IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS

This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy o f the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1 . T h e sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black m ark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE
received.

N O TE :

Some

pages may

have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 46100

I

I

75-7284
ZATECHKA, Douglas Steven, 1943AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE HALL STAFF ATTITUDES AND
PERCEPTIONS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES SYSTEM.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974
Education, higher

Xerox University Microfilms ,

Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
RESIDENCE HALL STAFF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGE­
MENT BY OBJECTIVES SYSTEM
By
Douglas Steven Zatechka

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1974

ABSTRACT
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
RESIDENCE HALL STAFF ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS
CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MANAGE­
MENT BY OBJECTIVES SYSTEM

By
Douglas Steven Zatechka
The Problem
The purpose of this study was to describe and
evaluate the attitudes of the professional and paraprofessional housing staff at Michigan State University in
response to working under the accountability system of
Management by Objectives.

This investigation was designed

to explore employee attitudes toward:
(1) The effects of a Management system on erosion
between employees occupying different levels;
(2) The effects of MBO on the coordination of
activities between the student personnel and
business divisions;
(3) MBO with respect to differences, if any, between
male and female employees; and
(4) The effects of leader behavior in managing an
organization using MBO.

Douglas Steven Zatechka
It was hypothesized that no differences existed between
groups being studied.

Areas of agreement and divergence

were noted between the groups and the entire population
was analyzed to determine general attitudes of the hous­
ing staff toward the Management by Objectives system.
Procedure
The target population consisted of the entire
housing staff at Michigan State University.

The population

was divided into four categories on the basis of sex,
organizational level, business or student personnel
division, and sub-units reporting to six different
supervisors.
A questionnaire which solicited information
regarding various aspects of a Management by Objectives
system was developed.

The instrument contained seventy-

five items which explored the following areas:
(1) MBO General
(2) Objective Formulation
(3) Implementing Objectives
(4) Appraisal Process
(5) Description of Organization
(6) Perception of Supervisor
(7) Description of Job and Self
The questionnaire was administered to 535 subjects in
the Spring of 1974.

A total of 432, or 80.7 per cent,

returned usable answer sheets.

Douglas Steven Zatechka
The data were analyzed by use of a Multivariate
analysis of variance technique to determine differences
among the four groups.

Interaction effects of sex by

division, sex by level, level by division, and sex by
level by division were also tested using the Multivariate
analysis.

The Scheff£ post hoc technique was used to

more specifically determine exact sources of significance.
An item analysis was also conducted on the instrument
generating contingency tables which were analyzed on the
basis of the groups studied.
Findings
The multivariate analysis of variance indicated
that housing staff attitudes toward the Management by
Objectives system did not differ significantly between
groups.

General agreement was found on comparisons based

on sex, organizational level, and between the student
personnel and business divisions.

In addition, the

multivariate analysis also indicated that agreement
exists between groups of employees reporting to six dif­
ferent supervisory personnel.

The interaction effects

of sex by level, sex by division, and sex by division by
level failed to generate significance.

Only the inter­

action effect of division by level was found to be sig­
nificant.

Treatment with Scheffe post hoc comparisons

failed to determine precise sources of the significance.

Douglas Steven Zatechka
All group mean scores were clustered within a
range of 59.67 to 89.19.

On a continuum of all possible

scores (0 to 225) this cluster was found to be skewed
in a highly favorable direction, indicating that the
housing staff generally reports favorable attitudes
toward the Management by Objectives system.
Results of the item analysis indicated that most
items elicited favorable responses from most groups which
were studied.

Highest level females in student per­

sonnel, however, indicated divergence from other groups
by reporting unfavorable and neutral responses to twentynine of the seventy-five items.

Only three items elicited

unfavorable responses based on the analysis of the busi­
ness and student personnel divisions.

Erosional effects

between organizational levels were found for thirteen
items.

All groups indicated unfavorable responses to

only three items.

Two items generated responses for

which no conclusions were possible.
The findings of no significant differences between
groups or by interaction effects and the results of the
item analysis indicated that the Management by Objectives
system in housing at Michigan State University has had
the effect of reducing differences and disagreement on
the basis of variables considered to be important in
maintaining a productive organization.

A moderately

high degree of favorable response to specific

Douglas Steven Zatechka
characteristics of the housing organization was also found.
These findings tend to support previous research on MBO
and parallel the theoretical constructs of the system as
reflected in the literature.

DEDICATION

To my wife, Jane, and sons,
Steven and Robb

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author of this study wishes to express his
appreciation to the members of the guidance committee,
Dr. Van C. Johnson, Dr. Richard Peatherstone, and
Dr. John Useem.

A special note of appreciation is due

the chairman, Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, whose patience,
advice, encouragement, and help exemplified the highest
level of scholarship and guidance.
Appreciation is also expressed to the staff mem­
bers of the housing program at Michigan State University
who participated in the study and who gave freely of
their time and energy so that this study could be com­
pleted.
The staff members of the office of research
consultation and the office of evaluation services pro­
vided invaluable assistance during the study.

Dr. Leroy

Olson, Dr. John Schweitzer, and Mr. Joe Wisenbaker were
extremely helpful in the development of the questionnaire
and the analyses of the data.
To Dr. Gary North goes sincere and deep appreci­
ation for his help and encouragement throughout my

educational and work careers.

As a friend, colleague,

and boss, his help has been of major influence.
The author owes debts of gratitude to several
members of his family which can never be repaid.

To my

parents for their love, devotion, and sacrifices which
were made so that I could pursue a higher education.

To

my sons, Steven and Robb, who in their loving innocence
were a source of motivation and understanding.

Finally,

to my wife, Jane, whose deep understanding and complete
love characterize the highest ideals of meaning.

Without

her faith, inspiration, and devotion this day would not
have been possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

Page
INTRODUCTION ................................
The Importance of Accountability for
University Housing Programs
. . . .
The Theoretical Base for This Study
. .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . .
Hypo the ses................................
Methodology
................
Definition of Terms......................
Limitations of the S t u d y ................
Organization of the Study................

II.

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...................
Organizational Theory Related to Manage­
ment by O b j e c t i v e s ...................
Recent Research on Management by Objec­
tives S y s t e m s ......................
The Superior-Subordinate Relationship.
.
Subordinate Participation
. . . .
Feedback and Evaluation of Per­
formance
.........................
Research on Management by Objectives
Systems in Higher Education . . . .
Research on Women in Management
Positions
..........................
Summary
................

III.

RESEARCH M E T H O D O L O G Y ......................

1
1
9
22
22
26
26
29
31
32
32
38
39
41
45
47
53
56
58

Hypotheses................................
The Population . . . . . . . . .
The I n s t r u m e n t ..........................

58
60
61

R e l i a b i l i t y .........................
V a l i d i t y .............................

64
65

v

Chapter

Page
Administration of the Questionnaire . . .
Processing the D a t a ...................
Statistical Treatment...................
S u m m a r y ................................

IV.

66
67
67
70

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A .......................

71

Introduction.............................
Review of the Groups and Design of the
S t u d y ................................
Hypotheses Tested ..........................
Presentation of Data and Tests of
Hypotheses.............................
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test

71
72
73
74

of
Null Hypothesis 1
..............
of
Null Hypothesis 2 ..............
of
Null Hypothesis 3 ..............
of Null Sub-Hypotheses a and b .
of
Null Hypothesis 4 .............
of
Null Hypothesis 5 .............

Summary of Hypotheses Findings.........
89
Analysis of the Questionnaire Items . . .
S u m m a r y .................................. 127
V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

.

75
77
77
84
85
87
91
128

M e t h o d o l o g y ............................... 129
C o n c l u s i o n s ............................... 131
Analysis of
Differences
Differences
Differences
Conclusions

Questionnaire Items
. . .
by Sex..........................
by Division ................
by Level ...................
of Practical Significance
.

Implications of the S t u d y ...............147
Recommendations for Future Research . . .
Concluding Statement .......................

14 0
141
141
14 2
143
149
152

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ............................... 154

B.

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ............................... 162

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................

175

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

2.1.

Summary of the characteristics of the sample .

55

3.1.

The make-up of the population and the per­
centage of the population returning the
questionnaire
.............................

68

4.1.

Table of cell m e a n s ..........................

75

4.2.

Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables on the questionnaire.............

76

Compared cell means by sex and by division
for differences between organizational
l e v e l s ...................................

85

Cell means by supervisor and sex for student
personnel...................................

86

Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables of sex and supervisor for stu­
dent personnel
................

87

Cell means by supervisor and sex for busi­
ness
......................................

88

Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables of sex and supervisor for busi­
ness
......................................

88

4.8.

Number of respondents per category

93

4.9.

Item analysis, percentage responses of atti­
tudes favorable and unfavorable to man­
agement by objectives by sex, division,
and level...................................

4.3.

4.4.
4.5.

4.6.
4.7.

vii

. . . .

94

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
4.1.

Page
Graphic representation of interaction effects
of sex by d i v i s i o n ................

78

4.2.

Graphic representation of interaction effects
of sex by l e v e l ................................. 79

4.3.

Graphic representation of interaction effects
of division by level
. . . . . . . .

4.4.

80

Distribution of highest and lowest group mean
scores on a continuum of all possible
s c o r e s .......................................... 92

viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Importance of Accountability for
University Housing Programs
Dormitories and residence halls have been a
part of American Higher Education since the inception of
the early colleges.

While the purposes for the existence

of residence halls have changed with changing social
values, increased knowledge, and changing purposes of
higher education, such facilities have been, and continue
to be, an accepted part of the physical plant of all
residential institutions in the United States,^1
Both the academic sector and the housing program
are presently confronted with powerful pressures brought on
by campus unrest, legislative demand for accountability,
and public dissatisfaction with the management of higher
education.

Generally, these various reference groups

exercise control, directly or indirectly, over higher
education.

While there exists general agreement on the

1
Frederick Rudolph, The American College and
University (New York: Alfred Al Knopf, Inc., 1962), p. 99.

1

2
purposes and goals of higher education, substantial cri­
ticism appears to be directed toward management of
institutions in achieving such goals.

Chiet recognizes

financial withdrawal as a major result of referent group
activity.

Writing for the Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education, he states,
upon hard times.

" . . .

higher education has come

The trouble is serious enough to be

called a depression."^
The impact of financial urgency calls into
question programs, goods and services, and employee
positions thought for many years to be accepted parts
of the university community.

Faculty salaries, research

grants, employment, retention, and promotion policies for
personnel, physical construction and renovation, and
supportive services have all experienced some degree of
financial restriction.

Included under the general cate­

gory of supportive services are housing programs and per­
sonnel .
Various writers have spoken to the relationship
between the central purposes of the university, the cur­
riculum, and the tangential services, the extra-curriculum.
Several have attempted to demonstrate a positive and
directional correlation between housing and academic
achievement.

Recent works suggest that the relationship

^Earl F . Chiet,
Education (New York:
McGr

3
between a student's residence and traditional scholastic
performance may be direct and measurable.
Ryan found that residence hall students studied
more than does the off-campus population.^

Hountras and

Brandt researched various types of student residences as
correlated with academic performance.

Their findings

indicate that the impact of environmental surroundings on
college students produce a significant effect on classroom
performance as measured by grade-point average.
Alfert contends that, " . . .

2

students spend a

great deal of time at the place where they live and their
immediate surroundings can be a source of satisfaction or
discontent that could effect their academic success or
their overall feeling about being in college."

3

Students

new to a college oft times have erroneous concepts of self
and of their environment.

Anxiety, uncertainty, ambiguity,

problems of identity and confidence are experienced.

Thus,

the selection of a residence may be instrumental in either
easing the various adjustment factors or may reinforce

***James I*. Ryan, "College Freshmen and Living
Arrangements," NASPA Journal 8 (October 1970):
129.
2

Peter T. Hountras and K. R. Brandt, "Relation
of Student Residence to Academic Performance in College,"
Journal of Educational Research 63 (April 1970):
353.
■^Elizabeth Alfert, "Housing Selection, Need
Satisfaction, and Dropout From College," Psychology
Reports 19 (August 1966):
185.

4
behavior and attitudinal factors negative to satisfactory
performance.

Alfert indicates that residences which do

little to aid students in feeling competent and at ease
may exhibit a higher dropout rate than residences where
the environment is supportive.^"
From these studies it can be inferred that a
student's residence may have either a positive or negative
impact on his college experience.

Such studies give

validity to residence halls as directly contributing to
the educational process of the total institution.
The duties of the professional housing staff are
instrumental to maintaining residence halls as a contribut­
ing part of the academic community.

Policy formulation and

implementation, personal guidance, physical maintenance,
food service, quality and quantity of communication, and
supervision and regulation are among the general duties
performed by such staff.

Residence hall staff are

responsible for managing their units to achieve a series
of programs, goals, and desired outcomes.

They, thus, are

an important part of a "delivery system" designed to bring
experiences to the student as part of the total educational
program of the institution.
Closely aligned with staff responsibilities
are various methodologies for implementing the desired
experiences.

Recent trends have included sensitivity

"‘"Ibid., p. 186.

5
group experiences for students, and education programming
to augment the classroom activity.

Again, residence hall

staff have been, in part, held responsible for use of
such methods to achieve desired outcomes.
A most recent trend in methodology for residence
hall staff has been the introduction of accountability
systems.

Most observers credit Dr. Leon Lessinger with

the earliest and most vigorous advocacy of both the con­
cept and the term, as applied to education.

During his

service as Deputy Commissioner in the Office of Education,
he witnessed the frustration of many members of the
United State Congress as they sought to assess the
efficiency of federal grants for education.

Most dis­

tressful to Legislators was learning how little could
actually be asserted with confidence.
In defining accountability Lessinger states,
" . . . accountability means the grantee will be held
responsible at any time during the project for accomplish­
ing the objectives of the project which the grantee him­
self proposed, within the time periods specified, within
budget limitations, and according to the standards estab­
lished. "^
^"Stephen M. Barro, "An Approach to Developing
Accountability Measures for the Public Schools," Phi Delta
Kappan 52 (December 1970):
198.
2

Leon Lessinger, "A Historical Note on Accounta­
bility in Education," Journal of Research on Development
in Education 5 (Fall 1971}:
17.
~

6
Assessing the scope of interest, Hartnett con­
siders accountability to be the new "in" word in American
Higher Education.

