial help you
gave us at that time and are finding the information we received very help-
ful in our research.

It is important to our research to know whether the conclusions we ob-
tain at one time will remain true at a later date. We are therefore asking
you to participate in this second questionnaire study.

As you go through this questionnaire, those of you who participated in
the November stucb' will recognize questions that we also asked in November.
We have included them because we need to know how you look on your Job and
the company at this time.

Those of you who were not present to participate in the November study
will have an opportunity to express how you feel about a variety of aspects
of your Job and your working situation.

The value of this study depends on the sincerity and care with which
you answer the questions. It is important to get your real feelings. We
are looking for frank statements about your attitudes, feelings, opinions
and Judgments about your job.

The answers that you give will be made available only to the research
team in the Labor and Industrial Relations Center. No one connected in any
way with your organization will see or use any of the individual question-
naires or be able in any way to find out what kind of answers you have given.
Your information will be held in the strictest confidence and the results of
the study will be tabulated on a group basis only.

A report on the findings of this study and of the November study will
be made to you before the end of 1958.

Einar Hardin

Research Associate

Labor and Industrial Relations Center
Michigan State University

Please print your name below. When you have finished the questionnaire,
tear this part off and place it in the "ballot box" by the door. THIS
INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO HELP US ANALYZE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. IT WILL
NOT BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE IN THE COMPANY.

(fa-{7; '37; ‘}’ Name

 

 

 

 

.
. ‘ '- .
. . .
\ , v .
. ' J I V
. . '
. '> . '
.‘ .
. i. . I .
. H M /
' A
. . .
‘ v A ‘ . . .
I- - . ‘ ‘ A t L ‘ ~ I V
.. . .
A . ' P
. . r
» I, ’ ( V
v I .
z
_ ‘ . . ' I. I o
u . ” l ‘ I
‘ . .
. . 3 ’ ,‘ .- 4 I -v
I ' , I .
‘ . . .
t ‘ A V
. . .
I
.
. . u.
\ r .
. , ‘ ‘ —
- .
a ” .1
, .- ... I -‘ 1 .'
, o
l ‘ .
. \

   

339

First is a check list that gives you an Opportunity to express
how you feel about certain aspects of your job. Consider the
first aspect listed in the column to the left. Place a check
mark under the statement which best describes how satisfied you
are with this aspect of your Job.

7 . . . .

 

Job Aspect leetely Var:r Quite Somewhat ‘ Not
satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

 

1 The amount of variety in
. mworkeooooeeoeooooooeeoo

In: The amount of work required
on m JOboeeoeoeooooeoeoee

:- n The degree of accuracy de-
manded by w JObeoeeooooeo

I..My control over the pace of
my work...................

1.3The importance of my Job for
the company...............

12., The amount of supervision I
get on my JOboooeeooooooeo

I .5 The amount of skill needed
on W Job.................

7 ,, The amount of responsibili-
ty demanded by W jObooooe

1 .7 The amount of planning I
have 130 do on W 3013000000

1 I 3 The amount of judgment I
have to use on my Job"...

 

1 0’; The degree to which my
work 18 interesting. a e o o o o

I (oThe amount of security I
feel on W JOboooeoooeeooo

 

1 MW chances for promotion to
a better JobOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

1,2; The amount of pay I get on
my joboeeoeoooeeeoooeooooe

. u . A a“- .u- . *M.‘ <.—.- —..-. ace-Q— '

 

 

 

 

b—o “pug-e...» _—

....... L (1) <2) .. (3) (u) . (s)

 

 

....

.
.-.
o

u...

 

 

1 I I \
.. . . .
. ‘I a , . .
a .' '0
) '. , , _ :,, .
. ‘J . ..\ »- -.
, ‘ . O . ' , 7 u. _

. .. . _ ,. - .

. . - . . , .

