A COMPARATSVE ETUDY (32 SELECTE‘?) ”235L231“! AREAS IN THE ADMINESTRATKDN CI! 22235 2‘2WEL FUNCTEON EN Sé‘efiAiL JEN?) LARGE FERMS Thesis far 3229 53:1»ng of PhD. MiCHESAéF-i 1522:5222. UNEVERSIT‘.’ 231’? A522} ALEEN SQHNSQN 295:3 1'1“. 1 LIBRAPY “"i V lK/lichiganc grate University III/WI! W W +3 129 38419 L"P* This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PROBLEM AREAS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION IN SMALL AND LARGE FIRMS presented by EDWARD ALDEN JOHNSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in MANAGEMENT 1&17/3’75??? ' TAX;- {If/{Ll Major professor Date '37 ' /’ £22 0-169 RfiVT' We 5. boa—I in the was to which 1 8"!" n4: relat: ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PROBLEM AREAS IN THE AMNISTRATION OF THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION IN SMALL AND LARGE FEMS by Edward Alden Johnson This study investigated selected problemareas in the administration of the personnel function in small and large firms. The purpose of the research was to gain a better understanding of. the influence . which the size of an organization may have on these administrative problem areas by examining and int er- relating the points of view of the company president, the personnel executive, and other members of top management who have some personnel responsibility. _ It was hypothesized that there are meaningful differences between personnel executives, company presidents , and operating (line) executives in small and large firms with respect to (1) interrelationships in administering the‘personnel function, (2) personnel activities, (5) expectations regarding personnel man- agement , (4) evaluation of the results and effective- ness of personnel management, and (5) changes in personnel management . , This research was part of a larger study con- ducted in collaboration with the American Management Association. The sample for the over-all study was “ +1.- O U...- 33 1 a - HIV Edward Alden Johnson drawn from.United States and Canadian firms listed in the 1966 edition of Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives. Using a disproportional sampling technique, 300 firms were selected in each of three size groupings: 500 to 999 employees, 1,000 to 5,000 employees, and over 5,000 employees. Within these groupings, companies were selected at random as to geographic location and industry. Fabricating and processing firms dominated the sample, and the findings apply most literally to these industries. However, some transportation companies, financial institutions, retailers, utilities, and other organi- zations also participated. For the purpose of this study, only firms in two of the three size categories were used: 500 to 999 employees and over 5,000 employees. Three interrelated questionnaires were sent to three categories of executives: (l) the vice presi- dent, director, or manager in charge of the personnel department; (2) the president or chief executive of the company; and (3) a vice president heading a major functional department, who therefore had personnel responsibilities of his own, The functional execu- tives participating were vice presidents of manu- facturing, marketing, or finance. III Edward Alden.Johnson To assess whether there were any meaningful differences between the response patterns in small and large firms, three distinctions were made: percentage differences of 10 percent and over were classified as gin-533;; percentage differences which ranged between 5 percent but less than 10 percent were considered moderate; and. any percentage dif- ferences of less than 5 percent were not classified as different. Although the data obtained in this study were not tested for statistical significance, the three distinctions made above provided a general guide for the interpretation of whether there were meaningful differences between the responses obtained from small and large firms. 0n the basis of the data collected, the hy— potheses were not strongly supported. That differ- ences induced by size do exist in the five problem ‘ areas is undeniable, and conclusions were reached concerning variables such as: (1) time executives spend in joint sessions, (2) areas covered by execu- tives in joint sessions, (3) changes in line-staff relations, (4) factors accounting for relations between the personnel department and other depart- ments of the firm, (5) most time-consuming activities and concerns of executives, (6) areas in which execu- tives feel changes have taken place in the past and I U I 9 Q, vh-np .. A“ buoys. v. ’- . . hit“! a V..w¢v. A;;:o.‘ I \~/ (1-“.-. ‘ I tfirr; .,_ “Home. e}.’: . g . III—l .‘ “is - DQL.“ . Edward Alden Johnson in which they would like future changes to occur, (7) criticisms of the field of personnel management, (8) additional knowledge and. training needed by per— sonnel executives to meet present standards and to make significant future advances, (9) Quantitative and qualitative criteria for evaluating the effec- tiveness of personnel management, (10) pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management, (11) improvements expected in the activ- ities performed by the personnel department, and (12) consequences of changes in the personnel function. Caution, however, must be used in drawing in- ferences about the above differences in order to avoid exaggerating them. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PROBLEM AREAS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION IN SMALL AND LARGE FIRMS By Edward Alden Johnson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1968 CJCOpyright by EDWARD ALDEN JOHNSON I968 . 2’ ‘ h“ “I ”Sanka Ug‘u ACKNOWIEDGEMENTS In the course of this dissertation, I have benefited from the aid and advice ' of numerous persons. I am grateful for the guidance and assistance of the members of my committee: Professor Dalton E. McFarland, Chairman; Professor Darab Unwalla; and Professor Stanley Bryan. I am especially indebted to Dr. McFarland and the American Management Association for permission to use part of the data collected for Dr. McFarland's study, 29M Officers Assess the Personnel Function. I wish to thank Thomas c. Campbell, Dean of the I College of Commerce at West Virginia University, for his encouragement and for the generous work schedule, which allowed me to speed the conclusion of the study. The most sustained aid, in the form of ‘ editorial criticism and genuine encouragement, cane from my wife, Beryl. I dedicate this work to her. ii ‘- '“n. v.4: we“ ‘ I. II. T ‘11. I If ‘ IV. E I H L—J h.-.‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I O mRomICTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II. METHODOLOGY AND DATA CCIIECTICN . . . 15 III. INTEREEATIONSHIPS IN AMNISTERING TEEPERSONNELFUNCTION........ 21 Iv. PERSONNEL. ACTIVITIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING PERSONNEL MANAGE‘IENT . . . . 64 v. EVALUATION or THE RESUITS AND EEFECTIVENESSOFPERSONNEL WGMTOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 98 VI. CHANGE IN PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION . . _ 132 VII. WYooooooooooooooo 170 APPENDICESoooooooooooooooooo 183 BIBLIOGRAPHY................. 371, iii r] I 3.4 PE ‘ P Q ' to ’1’! LIST OFTABLES Table . ' Page 2.1 Percentage Response Rat-e of Executives Returning Questionnaires, by Size of Firm oooeoooooo-oooeooo 15 2.2 Criticisms or Reservations of the Field of Personnel Management Made by Personnel mecutives, by Size of 18 Fin 0 '0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2.3 Criticisms or Reservations of the Field of Personnel Management Made by Personnel Executives, by Size of 31m 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 19 3.1 Length of Time Personnel kecutives Have Been in Their Present Positions, bySizeofFirm............ 22 3.2 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Been With Their Present Firms, , bySizeofFirm.......r..... 24 3.3 Percentage of Work Week Personnel Executives and Chief Executives Spend in Joint Relationships, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.4 Percentage of Work Week Personnel Executives and Operating Executives Spend in Joint Relationships, by . SiZOOfFiM-oooooooooooo 28 3.5 Length of Time Operating Executives. Have Known Present Head of Personnel, bySizeofFirm............ 31 3.6 Percentage of Work Week Chief . Executives and Operating Executives Spend on Personnel Matters of All Kinds,bySize°fFim.ooooooo 33 iv Table 3-7 3.8, 3-9 2 3.10 3.11 3.12 5.13 5.14 3-15 3.16 ’ 4.1 4.2 4.3 Page . Types of Subjects With Which Personnel Executives and Chief Executives Deal in Joint Sessions, by Size of Firm . . 37 Types of Subjects With Which Personnel Executives and Operating Executives Deal in Joint Sessions, by Size of Fimoooooooo'oooo,ooooo 59 Personnel Areas Chief Executives and. Operating Executives Do Not Delegate, by Size or Firm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 43 Activities About Which Chief Executives Consult Head of Personnel, by Size Of Fin 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IE6 Personnel Executives Who Report Having Line Experience and Personnel Executives Who Report Not Having Line Experience, by Size of Firm .’ . . 49 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Spent in Operating (Line) Positions, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 49 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Spent in Staff Positions, by SizeOfFimooooooooo.oooo so. Conflict in.Line-Staff Relations, by ' SizeofFirm............. 52 Change in Line-Staff Relations, by Size or Firm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O _ 53 Factors Accounting for Relations. A Between the Personnel Department and Other Departments in the Firm, by SizeOfFj-mooooooooooo'oe 56 Educational Level of Personnel Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 66 College Major of Personnel Executives, bySizeOfFim.oooooooooolo 66 Reporting Relationships of Personnel Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 69 V fable 4-7 “.8 1L,g d if h! L4 Table 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 ' Chief Executives Who Report Whether Head of Personnel Is a Regular Member of the Executive Comittee, bySizeofFirm. . . .p. . . . . . . Chief Executives Who Expect Head of Personnel Function to Participate in Some of the Executive Committee Meetings, by Size of Firm . . . . . . Management Committees of Which Head of Personnel Is a Member, by Size or Firm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Number of Exempts in Personnel Department, by Size of Firm . . . . . Number of Exempts in Personnel Function in Firms as a Whole, by SizeofFirm... .......... . Current Goals of Personnel Department, bySizeofFirm........... Most Time-Consuming Activities and. Concerns of Personnel Executives During the Past Two Years, by Size or Fm O O O O O O O O O O O 0- O O 0 Relationship Between Personnel hecutives ' Current Goals and Their Most Time-Consuming Activity, for M1 Fine 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O . Relationship Between Personnel Executives' Current Goals and Their, Most Time-Consuming Activity, for LargeFirms............. Most Time-Consuming Activities and Concerns of the Executives During the Past Two Years, by Size of Firm . Changes in Executives' Expectations of Personnel Management During the Past Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . . . vi Page 70 71 72 75 74 75 77 81 33. 87 8 ‘.s>‘ .se‘- ’1 “‘Q/ E ”2 .a v . a A 0 1L C I) .4 2/ new . O . . Z/ I) p) 5 Table , Page 4.15 'Improvements in Results or Effective- ness of Personnel Management Desired by Executives for Next Five Years, by Size or Fim O O O O O O O O O C O O 91 5.1 Factors That Personnel Executives Believe Inhibit Their Effectiveness, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.2 Executives Who Are Critical of the Field of Personnel Management and Executives Who Are Not Critical of' the Field of Personnel Management, by Size or Firm 0 O O O O O O O I O O O 101 5.3 Criticisms or Reservations of the Field of Personnel Management Made by Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . 103 5.4 Areas in Which Personnel Department Assisted Operating Executives During - the Past Two Years, by Size of Firm.. . 107 5.5 Operating Executives Who Report That There Are Areas in Which They Are Not Getting Sufficient Help From Their Personnel Departments and Operating Executives Who Report That There Are No Areas in Which.They Want More Help From.Their Personnel Departments, by SizeOfFimeoooooooooooo 108 5.6 ”Areas in Which Operating EXecutives Receive Insufficient Help From Their Personnel Departments, by Size of Pi m 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0 1w 5.7 Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel Execu~ tives to Meet Present Standards, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 5.8 Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel Execu- tives to Make Significant Advances in Effectiveness, by Size of Firm . . . 116 /c-¢ ‘. g . rby Ad fhw 2 J . r0 “a. is .3 U ml: Table 5.9 5.10 5.11 6.1 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 Page Main Strengths Attributed to Head of Personnel by Chief Executives and Operating Executives, by Size of Firm 0 o o o o o ' o o o o o o o o o o o 118 Quantitative Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personnel Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 125 Qualitative Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personnel Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 126 Pace of Change Occurring Generally in the Field of Personnel Management, by Size or Fim O O O O O O O O O O O O 134 Degree of Change (Great Improvement) in Personnel Activities Expected by Executives During the Next Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . 158 Degree of Change (Moderate Improvement) in Personnel Activities Expected by Executives During the Next Five Years, by Size of Firm.. . . . . . . . 141 Degree of Change (Little Improvement) in Personnel Activities Ekpected.by Executives During the Next Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . ' 144 _Changes in the Ratio of Personnel Department Employees to Total Number of Employees in the Firm During the 1 Next Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . 151 Personnel Executives Who Report Medi- fications in Personnel Management Responsibilities and Personnel Executives Who Do NOt Report Modi- fications in Personnel Management Responsibilities, by Size of Finn . . . 156 Newly Created Personnel Department . Responsibilities, by Size of Firm . . . 157 viii Table Page 6.8 RespOnsibilities Transferred to the ' Personnel Department from Other Departments, by Size of Firm . . . . . 158 6.9 ‘ Responsibilities Transferred from the Personnel Department to Other, Departments, by Size of Firm . . . . . 160 6.10 Consequences of Changes in the. - Personnel Function, by Size of Firm . . 162 Appendix Table . D.1 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Been in Their Present Positions, by Size or Fin 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 251 D.2 Length“ of Time Personnel Executives Have Been With Their Present Firms , by Size or Fin 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 251 D. 3. Percentage of Work Week hecutives ' Spend in Joint Relationships, by ' Sizeof‘Firm.............. .254 D.4 Percentage of Work Week Executives Spend in Joint Relationships, by flzeOfMOQooooooo'oooo-256 13.5 Length of Time Operating Executives, Have Known Present Head of Personnel, ' bySizeofFirm............ 257 D.6 Percentage of Work Week Chief Execu- tives and Operating Executives Spend on Personnel Matters of All , ‘ - Kinds,bySizeofFirn........ 260 13.7 Types of Subjects With Which Execu- tives Deal in Joint Sessions, by . SiZGOfMoootoooooooéoo 262 D.8 Types of Subjects With Which Execu- tives Deal in Joint Sessions, by . SizeofFirm.........-.... 265 D.9 Personnel Areas Chief Executives and Operating Executives Do Not Delegate,bySizeofFirn. . . . . . . 267 ix AFFE. A. n L,——._ M p a.» .5 Juw AW \ q - ‘0‘]; : f-O ('5 l‘ Appendix Table ' Page D.lO. Activities About Which Chief Executives Consult Head of Personnel, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 D.11 Personnel Executives Who Report Having Line Experience and Personnel, - Executives Who Report th Having Line Experience, by Size of Firm . . . 269 D.12 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Spent in Operating (Line) Positions, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 270 D.13 Length of Time Personnel Executives Have Spent in Staff Positions, byh .Size.°£Fimoeooooooeooo'o 271 13.14 Conflict in Line—Staff Relations, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 13.15 Conflict in Line-Staff Relations, by . Size or Fim . O t. C O . O C C C C O C I 274 D.16 Change in Line-Staff Relations, by ' SiZQOfFimoooooeooeoooo 275 D.l7 Change in.Line-Staff Relations, by ' ' Size Of Firm 0 o o o o o o o to o o o o 277 D.18 Factors Accounting for Relations Between the Personnel Department and Other Departments in the Firm, by SizeOfFimQOOQOQOOOOQOO 279 D.19 Factors Accounting for Relations ' Between the Personnel Department and Other Departments in the Firm, by 8126 Of Fin 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 282 D.2O Educational Level of Personnel Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 283 D.21 College Major of Personnel Executives, - by Size Of Film 0 O O O O I O O O O O I 2“ D.22 Reporting Relationships of Personnel Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 285 I Appendix Table Page D.23 Chief Executives Who Report Whether ' Head of Personnel Is a Regular Member of the Executive Committee, bySizeofFirm............ 286 D.24 Chief Executives Who Expect Head of, Personnel Function to“ Participate in Some of the Executive Committee Meetings, by Size of Firm . . . . . . . 287 D.25 Management Committees of Which Head of Personnel Is a Member, by Size of FMooooeooooooooe‘ooo 288 D.26 Number of Exempts in Personnel Department, by Size of Firm . . . '. . . 289 D.27 Number of Exempts in Personnel Function in Firm as a Whole, by Size of Firm . . 290 D.28 Current Goals of Personnel Department, ‘ by 8126 Of Fin 0 ' O O O O O O O O O O O 291 D.29 Most Time-Consuming Activities and ‘ Concerns of the Executives During the Past Two Years, by Size of Firm. . p 294 D.3O Most Time-Consuming Activities and A , Concerns of the EbcecutivesDuring . A the Past Two Years, by Size of Firm . . . 296' D.3l Changes in Executives' Expectations ' of Personnel Management During the Past Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . 299 D.32 .Changes in hecutives' Expectations of Personnel Management During the A Past Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . 301 D.33‘ Improvements in Results or Effective- ness of Personnel Management Desired by Executives for the Next Five Years,bySizeofFirm........ 304. D.34 Improvements in Results or Effective- ness of Personnel Management Desired by Executives for the Next Five Iears,bySizeofFirm........ 307 I1 Appendix Table Page D.35 Factors That Personnel Executives Believe Inhibit Their Effectiveness, bySizeOfFirmo'ooooooooooo 308 D.36 kecutives Who Are Critical of the Field of Personnel Management and Executives Who Are Not Critical of the Field of Personnel Management, bySizeOfFimoooooooooooo 510 D.37 hecutives Who Are Critical of the Field of Personnel Management and Executives Who Are Not Critical of the Field of Personnel Management, bySizeofFirm.........s... 311 D.38 Criticisms or Reservations of the Field of Personnel Management Made by Executives, by Size of Firm . . . . 314 D.39 Criticisms or Reservations of the Field of Personnel Management Made . by Executives, by Size'of Firm . . .. . 316 DJIO Areas in Which Personnel Department Assisted Operating Executives During _ the Past Two Years, by Size of Firm. . 318 D.4l Operating Executives Who Report That There Are Areas in Which They Are Not Getting Sufficient Help, from Their Personnel Departments and Operating Executives Who Report That . There Are No Areas in Which They Want More Help from Their Personnel ‘ ' Departments, by Size of Firm . . . . . 319 D.11-2 Areas in Which Operating Executives — Receive Insufficient Help from Their . Personnel Departments, by Size of Mongoooooeoooooooo 320 D.II-3 Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel ‘ Executives to Meet Present Standards, bySizeofFirm............ 323 xii ’1- M: x. Appendix Table , Page D.44 .Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel Executives to Meet Present Standards, by Size or Firm 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 526 D.45 Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel Executives to Make Significant Advances in Effectiveness, by Size or Fin 0 O O O D O O O O O O 0 O O O O 528 . D.46 Additional Areas of Knowledge and Training Needed by Personnel Executives to Make Significant Advances in Effectiveness, by Size OfFimoooooooeoooooooo 351 D.47 Main Strengths Attributed to Head of Personnel by Chief Executives and Operating hecutives, by Size of Mooooooeoooeo'o-eooe 336 D.48 Quantitative Criteria for Evaluating , the Effectiveness of Personnel Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 339 D.49 Quantitative Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personnel * Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . p 341 D.5O Qualitative Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Personnel Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . 344 D. 51 Qualitative Criteria for Evaluating ' the Effectiveness of Personnel Management, by Size of Firm . . . . . . D.52 Pace of Change Occurring Generally In the Field of Personnel Management, WSiZOOmeeooooooooooo 348 D.53 Pace of Change Occurring Generally In the Field of Personnel Management, 9 bySizeofFirm............ 350 ' § xiii . fl.|l|)! 3.56 ,7 U. a C... flu 31 Cd D Appendix Table D.54 . D-55 D.56 D-57 D.58 D-59 D.6O D.61 D.62 13.63 Degree of Change in Personnel Activities Expected by Executives During the Next Five Years, by Size Of Fim O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Degree of Change in PersOnnel Activities Expected by Executives During the Next Five Years, by Size Of Fim O O O O O O O I O O O O C O 0 Changes In the Ratio of Personnel Department Employees to Total Number of Euployees in the Firm During the Next Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . Changes In the Ratio of Personnel Department Employees to Total Number of Enxployees In the Firm During the Next Five Years, by Size of Firm . . . Personnel Executives Who Report, . Modifications in Personnel Management Responsibilities and Personnel Executives Who Do Not Report Modifi- cations in Personnel Management Responsibilities, by Size of Firm . . Newly Created Personnel Department Responsibilities, by Size of Firm . . Responsibilities Transferred to the Personnel Department from Other Departments, by Size of Firm . . . . . Responsibilities Transferred from the Personnel Department to Other Departments , by Size of Firm Consequences of Changes In the Personnel Function, by Size of Firm . Consequences of Changes In the Personnel Function, by Size of Firm Page 551 353 , 355 557 559 361 563 365 Appendix B. C. D. LIST OF APPENDICES QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . . - . . . 'conmesrsmm RATIONALE OF THE QUESTIONS DEVELOPED FOR THE STUDY 0 O O C O O O O O O . RELATIVE DISCREPANCY max TABLES . 185 202< ‘228 250 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem Prior to the early 1950's, most of the literature pertaining to personnel management focused on.meeting the needs and requirements of large organizations.1 A number of textbooks placed an emphasis on designing personnel programs which included.well-organized per- sonnel departments; written policies; training pro- grams; numerous recruitment, screening, selection, placement, and induction devices; batteries of tests to determine personality, interests, abilities and skills, and physical characteristics; complex wage structures and incentive programs; and research pro- ' grams designed to provide management with information about employee attitudes, morale, motivation, training needs, absenteeism, turnover, and job satisfaction.2 1Max 3. wortman, Jr. and William.E. Reif, "An _ Analysis of the Industrial Relations Function in Small Manufacturing Firms: Part 1," Journal of Small Business Management, III, No. 3 (JEIy, I965), 3. 2Ibid. 2 Moreover, many writers and practitioners assumed that a scaled-down model of such extensive programs could adequately meet the needs and requirements of small firms as well.5 Beginning around 1950, some writers began to question the application and use of such a formal ap- proach to personnel administration in small firms.4 These writers improved the body of knowledge related to personnel management by describing the personnel function in small firms. Much still remains, however, to be learned about the relationship between the size of an organization and its personnel function. For example, business enterprises, whether small or large, face problems of enormous complexity in the administration of the per- sonnel function. Unless the personnel function can be examined within the total pattern of administrative behavior, little progress on many crucial problems will be made. Purpose of the research The purpose of this study is to investigate selected problem areas in the administration of the 5Ibid. 41bid. ' 5 personnel function in small and large business enter— prises. The aim of the research is to gain a better understanding of the influence which the size of an organization may have on these administrative problem areas by examining and interrelating the points of view of the key executives in small and large firms who share responsibilities for the personnel function. Throughout the study the term personnel function is used to include all phases of employee relations, including labor relations. It applies to all levels of managers as well as to rank-and-file employees. Basic assumptions For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that there are three principal roles involved in the administration of the personnel function, not two as popularly supposed. Two roles belong to line personnel: (1) the president or chief executive of the company, and (2) a vice president heading a major functional de- partment, who therefore has personnel responsibilities of his own. The third is that of the vice president, director, or manager in charge of the personnel depart- ment, whose role interposes him.between the president and the operating vice presidents. The analysis im- plies that the roles of chief executives and operating vice presidents are significantly different. Problems investigated Five general problem areas are investigated in this study: (1) interrelationships of the executives responsible for the administration of the personnel function, (2) personnel activities of the executives, (3) expectations of the executives regarding personnel management, (4) evaluation of the results and effec- tiveness of personnel management, and (5) changes in personnel management. Questions such as the following were drawn up as initial guidelines: ' 1. How much time do the executives spend with each other? 2. What types of work do they perform.when they are together? 3. HOw much time do company presidents and line executives devote to personnel matters of all kinds? 4. What are the personnel activities which company presidents and line executives do not delegate to personnel executives? 5. What is the nature of line and staff rela- tionships in general? 6. Where line—staff conflict exists, is it improving? Where it is slight, is it stable rather than increasing? 7. How can line-staff relations be improved? E . . .3 Ti N. S '3. t E I 2 u a. x a. a I . .\ a o n e “be By 5 8. What are the major personnel activities of the executives? 9. What are some of the personnel areas in which the executives feel that changes have taken place in the past with respect to personnel management? 10. What are some of the personnel areas in which the executives feel that they would like future changes to occur with respect to personnel management? 11. What do the executives regard as limitations of the field of personnel management and of personnel managers? . 12. What are some of the criteria which the executives use for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? 13. How do the executives view the pace of change in personnel management? 14. How do the executives view the degree of change in personnel management? 15. What do the executives consider to be conse- quences of changes in the personnel function? motheses Five hypotheses are formulated for this study: 1. There are meaningful differences between personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in small firms and personnel executives, UV“. ”Q t n—-" “A“Ahrv h-“dv..~. excha~c Q ‘ h“- . - a . A \ e u 1 a . c 2 1 5 k i r hr” x». hm H\ 4 ‘ »\ h. e as: e .C o a z a I: 6 chief executives, and operating executives in large firms with respect to their interrelationships in administering the personnel function. 2. There are meaningful differences between personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in small firms and personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in large firms with respect to their personnel activities. 3. There are meaningful differences between personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in small firms and personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in large firms with reSpect to their expectations regarding personnel management. 4. VThere are meaningful differences between personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in small firms and personnel executives, chief executives, and Operating executives in large firms with respect to their evaluation of the results~ and effectiveness of personnel management. 5. There are meaningful differences between personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in small firms and personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives in large firms with reSpect to their views concerning changes in personnel administration. Ln . r. a: 1 .5 A .u .m. .6 i. a.» 7 av ' U ‘ . -~ 2. .»u a. a: .1 as an n! .eu a r: O . ‘\¢ L .0 a. 2. r a e as av. v v L 2 wt 5 .1 2a a 1M\L.‘V..\ .\ Review of the literature In 1950, twenty authors, under the auspices of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, produced a book which represented the authors' individual as well as collective expression of what should be the 5 best management for small plants. One of the tOpics, "How to Get Best WOrkers and Labor Relations," written by Wilbur R. Meredith, is of particular interest. Meredith took the position that personnel management in small plants has a dif- ferent character from that existing in large plants.6 He indicated that small manufacturers have an inherent advantage over larger corporations: The big producers with their specialists, laboratories, high production equipment, etc., have a material advantage over the small plants, but with increasing size there comes a dilution of the all-important personal relationship be- tween the workman and the management. Here, then, is a competitive area in which the mane ager of a small plant can capitalize on the advantage of his small-sized Operation. PrOper attention to securing best suited workers and labor relations improves the come petitive position of the small company out of all proportion to the time and money in ested in prOperly handling the working force. ,w ' 5Edward H. Hempel, ed., Small Plant Management (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company,IInc., 1950). 6Wilbur R. Meredith, "How to Get Best workers and Labor Relations," in Small Plant Management, ed. by Edward H. Hempel (New York: MC-GrawIBook‘COmpany, Inc., 1950), p. 248. 71bid. “-4 - WC SSVQ; 8 With the above thoughts in.mind, Meredith sug- gested some policies and procedures which he thought would prove effective in small plants. In 1951, the National Industrial Conference Board conducted a survey in order to obtain informa- tion.about what kind of personnel program.is possible in.the small company and.who in the organization handles it.8 Examining personnel administration.in.fifty- seven.companies with less than.500 employees, the Conference Board found that every function.considered within.the scope of personnel administration by large companies in a former Conference Board survey was carried.out in small plants. In.general, these func- tions included: employment; maintenance of employee records; training; health and medical service; safety; wage and salary administration; employee services; administration of employee benefit plans; collective bargaining; employee communication; organization planning; and personnel research.9 8National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., Personnel Administration in the Small 00 , Studies ianersonn 1 Policy, No. 117 ( ew or : a onal Industrial Conference Board, Inc., 1951). 9.1.39... p. (93). 9 The Conference Board also found that in nine of the fifty-seven companies, personnel functions were handled by a committee or by several individuals in the company. But in forty-eight companies, most of the functions were centralized and were headed by one person. This centralization began in companies having between 100 and 200 employees and increased as the companies grew in size. Each company in the group which had between.4OO and 500 employees had a per- sonnel manager.10 A total of thirtyenine of the companies had per- sonnel departments. Approximately half of the persons nel managers (using this term to include titles of all heads of personnel departments) reported to the presi- dent of the company, while little less than.ha1f were responsible to a vice president.11 In 1953, James M. Black and George Piccoli re- . ported on industrial relations problems encountered in hundreds of companies, and they offered recommenda- tions for small businesses confronted.by similar situations. Much of the information was obtained.frem. 10Ibid. 11 Ibid. A-vr O H‘. -awfi- -'“H . e . .2 . SCCIZIE v: a. t. b 10 personnel directors of Cleveland companies in response to surveys made by the Associated Industries of Cleveland.12 Alton W. Baker, in 1955, attempted to explain some of the more important aspects of personnel manage- ment applicable to the operations of small manufactur— ing plants.15 Baker stated: There is a dearth of pertinent material since practically all of the available litera- ture of the field of personnel management is concerned exclusively with the large company. The personnel programs of these companies can- not be duplicated in a small company due to the limited time, staff, and resources avail- able to th& small company for personnel activity.1 The study had several purposes. The first was to discuss the principles of personnel management as they specifically apply to small business. This in? formation was to provide theoretical material which could be used by small businessmen to determine the degree to which their personnel practices adhere to l2James Menzies Black and J. George Piccoli, Successful Labor Relations for Small Business (New or : c raw- oo ompany, c., . l5Alton W. Baker, Personnel Management in Small Plants (Columbus, Ohio: Bureau ofIBusinessResearcE: CoIIege of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University, 1955). ' 14Ibid., p. 3. .-V-‘ c " “,5. O’- u ‘ V ' - ..- A A V‘. -‘ ~~ . \ 3". 0“ a. “O‘ c.‘ s "- ‘c O“ " " 5C a A 5‘: ‘ (7’ m (I 11 the principles generally accepted by writers in the field of personnel administration. The second was to provide empirical information which could assist in answering some of the questions of small businessmen about how the program could be organized, staffed, and administered. The final objective was to summarize the patterns found in personnel programs prevailing in small companies and to draw some conclusions regarding such programs.15 A questionnaire was mailed to a sample of manu- facturing companies in Ohio employing from.three to 299 persons in 1951. The names of the companies were obtained from the Manufacturers' Directory, 1921. The companies were selected at random without knowledge of the success of the company or its reputation for employee relations. The companies were selected from fifteen manufacturing industries.16 Baker reached the following conclusions on the basis of the survey: 1. The scope and complexity of the personnel program of a small manufacturing company is re- 1ated to the size of the company. As the size of a company increases, the personnel function 15Ibid. 16Ibid., p. 6. 12 of the company becomes increasingly differen— tiated from the line function of production and involves greater Specialization of func- tion. In addition, the larger the company, the greater number of personnel activities it will have as well as the greater the come plexity of content of each of these activities. 2. Certain types of personnel functions are related to the union status of the company. Personnel activities which tend to reduce the control exercised by management are generally more prevalent in union companies than in nonunion companies. . . . 3. The relationship between the union status of the company and its personnel pro- gram is much greater in the case of shop workers than in the case of office employees. It is the shop workers that are organized rather than the office employees in small companies. . . . 4. The relationship between the size of the company and its personnel practices is much closer than that between periannel practices and union status. . . . In 1955, Sherrill Cleland conducted a descrip- tive and comparative study which dealt with the in? fluence of plant size on.industria1 relations.18 The findings provided insights into the role that plant size may play in industrial relations, particur larly in the Trenton, New Jersey, area.19 l7Ibid., pp. 258-59. 18Sherrill Cleland The Influence of Plant Size on Industrial Relations (Prince on, . .: us r a ReIations Section, Department of Economics and Sociology, Princeton University, 1955). 19Ibid., p. 7. it‘c-w ‘ \ Q “Vvv- 4 ~ “‘Q“ ‘L \ «“0 " a. ‘ .. i" .o C.L I ts : J v o. U0 :6 x: V“ 3:13.: at w H t. 'Y / l .. \‘s... ‘C 8 as .‘\a V‘ CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION Sample and sampling method This research is part of a larger study cone ducted in collaboration with the American.Management Association.1 The sample for the over-all study was drawn from United States and Canadian firms listed in the 1966 edition of Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives. USing a disproportional sampling technique, 300 firms were selected in each of three size groupings: 500 to 999 employees, 1,000 to 5,000 employees, and over 5,000 employees. Within these groupings, companies were selected at random as to geographic location and industry. Fabricating and processing firms dominate the sample, and the findings apply most literally to these industries. Hewever, some transportation companies, financial institutions, retailers, utilities, and other organizations also participated. lDalton E. McFarland, Co Officers Assess the Personnel Function, AmerIEEESEEEEEEESEEIIEEEEIEtion ‘Researcfi Study, 79 (New York: American.Management Association, Inc., 1967). 15 14 For the purpose of the present study, only firms in two of the three size categories were used: 500 to 999 employees and over 5,000 employees. Three interrelated questionnaires, shown in Appendix A, were sent to three categories of executives: (1) the vice president, director, or manager in charge of the personnel department; (2) the president or chief executive of the company; and (3) a vice presi- dent heading a major functional department, who there- fore had personnel responsibilities of his own. The functional executives participating were vice presi- dents of manufacturing, marketing, or finance. Throughs out the report they are referred to as "operating executives." Thus for each firm.invited to participate, one questionnaire was sent to the personnel executive, a second to the chief executive, and a third to either the manufacturing, marketing, or finance executive. Although the questionnaires were similar, they were designed specifically for the three types of executives. The personnel executive's survey produced 63 returns from small firms and 100 returns from.large firms; the chief executive's survey, 32 from small firms and 51 from.large firms; and the operating executive's survey, 32 from small firms and 50 frdm large firms. x». .r o .3 Q a. u a 2. .... _‘ . ... . . _ a... \ 1:: .. I a: N.» .Mv .: .s\ n- I n a. 2 a . a .1 :1 3 a. a; r‘ b C O C .‘x A: be e 3 S 15 The percentage rates of response are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Percentage response rate of executives returning questionnaires, by size of firm Personnel Chief gperatigg Executives Executives 7 ecu ves Small ‘Large Small Large SmaII Eafge Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 21.0 33.3 10.7 16.7 10.7 17.0 Determination of the size of firm The size of a firm.may be measured in many dimensions: number of employees, material assets, actual or budgeted expenditures, quantity of output, etcetera. The most useful dimension for this study is considered to be the number of employees. This is the only dimension for which data are obtainable from.the original study. Thus, for the purpose of this study, a small firm is defined as one employing between 500 and 999 employees, and a large firm as one employing over 5,000 employees. 7 A 9 4 ' 16 Presentation of the data mg 0 s 0 analysis Two types, of tables are used in the presentation of the findings. One type shows the percentage dis- tributions of- the executive grOups in small and large firms responding to the various questions. These ” tables are located in the text of the study. The other type of table provides a Relative Discrepancy Index. This index was constructed by computing the differences in the percentage response rates given by the executive groups in small and large firms replying 'to each question. These tables are found in Appendix D. To assess whether there are any meaningful dif- ferences between the response patterns in small and large firms, three distinctions are made in the Rela- tive Discrepancy Index tables: percentage differences of 10 percent and over are classified as mt; per- centage differences which range between 5 percent but less than 10 percent. are considered moderate; and any percentage differences of less than 5 percent are not classified as different. Although the data obtained in this study are not tested for statistical signifi- cance, the three distinctions made provide a general guide for the interpretation of whether there are . meaningful differences between the responses obtained from small and large firms. 1’7 Examples of tables and interpretatiOn of data Table 2.2 shows the percentage distribution of nine criticisms or reservations of the field of per- sonnel management made by personnel executives in small and large firms. The responses of the personnel executives in small firms are given in the left—hand column, and those of the personnel executives in large firms in the right-hand column. It should be noted that when the results are presented in this manner, the differences are relative and do not necessarily indicate that one item was favored by the majority of one group and not by the other group. A majority of both groups may have reSponded to the same item, but one group emphasized it more than the other group. Table 2.3 provides a Relative Discrepancy Index for each criticism or reservation of the field of per- sonnel management mentioned by the personnel executives in small and large firms. When the differences in.the percentage response rates between the personnel execu- tives in small firms and the personnel executives in large firms are computed, three differences are found to be meaningful. One of these three meaningful dif- ferences is classified as great and the other two are classified as moderate. For example, the personnel executives in small firms respond.more frequently to 18 the criticism concerning lack of recognition and acceptance. The percentage difference is 12.4, and this is large enough to be classified as a great difference. Table 2.2 "Criticisms or reservations of the field of personnel management made by personnel executives, by size of firm Personnel Executives _82 Percent Percent (N = 40) (N = 74) Department's own weaknesses 37.5 41.9 Lack of recognition and acceptance 30.0 17.6 No future for advancement 0.0 1.4 Pressure of details 10.0 4.1 Lack of resources 0.0 1.4 NO basis for evaluating - progress 2.5 . 2.7 Too much.emphasis on techniques 0.0 . 6.8 Poor public relations 20.0 ' 24.3 Lack of line or general management knowledge . _by personnel executives 0.0 _ 0.0 19 Table 2.3 Criticisms or reservations of the field of personnel management made by personnel executives, by' size of firm PsPl Department's own weaknesses -- Lack of recognition and acceptance P8(12.4) No future for advancement -- Pressure of details Ps( 5.9) Lack of resources -- No basis for evaluating progress -- Too much emphasis on techniques P1( 6.8) Poor public relations -- Lack of line or general management knowledge by personnel executives -- The personnel executives in small firms also respond.more frequently to the criticism.re1ated.to pressure of details. In this case, the percentage ‘difference is 5.9, and this is large enough to be classified as a moderate difference. 0n the other hand, the personnel executives in large firms respond.more frequently to the criticism.regarding too much.emphasis on techniques. The percentage difference is 6.8, and 20 this is large enough to be classified as a moderate difference. ' When the differences in the percentage rates be- tween the personnel executives in small and large firms are computed for the other six criticisms, the differences between the two groups are all less than 5 percent. Thus, these are classified as not idifferent. In terms of reading the tables, the following symbols are used: PS represents the personnel respondents in.small firms. Pl represents the personnel respondents in large firms. C represents the chief executive respondents in small firms. Cl represents the chief executive respondents in large firms. OS represents the Operating respondents in small firms. 1 represents the Operating respondents in large firms. If there are meaningful differences between.the executive groups being compared, the group with the higher response is identified beside the item. If there are no meaningful differences between the executive groups being compared, a line is found after the item. The Relative Discrepancy Index for each.item. is found in parentheses. CHAPTER III INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN ADMINISTERING THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION The personnel executive, the chief executive, and the Operating executives in any business organiza- tion make up a working team that is vital to the per- sonnel function. Therefore, it is important to examine their relationships with each other. The central focus of this chapter is on those aspects of these relation- ships which have a bearing on the administrative be- havior of the three types of executives. The analysis is divided into five parts: the amounts of time the three types of executives spend with each other; the types of work they perform.when they are together; the total amount of time the chief executives and the oper- ating executives devote to personnel matters of all kinds; the personnel activities which the chief execur tives and Operating executives do not delegate; and the relationship between line and staff in general. 21 22 The Amounts of Time Spent in Relationships Leggth of time personnel executives ve feen in equpresen ,pOSl lons 'Regardless of the size of firm, many of the per- sonnel respondents participating in this study are relatively new to their present positions. For example, the data in.Table 3.1 show that 50 percent of the per- .sonnel respondents in small firms and 45 percent of the personnel executives in large firms have held their present position for five years or less. Further, over 80 percent of the personnel respOndents in small firms and 75 percent of the personnel respondents in large. firms have been.in their current positions for ten years or less. Table 3.1 Length of time personnel executives have been in their present positions, by size of firm Personnel Executives e Percent ' Percent (N = 63) (Na 96) 1—5 years 50.8 44.8 6-10 years 30.2 30.2 11-14 years 11.1 14.6 15—19'years 6.3 4.2 20 years and over ‘1.6 6.3 25 Thus a number of the personnel respondents in both size groups have had limited opportunity to de— velop firmly established organizational relationships in their roles as personnel executives. The fact that so many of the personnel respondents in.hoth.small and large firms have been in their posi- tions for such short periods of time suggests that many of them have not had enough time to establish personnel programs and achieve measurable results. Furthermore, they probably have had little opportunity to carry out their programs and demonstrate progress toward long— term.objectives. Length of time personnel executives haveibeen with their_present The data in Table 3.2 show that a greater per- centage of the personnel respondents in large firms, compared with the personnel respondents in.sma11 firms, have been with their present firm.for longer periods of time. For example, two—thirds of the personnel re- spondents in large firms report having been.with their present firm eleven or more years, compared to only one-third of the personnel respondents in.small firms. The reverse holds true for periods of time amounting to ten.years or less. 24 Table 3.2 Length of- time personnel executives have been with their present firms, by size of firm ‘ , Personnel Executives ‘ __H.e. Percent Percent m=6n m=1mi .1-5 years 42.9 11.0 6-10 years . 