The concept has been the subject of

numerous symposia and special issues of educational
journals.^

The 1973 national conferences of both the

American Personnel and Guidance Association and the
Association of College and University Housing Officers
placed sessions dealing with accountability on their
programs.

2

Similarly, accountability systems were dis­

cussed in depth by the Student Personnel Division of the
Big Ten Housing Conference at that body's annual meeting
3
xn October, 197 3.
These presentations generated suf­
ficient interest that additional professional organizations
have scheduled similar sessions for their 1974 national
conventions.

Included are the National Association of

1Rodney Hartnett, Accountability in Higher Education (Princeton: College Entrance Examination Board,
197IT, p. 7.
2
American Personnel and Guidance Association,
Proceedings of the National Convention (Cleveland, Ohio,
1973); Association of College and University Housing
Officers, Proceedings, Association of College and Uni­
versity Housing Officers, 1973 National Convention (Van­
couver, British Columbia: Office of the D i r e ctorof
Residences, University of British Columbia, 1973),
pp. 4-5.
3

Big Ten Housing Conference, Papers of the 1973
Big Ten Housing Conference, Student Personnel (Ann Arbor,
Mich.: Office of the Director of Housing, University of
Michigan, 1973).

7
Student Personnel Administrators and a full day workshop
for the Association of College and University Housing
Officers.^
In higher education two forms of accountability
appear to be gaining support.

The first suggests that

higher education move toward improved output-oriented
methods, utilizing institutional self-study by management
methods such as program budgeting, systems analysis, and
computer programs to yield reports.

The second form is

the institutionalization of external evaluations.

In

this system assessments of efficiency and effectiveness
would be made by some agency external to the institution.

2

One system associated with the output and selfstudy form of accountability is Management by Objectives.
Management by Objectives systems have been implemented in
varying degrees of sophistication by housing staffs at
several institutions, including the University of Michigan,
the University of Iowa, and Michigan State University.
Odiorne defines Management by Objectives
as a process in which, " . . .

(MBO)

the superior and the

subordinate manager of an organization jointly define

^Gary North, Kathleen Danimiller, and Douglas
Zatechka, Management by Objectives for Housing Personnel,
Office of Residence Hall Programs, Michigan State Uni—
versity and Office of the Assistant Vice President for
Student Affairs, University of Michigan (East Lansing and
Ann Arbor:
By the authors, 1974), p. 1.
2Hartnett, Accountability in Higher Education,
p. 7.

8
its common goals, define each individual's major areas of
responsibility in terms of the results expected of him and
use these measures as guides for operating the unit and
assessing the contribution of each of its members."^

MBO

is recognized as a tool for developing more objective
criteria for performance evaluation.
Present in Odiorne’s definition is the impli­
cation that MBO may be a satisfactory tool for different
types of organizations, including housing programs in a
higher education setting.

Also implied is the partici­

pation of subordinate staff in partially defining their
own responsibilities and agreeing to carry out the results
of whatever decisions are reached.

Thus, MBO contains

many of the elements present in Lessinger*s definition
of accountability.
It seems clear that professional housing staff
are increasingly concerned with the possible negative
impact generated by demands for accountability on their
institutions.

Subsequent adjustments, for better or for

worse, can be expected to be imposed on housing programs.
Additional pressure for accountability, generated by
campus activism, legislative concern for expenditure of
public funds, and parental and public dissatisfaction
will force housing officers to reconsider their
T

York:

George Odiorne, Management by Objectives
Pitman, 1965), p. 55.

(New

9
management methods for achieving objectives which relate
to housing programs and which are relevant to insti­
tutional goals.
Assuming the validity that students do derive
benefit from their residential living experience, can
residence hall staff implement and function within a
Management by Objectives system— a system which purports
more effective management to achieve desired benefits?
There appears sound rationale to consider Management by
Objectives a possible tool for use in residence hall
accountability systems.

MBO has received recent national

attention in the area of housing and additional investi­
gation is necessary to further define and determine the
parameters of its effectiveness.
The Theoretical Base for
This Study
This study will be based on the works of various
authors who have proposed and refined Management by
Objectives as a possible tool for use in successfully
managing organizations.

MBO, by itself, is not a theory.

Rather, MBO represents an accountability system designed
to maximize the managerial effectiveness of staff by
ordering their job activities in such a way that desired
outcomes are achieved.

10
Management by Objectives was originally pro­
posed in the early writings of Drucker and McGregor.^
Since their works substantial research has contributed to
theories of organization and leader behavior.

These

theories support and refine the concepts upon which MBO
rests.

Leadership does not occur in a vacuum.

Rather,

because it occurs in a setting, the concepts of leadership
and organization are inexorably tied together.

This

section will explore several theories of both leadership
and of organization, as these theories lend validity to
the system of Management by Objectives.
MBO is a system composed of three basic aspects
which affect its success:

(1) goals and goal setting;

(2) participation and involvement of subordinates; and
(3) feedback and performance evaluation.

All three are

distinct processes; however, the success of each aspect
is interrelated with the other aspects and is mutually
dependent.

2

Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management (New
York:
Harper and Row, 1954j , pp. 121-3(T; Douglas McGregor,
"An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Harvard Busi­
ness Review 35 (May-June 1957):
89-94.
2Odiorne, Management by Objectives, p. 61.

XI

Several authors have described the various char­
acteristics of an MBO system.^

Lehti provides the

following fundamental characteristics:
1.

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.

9.
10.

The central purpose and function of the organi­
zation is understood and agreed upon.
Infor­
mation about prospects for the future of the
organization is shared at all levels of super­
vision .
Each sub-unit purpose and how it integrates into
the over-all organization is understood and agreed
upon.
Position descriptions are available for all
organizational jobs, which provide the basis for
establishing routine objectives, authority and
accountability relationships.
Each individual expresses his major performance
objectives for the coming year in measurable terms
and sets target dates.
He submits them to his supervisor for review.
From the discussion comes a mutually agreed upon
set of objectives.
He verbally reviews progress toward these objec­
tives with his supervisor on a regular basis.
Objectives and plans are revised and updated as
agreed.
This process allows opportunity for
coaching and development.
At the end of the year, the individual prepares
a brief report which lists all major accomplish­
ments, with comments on variances between results
actually achieved and results expected.
This appraisal or progress report is discussed
with the supervisor.
Reasons for goals not being
met are explored.
There is further coaching and
development in this process.
A new set of objectives is established for the
next year.
Long-range objectives are reviewed and adjusted
as needed.2

^Ibid., pp. 54-55; Robert E. Lahti, "Management
by Objectives," College and University Business 50 (July
1971):
31.
2Ibid.

12
Like all approaches to organizational leadership,
MBO has its limitations.
1.

2.

Kennedy describes:

Internal limitations
a. Resistance to change in established organi­
zational patterns by those affected by the
change.
b. Limitations stemming from a philosophical
difference between old established goals and
new different ones.
c.
Resistance to change because of demands
placed on personnel to learn new skills.
d. Unwillingness of informal power groups to
surrender decision making authority to new
groups.
e. Unwillingness of management to write off sunk
capital investment in existing equipment,
labor, and buildings.
External Limits
a. Changing political climate on regional,
national, and international basis.
b. Changing technology,
c. Changes in economy which reduce or increase
available revenue beyond limits predicted.!
Moore consolidates the positive characteristics of

MBO by stating that Management by Objectives is, H . . .
a managerial method whereby the superior and subordinate
managers in an organization identify major areas of
responsibility in which the man will work, set some
standards for good— or bad— performance and the measure2

ment of results against those standards.’*

Thus, MBO

John D. Kennedy, "Planning for Accountability
via Management by Objectives," Journal of Secondary
Education 45 (December 1970):
34£.
2
Michael L. Moore, "Management by Objectives,"
Managing Tomorrow's Community Colleges (paper presented
before a conference held at Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, July 14-16, 1971).

13
impacts the art of leadership within an organization and
may be appropriate to complex organizations.

According

to Odiorne, MBO is purposed to make less complex and add
meaning to great masses of information present in complex
organizations.1
Hollander discusses the anatomy of organizations
by defining the role expectations of staff.

Ideal role

expectations are two-way (between superior and subordi­
nate) and are predictable.

Roles are norms stating

behavior expected of an individual and are position
specific with respect to those individuals, programs,
and policies for which the individual has responsibility.

2

Talcott Parsons analyzes an organization in his
concept that any organization constitutes a social system
composed of three interdependent levels;
"managerial," and "institutional."

"technical,"

Each level has a

certain degree of independence, the extent of which is
dependent upon the nature of the specific organization.
If the three levels are considered to represent line
authority two main breaks in the line can be identified
existing between the three levels.

These breaks represent

the exchange process between levels, yielding interdepen­
dence.

Parsons explains the nature of the exchange:

^Odiorne, Management by Objectives, p. 66.
2

E. P. Hollander, Leaders, Groups, and Influence
(New York:
Oxford University Press, 1^64) , pT 164.

14
"I may generalize about the nature of the two main breaks
in line authority . . .

by saying that at each of the

two points of articulation between subsystems there is
a two-way interchange of inputs and outputs."^

Inputs

may be considered to be the raw materials necessary to
manufacture the end product for which the organization
exists— the outputs.

The conversion of inputs into out­

puts is conceptualized as the throughput.
The social system theory designates four functional
problems present in any organization.

A model can be

developed and used to analyze any organization on the
basis of its functional problems.
imperatives"

The "functional

(problems) identified by Parsons are

explained by Hills:
These four functional problems arise from two funda­
mental dilemmas of human existence.
First, every
system consists of a plurality of units, and
functions in relation to an environment defined as
external to it. One dilemma is whether to give
priority to the solution of the problem of coexistance of the units, or to the problem of
optimizing the relation to the environment. A
fundamental postulate of the Parsonian view is
that no amount of attention to the problems of
co-existence will, by itself, solve the problems
of relations with the environment, or vice versa.
A second dilemma concerns the assignment of
priority between continuity and stability over

■^Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern
Societies (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960),

P. 69.---

15
time, on the one hand, and direct, immediate
gratification, or consummation, on the other.
Cross-classified these dilemmas define the four
functional imperatives.1
The "functional imperatives" are defined as
adaptation, goal attainment, pattern maintenance and
tension management, and integration.

Adaptation and

goal attainment focus on relations with the environment
external to the organization.

Adaptation refers to the

need for an organization to develop and maintain a satis­
factory relationship with the external environment for
the purpose of ensuring the acquisition of raw materials
necessary for the organization to function.

Organizations

may manipulate both themselves and the external environment as the problems of adaptation are resolved.

2

Goal attainment refers to the need for the organi­
zation to satisfy the external environment by successful
achievement of defined goals, or output.

3

It will be

noted that the output of an organization may represent
the raw material input for another organization.

Thus,

1

R. Jean Hills, Toward a Science of Organization
(Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon Press,
1968), p. 19.
2

Edward C. Devereus, Jr., "Parsons' Sociological
Theory," The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons, ed. Max
Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1961), p. 56.
3
Hills, Toward a Science of Organization, p. 20.

16
the output, the result of successful goal achievement,
should be sensitive to changing conditions in the external
environment.
The two internal imperatives present in an
organization are pattern maintenance and tension manage­
ment and integration.

Tension management refers to the

problem of motivating individuals within the system to
satisfactorily perform their specific functions for the
system.

The degree to which a system functions is

directly related to the degree of commitment of the
individuals.^- Pattern Maintenance is described by
Devereus:
. . . essentially that faced by an actor in recon­
ciling the various norms and demands imposed by
his participation in any particular social system
with those of other systems in which he also par­
ticipates, or with the more general norms of the
broader culture.
If there is serious role conflict
or normative incompatability, the system will
suffer the consequences.2
T hus, pattern maintenance and tension management
is individual specific, as the individual and the organi­
zation internally relate to each other.
Integration refers to keeping the individuals
within an organization working in a harmonious, cohesive
relationship with each other to facilitate the functioning

1

Devereus, Parsons* Sociological Theory, p. 57.

2.

’Ibid.

17
of the system.^

Perfect integration can be conceptualized

as coordinating the work efforts of individuals so that
each specific task relates to other tasks in such a way
to maximize efficiency, quality, and quantity of the
individual contributions to the total effort.
According to Parsons' model the output goals of
a housing program, generalized by educational programming,
personal guidance, supervision and control, and food and
shelter are best achieved only when the housing program
can resolve the other functional problems.
Etzioni also introduces the concepts of goals
and social systems.

He considers organizations to be,

" . . . social units

(human groupings) deliberately con­

structed and reconstructed to seek (achieve) specific
goals."^
There are vast amounts of literature available
concerning leadership.

Katz and Kahn state that the

concept of leadership can be recognized if subordinates
are required to engage in organizationally relevant
behavior.

They further recognize the difficulty of

specifically defining leadership:
1Ibid.
2

Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), pT 3.
3

Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 1967), p. 30$,

18
The concept of leadership has an ambiguous status
in organizational practice, as it does in organi­
zational theory. Among social scientists who
emphasize the concept of leadership there is no
close agreement on conceptual definition or even
on the theoretical significance of leadership pro­
cesses .1
An increase in difficulty is experienced as organizations
become more complex with more levels of staff being
introduced.

Both the hierarchy and the breadth increase.

Role differentiation and role expectations become more
numerous as complexity increases.
One method of maintaining stability in a complex
organization is to link, via a hierarchy of goals and
objectives, the differentiated roles and expectations
designed for staff.
occurs.

Should this happen ideal cohesion

Ideal cohesion is the equating of purpose (goals

and objectives) of each member with the purpose (goals
and objectives) of the organization.

2

Simon conceptual­

izes cohesion as a fusing of membership agreements form3
ing an organizational personality.
While many authors have debated the specific
characteristics of effective leadership, the various
subtle distinctions can be reduced to a dichotomy:

1Ibid., pp. 300-01.
2
Bertram M. Gross, Organizations and Their Manag­
ing (New York: The Free Press, 1964), pi 2&3•
3

Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior, 2d ed.
(New York:
The Free Press, 1965T, pi 198.