...
.9;....o.-.'e so
0 . ,,..
r ’ '
| -
ga'lrtfl9.0
..
to! so! In... --. .
I. "~ .
‘an .QOOI'OI‘Q‘-V
.. . . ....
-- 1..
...alQOOIlt'v
. ..-... i....,. .
.7
., ,l
'- I ‘.
ooeoxoooooI-vl'o"
.. . .
~units .‘ .
.. .. - .... .
. , r
‘IO'I o. '
f. .
«o ‘0 \-
...- ...... ... .
.‘lvu. . .
hat! ..~h~00€
.—... .._._,
.
‘0'. Imull"'
.. ..l (r.
I‘ I
..1.
.O-.uo 0.00:».
. .4. ..- --... . .. . .- ..
.- .
_ ., .. _ ... -- .-. -..-.. , .7 . ..~ ,

 

‘1' 214

‘4
A.
n

J: 1.7

H
N
cg

‘c‘ 2. ‘1

31.0 2.

How do you feel about the relationship between you and your
supervisor?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied

. Not satisfied

,IJJ I

 

How satisfied are you with the way changes are handled around
here?

1. Completely satisfied

2. Very satisfied

3. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied
5. Net satisfied

 

J

 

How satisfied are you with the kind of work you do?

1. Completely satisfied

. Very satisfied

. Quite satisfied

. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied

Jll

 

How satisfied.are you with the company you work for?

1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied
3. Quite satisfied
h. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied

Taking everything into account, how satisfied.are you with
your Job?
1. Completely satisfied
2. Very satisfied
a. Quite satisfied
. Somewhat satisfied
. Not satisfied

 

What are the things you like best about working at -7

 

 

 

What are the things you like least about working at: - ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ . , . .
, .
‘ -
»
r
. .
I
. . '
‘ s .
......u.
.
.
- r
. . .
u-’
- ~ ‘
. ‘ -
. .
. ’ |
. . , _. \ .
. v ‘ . .
,,. ‘
‘. 1 p
.
. :-
. .. .
m . ' ' K . ~
.. - .... ... . . - - , .. . . .....-__, .. V c- .
. . . -’- ..., . . -.- u no“-.- . . . v . .1 .... 7 _ -.. -.- , ...- , ~
, , “{. - * ~ ..‘ . .
' .. \ ,I,‘ , - _A ..
V s .. . -
. .. . _~ «-.. .. .... .. .....A ~ -. . .-
7 . _ , . .-.. ,. -_ _ . » -. v. > ~ -' ‘
‘ o - — 4 .. . ...... . -.. a - ~ — . .. - - "

 

 

 

341
3.

The following questions concern.your immediate supervisor and.the company
you work for:

‘Ilrdo

f[ 73!

H

33

I34

H

35‘

My supervisor does his best to keep me informed.about changes that
will affect me.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree
h. I disagree
5. I strongly disagree

 

Often my supervisor's decisions are pretty arbitrary.

S. I strongly agree

he I agree

3. I neither agree, nor disagree
2. I disagree

1. I strongly disagree

 

My supervisor is quite willing to stand.up for my rights in the company.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree

5. I strongly disagree

J] l

 

There is not much.my supervisor can do to protect my interests in the
company}

5. I strongly agree

h. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree

. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

 

The company keeps the welfare of its employees in mind whenever it
makes an important decision.

1. I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

. I strongly disagree

 

2.
3.
h.

L

The company goes out of its way to help employees who run into
difficulties.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

U ,l

 

Iii!- -,

 

 

 

 

In

I 3'?

342
1:.

The company is much.more concerned.with cost of operation than
with employee welfare.

.....5-

h.
3.
2.

l.

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

‘Whatever the company decides will be for the benefit of most
employees.

I strongly agree
I agree s.
I neither agree, nor disagree L
I disagree

I strongly disagree

This company seems to be run more competently than are most other
companies I know about.

1.

2.

 

3.

h.

5.

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

The following questions deal with.preferences about changes in your Job:

:E 339

H

'Vl

If I could do as I pleased, I'would change the kind of work I do
every'few'months.

S.

 

l.

I strongly agree

I agree a little

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree a little

I strongly disagree

One can never feel at ease on a Job where the ways of doing things
are always being changed.

1.
2.

3.
h.

S.

 

 

I strongly agree

I agree a little

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree a little

I strongly disagree

The trouble with most Jobs is that you just get used.to doing things
in one way and then they want you to do them differently.

l.
2.