7 ‘ 23.8 21.0 11-14 years . _ 12.7 5 8.0 15-19 years - 12.7 17.0 20 years and over ' 7.9 43.0 These data suggest that personnel respondents in small firms are more mobile than personnel respondents in large firms. However, the fact that personnel re-i . spondents in large firms have remained with their pre- sent company for longer periods of time means that they have had more time to develop mature working relation- ships and establish rapport with other executives in their organization, both in terms of their chief execu- tive and their operating executives. Situations where a personnel executive and a chief executive or an oper- ating executive have known each other and have worked together for a long period of time may, in part, in- crease the possibility for better working relations 25 between them and produce understandings that make the personnel executive' 3 job less difficult. s e n 0 re ans 3 The greater the interaction rate between person- nel executives and their chief executives and personnel executives and their operating executives , the better their relationships with one another are likely to be. The amounts of time these executives spend with each other are important because they indicate what Oppor- tunities the executives have for communication, joint planning, and other interactions. Such interaction patterns may greatly influence the results that per- sonnel executives can expect to achieve. In general, the personnel executives and the chief executives in each size group are rather close in estimating the amount of time which they spend with each other during the work week. 1 However , further I analysis reveals that a greater percentage Of the per- sonnel respondents and the chief executive respondents in large firms estimate spending more time with one lOne possible exception is in the case of large firms. A greater percentage of personnel respondents indicate spending less than 5 percent of their time with chief executives, while a greater percentage of the chief executives report spending between 5 and ‘10 percent of their time with the head of the personnel unc on. EXEC'. othe: Spon: v “e: v . 9. Lu m1 26' another than do the personnel respondents and the chief executive respondents in small firms. For example, as shown in Table 3.3, approximately 90 percent of the per- sonnel respondents and chief executive respondents in small firms, compared with slightly over 80 percent of the personnel respondents and chief executive respond- ents in large firms, estimate that they spend 10 per- cent or less of their time with one another. On the other hand, close to 20 percent of the personnel re- spondents and chief executives in large firms, come pared to about 10 percent of the personnel respondents and.chief executive respondents in.sma11 firms, report spending over 10 percent of their time together. An analysis of the personnel executives and oper- ating executives (Table 3.4) shows that approximately 30 percent of both personnel groups report spending less than 10 percent of their time during the work week ’ with managers in nonspersonnel functions, while approxi- mately 70 percent of both personnel groups report spends ing over 10 percent of their time with.managers in.nonr personnel functions. Additional analysis, however, reveals that almost 45 percent of the personnel respond- ents in small firms as compared to 35 percent Of the personnel respondents in large firms estimate that they spend between 10 and 25 percent of their time with managers in nonspersonnel functions. Thus, in general, 27 0.0 0.0 H.m o.a nsoosoo mm soeo o.m. s.m m.sH H.HH essence mm-oa o.ws s.mm n.5m m.om nsoonoe oaum o.sm o.am m.se m.om osoosoo m can» smog Aom u zv flan u zv Arm n 28 Ann u zv psoonom psoonom psoonom pnoonom omens .HHesm omens, HHosml obesdooxm Hoodomnom obflpsoowm mofino spas recon case has: bosom case so obsessom no nonsense .mobwpfiooxm Moflso .mobfipsooxm Hosnomsom seen we enam.hn .mmflsmsoapoaon Rowen as usomm mo>epsooxo Hesse one mobs»§ooxo Hossomnom Moo: Mao: no owopsoonom m.m canoe SLAM .uo Owen 5.2 .Qfiflzciofiufidoh ofiflOfi Cw. 3:09: CC>dJ§OCXC isnfiwafleoae «0:: nuOkwfiaw—UQXQ HO~H-0$€H¢Q £0.33 UTHCS. .NO QH‘QQQQOLQeN. In tense 28 0.0 0.0 o.wm m.mm essence mm coco o.aa a.o o.mm s.ss psoonoo mmuoa m.as a.oe 0.0m m.aa essence oaum m.ss s.os o.a m.sa essence m can» smog Asa u zv Aom u zv “cos n zv Ame a zv psoosom psoosom psoonom psoonom mmmmm. Harem mmmmn obesSoon Hossomsom obflpdooxm “peso ness bosom case we eposwpmm .mobepfiooxm weaposomo one: psoom case no consents .mebwpsoexm Hessomnom spam 90 case kn .mmdnmsoapwaon psaOn ea enema mobapsooxo wsflposemo one mobepsoexo Hoqsomnom Moos Mao: Ho omeoqoonem ¢.m canoe 29 the larger the firm, the more time personnel executives report spending with operating executives. Analysis of the time operating executives esti- mate spending with personnel executives indicates that slightly over 90 percent of the operating respondents in small firms report spending less than 10 percent of their time with the head of personnel, as compared with 80 percent of the operating respondents in large firms. Further, over 15 percent of the operating respondents in large firms indicate Spending between 10 and 25 per- cent of their time with personnel executives, as comp pared with slightly over 5 percent of the Operating executive respondents in large firms. In general, the larger the firm, the more time the Operating executives report spending with the head of personnel. While Table 3.4 shows that approximately 70 per- cent of both personnel groups report spending over 10 percent of their time with operating managers, only about 7 percent of the operating respondents in.small firms and 18 percent of the operating respondents in large firms estimate that they spend over 10 percent of their time with personnel executives. Almost 95 perb cent of the operating respondents in.small firms and close to 85 percent of the operating respondents in large firms indicate Spending less than 10 percent of their time with the head of personnel. The reason for 30 these differences is that each operating executive estimated the time he spent with the head of his per- sonnel function, while each personnel respondent re- ported the total time he spent with all operating executives. In general, the data indicate that in large firms the personnel executives and chief executives and the personnel executives and operating executives spend more time with one another than do the same types of executives in small firms. Thus, the executives in large firms have more Opportunities for communicating, joint planning, and other interactions. This, in part, should increase the possibility of better relationships between the personnel executives and the chief execu- tives and the personnel executives and the operating executives in large firms, compared with the same types of executives in small firms. Since the chief executives have authority over both the perSonnel function and the operating functions, one might expect the personnel executives to" cultivate the relationships with their chief executives. However, as the data show, many of the personnel executives spend more time with the operating executives than with their chief executives. This condition exists regard- less of the size of firm. d by- . AA_‘uvnv 'VC‘» - 'f‘.‘ ‘1‘ ‘ :4 51 Length of time operating executives have known present head ofgpersonnel In general, operating executives in large firms, compared with operating executives in small firms, re- port more lengthy acquaintances with the head of the personnel department in their firms. As Table 5.5 indicates, nearly 60 percent of the operating respondents in large firms report knowing the head of the company's personnel function for eleven years or more, compared to less than 40 percent of the operating respondents in small firms. The reverse holds true for relatione ships of less than eleven years. Table 5.5 Length of time operating executives have known present head of personnel, by size of firm erati Executives _S.§ Percent Percent (N = 29) , (N = 51) 1-5 years 24.1 . 25.5 5-10 years 57.9 15.7 15-19 years 5.4 21.6 20 years and over 10.3 27.5 52 Situations where an Operating executive has known a personnel executive for a long period Of time and has worked together with him over time may increase the possibility for mature working relations between them and produce understandings that make the personnel executive's job easier. The data in Table 5.5 suggest that the possibility for mature working relations be- tween operating executives and personnel executives is better in large firms. Percent e of work week chief executives and Operating executives spefi on personne ma ers o a n s The chief executives and operating executives were also asked about the total amount of time which they devote to all types of personnel matters during a typical work week. An analysis of the time chief executives spend on personnel matters of all kinds reveals no substantial l differences between the two sample groups. ' As Table 5.6 shows, approximately 50 percent of both groups report that they devote between 10 and 25 percent of their time to personnel matters of all kinds. Close to 15 percent of both groups estimate spending between 25 and 50 percent of their time on such matters. On the other hand, about one-third of the respondents in both groups '\t*'\ Ill «5% "cob «a 2 saw: 0‘ Q.‘ ‘ P‘ I\ wl- ‘ ELTH LC "wewaSCCXC wwifiuGLQQO 55 0.0 0.0 o.m o.o assayed on nmbo s.ma 5.0 o.oa «.ma psmonms omumm m.H¢ 0.0m o.m¢ m.mm psoonmd mmaoH H.ms m.mu o.sm m.am psoonom OH use» mmoq Aam u zv Aom u zv Aom u zv “mm a an pdoohom pdooHom unconom pqoonom amuse, Hamsm, amuse, Hassm mobapdooxmkwsapmsomo mobfipsooxm moflno anew Ho oawm hp .mvdHM Ham Ho museums qusomnom no comma mobfipdomxo wsHpmnomo can mobupfiooxo Hofino Mooz #903 Mo ammeoonom w.m manna 54. estimate that they spend less than 10 percent of their time on.personnel matters. An analysis of the time operating executives spend on personnel matters of all kinds shows that, in general, Operating executives in large firms spend more time on.personnel matters than do Operating executives- .in small firms. Almost 75 percent of the Operating SIP ecutives in small firms report that they devote less than 10 percent of their time to personnel matters, as compared to slightly less than.#5 percent of the Oper- ating executives in large firms.' On the other hand, over 40 percent of the Operating executives in large firms report that they spend from 10 to 25 percent of their time on personnel matters, as compared to 20 per- cent of the operating executives in small firms. In addition, 15 percent of the Operating executives in large firms report spending from 25 to 50 percent of their time on personnel matters, as compared to less than 7 percent of the Operating executives in small firms. ‘ In general, regardless of the size of firm, the chief executives, compared.with the operating executives, spend.more of their time on personnel mat- ters of all kinds. It is noted, however, that a greater percentage of operating executives in.1arge firms spend more time on.such.matters than do operating executives 35 in small firms. Thus, it appears that a more substan- tial part of the chief executive's job, compared with the operating executive's job, consists of personnel matters. The same generally holds true for the oper- ating executives in large firms when compared with the Operating executives in.small firms. The time spent by the chief executives and Oper- ating executives in both sample groups on personnel matters may in part reflect the effectiveness of their personnel executive in administering his part Of the function. The chief executives in.both small and large firms may devote more time to personnel matters because they have greater concern for and make greater demands on.the personnel department than do the Operating ex? ecutives in small and large firms. Another possibility is that the chief executives and Operating executives in both.sample groups have different ideas about the .specific activities that they characterize as "personnel." Types of subjects with which execu ves ea JOlnt sessions In addition to gaining information about the fre- quency of interaction between the various executives, it is desirable to know something about the subjects with.which the executives deal when.they work together. The personnel executives were asked to indicate the areas dealt with during the course of interactions 56 with chief executives and operating executives. Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show these areas and the percentage Of per- sonnel respondents who reported spending time with the chief executive and operating executives on each. Although it was noted previously that the per— sonnel respondents in both sample groups Spend differ- ent amounts of time with chief executives and operating executives, the types of activities conducted during their interactions with their chief executives and line executives are quite similar, regardless of the size of firm. In only two areas are there any differences: matters related to policy and economic problems dealing with cost and efficiency. In both small and large firms, more personnel executives spend time with their chief executives, compared to the Operating executives, on policy matters. This difference is more noticeable in small firms. On the other hand, in the case of small firms, moderately more personnel respondents re- port spending time with their Operating executives, compared to their chief executives, on economic prob- lems related to cost and efficiency. Organization design and.manpower planning and labor relations are reported by the personnel reSpond- ents in both sample groups as accounting for the greatest amounts of time spent with their chief 37 msflpSommm qudomhmm npflz mQOfimmmm .m®>-.n Pfiomuflm H030 obepfiomxm wmflso new: mnOHmmem .mobflpsooxm Hensomaom m.Hm m.wm o.mm 0.0m wsfisqwam Hozomsma was smfimop dospmaflddwho 0.0 m.m m.ma m.m mosoHOfimuo use mpm00v mamppms Oflaodoom m.sa H.5H m.ma s.ms Amsoapsams Hones wswddaoxmv mamppms hoaflom s.oH m.sa m.ma m.oa mosaaqsomp was mmsddoooam qudomsom s.mm m.ma o.mm m.ms mmaoaaod ens mamaposm escapades Henna Ase u Ass u zv Ashe a zv Ana u zv psooamm psoonom unconmm pdmosmfi Imssdgr ,HHmsml, omswg, Hamsmi EHHH no mean he .mdoammmm psfion as awed mm>deomNm mofino one mobwpfioofio Hoddomuom reflex npflk mpoonnsm mo momma m.m manna 58 0.0 0.0 m.n N.NH m.d ¢.m w.H 0.0 msoapwaoa Hmpqossnmbow was .hpfiqsssoo .owapsm m.a w.m mdoapwaoa amass one .soameflddssoo .GOprbflpoz w.a m.m sofipmnpmflsflSdm was wnflqsmam Hapsmsphmmmm A50 u zv ads u zv psoosom unconcm omnwfl HHMEM obflpsooxm Honaomnom new: msOflmmom .mobapsoowm moans Ca: n 5 “mm u 5 psoosom psoosmm amuse HHmsmi. o>flpsomxm moans spa: mdoammom .mobfipsomxm Hodnomnom emssapsoouus.m wanes 59 s.0m m.om m.mw H.mm weasddam nosomdda dds swflmop soapmuanmwno m.mm s.ms o.HH m.ma nonmaoaemo ens mmeOV mamppma oasonoom u.m 5.8 ®.HH m.n mqoapmaon Honda wqwdsHoxmv mnmppms howaom m.sH H.m m.oa m.ma mosaasnomp odd mmasoooonm Hensomsmm s.sa o.mm m.om m.am moaoaaoa ens mamanonm msoapwaon Hosea Ame u zv Amm n zv Anus u zv Awm n zv psooaom psoonom pnooaom psoonom swung, HHmam omswn, HHmsm ebfipsooxm qusomamm o>Hpsoonxmspraomo spa: mdoammom spa: macammmm .mobwpfiooxm wnflpwnomo .mobwpsooxm Hodsomnmm spam no ouwm he .msowmmom quOn as Home mobs» Idoexm weapmaomo use mobwpfioowo Hoqqomnom Joan: spa: mpoonnsm mo monks m.m manna 4O 0.0 ®.N 0.0 H.N mdoapmamn ampdossao>ow ens .spaqsssoo .oasssm m.m w.NH w.m #.m mOOApmHoH amass ps8 . .soapmoflndaaoo .nOHpmbfipo: ©.m mooa N.m H.m doapthpmfldfladm odd wsflqsmam Hmpamapswmon Amp u zv Amm n zv Amua u zv Aom u 2v pdoonom pqoonom psooaom unmonom a: mu obwpfiookfl Hodnomhom npflw macammom .mobfipsooxm wqapwncmo ma obfipsooxm Hesse spa: msoammmm .mobapsooxm qusomnom emssapsoouum.m magma 41 executives and Operating executives. The subjects receiving the least emphasis, as reported by both per- sonnel groups, are public, community, and governmental relations, and departmental planning and administration. As shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8, there are some differences between the chief executives and the oper- ating executives in both small and large firms with respect to what they deal with during the time they spend with the personnel executives. In only two areas, however, are there major differences. With respect to small firms, about 15 percent of the chief executives, compared to 5 percent of the Operating executives, report spending time with the head of their personnel function on matters related to personnel procedure and techniques. Regarding large firms, close to 25 percent of the operating executives, compared to about 12 percent of the chief executives, indicate spending time with the head of their personnel function on economic matters related to cost and efficiency. A detailed examination of the three types of executives by size of firm shows that there are some differences in their views, although.most of these differences are moderate (Appendix D). Of particular interest is the fact that one of the major subjects mentioned by the three types of 42 executives in both sample groups refers to organization design and manpower planning, an area closely associ— ated with longer—range and broader-scale problems in— volving company growth and changing technology. In general, however, the focus of the various executives appears to be more on Operating problems, such as labor relations, improving personnel procedures and techs niques, etc. The selection of these subjects was prob— ably influenced by the fact that line and staff people usually meet in order to resolve Operating problems. Personnel areas chief executives and Operating executives do notfidelegate The extent to which various matters are considered delegable by chief executives and Operating executives is a factor Of great importance to the per- sonnel function. Analysis of data reveals that, re— gardless of the size of firm, the two areas mentioned most frequently as not delegable by both types of ex- ecutives are organization structure and design and wage and salary decisions (Table 5.9). Organization design together with manpower plan— ning, however, was reported as a major area of inter- action between the personnel executives and these ex- ecutives in both small and large firms, as was pointed out earlier. This additional information seems to sug- gest that most of the interaction between the three 45 m.a m.¢ w.m w.m msoonwaaoomfiz m.H 0.0 m.m $.H mmwndno pwoo no mpowdsn Hoqnomaom m.m N.N m.N m.m mseanonm Hanowpwbapoa use cacao: H.m N.ma H.0H m.ma mqoamwood mdowpmaoa Honda 9S mém 5.5 Was 33203 53 use owes 1m m6 It: One $333 93 333 Honda 90 mnowmwood Assam mém Tm: TR mam $33 88 wasposhpm soapsufinmwno new a zv Aw: u.zv Ame u zv awn u zv useoacm unconom psoonem unooaom mmmmurlllllllpummmw mobwpfioexm Hosea A spam no mean he .opswoaoc pod op mobwusoone waspsnomo and mobflpsomNo moans muons Hosdomnom m.m edema 44 types of executives deals mostly with manpower planning rather than organizational design. Additional analysis reveals the following: (1) Although the major area both groups of chief executives are unwilling to delegate is organization structure and design, a greater percentage of the respondents in large firms place more emphasis on it. On the other hand, a moderately higher percentage of chief execu- tives in small firms are less willing to dele- gate problems in human relations. (2) The major area which both groups of Operating executives are most unwilling to delegate is organization structure and design, although the operating executives in large firms are more emphatic. On the other hand, a moderately higher percentage of operating executives in small firms are less willing to delegate matters related to wage and salary administration and labor relations. (5) In general, the chief executives and Operating executives in large firms are less willing to delegate responsibilities related to organization planning and design than are the chief executives and operating executives in small firms. t...- - . “Q?” 45 (4) There appears to be no differences in the views of the chief executives and operating executives in large firms with respect to what they believe cannot be delegated. Moderate differences exist between the two types of ex- ecutives in small firms. The chief executives place moderately more stress on not delegating personnel responsibilities related to final decisions on major issues or policies and morale and motivational problems, whereas the Operating executives place moderately more em- phasis on not delegating responsibilities re— lated to organization structure and design and wage and salary decisions. Activities about which chief executives consult head of personnel Although chief executives may or may not delegate responsibility for specific activities, they do consult or seek advice from the head of personnel (among others) before taking action on them. Eight general areas are considered: Operational planning, decisions about people, labor relations, company relationships, stra- tegic planning, control decisions, organization design, and other (miscellaneous). Regardless of the size of firm, the chief execu- tives frequently seek the advice of their personnel F“ A A... Mi; I I4 46 managers on Operational planning, as shown in Table 5.10. In addition, the chief executives in both size groups often consult their personnel heads on labor relations, company relationships, and decisions about people. With reference to decisions about people, it appears that more chief executives in large firms, compared with chief executives in small firms, consult their personnel heads. Strategic planning, control de- cisions, organization design, and miscellaneous areas are cited by fewer of the chief executive participants in both small and large firms. Table 5.10 Activities about which chief executives consult head of personnel, by size of firm Chief Executives small ‘Large Percent Percent (N = 412) (N = 673) Operational planning 22.6 ' 21.2 Decisions about peOple 12.4 . 20.5 Labor relations 19.2 15.5 Company relationships 14.1 14.4 Strategic planning 12.4 10.0 Control decisions 10.0 9.2 Organization design 8.5 8.5 Other 1.2 1.0 47 The range of areas on which the chief executives in both small and large firms consult their personnel managers is large. However, the information suggests that the chief executives, regardless of the size of firm, view the personnel executive as a source of help on matters that are basically operational or problems oriented, rather than broad, strategic, organizational, or long-term matters. Line-Staff Relations From.one business firm to another, whether small or large, the line-and-staff organization structure is the universal pattern. In nearly every firm large enough to give explicit recognition to a personnel function, that function is related to the total organi- zation through a combined line—and-staff structure. Many administrative problems, such as the cost of performing personnel work, evaluating the personnel function, etc., relate to the basic decisions of ac- cepting the line-and-staff pattern of organization. In this study, answers were sought to the following questions: Is line-staff conflict in the personnel function.in the firms studied a critical issue? Where it does exist, is it improving? Where it is slight, is it stable rather than increasing? In addition, how can line-staff relations be improved? I‘““““‘T“ 48 Personnel executives Often assert that actual experience as line executives is important for the effective performance of staff work. Yet over 40 per- cent of the personnel executives in.small organizations and close to 55 percent of the personnel executives in large organizations have not had any line experience (Table 5.11). Of those personnel respondents who do report having line experience, in general, the responds ents in large firms have had more than.the respondents in small firms. For example, Table 5.12 shows that close to 90 percent of the respondents in small firms, compared to about two-thirds of the respondents in large firms, have had ten.years or less experience in Operating positions. On the other hand, more than one-third of the respondents in large firms report have . ing eleven or more years experience in operating posi- tions, compared to less than 15 percent of the respond, ents in small firms who report the same. Thus, many of the personnel respondents in both sample groups have no line experience. Of those who do report having line experience, the personnel re- spondents in large firms generally have more. This greater amOunt of line experience on the part of the personnel executives in large firms may3 in.part, 49 possibly increase the tendency of building rapport in the personnel-operating executive relationships in their firms. Table 5.11 Personnel executives who report having line experience and personnel executives who report not having line experience, by size of firm Personnel Executives .___52 Percent Percent (N, = 41) (N = 64) Line experience 41.5 52.8 NO line experience 58.5 67.2 Table 5.12 Length of time personnel executives have spent in operating (line) positions, by size of firm Personnel Executives _.52 Percent Percent (N = 24) _. (N = 43) 1-5 years 62.5 44.2 6-10 years 25.0 18.6 11-14 years 4.2 16.5 15-19 years 8.5 9.5 20-29 years 0.0 9.5 50 years and over 0.0 2.5 50 Length of time_personnel executives have spent in staff poSitions With reference to staff experience, close to 70 percent of the personnel respondents in large firms report having more than 15 years of experience, com- pared to 40 percent of the personnel respondents in small firms (Table 5.15). Table 5.15 Length of time personnel executives have spent in staff positions, by size Of firm Personnel Executives small’ ‘Large Percent Percent (N = 61) (N = 95) 1-5 years 21.5 5.5 6-10 years 21.5 16.8 11-14 years 18.0 9.5 l5—l9 years 18.0 21.1 20-29 years 16.4 57.9 50 years and over 4.9 9.5 Thus, in general, it appears that personnel re- spondents in large firms compared with personnel re- spondents in small firms may, in part, be more effec- tive in their work because of their greater staff experience. 51 Although the personnel respondents in large firms generally report more line-and-staff experience, on the basis of the overall experiences of the personnel par- ticipants in this study, both groups seem to be more heavily staff-oriented. Personnel executives' views on line—staff relations As shown in Table 5.14, the majority of person- nel respondents in'both size groups see relatively little conflict between their department and other de- partments in their company. In addition, most of the personnel respondents in.both sample groups have favorable views about the changes taking place in line-staff relations. For example, Table 5.15 shows that about 40 percent of the personnel reSpondents in.small firms and slightly over 45 percent of the personnel respondents in.1arge firms feel that the situation is improving, while over 55 percent of the personnel respondents in.small firms and about 50 percent of the personnel respondents in large firms believe that the situation is stable. In contrast, only 2 percent of the personnel respondents in.small firms and 1 percent of the personnel reSpond- ents in large firms report that the situation is getting worse. 52 o.m 0.0 0.0 m.m o...“ 54 30333 pecanso cw poaamfloo oanmnouamdoo 0.0H 0.5N 0.0m m.mN m.mm 0.0: mdoapoaon nfloHHso as poaamsoo openness o.mm s.mm s.mw o.am m.om m.mm mdoapmaon pqonndo ma poaamsoo on no osppaq Aom u so amm u zv PQwOme Pflmohmm mMHd mmbflpfiomNm Am: n zv nan u zv Ana n zv now u zv psoonom pqoonom psooaom pnoonom mmmmm. Hammm mmmmm. HHmmm mobfipsoowm «cane mobapsooxm Hoqqomnom swam no onan an .nqoapnaon Henpnuonaa.na passages .sa.m canes Z/ 5 o.o m.s 0.0 0.0 m.a H.m nnnoz msappnm noapnspam m.ms o.mn m.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm mannnn soapnspam n.5m H.6m m.os m.ss m.ms o.mm wqa>ongsa soapmspfim Ann u zv Amm u as psoonom psoonom owns mo>HPSOon “mm u zv Amm u 26 psoosom psoosom Ann u zv an: n zv psoosom psoonom Infill. mobwpsooxm “memo mo>flpsooxm qusomsom swam mo enan an .nsoapnaon cenpnsonaa as saunas ma.m manna 54 The views of chief executives and operati executives on line—sta relations The majority of chief executives and operating executives in both size groups also report experiencing little or no conflict in current line-staff relations (Table 5.14). The chief executives in both groups, however, are more optimistic about changes taking place in line— staff relations than are the Operating executives. For example, close to 50 percent of both groups of chief executives, compared to about 25 percent of both Operating groups, report that they believe the situa- tion is improving. In contrast, about 70 percent of both groups of operating respondents, compared to ap— proximately 50 percent of both chief executive groups, report that the situation is stable (Table 5.15). Thus, the data obtained from the three types of executives seem to suggest that, in general, line-staff conflict in the personnel function is not a critical issue in either small or large firms. Where it dOes exist, the situation is generally either stable or imr proving rather than getting worse. This finding holds fOr both small and large firms. Apparently, the vari- ous line-and-staff executives in.sma11 and large firms have established patterns of interaction that make 55 possible a satisfactory sharing of the responsibilities of the personnel function. Factors accounting for relations between the personnel department and other departments in theififfin As shown in Table 5.16, personnel executives in both groups indicate that improvements in the attitudes of line management and top management and a better record of success on the part of the personnel depart- ment are the main factors which they consider instru- mental in determining the line—staff relations existing in their firms. Only moderate differences are noted when the data are analyzed by size of firm. For ex, ample, the personnel respondents in small firms place moderately more emphasis on an improvement in line management attitude, whereas the personnel respondents in large firms place moderately more emphasis on changes in the organization structure. Other factors shown in.Tab1e 5.16 provide a summary of the explanations given.by the personnel re- spondents for the cooperation or conflict situation in which they find themselves. 56 m.¢ 0.0 H.w m.as m.ma ®.NN 5.0 0.0 H.m 0.0 m.oa m.mm H.m ®.mm 0.5a 0.0 m.m B.H m.om H.NH m.o O.®H m.mm @.m m.u H.m s.ma s.ma H.mm w.mm 0.0 w.® 0.0 m.ma m.ma m.ma m.0m m.m m.m H.m 0.0 H.0H m.©a m.wa m.mm H.0H m.m pampnomaa oaoa soapoqsm Hoddomnom soapodsm Sod a ma Hoddomnom endposapm doapwufiddwno a“ mowsmno semapswmcd awesomsom no cocoon noppom woodpappw pdoaowmsda mop ©o>ongaH mmpdpappm pdoaowmsda mafia Um>oegsH mdoapmaon amass do>oamaH modpwppw hemmaoo Ame u zv Aom u zv psooeom pscoaom mmamH mobflpdooNMKMHflpmHomo HHmBm Ann n zv Ame u zv pdoonom paoonom omasH sense: nasansonxm onano Amma u zvaou u zv unmonom psoosom omamfi. mobflpdooxm Hmdsomaom HHmEm. EHHH mo muflm he..snfim on» ma mpdmapnmmod amnpo use escapecmod Hoddomaom on» smospop mdoapmaon Hon wdeddooom msopomm oa.m canoe 57 Factors which chief executives and operating executives believe account for relationsfibetween the personnel department and other departments in the firm The chief executives and Operating executives were also asked to identify factors which they consider instrumental in determining the line-staff relations existing in their firms. For the most part, the two categories of executives in both sample groups do not agree closely about these factors (Table 5.16). How- ever, they do agree that one of the major determinants is the improved attitude of line management. When the three types of executives are compared, there are many differences in both small and large firms. These differences are summarized below. It should be noted, however, that all of the executives in both small and large firms agree that improvement in the attitudes of line management is an important factor. (1) Chief executives in large firms place moderately more emphasis on the attitude of the company than do personnel executives and oper— ating executives in firms of the same size. (2) Chief executives in both small and large firms, compared with personnel execu— tives and operating executives, indicate more emphasis on improvement in human relations. In small firms, operating executives mention 58 this moderately more than do personnel executives. (5) Personnel executives in large and small firms, compared with chief executives and Operating executives, place more emphasis on improvement of line management attitudes. (4) In small firms, personnel executives and chief executives place greater emphasis on improvement in the attitude of top manage- ment than do the operating executives. In large firms, personnel executives place more emphasis on improvement of top management attitudes compared with chief executives and operating executives. Operating executives, however, are moderately more inclined to men- tion this factor than are chief executives. (5) Operating executives in both size groups place greater emphasis on a better rec- ord of the personnel department than personnel executives and chief executives do. Personnel executives in both size groups, however, cite this factor more frequently than do the chief executives. (6) In small firms, chief executives place moderately more emphasis on changes in organi- zation structure than personnel executives and IL u A: S. \t 59 Operating executives do. In large firms, more emphasis is placed on this factor by personnel executives and chief executives, compared with Operating executives. (7) Chief executives in small firms place moderately more emphasis on the fact that the personnel function is new than do personnel executives and operating executives. Summary In general, the data in this study indicate that the three types of executives in large firms spend more time with one another than do the three types of executives in small firms. Since the chief executives have authority over both the personnel function and the Operating functions, one might expect the personnel executives to cultivate the relationships with their chief executives. How- ever, as the data in this study show, many of the per- sonnel executives spend more time with their Operating executives than with their chief executive. This con— dition exists regardless of the size of firm. In general, operating executives in large firms, compared with Operating executives in small firms, re- port more lengthy acquaintances with the head of the personnel department in their firms. nil IF!- Z c. A. w,‘ r“ Cu 9 J ‘ ‘ Q? -~ ‘ at n.v a. at C» 31 60 The study shows that, regardless of the size of firm, the chief executives, compared with the Operating executives, generally Spend more of their time on per— sonnel matters of all kinds. The data indicate, how— ever, that a greater percentage of Operating executives in large firms spend more time on such matters than do Operating executives in small firms. Although the study finds that the personnel ex- ecutives in both Size groups Spend different amounts of time with their chief executives and operating execu- tives, additional data Show that the types of activities conducted during their interactions with their chief executives and line executives are very similar, re- gardless of the Size of firm. In only two areas are there any differences: matters related to policy and economic problems dealing with cost and efficiency. The data indicate that there are some differences between the chief executives and the operating execu- tives in both small and large firms with respect to what they deal with during the time they Spend with the personnel executives. However, there are only two areas in.which there are major differences: personnel pro— cedures and techniques and economic matters related to cost and efficiency. The focus of the various executives in terms of their joint activities appears to be more on Se 3": ...l 61 operating problems, such as labor relations, improv- ing personnel procedures and techniques, etcetera. The study finds that, regardless of the Size of firm, the areas mentioned most frequently by both the chief executives and operating executives as not delegable to personnel executives are matters related to organization structure and design and wage and salary decisions. Additional analysis by size of firm, however, reveals a number of differences. The study finds that, regardless of the Size Of firm, the chief executives consult or seek advice from the head of personnel on Specific activities. The range of areas on which the chief executives in both small and large firms consult their personnel managers is large. However, the information suggests that the chief executives, regardless of the Size of firm, view the personnel executive as a source of help on matters that are primarily Operational or problemr oriented, rather than broad, strategic, organizational, or long-term.matters. A major finding of this study is that, in general, line-staff conflict in the personnel function is not a critical issue in either small or large firms. The data show that the majority of personnel re- spondents in both size groups see relatively little conflict between their department and other departments ’“v 62 in their company. In addition, most of the personnel respondents in both sample groups have favorable views about the changes taking place in line—staff relations. The majority of chief executives and operating executives in both Size groups also report experiencing little or no conflict in current line—staff relations. The chief executives in both groups, however, are more optimistic about changes taking place in line— staff relations than are operating executives. The personnel executives in both Size groups in- dicate that improvements in the attitudes of line man- agement and tOp management and a better record of success on the part of the personnel department are the main factors which they consider instrumental in determining the line-staff relations existing in their firms. Several moderate differences are noted when their responses are analyzed by size of firm. For the most part, the chief executives and the Operating executives in both sample groups do not agree about the factors accounting for relations be- tween the personnel department and other departments in their firms. However, they do agree that one of the major determinants is the improved attitude of line management. When the three types of executives are compared with respect to the factors accounting for line-staff 65 relations, there are many differences in both small and large firms. It should be noted, however, that all of the executives in both small and large firms agree that improvement in the attitudes of line manage- ment is an important factor. CHAPTER IV PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT The head of the personnel function in any firm occupies a strategic position in his relationship with his chief executive and with all members of tOp and middle management. Since the head of personnel has delegated to him staff responsibilities that affect the well-being Of employees, he is the focal point of ac- tivities in.which all executives are greatly interested. Thus his position is pivotal inside the firm as well as vital to its success in both inside and outside relationships. Because the head of personnel occupies a key po- ‘ sition, this chapter examines his characteristics, his goals, and his activities. It alSo examines the per- sonnel activities of the chief executive and the oper- ating executives. In addition, an effort is made to identify some of the personnel areas in which the three types of executives feel that changes have taken place in the past and in which they would like future changes to occur. . . l I .‘u- 'n‘ ' Ce 0 ' O '0? .Ce‘. ‘ ‘ .V‘.‘ 65 Characteristics of the Personnel Executive In order to Obtain a better understanding of the personnel respondents who participated in this study, several characteristics are examined. Those that seem most important for the issues under consideration are education, reporting relationships, membership on ex- ecutive and management committees, and supervision. Educational Level of Personnel Executives The largest proportion of both personnel groups who are college graduates have one degree. For those who have more than one degree, the response rate is greater for respondents from large firms. As Table 4.1 shows, 59.5 percent of the personnel executives in large firms have advanced degrees, compared to 26.6 percent in small firms. Most obvious is the fact that a greater percentage of the respondents from large firms reported having an advanced degree in law. College major of personnel executives In'both small and large firms, there is evidence that the educational backgrounds of the personnel ex- ecutives are varied. A major in business administra- tion was mentioned most frequently by both groups.7 Table 4.2 shows that a greater percentage of respondents in small firms majored in areas related to the behav- ioral sciences, whereas a moderately higher percentage 66 Table 4.1 Educational level of personnel executives, by size of firm Personnel Executives Small 132332 Percent Percent (N = 49) (N = 84) Bachelor's degree 75.5 60.7 Master's degree 14.5 15.5 Law degree 8.2 21.4 Doctor's degree 4.1 2.4 Table 4.2 College major of personnel executives, by size of firm Personnel Executives Small Large Percent Percent (N =- 55) (N = 89) Business Administration 41.9 , 49.4 Humanities and Education . 14.5 11.2 Behavioral Science. 25.6 2.2 Engineering 7.5 12.4 Law 5.5 12.4 Natural Science 5.5 4.5 Government 1.8 7.9 67 of respondents in large firms concentrated in law, engineering, and government. The data regarding the low number of degrees which the personnel respondents have and the variety of major studies suggest that, regardless of the size of firm, there appears to be no clear-cut agreement about the requirements of personnel management as a Specialized occupation. Re orting relationships 0 _personnel executives Personnel executives frequently take the position that their function Should be at the top of the firm's organization structure. By placing the personnel ex— ecutive at a high level within the firm, better com- pany decisions may be promoted by requiring all execu- tives to give weight to personnel factors in their de- cision.making. It may also enhance the personnel ex- ecutive's status, since this position reflects the imp portance the firm attaches to his function. With suf— ficiently high status, the personnel executive can urge the establishment of new programs and carry out exist- ing ones more successfully. Moreover, the level to which a personnel executive reports may to some extent reveal the closeness of thinking of the chief executive with the perSOnnel executive. For example, personnel executives reporting to higher levels of line management w J . an. e 59. cu QRM‘ V f\ -\f\ 68 may Show considerably stronger company-centered think- ing than those who report to lower levels of line man— agement. Furthermore, providing suitable status for executives may help to stabilize relationships among them. The data in Table 4.5 Show that personnel re- spondents in both sample groups report to a variety Of different officers within their companies. Most ob- vious, however, is the fact that a greater percentage of personnel executives in large firms report to higher level positions. For example, over 70 percent of the personnel respondents in large firms, compared to less than.50 percent of the personnel respondents in small firms, report to either the chairman of the board or the president of their companies. In contrast, 25 per— cent Of the personnel respondents in small firms, com- pared to 15 percent of the personnel respondents in large firms, report to either an executive vice presi- dent or a group vice president. ' The data indicate that personnel respondents in both small and large firms are in positions where they can influence top management. However, the information does seem to suggest that the closeness of thinking of the chief executive with the personnel executive is generally greater in large firms. L 69 Table 4.5 Reporting relationships of personnel executives, by Size of firm Personnel Executives Small ‘Large Percent Percent (N = 63) (N = 100) Chairman Of the Board 5.2 12.0 President 44.4 59.0 Executive Vice President or Group Vice President 25.4 15.0 Treasurer, Secretary, or Controller 7.9 5.0 Line Vice President 9.5 5.0 Staff Vice President 1.6 4.0 Manager or Superintendent 7.9 2.0 Chief executives who report whether head of personnel is a regular member of the executive committee Many personnel respondents in both sample groups are regular members of their firms' executive committees. AS Shown in Table 4.4, 40 percent of the chief execu- tives in small firms and 54 percent of the chief execu— tives in large firms indicate that the head of their personnel function is a member of the committee. 70 Table 4.4 Chief executives who report whether head of personnel is a regular member of the executive committee, by size of firm Chief Executives Small Large Percent Percent (N = 52) (N = 47) Yes 40.6 54.0 NO 59.4 66.0 Chief executives who expect head of ersonneleunction to_participate’in some of the executive committee meetings A substantial number Of chief executives, espe- cially in large firms, expect the personnel executives to participate in some of the executive committee meetings, even though they may not be appointed members of the committee (Table 4.5). Management committees of which head Of personneI is a member The data in Table 4.6 show that personnel execu- tives are frequently members of other management com- mittees. Examination of the data shows that 40 percent of the chief executives in small firms and 28 percent of the chief executives in large firms mention that the heads of their personnel function are members of general management committees, while close to 60 percent of the IA HI I 71 Table 4.5 Chief executives who expect head of personnel function to participate in some of the executive committee meetings, by Size of firm Chief Executives snnII’ *Large Percent Percent (N = 20) (N = 53) Yes 55.0 81.8 NO 45.0 18.2 chief executives in small firms and over 70 percent of the chief executives in large firms report that the heads of personnel are members of specialized commit- tees related to personnel matters. The data reveal that many personnel executives in both small and large firms are members of executive and management committees. The personnel heads in small firms serve more frequently on general management committees, whereas the personnel heads in large firms are more frequently appointed to Specialized committees related to personnel matters. Placing personnel execu- tives on these various committees may, in part, en- hance mutual understanding and provide more suitable working relationships in both small and large firms. r .5813: 72 Table 4.6 Management committees of which head Of personnel is a member, by Size of firm Chief Executives 222.12 132252 Percent Percent (N = 42) (N = 74) General management Executive policy 28.6 20.5 Long—range planning 2.4 2.7 President's staff 9.5 5.4 Specialized Salary 25.8 12.2 Operations 11.9 15.5 Employee benefits 4.8 25.0 Human relations 2.4 10.8 Personnel policy 7.1 4.1 Safety 9.5 2.7 Public relations 0.0 5.4 Number of exempts ingpersonnel department and number of exempts Ififpersonnel functiOn'in firm as a whole In general, the personnel respondents in small firms, compared with the personnel respondents in large firms, have smaller departments and supervise fewer employees (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). For example, in terms 75 of the number of exempts in their departments, all of the personnel respondents in small firms supervise ten or less exempt employees, while almost 50 percent of the personnel respondents in large firms supervise eleven or more exempt employees. In addition, with regard to the number of exempts in the personnel func- tion in the company as a whole, over 90 percent of the personnel respondents in small firms have ten or less exempt employees, while over 85 percent of the per— sonnel reSpondentS in large firms report having eleven or more exempt employees. Table 4.7 Number of exempts in personnel department, by Size of firm Personnel Executives Small M Percent Percent ~(N = 61) (N = 89) Less than 5 96.7 20.2 6-10 5.5 50-5 11—20 0.0 19.1 21-50 0.0 18.0 51-50 0-0 7-9 51-75 0.0 5.4 76-100 0.0 0.0 Over 100 0.0 1.1 74 Table 4.8 Number of exempts in personnel function in firms as a whole, by Size of firm Personnel Executives Small RLarge Percent Percent (N = 57) (N = 85) Less than 5 87.7 6.0 6-10 5.5 8.4 11-20 1.8 20.5 21-50 0.0 15.5 51-50 0.0 19.5 51-75 0.0 10.8 76-100 1.8 8.4 Over 100 5.5 15-5 These data seem to suggest that more limited demands for supervisory and departmental Skills are made on the personnel respondents in small firms, come pared with those in large firms. Personnel Goals and Activities Current Goals of the Personnel Department Table 4.9 indicates that there are no substantial differences in the distribution of current goals by size Of firm, although the personnel respondents in if” 75 small firms are moderately more interested in estab- lishing better relations with line and top management. Table 4.9 Current goals of personnel department, by Size of firm Personnel Executives small Large Percent Percent (N = 150) (N = 255) Programs ‘ 56.9 57.2 Manpower development 27.7 50.6 Human relations 16.9 15.7 Labor relations 12.5 12.9 Economic: productivity and efficiency 25.1 27.5 Firm 9.2 14.1 Employees 10.8 11.8 Personnel department 5.1 1.6 Organization planning and design 5.7 A 5.9 Personnel policies 6.9 5.5 Improved relationships with top management 9.2 5.9 Both sample groups indicate that they are more concerned about programs than they are about produc— tivity and efficiency, organization planning, personnel 76 policies, and relationships with line and top management. Thus, although the personnel respondents in both size groups are in positions to influence top levels Of management, the data provide evidence of the per- sonnel respondents' concentrated interest in pro- grammatic goals and their relative disinterest in broader corporate matters, regardless of the size of firm. Relationship between personnel executivesT current_goa1s and their most time-consuming activity Table 4.10 Shows the activities and concerns of personnel management which occupied the largest block Of the personnel respondents' time during the last two years. Whereas both sample groups have goals which are concentrated on programs, both groups of personnel respondents Spent most of their time on matters re- lated to labor relations, administration of the per- sonnel department, and personnel techniquese-none of which are considered major goals by either group of respondents. Further analysis reveals that personnel respond- ents in small firms respond moderately more to ac- tivities concerning the administration of their de- partments and matters related to personnel policies. 