19
Authoritarian school of thought and a humanistic school
of thought.

All leaders are considered to possess traits,

in varying degrees, from both schools.

Halpin*s various

works reflect a similar dichotomy which he terms "initiating
structure" and "consideration."^
Reflecting the humanistic school is the Likert para­
digm of the ideal human relations supervisor:
He is supportive, friendly and helpful rather than
hostile. He is kind, but firm, never threatening,
genuinely interested in the well-being of subordi­
nates, and endeavors to treat people in a sensitive
considerate way. He is generally at least just, if
not generous.2
Conversely, Proshansky and Seidenberg base effec­
tive leadership on competence.

A leader who has competence

excells in most of the various abilities and skills rele­
vant to the activities of the organization and of its
members.^
The recent work of Marcus and House further clouds
and confuses the issues surrounding leadership.

Their

exploratory research compares and contrasts the human

Andrew Halpin, The Leadership Behavior of School
Superintendents (Chicago! Midwest Administrative Center,
University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 12.
2

Rensis Likert, "A Motivational Approach to a
Modified Theory of Organization and Management," Modern
Organizational Theory, ed. M. Haire (New York: John
Wiley, 1959 ), p. 190 .
3

Harold Proshansky and Bernard Seidenberg, Basic
Studies in Social Psychology (New York:
Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, Inc., 1965), p7 521.

20

relations model (humanistic) with the Weberian model
(authoritarian) and concludes that no significant dif­
ferences exist in productivity or quality of work between
subordinates functioning under either leadership model.^
A recent dimension in administering student
affairs offices is the integration and fusion of the
curriculum and the extra—curriculum into one concept of
education— the student developmental model.

In support

of that concept, Crookston postulates an organizational
model for implementing student development.

In his thesis

he describes various criteria for success of the model,
among which are an open communications system between
various levels of staff and the generation of 11individual
and organizational symbiosis." 2 Similar to Hollander,
3
Simon, and Gross,
the symbiotic relationship constitutes
a "developmental contract" between superior and subordi­
nates so that the activities of all members contribute to
organizational goals.

Philip M. Marcus and James S. House, "Exchange
Between Supervisors and Subordinates in Large Organi­
zations," Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (June 1973):
222.

2
Burns B. Crookston, "An Organizational Model for
Student Development," NASFA Journal 10 (July 1972):
3-13.
3
Hollander, Leaders, Groups, and Influence,
pp. 169-70; Simon, Administrative Behavior, p^ 19 8;
Gross, Organizations and Their Managing]! p. 283.

21

Assuming that a housing program, as part of a
university, is a social organization with defined goals,
the problem of how to best utilize staff as leaders in
implementing and achieving those goals merits investi­
gation.

A current trend in higher education is the broad

attention being given to accountability systems as
possible methods of guiding staff in the management of,
and goal achievement for, housing programs.

Therefore,

it seems timely to explore the degree of success exper­
ienced by staff from the introduction of one accounta­
bility system— Management by Objectives— into a sig­
nificant sub-unit of an institution— the housing program
at Michigan State University.
A review of the theory suggests several reoccuring
themes:
(1) The emphasis placed on supervisor

(leader)

behavior as being of major importance in
influencing the management of an organization?
(2) The emphasis placed on supervisor-subordinate
relationships, existing between organizational
levels, as that relationship affects the manage­
ment of activities designed to achieve organi­
zational goals; and
(3) The emphasis placed on maintaining sufficient
coordination between different sub-units to

22

ensure complementary and/or supplementary
activities, as opposed to divergence, from the
sub-units.

Management by Objectives is thought

to be a tool appropriate for such management of
organizations.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to describe and
evaluate the level of success indicated by the profes­
sional and paraprofessional housing staff at Michigan
State University as that staff functions under one
accountability system, Management by Objectives.

The

study will attempt to assess and describe the attitudes,
degree of acceptance, and success experienced by the
staff while carrying out their responsibilities utilizing
an MBO model.

Two distinct sub-units, Student Personnel

and Business, each containing four organizational levels,
will be studied.
Hypotheses
This investigation is designed to determine:
(1) The importance of leader behavior in managing
an organization using the Management by Objec­
tives system;
(2) The effects of a Management by Objectives system
on communication between employees in various
levels of an organization;

23
(3) The effects of a Management by Objectives system
on the coordination of activities between sub­
units of an organization? and
(4) The presence of any significant differences
between male and female employees in a MBO
system.
Based on current trends in higher education and a review
of the theory, the following hypotheses are identified
for investigation.

The hypotheses are stated in

directional form as it is anticipated that certain
differences may exist.
Hypothesis 1 :
The lower the organizational level occupied by an
employee the higher will be that employee's score
on the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.
It is expected that the higher the position
occupied by an employee the more that employee will be
identified as a leader.

And, the more a person is

identified as a leader, the more he may be supportive
of the goals and objectives under his scope of responsi­
bility.

Thus, it may be predicted that such support

yields greater commitment to the system for goal achieve­
ment.

Similarly, erosion of commitment is expected as

employees occupy lower positions in the organization.
MBO, however, purports to reduce the amount of such
erosion.

24
Sub-Hypothesis a :
There is a significant relationship existing in the
Student Personnel Division between employee level in
the organization and scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
Sub-Hypothesis b :
There is a significant relationship existing in the
Business Division between employee level in the
organization and scores obtained on the MBO Evalu­
ation Questionnaire.
Hypothesis 2 :
There is significant agreement between employees of
the Student Personnel Division and employees of the
Business Division, at all levels of each organi­
zation, as measured by scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
It is expected that some differences exist between
employees in both divisions.

However, MBO purports to

reduce differences by introducing maximized communication
and coordination of effort.

Therefore, the amount of

difference which may exist is of crucial importance.
Hypothesis 3 :
There is significant agreement between male and
female employees in both the Student Personnel
Division and employees in the Business Division,
at all levels of each organization, as measured by
scores obtained on the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.
While significant research has been done on dif­
ferences between male and female employees at the lower
organizational levels, little work is available on what
differences, if any, may exist between male and female

25
employees at the higher, managerial, organizational
levels.

This hypothesis represents, at best, a point

of departure to explore possible differences between
male and female employees, as may be significant to an
MBO system.
Hypothesis 4 :
There is significant agreement between employees in
the Student Personnel Division reporting to different
supervisors as measured by scores obtained on the
MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.
Hypothesis 5 :
There is significant agreement between employees in
the Business Division reporting to different super­
visors as measured by scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
For successful implementation and maintenance of
a Management by Objectives system to occur support and
leadership should be initiated at the highest levels of
supervisor and flow downward through each lower organi­
zational level.

In addition, the efforts and activities

of leadership at high levels must be consistent between
supervisors or divergence between various sub-units of
the organization will result.

MBO purports to equalize

and maintain consistency of leadership across sub-units
of an organization.

26
Methodology
Data for the study will be gathered through the
use of a self-administered Management by Objectives
questionnaire.

The population under study is the pro­

fessional and paraprofessional staff employed in the
divisions of Student Personnel and Business in the housing
program at Michigan State University during the 1973-1974
academic year.

The study is exploratory in nature and

descriptive in research design.

A comprehensive review

of the design and methodology is found in Chapter III.
Definition of Terms
The terms given below are defined as they were
used for the purposes of this study.
Goals.— The broad, generalized intended ends or
outputs of a specific system, such as a university, i.e.,
provide satisfactory shelter and nutrition for students
living in residence halls or prepare the student to gain
entry into a profession.

Goals can also refer to

internal activities to achieve effective functioning,
i.e., maintain necessary specialized supportive services
for students.
Objectives.— The specific ends of components of
a system, in this case the housing program at Michigan
State University.

Objectives may or may not make

reference to a time frame, but are normally developed

27
so that more precise evaluation can occur.

An example

of an objective would be to make available within the
first three days of classes information regarding office
hours, location, and phone numbers of tutorial assistance
programs and personnel.
Housing Program.— The physical plant, food ser­
vice, educational program, personal assistance referral
system, and supervisory and regulatory functions as per­
formed by staff members for the benefit of students liv­
ing in university-owned residence halls.
Student Personnel Division.— One of two major
divisions of the Housing Program the major focus of which
is personal assistance and referral, advising groups and
individuals regarding appropriate social and educational
activities, and maintaining sufficient supervision so
that necessary order is achieved.
Student Personnel Employee.— A staff member of
the Student Personnel Division, responsible for achieve­
ment of objectives related to the services of that
division, and holding a managerial level responsibility.
Business Division.— The second of two major
divisions of the Housing Program, the major focus of
which is physical plant debt retirement, food service,
and physical plant maintenance and renovation.

28
Business Division Employee.— A staff member of
the Business Division, responsible for achievement of
objectives related to the services of that division,
and holding a managerial level responsibility.
Supervisor.— A staff member who, as part of his
responsibility, directs and coordinates the job activi­
ties of a number of other staff reporting to him.
Subordinate.— A staff member who, as part of his
responsibilities, receives directions regarding the
implementation of various job activities from another
person at a higher organizational level.

It should be

noted that in a complex organization an individual may
both direct others and be directed by another person.
Thus, one employee can exercise role incumbency as both
a Supervisor and a Subordinate.
Social System.— The patterned activities of a
number of individuals.

The activities are complementary

or interdependent with respect to some common output or
outcome; they are repeated, relatively enduring, and
bounded in space and time.'*'

^Katz and Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organi­
zations , p. 17.

29
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations are significant in
this study;
1.

The use of instruments which have less than
perfect reliability and on which norms have not
yet been well established present a built-in
limitation for this study.

The instrument is

among the best of very few available for the
systematic study of Management by Objectives.
Further, the original instrument was extensively
modified for use in this study.

Caution should

be exercised when reviewing and using the results
of this study.
2.

The study is limited to the description of a
modified MBO system in operation in the housing
program at Michigan State University.

While

similarities exist between housing programs at
different institutions, caution should be exer­
cised in generalizing the results beyond the
subject population.
3.

This study is limited in scope to the evaluation
of an MBO system as that system effects profes­
sional and para-professional employees.

No

attempt is made to determine the effectiveness
of the MBO system in delivery of "product" to

30
students.

No attempt is made to compare and

contrast the merits of the MBO system with other
accountability models.

Finally, no attempt is

made to evaluate the merits of the goals and
objectives on which the MBO system rests.

That

is, while the system could be functioning at a
high level of achievement, the actual objectives
being implemented may not have merit nor worth
for students or for the institution.
4.

The student personnel housing staff experiences
an annual turn-over in staff from 40 to 60 per
cent.

Thus, a large proportion of the sample

will reflect a lower degree of sophistication
than second- or third-year employees.

The per­

centage of new staff is not, however, uncommon
to student personnel housing programs and should
be considered in any decision to implement an
in-depth and sophisticated accountability system.
5.

The housing program at Michigan State University
is one of the first of few housing operations
in the nation to implement an MBO system.

It

should be recognized that complete implementation
takes from three to five years, and that the
Michigan State program is in its fourth year.
Thus, possible incomplete implementation may
bias the results.

31
Organization of the Study
The scope and importance of the problem as being
significant to merit research is reviewed in Chapter I.
In addition the theoretical basis for the hypotheses
under study is presented.

Chapter II will be devoted

to a review of selected literature related to the
importance of defining goals and objectives in organi­
zations.

Previous research on accountability and Manage­

ment by Objective systems as possible tools for more
effective management of organizations and research
related to MBO as applied to college and university
housing programs will be presented.

The design and

methodology used in collecting and analyzing the data
and the instrumentation will be discussed in Chapter III.
Presentation and analysis of the data are contained in
Chapter IV.

The summary, conclusions, discussion of

results, and implications for future research are found
in Chapter V.

CHAPTER XI
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In this chapter selected literature concerning
organizational theory as related to Management by Objec­
tives, research conducted on MBO systems, and research
on MBO as applied to higher education will be reviewed.
In addition, because of recent emphasis on women as man­
agers, a brief review of research and philosophy on
women entering management positions will be included.
Organizational Theory Related to
Management by objectives'
Many managerial approaches have been proposed.
Included are management by motivation, management by
systems, management by exception, management by results,
management by communications, and management by objec­
tives.

While these approaches are not mutually exclu­

sive, MBO has received the most attention and rests on
a foundation of organizational theory.

32

33
MBO was first proposed in the early works of
1
Drucker and McGregor.
While studying General Motors
Corporation, Drucker suggested that the success of that
organization was a result of managing by objectives,
rather than styling, strong dealer systems, cost controls, and so forth.

Drucker found that no individual

in a large-scale organization could direct all of the
activities of his subordinates.

However, if he could

control the results of their work by a system built
around understood and agreed upon goals, he could
manage very well.^
Various authors

4

have described variations of the

Management by Objectives Model.

Typical elements which

appear across models include the following:
1.
2.

Establishing and communicating organizational
goals.
Establishing goals for the members of the
organization which are consistent with overall
organizational goals.

Drucker, The Practice of Management, pp. 121-36;
McGregor, "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal," Har­
vard Business Review, pp. 89-94.
2

Thomas H. Patten, "OD, MBO, and the Reward Sys­
tem," OP, Emerging Dimensions and Concepts, ed. Thomas H.
Patten (Organization Development Division, American
Society for Training and Development), p. 13.
^Ibid., p . 14.
^Odiorne, Management by Objectives, pp. 54-55;
Lahti, "Management by Objectives," College and University
Business, p. 31; W. J. Reddin, Effectlve Management'by
Objectives (New York: McGraw-HiXl- Book Company, 1970),
p. 5.

34
3.
4.
5.