 

Ll ,J

I strongly agree

I agree a little

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree a little

I strongly disagree

 

 

. , . . . . _ ‘ . ' I. ' ‘
t ,_ ‘
4
.
.
,, . ..., _ ‘ . ”I .
' * O. ‘
...- -
1“ v ‘
..
-‘ ' I .
r . ' . .
. . . . . ‘ A ' I '
. ‘ . ‘ ‘
. ... ' ’
— ., . . '
. . I. .4 V
I 3‘ ‘ - , .
- , .
.4I l ... I. ‘ ‘ I
~ .. .
' ‘ . . -. I
' ‘ ‘ . . , ~
I n 'o . . ' . ’ ‘ ‘ , I .
. . . _ . . . \ '
u _ . ‘ ~
> r r ‘ ‘7 _ \ AA
. p - -. . _ I—
r . . . I . ~ , .
r .
" > .1 V
, _ . _ . I
- I
- . . . ,
.
. ' I
. . . . - n, . ‘. . ‘
i . ' . 1 -
|
V n
.
. _» .. ,,
‘ - 2 L
\ .
' " - » .- 5
.
' . .' ' .-
. . I .
.. .
, . , . , . . - . ' . .
I . + A I t . ' ‘V ’ . . , . r. . , . \ .
. ‘ ‘ ‘ n ' 4 '
A , -,l , '
- a
- -. ...
.
.1 r I o ‘
l I ' _ 7 .
. e :4
, ,7. . .. . v '
. I

   

343 5.

‘T q 1 I would prefer to stay with a Job I know I can handle than to change

I

I75

I ‘/'~/

"/6

H

I48

to one where most things would be new to me.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree a little

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

LUJ l

trouble with many people is that when they find a Job they can
well they don't stick with it.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree a little

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

9?

 

LU l

I like a Job where I know that I will be doing my work about the
same way flrom one week to the next.

1. I strongly agree

2:: I agree a little

3. I neither agree, nor disagree
1:. I disagree a little

5. I strongly disagree

When I get used to doing things in one way it is disturbing to have
to change to a new method.

1. I strongly ages

2. I agree a little

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree a little

. I strongly disagree

ILJI

It would take a sizable raise in pay to get me to accept a different
30b here.

1. I strongly agree
2. I agree a little
. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree a little
5. I strongly disagree

 

J

 

There are many unnecessary tasks performed in this company.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree
. I neither agree, nor disagree
0 I disagree
. I strongly disagree

lul

 

This comparw is slow in adopting more efficient methods of work.

1. I strongly agree

2. I agree
. I neither agree, nor disagree
0 I disagree
. I strongly disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r
. , _' V‘ V V A.
.. V‘ V d A
. . .. V V ' V
w, ~. V
. V ‘ V
. , ~ v 4 ‘~."' V V V
. . . V
o
. -. . V' V ‘V
.
. V V V V ~
. Y 1 . V V V V
, V V V V‘
. \V V V
‘ .
y 1
’ .
' .
' v
. .. . V" ‘
. ‘ .. ‘. . VV V V
. _ _ V V >
. V V
' .
....,_ V
. - . . V A “V, V
. V l
, V ’ V V b
I . V ‘
. V V V
I I \v I ..
.l . .
' \ .V.
' h |
. .
~ . i -.V _ V V.
_ . ' V V V V ‘
..4 . V, . V V
v V V VV
,_‘ . ..
u, I h - . -
,. x ' (- . ’ . V... . V V V I V V
.l V V V
‘ V V. . ~
' ‘V
. ‘ . VV
. _ ‘ V V '
..,‘ _
”n, ‘ U ‘ a.- , .' l
, I l A
. VV“ V ‘
A. ‘
. V V
. '1
'. V ‘ V V
. . V~ k
‘ . ~ . ' . .< V V V ‘VV rV-V
v . . . I ' VV V V
.. V I VVV V
~.
‘. w .
t . d \V .
. p . . I.~ ‘ I
~ .
‘q r .e
.y l .
‘ a
t . V VV '
. ‘ . ~ . . V V V ‘ V
I ‘ ‘ . I . . V
.. V VV . V‘. V

 

 

 

7:49

H

"x

31.4 6.

It is hard to gain acceptance of proposals for changes that would

lead to
1.

Jul |

_5-

increased efficiency.

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

Many persons in this company are so used to doing things in the
present way that they cannot see the advantages of new methods of

work.

1.
2.

 

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

Personal interests are too often allowed to stand in the way of
improved efficiency in this company.