77 On the other hand, personnel reSpondentS in large firms report moderately higher responses to spending more time on organization planning and design and labor relations. Table 4.10 Most time-consuming activities and concerns of personnel executives during the past two years, by size of firm Personnel Executives small Large Percent Percent (N = 61) (N = 91) Labor relations 55.4 58.5 Departmental administration 25.0 16.5 Personnel techniques 16.6 16.5 Personnel policies 15.4 7.7 Organization planning and design 5.5 12.1 Human relations and employee welfare 5.4 6.6 Economic problems of the firm 1.7 1.1 Other 5.5 1.1 In order to obtain a better understanding of the relationship between the current goals and the most time-consuming activity of the personnel respondents in both small and large firms, the data were cross-tabulated. 78 Tables 4.11 and 4.12 Show this relationship. It can be seen that the personnel respondents in both groups appear to be spending their time on concerns other than those for which their goals are set. The closest re- lationship between goals and activities is in the area of labor relations (56.5 percent for small firms and 60.0 percent for large firms). Several reasons might be offered to explain the differences between the goals and the most time-con- suming activity of the personnel respondents in small and large firms. For example, the personnel executives may not have enough time to devote to the pursuit of their goals, or perhaps they are not aware of the fact that their activities are not taking them toward their expressed goals. 0n the basis of other data obtained in the study, the former hypothesis seems more likely to be valid than the latter. Another explanation could be that the goals selected by the personnel executives are somewhat idealistic or unrealistic. At least they appear to be difficult for the personnel executives to attain in their pursuit of current activities. Most time-consuming activities and concerns offthe executives during the past—twopyears The data in Table 4.15 Show that a number of per- sonnel activities are important to all executives. 79 n.5m 0.0N 0.00 0.0 0.0H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.mH 0.0N ¢.mm m.m 0.0 u.¢a o.mm 0.0 0.0 o.mm n.mm m.mm o.mm senescence Hoddomamm mo psoacboagsa .qoanmspmanases H.n 0.0 0.0 moohoamso ROM mpflmm neon Ofiaosoom 0.0 m.@ m.mH hqsasoo mo hodofio names can spa>aposeonm H.n o.o m.ma nmaoaaos Hmddomncm Ana u zv Aom u av an n zv edooaom psooamm pdooncm mdoap mdoap wqflqdoam -ImHoH teams doapms Honda smasm Iflnmwao Ase a zv A: u zv pdooncm pdooacm poms Apnea unnamed Imoao>mc qusomaomv thoamsmv AhquSOOV mmaowaom HoSomswz OHaodoom meou Asa u zv Ame u zv Am a zv psconom pacoamm unconmm Ammo oflaodoom ofiaoqoom aoddomncm Masseuse mafia“ Hausa How .hpflbapow waflssmdoo Ioawp pmoa Remap com mamom pdoHHdo .mo>wpdocHo Hoddomaom escapee madeOfipwHom HH.¢ canoe 80 m.wm o.o¢ 0.0 ¢.mm 0.0m m.m¢ m.mm o.mm escapades Hosea 0.0 o.m 0.0 m.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 mGOfipmaoa meson use doapm> napoa .onHoz o.o o.m o.o m.m o.o H.m 0.0 0.0 seamen ens mdfidsmam soapwufldwmao m.o o.m 0.0m c.sa 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.mm meanannp can pdcsmoao> loo smacmsm: Ana u av now n so an n zv asm u zv as a zv Asa u zv Ame u zv Am a zv somehow poooamm pdcoaom poconom psooaom pdooaom pdooaom peoosom . nudes mdoap mdoap wdfidqsam poms upended Ammo teams teach doapws Imoacboc Hoddomnomv thoagsmv Ahdweaoov moaOflaom Honda ddsdm quwwno sczomdm: Ofisodoom oaaosoom oasodoom Hmddomaom mawow Hmabapoa eossapsoonnaa.s manna l 8 n.oa m.mm m.ma m.ma o.mm m.aa 5.4H o.mm pqoapnnsoe Hednomaom no usesobonasa .soapnnpnaqasea 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.m o.o m.o m.m m.m nonsoHsso . sou mpawo noon oasodoom 0.0 0.0 s.c ¢.H o.o s.m 0.0 0.0 nqnssoo no hodoao nammc can spa>aposeonm e.m m.m 5.0 0.5 o.mm s.m m.m o.o mmfioaaod aquomaom Aom n zv “cm a av Ans a so Asa u so as u av Amm u zv Ase a zv Ame . zv paconom somehow escapee pdeosom unconom scooped somehow pdooamm Apnea meow» mdoap wdfidnman puma unnamed Ammo (leach swamp oceans Imoaoboo Hoddomaomv thoadsmv AhquEOOV mofiowaom Honda sneer . ufldwwao saxomds: oasosoom oasodoom oasodoom quqomaom mamow Nuanapoa mafia“ ownda How .hpabfipos wdfisdmnoo sweep pmoa name» use mamom pdohhdo .mobapsooxo Hoqdomamm doozpoo madmdoapwaom NH.¢ manna 82 0.00 n.0m u.®m m.mm o.mN m.mm N.H# u.a¢ mdoapwaon Hosea m.m m.m 0.0 ©.m 0.0 #.m m.m m.w meHpmHoH deans can soaps» tapes .meHoz o.o 0.0a 0.0m a.sa o.mm m.oa m.aa m.m seamen ens wdflddwam doapmnfldmwao 0.0 0.0H 5.0m 0.0H 0.0 N.ua w.HH m.m wdfisflmsp can pacemoamb nod Ho3omdm: AOm u zv AOm n ac and u so ass a zv as u zv flow a zv Asm u zv Ame u zv psooaom pdcoscm pncoamm pdooaom pnoonom admonmm pdoonom pdconmm Andes mdoap mdoap wnfinqmam puma Ipnsaoc Ammo leach teach coasts umoaoboo Hoddomnomv Ihoamsmv AhquEOOV moHOflHon Hosea . dosdm landmao Hozoadmz oasodoom OHaodoom Ofisodoom Hoodomnom mamow . Hmwbfipo¢ enssapnoouuma.¢ manna 85 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 H.H m.m enspo 5.: 0.0 s.m o.ma H.H 5.H spam was no msoaooaa oafiodoom 6.: 0.0 m.@ m.@ o.n s.m madman; nosoadsn odd mdowpmaoh Swami 0.0m 5.mm H.5m m.mm a.ma m.m smanne ens msflddmam Soapwuflsmmao m.m m.s m.ma m.c 5.5 s.ma nnaoaaos ensconced m.am 0.0m ¢.mm m.ma m.ca w.oa nmnaaqnonp Hassoncnm 0.0 0.0 H.m o.o m.ca o.mm soapnnpmasesen Hmpdmspnmamm m.s o.ma s.oa c.mm m.mm s.mm msoapnams poems as: u zv Amm u zv pscoamm pdmoamm Ame u zv Aam u zv pdooaom unconcm omamg Hamam. swamp, HHmEMI, omemn, (HHmsm mobflp50cxMquflpmammo mobwpdocxm MOHAO mobapdooxm Heddomnmm ado u zv ado « zv paoonmm psoonm and“ 90 mean he .mnwoh 03p amen on» wnfindc mobwpsoowo on» we announce can moapwbapow wdfissmdoonoawp pmoz ma.¢ manna 5“! ....i I ‘ 84 However, when the data are analyzed by Size of firm, there are considerable variations. These variations are discussed in detail in Appendix D. In brief, regardless of the size of firm, per- sonnel executives spent most of their time dealing with labor relations problems, administering their depart- ments, and acquiring a better understanding of person— nel techniques. A comparison by Size of firm, how- ever, reveals that personnel respondents in small firms were more concerned about administering their own de- partments and developing and implementing personnel policies. On the other hand, personnel respondents in large firms spent more time on matters related to or- ganization planning. In general, regardless of the Size of firm, the chief executives and the Operating executives Spent most of their time on activities concerned with person- nel techniques and organization planning. It is noted, however, that chief executives in.small firms were more concerned about labor relations problems and other miscellaneous activities than were the chief executives in large firms. The latter group devoted more time to personnel techniques and organization planning. In addition, Operating executives in small firms spent more time handling labor relations problems, while 85 Poperating executives in large firms devoted more time to organization planning problems. Economic matters and human relations problems seem to be of comparatively little interest to all three categories of executives in.both small and large firms. When the three types Of executives are compared with each other, Table 4.15 shows that, regardless of the size of firm, personnel executives--compared with chief executives and operating executives-~are more concerned about labor relations and administrative matters. Organization planning and various economic problems are of more concern to chief executives and Operating executives. In small firms, personnel executives are more concerned about developing and implementing personnel policies, whereas chief executives and operating ex- ecutives are more concerned about improving human re- lations and employee welfare. In addition, chief ex- ecutives are more concerned about various miscellaneous activities than are the personnel executives and the operating executives. Also, operating executives are more concerned about personnel techniques than the personnel executives and chief executives are. 86 In large firms, personnel techniques are of greater concern to chief executives and Operating ex- ecutives than to personnel executives. Expectations and Desired Improvements Changes in executives' expectations of ersonnel managementiduring tEegpast five years The data in Table 4.14 Show substantial disagree- ment among the personnel executives, the chief execu- tives, and the operating executives in both small and large firms about changes in their expectations during the past five years. Regardless of the Size of firm, the personnel re- spondents, compared with the chief executive and Oper- ating respondents, report more changes in their expecta— tions. For example, less than 50 percent of the per- sonnel executives in small firms report that they per— ceived no changes at all compared to about 45 percent of the chief executives and operating executives in firms of the same size. Also, less than 15 percent of the personnel executives in large firms indicate that their expectations did not change compared to 50 per- cent Of the chief executives and 50 percent of the operating executives in large firms. In general, most of the executives whose expecta- tions changed during the last five years mention two 87 N.®N N.w¢ 0.0m m.md O.NH H.mN . dobwoonom mowddno oz m.s 0.0 w.m o.ma 5.H m.H moddfidnoop HoddomHom Ho oodwpmooom so do mfimsQQSo who: Tom m. 3 m .mm 0.3 m .m: H. mm psmspssdoe Sons mpadmon Happen no onoz ®.m¢ ©.¢m H.mm n.0m o.Hd H.o¢ soapmncmooo no .dowpwmfiofipawa .codcsawqfi .poommmn .wdwpdmpmnmdqs Hoppom Awe u zv now u zv arm n zv Amm n zv Amaa u ZVAmm n zv pamoaom psmoamm psooaom psooaom unconom pdmonom mMHwH HHmaw mMHmH HHmfim mMHdH, HHmam mc>fip50oxmxmquoeomo mmbproon Meade mobapfiooxm Hcddomnom swam Ho seam he .mndch oban once one weaned pdcaowmsma HodqomHom mo mdowptpoomxe .mobapfiooxo ma mowedno da.¢ manna ‘ all} If ‘\ -11 WE 88 areas: better understanding, increased participation, and more OOOperation from the personnel department as well as better results from the personnel department. When the data are analyzed by size of firm, the following differences are noted: (1) A greater percentage of the personnel executives in small firms report that they did not perceive any change in their expectations, whereas a greater percentage of the personnel executives in large firms report that they ex- pected.more and better results from their departments. (2) A greater percentage of the chief exa ecutives in.small firms report that they ex- pected changes in personnel techniques, and moderately more of these executives expected better understanding, increased participation, and more cooperation from the personnel depart- ment. In turn, moderately more chief execu, tives in large firms report that they expected better results from the personnel department and no change in their expectations at all. (5) A greater percentage of operating ex- ecutives in small firms report that they ex- pected no changes at all, whereas a greater number of operating executives in large firms 89 indicate that they expected better understanding, increased participation, and more cooperation from the personnel department. (4) Regardless of the size of firm, more personnel respondents sensed change in the form Of more and better results coming from the per- sonnel department, while more chief executives and operating executives report no changes in their expectations. (5) In small firms, personnel respondents, compared to chief executives and operating ex- ecutives, report more response to changes associated with better understanding, increased participation, and more cooperation from the personnel department. The same holds true for personnel executives and Operating executives in large firms, compared to chief executives in firms of the same size. On the other hand, chief executives in small firms, compared to personnel executives and operating executives, report more responsiveness to change in the area of personnel techniques. 90 Improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management desired7by executives fer the next five years Table 4.15 Shows the improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management which personnel executives, chief executives, and Operating executives want to bring about within the next five years. All of the groups express considerable concern for improvements in the areas of personnel programs and economic pro- ductivity'and efficiency, although there are variations within these general categories. In contrast, few Of the executives express interest in improving organiza- tion planning, personnel policies, or relationships with top or line management. An.examination of the data by Size of firm, how- ever, reveals a number of differences. These differ- ences are summarized below. A more detailed discussion is found in Appendix D. (1) Personnel executives in small firms are moderately more interested in improving economic productivity and efficiency in gen- eral and improving the productivity and effi- ciency of employees in particular, whereas personnel executives in large firms are moder- ately more concerned about improving manpower develOpment programs and organization planning. I'll: UQHfiQVU bfltfiCwfiWflN-fl HWHWGWO ONfin ND .QHNNAH Obflh‘ anemia 32¢ 1;); I . - Eh NHQQ HO NOOGObfibOOhMO NO NOHSNOH Cm QufitfifibOLiEH 91 m.c m.m m.m H.m m.oa o.ma panspnnmme sequenced H.m m.m m.aa w.ma s.m m.ma noosoanss s.m m.m o.m s.m m.oa 5.m swam m.om m.ma c.mm m.am 0.5m m.¢m Sonoaoaecn ens hpfibaposcona "Ofiaosoom m.c m.m m.m s.c m.m 5.m nsoapnaon noses m.ma 5.0a m.5a H.5H m.ma o.ma nsoapnaon snags m.as m.5s m.os m.mm 0.0m m.mm penssoansne genomes: 5.06 m.m5 5.cm m.mo m.Hm c.w¢ meanness A45 n zv Arm n zv Psooaom pnooscm Ana u zv Aus u zv pdooaom pdooaom Amom u zvamoa u 26 unconom psooHom omens Hesse Eubl : omens Hanan mobwpfiooNMXMSfipmhomo mobapsooxm HOHno mobapfiooxm Hoddomnom anew Ho swam he .maoch chem ewe: on» How mobapsoowo he penance sumacwmnos Hodsomnon Ho mmodebapoommo Ho madness ma mpdoaobongaH ma.¢ canes 92 s.m c.m c.w H.m m.oa o.m pnnsnmnqns sop spa: mmflnmdowpmaoa doboaasH a.m m.m m.m s.c m.m 5.6 mmaoaaod sequenced s.m 0.0 0.0 4.6 s.c o.H smanme ens wdadddam soapwufldwwno A¢5 u zv Arm u zv Amm u zv A5: a zv Amom u ZVAmoa u zv pdooaom unconom pdoonom unconom pdoonmm pdoonom mMHOHl HHmfim mMHmH, HHMEW awhdfl, HHmam mo>apdooxmmwspraumo mobwpfiooxm «memo mmbwpsooxm Hoddomnom enssapnoounma.s manna 95 (2) Chief executives in small firms are moderately more concerned about improving or- ganization planning, while chief executives in large firms express moderately more interest in improving the relationships between the personnel department and line and top management. (5) Operating executives in small firms express greater concern for improving person- nel programs in general and manpower programs in particular. On the other hand, Operating executives in large firms indicate moderately more interest in improving economic productiv- ity and efficiency in general and productivity and efficiency of employees in particular. They also place moderately more emphasis on improving organization planning. (4) Regardless of the Size of firm, the personnel respondents are more interested in imp proving economic productivity and efficiency in general. In contrast, the chief executive re- spondents and the Operating respondents are more concerned about improving personnel pro- grams, especially those related to manpower development. “W 94 (5) In small firms, the personnel re- spondents and the chief executive respondents, compared with the operating respondents, express more interest in improving the economic produc- tivity and efficiency of employees. The per- sonnel respondents are also more interested than the other two types of executives in im— proving the economic productivity of the per- sonnel department. In addition, the chief ex- ecutive respondents, compared with the person— nel respondents and the operating respondents, are more concerned about improving organization planning. (6) In large firms, the personnel re- spondents and Operating respondents, compared with the chief executive respondents, express more concern for improving organization plan— ning. The opposite is noted in the case of small firms. The Operating executives in large firms are also more interested in im- proving personnel policies than are the other two types of executives. In general, regardless of the size of firm, the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the operating executives seem to agree more about the 95 improvements they want in the future than about the changes they expected in the past. Summary The data in this study show that there are no substantial differences in the distribution of the personnel executives' current goals by size of firm, although the personnel executives in.small firms are moderately more interested in establishing better re- lations with line and top management. Both sample groups indicate that they are more concerned about programs than they are about productivity and effi— ciency, organization planning, personnel policies, and relationships with line and tOp management. Thus, although the personnel respondents in both size groups are in positions to influence top levels of management, the data provide evidence of the person- nel respondents' concentrated interest in programmatic goals and their relative disinterest in broader cor- porate matters, regardless of the size of firm. I The data in the study also indicate that the per- sonnel respondents in both groups appear to be spending their time on concerns other than those for which their goals are set. For example, whereas both sample groups have goals which are concentrated on programs, most of their time is spent on matters related to labor \uv fiv C‘ 2‘ 96 relations, administration of the personnel department, and personnel techniques--none of which are considered major goals by either group of respondents. Although a number of personnel activities are im- portant to all executives, when the data are analyzed by size of firm, there are considerable variations in their response patterns. The study finds substantial disagreement among the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the operating executives in.both small and large firms con- cerning changes in their expectations during the past five years. Regardless of the size of firm, the personnel re- spondents, compared with the chief executive and oper- ating respondents, report more changes in their expectations. In general, most of the executives whose expecta- tions changed during the last five years mention two areas: better understanding, increased participation, and more c00peration from the personnel department as well as better results from the personnel department. With respect to improvement in results or effec-' tiveness of personnel management desired by the three types of executives for the next five years, all of the groups express considerable concern for improvements in . . Av. rm .u. -.s ml“ .\ 1 “r 0 My. . ‘ were“ .o..v. “H". .l «a V ~fl A e ‘u ‘ t‘ v n ‘ . C ., . u . o v. . . r o 3.09.0 o.'ouoq.w...ris~ . . 0.... C... 0.; Qp'. o~o 97 the areas of personnel programs and economic produc— tivity and efficiency, although there are variations within these general categories. In contrast, few of the executives express interest in improving organiza- tion planning, personnel policies, or relationships with tOp or line management. An examination of the data by size of firm, however, reveals a number of differences in the responses of the three types of executives. In general, regardless of the size of firm, the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the operating executives seem to agree more about the imr provements they want in the future than about the changes they expected in the past. CHAPTER V EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT An important element of the interrelationships among the three types of executives is their evalua- tion of themselves and each other. In personnel man- agement, the roles of the personnel executive, the chief executive, and the operating executive are highly evaluative. Although a lack of objective criteria complicates the process, these executives evaluate each other and judge each other's programs, projects, and activities. In this chapter, several questions focus on the opinions of the three types of executives regarding limitations in the field of personnel management and of personnel managers, criticisms of the field of per- sonnel management and of personnel managers, and cri— teria for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management. 98 99. Personnel Executives' Opinions.About Their Own Limitations Factors that ersonnel executives EeIieve IEETEit their effectiveness ' The data in Table 5.1 reveal that both groups of personnel respondents are sensitive to a number of lime itations on their general effectiveness. The two groups _report that the pressure of details is the major factor limiting their effectiveness. This factor is mentioned by over 25 percent of both groups. On the other hand, the respondents in small firms are moderately more sen- sitive to a lack of well-trained personnel workers, and the respondents in large firms express a greater aware— ness of'a lack of top management support. Evaluations of Personnel Effectiveness Criticisms or reservations of the field of personnel management made by executives ‘As shown in Table 5.2, over 55 percent of the operating executives and over 40 percent of the chief executives in both sample groups have no criticisms to make of personnel management as a field. Thirtybsiz percent of the personnel respondents in large firms and close to 25 percent of the personnel respondents in small firms are not critical of their field. _ Regardless of the size of firm, the greatest criticism exists among personnel executives, although the personnel respondents in large firms display a 100 Table 5.1 Factors that personnel executives believe inhibit their effectiveness, by size of firm Personnel Executives “‘— —Small Large Percent Percent (N -- 69) (N = 106) Pressure of details 26.0 28.5 Poorly trained or insufficient numbers of personnel workers 21.7 9.4 Lack of access to or acceptance by top management 14.5 21.7 Personal limitations 15.0 11.5 Lack of line management acceptance or understanding 10.1 11.0 Bureaucratic factors in company 8.7 12.} Lack of funds or resources 6.0 6.0 greater amount of criticism than do the personnel re- spondents in small firms. The next greatest criticism is among the chief executives, and the least critical are the operating executives. As the data in Table 5.} show, the personnel re- spondents in both sample groups who are critical pro- vide three major kinds of criticism.about the personnel —! lOl m.mm m.mm a.m¢ m.m¢ s.¢m o.mm Haoapaeo poz d.d¢ B.H¢ 0.5m H.5m ®.mm O.¢© HwOfipHHo Am: n zv mam u zv Amm u so Aam u zv now u zv Aom . zv pdoonem psoonom psooaom pmoonom psooHom psoonem tween Hamam omawn, Hamam emawH‘ Hamam mobwpfiooxmanwpwpomo mobwpdoexm mowno mobapfiooxm Hoqqomuom spam Ho onwm hp .pneaowmqma Honnomnem mo UHoHH on» no Hmowpwno pom one onz mobapfiooxo one psoaewqua Hoqqomnem Ho UHoHH on» no Hwowpano one on: mo>fipdooxm m.m canes 102 field: weaknesses of the personnel department, lack of recognition or acceptance, and poor public relations. The personnel executive group in small firms, however, expresses a greater amount of criticism over the lack of recognition or acceptance. With respect to other criticisms, the personnel executive group in small firms is moderately more critical of too much pressure and unrealistic demands, whereas the personnel executive group in large firms is moderately more critical of too much emphasis being placed on techniques. The major criticism mentioned by the chief execus tives in.both groups is the personnel executives' lack of line or general management knowledge. This is by far one of the greatest criticisms made. Of the other criticisms made by the chief execu- tives, the respondents in small firms diSplay a greater amount of criticism over the lack of adequate resources, and they are moderately more critical of the lack of recognition or acceptance. In turn, the chief execu- tive group in large firms expresses greater criticism over inadequate line or general management experience. Onxy'two issues seem.to bother the operating ex— ecutives, both in small and large firms. These are the weaknesses and limitations of the personnel department and the lack of line or general management knowledge. >h~ a',\I-IE u‘lkll‘I. I1 I. I 1 I ‘I IIP.\ N U c N AN ~\.-h 105 o.m 0.0 H.m H.u w.w 0.0 mmsvdnnoep no mammngao mesa cos 0.: 0.0 m.¢ o.o a.m m.m metamoem mqepaaae>o Hon mammp oz 0.0 0.0 ®.ma m.wm #.H 0.0 meondomon Mo Mesa 0.0 0.0H m.¢ 0.0 H.¢ 0.0H mawwpou Ho ohfimmehm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #.H 0.0 pneaeonmbdw How oHSPfiM oz o.oH o.oa o.o H.s awe.aa .o.om teaspeeeem and soapflsmooon Mo Mesa o.¢¢ 0.0: m.ma m.aH m.aa m.em mammogram: s30 m.psoapnwmen “mm u zv Aoa u zv pnoohem paeonefi Amm u zv Asa u zv pnoonem pneonom emawH Hamam eMHwH, Hawaml, tween, Hamam mo>wpfioexmxwdwpwnomo mobwpfiooxm Moano mobfipfioexm Hensomnmm “as u zv A0: a zv pnoonom pnoonem Sham we mean hp .me>apfiooxe he cums pseaewmqma Heqnomhem He came“ one He mdoapmbnemen no mamfioapano m.m canes 71.2: fiQCOUllm. 3.x» TN LEN, 104 0.0: 0.0: m.¢m m.m¢ 0.0 0.0 mobapfiomxm Hmdqomhom he owdoazosx pneaowmqma HmHeQmm no mafia mo Moan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.am 0.0m aaoapaaee ceased eoom Amm n zv Aoa u zv Amm n zv flea u zv Ate n 2v Act a zv pdeoHem paeonem pnoonem pmooHom uncouom pdooHem mmeH HHmam omnwg, HHMEm‘ omnwg HHmam‘ mo>flpdoexm wsflpwnomo mebwpzooxm “ease mo>ap§oexm qunomnem easeepqoeunm.m tense 105 With respect to other criticisms, a greater per- centage of the operating respondents in small firms is critical of too much pressure and unrealistic de- mands. The Operating executives in small firms are also moderately more critical of the lack of recogni- tion and acceptance. 0n the other hand, the operating respondents in large firms are moderately more criti- cal of too much concern being placed on techniques. In comparing the various executives with respect to their criticisms of the field of personnel manage- ment, the following findings are noted: (1) Regardless of the size of firm, the personnel respondents and operating respondents are more inclined to recognize the weaknesses of the personnel department than are the chief executives. (2) Compared to chief executives and oper- ating executives, both personnel groups are mere conscious of a lack of recognition and acceptance and poor public relations. ‘On.the other hand, both groups of personnel respondp ents do not attach as much.importance to have ing general management knowledge as do both groups of chief executives and operating executives. 106 (5) Both chief executive groups are more aware of a lack of adequate resources, com- pared with both groups of personnel executives and operating executives. (4) In small firms, the personnel respond- ents and operating executives are more con- scious of pressure and unrealistic demands than are the chief executive respondents. (5) In large firms, the operating re- spondents are more inclined to recognize too much pressure and unrealistic demands than are the personnel respondents and chief ex- ecutive respondents. As these data show, the attempt to obtain an ap— praisal of the personnel field in general was not en- tirely successful. Despite the wording of the ques- tion, many respondents answered by commenting on the ‘personnel department or the personnel manager. Areas in which personnel department assisted operating executives during the past two years Operating executives were asked to indicate how their personnel departments have assisted them during the past two years. As Table 5.4 shows, both sample groups received assistance in a number of ways. 107 Table 5.4 Areas in which personnel department assisted operating executives during the past two years, by size of firm 0 erati Executives EmaII Large Percent Percent (N = 44) (N = 61) Advice, counsel, and direct assistance 15.9 51.1 Information, reports, records and research 18.2 14.8 Manpower acquisition and development 15.9 16.4 Labor relations 11.4 6.6 morale, motivation, human relations 2.5 0.0 wage and salary, appraisal, and benefit programs 15.9 8.2 Development of new or current personnel policies or programs 20.5 19.7 _0rganization planning 0.0 5.5 When the data are analyzed.by size of firm, only two areas differ. Operating executives in small firms cite receiving assistance on matters related to wage and salary administration.moderately more than oper- ating executives in large firms do. Also, when.come pared with operating executives in.small firms, a . greater percentage of operating executives in large 108 firms report receiving advice and counsel from.the personnel department. Areas in which gperatinggexecutives recéive insufficient help from their personnel departments Operating executives were also asked to indicate the areas in which they believe they do not receive enough help from.their personnel departments. As shown in Table 5.5, almost 45 percent of the Operating executives in small firms and 55 percent of the oper- ating executives in large firms indicate that there are no areas in which they want more assistance from their personnel department. Table 5.5 Operating executives who report that there are areas in which they are not getting sufficient help from their personnel de- partments and operating execu- tives who report that there are no areas in which they want more help from their personnel de- partments, by size of firm OperatinggExecutives small Large Percent Percent (N = 25) (N = 45) Areas 56.0 65.1 No areas 44.0 54-9 109 Regardless of the size of firm, the operating executives who mention needing help from their per- sonnel departments cite two major areas: employment programs and problems, and executive and employee training, development, and appraisal. The operating executive group in large firms places moderately more emphasis on the former area (Table 5.6). Table 5.6 Areas in which operating executives receive insufficient help from their personnel departments, by size of firm Qgeratigg Emecutives .__JBS Percent Percent Improving or administering policies, planning, or research 12.5 7.9 Problems of organization- planning and design 0.0 7.9 I Employment programs and problems 57.5 47.4 Problems of motivation, ‘ . morale, and human relations 18.8 2.6 Executive develOpment and employee training and appraisal 25.0 26.5 Labor relations, grievances, I and disciplinary action 0.0 5.5 Economic problems: wages, salaries, pensions, safety' 6.5 2.6 Irv—v7 v 110 With regard to the other areas mentioned by the two groups, it is found that the respondents in small groups express a greater need for help with human re- lations problems. The respondents in large firms inr dicate moderately more concern for help with organiza- tion planning and design and labor relations problems. The areas listed in Table 5.6 are important re- sponsibilities of every personnel department. There- fore, operating executives' dissatisfaction in these areas is a significant problem. Additional areas of knowle e and Wutives Although broad inquiries provided some informa- tion about the two groups of personnel executives par- ticipating in this study, an attempt was also made to obtain.more information about their abilities. There- fore, all three categories of executives in both size ,groups were asked what additional knowledge and trains ing they believe the head of the personnel function needs to meet present standards and to make significant advances. When the data shown in Tables 5.7 and 5.8 regard- ing the additional knowledge and training which the three types of executives feel personnel executives need to meet present standards and to make significant future advances are analyzed by size of firm, there are 111 many differences. A-detailed analysis is provided in Appendix D. Some of the more striking findings are summarized below: Knowledge required to meet present standards: Executive differences in small firms (1) The need for personnel managers to have, more knowahow about quantitative skills, behav- ioral sciences, and line or general management experience is mentioned.more often by chief executives. (2) The personnel manager's need for ac— quiring additional knowledge about labor rela— tions received greater emphasis from operating executives. f (5) That personnel managers should have a 4 better understanding of fringe benefits is _ stressed.more by personnel executives and chief executives. A (4) Personnel executives and operating ex- ecutives favor placing greater emphasis on gaining additional knowledge about personnel techniques. Executive differences in large firms ' (1) That personnel managers should have more knowledge of quantitative skills and new 112 personnel techniques is stressed more by per- sonnel executives. (2) The need for personnel managers to have more knowledge about behavioral sciences receives greater emphasis from chief executives. (5) The personnel manager's need for ac- quiring additional line or general management experience is stated more frequently by oper— ating executives. (4) Chief executives and operating execu- tives favor placing more emphasis on gaining a better understanding of fringe benefits. Executive differences in large firms (1) That personnel managers should have more knowledge of quantitative skills and new personnel techniques is stressed.nore by per- A sonnel executives.' (2) The need for personnel managers to have mere knowledge about behavioral sciences receives greater emphasis from.chief executives. (5) The personnel manager's need for ac- quiring additional line or general management experience is stated.more frequently by Oper- ating executives. 115 (4) Chief executives and operating execu- tives favor placing more emphasis on gaining a better understanding of fringe benefits. Executive differences between small and large firms (1) The need for the head of the personnel function to have more knowledge about techniques is mentioned more often by personnel executives and operating executives in small firms and per- sonnel executives in large firms. (2) Operating executives in small firms emphasize that the head of personnel needs more training in labor relations skills. (5) The operating executives in large firms stress that the head of personnel needs addi- tional line experience. Knowledge required to insure future effectiveness: Executive differences in small firms (1) The personnel manager's need for ac- quiring additional knowledge about fringe bene- fits and new personnel techniques receives more emphasis from personnel executives. (2) That personnel managers should have more know-how about line or general management experience is stressed.more by chief executives. 114 ©.wm w.¢ m.mm 0.0 0.0 m.# N.®d 0.0 ¢.ma 5.5 m.0m 0.0 H.o m.ma m.nm ¢.wm H.m m.e o.mm m.m m.om w.om 5.0H m.m m.m¢ H.m H.3H m.ma 0.3 m.ma B.H# 0.0H u.HH o.ma 0.0m m.a mosdfiqnoop quoomaom 3oz ewcoasoQM mpfimonen ownflnm owcoaaqu amusements Honmsow Ho mafia empoasonx oodoaom Honoabmnom maHHMm mqoapmaon Honda aaaeea o>apepapoasa Aam u as Ame u zv peeonom poeonom omon mobfipdooxmxwdwpmnemo Hamam “mm u 28 new n so peoonom pooonem IwmmmurllluuMHWWu aeeaosoowm moans Ame u 28 “om a so psoonom pqoonom omnoml mobspfiooxm Homeownem HHmam swam no mean he .mcaodqum anemone poms on mebwpsOoxo Hoooomnom he cocoon madness» use mwoeazoqx Ho moose HesOflpfiocg u.m canoe 115 (5) The need for personnel managers to have a better understanding of quantitative skills is mentioned moderately more by personnel execu- tives and chief executives. (4) Chief executives and operating execu- tives favor placing greater emphasis on gaining additional knowledge about the behavioral sciences. IExecutive differences in large firms (1) That personnel managers should have more know-how about quantitative skills is stressed moderately more by personnel executives. (2) Operating executives favor placing moderately more emphasis on gaining additional knowledge about labor relations, and new per- sonnel techniques. (5) The need for personnel managers to have a better understanding of the behavioral sci- ences receives a greater emphasis from personnel executives and chief executives. (4) The personnel manager's need for addi- tional line or general management experience is mentioned more by chief executives and Operating executives. 116 m.ms o.om m.mm m.m o.am o.Hm mosaaehoop Hensomnom 3oz 5.5 5.5 5.0 m.m m.m m.¢H owcmasoqx mpeeodop owqawa 0.0m o.mm m.mm H.mm m.oa e.mm oweoazoqa peosommqos Homoqom Ho mafia m.m m.om o.mm m.mm m.¢m m.ma omeoazoqs ooqoflom HmHOflbmnom m.HH o.u m.m o.m m.H w.oH aaaasa esoapaaee edema e.e m.m m.o m.m m.mH m.oa maaeaa asapepapqasa Aom n zv flow u 28 pooonom paeohom emamH‘ HHmam Aam u zv “am a zv pnoonom pdoohom 6M3 HHQEMi Amoa u zv Ase n 28 peoonmm poooaom owaH Hdam mobapficoxmlwqfiumnomo mobwpfiooxm Heflno mobflpfiooxm Hossomnom spam we exam he .mmoqobfipoemmo oH moossbow pddoawfiqum ores Op me>apoooxm Housemate he cocoon wqfioflwnp has mwwoa3oqx mo mmmmm Hanoflpdfinw ®.m mmomm .‘\ ‘Ifl '3 a} avV rfi nu s§~ V. 4‘ 0‘ a: 117 Executive differences between small and large firms (1) The executives in large firms stress new personnel techniques. (2) The chief executives in small firms emphasize additional line experience. (5) The Operating executives in small firms favor additional knowledge about the behavioral sciences. (4) That the head of personnel should have greater knowledge about the behavioral sciences is stated more frequently by chief executives in large firms. Main strengths attributed to head 'Of’personnel by chief executives and operating executives The chief executives and Operating executives were asked to identify the major strengths which they believe the head of the personnel function brings to his work. As the data in Table 5.9 show, the chief execu- ‘tives and Operating executives in both size groups <30nsider the following to be quite important: (1) Legal or collective bargaining experience. 118 mo>flpdooxmxwdflpmnomo mobfipzooxm mofino o.am 5.0a o.o¢ H.mm weep eat nao:.aaaenea new: .oaaooo mesons» once memes» pow op speaapa H.5e m.mm 0.0: 0.0: nouenameo a>epoouom 0.3m 5.0m 0.0m m.am Hammafln so Mao: op pm£3 cam opmwoaoc on use: mzoqm H.m¢ 5.9a o.wm s.¢m mpaaeoa wqaeaoa Seanowm one Homes nOHmHooQ m.mm H.0m o.m¢ m.nm woodman coco w.w® m.mm 0.00 m.m© ooqoflaomxo wsflnfimmnmn ebwpoeaaoo no Hmwoq 0.0: 0.0: o.o¢ o.ma peosowmdms wsflpmnomo QH ddSOHmMoom w.HH o.oa o.ma m.ma deepewpmaeasee mmosfimdp eH oonwod oesopoow ham u so Aom u 26 Aom u as Ame n so psoonom pooonmm poeonom pooonmm omamH, Hamsm emaoH Hamam spam no onwm he .mobapdooxo mqflpmnogo use me>wpdoexo Hoano he Homeownem we come Op covenanppw mnpqunpm dam: o.m mfigwe 119 . i 0.0a 0.0a 0.¢H m.NH Romeo m.¢n v.00 0.00 $.00 mpmohonfia one mmoqamdp m.hqogaoo mo Swab m.pooaowmnda new mom m.mm 0.0m o.m¢ ¢.¢m empnoano pamosm m.sm 5.0H 0.0a m.ma oaoooo cede pawaada eoow one moapaawoa woflpfisnoos obwpdooxe wsonpm m.mm m.mm o.mm o.mm mafia ea memos deem 5.00 m.mm 0.05 0.00 pooaommsma mo swab psmmehmon Op mane .Hopmofiszaaoo 0000 m.mo n.0e o.m0 o.oa amdoaadso mMeem one hpaafipwmsommon unmoved Aam u zv AOm u zv Aom u 20 Amm u 20 pooonom pooonem peoonom pseonom omwmg Haesml. ommmprlllllllhwmmm mobapooexm woapmnomo mobapoooxm Howno dozdwpnOOIlm.m m~nm8 “a We; 120 (2) Ability to get things done through people with minimum wear and tear. (5) AcOepting reSponsibility and seek— . ing challenge. (4) Communicating well and'represent- ing the view of management. (5) A top management viewpoint of the company's business and interests. From two-fifths to three-fourths of the executives consider these characteristics to be major strengths. A more detailed examination of the data (Appendix D), however, reveals that differences of opinion I do exiSt between chief executives and operating execu- tives in small and large firms, and the respondents in large firms, in general, are more aware and apprecia-Lx tive of the personnel heads' strengths. One of the interesting findings is that the im- portance of many of the strengths grows as the firms become larger: background in operating management (chief executives); legal or collective bargaining experience (operating executives); decision maker- and Problem Solving ability (chief executives); knows what to delegate and what to work on himself (both types of executives); effective organizer (operating executives); accepts responsibility and seeks challenge (both types of executives); good communicator, able to represent —~— u) 121 ’ view of management (operating executives); strong ex- ecutive recruiting abilities and good insight into people (Operating executives); profit oriented (oper- ating executives); and has top management view of com- pany's business and interests (both types of executives). Criteria for Evaluating Effectiveness Of Personnel Management Although objective criteria of known validity may not exist, executives frequently make judgments about other executives and their functions on the basis of approximate or rule-of-thumb criteria. In order to gain some understanding of the cri- teria used for evaluating the effectiveness of person— nel management, the chief executives and operating ex— ecutives were asked to identify the criteria they use, and the personnel executives were asked to give cri- teria by which they believe chief executives can meas- 'ure the effectiveness of personnel management. Two categories of criteria were examined: quantitative and qualitative . fiyuantitative criteria for evaluatigg __g e e ec iveness o _personne management The executives participating in.this survey'menp tion many quantitative criteria. In general, the cri- teria mentioned most frequently are improved absentee- ism, turnover, and safety; savings in labor relations; i— _A: 4F 122. an adequate supply of manpower; and lower management costs (Table 5.10). A detailed analysis of the data by size of firm, however, reveals some differences. These differences are summarized below: , 1 ‘ 51""? (1) Personnel executives in small firms make moderately more useeflnw no pomnpsoo Hosea ow mwewbwm hemmtm one .Hobosndp .amflompqompw UmbongaH Ame u 20 Ame u 20 ueooHom psooaom omaoH mobflpeooxm wsfipwnomo HHmam Ame u zv Asa u zv psoonom pneonom omnogl HHmaml mo>apooowm moans Amom u zvamoa u zv pooonom pooonom 0mg mobwpdooxm Housemnom HHmam sham mo mean he .pooaowmqma Hossomhom Ho mmosobflpoemmo one wsflpmsam>o new wfinmpfino mbwpwufipuwSO OH.m magma 124 firms compared with personnel executives and chief executives in firms of the same size. (5) The use of savings in labor relations as a criterion is mentioned moderately more by chief executives in small firms than personnel executives in the same sized firms. Similar findings are noted for chief executives in L large firms, when they are compared with oper- ating executives in large firms. (6) Personnel executives and chief execu- tives in small firms, when compared with oper- ating executives in the same sized firms, re- port more use of adequate supply of manpower as a criterion. (7) Personnel executives and operating executives in small firms make moderately more use of lower per capita personnel costs as a criterion than chief executives in small firms do. On the other hand, Operating executives in large firms report more use of the above fac- tor than do personnel executives and chief ex- ecutives in firms of the same size. (8) Corporate profit or productivity as cri— teria are mentioned moderately more by Operating executives in small firms than by chief execu- tives in small firms. On the other hand, 125 personnel executives and chief executives in large firms cite the above factor moderately more than Operating executives in firms of the same size do. litative criteria for evaluating the e ectiveness ijpersonnel management That the executives use a number of qualitative criteria to evaluate their personnel departments is confirmed in Table 5.11. The two criteria used most frequently by the executives relate to the areas of program effectiveness and higher employee morale and better communications. Analysis of the data by size of firm, however, indicates that there are differences. These differences are noted below: (1) Personnel executives in small firms re- port moderately more use of improved employee morale and better communications, and respect and use of programs by line executives as cri- teria, whereas personnel executives in large firms indicate moderately more use of effective- ness of programs in meeting company objectives as a criterion. (2) Respect and use of programs by line executives as criteria are cited moderately more by chief executives in large firms compared with chief executives in small firms. AHGCCFH-rwl‘cr' " 126 l. r u I {IL 0.0 0.0 N.0H 0.0 d.0m 0.