Periodic review of the goals and an interium
assessment of goal attainment.
Final review (usually annually or biannually)
of performance using the established goals as
a criterion for evaluation.
A procedure for facilitating interaction between
superiors and their subordinates in the goal
setting and review process.1
In his book

emphasizes the need

on organizational theory,Etzioni
to clearly state goals:

(1) They provide orientation by depicting a future
state of affairs which the organization attempts
to realize,
(2) They set guidelines for organizational activity,
(3) Goals constitute a source of legitimacy which
justifies not only the activities but also the
existence of the organization,
(4) Goals serve as standards by which members of an
organization and outsiders can assess the per­
formance of the organization, and
(5) Goals also serve as measuring rods for the stu­
dent of organizations who is interested in
determining how well the organization is per­
forming. 2
Considering an organization from the perspective
of social systems analysis, Thompson and McEwen emphasize
both the importance and complexity of organizational
goal setting:
Because the setting of goals is essentially a
problem of defining desired relationships between
an organization and its environment, change in
either requires review and perhaps alteration

Rodney J. Chesser, "MBO As a Behavioral System:
A Focus on Change Relationships and Inferences of Cau­
sality" (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Management,
Michigan State University), p. 1.
2

Etzioni, Modern Organizations, p. 5.

35
of goals.
Even where the most abstract statement
of goals remains constant, application requires
re-definition or interpretation as changes occur
in the organization, the environment, or both.l
Advocating the application of management principles
to higher education, Hungate discusses the planning
function:
Clear definition and continuous review of objectives,
and the institutional guidelines for achieving them,
are essential.
Each institution must carefully
define its objectives or purposes, the nature of
the undertakings it deems necessary to achieve them,
and the general guidelines in accordance with which
the undertakings are to develop.2
Abbott also considers the development of clear
and concise statements of goals to be crucial to higher
education.

Lack of clarity leads to confusion about the

proper roles and functions of administration, faculty,
student, alumni, and staff.

3

Thus, from the viewpoint of both the organizational
theorist and the educator, the establishment and communi­
cation of organizational goals, and the review and

1
James D. Thompson and William J. McEwen, "Organi­
zational Goals and Environment:
Goal Setting as an Inter­
action Process," American Sociological Review 23 (February
1958):
23.
2
Thad L. Hungate, Management in Higher Education
{New York:
Bureau of Publications, Columbia University,
1964), p. 243.
3
Charles C. Abbott, "Governing Boards and Their
Responsibilities," Journal of Higher Education 41 (October
1970):
524.

36
possible modification of goals are considered to be
crucial to organizational and employee performance.
Several authors have conducted research to
determine the viability of various processes and manage­
ment styles which may be best suited to optimum function­
ing of organizations and, thus, to staff within them.
Gross indicates that group decision-making and subsequent
agreement among the members results in the development of
hidden capabilities in the subordinates."^
It then follows that the impact of additional
capabilities would contribute to better decisions being
made, and probably greater effort by staff to implement
the decisions.

Should this occur satisfaction of subordi­

nates could be expected to increase, yielding loyalty to
the organization.

Simon explains that, " . . .

a person

identifies himself with a group, when in making a decision,
he evaluates the several alternatives of choice in terms
of their consequences for the specific group."

2

These theoretical concepts of subordinate par­
ticipation are supported by the recent empirical research
of Tosi and Carroll.

While studying MBO they found that

subordinate participation in goal setting resulted in

^Gross, Organizations and Their Managing, p. 588.
2

Simon, Administrative Behavior, p. 204.

37
greater levels of ego involvement, increased motivation,
and increased planning behavior, all of which combine to
exercise a positive effect upon employee performance.^
Crockett considers this process to be a matter
of organizational development through a concept of team
effort.

Conflict present in decision-making is best

handled by the professional confrontation of issues and
points of view under consideration.

Thus, he believes

that supervisors need to understand that getting real
commitment from staff can best be secured by effecting
their continued participation in making plans and setting
2

objectives.

Emphasizing congruent expectations between the
individual and the organization in effecting positive
changes, the research of Adams and Stoner provides addi­
tional validity for the basic principles of MBO.
state that, ” . . .

They

the most influential change role is

gained through conditions of high congruency of expec­
tations, an adaptive style, and an opportunity to gain

■'‘Henry L. Tosi and Stephen Carroll, "Management
by Objectives," Personnel Administration 33 (July-August
1970):
44-48.
2

William J. Crockett, "Team Building-One Approach
to Organizational Development,” The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 6 (May-June 1970):
304.

38
influence through administrative authority . . .
Conversely, they also found that, ” . . .

behavioral

style tends toward increased independence in situations
of incongruent . . .

expectations.”

2

Their research

supports the MBO characteristic of establishing goals
for the members of the organization which are consistent
with overall organizational goals.
In summary, then, the development and communi­
cation of clear and concise goals and objectives, the
involvement of subordinates in that development, and the
periodic review and necessary change of goals, as char­
acteristic of MBO models, is supported by organizational
theory and the results of recent research.
Recent Research on Management by
Objectives Systems'
American corporations were the first organizations
to inplement Management by Objectives systems into their
operations.

Because of this MBO systems are more numerous

in industrial settings than in any other type of organi­
zation.

Thus, the vast majority of empirical data on

MBO reflects research set in industrial environments.

John D. Adams and James A. F. Stoner, "Develop­
ment of an Organizational Change Role," The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 8 (July-August 1972):
447.
2Ibid.

39
The characteristics of MBO are such, however,
that the basic tenents should be applicable for organi­
zations of differing purposes and services.

The necessity

for having managers and for managing provides a common
denominator which should hold true across different types
of organizational settings.

The purpose of this section

is to review empirical research on MBO in industry as the
results are at least, in part, transferable to the manage­
ment of higher education.
MBO rests on three major assumptions concerning
the most appropriate ways to manage the activities of
others in order to elicit their highest productivity,
enthusiasm, and quality of inputs.

These assumptions

are:
(1) The crucial nature of the superior-subordinate
relationship;
(2) The merit of subordinate participation in
decision-making? and
(3) The emphasis on superior feedback and evaluation
of subordinates.
The Superior-Subordinate
Relationship
Perhaps more than any other single factor the
superior exerts a tremendous impact on a subordinate's
perception of his work environment.

So inherent is this

40
belief that superiors are held accountable for the errors
of their staffs.

Conversely, positive evaluation of

superiors is expected if their subordinates carry out
their duties in an organizationally productive manner.
This belief is virtually standard operating procedure
for most organizations.

Unfortunately, the relationship,

dependent upon the perception that a subordinate holds
of his superior is, by itself, a very complex and not
thoroughly understood phenomenon.
The impact of the superior is recognized as impor­
tant in the literature on Management by Objectives.

MBO

is first implemented at the highest levels of the organi­
zation.

Implementation flows from the top down in suc-

ceedingly lower and lower organizational levels.

Ultimate

success is directly dependent upon continued support from
the superior at each level.^
In addition, implementation and continued success
depend upon subordinate satisfaction with the superior.
Chesser found that, " . . .

subordinates tend to be more

satisfied with their superiors when the superiors are
viewed as being supportive, using goal—oriented methods,
and permitting subordinate input into resource allocation
decisions."

2

He suggests that superiors have the

1
Patten, "OD, MBO, and the Reward System," p. 14.
2

Chesser, "MBO as a Behavioral System: A Focus
on Change Relationships and Inferences of Causality,"
p. 116.

41
responsibility of developing effective interpersonal
relationships with their subordinates in day-to-day
interactions.
One important variable in the superior-subordinate
relationship is the opportunity for the subordinate to
present his opinions.

When this opportunity exists the

subordinate perceives that his influence is increased.
While studying MBO Tosi and Carroll found that interaction
between the superior and the subordinate, in the form of
feedback, is related to the subordinate's perception of
changes in the relationship with the superior.1
Subordinate Participation
A second basic tenent of MBO is the participation
of staff in the setting of goals and objectives for the
organization.

Researchers have hypothesized that when

subordinates perceive that they have some degree of input
into, and therefore control over, their own work environ­
ment they generally perform their duties in a more
organizationally responsive manner.

Chesser found that,

"When the subordinate feels that his supervisor is really
concerned with what he, the subordinate, thinks, and the
supervisor initiates frequent interaction concerning the

Henry I*. Tosi and Stephen Carroll, "Some Factors
Affecting the Success of 'Management by Objectives,1"
Journal of Management Studies 7 (May 1970):
223.

42
progress on goals, the subordinate feels that he has
greater input into the process and perceives that his
relative influence is increased.'*'
In MBO systems input and control are generally
focused on the goal and objective setting process.

This

process necessitates interaction between the superior and
subordinate, thereby providing for a more positive
relationship between the two.

Tosi and Carroll found

a strong relationship between goal clarity and the
supervisor-subordinate interaction.

2

Various researchers have found that when given a
choice between a specific goal or objective and a more
general goal, such as "do your best," the specific goal
is preferred by employees and results in higher performance.

This may suggest that subordinates perceive

that goals are clearer and/or more specific as a result
of their involvement in the goal-setting process.

1Chesser, "MBO as a Behavioral System: A Focus
on Change Relationships and Inferences of Causality,"
p. 102.
2

Tosi and Carroll, "Some Factors Affecting the
Success of 'Management by Objectives,'" pp. 220-21.
3
Edwin A. Locke and Judith Bryan, "Performance
Goals as Determinants of Level of Performance and Boredom,"
Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (1967):
120-30; Edwin
A"I Locke, "Motivational Effects of Knowledge of Results:
Knowledge or Goal Setting?" Journal of Applied Psy­
chology. 51 (1967):
320-24.

43
T h u s , the process of goal setting and subordinate
involvement becomes cyclical and reinforcing.

The process

results in greater job satisfaction, increased produc­
tivity, and improved superior-subordinate relations.
Assuming with certainty that clearly stated goals are
desirable, satisfaction with MBO should increase, as MBO
systems encourage such clarification of goals; goals
define and set the parameters for job expectations.
This concept is strongly supported by additional
research.

Smith considered one's job to be characterized

as a role and found that clarity of roles was related to
satisfaction. 1

Rizzo and Tosi and Tosi 2 support Smith's

work by finding that ambiguous roles were negatively cor­
related with a number of measures of job satisfaction.
As subordinates' orientation toward MBO increases,
the subordinate perceives that he has acquired increased
influence in the goal-setting process.

This provides

additional support for the concept that employees desire
to influence and have input into the decisions that affect
their work-life environment.

Employees would be expected

E. E. Smith, "The Effects of Clear and Unclear
Role Expectations on Group Productivity and Defensiveness,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 (July 1957):
2

John R. Rizzo, Robert House, and Sidney L. Lirtzman, "Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organi­
zations," Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (June 1970):
162? Henry Tosi and Donald Tosi, "Some Correlates of Role
Conflict and Role Ambiguity Among Public School Teachers,"
Journal of Human Relations 18 (1970):
1068-75.

44
to become favorably disposed toward MBO.

Vroora and Tosi^"

indicate that the level of perceived subordinate influence
is, again, related to job satisfaction.
A review of the literature indicates some dis­
crepancy in findings concerning the variables which affect
actual job performance.

While it seems reasonable to

conclude that the employee who is satisfied with his job
will produce acceptable, if not outstanding, results,
this is not always supported by research.

Brayfield and

Crockett conducted an extensive review of the literature
and concluded that little evidence existed to support
the contention that attitudes, such as job satisfaction,
were appreciably related to performance.

2

Vroom’s

findings suggest a consistent but low positive relationship between satisfaction and performance.

Lawler and

Porter correlated rankings of performance on middle and

Victor H. Vroom, Some Personality Determinants
of the Effects of Participation (Englewood. Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, i960); Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation
(New York:
John Wiley, 1965), p. 115; Henry Tosi, "Organi'
zational Stress as a Moderator of the Relationship Between
Participation and Job Satisfaction, Job Anxiety, and Pro­
ductivity" (paper delivered at XV International Meeting,
The Institute of Management Science, September, 19 6 8 ,
cited by Rodney J. Chesser, "MBO as a Behavioral System:
A Focus on Change Relationships and Inferences of Cau­
sality") , p. 25.
2

Arthur H. Brayfield and Walter H. Crockett,
"Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance," Psycho­
logical Bulletin 52 (September 1955):
396-424.
^Vroom, Work and Motivation, pp. 184-85.

45

lower level managers as measured, by both superiors and
peers.

They found that job satisfaction was significantly

related to performance.*1'
Feedback and Evaluation of
Performance
Related to the success of both the superiorsubordinate relationship and subordinate participation
in decision-making is supervisory performance evaluation
of subordinates.

A healthy and productive relationship

between the superior and subordinate is dependent upon
providing meaningful feedback to the subordinate and
providing opportunity to elicit the subordinate's
opinions.

Research has demonstrated that feedback is

both significantly and positively related to job per­
formance.^
MBO purports the development of supposedly
objective criteria on which employees are to direct
their work energy in order to meet job expectations.
Additionally, such objective criteria aid the supervisor
in acquiring information about the performance of subordi­
nates.

The information can be used as measuring rods for

^"Edward E. Lawler and Lyman Porter, "The Effects
of Performance on Job Satisfaction," Industrial Relations—
A Journal of Economy and Society 7 (October 1967):
26.
2

L. Miller, The Use of Knowledge of Results in
Improving the Performance of Hourly Operators (General
Electric Company: Behavioral Research Service, 19 65).

46

evaluation purposes.

(See Etzioni, p. 5.)

If the infor­

mation is considered to be accurate and objective, as
MBO purports to accomplish, the subordinate perceives
that job performance becomes an increasingly major out­
come on which rewards from the superior are based.
A major emphasis of MBO is the development of an
evaluation process which is based on actual job output
and accountability, rather than on factors of personality.
Thus, rewards are directly related to achieving goals and
objectives, as opposed to rewards based on subjectivity
or use of a perceived "fair-haired boy" approach.
There exists only limited research on objective
and goal-directed evaluation systems.

The results, how­

ever, suggest that subordinates are receptive to their
being evaluated on performance rather than on the more
traditional subjective methods.

Chesser found that the

relationship between superiors and subordinates is rein­
forced by goal clarification and feedback.

This has the

effect of strengthening the perceived association between
job performance and rewards in the mind of the subordi^

1

nate.

In summary, it is most important to understand
that the three major assumptions associated with MBO
are not mutually exclusive, isolated characteristics,

^Chesser, "MBO as a Behavioral System: A Focus
on Change Relationships and Inferences of Causality,"
p. 73.

47
each having its own bounded individuality.