1.

2.

LU l

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

The following questions are concerned with the contacts you have with other
people in your work, and with how you feel about the information you receive

regarding changes in your job.

'52.

H

’7' 5"

During a regular workday I generally exchange information connected
with 11y work with the following number of people:

1.
2.

lwl

 

None

1-2

3 -5
6-10

More than 10

My job requires me to give information to my supervisor:

1.

2.

LJI

 

Very frequently
Often

Sometimes

Seldom

Very infrequently

How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you have
to discuss things about your Job with your supervisor?

1.

Completely satisfied

2. Very satisfied
3. Quite satisfied
. Somewhat satisfied

’:.5-

Not satisfied

 

 

 

 

 

3‘.

a.

‘0
~\
.v

.L J-
..
.

.I'

~ \
. .'
'a

 

. .-
.,
.-

 

 

31.5

 

 

 

7.
I :3- How satisfied are you with the number of opportunities you have
to talk with the people you supervise?
1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied
VV3V. Quite satisfied
. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied
I 55 How satisfied are you with the information you receive concerning
changes in the compam' and in your job?
1. Completely satisfied
. Very satisfied
. Quite satisfied
1:. Somewhat satisfied
5. Not satisfied
In the right-hand column next to each item place a check mark
under the statement which best describes your satisfaction with
information received from the company.
ASPECTS OF - Satisfaction
INFORMATION Temple £er Very Quite Somewhat Not
satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

3: g, Amount of

\fl

'T

‘1‘

60

infanmationooooooe

5 3 Accuracy of
information. . . . . . .

9 Understandability of
‘ information. . . . . . .

Getting information
soon enoughoocoooe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4'
un-

7.” ~. .—"—‘H - _
l

 

 

’ V
.
1 ‘ .
A
, . . , . - ... “a. . ..
l. .
u , . . .q — .
‘ .
u . ‘
... - ,,-, k...
, _ A .7 . ./. . ,.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

‘ ‘ l
. .4.._.
v ..a o ' l
t . .
‘ . - . » -
v ..
“ ‘7)
. .
.l ....
.‘ .
. s _ . ‘ "
-... ._
. t
' _, . / A . ' _
1* , ‘ .. _
. ‘ » . . -
t , ‘ ‘
‘ _ .
L t
- .
. \ ‘
, ,
_ . ~ .
e k‘ . . . , . 7' -
r' 1 l ‘ " A.
4 , » . -. ' ' - .
1 O ‘
.. u. .l 1.‘ . ‘.
» I 4 - a
. ~ -
. . .. . -.-.. .-..- a... . Hi... i, _..,.,... ~~n ..-‘v n . ... ---. . ~— ,
.
.
... ..,., V “7.. .. - ”--.- .....,
v . ~ ‘
_ v - — .
. ,. . . -.. .--, , .._, .. .
...
.'..I,. -
.. a .7. .. o .. -..
I
,., 0 o o- ‘ '
..-. , . {,.w. .. i-...
- r
.
-\
’ .‘ S ‘ .5
. — . . . -.-,
l.‘ ‘ - VI
.
...ac we - .
*rr . A. -..r ... .-,. .-
. .w ._ . .. -. --.. --. ... . .. ‘.._. ,

 

The hours
I work on

346

On the next page you will find a list of statements about
aspects of your Job. You are asked to answer the questions
about each aspect of your job. "Has this aspect of your Job
changed in the past six months?" (Question "A"), and "How
do you feel about the change (or lack of change) in this
aspect of your job?" (Question "3")

1. you had the same Job title here W
months ago, compare the way your Job is now wit he way it

was six months ago on each of the Job aspects.
2. If you had a different job here at“
months ago, compare your present Job with the 0 you had

six months ago on each of the ,job aspects.

 

 

3. If you have not been with for at least
six months, indicate any changes which have occurred in the
aspects of your Job since you came to

 

Ex 1e:
If you are working more hours now ("A") and don' t like it
("B"), you would check the spaces like this:

QUESTION "A"
How has this aspect of your
job changed in the past six

QUESTION "B"

Suppose the statement had to do with hours of work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.

How do you feel about this
change (or lack of change)

 

 

 

 

 

 

months? in our Job?

much much like dis-

more more no le as less / a don ' t dis- like

now now change now now lot _ like gains like a lot .
/ /

this 30b. 0 o

 

 

\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

...