¢H mafia he masnmonm me one one poemmem m.m m.d m.e e.m 0.0 m.ma moaoaaod Hossomnom Ho hpflaoad n.0H 0.0m 0.0 n.0 m.mH 0.0a moansonp Honda 90 soaposcom ¢.Hm m.mm 0.mm m.mm m.ma m.mm encepmoaosssoo Happen .oaonoa oohoagao Honmam 0.0m o.mm m.mm n.mm m.mm 9.0m mosapoonoo.hqwasoo weapoea ea msonwonm no mmoqmbfipoommm mom u 20 Ace u 20 pnoonom pdoohem ANO u zv Adm u zv A50H u zv Adm a 20 pnooHem pooonom pneonom pnoonem mason HHmam omamn, Haoam mobfipsooxm meflno mobwpfioexm Heoqomnom, ENHH no mean an pqosowdnoa Henqomnom Ho mmodebdpoeumo one modemsawbo new ownopwno obfipmpflamzo HH. m magma HF 127 (5) Operating executives in small firms make moderately more use of reduction of labor trouble as a criterion; whereas operating ex- ecutives in large firms indicate greater use of v “A effectiveness of programs in meeting company objectives, and high employee morale and better communications as criteria. (4) When compared with personnel executives in small firms, chief executives in small firms make moderately more use of the effectiveness of programs in meeting company objectives as a cri- terion. Operating executives in large firms re- port greater use of the criterion mentioned a- bove compared with personnel executives and chief executives in large firms. (5) Chief executives and operating execu- tives in small firms indicate moderately more use of high employee morale and better communi- cations as criteria than do personnel execu- tives in firms of the same size. In large firms, the criteria mentioned above is used with greater frequency by chief executives than personnel ex- ecutives and operating executives. _(6) The reduction of labor troubles as a criterion is mentioned more by personnel execu- tives and operating executives than by chief 128 executives in small firms. The above criterion is also given moderately more attention by per- sonnel executives in large firms compared with chief executives in the same sized firms. (7) Personnel executives in small firms in- dicate moderately more use of respect and use of programs by line executives as criteria than do chief executives and operating executives in firms of the same size. The above criteria are also cited more by personnel executives and chief executives compared with operating execur tives in large firms. Summary The study finds that both groups of personnel executives are sensitive to a number of limitations on their general effectiveness. Both groups report that the pressure of details is the major factor limiting ‘their effectiveness. Executives in small firms are moderately more sensitive to a lack of well-trained :personnel workers and executives in large firms exb press a greater awareness of a lack of top management asupport. In.terms of the field of perSOnnel management in egeneral, regardless of the size of firm, the greatest <=riticisms of the field are made by personnel 129 executives; the next greatest criticisms are made by chief executives; and the least criticisms are made by operating executives. The data indicate that the personnel executives in both sample groups who are critical provide three major kinds of criticism about the personnel field: weaknesses of the personnel department, lack of recog- nition or acceptance, and poor public relations. The major criticism mentioned by the chief ex— ecutives in both groups is the personnel executives' lack of line or general management knowledge. This is one of the greatest criticisms made. Only two issues seem to bother both the operat- ing executives in small and large firms. These are the weaknesses and limitations of the personnel department and the lack of line or general management knowledge. In comparing the various executives with respect to their criticisms of the field, several differences are noted. The data show that, regardless of the Size of firm, operating executives receive assistance in.a number of ways. When the data are analyzed by size of firm, only two areas differ. A moderately higher per— centage of the Operating executives in small firms cite receiving more assistance with matters related to wage and salary administration, while a greater percentage _d 6) -v 150 of the Operating executives in large firms report re- ceiving advice and counsel from the personnel department. The data also show that many of the Operating executives in both size groups report that there are no areas in which they want more help from their per— sonnel departments. Regardless of the size of firm, the operating executives who mention needing help from their person? nel departments cite two major areas: employment pro- grams and problems, and executive and employee train? ing, develOpment, and appraisal. The data regarding additional knowledge and training which the three types of executives feel per- sonnel executives need to meet present standards and to make significant future advances show many variations when analyzed by size of firm. The study finds that the chief executives and operating executives in both small and large firms identify a number of strengths which they believe the personnel executives bring to their work. However, the data does show that differences of Opinion exist between the chief executives and the operating execu? tives in both small and large firms. In general, the respondentsin large firms are more aware and apprecia- tive of the personnel head's strengths. ‘ Waco-4 H V“ uh .a~ 151 The three types of executives participating in this study use many quantitative criteria for evalu- ating the effectiveness of personnel management. In general, the criteria mentioned most frequently by the three types of executives in both sample groups are improved absenteeism, turnover, and safety; savings in labor relations; an adequate supply of manpower; and lower manpower costs. A detailed analysis of the data by size of firm, however, reveals some differences in the response patterns. Regardless of the size of firm, the three types of executives also use a number of qualitative criteria to evaluate their personnel departments. The data ine dicate that two criteria are used most frequently by the executives. These criteria relate to program ef- fectiveness and higher employee morale and better come munications. Analysis of the data by size of firm, however, indicates several differences in the patterns of response. CHAPTER VI CHANGE IN PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION Changes in economic patterns, technological changes, expanding markets, and increasingly complex laws and regulations are creating new problems for the personnel manager and other executives who are con- cerned with the personnel function. If the personnel function is to adapt success- fully to such changes, it is necessary for the execu, tives who have the responsibility for it to recognize the changes and understand the effects they will have. Should executives not recognize these changes, the personnel function may assume a relatively unimportant role in the firm and other departments may assume its responsibilities. On the other hand, if personnel exe ecutives, chief executives, and operating executives agree on the effects of change and on the adaptations needed, the personnel function may become innovative and creative, and acquire greater status. To learn more about whether the executives who share responsibility for the personnel function are aware of the forces of change and its demands for the 152 153 future, this chapter explores the views of the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the operating ext ecutives on change in personnel administration. Also, in order to develop some insight about the changes an- ticipated and their impact on.management, the three types of executives were asked for their opinions about the pace and degree of change, as well as its :nature and the problems it creates for firms in carry- ing out their personnel activities. Pace of Change Occurring Generally In the Field of Personnel Management The pace of change is significant because it may serve as a pressure on executives involved in decision :making. Discrepancies in.perceptions regarding change :may increase the possibility of hesitation and conflict :in.the planning and executing of personnel programs, ,projects, and activities. I As shown in Table 6.1, most of the executives agree that the pace of change is gradual, although more iaitensive analysis reveals various discrepancies (lappendix D). In general, the personnel respondents in small firms are less Optimistic than the personnel executives 111 large firms. For example, over 50 percent of the executives in small firms report that the pace is I'L. 154 o.o m.m . 0.0 0.6 o.m s.a . snaqoaoaaoeom O.Om m.mm O.mm m.am o.am o.mm eaoom O.mo s.om o.ao m.om O.O¢ n.0m assuage O.m n.6H o.w «.ma O.H 5.0 seam ooeaa Aom u 20 hon u zv Aom n 20 Amm a 20 Aooa a zvamm u 20 pnoonem pooonem pooonem poeoaom pnoonem poeonom :m :m mebapdoofim H030 mebapfiooonm Hoaomnem, anew no mean an .poeaowooda Hoaomnom mo Odom“ on» dd hadmneoew 39.5000 ewqono HO comm .10 canoe 155 gradual, whereas over 50 percent of the executives in large firms report that the pace is rapid. In comparing the chief executive groups, no sub- stantial differences are noted. The majority of both groups report that the pace of change is gradual. Chief executives in large firms, however, do place :moderately more emphasis on the pace of change being gradual. The majority of operating executives in both groups believe that the pace of change is gradual. .Although there are no great differences between the 'two groups, the Operating executive group in small firms reports a moderately higher response to the pace being quite slow, whereas the operating executive group in large firms reports moderately higher re- sponses to a gradual and a rapid pace. When the three types of executives are compared ‘with.one another, the following differences are noted: (1) In general, regardless of the size of firm, chief executives and operating executives, compared with.personnel executives, place more emphasis on change being quite slow. (2) In large firms, chief executives and operating executives, compared with personnel executives, generally place more emphasis on a gradual pace of change. 156 (5) Personnel executives and chief execu- tives in small firms generally place greater emphasis on a rapid pace of change. (4) Personnel executives in large firms place greater emphasis on a rapid pace of change and moderately more emphasis on a revolutionary pace of change than do chief executives and Operating executives in large firms. Even though most of the executives in small and large firms agree that changes are gradual, the vari- ous differences noted above suggest that, in part, there may be some hesitation and conflict between the ‘three types of executives regarding the planning and executing of various personnel programs, projects, and activities. Also, because more personnel executives 'than chief executives and Operating executives in both small and large firms expect rapid change, they are Ixrobably subject to greater stresses and pressures. 13113 is more Obvious in the case of personnel execu- tives in large firms. Degree of Change The speed at which changes take place in the 1Tield Of personnel management is influenced by a num- tflar of factors. One important factor is the 157 improvements in personnel techniques. Therefore, this factor is studied in greater detail. Degree of change in personnel activities expected bygexecutives during the next five years Participants were asked to indicate the degree of change (great, moderate, little) that they expect to occur in nineteen personnel activities performed by the department during the next five years. For this purpose, change was defined as improvement in techniques for discharging each responsibility. The views of the personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives on the degree of change expected in the nineteen areas of responsi- bility are compared in Tables 6.2, 6.5, and 6.4. In general, there is little disagreement among the three types of executives, in either small or large firms. Between two-fifths and two-thirds of the various exr ecutives, in both small and large firms, expect moder- ate change in most activities. Closer examination of Tables 6.2, 6.5, and 6.4, however, discloses areas in which there are departures from.this pattern. These are summarized below. Organizationgplanning.--With the exception of (operating executives in.small firms, between one-third (and.one-half of the respondents in the other groups It ~.....>~.~1.nuawunpv . Av \a V‘FN ~.~ , “OHM - -rlv he» eta» a: .to t Ru 1! 3 . H G a . .ik‘uhuQ . . Ca~ . as A H . o 0 Hench 05 u - den t.~\x.v EHH HQ Gaul—DJ \nfl “ivxreoheuaua .1 . l . u Five \nn amid MVHUOFURQU “ado.“ .Htsr.“ AN 05% J-HAVINfihQrIHCRh HEX“ A G .l' 158 0.mm 0.0: 3.0H 0.0N 0.m¢ c.0N m.0H $.5H m.m¢ 0.ma o.#N O.NH m.¢a m.¢a m.0a O.N¢ ¢.NN 0.0m m.me $.0H N.NH 0.0m m.m0 0.0m 0.0m m.mm 0.0H m.am ¢.0N 0.0: N.ma ¢.um m.¢m 0.HN 0.mm 0.0a m.mm $.0H 0.¢m m.mm 0.¢N 0.mm hefibaposoonm HoscfibfiosH masseuse wdHOHHdn oaonoz pcoshOHgam aocOflmmOH loam HO\Oqo ebwpoooxm wsfissmam sowpoufiqmwao soapwpnoamagaw hoaaom Honsomnom pqoaqoaoboo hOHHOm Heqqomnom AOHN u zvnam u 20 pooonom asoonom omamn, . HHmsm mobwpfioewm weapwnumo mobaeooexm “memo mobfipsooxm Hoqsomnom HHmfim noose>oamsH poeac AOON u zvmm0a n zv Acom u ZVAOMN u zv unconom pooonom mason, pqoonem pneonom mmmmm HHmfim and“ no mean hp .289» 33 than on» 03.9 mm» 338 he eopooawo moapapapow Hoooomnoa ea quesopongsa pmonwv owquO Hoawonwon N.0 canoe 159 #.mm m.mm O.NH 0.0N H.HH 0.:m H.0m $.0H 0.5H w.¢a 0.0H 0.ma 0.0a 0.3m O.¢# 0.mm 0.0a v.03 #.0 0.0 0.0 0.0m m.mm N.0H m.mm m.m¢ 0.0H 5.0a 5.0m 0.5m m.mm m.0 0.0m 0.¢¢ m.m #.NN O.HH 0.0m ¢.00 m.mm m.mm 0.md m.¢a $.0H 0.0a n.0m m.0¢ m.am soapmnpmflnfladm humaom Odo omw3 moodshomaeg mo mammflmamms moowbaom omhoagsm mnemoeop oohoamsm mGOflQS Honda has; aeoepaaeomoz moohoameo op msOflmequesoo psmamoaoboc pcoaommqmz Hoapqoo Omomaobo AOHN u ZVAHO u av uqoonem pnoonom OMHMH mobfipooexmlwswpoaemo HHWEm HHmam udoaebongsH pooaw noom n zvamoa u 20 Aoam u zvaemm u 20 DHHOOHQQ Pfim OHGnH omnmfil moeepsooxm moaeo pseoaom pseonem omamH mobspfiooxm Hoqsomnom HHmam aaaeaoooouum.o edema 140 ima O.m 0.3 TS mém 0.3 someone“ Hofioonom 54m so 54m can win HAN omega ens wqapmoooaom Hemogqm: «v.2 T: 9mg 0.3 93 m6 32358 and mqfipmmp Hoowwoaonohmm RNA 5.3 «.3 9mm T: 0.8 Posse one £18m Aoam n zvaam a_zv AO0Nu unoonom psoonom ZVAm0H u 93 Agm n ZVABMNN 2v unconom naoonom unconom pqoonom E: mobwuseowm Hesse mebapsooum Hoodomnom aseambonaaH edema oogpqooimo oases 141 0.0m o.mm 0.0m ¢.#o m.m¢ m.m® ¢.HB m.m0 0.00 0.00 m.00 m.¢0 hufi>dposconm Hus0a>auqH 0.0: 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.00 waaqaana 0.00 0.Hm 0.0: 0.00 0.00 mqauaasp «Hana: 0.0m m.m¢ 0.0m m.0m a.¢m pnoamoaopmu Hmaoflmmom tong HO\Uqw mbapfiomxfi 0.0: m.m¢ 0.00 0.00 0.00 wqflqqmam deflprflqwmno 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.m0 0.00 godpapnoaoaqaa hodaom Hundomnom 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 pnmamoambmo H.mm hoaaom quqOmnom PQO OHGnH UGO OHmm mman Amw¢ u ZVAiom u zv A30: a ZVAN¢N a zv Amtm n zvammm u zv ammonom ammonmm unoonmm pnwonom Hadam HHmam mmmmm. HHmam mmmmmq mobapfiomxmlwdfipwnomd mobapfiomxm mmHno mmbapfiomxm Honnomnom pqoawbohgaH 09090002 Egan Ho ouam hp..mnd¢h «haw anon on» wqdnnu mobfippooub hp. cwpoogwo mmapabapod Hondomnom dd Apnoambongad mpwhocoav owudao Ho oonmon. m.o magma 142 0.00 0.00 0.m0 m.mm 0.m0 0.H0 _qoapanpmaqfiaua hfiwawm and own; 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.00 0.H¢ 0.00 mommanomnog no mammfiwnam« 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.00 m.¢0 0.00 macabnmm mmhoamam 0.00 m.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 mpammqmp omhoagam H.H0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mqoflqs gamma 00“: 000000000002 0.00 ¢.m0 0.00 0.0: H.00 m.0¢ mammoagam op machMOflddaaoo 0.00 0.mm 0.00 0.00 0.0m 0.0: pqmamoao>00 pnmamwmqm: 0.H¢ 0.0m 0.0: H.00 m.00 H.H0 Hogpqoo 000090>0 “00¢ a 200:0m u 20 A00: u zvam¢m u 20 Amwm a zVAmwm u 20 Paw CHOW Pam 090m” unmonmm pamonwm pqoonom pqoonom oumwn HHmmm mummn HHmmm mobflnsooxfl Hofino mmbwuaconm Hoquomnom nuaavbongaH 0909000: 0onuauqoonrm.0 manna 145 m.¢¢ 0.0N 0.00 o.am m.m¢ m.w¢ noH00m0H H0Qdomn0m m.m¢ w.u¢ N.mo o.mm d.dm ¢.H© mQflqqmam 0nd mafipmmgnom 9030982 0.00 0.0: 0.0: m.am 0.0: 0.00 mafiaomqsoo 000 930.009 Hmoflwoaonohmm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0: 0.00 0.00 000000 000 apammm 000: u 20A¢0m u 20 A000 u zvnm¢m u 20 0000 u 20A000 u 20 pn0onom pdmonmm “300.3% pn0onmm pn0on0m pnmoumm 0mn09 Hawam 0mg HHmam 0mg Hamam m0>ap§o0xm wnapmnmmo 00>ap§o0fim H030 00>fipfio0fim H0aomn0m pn0aobonmaH 0 90.3002 omanpqootum.0 magma 144 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000000 . 0000000000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 00000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00000: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000000 000000000 Iona .00\0000 0009080a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000 000000000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 00000000000000 06003 000.030.00m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000000 _ bosom 000080.000” 0000 0 200000 u zv 0000 u 200000 u 20 A000" 20A00mu 20 900090000 9d0000m 900090000 900090000 900090000 900090000 00000 00000 E 00000 00000 0000090000000 $090003 00>09000Mfl .0030 000090800m 000080.009 900080>00§ 0.0 9909 and.“ Ho 0000 ha. .0H00h 030.0 0.0000 0009 900.006 090090—0080 he. 00900900 0009000900 0000030009 30 3000000060900 00990.3 0g no 00.309 0. o 0.309 145 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000000000 000000 000 0003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000000 no 0000000004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 00000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 00000 0000 000000000002 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 000000000 09 00009000003500 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 00000000000 0000000002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0009000 00000000 Amma u ZVAm¢H u 2v Abmd n ZVANmH u 2v Aémm n ZVABMN u 2v 9noohmm 9nwonmm 9nmonmm 900000m 900000& 900000@ .IwmmmurlllHHmMMI. IllwmmmurlllpummmWIIu 00>H9¢ooxm 00000 mob09§omxm Hmnnomnmm 9noambongaH 009900 00:009qoolué.o 00909 mfih) 146 5.0m O.Nh w.wa b.Hm m.®N 5.H¢ nondomon qunomnom m.oa m.m¢ o.ma o.mm w.oa m.ua wqaqqaaa and wqflpmwoonom Hm3OQde m.a¢ m.w¢ n.a¢ H.mm m.om u.mm wqaaomqsoo cad mqapmop Hmoawoaonohmm m.mm O.mN m.o¢ H.mN O.Nm 5.0N hpomdm dad Apadom Amma u ZVAmta n 2v Amma n ZVANmH u 2v Aémm u ZVABMN n 2V pnmonmm pdmohom pdmohmm pqmoHom pqmonmm pqoonmm .hmmmurllluummmru nllmmwmmhlllpummmrll. mobapflomwm Hmfino mobapfiooxm Hoqaomnom pumambongaH mappdfl dosnapqoorl¢.o oapwa 147 expect great improvement. Two-fifths of the operating executives in small firms anticipate little improvement. Executive/professional employment.--One-third of the chief executives and one-half of the operating executives in small firms expect little improvement. Morale building.—-Over one-third of the chief executives in small firms anticipate great improvement, while close to one-third of the Operating executives in large firms expect little improvement. Eggigigg.--Between 40 and 65 percent of all of the groups expect great improvement. Individual productivity.--Close to 50 percent of the Operating executives in both small and large firms expect little improvement. Overhead control.--Between one-third and one-half of the operating executives in both size groups and the chief executives in large firms expect little improvement. Management development.--Between 40 and 70 per- cent of all of the groups anticipate great improvement. Communications to employees.-—Between 30 and 40 percent of all of the groups anticipate great improvement. 148 Negotiations with unions.--Close to 40 percent of the operating executives in large firms and. 1+5 percent of the chief executives in small firms expect little improvement . Wee benefits.--;Close to one-third of the chief executives in large firms and operating execu- tives in small firms expect little improvement. Mae services.--Between 55 and 50 percent of all of the groups with the exception of operating executives in large firms expect little improvement. Appraisals of pperformancew-With the exception of operating executives in small firms, between 55 and 45 percent of all of the other groups expect great improvement . wage and salary administration.--Close to one- . third of both personnel executive groups and chief executives in small firms expect great improvement, while over one-third of the chief executives "in small firms expect little improvement. Health and safety.--Between 50 and. 40 percent of the personnel executives and chief executives in large firms expect little improvement. 149 Psychological testing and counseling.--Between 55 and 55 percent of all of the groups expect little improvement. Manpower forecasting.——Approximately one-third of the chief executives in.small firms and operating executives in large firms and almost 55 percent of the personnel executives in large firms expect great imp provement. On the other hand, over 55 percent of the chief executives in small firms expect little improvement. Personnel research.--Approximately 40 percent of the personnel executives in small firms and operating executives in large firms, 50 percent of the chief executives in small firms, and 70 percent of the oper- ating executives in large firms anticipate little improvement. Nature and Consequences of Change In order to develop additional insight into the nature of change in the personnel function, three additional factors are examined: changes in the per- sonnel ratio, modification of responsibilities, and consequences of changes. 150 Changes in the ratio of personnel department em lo ees to total number of employees in e irm during the next five ZEEEE Analysis of the data in Table 6.5 shows that there are a number of differences between the three types of executives, both in small and large firms, with respect to changes in the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees. The data reveal that a greater percentage of the personnel respondents in small firms believe that the ratio will increase, whereas a greater percentage of the personnel respondents in large firms believe that the ratio will remain the same. There is little dif- ference between the two groups with respect to a de- crease in the ratio. In addition, over 40 percent of both chief execu~ tive groups anticipate an increase in the ratio. Twenty percent of both groups expect a decrease in the ratio, while over one-third of both groups believe there will not be any change. Also, close to 70 percent of both operating executive groups expect an increase in the ratio. Approximately 15 percent of both groups believe there will be a decrease, while another 15 percent of both groups anticipate no change. When the three types of executives are compared with each other, the following differences are noted: 151 h.ma 5.0H m.mm $.dm m.wm m.NH pddpmnoo nfldamm u.ma m.mH ¢.Om m.HN m.mH m.HH ommoHoom m.w® 0.05 m.o¢ m.m¢ H.0m w.mh mmwmnofiH E u 5 an n 5 A? u 5 an n 5 $0 ... 5 as," E pcmonmm pcoonom pqoosom pcoonom pnoonom pcmonom emcee Seam emcee HHmamr amuse 53W mo>ap§ooxmxmcflpmmomo mobfipdooxm Hoflco mobapfiooxm Hoqqomnom Sham mo ouflm hp .mndmh obflm fixed on» qundb spam on» ma moohoagao mo gonads Hmpop op moohoagao psoapnmmod Heqcomnom no oflpmn on» aw mowqmno m.o edema 152 (1) When compared with chief executives and operating executives in small firms, a larger percentage of the personnel executives in small firms agree that there will be an in- crease in the ratio. A greater percentage of operating executives in small firms respond to an increase in the ratio than do chief execu- tives in the same sized firms. In large firms, a greater percentage of operating executives , compared with personnel executives and chief executives, believe that the ratio will increase. The personnel executives in large firms express greater optimism about an increase in the ratio than do chief executives in firms of the same size. (2) Chief executives in small firms indi- cate a higher response to a decrease in the ratio, compared with personnel executives and operating executives in small firms. In large firms a moderately higher percentage of chief executives than personnel executives believe that the ratio will decrease. (3) Chief executives in both small and large firms place greater emphasis on the . ratio not changing, compared with personnel I executives and operating executives in small 155 and large firms. Personnel executives in large firms cite no change in the ratio with greater frequency than Operating executives in firms of the same size do. (4) A greater percentage of personnel executives in small firms believe that the ratio will increase, whereas a greater per— centage of personnel executives in large firms feel that there will be no change in the ratio. In small firms, personnel executives, compared with chief executives and operating executives, are more optimistic about an increase in the personnel ratio. However, in large firms Operating executives, compared with personnel executives and chief execu- tives, are generally more optimistic about an increase in the ratio. Regardless of the size of firm, chief executives, compared with the other two types of executives, ap- pear to be more pessimistic. They generally place more emphasis on the ratio decreasing or not changing at all. One other point of interest is that personnel respondents in small firms generally appear more "administratively optimistic," whereas personnel 154 respondents in large firms generally appear more "administratively pessimistic." Reasons for changes in the ratio 'ST'personneIdepartment empIOyees to total number of employees in the firm during the next five years In general, there are many differences in the reasons given by the various types of executives for changes in the personnel ratio. However, since the number of respondents in the sample groups are quite small, no further discussion is given here. Modifications in ersonnel management responsiBiIities The allocation of personnel activities among the various organizational units of a business firm.has been a continuous and perplexing problem. While there can.be no way in which a firm can quickly attain.an ideal organization structure for the personnel func- , tion, a systematic guiding rationale is important. Indifference to the matters of careful alloca- tion.of personnel activities may result in considable waste of executive time and energy, particularly in the case of personnel executives. In.addition, it may create elements of disagreement between.the three types of executives participating in.this study. One important fact that both personnel groups establish is that a large number of personnel 155 activities have been reassigned during the past five years. As Table 6.6 shows, the personnel respondents in both sample groups report that most of these functions have been created as new responsibilities or trans- ferred to the personnel department-~rather than trans— ferred from.the personnel department. An analysis of the newly created personnel de- partment reSponsibilities (Table 6.7) shows that em? ployee benefits are frequently assigned to personnel departments in both small and large firms. Additional analysis reveals that there is a greater tendency to assign health, safety, and employee services and per- sonnel policy and implementation to small firms and organization planning and design to large firms. In addition, a moderately higher percentage of personnel departments in large firms are assigned responsibilities - related to executive employment and development and public and government relations. With respect to responsibilities transferred to the personnel department from.other departments (Table 6.8), analysis reveals that, regardless of the size of firm, the most frequently transferred.responsibility is related to employee benefits. There is a greater tendency to transfer health, safety, and employee 1 services to personnel departments in small firms, 156 qua. m.m.m. mfim 0.0: ¢.Q.~ H.N¢ oz dmm «.ma m6: inn 9% , QR 8» A8 ... 5 8m u 5 3m ... 5 3m 15 3m u 5 Km a 5 use chem use chem use chem pus chem paw 23m use chem Mal Mull «Mm-ll pumapnwmom aonm pqoapnwmon OuhH moapflaaflmdo mom 3oz donnommsdna mowpsn eonnommnwna medpg mm @2395 3.33 shun.“ no 056 ha. .mowpfinaflnmdommos puma—Own; Hogomnom 5 30.3 Imowmwdoa phonon pod on on: mobdpsooflo Hedgehog can moapflflnamdommon pace—omega Hogomnom 5” udoapdoamfiooa phones on: uobaufiooflo Hoaomnom 0.0 edema 157 while a moderately higher percentage of personnel de- partments in large firms have public and government relations and record keeping, data processing, and office administration transferred to them. Table 6.7 Newly created personnel department respon- sibilities, by size of firm Personnel Executives __E.§. Percent Percent (N = 35) (N = 80) Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary 24.2 22.4 Health, safety, and employee services 21.2 2.5 Executive employment and development 15.2 21.5 Personnel policy making and implementation 15.2 2.5 Manpower planning and utilization 12.1 16.3 Labor relations and collective bargaining 12.1 8.8 Organization planning and design 0.0 21.} Public relations and government relations 0.0 5.0 Record keeping, data processing and office administration 0.0 0.0 158 Table 6.8 Responsibilities transferred to the personr nel department from other departments, by size of firm Personnel Executives i Percent Percent (N = 32) (N = 48) Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary 51.5 55.4 Health, safety, and employee service 21.9 8.5 Executive employment and development 6.5 6.5 Personnel policy making and implementation 5.0 2.1 Manpower planning and utilization 18.8 16.7 Labor relations and collective bargaining 9.4 8.5 Organization planning and design 3-3 8-3 - Public relations and government relations 0.0 8.5 Record keeping, data processing and office ‘ administration 6.5 6.5 With regard to responsibilities transferred.frcm the personnel department to other departments (Table 6.9), the activity mentioned.most frequently'by'both groups of respondents refers to employee benefits. 159 However, it is noted that there is a great tendency in both small and large firms to either create this ac- tivity as. a new responsibility for the personnel de- partment or transfer it to the personnel department from other departments. Thus, this area appears dif- ficult to assign in both small and large. firms. Further analysis reveals that labor relations and collective bargaining and health, safety, and employee services are transferred from the personnel department to other departments with greater frequency in small firms. It is noted, however, that there is a great tendency in small firms to either create health, safety, and employee services as a new re- sponsibility for the personnel department or transfer it to the personnel department from other departments. Apparently, this area is difficult to assign in small firms. With reference to other differences, there is a greater tendency to transfer record keeping, data processing, and office administration and public and government relations from the personnel department to other departments in large firms. Also, a moderately higher percentage of personnel respondents in small firms indicate that employee benefits are transferred, while a moderately higher percentage of personnel re- spondents in large firms mention executive employment 160 and development, manpower planning and utilization and organization planning and design as being transferred. Table 6.9 Responsibilities transferred from.the per- sonnel department to other departments, by size of firm Personnel Executives _E Percent Percent (N = 3) (N = 18) Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary 55.4 27.8 Health, safety, and employee services 55.5 11.0 Executive employment and development 0.0 5.6 Manpower planning and utilization 0.0 5.6 Labor relations and collective bargaining 55.5 0.0 Organization planning and design 0.0 5.6 Public relations and government relations 0.0 22.2 Record keeping, data processing and office administration 0.0 22.2 The above data suggest that employee benefits is a difficult activity to allocate in.both small and large firms. In addition, there is a problem.with 161 health, safety, and employee services in small firms. These activities are important cornerstones for the personnel function. The problems of carefully allo- cating these activities could result in considerable wastes Of times, especially for the personnel execu- tives. In addition, these problems may create dis- agreement between the various types of executives participating in this study. Conse uences of c as e personne c on With respect to how changes in the personnel function will affect personnel departments in the future, many Of the executives expect that there will be a greater number of specialties in personnel and an increase in personnel costs. In addition, a number of the executives anticipate a greater centralization of personnel decisions and a need for increased resources (Table 6.10). A study Of the data in Table 6.10 reveals that between 50 and 75 Percent of the personnel executives in both sample groups expect the following changes: greater centralization, increased specialties, in- creased resources, and increased costs. Between 50 and 50 percent of the chief executives and Operating executives in both sample groups expect greater centralization and between 40 and 70 percent 162 m.m m.m ®.m® m.HN H.m¢ 5.0 0.0H m.mm 5.0H 5.0: o.m O.m O.m¢ o.mH o.wN m.ma to 0.0: ¢.¢m H.®N O.NH 0.0H o.wm o.mm o.mm m.¢m m.m w.mm m.¢a o.¢m Hoboa nqoaemdqu Herman on phonon Haas “Bagged Hoaomsom Hosea on Had: mpmoo usesomuqu Heqqomnom proa omsonona Haas upmoo psosomdnda Heqqomnom avenue Hem escapes on Hafiz upmoo naoaomdnds Hoqnomnom spends Hem cocoon on HHH’ moonsouon condosonH 3m a 5 8m ... 5 anoonom unconom Aomuzvammnzv anoonom usoonom Goa .. 2X3 . 5 ‘ aqooaem enoonmm E: mobapfiooum No.30 cabana—02H Hoqqomnom sham Ho exam he erHpoqu Homeownem on» ma commune no moenosvomnoo oa.m edema 165 m.m 5.0 m.om m.mu H.5e 0.0m Aam n zv Aom a zv pqoonom admonom o.m e.m o.HH H.HH nowadao aquoapnedme Iguana nwsonnp madam new opmnosow Haas pqeapnmmod Honnomnom o.mm m.me o.mm m.mo cadences Has: moapawwoomm no nogapz o.mm H.mm o.Hm m.m¢ douaawnpqoo Osooon Add: mdoamfloov Honsomnon no Hogans nonwoso Aom u 29 Amm u zv Amos u_zvamo . zc anoonom unoonom unconem anoonom E E 32390on H338 mobflpfiooflm Hensomnom eoaqaaaoouuoa.o canes 164 of them.anticipate increases in personnel costs. In addition, between 45 and 75 percent of these two types of executives foresee an increase in the number of personnel specialties, while only 50 to 45 percent of them believe that greater resources will be needed. When the responses are analyzed by size of firm, a number of variances are noted (Appendix D): (1) A greater percentage of personnel respondents in small firms expect the per- sonnel department to report to a higher level of management, whereas a greater per- centage of personnel respondents in large firms indicate they are moderately more aware of a need for increased resources and a reduction.in.per capita personnel manage- ment costs. (2) Chief executives in.small firms place greater emphasis on.expecting changes related to a reduction.in per capita persons nel costs. In addition, they place moder- ately more emphasis on.the personnel depart- ment reporting to a higher level and the personnel department generating its funds through.interdepartmental charges. On the other hand, chief executives in large firms place moderately more emphasis on changes 165 related to a greater number of personnel decisions becoming centralized, an increase in the number of personnel specialties and an increase in per capita personnel costs. (5) Operating executives in small firms place greater emphasis on the number Of personnel specialties increasing. On the other hand, operating executives in large firms place greater emphasis on changes related to a great number of per- sonnel decisions becoming centralized and per capita personnel management costs increasing. (4) In general, regardless of the size of firm, personnel executives expect a greater need for increased resources com, pared with chief executives and operating executives. The Operating executives in both sample groups, when compared with both chief executive groups, anticipate a greater need for increased resources. (5) A greater percentage of chief execu- tives in small firms anticipate a reduction in per capita personnel costs, compared with personnel executives and operating execu- tives. The reverse holds true in.the case 166 of large firms, where moderately more per- sonnel executives and operating executives expect a reduction in per capita personnel costs. (6) When compared with chief executives, personnel executives and Operating executives in both size groups report a greater response to an increase in per capita personnel man- agement costs. In large firms, operating executives cite an increase in per capita personnel management costs with greater frequency than do personnel executives. (7) When compared with chief executives and Operating executives in small firms, a greater percentage of personnel executives believe that the personnel department will report to a higher management level. Chief executives in small firms, when compared with operating executives in firms of the same size, respond moderately more to the above factor. Personnel executives in large firms are also moderately more Optimistic about the above factor than are the Operating execu- tives in large firms. (8) Personnel executives in small firms, compared with chief executives and Operating 167 executives in the same sized firms, report greater belief in more personnel decisions becoming centralized. In large firms, it is noted that the personnel executives and operating executives are more inclined to mention the above factor than are chief executives. (9) That the number of personnel re- sponsibilities will increase as a conse- quence of change in the function is men- tioned more by Operating executives in small firms, compared with personnel execue tives and chief executives in firms Of the same size. In addition, personnel execu- tives in small firms indicate a greater belief in a change in the above factor than do Operating executives in small firms. On the other hand, personnel executives in large firms report more anticipation of an increase in the number of personnel spe- cialties than do chief executives and oper- ating executives in large firms. The Oper— ating executives in large firms, however, report moderately more awareness of an in- crease in the number of specialties, com- pared with chief executives in large firms. 168 (10) Personnel executives and operating executives in large firms, compared with chief executives in large firms, report mod— erately higher responses to the personnel department generating its funds through interdepartmental charges. Summary Regardless of the size of firm, the data show that most of the executives participating in this study agree that the pace of change occurring gene erally in the field of personnel management is gradual, although.more intensive analysis of their responses reveals various discrepancies. In general, there is little disagreement among the three types of executives, regardless of the size of firm, regarding the degree of change expected in ‘the activities performed by the personnel department during the next five years. Between two-fifths and two-thirds of the various executives, in both small and large firms, expect moderate change in.most ac- tivities. Closer examination, however, discloses areas in.which there are departures from.this pattern. The study also shows that there are a number of differences between the three types of executives, both in small and large firms, with respect to their 169 opinions about changes in the ratio of personnel de- partment employees to total company employees during the next five years. One important fact that both personnel groups establiShed in this study is that a large number of personnel activities have been reassigned during the past five years. The personnel respondents in both sample groups report that most of these functions have been created as new responsibilities or transferred to the personnel department-~rather than transferred from the personnel department. With respect to how changes in the personnel function.will affect personnel departments in the future, many of the executives participating in the study expect that there will be a greater number of specialties in personnel and an increase in personnel costs. In addition, a number of executives anticipate a greater centralization of personnel decisions and a need for increased resources. When the responses of the executives are analyzed by size of firm, however, a number of variances are noted. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY This study investigated selected problem areas in the administration of the personnel function in small and large firms. The purpose of the research was to gain a better understanding of the influence which the size of an organization may have on these administrative problem areas by examining and inter- relating the points of view of the company president, the personnel executive, and other members of top management who have some personnel responsibility. For the purpose of the study, it was assumed that there are three principal roles involved in the administration of the personnel function. Two roles belong to line personnel: (1) the president or chief executive of the company, and (2) a vice president heading a major functional department, who therefore has personnel responsibilities of his own. The third is that of the vice president, director, or manager in charge of the personnel department, whose role interposes him.between the president and the Operating vice presidents. 170 171 It was hypothesized that there are meaningful differences between personnel executives, company presidents, and Operating (line) executives in small and large firms with respect to (l) interrelationships in administering the personnel function, (2) personnel activities, (5) expectations regarding personnel mans agement, (4) evaluation of the results and effective- ness of personnel management, and (5) changes in per- sonnel management. The sample for the study was drawn from United States and Canadian firms listed in the 1966 edition of Peor's Register of Corporations, Directors, and Executives. Using a disproportional sampling tech- nique, 500 firms were selected in each of two size groupings: 500 to 999 employees and over 5,000 employees. Three interrelated questionnaires were sent to three categories of executives: (l) the vice presi- dent, director, or manager in charge of the personnel department; (2) the president or chief executive Of the company; and (5) a vice president heading a major functional department, who therefore has per- sonnel responsibilities of his own. The functional executives participating were vice presidents of manufacturing, marketing, or finance. Throughout the report they are referred to as "operating executives." 172 Thus for each firm invited to participate, one questionnaire was sent to the personnel executive, a second to the chief executive, and a third to either the manufacturing, marketing, or finance executive. Although the questionnaires were similar, they were designed Specifically for the three types of executives . On the basis of the data collected, the hy- potheses were not strongly supported. That differences induced by size do exist in the five problem areas is undeniable. Caution, however, must be used in drawing inferences about the differences in order to avoid exaggerating them. The more striking findings are summarized below. In general, the data in this study indicate that the three types of executives in.1arge firms spend more time with one another than do the three types of executives in small firms. Since the chief executives have authority over both the personnel function.and the Operating func- tions, one might expect the personnel executives to cultivate their relationships with their chief execu, tives. HOwever, many of the personnel executives spend more time with their Operating executives than with their chief executives. This condition exists regardless of the size of firm. 175 The study shows that, regardless of the size of firm, the Chief executives, compared with the oper- ating executives, generally spend more of their time on personnel matters of all kinds. The data indicate, however, that a greater percentage of operating execu- tives in large firms spend more time on such matters than do Operating executives in.small firms. Although the study finds that the personnel executives in both size groups spend different amounts of time with their chief executives and operating executives, additional data show that the types of activities conducted during their interactions with their chief executives and line executives are very similar, regardless of the size of firm. In only two areas are there any differences--matters related to policy and economic problems dealing with cost and efficiency. The data indicate that there are some major differences between the chief executives and the Oper- ating executives in both small and large firms with respect to what they deal with during the time they spend.with the personnel executives. However, there are only two areas in which there are major differences: personnel procedures and techniques and economic matters related to cost and efficiency. 174 The focus of the various executives in terms of their joint activities appears to be more on operating prOblems, such as labor relations, improving personnel procedures and techniques, etcetera. The study finds that, regardless of the size of firm, the areas mentioned most frequently by both the chief executives and operating executives as not dele- gable tO personnel executives are matters related to organization structure and design and wage and salary decisions. Additional analysis by size of firm, how» ever, reveals a number of differences. The study finds that, regardless of the size of firm, the chief executives consult or seek advice from the head of personnel on specific activities. The range of areas on which chief executives in both small and large firms consult their personnel manager is . large. However, the information suggests that the chief executives, regardless of the size of firm, view the personnel executive as a source Of help on matters that are primarily Operational or problemroriented, rather than broad, strategic, organizational, or longbterm.matters. I A major finding of this study is that, in general, line—staff conflict in the personnel function is not a critical issue in either large or small firms. 175 The data show that the majority of personnel respondents in both size groups see relatively little conflict between their department and other depart— ments in their company. In addition, most of the personnel respondents in both sample groups have favorable views about the changes taking place in line-staff relations. The majority Of chief executives and Operating executives in both size groups also report experi- encing little or no conflict in current line—staff relations. The chief executives in both groups, how- ever, are more Optimistic about changes taking place in.1ine-staff relations than are the Operating executives. The personnel executives in both size groups indicate that improvements in the attitudes of line management and top management and a better record of success on the part of the personnel department are the main factors which they consider instrumental in determining the line-staff relations existing in their firms. Several moderate differences are noted when their responses are analyzed by size of firm. For the most part, the chief executives and the Operating executives in both sample groups do not agree about the factors accounting for relations be- tween the personnel department and other departments 176 in their firms. However, they do agree that one Of the major determinants is the improved attitude of line management. When the three types of executives are compared with respect to the factors accounting for line-staff relations, there are many differences in both small and large firms. It isnoted, however, that all of the executives in both small and large firms agree that improvement in the attitudes of line management is an important factor. The data in this study show that there are no substantial differences in the distribution of the personnel executives' current goals by size of firm, although the personnel executives in small firms are moderately more interested in establishing better re- lations with line and top management. Both sample groups indicate that they are more concerned about programs than they are about productivity and effi- ciency, organization planning, personnel policies, and relationships with line and tOp management. Although the personnel respondents in both size groups are in positions to influence top levels of management, the data provide evidence of the personnel respondents' concentrated interest in programmatic goals and their relative disinterest in broader cor— porate matters, regardless of the size Of firm. 177' The data in the study {also indicate that the personnel respondents in both groups appear to be spending their (time on concerns other than those for which their goals are set. For example, whereas both sample groups have goals which are concentrated on programs, most Of their time is spent on matters re- . lated to labor relations, administration of the per- sonnel department, and personnel techniques--none of which are. considered major goals by either grOup of respondents. Although a number of personnel activities are important to all executives, when the data are analyzed by size of firm, there are considerable variations in their response patterns. - The study finds substantial disagreement among .- the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the Operating executives in both small and large firms concerning changes in their expectations during the past five years. ‘ Regardless Of the size of firm, the personnel respondents, compared with the chief executive and Operating respondents, report more changes in their expectations. .In general, most of the executives whose expec-' tations changed during the last five years mention two areas: better understanding, increased 178 participation, and more cooperation from the personnel department as well as better results from the personnel department. With respect to improvement in results or ef- fectiveness of personnel management desired by the three types of executives for the next five years, all of the groups express considerable concern for improvements in the areas of personnel programs and economic productivity and efficiency, although there are variations within these general categories. In contrast, few of the executives express interest in improving organization planning, personnel policies, or relationships with top or line management. An examination of the data by size of firm, however, reveals a number of differences in.the responses of the three types of executives. In general, regardless of the size of firm, the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the Operating executives seem to agree more about the improvements they want in the future than about the changes they expected in the past. The study finds that both groups of personnel executives are sensitive to a number of limitations on their general effectiveness. Both groups report that the pressure of details is the major factor 179 limiting their effectiveness. Executives in small firms are moderately more sensitive to a lack of tOp management support and executives in large firms ex- press a greater awareness of the lack of well-trained personnel workers. In terms of the field of personnel management in general, regardless of the size of firm, the greatest criticisms of the field are made by personnel executives; the next greatest criticisms are made by chief executives; and the least criticisms are made by operating executives. The data indicate that the personnel executives in both sample groups who are critical provide three major kinds of criticism about the personnel field: weaknesses of the personnel department, lack of recog- nition or acceptance, and poor public relations. The major criticism.mentioned by the chief execur tives in both groups is the personnel executives' lack of line or general management knowledge. This is one of the greatest criticisms made. Only two issues seem to bother the Operating executives in small and large firms. These are the weaknesses and limitations of the personnel department and the lack of line or general management knowledge. 