They have

been separated in this review only for purposes of clarity
in conceptualizing the important components of MBO, as
presented in the literature.

In reality, the components

form an extremely complex interaction with each other;
the success and impact of each modifies the others and
can alter the sum of the total effects.
This inherent complexity makes separation of
variables most difficult for scientific research.

Thus,

it should be noted that much of the information presented
in this section considers the overlapping characteristics
of the MBO components.

For example, while the central

tendency of some research relates to the superior"
subordinate relationship, several authors consider that
relationship to be, in part, dependent upon the inter­
action effects of goal formulation and evaluation.
Research on Management by Objectives
Systems in Higher Education
The interest in MBO and its application to higher
education and housing is relatively recent.

The Office

of Residence Hall Programs at Michigan State University
which initiated implementation of a modified MBO sys­
tem in Spring, 1971, was among the first organizations
in student affairs to do so.

Considerable interest has

been generated in professional associations regarding
the concept.

(See pp. 6-7.)

48
Because of the recent interest and subsequent
sporatic attempts to implement MBO in higher education,
available literature is, at best, exploratory.

Much of

the literature is intended to express philosophical and
logical theses in support of MBO.

In comparison to

available research on MBO in industry relatively little
systematic or scientific data exist in the fields of
student affairs or housing.
It is not unlikely that some differences exist
between higher education and corporate industry.

Minear

suggests that educational administrators considering the
feasibility of MBO should first anticipate such differences
in order to promote more effective implementation.

He

cites such differences as:
(1) The primary goal of industry is to make a
financial profit,
(2) Each individual work plan, process of production,
and final result in industry is in a direct line
and/or staff relationship, and
(3) Education functions with considerably more
autonomy than industry.
However, MBO should
permit education to identify certain goals to
receive increased attention and emphasis .1
Considering education as a management process,
Kaufman suggests a system for the achievement of required
outcomes.

Not unlike MBO, the system focuses upon

administrative accountability to attain goals, objectives,

^Leon P. Minear, "Management by Objectives,"
American Vocational Journal 4 5 (December 1970):
55.

49
and procedures.

Management of education, as he defines

it, is a six-step process that includes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Identification of priority needs and associated
problems.
Determination of requirements to solve the
problems and identify possible solution alter­
natives for meeting the specific needs.
Selection of solution strategies and tools from
alternatives.
Implementation of solution strategies, including
the management and control of the selected
strategies and tools.
Evaluation of performance effectiveness based on
the needs and the requirements identified pre­
viously.
Revision of any or all previous steps (at any
time in the process) to assure that the edu­
cational system is responsive, effective, and
efficient .1

Clearly, Kaufman's process incorporates many of the characteristics of MBO as identified by Lahti and Odiorne.

2

Temple reports that the University of Tennessee
initiated implementation of MBO in all departments of
that institution, beginning in May of 1970.

He considers

the University of Tennessee to be one of the few large
schools to do so on such a massive scale.

The highest

levels of administration indicated that the system has
3
been received with satisfaction.
^Roger A. Kaufman, Educational System Planning
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 11.
2

Lahti, "Management by Objectives," College and
University Business, p. 31; Odiorne, Management by Objec­
tives, pp. 54-55.
3

Charles M. Temple, "Management by Objectives at
the University of Tennessee," Intellect 102 (November
1973):
98-100.

50

Popham suggests that MBO may be practical for
most large-scale educational systems, such as universi­
ties, state-wide master plans, or large public school
districts.

His proposal is directly tied to increasing

pressures for accountability in education as a basis for
acquiring financial support.

He states, "Particularly

as a consequence of the needs assessment operation
required by federal ESEA Title III funding programs,
more and more educators are attempting to rigorously
establish objectives . . . "^
states:

" . . .

Kaufman agrees when he

the educator of today . . . must begin

to speak to taxpayers and legislators in terms of learning
outcomes such as reading ability and occupational skills,
rather than talking only about ’processes' for education
such as differentiated staffing and programmed
instruction." 2

He considers the citizens who finance

education through their tax dollars to be "partners"
in educational decision-making.
Abbott considers organizations to exist for two
basic reasons.
First, they provide some kind of useful product or
service for the social system in which they exist.
Secondly, they provide an arena where in men

James W. Popham, "Objectives-Based Management
Strategies for Large Educational Systems," The Journal
of Educational Research 66 (September 1972)1
51
2

Kaufman, Educational System Planning, p. 11

51

achieve, or fail to achieve, satisfaction of certain
social and psychological needs which give their
life meaning.!
He suggests that these two reasons, defined as organi­
zational goals and individual needs, can be integrated
by use of MBO.

In addition, he advocates MBO for imple­

mentation in student affairs offices in higher education.
Concerned by evidence that accountability was
becoming increasingly directed toward higher education,
the Dean of Students Office at Michigan State University
commissioned a review of various accountability systems
and asked for recommendations regarding the most appro­
priate procedure for possible implementation.

Results

of the study indicated that a Management by Objectives
system was considered to be most appropriate to the student affairs operation at that institution.

2

Writing in the Journal of College Student Per­
sonnel Harvey identifies MBO as Administration by Objec­
tives

(ABO), to distinguish between industrial and edu­

cational settings.

He considers ABO to emphasize the

importance of the student:

"ABO leads educators to look

at new ways to measure the outcomes of education in terms

"''Bernard J. Abbott, "Organizational Leadership
and Management by Objectives with Emphasis on Student
Affairs Operations," The MSU Orient 6 (Fall 1971):
17.
2

William D. Peterson and Donald S. Svoren, "Pro­
posal for a Staff Self-Study" (Dean of Students Office,
Michigan State University, May, 1971), p. 7.
(Mimeo­
graphed .)

52
of growth and development of students."^

He emphasizes

that ABO also leads to the development of regular student
ratings of all student personnel functions and causes
administrators to seek better ways of studying the impact
of student personnel programs on students.
While advocating this approach Harvey offers
some cautions.

He states that ABO hinges on the develop­

ment of specific, measurable objectives.

Adapting spe­

cificity of measurement to education presents some dif­
ficulties, particularly in the quantification of outcomes.2
Barak advocates a systems approach to residence
halls.

The planning and implementation of a system

requires consideration of four processes.

These include:

(1) The development of purposes,
(2) The communication of objectives to personnel at
all levels,
(3) The need for clarity at the departmental level
about the basic mission of the unit, and how
that unit fits into the total picture, such as
coordinating efforts between food service,
physical maintenance, and educational program­
ming, and
(4) The evaluation to determine if objectives have
been reached.3

James Harvey, "Administration by Objectives in
Student Personnel Programs," Journal of College Student
Personnel 13 (July 1972):
295.
2 Ibid.

3
Robert J. Barak, "A Systems Approach to Residence
Hall Planning," MASPA Journal 10 (January 1973):
257.

53

It is clear that Barak's proposals are heavily influenced
by the tenents of Management by Objectives.
In summary, higher education, student affairs,
and residence halls are devoting increasing attention
to accountability systems in general, and to Management
by Objectives systems, in particular.

Concerns for

financial support, credibility with significant reference
groups, and concern for specific data on internal oper­
ations have generated such interest.

As yet, the appli­

cation of MBO to education is so recent that most of the
literature reflects logical theses by proponents of the
concept.

Little scientific research is available.
Research on Women in Management
Positions
Vast amounts of research are available regarding

the job performance of women at the rank and file level
of organizations.

It is well known that women have more

dexterity than men in small parts assembly, for example.
Admittedly, the results of research on women may be due
more to the effects of social conditioning and occu­
pational sex-typing than to any inherent, true sex
differences.
Culturally, society maintains a sex-dichotomy.
Since people are primarily defined by their sex,
not as persons, managers or other non-sexual
categories, sex-linked expectations of behavior
and relationships have evolved.
As "we all know,"

54

men are tough, dominant, active leaders— rational;
women are tender, submissive, passive, followers—
emotional.
Defined from such assumptions, most
jobs have become sex-typed.l
Harriett and Elton believe that separate vocational
theories for men and women may be of help in changing
occupational sex-typing.

They agree that occupational

choice is related to personality characteristics, but
indicate that research is needed to determine sex differences within related occupations.

2

Loring and Wells state that, ” . . .

there are

today critically few women executives and managers in
proportion to the total number of women workers in this
country."
studies.

3

Their contention is supported by recent
Slevin researched forty corporations and found

that most are only in the early phases of attacking the
4
problem of full utilization of women.
From her study

^Rosalind Loring and Theodora Wells, Breakthrough:
Women into Management (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., 1972), p. 131.
2

Rose A. Harriett and Charles F. Elton, "Sex and
Occupational Choice," Journal of Counseling Psychology
18 (September 1971):
4 57.
3
Loring and Wells, Breakthrough:
Management, p. ix.

Women into

^Dennis P. Slevin, "What Companies Are Doing
About Women's Equality," Personnel 48 (July-August
1971):
17.

55

of 150 companies McCord found that 39 per cent had no
women managers.

In fifty companies, however, more than

half of the rank and file level personnel were w o men .1
Investigating the academic community to determine
the extent of women in administration, Astin compared
male and female doctorates in higher education on several
variables.

The results clearly indicate that men are

significantly more involved in administration and research
than are women.
TABLE 2.1.— Summary of the characteristics of the sample

2

Percentage of Time Devoted to Duties
Duties

Teaching
Research
Administration
Other

Male

Female

31
41

50
25
12.5
12.5

20
8

Loring and Wells suggest that both men and women
managers are able to function in a systems approach to
education.

They state that women have the ability to

develop goals and objectives, are able to build a plan

^Bird McCord, "Identifying and Developing Women
for Management Positions,” Training and Development
Journal 25 (November 197 2):
VI
2

This illustration adapted from Helen S. Astin,
The Women Doctorate in America (New York:
Russell Sage
Foundation, 1969) , p"I 73.

56

to implement goals, and are capable of effective communi­
cation.

They predict that the percentage of women in

the work force will not change substantially, but that
the percentage of women managers will dramatically
increase.

In addition they predict that there will be

a tripling of women graduate students in business manage­
ment, public administration, and allied field where women
have been rare . 1
Summary
In this chapter, the origin and development of
Management by Objectives has been presented.

It has

been noted that this is a new, but established, concept
in the management of industrial corporations.

The concept

has been developed through research and theory related to
organizations and leader behavior.

Sociology, psychology,

and various behavioral sciences have contributed empirical
data which further refine and define MBO and demonstrate
its value as a tool appropriate to the management of
large organizations.
Emphasis has been given to reviewing studies
done in industrial settings, as more reliable and valid
data are available in these organizations.

Much of these

results are thought to be appropriate for transference
to educational institutions.

Available literature from

■^Loring and Wells, Breakthrough:
Management, p. 171.

Women into

57
higher education, student affairs, and housing is tenta­
tive at best.

MBO began receiving considerable attention

from educators only during the late 1960's; the concept
is so new in education that little empirical research
exists.

Rather, the literature reflects philosophical

treatment by proponents, but indications point toward
increased implementation and the generation of additional
research findings.
The recent entry of women into management
positions has been explored.

It is considered appro­

priate that, given the tendency toward increased emphasis
for women to assume management positions and the increased
initiation of MBO systems in organizations, this area be
included for review.
The following chapter presents the methodology
used to design the study, instrumentation, data gather­
ing, and methods used to analyze the results.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to describe and
evaluate the attitudes toward a Management by Objectives
system as indicated by employees of the student personnel
and business divisions of housing at Michigan State Uni­
versity.

The study attempted to assess the attitudes of

staff toward use of the MBO system in carrying out their
responsibilities.

Responses by student personnel and

business staff, sub-divided into four organizational
levels and by sex, were tested through the use of an
MBO questionnaire to determine differences in acceptance
which may exist between groups.
This chapter will describe the hypotheses to be
tested, the population of the study, the instrument, data
collection, and the statistical treatment of the data.
Hypotheses
The hypotheses and rationale for this study were
stated in Chapter I.

Five major and two minor hypotheses

were identified for investigation.

58

59

Hypothesis 1 :
The lower the organizational level occupied by an
employee the higher will be that employee's score
on the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.
Sub-Hypothesis a :
There is a significant relationship existing in the
Student Personnel Division between employee level
in the organization and scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
Sub-Hypothesis b :
There is a significant relationship existing in the
Business Division between employee level in the
organization and scores obtained on the MBO Evalu­
ation Questionnaire.
Hypothesis 2 :
There is significant agreement between employees of
the Student Personnel Division and employees of the
Business Division, at all levels of each organi­
zation, as measured by scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
Hypothesis 3 :
There is significant agreement between male and
female employees in both the Student Personnel
Division and employees in the Business Division,
at all levels of each organization, as measured by
scores obtained on the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.
Hypothesis 4 ;
There is significant agreement between employees
in the Student Personnel Division reporting to
different supervisors as measured by scores obtained
on the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire.

60

Hypothesis 5 ;
There is significant agreement between employees in
the Business Division reporting to different super­
visors as measured by scores obtained on the MBO
Evaluation Questionnaire.
The Population
The hypotheses were tested on all of the profes­
sional

and paraprofessional housing staff of both the

student personnel division and the business division,
working in
during

residence halls at Michigan State

the 1973-74 academic year.

University

Since the subjects

identified for study constituted the entire target popu­
lation, no sampling procedures were used.
The subject population was divided into sub-groups
to test the effects of several variables.

The population

was divided by sex of the respondents, division of the
respondents— business or student personnel, and by
organizational level of the respondents— Levels
through 4.

1

The four organizational levels are defined

as follows:
Level 1 Staff.— This group consisted of seven
personnel in the student personnel division and eight
in the business division.

This group represented the

highest level of supervisory, operational administrators
in the housing program.

61

Level 2 Staff.— This group consisted of twentynine staff in student personnel and sixteen in the busi­
ness division.

This group represented the highest level

of operational administrators in each residence hall.
Level 3 Staff.— This group consisted of sixtyseven staff in student personnel and fifteen in business.
This category was responsible to level 2 personnel for
carrying out major services within each hall, such as
food service or educational programming.
Level 4 Staff.— This group consisted of 328 staff
in student personnel and 65 in business.