 

 

I."

 

 

 

 

830

31.7

24ng OEHHozm .5:
>75 .6: How En: OH.
55mm webgam

ocheHoz ab...

mos ~50 Em mmvmod 0H. 0.05. 0.06
osmdmrmm Ms armband 0H3 50:30»

 

may [New adv Arlewv
500: 39.0 50 Home 5:03
503 not 0505mm :0: H03
:08 no:

 

are 3.95.... on. 4390 0% Ma 5.

ZOHWoooooo00000000000000.0000.

.55 050E? 0H. 23.x swoon—Hon
ova ”Odessa-0000000000000...

.25 @0560 0H. moogma 9038509
.3ng mocooooooooooooooooooooo

5. 0055.8. 988 $5 080 on. a

taxes-o.coco-0000000000000...

are “508.3500 0H. 5% mod How.
.650 Goagoooooocoeoooeoooooe

. .58 8:95». 0H. 96031.0 H05 H

«on 0: sq uod.................

e50 0595a 0H. me :0 0909 0a

a 00.60000000000000000000.0000

are $603“ on. no «beamwdbuau.
QQSNJQQQ 6% a “0600000000000.

.90 8:95." 0». vasasm H 3.40
.60 e 05 59a access-00900000000

.55 030:3. 0». usamsgd H undo

.60 $0 05 a “Haydon-00000000000

.55 abmfiom 4.0 £3.03 a to;
PM gguammdgmoooooeoooooooooo

.30 «5053 on. 0005.93. H H00“.
05 5% accesses-00000000000000.

3. 035000 HS. 9.030300 00 m
Umfldmfl uOdoooooooooeoooooooooe

.340 “93333.... SH. dm< H mmfi 03 Suva ”06 III III-II

 

 

 

 

ogmeHoz .6:
m0: Q0 «.00. Hemp mvozd 03m owgmm

 

 

A08 Hoax om oumsmav Mu Rosa 06»
IHHV, Hmv may Hwy 1H
wao Hwa aos.¢ awn: aHmHHwo
we 9 H0 onus Hwa Ha m
How Md How I

 

F's

m

\21.
9:

w
”a

H H

w
x?

 

 

.-.1:

, .. 0 n . c Q . . f.
. .o ..uvs.o r .
4 v I .
. . . . :1 s . . 2.0.. .. . . A. . ...
. AL V a. . no u o O 0..
. 4
. _ . . .i .. ... .
.
9.0. o . .. ao - . v
_ .
u... . .5. u . . . p .
u . . . . ... . . . . o ... .u.

l. 1

1

..- .. , -.. - -....-

.. r n y ' ‘|I‘| ,
. . l«. \a i I 1 . f: o O

.r I ... .....‘5 . n . , . .5

i. ‘ v . . . A u .. . I:

Ii.‘ . , . i y .

u n; 4., ' r, . , . . .

. no . v. . ‘ x

.

 

.II'.
I‘- I
i.

 

 

 

 

348
9.

a“ .57 Considering everything, would you say you are now more satisfied
or less satisfied with your Job than you were six months ago?

1.

LUJ l

Much more satisfied now

More satisfied now

No more, no less satisfied now
Less satisfied now

Much less satisfied now

As you may know, the company installed an IBM 650 computer in December
last year.
as you see it and with your feelings about it.

27753

H

The follovdng questions deal with the role of this computer

A
.-

What is your general feeling about the fact that the company has

installed a computer?

1.

9.

l LLLH

I like it very much

I like it

It makes no difference to me

I dislike it

I dislike it very much

I have never given it a thought

What was the general effect of the changeover to the new computer?

9.

 

It was very disrupting

It was quite disrupting

It was sligxtly disrupting
It was not disrupting at all
I have no idea

How long would you aw it took you to get used to the change?

1.

9.

LLLI I

 

No more than one week

1 week to 1 month

1 month to 3 months

More than 3 months

Not really used to it yet
I was not affected at all

Considering everything, do you think the computer has been a good
thing or a bad thing for the employees in—?

l.

LLLJ I I

A very good thing

A good thing

Neither a good thing, nor a bad thing
A bad thing

A very bad thing

I have no idea

 

 

349 10 .