180 In comparing the various executives with respect to their criticisms of the field of personnel manage- ment, several differences are noted. When analyzed by size of firm, the data regard— ing additional knowledge and training which the three types of executives feel personnel executives need to meet present standards and to make significant future advances show many variations. The study finds that the chief executives and Operating executives in both small and large firms identify a number Of strengths which they believe the personnel executives bring to their work. However, the data does show that differences of opinion exist between.the chief executives and the Operating execu~ tives in.both small and large firms. In general, the respondents in large firms are more aware and appre- ciative of the personnel head's strengths. The three types Of executives also mention using many quantitative criteria for evaluating the effec- tiveness of personnel management. In general, the criteria mentioned.most frequently by the three types of executives in both sample groups are improved ab- senteeism, turnover, and safety; savings in labor re- lations; an adequate supply of manpower; and lower manpower costs. A detailed analysis by size of finm, however, reveals some differences in response patterns. 181 Regardless of the size of firm, the three types of executives also use a number of qualitative criteria to evaluate their personnel departments. The data in- dicate that two criteria are used most frequently by the executives. These criteria relate to program effectiveness and higher employee morale and better communications. Analysis of the data by size of firm, however, indicates several differences in the patterns of response. Regardless of the size of firm, the data Show that most Of the executives participating in the study agree that the pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management is gradual, although more intensive analysis of their responses reveals various discrepancies. In general, there is little disagreement among the three types of executives, regardless of the size ~ of firm, regarding the degree of change expected in the activities performed by the personnel department during the next five years. Between two-fifths and two-thirds of the various executives, in.both small and large firms, expect moderate change in most ac- tivities. Closer examination, however, discloses areas in which there are departures from this pattern. 182 One important fact that both personnel groups established in this study is that a large number of personnel activities have been reassigned during the past five years. The personnel respondents in both sample groups report that most of these functions have been created as new responsibilities or transferred to the personnel department. With respect to how changes in the personnel function will affect personnel departments in the future, many of the executives participating in the study expect that there will be a greater number of specialties in personnel and an increase in personnel costs. In addition, a number of executives anticipate a greater centralization of personnel decisions and a need for increased resources. When the responses of the executives are analyzed by size of firm, however, a number of variances are noted. Personnel Please return one copy to: Executive’s American Management Association Questionnaire Research & Information Service 135 W. 50th Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10020 MANAGING THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION Definition. Throughout this questionnaire the term personnel manage ment is used to include all phases of employee relations, including labor relations. It applies to all levels of managers as well as to rank-and- file employees. These areas of responsibility are also commonly termed industrial relations, employee relations, and personnel administration. The terms “personnel department" and “personnel function” apply to the top staff group discharging the responsibilities of personnel management. 1. How long have you been in your present position? years. How much time out of your average work week do you spend with your chief executive on matters relat- ing to personnel management? [3 Less than 5% D From 10 to 25% [:I From S to 10% [1 Over 25% In what general areas is most of this time spent? How much time out of your average work week do you spend with managers in non-personnel functions on matters of personnel management? [3 Less than 5% D From 10 to 25% [:I From 5 to 10% [3 Over 25% In what general areas is most of this time Spent? What personnel responsibilities and decisions does your chief executive reserve to himself? What do you currently regard as the main basic goals of your department? 185 184 6. Above and beyond the ongoing duties of your department, what important improvements in results or effectiveness of the personnel function do you desire to bring about within the next 5 years? 7. To perform your work effectively, what additional areas of knowledge or training do you believe you will have to acquire . . . 0 To meet present standards? 0 To make significant advances in effectiveness? 8. Within the last 2 years, what concerns Of personnel management have occupied the largest blocks of your personal time? Please choose 5 Of the items below. Rank each item according to the relative amount of time you have spent on it. (1 2 most time spent, 2 2 second most time, etc.) [3 administration of the personnel department [3 labor relations [3 personnel policy development [3 negotiations personnel policy implementation [3 contract administration organization planning employee benefits executive and/or professional employment employee services appraisals of performance morale building training wage and salary administration QUEBEC] profit improvement health and safety [3 individual productivity records and reports [3 overhead control manpower forecasting, manpower planning Cl management development personnel questions in acquisitions DDDDUDDDD Cl communications to employees psychological testing 8: counseling Cl U personnel research other (please describe) 185 9. Within the past 5 years, have important duties of personnel management . . . 0 been created as personnel department responsibilities? E] Yes D No (If yes, describe briefly) 0 been transferred to the personnel department from another department? D Yes [3 No (If yes, describe briefly) 0 been transferred from the personnel department to another department? [3 Yes D No (If yes, describe briefly) 10. Within the next 5 years, do you believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will increase [3 or decrease [j ? Why? 11. As a personnel executive, how would you classify the present pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management? [J Quite slow [:I Rapid D Gradual [j Revolutionary 12. Which of these possible effects will be consequences of the changes in the function? Check all which will result. [:1 Increased resources will be needed. E] Per capita personnel management costs will be reduced. [:I Per capita personnel management costs will increase. [:1 Total personnel management costs will be lower. C] The personnel department will report to a higher management level. D A greater number of personnel decisions will become centralized. E] The number of personnel specialties will increase. D The personnel department will generate its funds through interdepartmental charges. 186 13. For each of the following responsibilities that may be found in a personnel department, please indicate (by \/) the degree of change that you expect will occur within your own company, in the next 5 years. By “change” we mean improvement in techniques for discharging each responsibility. If some of these responsibilities are not presently assigned to your department, please indicate by “NA”. Great Moderate Little improvement improvement improvement in techniques in techniques in techniques WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS will occur will occur will occur 3) Personnel policy development b) Personnel policy implementation c) Organization planning d) Executive and/or professional employment e) Morale building f) Training g) Individual productivity h) Overhead control i) Management development j) Communications to employees k) Negotiations with labor unions 1) Employee benefits m) Employee services n) Appraisals of performance o) Wage and salary administration p) Health and safety q) Psychological testing 8:. counseling r) Manpower forecasting & planning 5) Personnel research Comments: ll 187 14. How would you describe line-staff relations between your department and other departments in your company? Check both left and right columns. E] Little or no conflict is present C The situation is improving E] Moderate conflict exists [3 The situation is stable [:1 Considerable conflict exists C The situation is getting worse. 15. What factors account for the situation you have indicated in your answers to the last question? 16. Do you have any criticisms or reservations about the field of personnel management in general? Please comment: 17. How have the expectations of the top officers of your company changed within the last 5 years, with respect to personnel management? 18. What factors inhibit your ability to do the best job that you are capable of doing? 19. Please list the most important criteria by which the effectiveness of personnel management in your company can be measured by the chief executive. a) Quantitative Criteria: b) Qualitative Criteria: 188 To receive a complimentary c0py of the completed report, please list: Name Company __.______ Street & Number City State Zip Please note the following information about your company and self: 0 Number of employees in company: [3 Over 5000 E] Between 1000 and 5000 2 Under 1000 0 Principal industry classification (5) 0 To whom do you report? Title: 0 Number of exempts in your department c Number of exempts in personnel function in company as a whole 0 Your age . Length of time with present company years. 0 Number of years in staff , and operating (line) positions. 0 College Major 7, . Degree(s) s THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE 189 President’s Please return one copy to: Questionnaire American Management Association Research St Information Service 135 W. 50 St.,N.Y.,N.Y.,10020 THE PRESIDENT'S VIEW OF THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION Definition. Throughout this questionnaire the term personnel management is used to include all phases of employee relations, including labor relations. It applies to all levels of managers as well as to rank-and- file employees. These areas of responsibility are also commonly termed industrial relations, employee relations, and personnel administration. The terms “personnel department” and “personnel function" apply to the top staff group discharging the responsibilities of personnel management. 1. Did you appoint the man who heads your personnelfunction? Yes [3 No C] 2. What are the main strengths the head of personnel brings to his work? Graduate degree in business administration. Background in operating management. Legal or collective bargaining experience. Good planner. Decision maker and problem solving ability. Knows what to delegate and what to work on himself. An effective organizer. Ability to get things done through people, with minimum wear 8i tear. Accepts responsibility and seeks challenge. A good communicator, able to represent the view of management. Keeps costs in line. Strong executive recruiting abilities 8:. good insight into people. He is profit oriented. He has a top management view of the company’s business and interests. DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Other (please describe) 3. How much time out of your average work week do you spend with the head of personnel on matters relat- ing to personnel management? D Less than 5% D From 10 to 25% D From 5 to 10% [3 Over 25% In what general areas is most of this time spent? _ 190 4. How much time out of your average work week do you personally spend on personnel matters of all kinds? D Less than 10% D From 25 to 50% [3 From 10 to 25% [3 Over 50% In what general areas is most of this time spent? 5. What do you, as president, regard as the major personnel responsibilities and decisions that you cannot delegate, but must reserve to yourself alone? 6. What is the highest management level for which you have asked the head of personnel to suggest D , screen for D , or recruit for [j , men to fill a vacancy? Title: 7. Is the head of the personnel function a regular member of your executive committee? Yes [:1 No r—l If no, do you expect him to participate in some of the executive committee meetings? Yes D No [_ 8. Of which management committees is the head of personnel a member? 9. Above and beyond the ongoing duties of the personnel department, what important improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management do you desire the department to bring about within the next five years? 10. What additional areas of knowledge or training do you believe the head of personnel will have to acquire . . 0 To meet present standards? 0 To make significant advances in effectiveness? 191 11. Within the last 2 years, what concerns of personnel management have occupied the largest blocks of your time in this area? Please choose 5 of the items below. Rank each item according to the relative amount of time you have spent on it. (1 —‘ most time spent, 2 : second most time, etc.) C] administration of the personnel department DUDDDDC} DUE] personnel policy development personnel policy implementation organization planning executive and/or professional employment morale building training profit improvement [3 individual productivity D overhead control management development communications to employees personnel research F—fi l DDDDDUDDU labor relations fl . . l negotiations j contract administration employee benefits employee services appraisals of performance wage and salary administration health and safety manpower forecasting, manpower planning personnel questions in acquisitions psychological testing 8'. counseling other (please describe) 12. On which of the following kinds of activities do you yourself normally consult the head of personnel (among others) before taking action? Strategic Planning D Deciding on S-year objectives for the company. D Identifying business areas for future diversification. D (3 Increasing the extent of automated processes within the company. Choosing new plant locations. Operational Planning [:1 Deciding on changes in employee benefit plans. DDDUDDD Screening acquisition possibilities. Preparing agenda for board of directors meetings. Formulating key objectives or performance standards for your job. Formulating key objectives or performance standards for other corporate officers. Deciding on marketing strategy for the year ahead. Making cost reduction plans. Laying plans for-improvement of productivity. 192 Organization E] Modifying the corporate organization structure. [3 Determining boundaries of authority of individual officers or departments. Control E] Establishing nonfinancial controls such as staffing ratios. E] Establishing a company climate for budget preparation. [:I Controlling growth in number of overhead employees. [1 Setting policy on expense accounts. Company Relationships [:1 Appointment of liaison officer between company and Government agencies. D Amount and placement of corporate contributions, educational and other. D Deciding where and when to make speeches, in or out of local community. D Communicating with employees. Decisions About People D Promoting, transfering or relocating top executives. C] Appointments to top management committees. E] Involuntary resignation or retirement of executives. [:] Suggesting candidates for directorships or officer-level posts.. E] Setting compensation ranges for top-executive posts. Collective Bargaining [3 Determining the company position before negotiations. E] Selecting those who will negotiate for the company. E] Deciding on the final contract to be signed. Are there other activities at a comparable level for which you would seek the consultation of the head of personnel? Comment; 193 13. For each of the following responsibilities that may be found in a personnel department, please indicate (by V) the degree of change that you expect will occur within your own company, in the next 5 years. By “change” we mean improvement in techniques for discharging each responsibility. If some of these responsibilities are not presently assigned to the personnel department, please indicate by “NA”. Great Moderate Little improvement improvement improvement in techniques in techniques in techniques WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS will occur will occur will occur a) Personnel policy develOpment b) Personnel policy implementation c) Organization planning d) Executive and/ or professional employment- e) Morale building 0 Training g) Individual productivity h) Overhead control i) Management development j) Communications to employees Ir) Negotiations with labor unions I) Employee benefits m) Employee services n) Appraisals of performance o) Wage and salary administration p) Health and safety q) Psychological testing & counselling r) Manpower forecasting & planning 3) Personnel research Comments: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 194 Within the next 5 years, do you believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will increase [3 , or decrease [:1 ? Why? As president, how would you classify the present pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management? D Quite slow E] Rapid, E] Gradual ' D Revolutionary Which of these possible effects will be consequences of the changes in the function? Check all which will result. Increased resources will be needed. Per capita personnel management costs will be reduced. Per capita personnel management costs will increase. Total personnel management costs will be lower. The personnel department will report to a higher management level. A greater number of personnel decisions will become centralized. The number of personnel specialties will increase. DDDDDUDD The personnel department will generate its funds through interdepartmental charges. How would you describe line-staff relations between the personnel department and other departments in your company? Check both left and right columns. E] Little or no conflict is present [3 The situation is improving [3 Moderate conflict exists [3 The situation is stable [:1 Considerable conflict exists E] The situation is getting worse What factors account for the situation you have indicated in your answers to the last question? Do you have any criticisms or reservations about the field of personnel management in general? Please comment. 20. How have your expectations changed within the last 5 years, with respect to personnel management? 195 21. Please list the most important criteria by which the effectiveness of personnel management in your company can be measured by the chief executive. a. Quantitative Criteria: b. Qualitative Criteria: To receive a complimentary copy of the completed report, please list: Name Company Street & Number City State Zip Please note the following information about your company and self: 0 Number of employees in company: ‘ [:1 Over 5000 D Between 1000 and 5000 D Under 1000 0 Principal industry classification(s) 0 To whom does the head of personnel report? Title: 0 Are you the chief executive officer of the company? Yes E] No D 0 Your age . Length of time with present company years. 0 Number of years in staff , and Operating (line) positions. a Number of years as president THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE 196 Operating Please return one copy to: Executive’s American Management Association Questioi.. "a Research 8: Information Service 135 W. 50th Street, N.Y., N.Y., 10020 THE OPERATING EXECUTIVE’S VIEW OF THE PERSONNEL FUNCTION Definition. Throughout this questionnaire the term personnel management is used to include all phases of employee relations, including labor relations. It applies to all levels of managers as well as to rank-and- file employees. These areas of responsibility are also commonly termed industrial relations, employee relations, and personnel administration. The terms “personnel department” and “personnel function” apply to the top staff group discharging the responsibilities of personnel management. 1. How long have you known the present head of personnel?______ years. 2. Does the head of personnel report directly to the president? Yes D No C] 3. From your point of view, what are the main strengths the head of personnel brings to his work? [3 Graduate degree in business administration. [:I Background in Operating management. D Legal or collective bargaining experience. Good planner.~ Decision maker and problem solving ability. Knows what to delegate and what to work on himself. An effective organizer. Ability to get things done through people, with minimum wear & tear. Accepts responsibility and seeks challenge. A good communicator, able to represent the view of management. Keeps costs in line. Strong executive recruiting abilities & good insight into people. He is profit oriented. He has a top management view of the company’s business and interests. DDDDDDDDDDDD Other (please describe) 197 4. How much time out of your average work week do you spend with a personnel executive on matters of personnel management? [:] Less than 5% D From 10 to 25% D From 5 to 10% D Over 25% In what general areas is most of this time spent? 5. How much time out of your average work week do you personally spend on personnel matters? [:1 Less than 10% D From 25 to 50% C] From 10 to 25% [3 Over 50% In what general areas is most of this time spent? 6. As the head of a major operating function of management, what do you regard as the important personnel responsibilities which you must reserve to yourself for action or decision? 7. Within the last 2 years, what concerns of personnel management have occupied the largest blocks of your time in this area? Please choose 5 of the items below. Rank each item according to the relative amount of time you have Spent on it. (1 2 most time spent, 2 = second most time, etc.) [3 DODGE] personnel policy development personnel policy implementation organization planning executive and/or professional employment morale building training profit improvement E] individual productivity [3 overhead control management development communications to employees [3 other (please describe) [3 labor relations D negotiations [:] contract administration [3 employee benefits [3 employee services D appraisals of performance wage and salary administration DU health and safety .1 (_4 manpower forecasting, manpower planning l L- personnel questions in acquisitions f]. U psychological testing & counseling 10. 11. 12. 13. 198 How has the personnel department assisted you in dealing with these matters? Above and beyond the ongoing duties of the personnel department, what important improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management do you desire the department to bring about within the next five years? What additional areas of knowledge or training do you believe the head of personnel will have to acquire . . . . e To meet present standards? e To make significant advances in effectiveness? Within the next five years do you believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will increase C] or decrease [Z] ? Why? As an operating executive, how would you classify the present pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management? E] Quite slow [3 Rapid E] Gradual S E] Revolutionary Which of these possible effects do you believe will be consequences of the changes in the function? Check all which will result. Increased resources will be needed. Per capita personnel management costs will be reduced. Per capita personnel management costs will increase. Total personnel management costs will be lower. The personnel department will report to a higher management level. A greater number of personnel decisions will become centralized. The number of personnel specialties will increase. UDDDDDDD The personnel department will generate its funds through interdepartmental charges. 199 14. For each of the following responsibilities that maybe found in a personnel department, please indicate (by \./) the degree of change that you expect will occur within your own company, in the next 5 years. By “change” we mean improvement in techniques for discharging each responsibility. If some of these responsibilities are not, to your knowledge, presently assigned to the personnel department, please indicate by “NA”. WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS Great Moderate improvement improvement in techniques in techniques will occur will occur Little improvement in techniques will occur 8) Personnel policy development b) Personnel policy implementation C) Organization planning d) Executive and/or professional employment 8) Morale building Training 8) Individual productivity 11) Overhead control 1) Management development 1') Communications to employees k) Negotiations with labor unions 1) Employee benefits m) Employee services n) Appraisals of performance 0) Wage and salary administration 9) Health and safety q) Psychological testing and counseling r) Manpower forecasting & planning 8) Personnel research Comments: p—A 'JI 16. 17. 18. 19. 200 How would you describe line-staff relations between your department and the personnel department in your company? Check both left and right columns. B Little or no conflict is present l: The situation is improving D Moderate conflict exists a The situation is stable [I Considerable conflict exists [3 The situation is getting worse What factors account for the situation you have indicated in your answers to the last question? Do you have any criticisms or reservations about the field of personnel management in general? Please comment: Are there any areas in which you do not get enough help from the personnel department? Please comment: How have your expectations of the personnel department changed within the last 5 years, with respect to personnel management? Please list the most important criteria by which, in your judgement, the effectiveness of personnel management can be measured? a) Quantitative Criteria:_ h) Qualitative Criteria: 201 I.) P2111? d Lt-in..‘.li'“n.;.;' . 1~ ( ‘w‘ u .. t' . ~,, l :r“.'.'.:'., l.w.e.~‘d::~t:l18l (Z t:- mpa n y Street 8;. Number City_ State__ Zip_____ Us Please note the following information about your company and self: a Number of employees in company: S Over 5000 E Between 1000 and 5000 B Under 1000 0 Principal industry classification(s) 0 To whom does the head of personnel report? Title: 0 Title of your department 0 Your age . Length of time with present company years. 0 Number of years in staff , and operating (line) positions. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE 6 APPENDIX B CODING SYSTEM Leggth of time personnel executives ve een in e resen 03 one The personnel executives were asked to indicate, in terms of years, how long they have been in their present positions. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: I (l) l to 5 years. (2) 6 to 10 years. (5) 11 to 14 years. (4) 15 to 19 years. (5) 20 years and over. Leggth of time personnel executives ve een e r presen ms The personnel executives were asked to indicate, in terms of years, how long they have been employed by their present companies. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: . (1) l to 5 years. (2) 6 to 10 years. 202 205 (3) 11 to 14 years. (4) 15 to 19 years. (5) 20 years and over. Percenta e of work week executives s an in on re a ions ps The personnel executives were asked to indicate how much time out of their average work week they spend with the chief executive and managers in nonper- sonnel functions on matters of personnel management. In turn, the chief executives and operating executives were asked to indicate how much time out of their average work week they spend with the head of personnel on matters relating to personnel management. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Less than 5%. (2) From 5 to 10%. (3) From 10 to 25%. (4) Over 25%. Leggth of time operatiraig executives ve wn presen ea 0 Jersome The operating executives were asked to indicate, in terms of years, how long they have known the present head of personnel. I The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: 204 (l) 1 to 4 years. (2) 5 to 9 years. (3) 10 to 14 years. (4) 15 to 20 years. (5) 20 years and over. Percentage of work week chief executives EEL_JflEflg%JEEEEEESEET$Z§§_E§2§L_22: personne ma ers o a n s The chief executives and operating executives were asked to indicate how mmch.time out of their average work week they personally spend on personnel matters of all kinds. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Less than 10%. (2) From 10 to 25%. (5) From 25 to 50%. (4) Over 50%. Types of subjects with which executives deal’ingjoinf’sessions The personnel executives were asked to indicate the general areas in which they spend.most of their time with their chief executive and.managers in.non~ personnel functions. In.turn, the chief executives and the operating executives were asked to indicate the general areas in.which they spend most of their time with the head of personnel. 205 The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) (2) (5) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Labor relations problems and policies. Personnel procedures and techniques. Policy matters (excluding labor relations). Economic matters (costs and efficiency). Organization design and manpower planning. Departmental planning and administration. Motivation, communication, and human relations. Public, community, and government relations. Personnel areas chief executives and operating executives do not délegate The chief executives and operating executives were asked to indicate the major perSonnel responsi- bilities and decisions that they cannot delegate, but must reserve to themselves alone. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) Organization structure and design. Final decisions on.major issues or policies. wage and Salary decisions. Labor relations decisions. 206 (5) Miscellaneous. (6) MOrale and motivation problems. (7) Personnel budgets or cost changes. Activities about which chief executives consult head ofPEersonnel The chief executives were asked to indicate the activities about which they normally consult the head of personnel (among others) before taking action. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Strategic planning. (2) Operational planning. (5) Organization. (4) Control. (5) Company relationships. (6) Decisions about people. (7) Collective bargaining. (8) Other. Le h of time ersonnel executives have Speng in operatingIIineipositIons The personnel executives were asked to indicate the number of years they have spent in operating (line) positions. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: 207 (l) 1 to 5 years. (2) 6 to 10 years. (3) 11 to 14 years. (4) 15 to 19 years. (5) 20 to 29 years. (6) 30 years and over. ve 8 en in s : os ons The personnel executives were asked to indicate the number of years they have spent in staff positions. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) l to 5 years. (2) 6 to 10 years. (3) 11 to 1# years. (4) 15 to 19 years. (5) 20 to 29 years. (6) BO years and over. Conflict in line-staff relations reportediby‘executives The three types of executives were asked to _ describe line-staff relations between.the personnel department and other departments in.their companies in terms of the existence of conflict. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: 208 (1) Little or no conflict is present. (2) Moderate conflict exists. (5) Considerable conflict exists. Change in line-staff relations reported‘byexecutives The three types of executives were asked to describe line-staff relations between the personnel department and other departments in their companies in terms of changes in the situation. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) The situation is improving. (2) The situation is stable. (5) The situation is getting worse. Factors accounting for relations between personnel department and other departments—in the irm The three types of executives were asked to identify factors which they believe account for the line-staff relations between the personnel department and other departments in their companies. ' The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Better human relations in the company. (2) Improved line management attitudes. (5) Changes in organization structure. (4) (5) (6) (7) 209 Better record of personnel department.. Improved top management attitudes. Personnel function.more important. Personnel is a new function. Educational level of personnel executives The personnel executives were asked to indicate their educational degree(s). The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) Bachelor's degree. Master's degree. Law degree. Doctor's degree. College major of_personnel executives The personnel executives were asked to indiCate their college major. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Business administration. VHumanities and education. Behavioral science. Engineering. Law. Natural science. Government. 210 Reportingprelationships offpersonfie1 executives The personnel executives were asked to indicate to whom.they report. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Chairman of the board. (2) President. (5) Executive vice president or group vice president. (4) Treasurer, secretary, or controller. (5) Line vice president. (6) Staff vice president. (7) Manager or superintendent. Chief executives who re ort whether Head of ersonnel function is reEfiIar member 0 executive committee The chief executives were asked to indicate whether the head of the personnel function.is a regular member of their executive ccmmittee. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. 211 Chief executives who e ect head of personnel function to artIci ate In same of the executive committee meetings The chief executives were asked, if the head of the personnel function is not a regular member of their executive committee, whether they expect him.to parti— cipate in some of the executive committee meetings. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. ement committees of which ersonne ea s a mem er The chief executives were asked to indicate the management committees of which the head of personnel is a member. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: General management committees: (1) Executive policy; (2) Ions-range planning. (3) President's staff. Specialized committees: (4) Salary. (5) Operations. (6) Employee benefits. (7) Human relations. (8) (9) (10) (11) 212 Personnel policy. Safety. Public relations. Finance or budget. Number of exempts in personnel deflent The personnel executives were asked to indicate the number of exempts in their departments . The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 5 employees or fewer. 6 to 10 employees. 11 to 20 employees. 21 to 50 employees. 31 to 50 employees. 50 or more employees. Number of exe ts in ersonnel function 33 film as a wEEIe The personnel executives were asked to: indicate the number of exempts in the personnel function in the comparw as a whole. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) 5 employees or fewer. (2) 6 to 10 employees. (5) 11 to 20 employees. 215 (4) 21 to 50 employees. (5) 31 to 50 employees. (6) 50 or more employees. Current goals of personnel department The personnel executives. were asked to indicate what they currently regard as the main goals of their departments. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Manpower development programs. (2) Human relations programs. (5) Labor relations programs. (4) Productivity and efficiency of company. (5) Productivity and efficiency of employees. (6) Productivity and efficiency of personnel department. (7) Organization planning and design. (8) Personnel policies. Most time-conspp¥ activities and concerns 2 o execu ves ur pg ES . years 9 , The three types of executives were asked to. indi- cate the concerns of personnel management which occu- pied the largest blocks of their time during the last two years. They were asked to select five concerns 214 and to rank each concern according to the relative amount of time they have Spent on it. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Personnel policy development. (2) Personnel policy implementation. (5) Organizational planning. (4) Executive and/or professional employment. (5) Morale building. (6) Training. (7) Profit improvement. (8) Individual productivity. (9) Overhead control. (10) Management development. (11) Communications to employees. (12) Labor relations. (15) Negotiations. (14) Contract administration. (15) Employees benefits. (16) Employees services. (1?) Appraisals of performance. (18) wage and salary administration. (19) Health and safety. (20) Manpower forecasting, manpower planning. _ 215 (21) Personnel questions in acquisitions. (22) Psychological testing and counseling. (23) Other (please describe). Changes in executives' expectations of personnel management duripg past five years The personnel executives were asked to indicate how the expectations of the top officers of their come panies changed within the last five years, with re- spect to personnel management. The chief executives and the operating executives were asked to indicate how their expectations of the personnel department changed within the last five years, with respect to personnel management. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Better understanding, respect, influence, participation, or cooperation. (2) More or better results from department. (5) More emphasis on or acceptance of personnel techniques. (4) No changes perceived. Im rovements in results or effectiveness of personnel mana ement de81red 5 executives for neEt five years The personnel executives were asked to identify important improvements in results or effectiveness of 216 the personnel function which they desire to bring about 'within'the next five years. ‘The chief executives and operating executives were asked to identify important improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management which they desire the department to bring about within the next five years. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Manpower development programs. (2) Human relations programs. (5) Labor relations programs. (4) Productivity and efficiency of company; (5) Productivity and efficiency of employees. (6) Productivity and efficiency of personnel department. (7) Relations with top or line management. (8) Policies. (9) Organization planning and design. Factors that ersonnel executives EeIIeve inhibit their effectiveness The personnel executives were asked to identify_ factors which they believe inhibit their ability'to do the best job they are capable of doing. . The coding categories used fer this unstructured question are as follows: 217 (1) Pressure of details. (2) PoorLy trained or insufficient number of personnel workers. (3) Lack of access to or acceptance by tOp management. (4) Personal limitations. (5) Lack of line management acceptance or understanding. (6) Bureaucratic factors in.company. (7) Lack of funds or resources. Executives' criticisms or reservations conce . .- -e e . o‘ oersonne u:-=;ement The three types of executives were asked to identify any criticisms or reservations they have ‘ about the field of personnel management in general. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Department's own weaknesses. ' (2) Lack of recognition and acceptance. (3) No future for advancement. (4) Pressure of details.’ (5) Lack of resources. (6) No basis for evaluating pregress. (7) Too much emphasis on.techniques. (8) Poor public relations.‘ (9) Lack of line or general management knowledge by personnel executives. 218 Areas in which ersonnel de artment assisted operatingexecutives duringppast two years The operating executives were asked to identify areas in which the personnel department assisted them during the past two years. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Advice, counsel, and direct assistance. (2) Development of new or current - personnel policies or programs. (3) Information, reports, records, and research. (4) Manpower acquisition and development. (5) wage, appraisal, and benefit programs. (6) Labor relations. (7) Organization planning. (8) Morale, motivation, human relations. Areas in.which operati executives receive - Weient help from personneI deparfient The Operating executives were asked to indicate any areas in which.they do not receive enough.he1p from. the personnel department. The coding categories used for this unstructured question.are as follows: (1) Improving or administering policies, planning, or research. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) 219 Problems of organization planning and design. - 4 Employment programs and problems. Problems of motivation, morale, and human relations. Executive development and employee training and appraisal. Labor relations,grievances, and disciplinary action. Economic problems: wages, salaries, pensions, and safety. Additional areas of knowlegge and r %g nee e y personne execut ves o mee present standards The three types of executives were asked to indi- cate additional areas of knowledge and training they believe the head of personnel will have to acquire in order to meet present standards. The coding categories used for this unstructured question.are as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Quantitative skills. Labor relations skills. Behavioral science knowledge. Line or general management. knowledge. Fringe benefits knowledge. New personnel techniques. 220 Additional areas of knowledge and training neededfby personnel executives to make EIEEITiEant advances in eTTECtiveness The three types of executives were asked to indi- cate additional areas of knowledge and training they believe the head of personnel will have to acquire in order to make significant advances in effectiveness. . The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: (1) Quantitative skills.- (2) Labor relations skills. (5) Behavioral science knowledge. (4) Line or general management knowledge. (5) Fringe benefits knowledge. ' (6) New personnel techniques. Main strengths attributed to head of personnel pygchieftexecutives and operating executives The chief executives and operating executives were asked to identify the main strengths which the~ head of personnel brings to his work. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Graduate degree in business administration. (2) Background in operating management. (5) Legal or collective-bargaining experience. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) '(10) (ll) (12) (13) (14) 221 Good planner. Decision.maker and problem-solving ability. Knows what to delegate and what to work on himself. ' An effective organizer. Ability to get things done through peOple, with.minimum.wear and.tear. Accepts responsibility and seeks challenge.‘ A good communicator, able to represent the view of management. Keeps costs in line. Strong executive recruiting abili-» ties and good insight into peOple. He is profit-oriented. He has a top management view of the company's business and interests. gpantitative criteria for evaluating e e ectiveness of personnel management The personnel executives and the chief executives were asked to list the most important quantitative cri- teria by which the effectiveness of personnel manage- ment in their companies can be measured. The coding categories used for this unstructured question.are as follows: (1) (2) Improved absenteeism, turnover, and safety. Savings in labor contract or grievances handled.’ 222- (5) Adequate supply of manpower. (4) Lower per capita personnel costs. (5) Corporate profit or productivity. (6) Lower manpower costs. (7) Number of programs and services. nglitative criteria for evaluatipg the e ec veness o personne managemen The personnel executives and the chief executives were asked to list the most important qualitative cri- ° teria by which the effectiveness of personnel manage- ment in their companies can be measured. The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: -(1) Effectiveness of programs in meeting company objectives. (2) Higher employee morale, better communication. (3) Reduction of labor troubles. (4) Quality'of personnel policies. (5) Respect and use of programs by line. Pace of c e occurri enerall 1e <_9 personne managemen The three types of executives were asked to classify the present pace of change occurring gener- ally in the field of personnel management. The coding categories used for this structured question.are as follows: 225 (l) Quite slow. (2) Gradual. (5)- Rapid- (4) Revolutionary. Degree of change in personnel activities egpected'by executites during next five years The three types of executives were asked to indi— icate the degree of change (great, moderate, little) that they expect to occur in nineteen personnel activ- iities performed by the personnel department during the next five years. For this purpose, change was defined as improvement in techniques for disCharging each responsibility. ‘ The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) Management develOpment. (2) Organization planning. (5) Training. (4) Manpower forecasting and planning. (5) Appraisals of performance. (6) Communications to employees. (7) wage and salary administration. (8) Individual productivity; (9) Personnel policy development. (10) Personnel policy implementation. (11) Overhead control. (12) (13) (14) (15) ;(15) (17) (18) ((19) 224 Personnel research. Executive and/or professional employment. Testing and counseling. Morale building. Employee benefits. Negotiations with labor unions. Health and safety. 'Employee services. Cpgpges in the ratio of personnel e men em. 0 ees o tota num.er of emplpyees in tirm duringneit-five years The three types of executives were asked to indi- cate whether within the next five years they believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will change. The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) (2) (3) Increase. Decrease. Remain constant. Reasons for changes in ratio of personnel aepartment employees to total number of 4§pp_pyees 1n 1rm duripg next five years The three types of executives were asked to give Jreasons for changes in the ratio of personnel depart-o mnent employees to total number of employees in the firm during the next five years. 225 The coding categories used for this unstructured question are as follows: I ‘ (1) Increased responsibilities. (2) Increased size or complexity of - company. (3) Increased effectiveness or complexity of techniques. (4) Better understanding of personnel functions. (5) Increased union problems. (6) Changes in technology, computers and automation. (7) New laws or governmental controls. (8) Departments overstaffed. Personnel executives who re ort modifications 5 ersonnel ement res nsIBEEIi'tIes and ersonne? executives wES 33 not re rt mofifications in personneI mement resppnsi 51'11'ties ' The personnel executives were asked to indicate whether important duties of personnel management have been created as personnel department responsibilities, transferred to the personnel department from another department, and transferred from the personnel depart- ment to another department. The‘coding categories used for these structured questions are as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. 225 Modifications in personnel management responsibilities - The personnel executives were asked to identify the important duties created as personnel department _ responsibilities, transferred to the personnel depart- ment from another department , and transferred from the personnel department to another department . The coding categories used for these unstructured questions are as follows: i (l) Enployee benefits, insurance, wage and salary. (2) Health, safety, and employee services. (5) hecutive employment and development . (4) Personnel policy making and - implementation. ( 5) Manpower planning and utilization. (6) Labor relations and collective bargaining. (7) Organization planning and design. (8) Public relations and government relations. , a (9) Record keeping, data processing and office administration. Conseqpences of c es inthe personnef unc 1on The three types of executives were asked to identify the possible effects which they believe will be consequences .of the changes in the personnel function. 