These staff

were responsible for assisting level 3 staff in responsi­
bilities such as menu preparation or supervising approxi­
mately 50 students in a group living situation.
The Instrument
The instrument used in this study was developed
from the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire originally pub­
lished by Lahti.^

The questionnaire was designed for

the purpose of identifying the strengths and weaknesses
of an MBO system.

According to its author, the instrument

was so constructed as to permit any organization employing

^Robert E. Lahti, Innovative College Management
(San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, l9?3), pp. 124-39.

an MBO system to conduct an evaluation of that system.

1

The instrument is new but has been field tested by the
author.
Lahti's instrument consisted of thirty-nine
questions, each containing from three to nine possible
choices.

In general, the choices range from a category

of highly satisfactory to highly unsatisfactory.

Several

questions were multi-dimensional and were intended to
assess a range of benefits possible in an MBO system.
The questionnaire was not divided into sub-scales but
did seek information concerning the following major areas
(1) MBO General
(2) Objective Formulation
(3) Implementing Objectives
(4) Appraisal Process
(5) Description of Organization
(6 ) Perception of Supervisor
(7) Description of Job and Self
The instrument appeared to investigate areas of major
importance to an MBO system, as such areas are reflected
in the literature.
The MBO Evaluation Questionnaire required modifi­
cation for use in this study to permit machine scoring
of the large number of answer sheets, to provide for

"^Ibid. , p.

123

63

statistical analysis, and to provide for administration
to this particular subject population.

Permission to

use and modify the instrument for use in this study was
requested and was granted by the author.

(See Appendix A.)

The original thirty-nine items in the question­
naire were analyzed for content.

On the basis of this

analysis it was determined that five items could be
broken down into several separate items.
additional questions were so generated.

Thirty-two
Four items were

considered inappropriate for this subject population
and were deleted.

Finally, additional topics not included

in the MBO Evaluation Questionnaire were considered to
have merit for this subject population.

Thirteen items

were developed specifically for this study.
The final instrument was composed of seventy-five
content items designed to assess the attitudes of staff
toward an MBO system.

Four additional items were included

to yield demographic data on each subject with respect
to sex, division, organizational level, and geographical
location of employment on the campus.
The original questionnaire provided for varying
numbers of responses on different items.

Thus, if mean

scores were to be computed for each subject, unequal
weights would be given to the various items.

Responses

were modified to a summated rating, or Likert-Type, scale,
as it was decided that this would be appropriate for an

64
attitudinal study of this nature.

Thus, each item

received equal weighting in computing average scores
for each subject.
Four degrees of response, reflecting attitudes
from highly positive to highly negative, were selected
as alternatives.

Each subject was requested to select

one of the choices for each item.

Values ranging from

0 to 3 were assigned to each response.
assigned to highly positive items,
negative, and 3 to highly negative.

1

A weight of 0 was

to positive,

2

to

Any one of the four

alternatives could be selected in responding to any one
of the items.
The instrument was then submitted to one member
of the Office of Evaluation Services and to one member
of the Office of Research Consultation from the College
of Education for review.

Their suggestions and criti­

cisms were incorporated into the instrument.
Reliability
The Hoyt technique was used to generate a relia­
bility coefficient for the instrument.

This coefficient

is derived by use of a two-way analysis of variance com­
puted among individuals and items.
scale was computed to be .92.

Reliability for the

Additional merit was pro­

vided for the study by the high reliability of the instru­
ment, as coefficients of .80 and less are considered

65

acceptable for studies of this nature.

In considering

what constitutes an acceptable level of reliability,
Nunnally argues that acceptance depends upon how a
measure is being used.

" . . .

in early stages of

research on . . . hypothesized measures of a construct,
one saves time and energy by working with instruments
that have only modest reliability, for which purpose
reliabilities of .60 or .50 will suffice."

2_

Validity
Content validity of the instrument was determined
by having two professional student personnel workers, who
were also familiar with the application of MBO systems to
student affairs operations, conduct a content analysis.
Following a systematic review they concluded that it did
cover representative areas of importance to MBO as
reflected in literature.

Face validity is also claimed

for the instrument.
Because this study also attempted to investigate
any differences existing between male and female employees,
the instrument was reviewed by a student personnel worker
familiar with the women's movement.

Items which could be

considered to present a built-in sex bias were modified
to reduce the possible effects of such bias on the results.

^Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1967), pT 193.

66
The final instrument was developed from the pre­
ceding tests, analyses, and consultations.

The final

list of items reflects modifications based on the results
of these efforts, criticisms, and suggestions.
Administration of the Questionnaire
The securing of a high percentage of completed
questionnaires was considered to be of major importance.
To insure a high return several steps were undertaken.
The cooperation of the chief administrative officers of
both the Student Personnel and Business divisions of
housing was requested and received.

Both officers also

requested the cooperation of their entire staffs in
participating in the study.

{See Appendix A.)

This researcher then met with Level 2 staff from
both divisions to explain the purpose of the study and to,
again, request their cooperation and that of their staffs.
All respondents were assured complete anonymity as no
information was sought which would indicate the identity
of individual subjects.
The questionnaire and instructions for its com­
pletion were distributed to the housing program*s 535
staff during the first three weeks of April, 1974.

Staff

completed the questionnaire during staff meetings and
were under supervision by this researcher or by associates
trained to administer the instrument.

Completed answer

sheets were collected prior to the end of each staff

67

meeting.

Table 3.1 on the following page provides

details of the response rate by sub-groups to the
questionnaire.
Processing the Data
The responses for each subject were recorded on
mark sense score sheets compatible with the format of the
questionnaire.

The score sheets were "read" by optical

scanning equipment available from the Office of Evaluation
Services.

Responses were then key-punched on data pro­

cessing cards.

Both the original answer sheets and the

key-punched data cards were subjected to review for
possible errors prior to the statistical treatment.
Statistical Treatment
To test the hypotheses a score for each subject
was first computed by summing the item scores.

Mean

scores for each sub-group were obtained by summing the
subject scores and dividing by the number of subjects
in the sub-group.

Mean scores for subjects in both

divisions, in organizational levels within divisions,
subjects reporting to different supervisors, and subjects
classified by sex were similarly derived.
A Multivariate Analysis of Variance Program,
available from the Office of Research Consultation, was
used to analyze interactions between the fifteen groups

TABLE 3.1.— The make-up of the population and the percentage of the population
returning the questionnaire

Sex

Division

1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Organizational

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Total Sample

Organizational
Level:

Return

Percentage

8
12
12
31
0
4
3
34
3
15
31
168
4
14
36
160

8
10
12
22
0
4
3
22
3
15
28
129
4
12
28
132

100.0
83.3
100.0
70.9

535

432

80.7

100.0
100.0
64.7
100.0
100.0
90.3
75.6
100.0
85.7
77.8
82.2

Percentage Return by Sex;

Legend;
Sex:
Division:

Number

1
1

Male; 2 = Female
Business; 2 = Student
Personnel

Male = 80.1
Female = 80.4
Percentage Return by Division:

1
3

High; 2 = Middle High;
Middle Low; 4 = Low

Business = 77.8
Student Personnel = 81.4

69

studied by the questionnaire.^- The analysis was
designed to treat the following effects:

Sex, division,

organizational level, sex by division, sex by level,
division by level, and sex by division by level.

A post

hoc comparison program using the Scheffe technique, also
available from the Office of Research Consultation, was
used to more precisely determine significant differences
between appropriate groups.

2

Two additional Multivariate Analysis of Variance
Programs were used to test for differences existing between
employee groups reporting to different Level 1 supervisors
at the same organizational level.

Both the Student Per­

sonnel and Business divisions were included in this
analysis, but each division was treated as a separate
population.

The analysis was designed to treat the

following effects:

Sex, and effects of different super­

visors on attitude toward MBO.

Statistical analyses were

computed using the C.D.C. 6500 computer.
All data were treated at the .05 level of confi­
dence.

This investigation sought to determine the effects

^■J. D. Finn, Multivariance:
Fortran Program for
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance and CoVariance (Buffalo, New York: state University of New York
at Buffalo, 1967).
2

Linda Glendening, POSTHOC; A Fortran IV Program
for Generating Confidence Intervals Using Either Tukey
or Scheff 6 Multiple Comparison^ Procedures (Eiast Lansing,
Mich.: College of Education, Michigan State University,
1973) .

70
of implementing a Management by Objectives system, a
system which purports to reduce significant differences
between groups.

Unlike many studies the variable of MBO

is considered successful if no differences are found.
Thus, the .05 level of confidence was selected, rather
than the .01 level, as 95 per cent confidence intervals
would be more sensitive to findings of significance and
provide information with greater practical application
and inference.
Summary
The hypotheses, the population in the study,
instrumentation, and the procedures for data collection
and analysis have been described in this chapter.
Chapter IV contains a detailed analysis of the data.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OP THE DATA
Introduction
This chapter is devoted to a presentation and
analysis of the data gathered in the study.

The data

were analyzed by use of a Multivariate analysis of variance
technique to determine any differences existing between
the effects of seven variables on fifteen sub-groups who
responded to the questionnaire.

Following the Multivariate

analysis, a Scheffe post hoc comparison was computed on
appropriate contrasts to more precisely determine dif­
ferences of significance.
All data were analyzed on the basis of the main
effects of sex, business division or student personnel
division, and organizational level occupied by the
respondents.

The data were then treated to determine

the results of interaction effects.

In addition, the

data were analyzed to determine the effects of different
supervisors on the responses.

These data were analyzed

on the basis of the main effects of sex and supervisor
in each division and were also treated to determine the
results of interaction effects.
71

72
The remainder of the presentation of the data
will be related to a discussion of additional findings
of the study.

All results of the analyses are presented

in statistical, descriptive, table, and graphic form.
The order of presentation will follow the order of the
analyses described above.
Review of the Groups and Design
of the Study
The study was designed to determine the effects
of a Management by Objectives system on the attitudes of
residence hall staff toward the use of that system.
Variables were sex, business division or student per­
sonnel division, and four organizational levels occupied
by respondents within each division.

These variables

generated a two-by—two-by-four design, yielding fifteen
sub-groups under study.

(A two-by-two-by-four design

should yield sixteen groups.

However, the category of

Female, Level 1, Business was empty as no subjects fitting
that classification were identified in the population
under study.)
A questionnaire of seventy-five items was admin­
istered to the residence hall professional personnel at
Michigan State University.

The questionnaire solicited

information regarding attitudes toward Management by
Objectives systems operating in residence halls.

Scaled

73

values were assigned to each item on the instrument.
Responses and the values of the scale are:
Highly Favorable
Favorable
Unfavorable
Highly Unfavorable

0
1
2
3

Responses were key-punched on data cards for analysis.
Hypotheses Tested
The five major and two minor hypotheses of the
study were stated in Chapter III.

For purposes of sta­

tistical analysis the hypotheses are restated in null
form.
Hypothesis 1 :
There are no significant differences existing between
organizational levels occupied by employees as
measured by scores obtained on the MBO evaluation
questionnaire.
Sub-Hypothesis a :
There are no significant differences existing in the
student personnel division between organizational
levels occupied by employees as measured by scores
obtained on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Sub-Hypothesis b :
There are no significant differences existing in the
business division between organizational levels
occupied by employees as measured by scores obtained
on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.

74

Hypothesis 2 :
There are no significant differences existing between
employees of the student personnel division and
business division, at all levels of each organization,
as measured by scores obtained on the MBO evaluation
questionnaire.
Hypothesis 3 :
There are no significant differences existing between
male and female employees in both the student person­
nel division and business division, at all levels of
each organization, as measured by scores obtained on
the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Hypothesis 4 :
There are no significant differences existing between
employees of the student personnel division reporting
to different supervisors as measured by scores
obtained on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Hypothesis 5 :
There are no significant differences existing between
employees of the business division reporting to dif­
ferent supervisors as measured by scores obtained on
the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Presentation of Data and
Tests of Hypotheses
Means for each of the fifteen sub-groups are pre­
sented in Table 4.1.

The mean scores are clustered within

a range of 59.67 to 89.15, suggesting a moderately high
level of agreement between most groups on attitudes
toward MBO.

Eleven of the sub-groups are more closely

clustered within a range of 71.50 to 79.50.

This would

suggest a very high level of agreement between the majority
of the groups.

75
TABLE 4.1.— Table of cell means
Group
.
.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1
2

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.

Mean

Male-Business-Level 1
Male-Business-Level 2
Male-Business-Level 3
Male-Business-Level 4
Male-Student Personnel-Level
Male-Student Personnel-Level
Male-Student Personnel-Level
Male-Student Personnel-Level
Female-Business-Level 1

1
2
3
4

Female-Business-Level 2
Female-Business-Level 3
Female-Business-Level 4
Female-Student Personnel-Level 1
Female-Student Personnel-Level 2
Female-Student Personnel-Level 3
Female-Student Personnel-Level 4

71.50
78.00
78.33
76.17
59.67
64.27
77.82
89.15
Category empty—
No subjects
79.50
74.00
74.86
86.50
74.83
72.21
78.24

The results of the Multivariate analysis for sig­
nificant differences between the seven variables are
summarized in Table 4.2,

The test for significance at

the .05 level of confidence indicates that there are
significant differences on the variables of sex, division,
level, and division by level.

The effects of sex by

division, sex by level, and sex by division by level
were found not to be significant.
Test of Null Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis 1 of no significant differences
between organizational levels is tested by the analysis
of variable number three.

An examination of Table 4.2

indicates a P value of .0053 which is less than the .05

76

TABLE 4.2.— Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables on the questionnaire
Multivariate Table

Variable

d.f.

Mean
Square
Between

F

P <
0.0001

1

.

Sex

1

3719.48

7.69*

0.0059

2

.

Division

1

2325.24

4.81*

0.0289

3.

Level

3

2083.18

4.31*

0.0053

4.

Sex by
Division

1

210.03

0.43

0.5104

Sex by
Level

3

1091.60

2.26

0.0813

Division by
Level

3

1327.94

Sex by
Division by
Level

3

323.32

425

483.76

5.
6

.

7.

8

.

Error
*

Significant at the .05 level.