If 42 In your opinion, would it be a good idea to use the computer more

\=\

44

If ‘0‘

I'LL/é

v7

widely or less widely in this company than is now the case?

1. Much more widely than now
. More widely than now
3. About the same as now
)4. Less widely than now
5. Much less widely than now
I don't care
90 I don't know

What has happened to your job since last November?

1. I have been pranoted

. I have been transferred to a different 30b

. I have kept my Job, but the work has been greatly changed

. I have kept my Job, but the work has been noticeably changed

. I have kept my Job, and the work has been changed only slightly
. I have kept my Job, and the work has not changed

9. I was not employed here last November

LLLLLI

 

How @ you feel about the change (or lack of change) since last
November?

1. I like it very much

2. I like it

. It makes no difference to me

e I dislike it

. I dislike it very much

9. I was not employed here last November

ILLJII

Did the computer play am' part in the change in your Job since
last November?

1. Yes, it was the main factor in the change

2. Yes, but it was a minor factor in the change
. No, it was not a factor in the change

. No, for there was no change

8. I was not employed here last November

9. I have no idea

 

 

Do you think that the computer will influence your Job in the next
year or two?

2e It 18 quite likely
. It is possible, but not very likely
.It is not very likely
S. It is not at all likely
90 I have no idea

U

How do you feel about this?

1. I like it very much

2. I like it

3. It makes no difference to me
. I dislike it

5. I dislike it very much

 

 

 

350 11.

Now you are asked to indicate in what way the cmuter influenced each
aspect of your Job within the last six months. Place a check mark in
one of the spaces for each statement about your Job. If you really can-
not tell whether the computer influenced some aspect of your job, check
"I have no idea what the computer may have done."

 

II"!

F44?

1170

For this aspect of my job the computer caused ...

(1) (2) (3) (h) (5) (9)
I have no idea
a great some no some a great what the computer

increase increase change decrease decrease my have done

The amount of variety
in mworkoeeeeeeeeee

The amount of work
required on my Job...

The degree of accu-
racy demanded by my

JObeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

My control over the
pace of my work......

The importance of w
Job for the company..

The amount of super-
vision I get on my Job”

The amount of skill
needed on m Job..."

The amount of responsi-
bility demanded by W Job

The amount of planning

work is interesting...

I have to do onmy JObee

The amount of Judgment
I have to use on my Job.

The degree to which my

The amount of security
I feel on my JObeeeee

II 40 w chances for promotion

Eel

t0 8. better JObeeeeee

The amount of pay I
get onmy job........

 

 

-.. -- “.44... -__.__.-_-_,..

-..—age-..”

 

 

 

 

 

' l . __ .. I
. _._
’ . a.
‘ . . ,. _
V ‘
. . ‘ _
. . V I 4-,
. v v. .
- I .
a . .
' ‘ «. . ' _ . >
‘ .a
, e
'o-Qc. y ,.
- , '
NI
~ ' ' ..A ‘v_
.
...
""' It so. .
..-, _ ‘-
'OI
ID 4
e
c\.a
' .
.
I. . v
,\.. ‘ . ...? ‘.
. k, _
h v
I”. ‘ ’ vu...

 

351 12.

Now we would like to know what you think will happen as a result of the
computer. Below are several questions. For each question mark your
answer in one of the columns "Yes", "Possibly", and "No", depending on
your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Possibly No
102 Will the computer change the work methods in all
parts of the company?
7: (. 3 Will the company be able to issue policies more
quickly thanks to the computer?
9: at; Will the computer soon be used for deciding which
applications the company should accept and which
it should reject?
1565' Will the computer endanger anybody's employment
at.”
H w Will a lot of people be able to use more of their
skills as a result of the installation of the
computer?
K L '7 Will the computer actually help increase employ-
ment at _‘1’
”If; ‘1 Of the information distributed about the IBM "650" computer I
think I have received:
10 All Of it
. Most of it
. Some of it
1:. Only a little of it
5. None of it
111' N.) Of the information I have received about the IBM "650" computer
~" prior to its installation I felt it was necessary to pass along:
1e All Of it
. Most of it
. Some parts of it
1:. Only a little of it
. None of it
‘ZZE II I have discussed the IBM "650" computer with others:
____1. Very often
____2. Often
3. Sometimes
1:. Not often

Never

5.