133‘ - _._-— 227 The coding categories used for this structured question are as follows: (1) (2) (5) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Increased resources will be needed. Per capita personnel management costs will be reduced. Per capita personnel management costs will increase. Total personnel management costs will be lower. The personnel department will report to a higher management level. A greater number of personnel decisions will become centralized. The number of personnel specialties will increase. The personnel department will generate its funds through interdepartmental charges. APPENDIX C RATIONALE OF THE QUESTIONS El DEVELOPED FOR THE STUDY The analysis in this section is based, in part, on the information contained in Dalton E. McFarland's study, Coppany Officers Assess the Personnel Function.l Interrelationships in Administering The Personnel Function The personnel executive, the chief executive, and operating executives in any business organization make up a working team that is vital to the personnel function. Therefore, it is important to examine their relationships with each other and to focus on those aspects of these relationships which have a bearing on the administrative behavior of the three types of executives. An analysis of these aspects within a framework of selected organizational problems in per- sonnel management was made. The analysis consisted of .five major parts: the amounts of time the three 1Dalton E. McFarland, Company Officers Assess tflie Personnel Function, Ameribanfflanagement Association Ifiésearch Study,’79 (New York: American Management Association, Inc., 1967). 228 229 executives spend with each other; the types of work they perform when they are together; the total amount of time the chief executives and operating executives devote to personnel matters of all kinds; the person- nel activities which the chief executives and oper- ating executives do not delegate; and the relation- ships between line and staff in.general. To 1earn.more about the relationships of the personnel executives with chief executives and oper- ating executives, a number of questions were drawn up: (1) The personnel executives participating in this study were asked to indicate how long they have been in their present position. This question was designed to indicate whether the personnel respondents have had sufficient time to develop firmly established organizational relationships in their roles as personnel executives. Have they been in their present positions long enough to establish ' programs and achieve measurable results? (2) The personnel executives were also asked to indicate how long they have been with their present company. This question.was designed to indicate whether ‘the personnel respondents have been with their company Zlong enough to develop mature working relationships sand to establish rapport with other executives in their organization, in particular their chief executive and 250 operating executives. Situations where a personnel executive and a chief executive or an operating execu— tive have known each other and worked together for a long period Of time, may, in part, increase the possi- "3? VI at.“ ,. I bility for better working relations between them and produce understandings that make the personnel execu- tive's job less difficult. 3 (5) The personnel executives were asked to estimate the percentage of their work- ing hours which they spend with their chief executives and with managers of nonpersonnel functions. Also, the chief executives and the Operating executives were asked to estimate the time they spend with their personnel managers. These questions measured the amounts of time that the personnel executives and chief executives and personnel executives and operating executives Spend with one another. The greater the interaction rate between the personnel executives and the chief execu— tives and the personnel executives and the Operating executives, the better the relationships are likely to be. Further, the amounts of time the various execu- ‘tives spend with each other is important because they :indicate what opportunities the executives have for communication, joint planning, and other interactions. Phareover, these interaction patterns may greatly in— .flnience the results the personnel executives can ex- pect to achieve. 251 (4) The Operating executives were asked to indicate how long they have known the head of the personnel department in their companies. , This question was asked in order to find out whether the operating executives have known their personnel managers long enough to develop mature working relationships between them. Situations where an Operating executive and a personnel executive have known each other and worked together for a long time may increase the possibility for mature working rela— tions between them.and produce understandings that make the personnel executive's job less difficult. (5) The chief executives and Operating executives were also asked about the total amount of time they devote to all types of personnel matters during a typical work week. This question.was asked in order to see if the chief executives and Operating executives report that a substantial part of their job consists of personnel - matters. The time spent by chief executives and oper- ating executives may, in part, reflect the personnel executive's effectiveness in administering his part of the function. Also, the chief executives or the operating executives may allocate more time tO persOn- 1161 matters because they have greater concern for and nuike greater demands on.the personnel department. (6) The personnel executives, the chief executives, and the Operating execu- tives were asked to indicate the 252 areas dealt with during the course of their interactions.« In addition to the frequency of interaction, it is desirable to know something about the subjects the executives deal with when they work together. Of specific interest is whether the subjects are related more to Operating problems or longer-range, broader- scale problems. (7) The chief executives and operating executives were asked to identify the major personnel responsibilities and decisions that they believe they cannot delegate, but must reserve to themselves alone. This question was asked in order to Obtain a broader perspective of the relationships between the three types of executives. The extent to which various matters are considered delegable by chief executives and Operating executives is a factor of great impor- tance to the personnel function. (8) The chief executives were asked to identify the kinds of activities on which they consult or seek advice from the head of personnel (among others) before taking action. Although chief executives may or may not delegate :responsibility for specific activities, an attempt was lnade to see if they consult or seek advice from their :personnel executives (among others) before taking action (In them. In addition, information was sought to deter- nmine if the range of areas on which the chief executives 255 normally consult their personnel managers is large, and whether the chief executives view their personnel executives as a source of help on matters that are basically Operational or problemeoriented, rather than broad, strategic, organizational, or long-term matters. From one business firm to another, whether small or large, the line-and-staff organization structure is the universal pattern. In nearly every firm large enough to give explicit recognition to a personnel function, that function is related to the total organization through a combined line-and-staff structure. Many administrative problems, such as the cost Of performing personnel work, evaluating the personnel function, etcetera, relate to the basic decisions Of accepting the line-and—staff pattern Of organization. Answers were sought to the following questions: Is line-staff conflict in the personnel function.in.the firms studied a critical issue? Where it does exist, is it improving? Where it is slight, is it stable :rather than.increasing? In addition, how can line-‘ staff relations be improved? (9) The perSonnel executives were asked to indicate the number of years they have spent in line positions. I" 254 This question was asked because actual ex- perience as a line executive is so Often asserted to be important for the effectiveness Of staff work. Having been a former line official during one's career with a firm.may tend to build rapport in the personnel executive-Operating executive relationship. (10) The personnel executives were also asked to indicate the number of years they have spent in staff positions. This question.was asked because, in.part, the more experience the personnel executives have in.etaff positions, the more effective their work will be. The question was also asked in order to compare the personnel executives' staff experience with their line experience. More specifically, are the personnel executives participating in this study more heavily staff-oriented than line-oriented? (11) The three types Of executives were asked to describe conflict in.1ine- staff relations. (12) The three types of executives were also asked to describe the change taking place in line-staff relations. The above questions formed the basis for deter- mining whether line-staff conflict in the firms is a critical issue and whether any change is taking place in line-staff relations. (15) The three types of executives were also asked to identify factors which 235 they consider instrumental in deter- mining line-staff relations in their firms. The question was asked in order tO examine the problem of improving line-and-staff relations. Personnel Activities and Expectations Regarding Personnel Management The head of the personnel function occupies a strategic position in his relationships with his chief executive and with all members of top and middle mane agement. Since the head Of personnel has delegated to him staff responsibilities that affect the well-being of employees, he is considered the focal point Of ac- tivities in which all executives should be greatly interested. Because the personnel executive occupies a key position, his characteristics, his goals, and his ac- tivities are examined. The personnel activities of the chief executive and the operating executives are also examined. In addition, an effort is also made to identify some Of the personnel areas in which the three types Of executives feel that changes have taken place in the past and in.which they would like future changes to occur. In order to obtain a better understanding Of the personnel respondents who participated in this study, several characteristics are examined. Those that seem 256 most important for the issues under consideration are education, reporting relationships, membership on executive and.management committees, and supervision. (l) The personnel executives were asked to indicate the number of educational degrees they have. (2) The personnel executives were also asked to indicate their college major. These two questions were asked in order to see if the personnel executives have a high number Of degrees and whether their educational backgrounds are varied. A low number of degrees and a variety of major subjects may indicate, in part, a lack Of agree- ment about the requirements of personnel management as a specialized occupation. (5) The personnel executives were also asked to identify by title the indi- viduals to whom they report. This question was asked in order to identify the persons to whom the personnel executives report. By placing the personnel executive at a high level within the firm, better company decisions may be promoted by' requiring all executives to give weight to personnel .factors in their decision.making. It may also enhance ‘the personnel executive's status, since this positiOn :reflects the importance the firm attaches to his func- ‘tion, With sufficiently high status, the personnel executive can urge the establishment of new programs F‘ 257 and carry out existing ones more successfully. More— over, the level tO which a personnel executive reports may to some extent reveal the closeness of thinking of the chief executive with the personnel executive. V? uh Providing suitable status for executives can help to stabilize relationships among them, (4) The chief executives were asked to indicate whether the head of their -— personnel function is a regular member Of their executive committee. (5) The chief executives were also asked to indicate, if the head of their personnel function is not a regular member Of their executive committee, whether they expect him to partici- pate in some of the executive committee meetings. (6) In addition to the above two ques— tions, the chief executives were also asked to identify the manage- ment committees of which the head Of personnel is a member. These questions were asked in order to obtain ' information about the participation of personnel execu— ' tives on executive and management committees. Execu- tive and management committees are composed of division heads who sit down and exchange information affecting line and staff relations. Placing personnel executives on these committees may, in part, enhance mutual under- standing and provide more suitable working relationships. (7) The personnel respondents were asked to indicate the number Of exempts in their departments. 258 (8) The personnel respondents were also asked to indicate the number of exempts in the personnel function in their company as a whole. These two questions were used to measure the size of staff and the span Of supervision and to prO- vide an indication Of the demands made on the personnel respondents for supervisory and departmental admini- strative skills. (9) The personnel executives were asked to indicate what they currently re- gard as the main basic goals of their department. The responses to this question are important be- cause goals will exert some influence over the person- nel executives so as to activate and steer their be- havior toward them. It is difficult to say exactly what the content of these aspirations may be at any given time since they change as knowledge and experi- ence are increased. Therefore, a fully accurate de- pscription of the goals of the personnel respondents cannot be given. Nevertheless, the above question should be helpful in Offering a description of these aspirations which will be useful in discussing later results. (10) The three types of executives were asked to identify the activities of personnel management which have occu- pied the largest blocks of their per— sonal time during the past two years. “P "ul- _fl'l'u5 s 239 This question was designed to indicate areas that are of greatest concern to the various executives. Also, in the case of the personnel executives, the question should provide some insight into differences, if any, between the personnel respondents' current goals and their most time-consuming activity. One important factor is whether the personnel respondents are devoting their time and energy to the areas Of activity for which their goals are set. (11) The personnel executives were asked how the expectations of the top Officers in their companies changed within the last five years, with re- spect to personnel management. In turn, the chief executives and Oper- ating executives were asked to indi- cate whether their expectations changed within the past five years with respect to personnel management. These questions were asked in order to gain greater insight into the role of the personnel depart- ment in management. The questions were specifically ~ designed to find out whether changes in expectations have taken place within the past five years and, if so, to identify the areas in.which the various executives feel changes have taken place. (12) The personnel executives were also asked to identify the future imr provements they hope to make in their departments. The other execu- tives were also asked a similar question. -—_F ‘- l _ A . ... 240 These questions were asked in order to provide a broad perspective about the paths that personnel management will follow in the future. Evaluation of the Results and Effectiveness Of Personnel Management “LE. 2' An important element Of the interrelationships among the three types of executives is their evaluation of themselves and each other. In personnel management, the roles of the personnel executive, the chief execu- tive, and the Operating executive are highly evaluative. Although a lack Of objective criteria complicates the process, these executives evaluate each other and judge each other's programs, projects, and activities. In the process, the executives develop attitudes and opinions about each other. A number of questions focus on the Opinions of the three types of executives regarding limitations in the field of personnel management and Of personnel managers; criticisms Of the field of personnel manage- ment and of personnel managers; and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management. (1) The personnel executives were asked to identify factors which inhibit their ability to do the best job that they are capable of doing. This question was designed for the purpose of detecting whether personnel executives are sensitive ‘I 241 to limitations on their general effectiveness. In addition, the question was asked in order to identify specific factors which the personnel respondents be- lieve inhibit their ability to do the best job they are capable of doing. While the personnel respondents' responses about their own limitations are important, evaluations of personnel executives are perhaps even more significant to the overall management of the firms studied, as well as to the field of personnel management itself. Because chief executives and operating executives Often evaluate the head of the personnel function, the personnel department, and the personnel function simultaneously, an effort was made to Obtain separate appraisals of the head of the personnel function, the personnel department, and the field of personnel man- agement in general. (2) The three types of executives were asked to identify any criticisms they have about the field Of per- sonnel management in general. This question was asked for a number of reasons: .Are there any criticisms to make of personnel manage— lnent as a field? If so, what are the issues which seem to bother the executives? (5) The operating executives were asked how their personnel departments have helped them during the past two years. 242 This question was asked in order to gain some in- formation about the major types Of assistance the Operating executives receive. (4) The Operating executives were also asked to indicate the areas in which they believe they do not get enough help from their personnel departments. This question was asked in order to find out whether there are areas in.which the Operating execu- tives do not receive sufficient assistance and to identify the areas. Of specific interest is whether the areas mentioned are key responsibilities Of a per- sonnel department. If so, the dissatisfaction of the operating executives in these areas could be a sig- nificant problem. (5) The three types of executives were asked to identify additional areas of knowledge or training which they believe the head of personnel will have to acquire in order to meet present standards. (6) The three types Of executives were also asked to identify additional areas Of knowledge or training which they believe the head Of personnel will have to acquire in order to make significant advances in.effectiveness. These two questions were asked in order to gain a.better understanding of what the executives consider 'to be deficiencies in.knowledge and skills Of the per- sonnel manager, both in terms of meeting present standards and making significant advances in 245 effectiveness. Also, do the executives believe per- sonnel managers ,need approximately the same kinds of knowledge for meeting present standards as for im- proving future performances? (7) The chief executives and operating executives were asked to identify the major strengths that they be- lieve the personnel managers bring to their work. This question was asked in order to find out whether the chief executives and the Operating execu- tives are aware and appreciative Ofthe personnel manager's strengths. - (8) The three types Of executives were asked to list the most important quantitative criteria by which, in their judgment , the effectiveness Of personnel management can be measured. (9) The three types of executives were also asked to list the most im- portant qualitative criteria by which, in their judgment, the effectiveness of personnel manage- ment can be measured. Many authorities do not believe that Objective criteria Of known validity exist at the present time. In fact, some say that such criteria are illusionary and the search for them is useless. Nevertheless, executives frequently make judgments about other execu- tives and their functions on the basis of approximate or rule-Of-thumb criteria. These judgments may be used in making decisions that affect mutual Objectives. 244 Thus, the two questions listed above are used in order to obtain a better understanding of the criteria involved. Change in Personnel Administration Today, as never before, personnel management is facing a critical turning point. Changes in economic patterns, technological changes, expanding markets, and increasingly complex laws and regulations are creating new problems for the personnel manager and other executives who are concerned with the personnel function. i If the personnel function is to adapt success- fully tO such changes, it is necessary for the execu- tives who have the responsibility for it to recognize the changes and understand the effects they will have. Should executives not recognize these changes, the per- sonnel function may assume a relatively unimportant role in the firm, and other departments may assume its responsibilities. On the other hand, if the personnel executives, chief executives, and operating executives agree on the effects of change and on the adaptations needed, the personnel function may become innovative and creative, and acquire greater status. To learn more about whether the executives who share responsibility for the personnel function 245 , are aware of the forces of change and its demands for the future, the views of the personnel executives, the chief executives, and the operating executives on change in personnel administration are examined. Also, in order to develop some insight about the changes anticipated and their impact on management, the three types of executives were asked for their Opinions about the pace and degree of change, as well as its nature and the problems it creates for firms in carrying out their personnel activities. (1) The three types Of executives were asked to classify the present pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management. Information about the pace of change is considered significant because uncertainty about the pace at which changes will occur may serve as a pressure on executives involved in decision making. Discrepancies in percep- tions among the three types of executives regarding change may produce both hesitation and conflict in the planning and executing of various personnel programs, projects, and other activities. The speed at which changes take place in the .field Of personnel management is influenced by a nume 'ber of factors. One important factor is the improve- ments in personnel techniques. This factor is examined in greater detail. 246 (2) The three types of executives were asked to indicate the de ree of change (great, moderate, little that they expect to occur in nineteen personnel activities performed by the personnel department during the next five years. Change was defined as improvement in techniques for discharging each responsibility. This question was asked in order tO gain a better understanding Of changes, in terms of improvements in personnel techniques, taking place in the field of personnel management. Of particular interest is whether the degree of change expected in the nineteen areas of responsibility varies by type of executive. In order to develop additional insight into the nature of change in the personnel function, three ad- ditional factors were examined: changes in the per- sonnel ratio, modification of responsibilities, and the consequences of changes. (5) The three types of executives were asked to indicate whether they be- lieve the ratio of personnel depart- ment employees to total company ems ployees will increase, decrease, or remain constant during the next five years. (4) For those executives who answered the above question, an explanation was sought relating to why they anticipate an increase, a decrease, or no change in the personnel ratio. These questions were asked in order to obtain a laetter understanding of the expectations of the three txypes of executives concerning probable changes in the ,1 247 personnel ratio. Are there substantial differences among the three types of executives? In addition, it is considered important to Obtain reasons from the three types Of executives for any changes, or lack of changes, in the personnel ratio. Are there differences g? in why the three types of executives believe the num- ber of employees will, or will not, change during the ‘ next five years? i The allocation of personnel activities among the various organizational units of a business firm has been a continuous and perplexing problem. While there can be no way in which a firm can quickly attain an ideal organization structure for the personnel func- tion, a systematic guiding rationale is important. Indifference to the matters of careful alloca- tion of personnel activities may result in considerable waste of time, particularly in the case of personnel executives. In addition, it may create elements Of disagreement between the three types of executives. (5) The personnel executives were asked to indicate whether important duties of personnel management have been created as personnel department re- sponsibilities within the past five years. If so, they were asked to describe the duties. (6) The personnel executives were also asked to indicate whether important duties of personnel management have been transferred to the personnel 248 department from another department. If so, they were asked to describe the duties. (7) In addition, the personnel executives were also asked whether important duties of personnel management have been transferred from the personnel department to another department. If so, they were asked to describe the duties. These questions were asked in order to find out whether important personnel activities have been re- assigned during the past five years. If so, have most of these activities been created as new responsibilities or transferred to the personnel department from other departments--rather than transferred from the personnel to other departments? In addition, the questions were asked for the purpose of identifying the specific ac— tivities created as new responsibilities; the specific activities transferred to the personnel department from other departments; and the specific activities transferred from the personnel department to other departments. (8) The three types of executives were asked to identify the possible effects which will be consequences of the changes in the personnel function. This question was asked in order to obtain more jknowledge about what will result from changes that have ‘been made in the personnel function and how the changes 249 will affect personnel departments in the future. Of specific interest is whether there is close agreement among the various executives. APPENDIX D RELATIVE DISCREPANCY INDEX TABLES Length of time personnel executives have‘been in their present positions (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the number of years they have been in their present positions? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms, com? pared with personnel executives in.1arge firms, indi- cate a moderately higher response to being in their present positions for between one and five years (EEEH - RDI 6.0). Length of timegpersonnel executives have been with their present firms (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the length of time they have been with their present firms? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms indicate a.greater response to having spent between one and five :years with their present company(PSP1 - RDI 31.9). (In the other hand, personnel executives in large firms 250 ’1 Fl 251 indicate a greater response to having spent twenty years or over with their present company (PSP1 - RDI 55.1). Table D.l Length of time personnel execu- tives have been in their present positions, by size of firm PsPl 1-5 Years Ps(6.0) 6-10 years -- ll-l4 years -- 15-19 years ‘ -_ '20 years and over i -- Table D.2 Length of time personnel execu- tives have been with their present firms, by size of firm ~PsP1 1-5 years . PS(31.9) 6-10 years -_ ll-l4 years _- 15-19 years -- 20 years and over Pl(35.l) 252 Percentage of work week executives spendfiin jOint relationships (la) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the amount of time they spend with their chief executive in joint sessions? (lb) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the amount of time they spend with their operating execu- tives in joint sessions? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to the amount of time they spend with their personnel head in joint sessions? (3) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to the amount of time they spend with their personnel head in joint sessions? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in.small firms when their responses are compared with respect to the amount of time they report spending with each other? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between.the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to the amount of time they report spending with each other? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms report a moderately higher reSponse to spending less than five percent of their time with their chief executive in joint sessions compared to personnel executives in large firms (PSP1 - RDI 5.9). Personnel executives 255 in small firms also indicate a moderately higher re- sponse to spending less than five percent (PsPl - RDI 7.5) and between five and ten percent of their time (PSP1 - RDI 9.4) in joint sessions with Operating executives compared to personnel executives in large firms. Personnel executives in large firms, when compared with the personnel executives in small firms, report a greater response to spending over twenty-five percent of their time with operating executives in joint sessions PsPl - RDI 14.2). (2) When compared with chief executives in large firms, chief executives in small firms report a greater response to spending less than five percent of their time in joint sessions with their heads of personnel (Cscl - RDI 17.6). On the other hand, chief executives inflarge firms report a moderately higher response to spending between five and ten percent (0801 - RDI 9.5) _and ten to twenty-five percent of their time (0801 - RDI 8.5) in joint sessions with their personnel _- executives. (5) operating executives in.small firms indicate a moderately higher response to spending less than five percent (0801 - RDI 5.5) and between five and ten.per- cent of thEir time (0801 - RDI 5.5) in joint sessions with their personnel—executives compared to operating executives in large firms. Operating executives in 254 large firms report a greater response to spending be- tween ten and twenty-five percent of their time in joint sessions with their personnel executives Table D.3 Percentage of work week executives spend in joint relationships, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl PSPl Csol Osol (With (With chief operating executive) executives) Less than 5 percent P5( 5.9) P8( 7.5) 03(17-6) OSC 5.5) 5—10 percent -- -- Cl( 9.5) 08( 5-5) lO-25 percent -- P8( 9.4) Cl( 8.3) 01(lO.9) Over 25 percent -- P1(l4.2) -- 9 -- IExecutive interaction comparisons (1) Regarding small firms, operating executives report a greater response to spending less than five percent of their time in joint sessions compared with personnel executives (PSOs - RDI 32.4). With reference to large firms, more operating executives report spending less than five percent of their time in joint sessions than chief executives and gpersonnel executives (P101 - RDI 54.2, C1 1 - RDI 7.2). {The personnel executives do, however, place greater 255 emphasis on spending less than five percent of their time in joint sessions compared with chief executives (P10l — RDI 10.9). _—- (2) Operating executives in small firms place more emphasis on spending between five and ten percent of their time in joint sessions compared with personnel executives and chief executives (Psos - RDI 29.2, 0808 - RDI 8.0). Chief executives 32 large firms in- dicate a higher response to spending between five and ten percent of their time in joint sessions than do personnel executives and operating executives (P10l - RDI 10.2, 0101 - RDI 6.8). Operating executives;—- when compared with the personnel executives, report a greater response to spending between five and ten per- cent of their time in joint sessions (P101 — RDI 21.2). (5) Personnel executives report a greater re- sponse to spending between ten and twenty-five percent of their time in joint sessions compared with operating executives (P80S - RDI 57.7, P101 - RDI 17.4). (4) Personnel executivesjreport a greater re- sponse to spending over twenty—five percent of their time in jClDt sessions compared with operating execu— tives (P005 - RDI 25.8, E101 — “I 58.0). 3": ’ ..- l‘ w 256 I: no.mmvam II II Am.mmvmm II paoonem mm Ho>o u: Ae.navam u: u: Au.nmvmm u- peaches mmuoa Am.e vac Am.amvao Am.oavao Ao.m vmo Am.mmvmo .. paooema oaum Am.m vac Am.¢mvao mm.oavam nu As.mmeo u: peeoeom m can» mmog HoHo Hcam seam mono wows 0mm mdomwyegaoo soauownoan mbapflooxm mean he .mmflnmdoapmaen Radon ma caves me>wpsomxo Mme: Mao: mo snag Ho mwmpdoonem 3.9 canes 257 Length of time operatingpexecutives have known present head ofipersonnel (1) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to how many years they have known the head of personnel? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A greater percentage of Operating executives in.emall firms, compared with operating executives in large firms, report knowing the head of their per- sonnel function for 5 to 10 years (0801 - RDI 22.2) and 11 to 14 years (0301 - RDI 14.5): On the other hand, a greater number of operating executives in large firms indicate knowing the head of the personnel function for 15 to 19 years (0801 — RDI 18.2) and for 20 years or over (OS 1 - RDI 17.2). Table D.5 Length of time operating execu- tives have known present head of personnel, by size of firm s 1 1—5 years —- 5-10 years 05(22.2) 11-14 years 05(14.5) 15-19 years 01(18.2) 20 years and over 01(17.2) ‘L. e'.~' .f r-iJ 258 Percentage of work week chief executives and o erati? executives s end on personnel maéters of all kinds (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to the amount of time they spend on personnel matters of all kinds? F7 (2) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and 5 large firms with respect to the amount of % time they spend on personnel matters of all ‘na kinds? (5a) What differences, if any, are there between the chief executives and operating exmcutives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to the amount of true they spend on personnel matters of all kinds? (5b) What differences, if any, are there between the chief executives and operating executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to the amount of time they spend on personnel matters of all kinds? Executive comparisons by size of firm , (l) Moderately more chief executives in small A firms estimate that they Spend between 10 and 25 per- cent of their time on personnel matters of all kinds compared with chief executives in large firms (2) A greater number of Operating executives in small firms report Spending less than 10 percent of their time on all kinds of personnel matters than Oper— ating executives in large firms do (0801 - RDI 50.2). More Operating executives in large firms estimate 259 ’ spending between 10 and 25 percent (0801 -‘- RDI 21.2) and between 25 percent and 50 percent (080:L - RDI 9.0) of their time on personnel matters of all kinds. hecutive interaction comparisons .'J O (1) More Operating executives spend. less than 10 percent of their time on personnel matters of all kinds compared with chief executives (CSOS - RDI 42.0,. (2) More chief executives, when compared with Operating executives, estimate spending between 10 and 25 percent of their time on personnel matters Of all kinds (csso -RDI 56.5,0101-RDI6.8). (5) When compared with Operating executives in small firms, moderately more chief executives estimate that they spend between 25 and 50 percent of their time on personnel matters of all kinds (Csos -— RDI 5.8). 2 es of sub ects with which execu ves - a o 11 sessions (Is) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the subjects they _deal with when they work together with their chief executive? (1b) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the subjects they . deal with when they work together with their operating executives? 260 Table D.6 Percentage of work week chief executives and operating executives spend on personnel matters of all kinds, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm and Executive Interaction Comparisons f, CBC1 0801 0303 0101 Less than 10 percent —- 03(50.2) 05(42.O) 01( 9.1) 10-25 percent 08( 8.5) 01(2l.2) 08(56.5) C1( 6.8) 25-50 percent -- Over 50 percent -— °1( 9.0) cs( 5.8) -- (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to the subjects they deal with when they work together with their per- sonnel executive? (5) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in.small and large firms with respect to the subjects they deal with when they work together with their personnel executive? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to the subjects they deal with when they work together? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their reaponses are compared with respect to the subjects they deal with when they work together? 261 Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms indicate that they Spend moderately more time with their chief executives on human relations problems (P8Pl — RDI 6.8) and departmental planning and administraEEOn (PSPl - RDI 5.7), whereas personnel executives in largeffirms reported moderately more devotion to economic matters (P5Pl - RDI 6.5) and executive development (PSPl - RDI 5.1). -— (2) Operating executives in small firms indicate that they devote moderately more time to motivation, communication, and human relations problems (0801 — RDI 9.9), labor relations (OSOl - RDI 8.2), and de— partmental planning and administration (OSOl - RDI 7.4) compared to Operating executives in large—firms, who report spending moderately more time on organization design and manpower planning (OSOl - RDI 9.9), Per- sonnel procedures and techniques (OSOl - RDI 9.4) and economic matters (OSOl - RDI 7.8). Executive interaction comparisons (1) The Operating executive group in small firms reports spending moderately more time with labor rela— tions problems and policies than the chief executive group in the same sized firm does (CSOS - RDI 6.1). The reverse holds for large firms (C10 1 - RDI 5.0). 262 in II It It mdowpwaon Hensosnnebow use hpfiqsaaoo .owansm Am.m vmo II II Am.w vmm mdoapsaon deans . cad soapsoaqsssoo .qupebapoz All. We -.. -.. Cum 8mm massage??? was wnaqddam Hepneapnemon Am.o Vac II II In wqfiqqsam nozomnds use qumoc moaneeaqemno Am.m vao . II II Am.w vam Ahoqeaoammo dad meOV mseppda oaaoqoom I: II . II II Amqoapwaon Honda qucSH9NOV escapes hoaaom n#.m vao II II Aa.m me moddfiqnoep use mohdpooonm Heqqomnom Am.m vmo II II . II mowowaom use maoanonm mdoapwaon Honda Amobwpsooue nobfi»SooNe weapenemo «cane mafiav .Audav Hewe Home ammm amum _snam mo euwm_hn macaanemleo ebdpnoewm” flfidu HO cede hp .mdoammem unden_nd Heed nebapsoene_no«g3 up“: announce MO momma 5.9 oanwa 265 (2) The personnel executive group and the chief executive group in small firms indicate they spend more time dealing with personnel procedures and techniques than does the Operating executive group (P808 - RDI 10.5, Csos - RDI 9.5). In addition, personnel extcutives in large firms report spending moderately more time with personnel procedures and techniques than chief execu— tives in large firms do (P101 - RDI 5.5). ’ (5) When compared with Operating executives, chief executives in general report spending moderately more time on policy matters (CSOs - RDI 9.4, 3101 - RDI 6.2). '— (4) Operating executives in small firms indicate that they spend moderately more time on economic matters ‘than do chief executives (CSOs — RDI 8.1). In addition, Operating executives in large—firms report that they Spend a greater amount of time discussing economic mat- ‘ters, compared to personnel executives and Operating executives in the same sized firms (P10l - RDI 11.6, c101 - RDI 14.2). __- (5) Personnel executives and chief executives in small firms report Spending moderately more time deal- ixu; with organization design and manpower planning than operating executives in small firms do (P8053 - RDI 7.6, CSOS — RDI 6.5). In large firms, chief executives re- port spending moderately more time dealing with 264 organization design and manpower planning than per— sonnel executives do (P10l - RDI 6.5). (6) When compared to personnel executives and Operating executives in small firms, Operating execu— tives in the same sized firms indicate that they spend moderately more time dealing with departmental planning and administration (PSOS - RDI 7.2, 0808 - RDI 7.9). The personnel executive—group in small—firms reports spending moderately more time with departmental planning and administration than the chief executive group in small firms does (PSCS - RDI 5.1). (7) Chief exzzutives in large firms report that they devote moderately more time to motivation, communi- cation, and human relations problems than personnel executives in large firms do (P101 - RDI 5.7). Personnel areas chief executives and operating executives do not delegate (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to personnel responsibilities and decisions which they feel they can not delegate? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to personnel respon— sibilities and decisions which they feel they can not delegate? (5a) What differences, if any, are there between the chief executives and the Operating executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to personnel reSpon- sibilities and decisions which they feel they can not delegate? f“ on.» ‘I 1" I 265 II II II II II mQOHpeHeH Havananhebow ees spaqsasoo .osaosm II Am.m vao II II II mdoapeaon means one Soap IwOfidsssoo .dowpmbapoz II II II Am.s Vmo Am.u Vmo Aa.m me soapeepmanaaem ens mnfinqwam Hmpseaphmmen II II Am.® vHD Amom vmo Aw.m vmm II wflfidfldam Hmkomqwfi . use dwfimod Soapeufiqmweo Am.eHvHo A6.Havao II Aa.e vmo II II Amonoeoeeeo one . meOV weapons OHaodoom Am.e vac II II as.m vmo II II Amqoapeamn Hosea was . IUSHoHoV mnmppma howaom II II Am.m Van Am.m vmo Am.oavmm II mosueqsoop one mensoeooem Hoqdomnom no.m 8H6 II II Aa.e vmo II II moeoaaoa ens . mamapoem meowpmaoe Honda H0H6 scam seam mono meme momm mnomwnwmaoo_nowuowhoan obwasoexm Sham no mean an .mqoammom pqaon as Heme mepapsomwo noes: use: mpomnnsm Ho magma m.n magma 266 (5b) What differences, if any, are there between the chief executives and the Operating executives in large firms when their reSponses are compared with respect to personnel respon- sibilities and decisions which they feel they can not delegate? Executive comparison by size of firm (1) Chief executives in small firms are moderately more unwilling to delegate in the area of human rela- tions (CBC1 - RDI 7.1), while chief executives in large firms indicate greater reluctance to delegate on matters related to organization planning (Cscl - RDI 15.4). (2) Operating executives in.sm;ll firms express moderately more hesitancy in delegating matters related to wage and salary (OSO1 - RDI 8.8) and labor relations (0301 - RDI 6.1). 0n_the other hand, operating execu- tives in large firms indicate greater reluctance to delegate organization planning (OsOl - RDI 11.0). Executive interaction comparisons (1) Chief executives in small firms are moder- ately more unwilling to delegate matters involving major issues or policies (CSOS - RDI 7.0) and morale and motivational problems (0808 - RDI 7.4). On the other hand, operating executives in small firms are Inoderately more reluctant to delegate matters relating 'to organization structure and design (0808 — RDI 5.0) zxnd wage and salary decisions (CSOS - RDI 9.1). 267 Table D.9 Personnel areas chief executives and Operat- ing executives do not delegate, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm and ‘ Executive Interaction Comparisons 0301 0801 CBCs ClOl Organization structure ' and design 01(13.4) 01(ll.0) OSC 5-0) '- Final decisions on.major is- sues or policies -¢ -- Cs( 7.0) -- Wage and salary. decisions -- CBC 8.8) 08( 9.1) -- Labor relations decisions -- os( 6.1) -_ -_ Morale and motivational problems C ( 7.1) -— CS( 7.4) -_ Personnel budgets or cost changes —- -- -- -- ‘Miscellaneous -- -- -- __ Activities about which chief executives consult Head of personnel (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to the kinds of activities about which they normally consult the head of personnel (among others) before taking action? 268 Executive comparison by size of firm (1) Chief executives in large firms are moder- ately more-inclined to consult their perSonnel execu- tives on.matters concerning decisions about people than are chief executives in small firms (Cscl - RDI 8.1). Table D.1O Activities about which chief executives consult head of personnel, by size of firm Operational planning . -- Decisions about peOple Cl( 8.1) Labor relations -- Company relationships ~- Strategic planning -- Control decisions -- Organization design —— Other -- Personnel executives who report having line experience and personnel executives who report no Ving, ine experience (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to those who report having line experience compared with those who report not having line experience? 269 Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms are moderately more inclined not to have line experience (PsPl - RDI 8.7), whereas personnel executives in large firms are moderately more inclined to have line experi- ence (P§E£.— RDI 8.7). Table D.11 Personnel executives who report having line experience and per- sonnel executives who report not having line experience, by size of firm P P s 1 Line experience P1( 8.7) NO line experience Ps( 8.7) Length of time personnel executives have spent in Operating (linejfpositions (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the number of years they have spent in Operating (line) positions? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms are more inclined to report spending from 1 to 5 years (PsPl - .RDI 18.5) and from 6 to 10 years in operating pOSitions (P8P1 - RDI 6.4). On the other hand, personnel execu- ‘bives in large firms are more inclined to report 270 spending from 11 to 14 years (PsPl - RDI 12.1) and from 20 to 29 years (PSPl - RDI 9.5) in operating positions. Table D.12 Length of time personnel execu- tives have Spent in operating (line) positions, by size of firm PSP1 1-5 years PBCIB-E) 6-10 years Ps( 6-4) 11—14 years . _ Pl(l2.l) 15-19 years -- 20-29 years P1( 9.5) 50 years and over -- Length of time_personnel executives ‘Eave Spent in Staffipositions (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the number of years they have Spent in staff positions? Executive comparisons by Size Of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms have more of a tendency to report spending between 1 and 5 years (P8P1 - RDI 16.0) and 11 and 14 years (P8P1 - RDI 8.5) :in.staff positions. 0n the other hand, personnel executives in large firms have a greater tendency to 271 report spending between 20 and 29 years in staff posi- tions (PsPl - RDI 21.5). Table D.15 Length of time personnel execu- tives have Spent in staff posi- tions, by size of firm PSPl 1—5 years Ps(l6.0) 6-10 years __ 11-14 years ' P8( 8.5) 15-19 years -- 20-29 years Pl(2l'5) 50 years and over -- Conflict in line-staff relations (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to their descriptions of line-staff conflict? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms with respect to their descriptions of line—staff conflict? (5) What differences, if any, are there among operating executives in small and large firms with respect to their descriptions of line-staff conflict? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to their descriptions of line-staff conflict? O \ 272 (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to their descriptions of line-staff conflict? Executive comparisons by size of firm F? (1) When compared with operating executives in I small firms, a moderately higher percentage of operat- ing executives in large firms see little conflict in (0801 - RDI 9.6). On the other hand, a greater per- centage of operating executives in small firms see moderate conflict (080l - RDI 11.6). Table D.14 Conflict in line-staff relations, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm P 8P 1 Cscl 0301 . Little or no conflict in ‘ current relations ' —- -- 01( 9.6) Moderate conflict in current relations -- -- 08(ll.6) Considerable conflict in current relations -- -- -- JExecutive interaction comparisons (1) Chief executives and operating executives, «compared with personnel executives, in general have a (greater tendency to see little conflict (PSCS - RDI 12.7, I \ 275 P802 - RDI 14.1, P - RDI 10.2, Pl 1 - RDI 22.8). 1 1 The operating executives in large firms place greater emphasis on little conflict than do chief executives in large firms (C101 - RDI 12.6). ' (2) Personnel executives, in general, place more emphasis on.moderate conflict than do chief executives and operating executives (PSCs - RDI 14.2, Psos - RDI 12.4, P101 - RDI 9.2, 2:01 9- RDI 25.8).—In the case of large firms, chief—Executives place greater emphasis on.moderate conflict compared with operating executives (Clol - RDI 14.6). Change in.1ine-staff relations (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to their descrip- tion of change in line-staff relations? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in.emall and large firms with respect to their description of change in line-staff relations? (5) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in.small and large firms with respect to their descrip- tion of change in line-staff relations? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in.emall firms when their responses are compared with respect to their description of change in line-staff relations? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to their description of change in line-staff relations? ' F ,'-_: “Wm A _‘ 274 In . II II II I: II escapades , . naenHSo as poaaeqoo oapwnodfimqoo Ae.¢avao Am.mmvam Am.m cam u- A¢.mavmm Am.¢avmm mqoapwaon pqonnfio dd poaamfloo openedo: no.mavao Am.mmvao Am.oavao .: Aa.¢avmo As.mavmo mqoapwaon , psonhdo aw powam loco on no oHvaA Home Hoam seam memo memm o m mqomwnwgaoo_nofipownequ e>fipsoewm anew «a «use an .mqoapaaou Heepm-oqaa_qa poaauqoo mH.n «Home 275 Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in large firms are moderately more inclined to believe that the situation is improving (PsPl - RDI 6.9), whereas personnel execu- tives in small firms are moderately more inclined to feel that the situation is stable (PSPl - RDI 6.0). Table D.16 Change in line-staff relations, by size of firm Executive'Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl Cscl 0801 Situation improving P1( 6.9) —— -- Situation stable P3( 6.0) -- -— Situation getting worse -- -- -_ Executive interaction comparisons (1) In small firms, chief executives, compared with.personnel executives and operating executives, place more emphasis on.a situation.that is improving (Pscs - RDI 8.2, 0308 - RDI 21.7). Personnel execu- tiv;; place greater emphasis on.the situation.improving, however, than do operating executives (P80£3 - RDI 13.5). IIm.large firms, personnel executives anarchief execu- ‘tires, compared with operating executives, place 276 greater emphasis on a situation that is improving (2) In general, a greater percentage of operat- ing executives, compared with personnel executives and chief executives, report that they feel the situation is stable (P§2§.- RDI 11.3, Cfigfi - RDI 17.4, P10l - RDI 19.9, 0101 - RDI 18.4). In small firms, personnel executives place moderately more emphasis on a stable situation than do chief executives (Pscs - RDI 6.1). Factors accounting_for relations between thegpersonnel department and other departments in the firm (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to factors which they believe account for relations between their department and other departments in their company? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in.emall and large firms with respect to factors which they be— lieve account for relations between the per— sonnel department and other departments in their company? (3) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to factors which they believe account for relations between the personnel department and their depart- ment in the company? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to factors accounting for relations between the personnel department and other departments in the company? f” ...;- .“ 277 II II . II II II ammo: mnsorom soapoapam Ao.mavao Am.mavao an Ae.aavao Am.aavmo Aa.o me tantra qoaptapam as.aavao Aa.oaeam -- aa.amemo Am.maeaa Am.o emo waaaoaaaa aoaaaaaam HoHo Hcam seam memo meme moom muomwnmgaoo fledwoenean obapfioexm swam mo mafia en .mqofipaaoa “cataloged as omoooo na.n odors 278 (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to factors accounting for relations between the personnel department and other departments in the company? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms place moderately more emphasis on an improvement in.1ine management attitudes (PSPl - RDI 8.4). On the other hand, personnel executives in large firms place moder- ately more emphasis on changes in organization struc- ture (PsPl - RDI 5.7). (8)—Chief executives in small firms place moder- ately more emphasis on improvement in top management attitudes (CSCl - RDI 8.5), whereas chief executives in large firms place moderately more emphasis on.come pany attitudes (CSCl - RDI 8.6) and changes in organi- zation structure (Egbl — RDI 5.3). (3) Operating executives in small firms place moderately more emphasis on improved human relations (OSO1 - RDI 8.2), whereas operating executives in Ilarge firms place moderately more emphasis an.improve- Inent in top management attitudes (Osol - RDI 7.8) and 21 better record of the personnel department (0831- - RDI 6.0). 279 Table D.18 Factors accounting for relations between the personnel departmentand other depart- ments in the firm, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl Csol 0801 Company attitudes -- Cl( 8.6) -- Improved human relations -- -- Os( 8.2) Improved line management attitudes Ps( 8.4) -- -- Improved top management attitudes -- CS( 8.5) 01( 7.8) Better record of personnel department -— -- 01( 6.0) Changes in organization structure P1( 5.7) Cl( 5.5) -- Personnel is a new function -- -— -- Personnel function is more important —- -- -- Executive interaction comparisons (1) Chief executives in large firms place moder- ately more emphasis on the attitude of the company (PlC1 - RDI 6.5, 0101 - RDI 8.6) than do personnel executives and operating executives in large firms. (2) Chief executives, compared with personnel executives and Operating executives, generally indicate more emphasis on improvement in human relations 280 (Psis- - RDI 15.5, 3308 - RDI 7.7, Pl-l - RDI 18.4, $0 mention human relations moderately more than dO per- 1 - RDI 16.2). In small firms, operating executives sonnel executives (PSOS - RDI 7.8). (3) Personnel executives in.1arge and small firms, compared with chief executives and Operating executives, place more emphasis on improvement Of line management attitudes (1.:ans - RDI 16.1, 3508 - RDI 13.6, 32:01 - RDI 11.8, P101 - RDI 8.2). (4) In small firms, personnel executives and chief executives place greater emphasis on improvement in the attitude of tOp management than do Operating executives (P303 - RDI 11.4, Csos - RDI 10.3). In large firms ,—personnel executives place more emphasis on improvement of top management attitude, compared with chief executives and operating executives (P101 - RDI 12.6, P101 - RDI 6.6). Operating executives, how- , ever, are Ederately more inclined to mention this . factor than are chief executives (C101 9- RDI 6.0). (5) Operating executives in both size groups place greater emphasis on a better record of the personnel department than do personnel executives and chief execu- tives (Psos - RDI 19.4, 0808 - RDI 28.2, P101 - RDI 24.6, Clol - RDI 29.8). Personnel executives in both size groups, however, cite this factor moderately 281 more frequently than do chief executives (PSCS - RDI 8.8, P101 - RDI 5.2). ._- (6)f1n small firms, chief executives place mod- erately more emphasis on changes in organization structure than personnel executives and Operating executives dO (Pscs - RDI 5.3, 0303 - RDI 5.1). In large firms, more emphasis is placed on this factor by personnel executives and chief executives, compared with Operating executives (P101 — RDI 7.7, c101 - RDI 12.6). _ '— (7) Chief executives in.small firms place moder- ately more emphasis on the fact that the personnel function is new than do personnel executives and Oper- ating executives (PSCS - RDI 5.3, CSOS - RDI 5.1). Educational level of personnel executives (1) What differences, if any, are there . among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect tO the educational degrees they have? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) A greater number Of personnel executives in small firms, compared with personnel executives in large firms, report having only a bachelor's degree (P8P1 - RDI 12.8). On the other hand, a greater mums ber of personnel executives in large firms report hav- ing a law degree (PSP1 — RDI 13.2). 282 pnwpnogaa ones we soapoqzm HoqumHem un nu nu Aa.m vmo nu Am.m vao nonsense 30d” fl mum” Hwaomgvm Ao.mavao “5.5 cam nn Aa.m Vmo nu Am.m vac oaapoanpa dowpmuaquso ma memqmno Am.mmvao Ao.emvao Am.m vac Am.wmvao Ae.mavao Am.m cam paoarnaaoo Hoaaoa , . name no onooon neppom no.o vac mo.o cam Ao.mavam Am.oavoo A:.Havam un macararpt pseaowmqma mop dobonmaH nu Am.m vam Am.aavam nu Aw.mavmm Aa.oavmm moeapappt . paoaewmqma omHH de>onmaH Am.oavao un A¢.mavao Am.u vac Am.u vac Am.msvao mooaroaoa amass eotoaeaH Ao.r vac un Am.o vac nu uu nu wooapappo sqoaaoo Hoao. Hose seam memo moam roam mdomwnmgaoo.nowpomnopmH ebwpsoon EHHH no mean hp rang“ on» ma museapnmmod Henpo use psoapnemod Honnomnom on» decapen escapades new wanQSOoon mnopowm mH.Q edema 283 Table D.2O Educational level Of personnel executives, by size Of firm P P s l Bachelor's degree A Ps(l2.8) Master's degree -- Law degree Pl(13.2) Doctor's degree -- College major Of personnel executives (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to their major in college? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) The personnel executives in small firms re— port a greater response to the behavioral sciences (PSPl - RDI 21.4), whereas the personnel executives in large firms report moderately higher responses to busi- ness administration (PsPl - RDI 7.5), law (PSPl - RDI 6.9), government (PgPi - RDI 6.1), and engineering (P€E£,- RDI 5.1). .- _Beportingrelationships Of Apersonnel executives (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to whom.they report? 284 Table D.2l College major of personnel executives, by size of firm PSPl Business administration ‘ P1( 7.5) Humanities and education —- Behavioral science PS(21.4) Engineering P1( 5.1) Law P1( 6.9) Natural science - -- Government ~ P1( 6.1) Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in large firms have more Of a tendency to report to the chairman Of the board (PS 1 - RDI 8.8) and to the president (PS 1 - RDI 14.6), whereas personnel executives in small firms have more of a tendency to report to an executive vice president or group vice president (PSPl - RDI 10.4) or a manager or superintendent (PSPl ejEDI 5.9). Chief executives who report whether ‘Eead Of personnel is a regular member of the executive committee (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they report the head Of the personnel function is a regular member of their executive committee? 285 Table D.22 Reporting relationships of personnel executives, by size Of firm PSPl Chairman Of the board P1( 8.8) President Pl(l4.6) Executive vice president or group vice president PS(lO.4) Treasurer, secretary, or controller -- Line vice president -- Staff vice president —- manager or superintendent PS( 5.9) Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A moderately higher percentage Of chief executives in small firms report that the head Of per- sonnel is a regular member Of the executive committee (CSCl - RDI 6.6), whereas a moderately higher percent- a;: Of chief executives in large firms report that the head Of personnel is not a regular member of the execu- tive committee (CSCl - RDI 6.6). .mnwzfl -mv- ' . 286 Table D.25 Chief executives who report whether head Of personnel is a regular member of the executive committee, by size of firm CsCl F“ Yes , Cs( 6.6) NO 01( 6.6) fi.’f .7. .‘J' ' ‘_ Chief expcutives who expect head Of personne unc on 0 par c pa e . some O e execu ve co co mme i s (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they expect the head Of their personnel function to partici- pate in some of the executive committee meetings? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) A greater percentage Of chief executives in large firms expect the head Of personnel to participate in some Of the executive committee meetings (CSCl - RDI 26.8), whereas a greater percentage of chief execu- tives in small firms dO not expect the head Of per- sonnel to participate in.some of the executive commit- tee meetings (CSCl - RDI 26.8). 287 Table D.24 Chief executives who expect head of personnel function to participate in some Of the executive committee meetings, by size of firm Csol YeS' 01(26.8) NO 08(26.8) L management committees Of which ea 0 personne is a member (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to the management commit- tees which they report the head Of personnel is a member? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) The chief executives in.small firms, comp pared.with the chief executives in large firms, re- ‘ spond more to committees related to salary (CSCl - RDI 11.6), executive policy (0301 - RDI 8.5), and safety (CSC1 - RDI 6.8). In contrast, the chief ex- ecutives in large firms respond more to committees re- lated to employee benefits (CSC1 — RDI 18.2), human.re- lations (CSCl - RDI 8.4) and public relations (033$ - RDI 5.4). 288 Table D.25 Management committees Of which head Of personnel is a member, by size Of firm CsCl General management Executive policy Cs( 8.5) Long-range planning -- President's staff. -- Specialized Salary _ Cs(ll.6) Operations -- Employee benefits 01(18.2) Human relations Cl( 8.4) Personnelpolicy -- Safety Cs( 6.8) Public relations Cl( 5.4) Number of exempts in personnel department (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the number Of exempts in.their department? Executive comparisons by size Of firm. (1) There is a greater tendency for personnel exr ecutives in small firms tO have less than 5 exempts in their department (PSPl - RDI 76.5). On the other hand, 289 there is more of a tendency for personnel executives in large firms to have between 6 and 10 exempts (PsPl - RDI 27.0), 11 and 20 exempts (PSPl — RDI 19.1), 21 23a 30 exempts (P8 P1 - RDI 18.0), anEf3l and 50 exempts (Psi-BMW) Table D.26 Number Of exempts in personnel department, by size Of firm PsPl 5 employees or fewer P8(76.5) 6 to 10 employees P1(27’O) 11 to 20 employees P1(19.l) 21 to 30 employees Pl(18.0) 31 to 50 employees P1( 7.9) 51 tO 75 employees -- 76 to 100 employees -- . More than 100 employees _- Number Of exempts in personnel function in firm as a Whole (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to the number Of exempts in the personnel function in their firm as a whole? 290 Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) There is a greater tendency for personnel executives in small firms to have less than 5 exempt employees in the personnel function in their company as a whole (PSP1 - RDI 81.7). On the other hand, there is more Of aftendency for personnel executives in large firms to have between 11 and 20 exempts (P8P1 - RDI 18.7), 21 and 30 exempts (PsPl - RDI 13:3), 31 and 50 exempts (PSPl - RDI 19.3), Sl—and 75 exempts (PsPl — RDI 10.8), 76 23a lOO exempts (P8P1 - RDI 6.6), and—- over 100 exempts (PSPl — RDI 9.8):- Table D.2? Number Of exempts in personnel function in firm as a whole, by size of firm PSPl 5 employees or fewer Ps(81.7) 6 to 10 employees -- 11 to 20 employees P1(18.7) 21 to 30 employees Pl(l3.3) 31 to 50 employees P1(19.3) 51 to 75 employees P1(1O.8) 76 to 100 employees P1( 6.6) More than 100 employees P1( 9.8) 291 Current goals of personnel department (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to what they cur- rently regard as the main basic goals Of their department? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (l).Personnel executives in small firms are moderately more interested in improving relationships with top management as a goal than are the personnel executives in large firms (PsPl - RDI 5.3). Table D.28 Current goals Of personnel department, by size Of firm Programs Manpower development Human relations Labor relations Economic: productivity and efficiency Firm Employees Personnel department Organization planning and design Personnel policies ‘ Improve relationships with tOp management 292 Most time—consuming activities and7concerns 6f the executives duringgthegpastfitwogyears - (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding the personnel activities which have taken the greatest amounts Of their time? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms regarding the personnel activities which have taken the greatest amounts Of their time? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms regarding the personnel activities which have taken the greatest amounts of their time? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types Of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to the personnel activities which have taken the greatest amounts Of their time? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types Of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to the personnel activities which have taken the greatest amounts Of their time? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms spend :moderately more time with activities related to ad- ministering the personnel department (PSP1 - RDI 8.5) .and.personnel policies (P3P1 - RDI 5.7). On the other Ihand, personnel executives in large firms indicate that 'they Spend moderately more time on.matters related to 295 organization planning (PSPl — RDI 8.8) and labor rela- tions (P8Pl - RDI 5.1). ._— (2)—Chief executives in small firms indicate that they spend a greater amount Of time on labor relations (CSCl - RDI 12.2) and moderately more time with other miscellaneous activities (CSCl - RDI 9.7) compared with chief executives in 1;;ge firms. The latter group reports spending a greater amount Of time dealing with personnel techniques (CSCl - RDI 15.2) and moder- ately more time on organizatign planning (CSCl — RDI 6.6) and personnel policies (CSC1 - RDI 8:0). (3) Operating executives in small firms spend moderately more time in the area Of labor relations (OSOl - RDI 9.0), while operating executives in large firms indicate that they spend a greater amount of time on organization planning (OSOl — RDI 10.0). Executive interaction comparisons (1) Personnel executives in general spend a greater amount of time on labor relations matters than chief executives and Operating executives do (PSCS - 101 ‘ 1 1 RDI 10.8, P c - RDI 28.1, PSOS - RDI 19.8, RDI 33.9). Chief executives in general devote moder— ately more time to labor relations than Operating ex- ecutives do {SECS - RDI 9.0, C10l - RDI 5.8). (2) Personnel executives in general indicate spending a greater amount of time on administrative 294 Table D.29 Most time-consuming activities and concerns Of the executives during the past two years, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl CsCl Osol Labor relations P1( 5.1) 08(12.2) OS( 9.0) Departmental administration PS( 8.5) -- -- Personnel techniques -— 01(15,2) __ Personnel policies PS( 5.7) ClC 6.0) -- Organization planning and design P1( 8.8) Cl( 6.6) 01(10.O) Human relations and employee welfare —— -_ __ Economic problems of company —- -- _- Other -- Cs(9'7) -- matters related to the personnel department, when.com- pared with chief executives and operating executives (PSCS - RDI 25.0, 1ch1 - RDI 14.4, 3.8.03 - RDI 25.0, P10 - RDI 16.5). * l (3) Operating executives in general devote a greater amount of time to personnel techniques than do uchief executives and personnel executives (PSOS - EDI 42.4, 0593 — RDI 59.7, Pl-l — RDI 34.7, 0101 - IRDI 17.8). Chief executives in large firms report 295 spending a greater amount Of time on personnel tech— niques than personnel executives in large firms do (PLO; - RDI 16.9). (4) Personnel executives in small firms spend moderately more time on matters related to personnel policies than chief executives and Operating execu- tives in small firms do (PSCs - RDI 6.9, PSOs - RDI 8.9). — _- (5) Chief executives and Operating executives in general spend a greater amount of time on organization planning than do personnel executives (PsCs — RDI 19.3, PSOS - RDI 19.4, Pl 1 - RDI 14.6, P10l - PSI 18.1). ——' (6) Chief exezutives in small firms spend moder— ately more time on matters related to human relations and employee welfare than Operating executives do (CSOS - RDI 6.5). -- (7) Chief executives in small firms indicate spending a greater amount of time on economic problems of the company than do personnel executives and Operat- ing executives (PSCS — RDI 11.2, CsOs - RDI 12.9). In large firms, the chief executivesj;eport devoting moder- zately more time to economic problems than do the per- :sonnel executives (P10l — RDI 7.3). (8) Chief executives in small firms indicate that ‘they spend.moderately more time with other miscella- Iueous activities when compared to personnel executives 296 ..n ..n nu Qua coo .... 9.8 can tape un nu and. flu 2..de nu 84.3mm fiasco no maoanonm Ofiaoqoom nu In In Am.m you nu In enemaoz.oehoagao . one msoapmaee smear nu 263$ Erase nn $.3va Ramona 83% and wqaqqsaa doaponwmwwno II II II In no.m me Am.©.vmm mefiowaon Hoqqomnom 8.36 @535 8836 2.58.6 oedema _ .... $8883 Hondomnem nu Rodeo Clams nu 368mm 863mm 8383823 Handoapnomon 86 Vac 883$ 253$ 8.8 vac 8.3mm Eddam ascents...“ 883 Hos Hoam Hose mono acme meme mnomfinogaoo.mowveeneuqH chapsoewm sham no ouwm hp .mnooh or» poem on» wanna $5335 on.» no unwooaoo one 83333 goonofip “mo: omd oEms 297 and Operating executives in the same size group (PSCS - RDI 6.4, CSOS - RDI 9.7). Changes in executives'expectations 3T personnel management during theqpaSt’fivegyears (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding how they feel the expecta- tions of their tOp executives changed within the last five years with respect tO personnel management? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms with respect to changes in their ex- pectations Of personnel management during the past five years? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms with respect tO changes in their exr pectations Of personnel management during the past five years? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types Of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to changes in expectations of per- sonnel management during the past five years? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to changes in expectations of per- sonnel management during the past five years? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms have a greater tendency not to perceive any changes in their expectations (PSP1 - RDI 17.1), whereas personnel ex- ecutives in large firms have a greater tendency to 298 expect changes in the results of the personnel depart- ment (PS 1 - RDI 16.2). (ZS—Chief executives in small firms have a greater tendency to expect changes in personnel tech- niques than do chief executives in large firms (Cscl - RDI 10.2). They also report a moderately higherjge- Sponse to better understanding, respect, influence, participation, and COOperation (CSCl - RDI 5.2). In turn, chief executives in large firms provide a moder- ately higher response to expecting better results from the personnel department (CSCl - RDI 9.3) and no changes in their expectations-_(CSCl - RDI 6.5). (3) Operating executives infgmall firms report a greater response to no changes (OSO1 - RDI 17.0), whereas Operating executives in lagge firms indicate a greater response to expecting better understanding, respect, influence, participation, and cOOperation (032l - RDI 11.3). Executive interaction comparisons (1) Personnel executives in small firms place :moderately more emphasis on expecting better under- standing, respect, influence, participation, and coop- eration than do chief executives and operating execu? tives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 9.8, PSOS - RDI 5.5). .At the same time, personnel executives and Operating executives in large firms place greater emphasis on 299 Table D.31 Changes in executives' expectations Of personnel management during the past five years, by size Of firm Executive Comparisons by Size Of Firm P8P1 Cscl 0801 Better understanding, respect, influence, participation, or cooperation -- , Cs( 5.2) 01(ll.3) More or better results from department Pl(l6.2) Cl( 9.3) -- More emphasis on or acceptance Of per- sonnel techniques -- CS(lO.2) -- NO changes perceived PS(17.1) Cl( 6.5) 08(17.O) the above change in expectations than chief executives in large firms do (P101 - RDI 15.9, C1 1 - RDI 20.8). (2) Personnel executives in general report more response to expecting more and better results from the personnel department when.compared with chief executives and Operating executives (PSCs - RDI 16.1, Operating executives in small firms place moder- ately more emphasis on the above change in.expectations than.chief executives in small firms do (CSOS - RDI 6.2). 300 (5) Chief executives in small firms report a greater response to expecting changes in the acceptance of personnel techniques than do personnel executives or Operating executives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 11.2, 3308 - RDI 13.0). -- (4) When compared to personnel executives, a greater percentage Of chief executives and Operating executives in both small and large firms report no changes in their expectations (PSCS - RDI 14.4, Psos - RDI 17.1, P101 - RDI 38.0, P101 JPEBI 17.2). Chief- executives in-large firms indizate a greater response to no changes in expectations than do Operating execu, tives in large firms (C10l — RDI 20.8). Improvements in results or effectiveness qupersonnel management desired by executives fOr the next—five years (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to improvements in the personnel function which they want to make in the future? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms with respect to improvements in the personnel function which they want the per- sonnel department to make in the future? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms with respect to improvements in the personnel function which they want the per- sonnel department to make in the future? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with 301 Am.omveo Am.aavao Ao.mmvao un Aa.aaveo Ae.aaVeo .. n- .. Ae.maeme n- Am.aeeee nn Ae.emeae no.emeaa Am.o veo Ae.a see “H.8aeea dobfioonom mewsmmo oz mosvfiqnoep Hoqcom neon HO ooqmpmoooo HO so mammmgao Ono: pnoapnwmoo aonm measure Hoppen no ego: Am.omvao nn Am.mavam nn Am.m vmm Aw.m vmm soapmnomooo no .nOHpmmfiOHpan .ooqosHHqfi .poemmon .wsfiosopmeoosd poppem Hose Hose Hose memo meow meow mqomfinomaoo soapooaousH obapdoexm sham we mean he .mndoh ebam pawn esp weapon psoaowmqma Hessomnom mo mdoaprpoomxe .mobfipsoexo as mowndno mm.n canoe 302 respect to improvements in the personnel function which they want to make in the future? . (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types Of executives in large firms when their responses are com- pared with respect tO improvements in the personnel function which they want to make in the future? mecutive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms are moderately more concerned about improving economic productivity and efficiency in general (PsPl - RDI 6.2) and improving productivity and efficiency of employees in particular (PSPl - RDI 7.8) than are the personnel executives in large firms. On the other hand, person- nel executives in large firms indicate moderately more interest in improving manpower develOpment programs (P3P:L - RDI 7.1) and organization planning (PsPl - RDI 5.4). (2) Chief executives in small firms express moderately more concern for improving the area Of or- ganization planning than do chief executives in large firms (CSCl - RDI 6.4). Chief executives in large firms, on the other hand, are moderately more inter- ested in improving relationships between the personnel department and line and tOp management (C8 1 - RDI 6.5). (3) When compared with Operating executives in large firms, operating executives in small firms —...Il"h'. I; _- E 303 indicate greater interest in the improvements of per- , sonnel programs in general (030:L - RDI 11.3). In par- ticular, they are moderately-more concerned about im- proving programs related tO manpower development (0801 - RDI 5.3). The operating executives in large firms are moderately more interested in improving economic productivity and efficiency in general (0801 - RDI 6.4), and especially the productivity and effi-_ ciency of the employees (030:L - RDI 5.3). They also express moderately more conga-rm for making improve- ments in the area Of organization planning (0301 - RDI 5.4). '— Executive interaction comparisons (1) In general chief executives and Operating executives indicate more response to seeking improve- ments in personnel programs than do personnel execu- tives (PSCS - RDI 15.2, P308 - RDI 23.6, P101 - . RDI 15.5,“1;l l - RDI 9.7) ...-In addition, Operating executives in- small firms express moderately more con- cern for improving personnel programs than chief execu- tives in small firms do (0808 - RDI 8.4). Conversely, chief executives in large fit-ms are moderately more interested in inproving personnel programs than are the Operating executives in large firms (clol — RDI 5.8). (2) Chief executives and Operating executives in general express greater interest in seeking improvements 304 Table D.33 Improvements in results or effectiveness of personnel management desired by executives for the next five years, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size Of Firm 'PsPl Csol Osol Programs . -- -- 08(11-3) Manpower development P1( 7.1) -- 08( 5.3) Human relations -- -- -- Labor relations -- 4-- -- Economic: productivity and efficiency P8( 6.2) -— 01( 6.4) Firm —- -- -_ Employees PS( 7.8) -- 01( 5.3) Personnel department -- -- -- Organization planning and design P1( 5.4) CS( 6.4) 01( 5.4) Personnel policies -- -- -- Improved relationships with tOp management -- Cl( 6.5) -- in manpower development programs than.personnel execu- 1 tives do (PSCs - RDI 15.4, P32§.- RDI 24.3, PlC - LRDI 10.9, Pl 1 — RDI 11.9). At the same time, Operat- ing executives in.small firms are moderately more con- cerned about improving manpower programs than chief executives are (CSOS - RDI 8.9). 505 (3) Chief executives in large firms exhibit modere ately more concern about improving human relations programs than do Operating executives in the same sized firms (Clo1 - RDI 5.0). (43 Personnel executives in.small and large firms :3 indicate more response to improving economic produc- tivity and efficiency in general than chief executives 3 and Operating executives in.small and large firms do ' P101 - RDI 9.3). Also, chief executives in small firms, when compared with operating executives in the same sized firms, are moderately more interested in seeking improvement in economic productivity and effi- ciency (C80s - RDI 7.4). (5)—Personnel executives and chief executives in small firms report greater interest in improving the economic productivity and efficiency Of employees than Operating executives in small firms do (Psos - RDI 13.4, CSOS - RDI 10.0). -—_ (6) Personnel executives in small firms express more interest in improving the economic productivity and efficiency Of the personnel department compared ‘with chief executives and Operating executives (PSCs - .IRDI 11.2, P303 - RDI 5.0). Operating executives—in small firm;: however, are moderately more concerned ,about improving the personnel department than the chief 306 executives in small firms are (CSOS — RDI 6.2). Personnel executives in large firms exhibit moderately ' more concern for improving the personnel department than do chief executives in large firms (PlCl - RDI 8.1). _- (7) Chief executives in small firms are moderate- ly more concerned about improving organization planning and design than are personnel executives and Operating executives (PSCS - RDI 5.4, CSOs - RDI 6.4). The re- verse holds true for large firms (P10l — RDI 6.4, 0101 — RDI 5.4). _- '_- (8) Operating executives in large firms express moderately more interest in.1mproving personnel poli— cies than do personnel executives and chief executives in large firms (P10l - RDI 5.6, 01 l - RDI 5.9). (9) Personnel-executives in gmall firms, when compared with chief executives in the same sized firms, display a greater interest in improving relationships ‘with top management (PSCS - RDI 16.5). Personnel ex- ecutives in large firm; are moderately more interested in improving relationships with tOp management than are operating executives in large firms (P101 - RDI 5.4). Factors that personnel executives “BElieve inhibit their effectiveness (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to factors which they believe inhibit their effectiveness? 507 nu Ae.m cam nn un nn Am.osvmm eooaomaaoa no» new: meanmmoapmaon doboegaH Am.m vao A®.m vac nn nn nn nu mofloaaom Hosdomnom Ae.m vac nu Ae.o vam A¢.o vac nu A4.m vmo amameo one msflsmoam soapouflquno nn nn Aa.r can Am.o veo Ao.m can Am.aavea paeaeeeaee Heaaeeaea nu nn nu Ao.oavmo no.mavmm nu mooeoeeam nn nn nn nn nn nn sham . H . a . a . a . a nu Am m v m A: m v m Aw b v 0 Am Hmv m Am mav m hoseHOflHMo one hpfibfiposoOnm "Oflsosoom nn nn nn nn nn nn msoapmaon Honda mo.m vac nn nn nn nn nn msowpmaen ndamm nu Am.HHvHo Am.oavao Am.w vac Am.emvao Aa.mevao eaoaaosoeoo soreness Am.m vac Au.m vac Am.mavao Aa.m vmo Ao.mmvmo Am.maveo maoemoam Ho 6 Hose Hose moeo acme 86am msomwnomaoo moapowuequ obepdoowm sham HO exam hp .mnweh obau oxen new mobapfioexe hp confined paesowmama Homeownem mo mmeqobapoomme no mpadmen aw mpsoao>onmaH on.a canoe 308 Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms place greater emphasis on poorly trained personnel workers (PsPl - RDI 12.3), whereas personnel executives in large firms place moderately more emphasis on lack Of access to or acceptance by top management (PsPl - RDI 7.2). Table D.35 Factors that personnel execu— tives believe inhibit their effectiveness, by size Of firm Pressure Of details -- Poorly trained or insufficient numbers of personnel workers PS(12.3) Lack of access to or acceptance by top management P1( 7.2) . Personal limitations —- Lack Of line management acceptance or understanding -- Bureaucratic factors in firm —- Lack Of funds or resources -- Executives who are critical Of the field oftpersonneI management and executives who are not critical Of the field Of personnel management (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in.small and large firms regarding those who are critical 509 of the field Of personnel management compared with those who are not critical of the field of personnel management? ~(2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms regarding those who are critical Of the field of personnel management compared with those who are not critical Of the field of personnel management? (3) What differences, if any, are there among the Operating executives in small and large firms regarding those who are critical of the field Of personnel management compared with those who are not critical Of the field of personnel management? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to those who are critical of the field of personnel management and those who are not critical of the field of personnel management? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to those who are critical Of the field of personnel management and those who are not critical Of the field Of personnel management? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) The personnel executives in small firms gave a greater response to not being critical (PsPl - RDI 11.6), whereas the personnel executives in lgrge firms gave a greater response to being critical (P8P1 - RDI 11.6). Executive interaction comparisons (1) In general, personnel executives are more critical of the field Of personnel management than are 310 Table D.36 Executives who are critical of the field Of personnel management and executives who are not critical Of the field Of personnel management, by size Of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl CSCl 0801 Critical P1(ll.6) -- __ Not critical PS(11.6) -- -- chief executives and Operating executives (Pscs - RDI 6.9, 3303 - RDI 22.3, 32.01 - RDI 18.0, E01 - RDI 31.2). HOwever, chief executives generally dis- play greater criticism of the field than Operating executives do (CSOS - RDI 15.4, 0101 - RDI 13.2). (2) In general, chief executives and Operating executives are more reluctant to make any criticisms Of the field Of personnel management (Pscs - RDI 6.9, P822 - RDI 22.3, Pig; - RDI 18.0, PLO; — RDI 31.2). Operating executives, however, generally display greater reluctance to make any criticisms of the field (CSOS - RDI 15.4, c 0 _l 1 - RDI 13.2). Criticisms or reservations of the Tibld ofgpersonnel management madeiby executives (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms regarding criticisms of the field Of personnel management? 311 Am.mavao Am.amvao Ao.maveo Ae.mavao Am.mmveo Am.o veo Heoepaao roz Am.mavao Am.amvam Ao.mevam Ae.maveo Am.mmvmm Am.o vem Haoetho H O H o H a a Hm acme room room 0 m U maomwnogaoo_n0flpoonean o>Hpsooxm sham MO mean he .psoaommsma Homdomnom HO oaoam esp HO Hmoapano pom one on; mobfipdooxo osd.usoaowmnma Hosdomaom HO oaowm on» HO HwOHpHHO one 0:3 mobapdooxm um.n canoe 312 (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms regarding criticisms of the field Of personnel management? (3) What differences, if any, are there among the Operating executives in small and large firms regarding criticisms of the field ‘ Of personnel management? F1 (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with , respect tO their criticisms of the field Of , personnel management? 'va (4b) What differences, if any, are there ' between the three types Of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to their criticisms Of the field of personnel management? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms express greater criticism over lack Of recognition and accept- ance (P8P1 - RDI 12.4) and moderately more criticism concerning the pressure of details (PSPl - RDI 5.9), whereas personnel executives in largg-firms are moder- ately more critical Of too much emphasis on techniques (PS 1 - RDI 6.8). -_'(2) When compared with chief executives in large firms, chief executives in small firms exhibit greater criticism.over inadequate resources (CSC - RDI 15.0) 1 and moderately more criticism over lack Of recognition and respect (CSCl - RDI 7.1). On the other hand, chief executives in large firms display greater criticism 315 over lack Of line or general management experience on the part of personnel managers (CSC1 - RDI 11.6). (3) Operating executives in gmall firms indicate greater criticism over pressure of details (0301 - RDI 10.0) and moderately more criticism over—lack of recognition or acceptance (OSO1 - RDI 6.0). Operating executives in large firms a;; moderately more critical of too much emphasis being placed on techniques (opp; - RDI 8.0). Executive interaction comparisons (1) Personnel executives and Operating executives in general express greater criticism.about weaknesses of the personnel department compared with chief execu- tives (PSCS - RDI 23.2, CSOS - RDI 25.7, PlCl — RDI 28:3: 01 l - RDI 30.4)T_ “_— (2) PeE;Onnel executives in general indicate greater criticism over lack Of recognition and reSpect than do chief executives and Operating executives {SECS - RDI 22.9, EEOS - RDI 20.0, P101 - RDI 17.6, P101 - RDI 13.6). (3) When compared to chief executives in small firms, personnel executives and operating executives in the same sized firms show greater criticism over pressure of details (PSCS — RDI 10.0, 0303 - RDI 10.0). (4) Chief executives in general exp;ess greater criticism over inadequate resources than personnel .- .IwnL. o l u- 314 Table D.38 Criticisms or reservations of the field of personnel management made by executives, by size Of firm Executive Comparisons by Size Of Firm P P1 0801 0801 Department's own weaknesses -— -- —- Lack of recognition and acceptance PS(12.4) C ( 7.1) O ( 6.0) NO future for advancement —- -_ -_ Pressure Of details P5( 5.9) -- OS(lO.O) Lack of resources -— 08(15,o) -- NO basis for evaluating progress -- -_ -_ TOO much emphasis on techniques P1( 6.8) -— 0 Poor public relations -- -- -_ Lack of line or general management knowledge by per— sonnel executives -- 01(1l.6) '- executives and Operating executives do (PSCS - RDI 28.6, (5) Chief executives in small firms are moder- ately more critical about too much emphasis on tech— niques compared with personnel executives and Operating 515 executives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 7.1, CSOS - RDI 7.1). .(6) When compared with chief executives and Operating executives, personnel executives, in general, display greater criticism over poor public relations (PSCS — RDI 20.0,330S - RDI 20.0, P101 - RDI 24.3, (7) In general, chief executives and Operating executives report greater criticism concerning lack of line or general knowledge by personnel executives than personnel executives do (PSCS - RDI 42.9, PSOS - RDI 40.0, P C 1 1 tion, chief executives in large firms diSplay greater - RDI 54.5, P10l - RDI 40.0). In addi- criticism over this factor than operating executives in the same sized firms do (0101 - RDI 14.5). Areas in which personnel department assiSted’qperating»executives during the past two_years (1) What differences, if any, are there among the Operating executives in small and large firms with respect to how they believe the personnel department has assisted them in dealing with concerns of personnel manage- ment which have occupied most Of their time within the last two years? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Operating executives in small organizations place moderately more emphasis on receiving assistance from the personnel department on matters related to nn nn nn nn nn nn mmonmonm weavedam>o Hon mammp oz Ao.mevao nn Am.mavao Ao.mmvmo un Ao.mmvmo mooaaomoe me some nu nu nn Ao.oavmo un Ao.oavmm aeaeeoo no ohdmmohm nn nn nn nn nn nn pseaeoqm>om How cusps“ oz un Ao.mavam Ao.aavam nn mo.omvmm Am.mmvmm ooaapaoooa one ro mowpfismOooH mo Moog .1 _ 3 2.886 ..n 3.8.? gamete n. 8.8? eeeeefieea . s30 m.psoapnomon Hoao Hose seam aomo ream roam mmomwnmgaoo nOHpowHopsH ebwpfiooxm Sham MO oufim hp .mobapfiooko he eons psoaomoqma Heqqomnom HO oaoflm esp HO mQOprbnemen no mamaoapfino on.a canoe 317 Am.oavao Ao.oevao Am.emeae n- Ao.oevme Am.emvem Am.emvem nn Ao.omvmm nn nn Aa.e vee nn Am.mdvmo mo>ap§oexo Hemsommeg he owdoazonx poms nowmqms Homesow HO mafia mo Moog Ao.omvmm escapades Ofiapdm Room ma.u Vmo modvflqsoep so mammnmao soda OOH a O H O Hose Hoam memo acme msomwnmgaoo GOHpOmHOpQH ebapdooxm O m soaaapaoonnmm.e oases 318 wage and salary administration (OSOl - RDI 7.7), whereas Operating executives in large firms place greater emphasis on receiving advice, counsel, and direct assistance (OSOl - RDI 15.2). En Table D. 40 Areas in which personnel de- ‘ partment assisted Operating executives during the past two years, by size of firm Advice and counsel 01(15.2) Information and research -- Manpower acquisition and development —~ Labor relations -- Human relations problems -— Wages, salaries, benefits OS( 7.7) Improving and developing policies -- Organization planning -- Operating executives who report that there are areas in which they are not ggttinggsufficient_help from their personneiidepartments and operating executives Who report that'there are no areas i8 Which they want more help from theirpersonnel departments (1) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms with respect to those who report there are areas in which they are not getting 519 sufficient help from their personnel depart- ments compared with those who report that there are no areas in which they want more help from their personnel departments? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Operating executives in small firms are moderately more inclined to report that there are no areas in which they want more help (0801 - RDI 9.1), whereas Operating executives in large firms are moder- ately more inclined to report that there are areas in which they are not getting sufficient help (0801 - RDI 9.1). '— Table D.4l Operating executives who report that there are areas in which they are not getting sufficient help from their personnel de- partments and Operating execu- tives who report that there are no areas in which they want more help from their personnel de- partments, by size Of firm 0 0 s 1 Areas 01( 9.1) NO areas 08( 9.1) Areas in which operating executives receive insufficient help from their_personnel departments (1) What differences, if any, are there among operating executives in small and large firms with respect to any areas in which they 320 believe they do not receive enough help from their personnel department? Executive comparisons by size Of firm (1) Operating executives in small firms place mod- erately more emphasis on not receiving enough help from the personnel department in the areas Of motivation, morale, and human relations (0801 - RDI 16.2), whereas Operating executives in large—firms place moderately more emphasis on problems of organization planning and design (0801 - RDI 7.9), employment programs and prob- lems (OBO£_: RDI 9.9), and labor relations (0801 - RDI 5.3)-.— _- Table D.42 Areas in which operating executives receive insufficient help from their personnel departments, by size Of firm Improving or administering policies, planning, or research -- Problems of organization planning and design 01( 7.9) Employment programs and problems 01( 9.9) Problems Of motivation, morale, and human relations 03(16.2) Executive development and employee training and appraisal _- Labor relations, grievances, and disciplinary action ' 01( 5.3) Economic problems: wages, salaries, pensions, safety -- 321 ‘ Additional areas of knowle e and tra nee e ,personne execu ves O mee _present standards '(1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding additional knowledge and . training they feel they need to meet present standards? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms regarding additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to meet present standards? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms regarding additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to meet present standards? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to meet present standards? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types Of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to meet present standards? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms place greater emphasis on acquiring more knowledge about 1a- bor relations (P8P1 - RDI 13.0), whereas personnel exr ecutives in large firms mention with greater frequency the need for quantitative skills (PsPl - RDI 11.2). 