____ *

2.75

0.0428

0. 67

0.5131

77

confidence level.

Thus, null Hypothesis 1 should be

rejected as significance was found.

Null Sub-Hypotheses

a and b will be considered in a later section of this
chapter.
Test of Null Hypothesis 2
Null Hypothesis 2 of no significant differences
between employees of the student personnel division and
business division is tested by the analysis of variable
number two.

An examination of Table 4.2 indicates a

P value of .0289 which is less than the .05 confidence
level.

Thus, null Hypothesis 2 should be rejected as

significance was found.
Test of Null Hypothesis 3
Null Hypothesis 3 of no significant differences
between male and female employees is tested by the
analysis of variable number one.

Table 4.2 indicates

a P value of .0059 which is less than the .05 confidence
level.

Thus, null Hypothesis 3 should be rejected as

significance was found.
Further examination of Table 4.2 indicates that
variables four, five, six, and seven are analyzed on the
basis of the interaction effects of sex by division,
sex by level, division by level, and sex by division
by level.

The results of these interaction effects are

presented graphically in Figures 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

86

SP

85
84
83
82
81
80
79
-j

78

oo

77

B

'SP

76
75

74
Male
jegend:

Female

B - Business Division; SP - Student Personnel Division

Fig. 4.1.— Graphic representation of interaction effects of
sex by division.

88

LI
86

84
82
80
78

L3

76
L2

74

-j
VO

72
70

L2

68

LI
66

Male
uegend:

Female

LI - Level 1; L2 — Level 2; L3 — Level 3; L4 ~ Level 4*

Fig. 4.2.— Graphic representation of interaction effects of
sex by level.

L4
82

L2
Mean

78

L3

76
L4

L3
LI

LI
L2

Business Division
Legend:

Student Personnel
Division

LI - Level 1; L2 - Level 2; L3 - Level 3; L4 - Level 4

Fig. 4.3.— Graphic representation of interaction effects of division
by level.

81

Graphically it appears as though there is interaction for
sex by level (Figure 4.2) and for division by level
(Figure 4.3), with no interaction for sex by division
(Figure 4.1).

However, only variable six (Figure 4.3),

division by level, generated a P value of less than .05
and can be considered significant.
To more specifically determine differences between
groups which make up variable six, the Scheffe post hoc
comparison technique was used."''

Six contrasts of eight

factors of level and division were compared.

The results

of the Scheff£ post hoc comparison failed to identify
any precise sources of differences existing between the
various groups which were contrasted.

Thus, while

variable six was found to be significant, sources of
the significance cannot be determined.

This finding

requires the assumption that such a deviation be
attributed to unequal cell sizes or unaccounted for
sources of error.
An inspection of Table 4.2 indicates an error
term of 483.76

(Mean Square Between for variable eight).

This value is considered high and suggests that the
combination of unequal cell sizes and unaccounted for

1Linda Glendening, POSTHOC: A Fortran XV Program
for Generating Confidence Intervals Using Either Tukey
or Scheff 6 Multiple Comparison Procedures (East Lansing,
Mich.: College of Education, Michigan State University,
1973).

82
variables are affecting the error term andr thus, con­
taminating attempts to identify sources of difference.
The findings of significance and no significance
for the various interaction effects constitute an impor­
tant relationship with the apparent findings for the main
effects used to test Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.

First,

unequal numbers of subjects were present between the
fifteen sub-groups under study.

In order to assume, with

a high degree of confidence, that the findings for
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are significant, requires that
equal numbers of subjects be present in each sub-group.
Random elimination of subjects was rejected as an equaliz­
ing treatment as numbers in the sub-groups ranged from a
low of three.

Thus, random elimination would have

resulted in too few subjects to conduct the study.

A

Monte Carlo statistical treatment is available which can
be used to treat unequal numbers of subjects between
groups as if they were equal.

This treatment results

in the assertion of findings with a high degree of con­
fidence.

The Monte Carlo was also rejected, however, as

it is far too costly for an exploratory study of this
nature.
Secondly, the factors present in the interaction
effects which contribute to a finding of no significance
are also partially present in the main effects.

Thus,

because of unequal numbers in the sub-groups the main

83

effects cannot be considered to be free from contamination
from the interaction variables and the initial findings
of significance for null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 cannot
be accepted as valid.
On the basis of this
sis

1of

no significant

interpretation null Hypothe­

differences between

organizational

levels is accepted, as a finding of significant difference
would be subject to questions of validity.

Thus, no dif­

ference is considered to be existing between employees
occupying different organizational levels.
Similarly, null Hypothesis 2 of no significant
differences between the student personnel and business
divisions is accepted, as a finding of significant dif­
ference would be subject to questions of validity.

No

difference is considered to be existing between employees
of the student personnel and business divisions.
Null Hypothesis 3 of
between males and females is

no significant differences
accepted, as a finding of

significant difference would be subject to questions of
validity.

No difference is considered to be existing

between male and female employees.
Additionally, further justification for not
accepting the initial findings of a significance for
null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 in favor of a conclusion of
no significance is supported by the results of the
Scheff^ post hoc comparison used to test variable six.

84
That result of no significance would suggest that con­
tamination would occur in the direction of no significance
for null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3.
Test of Null Sub-Hypotheses
a and b
The test for significance is indicated by the
analysis of variable number three, Table 4.2.
was determined at the .05 level.

Significance

However, as explained

earlier, the factors of unequal cell size and the large
error term prohibits a conclusion of significance.

Thus,

it is concluded that both null Sub-Hypothesis a of no
differences between organizational levels in the student
personnel division and null Sub-Hypothesis b of no dif­
ferences between organizational levels in the business
division are accepted.
Additional analysis, although not precise, is
possible through a visual inspection of the means for
staff occupying extreme organizational levels.

Table 4.3

indicates that mean scores for three of the four groups
compared are closely clustered.

This would provide

additional evidence for rejecting Hypothesis b.
However, it can be seen that for Comparison Three
the range between the means is considerably larger.

While

null Sub-Hypothesis a is accepted on the interpretation
of no statistical significance, this comparison suggests
that a practical difference does exist and that

85

TABLE 4.3.— Compared cell means by sex and by division for
differences between organizational levels
Comparison

Group Compared

Mean
71.50
76.17

1

Male-Business-Level 1
Male-Business—Level 4

2

Female-Business-Level 2
Female-Business-Level 4

3

Male-Student Personnel-Level 1
Male-Student Personnel-Level 4

59.67
89.15

4

Female-Student Personnel-Level 1
Female-Student Personnel—Level 4

86.50
78.24

•tt

79.50
74.86

No subjects were available for the category of
Female-Business-Level 1. Thus, the next highest category
of organizational level is represented here.

significance may be masked by error.

The arithmetical

difference is directional, with the Level 1 staff
responding more favorably to the Management by Objec­
tives system than the Level 4 staff.

It is suggested

that some erosion may occur between the highest and
lowest levels in the males of the student personnel
division.
Test of Null Hypothesis 4
Means for each of the eight sub-groups reporting
to four different supervisors in the student personnel
division are presented in Table 4.4.

The scores are

clustered within a range of 72.80 to 87.05, suggesting
a high level agreement between groups on attitudes toward
MBO.

86

TABLE 4.4.— Cell means by supervisor and sex for student
personnel
Supervisor

Sub-Group

Mean

1

Male
Female

84.39
78.27

2

Male
Female

87.05
80.47

3

Male
Female

84.53
78.40

4

Male
Female

86.77
72.80

The results of the Multivariate analysis for
significant differences between the three variables are
summarized in Table 4.5.

The test of significance at the

.05 level of confidence indicates a significant difference
for the main effect of sex, but no differences for the
main effect of supervisor or the interaction effect of
sex by supervisor.
The results indicate that null Hypothesis 4 is
accepted as no difference was found to exist on the main
effect of supervisor in the student personnel division.
It should be noted, however, that the main effect of sex
was significant at the .05 level of confidence.

While

not affecting acceptance or rejection of the null hypothe­
sis, this finding does generate some evidence that there
may exist some minor, but significant difference, between
male and female employees.

A review of Table 4.4 suggests

87
that females may be more positive toward Management by
Objectives than are males-

Lower mean scores are con­

sidered to indicate a more favorably disposed attitude
toward MBO.
TABLE 4.5.— Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables of sex and supervisor for student personnel

Variable

.
.
3.
4.
1
2

Sex
Supervisor
Sex by Supervisor
Error

d. f .

1

3
3
336

Mean
Square
Between
6078.24
256.45
249.92
500.79

F

12.14*
0.512
0.50

P <
0.0001

0.0006
0.6742
0.6832

*
Significant at the .05 level.
Test of Hull Hypothesis 5
Means for each of the four sub-groups reporting
to two supervisors in the business division are presented
in Table 4.6.
The scores are clustered within a range of 71.7 3
to 82.40.

Again, this suggests a high level of agreement

between groups on attitudes toward MBO.
The results of the Multivariate analysis for
significant difference between the three variables are
summarized in Table 4.7.

The test of significance at

the ,05 level of confidence indicates no significant dif­
ferences for the main effects of sex and supervisor, nor
for the interaction effect of sex by supervisor.

83

TABLE 4.6.— Cell means by supervisor and sex for business
Supervisor

Sub-Group

1
2

Mean

Male
Female

8 2.40

79.36

Male
Female

75.00
71.73

TABLE 4.7.— Multivariate analysis for differences between
variables of sex and supervisor for business

Variable

d.f .

Mean
Square
Between

F

P <
0.0001

1

.

Sex

1

54.64

0.1160

9.7345

2

.

Supervisor

1

791.46

1.6806

0.1992

3.

Sex by Supervisor

1

162.95

0.3460

0.5584

4.

Error

69

470.95

89

The results indicate that null Hypothesis 5 of
no differences between employees reporting to different
supervisors can be accepted as no significance was found
on the main effects of sex or supervisor, nor on the
interaction effect of sex by supervisor in the business
division.
Summary of Hypotheses Findings
The five major and two minor null hypotheses of
no differences between groups can be accepted.

Data

treated with a Multivariate analysis of variance failed
to indicate statistically significant differences exist­
ing between the variables of organizational level,
housing division, sex of respondents, or different
supervisors.
While major null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 and SubHypotheses a and b were initially rejected based on sig­
nificance indicated by the Multivariate analysis, unequal
cell sizes and unaccounted for error variance prohibit
a conclusion that significant differences do, in fact,
exist.
The interaction effects of sex by division, sex
by level, and sex by division by level were found not to
be significant based on the multivariate analysis.

Only

the interaction effect of division by level was found
to have significant differences.

However, the application

90
of the Scheff£ post hoc comparison failed to determine
specific sources of differences existing between the
groups which were contrasted.
In addition to testing the hypothesis interest was
generated in other information inferred from the data
collected in this study.

The following discussion is

based on data presented in Table 4.1.
A visual examination of the group means indicates
that all scores are clustered within a spread of 59.6 7
to 89.15.

This clustering effect is given further credi­

bility by treatment with a multivariate analysis which
indicates findings and inferences of no significant dif­
ferences between most of the groups.
The scores can be interpreted as representing
points on an attitudinal continuum, ranging from highly
favorable to highly unfavorable.

It is considered

important to determine where these scores rest on such
a continuum and in which direction the scores are
clustered.
Four scaled values, representing differences of
attitude from highly favorable to highly unfavorable,
were available for responses to each of seventy-five
items on a questionnaire.

Highly favorable responses

were assigned a value of zero; highly unfavorable
responses were assigned a value of three.

Thus, the

91

lower the score the more favorably disposed toward Man­
agement by Objectives each response is considered to be.
Because of the design of the instrument, end
points on a continuum of all theoretically possible
responses are zero (scaled value

0

multiplied by seventy-

five items) and 225 (scaled value three multiplied by
seventy-five items).

Figure 4.4 presents a graphic

representation of the mean scores for the two most
divergent groups on such a continuum.
A visual inspection of Figure 4.4 indicates that
all fifteen groups are clustered directionally toward
the highly favorable end point.

As this cluster is com­

posed of responses representing the entire housing staff,
it can be concluded that their attitudes toward MBO
tend to be skewed in a positive direction.

In addition,

all scores are clustered within the positive half of the
continuum and are well above the mid-point of 112.5.
Analysis of the Questionnaire Items
In addition to the preceding statistical and
descriptive analyses, this researcher was also interested
in analyzing the individual items on the questionnaire.
Each item was developed to explore a specific character­
istic of a Management by Objectives system or to solicit
information concerning organizational and leadership
theories on which MBO rests.

a

u
0

u
w

M

0
0

CQ

c

c
(D

0)

S

s

a
p
o
u
u
-p
in
O
S
o
P1!
1
r*
cn
in

a)

a
0
0

p
u
■p
w

s0:

tp
■H
SI
3
i
in
tH.

C
\
CO

10

to
“

0

50

100

t—

125

175

225

112.5

Highly Favorable
Attitude

Neutral
Attitude

Highly Unfavorable
Attitude

Fig. 4.4.— Distribution of highest and lowest group mean scores on
a continuum of all possible scores.

93
Respondents were requested to indicate their
attitudes toward each item by selecting one of four
possible choices, ranging from highly favorable to
highly unfavorable.

The results of the statistical

treatment tends to indicate that little apparent dif­
ferences exist between each response.

Therefore, for

purposes of item analysis the four possible choices
were collapsed into two divergent responses of favorable
and unfavorable.

All data are reported by percentages

of respondents indicating favorable or unfavorable
responses to each item.

Further, responses are cate­

gorized on the variables of sex, division, and level,
generating fifteen pairs of percentages per item.
The number of subjects responding by division,
level, and sex are presented in Table 4.8.

The category

of Level 1 females in business is empty as no subjects
were available to participate in the research.

TABLE 4.8.— Number of respondents per category

Division
Sex

Male
Level
Level
Level
Level

1
2
3
4

Business

Student Personnel

3
15
28
129

Female
4
12

28
132

Male
8
10
12
22

Female
0

4
3
22

TABLE 4.9.— Item analysis, percentage responses of attitudes favorable and unfavorable
to management by objectives by sex, division, and level
Division
Student Personnel
Level

Sex

Sex

Male
Fhv.
Item

1 .