 

 

 

 

-:
. .2‘
e l.
' a

'r
l

I

1

. A

.7

7 .H, . ~
. O 9 ’
~ - .
.
.
a ,.
, . ,.
L. ,
,
.‘ w-~
.

-.--m.
u
‘ .
l
r.
. .

 

 

 

:rLr M

Li

H

/‘é

I"?

352 13.

To what extent has the information you received from the company
about the IBM "650" computer agreed with what actually took place?

. It agreed fairly well

. It agreed in someways and not in others
)4. It disagreed somewhat
5. It disagreed very much

 

0n the job that you have now, how much of your present work involves
the use of office machines?

1. Almost all of it
. A large part of it
Be Some or it
1:. A small part of it
. Almost none of it
90 Don't know

 

On the job that would be ideal for you, how much of your work would
involve the use of office machines?

1. Almost all of it

. A large part of it
e Sane Of it

. A mall part of it
. Almost none of it
e Don't know

I ILLI I

8’

things here at work ever make you feel "Jumpy" or nervous?

10 Never

. Very seldom
e Seldom

o smtma

e mite Oftm
0 Very or ten

LLU II

The job that you would consider ideal for you would be one where
the way you do your work:

1. Is always the same

. Changes very little
. manges somewhat

. Changes quite a bit
. Changes a great deal

LLLI I

a?

t are the things you like most about the way changes are handled
this company?

E

 

 

 

 

 

igh—E-

 

 

..--e

 

» — ». .-..-........~.. .< .- —~...-~

-.. . —a...~~k.- . .., . ed,“ . , -,.. ..- , . . . V .

 

fl/Y

arm

‘TTTZZ

353

What are the things you like least about the m changes are
handled in this company?

 

 

 

 

The main reason I work at my present job is to make money.

1. I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree

. I strongly disagree

 

If I received an inheritance so large that I did not have to work,
I would still work at my present job.

5. I strongly agree
. I agree
. I neither agree, nor disagree

. I disagree
1. I strongly disagree

 

1. I strongly agree
. I agree

i. I neither agree, nor disagree
. I disagree

5. I strongly disagree

It is more important to me that I do well at my work here than at
anything else I do.

 

. I stroxgly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disag'ee
e I disagree

. I strongly disagree

I care more about what the maple I work with think of me than I do
about what most others think.

5 . I strongly agree

. I agree

. I neither agree, nor disagree
0 I disagree

. I strongly disagree

LLLLJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

...-... .....-—-.-....

.. "~~ ‘04‘.q~

 

»_—.
v

‘v .

«.1»

.

, .'

 

 

   

--.—..-“.mo ...-... . ...-—

-- - . -... -~-w—-.

. -..-...-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v
a
‘-
..-
r
.r e
.
.
.
.
V .
.
‘ A
,

 

~-—-

 

 

“WU: t]

’-

N
V
I

3E.

k.

354 15 .

I cannot really be happy unless I do very well at my Job.

5.

1.

 

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

The general field of work I am in now is the kind I would prefer to

until I retire.

I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree
I disagree

I strongly disagree

feel like a loafer if I did not have a job.
I strongly agree

I agree

I neither agree, nor disagree

I disagree

I strongly disagree

All things considered, how easy would it be for-‘ to find

some one

D

 

else to d) the job you are now doing?

Very difficult

Fairly difficult

A little bit difficult
Fairly easy

Very easy
Don't know

How many employees in the company think that your Job is more
desirable than their own jobs?

 

Almost all
Many

Some

Few

Almost none

How many supervisors in the company think that your job is more
desirable than their own jobs?

1.

LUJ I

Almost all
Many

Some

Few

Almost none

. U I
, ‘ . L
a
I
. -
-
..- .
I
’e
, I
.
I
U
. . 1
I I U
A - g l .
'9' 1 . I . N
. n
. '1 '
. o
. .
. ..
. f ' I
. ‘ I
I
r
» I
u
A l
.
.
.
I
a
a
e

 

IBIZI
217,32.

:7; _

355 16.

As far as you can tell, what do your supervisors think about your
work performance here at -?

l.
2.

3.

 

They like it very much.

They like it.