322 (2) Chief executives in small firms place greater emphasis on having personnel executives improve their understanding of new personnel techniques (08C1 - RDI 15.9) and moderately more emphasis on gaining-zddi- tional information about labor relations (CBC1 - RDI 7.6). - '— Chief executives in large firms provide greater emphasis on personnel executives developing more in? sight into the behavioral sciences (CBC1 - RDI 15.6) and moderately more concern about acquiPing additional line or general management experience (0801 - RDI 6.4) and fringe benefits knowledge (CSC1 - RDI-3.3). (3) Operating executives infgmall firms display greater concern for personnel executives acquiring knowledge about labor relations (0301 - RDI 21.2) and new personnel techniques (0301 - 531 17.6), and.moder- ately more concern for acquiring behavioral science knowledge (OSOl - RDI 7.7). Operating executives in large firms place greater emphasis on personnel executives acquiring more line or general management experience (0301 - RDI 36.9). Executive interaction comparisons (l) The need for personnel executives to have more knowledge about quantitative skills is mentioned moderately more often by chief executives in.small 325 Table D.43 Additional areas Of knowledge and training needed by personnel executives tO meet present standards, by size Of firm Executive COmparisons by Size Of Firm P8P1 CsCl 0801 Quantitative skills Pl(ll.2) -- -- Labor relations skills Ps(l3.0) Cs( 7.6) 03(21‘2) Behavioral science knowledge -- 01(15.6) Os( 7.7) Line or general management knowledge -- Cl( 6.4) 01(36.9) Fringe benefits knowledge -- cl( 5,3) -- New'personnel techniques -- CS(15.9) 08(17.6) firms than personnel executives and operating execur tives in the same sized firms (PSCS - RDI 6.6, (:80,3 - . RDI 8.3). Personnel executives i;_1arge firms Egress the above factor moderately more than.chief executives and Operating executives in large firms do (P101 - RDI 8.4, P 0 - RDI 8.1). -—- 1 1 (2) Operating executives in small firms express greater concern over personnel executives acquiring 1 additional knowledge about labor relations than do , personnel executives and chief executives in small 324 (3) Chief executives in small firms express more concern than personnel executives and operating execu- tives about the need for personnel executives to have a better understanding of the behavioral sciences (PSCS - RDI 5.8, 0808 - RDI 13.1). Personnel execu- tives in small firms place moderately more stress on this factor than do operating executives in small firms (PSOS - RDI 7.3). The same results are noticed in large firms (PLS; - RDI 21'1’.E$91 — RDI 36.4,.El91 - RDI 15.0). (4) The personnel executives' need for additional line or general management experience is stressed mod- erately more by chief executives in.small firms comp pared with personnel executives and operating executives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 9.1, CSOS - RDI 5.4). In large firms, operating executives place greater emphasis on the above factor than personnel executives ‘ and chief executives do (P101 - RDI 38.2, 0101 - RDI 25.1). Chief executives in large firms indicate greater concern about additional line or general man- agement experience than do personnel executives in large firms (P101 - RDI 13.1). (5) Compa;;d to Operating executives in small firms, personnel executives and chief executives ex- press more concern about personnel executives having 525 a better understanding of fringe benefits (PSOS — RDI 10.0, 0508 - RDI 8.3). -_- That—personnel executives should have greater knowledge about the above factor is stated moderately more by chief executives in large firms than personnel 5? executives and Operating executives in large firms Ele (PIEl — RDI 6.5, $01 - RDI 8.8). (6) The need for personnel executives to have 31 I more knowledge about new personnel techniques receives i ' greater attention from personnel executives and oper- ating executives in small firms than from chief execu— tives in the same size firms (PSCS - RDI 16.7, CSOS - RDI 21.2). Personnel executives in large firms place greater emphasis on the above factor compared with chief execu— tives and operating executives in large firms (PlCl — RDI 34.4, P101 firms display greater concern over this matter than - RDI 14.9). Chief executives in large ‘ operating executives do (0101 - RDI 19.5). Additional areas of knowledge and training needed bywpersonnel executives to make significant adVanced in effectiveness (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding additional knowledge and training they feel they need to make signifi— cant future advances? ‘ (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large 326 3.35. 8.3? as? edema .. seems $33.3 . ‘ . Honqomnon 3oz Am.m vac u: Am.m Vac Am.m Vmo Ao.oavmm u- owemasoqs anemones omnanm Aa.mmvao Am.mmVao Aa.mavao as.m vmo :. ha.m Vmo omeoasons psoamwmqaa Hwnonem no odaq as.mmVHo Ao.mavam Aa.amvao ma.mavmo Am.s vmm Am.m Vmo «weoasoqs ooflowom HwHOfibonom :. u- a- Aa.¢a8mo Am.oavmo I- maaeaw mnoapaaon gonna u- Aa.m yam as.w Vam Am.m vmo . r- Am.o Vmo maaaam opfipmpepqasa Hcan Hcam scam memo meme momm mddmahdgaoo dOHpOmHOQGH o>Hpfiomxm and“ no mean hp .mpnmdqum unomon poms op mobflpsooxo Hoqnomhom_hn doomed wndnwmnp one proazonM Ho moons HMQOflpfidpd ¢¢.n canoe 527 firms regarding additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to make significant future advances? (3) What differences, if any, are there among operating executives in small and large firms regarding additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to make significant future advances? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are com- pared with respect to additional knowledge and training they feel personnel executives need to make significant advances in effectiveness? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to additional knowl- edge and training they feel personnel ex~ ecutives need to make significant advances in effectiveness? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in.small firms emphasize greater concern for acquiring additional line or general . management experience (PSPl — RDI 11.8) and moderately more concern for gainingjmore information on labor re- lations (PsPl - RDI 8.9) and fringe benefits (PSPl - RDI 7.1):—70n the other hand, personnel executives in large firms place greater emphasis on areas related to new personnel techniques (PSPl — RDI 12.4) and be- havioral science (PsPl — RDI 18:8). (2) The need £3; the personnel executive to have more line or general management experience receives greater attention from chief executives in small firms 328 (0801 - RDI 15.5). They also are moderately more con- cerned about the labor relations area (C50 1 - RDI 6.4) 0 That personnel executives need to acquire more knowledge about new personnel techniques is stated with greater frequency by chief executives in large firms (0801 - RDI 26.0). (3) Operating executives in small firms report a greater response to having personnel executives learn more about the behavioral sciences (0801 - RDI 27.0) compared with Operating executives in large firms who express greater concern.with the area of new personnel techniques (OSO1 - RDI 15.4). Table p.45 Additional areas of knowledge and training needed by personnel executives to make significant advances in effectiveness, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PSPl CsCl 0301 Quantitative skills -- -- -- Labor relations skills P8( 8.9) CS( 6.4) -- Behavioral science knowledge Pl(10.8) -- 03(27'0) Line or general management knowledge PS(11.8) CS(15.5) -- Fringe benefits knowledge PS( 7.1) -- -- New personnel techniques P1(12.4) 01(26.O) 01(15.4) 9? 329 Executive interaction comparisons (1) That personnel executives should improve their quantitative skills is stated moderately more by per- sonnel executives and chief executives in small firms than operating executives in small firms (P303 - RDI 7.0, 0,308 - RDI 5.7). _ The improvement of quantitative skills is stressed moderately more by personnel executives in large firms compared with chief executives and operating executives in the same Size firms (P101 - RDI 9.0, 2101 - RDI 7.8). (2) The operating executives in 1a.;g-e firms place moderately more emphasis on the need for the personnel executive to gain additional knowledge about labor re- lations compared to personnel executives and chief ex- ecutives in large firms (P101 — RDI 9.6, 0101 - RDI 8.3). — ' _- (3) The need for personnel executives to acquire knowledge about the behavioral sciences is given greater attention by chief executives and operating executives in small firms than personnel executives in the same size firms (Pscs - RDI 10.3, Psos - RDI 17.3). Operating executives in small firms are moderately more concerned about this factor than are chief executives (Csos - RDI 7.0). Personnel executives. and chief executives in large firms place greater emphasis on the behavioral 530 sciences compared to Operating executives in the same firms (P10 - RDI 20.5, 0101 - RDI 18.8). 1 (4) The need for personnel executives to gain additional line or general management experience re- ceives moderately more attention from chief executives in small firms than personnel executives in small firms (PSC8 - RDI 9.7), and greater attention from chief exp ecutives in small firms compared with operating execu, tives in the same size firms (Csos ; RDI 15.1). Personnel executives in small firms are moderately more concerned about this factor than are operating executives in small firms (PSOs - RDI 5.4). Chief executives and Operating executives in large firms respond more to the need for more line or general experience than do personnel executives in large firms (PlCl - RDI 6.0, P101 — RDI 10.3). (5) The personnel executive's need for additional information about fringe benefits is emphasized moder- ately more by personnel executives in small firms, come pared with chief executives and Operating executives in the same size firms (PSCs - RDI 5.4, PSOS - RDI 7.2). (6) Operating executives in general place more emphasis on personnel executives acquiring information about new personnel techniques than do personnel execu- tives and chief executives (P80S - RDI 5.3, 0305 - RDI 17.4, P1 1 - RDI 8.3, C1 1 — RDI 6.8). Personnel 331 F Will! 1‘ as vac as Vac H ... exudes as one 3.3mm assesses Hoqqomnem 3oz s- u: n: In Am.s ves as.m vem assessess assesses assess u- Am.osvao “0.0 Vac ma.mavae as.m me as.m vac emeeasess pqosowmqss Hdnosom no case Am.mavao Am.omvam nu Ao.a vmo Am.aavmo Am.oavmo assessess modesom HwHOflbmsom Am.m vac Am.m vac u- u- n- .. assess msowpmflos nonmn n- Am.s vam Ao.m ves as.m vmo . Ao.a me nu masses eeaeseaesssa Hoao scam seam . memo some some mnomflnmmaoo soapomnopsH abandooxm sham no mean hp .mmosobapoommo as moossbpm mobflpdoexo HoqdowHem hp doomed mafinawnp was Owdoazqu essesuaswam sass op me seems assospaees es.n eases 552 executives in small firms place greater emphasis on new personnel techniques than chief executives do (SECS - RDI 12.1). Main strengths attributed to head I: of personnel"by chief executives I? and*operatingrexecutives (1) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large ; firms with respect to what they consider to : be the main strengths the head of personnel i I brings to his work? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to what they con- sider to be the main strengths the head of personnel brings to his work? (3a) What differences, if any, are there between the two types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to what they consider to be the main strengths which the head of personnel brings to his work? (3b) What differences, if any, are there between the two types of executives ‘ . in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to what they consider to be the main strengths which the head of personnel brings to his work? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) The chief executive group in large firms re- ports a greater response rate to tOp management view of the company (CSC1 - RDI 26.6), accepts responsi- bility and seeks challenge (CSCl - RDI 15.1), decision- making and problem.solv1n8 (C931 - RDI 23.6), back- ground in operating management (0501 - RDI 24.4), and 535 knows what to delegate (CSC1 - RDI 14.1). This group also reports moderately more emphasis on profit oriented (CSCl - RDI 7.6). In turn, the chief executive group in small firms places moderately more emphasis on legal- collective bargaining experience (0801 - RDI 5.6) and getting things done through peOp1e_with.minimum.wear and tear (CSCl - RDI 7.1). (2) Operating executives in large firms, when compared with operating executives in small firms, place greater emphasis on legal or collective bargains ing eXperience (OSOl — RDI 11.9), knows what to dele- gate (OSOl - RDI 28:2), effective organizer (OSOl - RDI 13.8): accepts responsibility and seeks challenge (OSOl - RDI 16.0), good communicator (OSO1 — RDI 13.4), strong executive recruiting abilities andfgood insight into people (0801 - RDI 20.6), profit oriented (OSO1 - RDI 15.3) and t3; management view of company‘s busi:' ness and interests (OSOl - RDI 17.8). In addition, the operating executives inflarge firms place moderateky more emphasis on background in operating management (0801 - RDI 9.0), good planner (OSO1 - RDI 9.1), ability to get things done throughjpeople with.minimum wear and tear (OSO1 - RDI 8.2), and other miscellaneous 554 Executive interaction comparisons (1) In general, the operating executives place more emphasis on the personnel executive having a back- ground in Operating management (CSOS - RDI 24.4, 0101 - RDI 9.0). — _ (2) Legal or collective bargaining experience (0808 - RDI 8.9, 01 1 - RDI 8.6), an effective organiz- ar—(CSOS - RDI 7.3;_Cl l - RDI 7.1), and one who has the ability to get things done through peOple, with minimum wear and tear (CSOS - RDI 6.4, 0101 - RDI 8.9) are strengths mentianed moderately more frequently by chief executives in small firms compared with Operating execu- tives in small firms. Similar findings are noted for operating executives in large firms when compared with chief executives in the same size firms. (3) When compared with operating executives, chief executives mention more frequently those strengths related to strong executive recruiting abilities and good insight into people (0808 - RDI 27.1, C 01 - RDI 8.7) and profit orients; (CSOS - RDI 14. , C O - RDI 6.7). (4) The operating executives in small firms re- port a greater response to decision-making as a strength, compared to the chief executives in small firms (CSOS - RDI 12.3). The reverse is indicated for chief 335 executives in large firms, compared to operating ex- ecutives in the same sized firms (ClOl - RDI 12.9). (5) Chief executives in small—firms report a greater response to good communicator as a strength than Operating executives in the same size firms do (CSOS - RDI 12.3) and moderately more response to being a—EOOd planner (CSOS - RDI 7.4). (6) The chEEf executives in large firms place a greater emphasis on their personnel executives having a top management point of view than.operating execu— tives in large firms do (C101 - RDI 11.5). (7) When compared with chief executives in large firms, operating executives in large firms place greater attention on knowing what to delegate as a strength (C101 - RDI 18.9) and moderately more emphasis on "other" miscellaneous strengths (ClOl - RDI 5.6). Quantitative criteria for evaluating ‘the effectiveness of personnel management (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding the quantitative criteria which they believe chief executives can use to measure the effectiveness of personnel management? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms regarding the quantitative criteria they use for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in.small and large 336 Am.m vac as.o vac Am.m vHo Aa.s vac sees use see; assasaa seas cameos assess» egos messes pew op message Aa.b vac Am.u vmo Am.mavao II Headqswao obfipoemmm Am.msvso n- Am.mmvao “H.savao maemsas so ass: as pass one opwmmaec Op pan: mzoqm Ao.msvso Am.msvmo .. Ae.mmvao message msaeaem aoanosm use norms noamwoom In A¢.u vmo ma.m vao II Hangman noow Ao.m vao Ao.m vmo Am.savao no.m Vmo eeseasegxe wsflswmmsmn mbwpomaaoo so waoq Ao.o vac As.amvmo Ao.m vac as.smvao esesewssss assessemo as assosmseem .. u- u- u: soapsssmasasss mmosflmdn ma oohmop mpwfipmew m H Ho memo Hcmo Ho 0 O msomflemmaoo nowpomnmpsH o>flpdomxm pas sham mo Oswm hp msomflnmmaoo m>apdooxm spam no ouflm hp .mobapfiomxo wsfipmsomo new mo>apdooxo Moshe he Hoqdomnom mo uses on pmpdnfisupm mnpwsospm new: m¢.q wanes A©.m vac A@.m vac II nonpo Am.aavao Am.eavao Ao.omvao memesepss was mmosflmsn m.hqmmsoo mo stab psoaommqma no» new Aa.o vac as.savmo Am.mavao Ao.a vac sensesso assess as.w vac Aa.smvmo Am.omvao n- assess ease pawsmsa seem ass meapsaass msapflsnoos o>wpdooxo wqospm II II In mafia as mpmoo meow 7 m” I: Am.mavmo A¢.mavao In homeomwsms mo swab psowosmos Op maps .Hoprflsdasoo @000 u- Ao.mavao Aa.msvso emseaasse end thHHQHmSOQmoH mummoo< Hoso Howe Home msomfiesmsOo cosponsopsH obflpdooxm Sham mo team he msomflemmsoo obflpdooxm sessspsoouuas.m magma 338 firms regarding the quantitative criteria they use for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are com? pared with respect to quantitative criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of per- sonnel management? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are come pared with respect to quantitative criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of per- sonnel management? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms make moderately more use of lower per capita personnel costs as a criterion compared with personnel execu- tives in large firms (PSPl - RDI 6.4). (2) Chief executives in.small firms tend to men? tion the use of criteria such as improved absenteeism, turnover, and safety moderately more than chief execu? tives in large firms do (CSCl - RDI 7.9). The latter group indicates moderatelyfmore use of lower manpower costs (CSC1 - RDI 8.0) and corporate profit or pro- ductivityfz'CSCl — RDI 7.1) as criteria. (3) Operating executives in.small firms indicate moderately more use of criteria such as improved ab- senteeism, turnover, and safety (0301 - RDI 9.1) and corporate profit or productivity (OSOl - RDI 8.0), "a 539 whereas operating executives in large firms make greater use of an adequate supply of manpower as a criterion (OSOl - RDI 10.7). Table D.48 Quantitative criteria for evaluating the F1 effectiveness of personnel management, by size of firm Executive Comparisons i by Size of Firm fl PsPl Cscl Osol Improved absenteeism, turnover and safety -- CS( 7.9) OS( 9.1) Savings in labor contract or grievances handled -— -- -- Adequate supply of manpower —- -- 01(10.7) Lower per capita personnel costs PS( 6.4) -— -+ . Corporate profit or productivity -- C1( 7.1) OS( 8.0) Lower manpower costs -- Cl( 8.0) -- Number of programs and services -— -- -- Executive interaction comparisons (1) The use of criteria such as improved absen- teeism, turnover, and safety is cited.moderately'more by operating executives in small firms compared with 340 personnel executives and chief executives in firms of the same size (PSOS — RDI 9.2, CSOs - RDI 6.0). (2) The use of savings in labor relations as a criterion is mentioned moderately more by chief execu- re tives in small firms than personnel executives in the g same sized firms (PSCS - RDI 7.4). Similar findings are noted for chief executives in large firms when they i are compared with operating executives in large firms g (C10l - RDI 6.2). -_- (3) Personnel executives and chief executives in small firms, when compared with Operating executives in the same sized firms, report more use of adequate supply of manpower as a criterion (PSOS - RDI 5.4, CSOS - RDI 10.2). _—' __- (4) Personnel executives and operating executives in small firms make moderately more use Of lower per capita personnel costs as a criterion than chief execu— tives in small firms do (PSCS - RDI 8.0, CSOS — RDI 6.0). Operating executives in large firms report more use of the above factor than do personnel executives and chief executives in firms of the same size (P101 - RDI 6.1, (5) Corporate profit or productivity as criteria are mentioned moderately more by Operating executives in small firms than by chief executives in small firms (CSOS - RDI 6.0). On the other hand, personnel [F ‘23. ma.m vac Am.oavao 541 A ‘Y \O Ao.m Vac Am.m vmo moow>nmm new msmsmosm Mo nonasz mpmoo Hmzonsms Hmzoq hpsbaposoosm no psyche mpmsomnoo mpmoo Hossomsmm mpflmwo you Hozoq Hozomsma mo hagmdm mandamus emanate moosm>oflem so pomspsoo Hosea sH mmsfi>wm hpmmtw use embossdp .amflompsmmpw UmbosmaH H H O m H D H m some seem msomflnmmaoo sowpossopsH o>apSooxm seam mo ouHm hp .psoammmsma Hossomsoa mo mmosm>flpoommo esp wsfipwsHmbo mom mflsmpflso obflpwpflpsm5@ m¢.Q manta 342 executives and chief executives in large firms cite the above factors moderately more than operating execu- tives in large firms do (P10l - RDI 85,3110l — RDI 9.1). ualitative criteria for evaluatinggthe e fectiveness of_personnél management (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding the qualitative criteria which they believe chief executives can.use to measure the effectiveness of personnel management? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in.small and large firms regarding the qualitative criteria they use for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? (3) What differences, if any, are there among operating executives in small and large firms regarding the qualitative criteria they use for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? (4a) What differences, if any, are there. between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to qualitative criteria used for eval- uating the effectiveness of personnel management? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between.the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to qualitative criteria used for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Personnel executives in small firms report moderately more use of higher employee morale and better 343 communication (PsPl - RDI 6.7) as criteria, whereas personnel executives in large firms indicate moderately more use of effectiveness of programs in meeting com- pany objectives (P3Pl - RDI 7.4) and respect and use of programs by line-executives (P8151 - RDI 5.6). (2) Respect and use of programs by line execu- tives as criteria are cited moderately more by chief executives in large firms compared with chief execu- tives in small firms (C801 — RDI 9.7). (3) Operating executives in small firms make moderately more use of reduction of labor trouble as a criterion (0801 - RDI 9.3) , whereas operating execu- tives in large firms indicate greater use of effective- ness of programs in meeting company objectives (0801 - RDI 15.0) and high employee morale and better comm-1:1- cation as criteria (0301 - RDI 11.1). Executive interaction comparisons (1) When compared with personnel executives in small firms, chief executives in small firms make mod- erately more use of the effectiveness of programs in meeting company objectives as a criterion (Pace - RDI 7.8). Operating executives in large fin:- report greater use of the criterion mentioned above compared with personnel executives and chief executives in large firms (P131- - RDI 11.7, 0101 - RDI 11.3). 344 Table D.50 Qualitative criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of personnel management, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm Cscl Osol Effectiveness of programs in meeting company objectives P1( 7.4) -- 01(15.O) Higher employee morale, better communication PS( 6.7) -- Os(ll.l) Reduction of labor troubles -- -- Os( 9.3) Quality of personnel policies -- —- —- Respect and use of programs by line P1( 5.6) C1( 9.7) -- (2) Chief executives and operating executives in small firms indicate moderately more use of high ems ployee morale and better communication as criteria than do personnel executives in firms of the same size (PSCS - RDI 9.6, PSOS - RDI 6.6). In large firms, the criteria mentioned abOVe are used with greater fre- quency by chief executives than personnel executives and operating executives (P10l - RDI 14.7, 0101 — RDI 12.5). — _- (3) The reduction of labor troubles as a criterion is mentioned more by personnel executives and operating 345 executives in small firms than by chief executives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 6.3, CSOS - RDI 10.3). The above criterion is also mentioned moderately more by personnel executives in large firms compared with chief executives in large firms (PlCl - RDI 6.7). (4) Personnel executives in small firms mention respect and use of programs by line as criteria moder- ately more than chief executives and operating execu- tives in small firms do (PSCS - RDI 8.3, PSOS - RDI 9.8). The above criteria are also cited more by-personnel ex- ecutives and chief executives in large firms compared with Operating executives in large firms (P101 — RDI 11.4, Pace of chggge occurringggenerally in t e 1e 0 qpersonnel management (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large, firms with respect to their perceptions of the pace of change in personnel management? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms with respect to their perceptions of the pace of change in.personnel management? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in.small and large firms with respect to their perceptions of the pace of change in personnel management? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to their perceptions of the pace of change in personnel management? 346 it“? 5?. as see asses .. .. as one as and n- u- “5.0 ves Am.oavmo u: Am.m ves Am.msvao nu as.savao -u Ao.o vmo Ao.m veo aa.aavao Ae.aavao -- -- -- Aa.s ves mafia hp msmnwonm Ho and use poommem moaoaaom aoqsomHem mo hpwamsa meansonp Honda mo soaposbom nOHmequaaoo Happen .oawnos omboagao Hosmflm mo>flpomnoo hammsoo wsflpoos as mamswosm no mmoso>apoomwm Hoao scam scam some meme 0 m msomflnmgaoo GospownmpsH o>HpsOmxm seam mo osflm hp .psoaowmsma Hossomnom mo mmesobfipoemmo esp wsfipmsaw>o mom wwnopfiso m>fluwpaamsd Hm.m manta 347 (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to their perceptions of the pace of change in personnel management? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) When compared with personnel executives in large firms, personnel executives in small firms indi- cate moderately more response to a slow pace of change (PsPl - RDI 5.7) and a greater response to a gradual page of change (PSPl - RDI 16.7). Personnel executives in large firms indicate a greater response to a rapid change (PSPl - RDI 19.0). (2) Xfmoderately higher percentage Of chief exp ecutives in large firms, compared with chief executives in small firms, believe that the pace of change will be gradual (CsCl - RDI 7.7). (3) Operating executives in small firms report a moderately higher response to a slow pace of change (0801 - RDI 8.7), whereas operating executives in large firms indicate a moderately higher response to a gradual change (0801 - RDI 5.3) and a change which.is rapid (OSO1 - RDI 6:7). Executive interaction comparisons (1) More chief executives and Operating executives in small firms report that the present pace of change is slow compared to personnel executives in firms of r 348 Table D.52 Pace of change occurring generally in the field of personnel management, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl Cscl Osol Quite slow PS( 5.7) —- OS( 8.7) Gradual Ps(l6.7) Cl( 7.7) 01( 5.3) Rapid Pl(19.0) -- 01( 6.7) Revolutionary -- -- -- the same size (PSCS - RDI 5.8, Psos - RDI 10.0). Similar findings are noted for large firms (PlCl - RDI 7.0, Pl 1 - RDI 7.0). (2) a_greater percentage of chief executives and operating executives in large firms report that they believe the present pace is gradual compared with.per- sonnel executives in large firms (P101 - RDI 24.0, P - RDI 22.0). 1 l (3) A rapid pace of change is reported more by personnel executives and chief executives in small firms than by operating executives in firms of the same size (PSOS - RDI 11.7, CSOS - RDI 8.0). In addition, per- sonnel executives i; 1arge.firms place greater em- phasis on a rapid change compared with chief executives 349 and Operating executives (P101 - RDI 26.0, P101 - RDI 24.0). _ _- (4) When compared with chief executives and oper- ating executives in large firms, personnel executives in large firms indicate moderately more response to a revolutionary change in pace (PIC1 - RDI 5.0, P101 - RDI 5.0). _' Degree of change in personnel activities expectedfby executives dufing the next:fiveyears (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms regarding the degree of change they expect to occur in personnel activities per- formed by the personnel department? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms regarding the degree of change they expect to occur in personnel activities performed by the personnel department? (3) What differences, if any, are there among Operating executives in small and large firms regarding the degree of change they expect to occur in personnel activities per- formed by the personnel department? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are come pared with respect to the degree of change they expect to occur in personnel activities performed by the personnel department? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to the degree of change they exs pect to occur in personnel activities per- formed by the personnel department? 350 II Ao.m vam Ao.m vam II II II. hassoapsao>om II Ao.smvam Ao.mmvsm Ao.m vso Aa.HHVem II eases II Ao.mmvao Ao.smvao II II II assuage II Ao.s vac Ao.s vac II Ao.oavmo Am.m Vmo seam tease Hoao scam Hose echo some some msomfiasgsoo soapomHopsH m>spdooxm sham Ho eufim hp .psosowmsms Hesdomnom mo daoam map as haamsosow wswnndooo owsdno no 00mm mm.m capes 351 Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) Moderately more chief executives in small firms expect great improvements in personnel techniques (0301 - RDI 7.1), whereas a greater number of chief executives in large firms anticipate moderate improve- ments (CSCl - RDI 12.0). (2)—Operating executives in small firms respond moderately more to little improvements in personnel techniques compared with operating executives in large firms (OSO1 - RDI 7.2). The latter group reports moderately more emphasis on great improvements (OSO - l RDI 5.5). Table D.54 Degree of change in personnel activities expected by executives during the next five years, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PSPl Cscl O O s 1 Little -- -- OS( 7.2) Moderate -- 01(12-0) ‘— Great -- CS( 7-1) 01( 5-5) Executive interaction comparisons (1) Chief executives and operating executives in small firms indicate a moderately higher response 352 to little improvement in personnel techniques than do personnel executives in small firms (PSCs - RDI 5.6, PSOS - RDI 7.6). -_' (2) When compared with chief executives in small firms, moderately more personnel executives and oper- ating executives in small firms indicate that improve- ments in personnel techniques will be moderate (Pscs - RDI 9.4, 0308 — RDI 9.5). (3) When compared with operating executives in small firms, personnel executives and chief executives in firms of the same size respond more to a great imp provement in personnel techniques (PSOs - RDI 7.7, CSOs - RDI 11.5). In the case of large firms, the personnel executive group indicates a moderately higher response to a great improvement than do the chief executives and operating executives (P101 - RDI 7.1, P101 - RDI 6.0). Changes in the ratio of_personne1 department employees to total number of empIOyees in the firm during the next five years (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they be- lieve the ratio of personnel department ems ployees to total company employees will in? crease, decrease, or remain.constant? (2) What differences, if any, are there among the chief executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will increase, decrease, or remain constant? 353 II Ao.m van Aa.s vsm Am.aavmo as.s vem II passe II II II Am.a veo I- as.a cad assesses II II II II Am.m vmo Ao.m Vmo masses Hose Hose Hose some wows some msomasmgaoo sowpownopsH obsefiooxm memoh obs“ pxos esp mcHHS© mo>flpdooxm hp popoomxo moflpflbwpow Hessomsom SH owsmso mo omHMom mm.m manna 354 (3) What differences, if any, are there among the operating executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total company employees will increase, decrease, or remain constant? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in small firms when their responses are compared with respect to whether they believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total come pany employees will increase, decrease, or remain constant? (4b) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with respect to whether they believe the ratio of personnel department employees to total com? pany employees will increase, decrease, or remain constant? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A greater percentage of the personnel re— spondents in small firms believe that the ratio will increase (PsPl - RDI 19.7), whereas a greater per- centage of—the personnel respondents in.1arge firms- believe that the ratio will remain the same (PSP1 - RDI 15.7). _- Executive interaction comparisons (1) When compared with chief executives and oper- ating executives in small firms, more personnel execup tives in small firms agree that there will be an inr crease in the ratio (PSCs 4 RDI 32.0, PSOS - RDI 5.8). A greater percentage of operating executives in small 355 Table D.56 Changes in the ratio of personnel depart— ment employees to total number of employees in the firm during the next five years, by size of firm Executive Comparison by Size of Firm PsPl Csol osol Increase Ps(l9.7) —- -- Decrease --. - -- -- Remain constant . Pl(15.7) —- -- firms respond to an increase in.the ratio than.do chief executives in.the same sized firms (0808 - RDI 26.2). In large firms, a greater percentage of operating executives, compared with personnel executives and chief executives, believe that the ratio will in? crease (P101 - RDI 12.5, C1 - RDI 27.8). The per- 1 sonnel executives in large firms express greater op- timism about an increase in the ratio than.do chief executives in firms of the same size (P101 - RDI 15.3). (2) Chief executives in.small firms indicate more response to a decrease in the ratio compared with.per— sonnel executives and operating executives in small firms (PSCS - RDI 10.6, 0808 - RDI 8.6). In large firms, a mederately higher percentage of chief 356 executives, compared with operating executives, believe that the ratio will decrease (PICl - RDI 5.1). (3) Chief executives in bethrsmall and large firms place greater emphasis on the ratio not changing, compared with personnel executives and operating execu- tives in small and large firms (PSCS - RDI 21.5, Csos - RDI 17.7, P1 1 - RDI 10.2, 0101 - RDI 23.1). Persdnnel executives in large firms cite no change in the ratio with greater frequency than operating executives in firms of the same size do (P101 - RDI 12.9). Personnel executives who report modifications in personnel management responsibilities and personnel executives ‘Who do not report modifiCatiOns in personnel management responsibilities (1a) What differences, if any, are there between personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they report that important duties of personnel management have been created as personnel department . responsibilities? (lb) What differences, if any, are there between personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they report that important duties of personnel management have been transferred to the personnel department from other departments? (1c) What differences, if any, are there between personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to whether they report that important duties of personnel management have been transferred from the personnel department to other departments? 357 Aa.mmvso Am.msvsm Am.oavao Aa.sHVeo II Am.amvmo assesses esteem II II Aa.m Vac Am.m Vmo II Am.oavmo sameness Aa.emvae in.mavae in.mavad Am.emveo Aa.a ves Ao.mmvae eeseseee Hose Hose Hose memo acme some msomwnmmsOo sowpomnmpsH m>wpdooxm spam mo mean hp .msmoh obfim psos esp wsHHdc snap esp cw meohoagao Ho Hogans prop Op moohoamso psospnwmmp Hossomnmm Ho oppwn esp up mowswso mm.m manta 358 Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A moderately higher percentage of personnel executives in small firms report that important duties of personnel management have been transferred to the personnel department from another department (P8Pl - RDI 7.2), whereas a moderately higher percentag; of personnel executives in large firms report that im- portant duties of personnel management have not been transferred to the personnel department from another department (PsPl - RDI 7.2). (2) A,mo3;rately higher percentage of personnel executives in large firms report that important duties of personnel management have been transferred from the personnel department to another department (PSPl - RDI 9.6), whereas a moderately higher percentage of personnel executives in small firms report that im— portant duties of personnel management have not been transferred from the personnel department to another department (PSPl - RDI 9.6). Modifications in personnel management responsibilities (1) What differences, if any, are there among the personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to what they report as important duties of personnel management which have been created as personnel depart- ment responsibilities within the past five years? 359 Table D.58 Personnel executives who report modifica- tions in personnel management responsibil- ities and personnel executives who do not report modifications in personnel manage- ment responsibilities, by size of firm Duties Duties Duties Created as New Transferred Transferred Responsibilities Into Department From Department PSPI PSPl PSP1 Yes -- Ps( 7.2) P1( 9.6) No -— P1( 7.2) Ps( 9.6) (2) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to what they report as im- portant duties of personnel management which have been transferred to the personnel de- partment from other departments? (3) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to what they report as im- portant duties of personnel management which' have been transferred from the personnel de- partment to other departments? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A greater percentage of personnel respondents in small firms report that health, safety, and employee services (PSPl - RDI 18.7) and personnel policy making and implementation (P8Pl — RDI 12.8) are newly created personnel department responsibilities. On the other hand, more personnel respondents in large firms report that organization planning and design (PsPl — RDI 21.3), 360 executive employment and development (PsPl - RDI 6.2), and public relations and government relaEiOns (PSP1 - RDI 5.0) are newly created personnel department ..— responsibilities. Table D.59 Newly created personnel department responsibilities, by size of firm PSPl Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary __ Health, safety, and employee services PS(18.7) Executive employment and development P1( 6.2) Personnel policy making and implementation PS(12.8) Manpower planning and utilization -- Labor relations and collective bargaining -— Organization planning and design Pl(2l.3) Public relations and government relations P1( 5.0) Record keeping, data processing and office administration —— (2) A greater percentage of personnel respondents in small firms report that health, safety, and employee services (PvPl - RDI 13.6) are responsibilities trans- ferred to the personnel department from other depart- ments. On the other hand, a moderately higher percentage 361 of personnel respondents in large firms report that public relations and government relations (P8P1 - RDI 8.3) and organization planning and design (PSPl - RDI 5.0) are responsibilities transferred to the per— sonnel department from other departments. Table D.6O Responsibilities transferred to the per- sonnel department from other departments, by size of firm Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary -- Health, safety, and employee services Ps(l3.6) Executive employment and development -- Personnel policy making and implementation -- Manpower planning and utilization -- Labor relations and collective bargaining -- Organization planning and design P1( 5.0) Public relations and government relations P1( 8.3) Record keeping, data processing, and office administration -— (3) More personnel executives in small firms re- port that labor relations and collective bargaining (PSP1 - RDI 33.3), health, safety, and employee services 362 (PSP1 - RDI 33.3) and employee benefits (PSPl - RDI 5.6) aig responsibilities transferred from the—personnel de- partment to other departments. In contrast, more per- sonnel executives in large firms report that record keeping, data processing and office administration (PsPl - RDI 22.2), public and government relations (PS 1 - RDI 22.2), executive employment and develOpment (PsPl RDI 5.6), manpower planning and utilization (PS 1 - RDI 5.6), and organization planning and design (PS 1 - RDI 5.6) are transferred from the personnel de- partment to other departments. Consequences of changes in the personnel functian (1) What differences, if any, are there among personnel executives in small and large firms with respect to what they perceive as consequences of changes in the personnel function? (2) What differences, if any, are there among chief executives in small and large firms with respect to what they perceive as consequences of changes in the personnel function? (3) What differences, if any, are there among operating executives in.small and large firms with respect to what they perceive as consequences of changes in the personnel function? (4a) What differences, if any, are there between the three types of executives in.small firms when their responses are compared with respect to what they perceive as consequences of changes in the personnel function? 363 Table D.6l Responsibilities transferred from the per- sonnel department to other departments, by size of firm dgxnawr PSP1 Employee benefits, insurance, wage and salary Ps( 5.6) Health, safety, and employee services PS(33.3) Executive employment and development P1( 5.6) Manpower planning and utilization P1( 5.6) Labor relations and collective bargaining P8(33-3) Organization planning and design P1( 5.6) Public relations and government relations P1(22.2) Record keeping, data processing and office administration P1(22.2) (4b) What differences, if any, are there' between the three types of executives in large firms when their responses are compared with. respect to what they perceive as consequences of changes in the personnel function? Executive comparisons by size of firm (1) A greater percentage of personnel executives in small firms expect the personnel department to re- port to a higher level of management (P8P1 - RDI 22.9), whereas a greater percentage of personnel executives in large firms indicate that they are moderately more aware of the need for increased resources (P3P1 - 364 RDI 9.0) and a reduction in per capita personnel manage- ment costs (PSP1 - RDI 8.7) as consequences. (2) Chief—executives in small firms place greater emphasis on consequences related to a reduction in.per capita personnel costs (0801 — RDI-18.4). In addition, they place moderately more emphasis on the personnel department reporting to a higher management level (0801 - RDI 7.6) and the personnel department generating its funds through interdepartmental charges (6801 - RDI 7.4). On the other hand, chief executives-in large firms place moderately more emphasis on conse- quences related to a greater number of personnel deci- sions becoming centralized (CSCl - RDI 9.9), an.inr crease in the number of personEEl specialties (CBC1 - ' RDI 7.4) and an increase in.per capita personnel costs (Caglp- RDI 5.4). (5) Operating executives in.small firms place greater emphasis on the number of personnel specialties increasing (0301 - RDI 12.5). On.the other hand, operb ating executives in.1arge firms place greater emphasis on a greater number of personnel decisions becoming centralized (0801 - RDI 17.1) and.per capita per- sonnel management costs increasing (0301 - RDI 15.5). 565 Table D.62 Consequences of changes in the personnel function, by size of firm Executive Comparisons by Size of Firm PsPl Csol Increased resources will be needed Per capita personnel management costs will be reduced Per capita personnel management costs will increase Total personnel manage- ment costs will be lower Personnel department will report to higher management level Greater number of per- sonnel decisions will become centralized Number of specialties will increase Personnel department will generate its funds through interdepart- mental charges Plc 9.0) P1< 8.7) 08(18.4) °1( 5.4) Cs< 7.6) cl( 9.9) Cl( 7.4) cs< 7.4) 01(17.1) 08(12.5) Executive interaction comparisons (1) In general, more personnel executives expect a need for increased resources than chief executives and operating executives do (PSCS 566 - RDI 55.0, P101 - RDI 19.9). A greater RDI 7.5,'P$Cl percentage of operating executives in both groups, when compared with the chief executives in both groups, also expect a need for increased resources (Csos - RDI 18.6, C1 1 - RDI 15.1). (2) A greater percentage of chief executives in small firms anticipate a reduction.in.per capita per- sonnel costs compared with personnel executives and operating executives (PSCS - RDI 20.1, 0808 - RDI 17.7). The reverse holds true infthe case of large firms, where moderately more personnel executives and operating executives expect a reduction in per capita personnel costs (PlCl — RDI 7.0, Cl_l,- RDI 5.6). (5) When compared with chief executives, per- sonnel executives and operating executives, in general, report a greater response to an increase in per capita personnel management costs (PSCS — RDI 15.0, Csos -' RDI 12.7, PlC1 firms, operating executives cite an increase in.per capita personnel management costs with greater fre- quency than personnel executives do (P101 - RDI 12.6). (4) When compared with chief executives and oper- ating executives in small firms, a greater percentage of personnel executives in small firms believe that the personnel department will report to a higher manage- ment level (PSCS - RDI 19.5, PSOS - RDI 28.2). Chief 567 executives in small firms, when compared with operating executives in firms of the same size, respond moder- ately more to the above factor as a consequence of the changes in the function (CSOS - RDI 8.9). Personnel executives in large firms—are also moderately more op- Ira timistic about the above factor compared with operating ‘"5 executives in large firms (P101 - RDI 6.1). (5) Personnel executives in small firms, compared with chief executives and operating executives in the i} same sized firms, report greater belief in more per- — sonnel decisions becoming centralized (PSCS - RDI 21.1, PSOS - RDI 19.2). In large firms, it is-noted that the personnel executives and operating executives are more inclined to mention the above factor than chief execu- tives (P10l — RDI 13.0, c — RDI 9.1). l l (6) That the number of personnel specialties will increase as a consequence of changes in the personnel function is mentioned more by operating executives in small firms, compared with personnel executives and chief executives in firms of the same size (P80S - RDI 5.0, CSOS - RDI 29.5). In addition, persdnnel exe ecutives in_;mall firms indicate a greater belief in the above factor than do Operating executives in small firms (PSOS - RDI 24.5). .On the other hand, personnel executives in large firms report more anticipation of an increase in the number of personnel specialties than 368 do chief executives and operating executives in large firms (P101 - RDI 17.0, P101 - RDI 8.2). The operating executiv;s in large firms: however, report moderately more awareness of an increase in the number of special- ties, compared with chief executives in large firms (Clo1 - RDI 8.8). '_— (7)Personnel executives and operating executives in large firms, compared with chief executives in large firms, report moderately higher responses to the per- sonnel department generating its funds through interde- partmental charges as a possible effect (P101 - RDI 9.0, 369 .. Aa.e Vam .. Am.m Vmo Am.mmvmm Am.mavmm Ho>oa pqoaowqua Mommas op enemas Haas aqoapnumou Hoqqomnom I: II II In II :1 noSoH on HHHk mpmoo pqoaowdqma Hoqdomnon proe Am.mmvao Ao.mavao Ao.oavam Au.mavmo .. Ao.mavmm mmamnoqa Hafiz mpmoo pqoaowmqma Hoqqomnom mpfiawo Hem Am.m vac In Ao.e van Au.aavmo .. Aa.omvmo seesaw“ on sea: . mpmoo pdoammmnda Hoqqomnoa mpHmwo Hem AH.mHvHo Am.mavam Ao.mmvam Aw.mavmo Am.n me Am.mmvmm seamen on Haas moonfiomon commonodH H H H H H H m _ memo mOmm o m mnomHngaoo moHpomHman eprfiooxm o o O m 0 EHHH mo euHm hp .dowpoddm Hoqdomsmm on» GH mqumno no moodosdemnoo m®.n oHnma 570 Am.a vac Am.m Vac Aa.m vac -..- 85 cam .. .. Am.m vam .Ao.navam Am.mmvmo no.m vmo I: Ao.mavam u: Am.mavmm II commune Hunnqapndmoe Immune swsonnp cease mpfi.opwnenow HHfia pneapndmoo Hoqnomnom Am.smvmm omaonoea Haas mmeHwHoomm no nmpazz aH.HNme dQNHHprnoo eaoomp HHH3 mqumHoop Heqqomnem Ho Hogans gouache H O H U Hof seam memo some mqomwnmgaoo qOHpowHoPQH obfipaooxm o m. UmfiQHRQOOIlmm.Q mewa BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, Alton W. Personnel IE5 ement in Small Plants. Columbus, 0:" eau o ess esearc , College of Commerce and Administration, The ' Ohio State University, 1955. Black, James Menzies, and Piccoli, J. George. Successful Labor Relations for Small Business. ew or c raw- mpany, c. , 1955.. ' Cleland, Sherrill. The Influence of Plant Size on Industrial Re a one. nce on, . .:: us me e a ions Section, Department of Economics and Sociology, Princeton University, 1955- Hempel, Edward H., ed. Small Plant "saw. New York: HcGraw-HiII EOE Company, . , 1950. McFarland, Dalton E. 0001 eration and COnflict in Personnel AdminisEra'Eion. New YorE: Eerican » Wmnt Research, 1962. . Co Officers Assess the Personnel T‘unctgon. Eerican Ha'Tn'a-gement Issoci a‘EIon Research Study, 79. New York: American Management Association, 1967. Heredith, Wilbur R. “How to Get Best Workers and Labor Relations.” mall Plant gallant. Edited by Edward H. empe . ew or : McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. National Industrial Conference Board, Inc. Personnel Administration in the finall Co . Mes 33 Personnel: PoIi'cy, No. II'7. flew York: gagional Industrial Conference Board, Inc. 1. 371 372 Wortman, Max 8., Jr., and Reif, William.E. "An Analysis of the Industrial Relations Function in Small Manufacturing Firms: Part I." Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 5, NO- 3 (Jfily, I965),‘5-12. . "An.Analysis of the Industrial Relations ‘“Function in Small Manufacturing Firms: Part II." Journal of Small Business Management, VOL 5, No. 4Wctober, 1965), 9-160 "l‘lfilllllllllllEs