They like most things about it, but there are some
exceptions.

There are several things about my work performance
that they don't like.

There are many things about my work performance that
they don't like.

Don't knOWe

How easy would it be for you to get a job as good as the one you
now have at some other company?

1.

9.

LIII I

 

Very easy

Fairly easy

A little bit difficult
Fairly difficult

Very difficult

I don' t know

How qualified do you feel you are to handle different Jobs in
this compam'?

1.

“III I

 

Are you
1.

Much more than most employees.
More than most employees.

About the same as most employees.
Less than most employees.

Much less than most anployees.

now taking any special training?

No, and I don't really plan to

No, and I don't know whether I will or not

No, but I plan to within 5 years

Yes, training to help me on the Job I'm on now
Yes, training for a different Job in this company
Yes, training for a Job elsewhere

Yes, training to help me enter a profession or
start mt own business

When were you hired by ”7 Year Month

What is

your present Job title? (example: key-punch Operator)

 

When did you start on your present job? Year

What is your section and depariment?

Month

 

 

 

 

n
’ A
_ . . .
v , ”V.
.7 . . ‘
7 _
Y I‘
. ‘ \‘ -
I
. . . I
I ' 1 ‘
— or — u
If
.. --.. _ -- - . . ‘>
9 ..-..- -v -~.-...
. .- .. _‘ . . v k
_ _ . «..-, .. A -< “-1 ..

 

.
- i
a _~
...
D
‘.
9
I
,
, .
I
..
.-
- v...
V.
I._

 

 

 

 

. 4 .
- .
’ I 9
l
l .
e
. . .
h C
V A
.-. ,.
, .
. . ._ ‘
A r
' D
. . .
I
.
. C .
. . v 7 1
I». ,’
( l
s
. - p
’ O .
. ‘.
n -
‘ ' .
. ' ~ '
‘ -
. . .
" c
\_ .
... - _ - ”V . ‘-

 

msg#0-

III 4“.”

(13

.‘ ‘ Date of birth: Month Day Year

356
17.

What is your supervisor's name?

How many people do you supervise directly here at work?
people

 

Within the past 6 months have you tried to transfer from your
present job to another job or department within the company?
Yes No

Within the past 6 months have you registered with any employment
agency or applied for a Job with any other organization?
Yes No

Are you the 9291 wage earner in your household? Yes No

 

Are you the main wage earner in your household? Yes No

 

Could your household live adequately if you were go_t_ working?
Yes No

Is your household living adequately 22!? Yes No

Sex: Male Female
Marital status: Single Married Other

How many years of school have you completed? Circle highest
grade completed.

Some Graduate
7 8 9 10 ll 12 College College Work

Thank you for your cooperation. Now tear off the ballot at the
bottom of the cover page of the questionnaire. Place the ballot
in the "Ballot Box" and place the questionnaire in the box marked
"Questionnaires".

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ l
.‘ ' I ' . . "'* ' I" . .
. , _ ’ , . ’
.... i .I . . a . . A.-- . . . -. a..- ....
.
. . .-
. i I '— ‘l . ' ‘ I
I ,_., I I , A . -. a
. , ,, I. . VI . . , I
I V . ~ ' I . v .‘ A ,
u ‘ . - - I
4 . , » _ . ‘ ' ,
. ,_ . . . —.
. _
' . ' I . I. .
. . . . , , - , - . . .
' . .
, I
.. -,. , . ...: .
.. -. . . - ...n -. ..
.. , I ‘ , .v . ‘
‘ I
-... ...-.- .A .
_ ‘ r ,
, . , I
. V . . .
. - - ‘ . . -; I
.‘ L -. x, .
. .- . _ , .- t.“ . . u.-- v
. . -. -... A .
. V
‘ ‘ »- } 4‘ A -'
.. . . ...: . _ -. ».,-.I e
‘ . I . >~ I ,. . . . I , ,
~ ‘ \ , I . ' . . ., L I \
e.
. s ' - .
l
I
I
n f
‘ . ..r -~ - . ,
.r -. * . Q . . . ‘ x
. . ,
. ,- . ’ , A _. .l 4
, . , .
. . g , ‘ '
I . I I -
.. . ‘ “ ‘ . . ‘ ' ' '

 

 

  

HICH

"LWHIWEHJWMIEWWW