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 2.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 3.
LI
L2
L3
L4

Business

Female
Unfav.

Fav.

Male

Unfav.

Fav.

Female
Unfav.

Fav.

Unfav.

Paper work necessary for MBO does not interfere with work efforts.
100.00
66.67
64.28
72.58

0.00
33.33
35.72
27.13

50.00
66.67
53.57
65.15

50.00
33.33
46.43
34.85

62.50
80.00
91.67
86.36

37.50
20.00
8.33
13.64

—

75.00
100.00
77.28

—

25.00
0.00
22.73

MBO has a positive effect on the members of the organization.
66.67
86.67
71.42
72.09

33.33
13.33
28.58
27.91

75.00
83.34
82.14
17.28

25.00
16.67
17.86
22.73

87.50
100.00
91.67
86.36

12.50
0.00
8.33
13.64

87.50
100.00
100.00
95.45

12.50
0.00
0.00
4.55

—

100.00
100,00
77.27

—

0.00
0.00
22.73

The MBO system helps members plan better ■
100.00
93.33
92.86
75.19

0.00
6.67
7.14
24.81

50.00
91.67
85.71
85.60

50.00
8.33
14.29
14.40

—

100.00
100.00
86.40

0.00
0.00
13.64

95
(Item 1 )

Thirteen of the groups indicated that a

large amount of paperwork is not a significant deterrent
to the effective implementation of MBO.

Of concern is

the apparent lack of consensus existing in Level 1,
females in student personnel.

This finding, however,

does not appear to have generated similar erosion through
lower organizational levels.
(Item 2)

All of the groups strongly indicated that

MBO generates a positive effect on the members of the
organization.

Erosion between organizational levels and

differences between divisions and sex are minimal.
(Item 3)

Level 1 females in student personnel

were the only group not significantly indicating that
MBO leads to better planning among the members.

No

apparent erosion occurred within lower levels, however.
The remaining groups are consistently skewed in a highly
favorable direction.
(Item 4 )

Again, Level 1 females in student per­

sonnel were the only group which did not indicate posi­
tive attitudes toward MBO in helping employees to improve
their efforts.

No erosion occurred within lower levels

and the remaining fourteen groups indicated highly
favorable responses.
(Item 5)

The majority of the reported percentages

are clustered in the region of neutrality.

Ten of the

groups indicated that MBO does not generate appropriate

Item 4.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 5.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 6.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 7.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 8.
LI
L2
L3
L4

MBO aids employees in developing themselves to improve their efforts.
100.00
93.33
78.57
71.32

0.00
6.67
21.43
28.68

50.00
100.00
75.00
79.54

50.00
0.00
25.00
20.46

75.00
90.00
83.33
81.82

25.00
10.00
16.67
18.18

—
75.00
66.67
90.91

25.00
33.33
9.09

MBO generates appropriate anxiety among the members of the organization.
100.00
46.57
39.28
41.86

0.00
53.33
60.72
58.14

50.00
50.00
50.00
43.94

50.00
50.00
50.00
56.06

62.50
70.00
33.33
68.18

37.50
30.00
66.67
31.82

—

25.00
33.33
68.18

—
75.00
66.67
31.82

MBO provides criteria for fair evaluation of employee performance.
66.67
93.33
67.86
44.18

33.33
6.67
32.14
53.71

50.00
91.67
75.00
50.76

50.00
8.33
25.00
49.25

100.00
60.00
83.33
86.36

0.00
40.00
16.67
13.64

—
100.00
100.00
81.82

—
0.00
0.00
18.18

12.50
0.00
25.00
22.73

—
75.00
100.00
81.82

—
25.00
0.00
18.18

12.50
20.00
25.00
22.73

—
100.00
66.67
68.18

0.00
33.33
31.82

MBO calls for necessary coaching and conferences.
100.00
100.00
71.43
58.82

0.00
0.00
28.57
41.18

75.00
91.67
89.28
85.61

25.00
8.33
10.71
14.39

87.50
100.00
75.00
77.27

MBO requires necessary meetings to make decisions.
66.67
86.67
57.14
70.54

33.33
13.33
42.86
29.46

100.00
91.67
89.28
77.27

0.00
8.33
10.72
22.73

87.50
80.00
75.00
77.27

97
anxiety among the members, with only five groups indi­
cating appropriate levels of anxiety.

With the exception

of Level 1 males in student personnel, results between
levels tend to reflect similar attitudes of neutrality.
(Item

6)

Twelve of the groups indicated that

MBO provides criteria by which employees can be fairly
evaluated.

Three groups, females in student personnel

at Levels 1 and 4 and males in student personnel at
Level 4, reported attitudes in the region of neutrality.
(Item 7)

Fourteen of the groups strongly indi­

cated that coaching and conferences are necessary for
successful implementation of an MBO system.

Only Level 4

males in student personnel failed to report a highly
favorable attitude.

Erosion between organizational

levels is negligible.
(Item

8)

All groups indicated that meetings are

necessary in order to reach decisions regarding work
efforts within an MBO system.

Level 3 males in student

personnel reported slightly less favorable attitudes
than did other groups.
(Item 9)

With the exception of females in busi­

ness, other groups by sex and by division indicated
erosion of commitment to MBO through lower organizational
levels.

Generally Level 1 and Level 2 staff across

groups are skewed in a direction favorable to MBO.

Level

3 and Level 4 staff report percentages which are clustered
around neutrality.

Item 9.

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 10.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 11.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 12.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 13.
LI
L2
L3
L4

Degree of commitment of staff to the MBO system

66.67
72.33
50.00
46.51

33.33
26.67
50.00
53.49

50.00
91.67
57.14
59.85

50.00
8.33
42.86
40.15

87.50
70.00
50.00
68.18

12.50
30.00
50.00
31.82

-

100.00
100.00

0.0 0
0.00

90.91

9.09

MBO causes organizations to be humanistic and oriented toward[ people.
33.33
73.33
39.28
49.62

66.67
26.67
60.72
49.38

50.00
83.33
53.57
62.59

50.00
16.67
46.43
37.41

62.50
60.00
58.33
72.72

37.50
40.00
41.67
27.28

—

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

90.91

9.09

MBO is effective in correcting placid leadership in organizations.
66.67
73.33
67.85
58.14

33.33
26.67
32.15
41.86

75.00
75.00
89.29
61.37

25.00
25.00
10.71
38.64

62.50
70.00
75.00
86.36

37.50
30.00
25.00
13.64

—

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

90.91

9.09

MBO is effective in correcting organizations which lack, management skills
and systems.
100.00

0.00

86.67
67.85
59.69

13.33
32.15
40.31

50.00
83.34
67.85
61.36

50.00
16.66
32.15
38.64

62.50
40.00
66.67
77.27

37.50
60.00
33.33
22.63

—

—

100.00

0.00

66.67
86.37

33.33
13.63

25.00

—

—

10.00

75.00

25.00

8.33
28.27

100.00

0.00

77.27

22.73

MBO helps correct poor long-range planning processes.
100.00

0.0 0

75.00

25.00

86.67
75.00
72.87

13.33
25.00
27.13

100.00

0.00

89.28
80.31

10.72
19.69

75.00
90.00
91.67
71.73

99
(Item 10)

Ten groups are positively skewed and

five groups indicate results clustered around neutrality.
Only females in business, however, strongly indicate
that MBO causes the organization to be humanistic and
oriented toward people.

Several groups reporting posi­

tive percentages can be considered to be only minimally
favorable.

With the exception of females in business,

results between the remaining groups report inconsistent
data between organizational levels.
(Item 11)

All fifteen groups indicate that MBO

is a significant deterrent to placid leadership.

Erosion

effects between most levels is minimal.
(Item 12)

Only two groups, Level 1 females in

student personnel and Level 2 males in business, indicate
that MBO does not aid in correcting organizations which
lack management skills and systems.

The remaining

thirteen groups are favorably skewed and little erosion
is apparent between organizational levels.
(Itern 13)

All groups report percentages which

indicate that MBO is significant in helping to correct
poor long-range planning processes.

Erosion between

organizational levels is negligible.
(Item 14)

All groups indicate that MBO is sig­

nificant in correcting a lack of clearly defined goals.
Erosion between organizational levels is negligible.

Item 14.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 15.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 16.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 17.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 18.

LI
L2
L3
L4

MBO helps correct a lack of clearly defined organizational goals.
100.00
100.00
85,71
69.00

0.00
0.00
14.29
31.00

100.00
100.00
89.28
79.55

0.00
0.00
10.72
20.45

87.50
90.00
75.00
81.81

12.50
10.00
25.00
18.19

—

100.00
100.00
86.36

—

0.00
0.00
13.64

MBO helps correct inefficient utilization of facilities.
66.67
60.00
60.71
40.86

33.33
40.00
39.29
59.14

25.00
41.67
42.85
52.27

75.00
58.33
57.15
47.72

37.50
80.00
66.67
63.64

62.50
20.00
33.33
26.36

—

50.00
100.00
77.27

—

50.00
0.00
22.73

MBO helps correct inefficient budgeting practices.
33.33
66.67
51.00
46.51

66.67
33.33
49.00
53.49

25.00
33.33
64.28
42.41

75.00
66.67
35.72
57.59

87.50
100.00
75.00
77.27

12.50
0.00
25.00
22.73

—

—

75.00
66.67
86.37

25.00
33.33
13.64

-

—

MBO helps correct inefficient decision-making practices.
66.67
80.00
64.29
50.39

33.33
20.00
35.71
49.61

25.00
66.67
64.29
55.31

75.00
33.33
35.71
44.70

62.50
60.00
58.33
59.09

37.50
40.00
41.67
40.91

100.00
100.00
68.18

0.00
0.00
31.82

MBO helps correct lack of agreement about priorities among members of the
organization.
66.67
80.00
59.72
51.17

33.33
20.00
39.28
48.83

75.00
75.00
71.43
52.27

25.00
25.00
28.57
47.73

50.00
60.00
66.67
54.55

50.00
40.00
33.33
45.45

—

100.00
100.00
68.18

—

0.00
0.00
31.82

101
(Item 15)

Seven groups indicate that MBO is not

a significant factor in helping to correct inefficient
utilization of facilities.

Of the eight groups which do

report favorably, only three can be considered strongly
skewed in a positive direction; the remaining five groups
are only marginally favorable.

Higher level groups are

not consistently more favorable than lower level groups,
suggesting generalized attitudes of disagreement with
the questionnaire statement.
(Item 16)

All seven groups representing the busi

ness division report percentages which favorably indicate
that MBO helps correct inefficient budgeting practices.
The eight groups representing the student personnel
division report lower percentages of favorable response
with considerable discrepancy between organizational
levels.
(Item 17)

Erosion of favorable attitudes gen­

erally occurs between the higher and lower organizational
levels, across all groups.

Only three groups strongly

indicate that MBO may be of significance in helping to
correct inefficient decision making.

Eleven of the

twelve remaining groups tend to report percentages
clustered around neutrality.

In contrast to all other

groups Level 1 females in student personnel report
highly unfavorable percentages.

Item 19.

66.67
73.33
67.86
44.54

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item

20.

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item

21.

Item 23.
LI
L2
L3
L4

50.00
16.67
32.14
51.51

62.50
60.00
58.33
72.72

37.50
40,00
41.67
27.28

-

-

50.00
33.33
68.19

50.00
66.67
31.81

33.33
20.00

57.14
49.61

50.00
75.00
71.43
50.76

50.00
25.00
28.57
49.24

75.00
80.00
83.33
81.82

25.00

—

—

20.00

75.00
66.67
63.64

25.00
33.33
36.36

16.67
18.18

33.33
6.67
7.14
19.28

100.00

0.0 0

87.50

12.50

91.67

8.33

100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

91.67

92.42

7.58

100.00

—

8.33

100.00
100.00

0.00
0. 0 0

0.00

86.36

13.64

Staff knowledge and understanding of the difference between goals and
objectives •
100.00
100.00

0 .00
0.00

77.57
80.00

20.00

22.43

100.00

0.00

91.67
96.42
88.64

8.33
3.57
11.36

87.50
90.00
91.67
90.90

12.50
10.00

8.33
9.10

—
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

90.90

9.10

Staff familiarity with the goals of the organization.
75.00

25.00

7.14

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

6.21

98.49

1.52

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

92.86
92.79

100.00
100.00

0.0 0
0 .00

83.33
95.45

16.67
4.55

—
100.00
100.00

0 .00
0.00

86.36

13.64

102

LI
L2
L3
L4

50.00
83.33
67.86
48.49

Staff objectives closely reflect the goals of the organization.
66.67
93.33
92.86
80.72

22.

33.33
26.67
32.14
55.46

Staff are satisfied with the results of writing their own objectives.
66.67
80.00
42.86
50.39

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item

MBO helps correct insufficient evaluation of the quality of output.

103

(Item 18)

Nine of the fifteen groups indicate

that MBO is significant in correcting lack of agreement
concerning priorities among members of the organization.
Males in business at higher organizational levels tend
to report less favorable percentages than do the remain­
ing higher levels across sex and across division.
Females at most organizational levels tend to indicate
more favorable responses than do males.
(Item 19)

The higher organizational levels across

groups favorably indicate that MBO helps in correcting
insufficient evaluations of the qu.

.^y of output.

Female/ Level 1 staff in student personnel and in busi­
ness report percentages in the region of neutrality.
Level 2 staff across student personnel groups tend to
indicate more positive responses than do Level 1 staff.
Some erosion of favorable responses occurs at the lower
organizational levels.
(Item 20)

Males in business through all four

organizational levels tend to be most favorably disposed
to the results of writing their own objectives.

All

seven groups in business report percentages which tend
to suggest greater favorability than do the eight groups
in student personnel.

Level 2 staff tend to be more

favorable than Level 1 staff.

Some erosion of positive

responses is noted in the lower levels of student per­
sonnel divisions.

Item 24.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 25.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 26.

Item 27.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 28.
Ll
L2
L3
L4

66.67
93.33
75.00
82.17

33.33
6.67
25.00
17.83

50.00
66.67
85.71
78.79

50.00
33.33
14.29
21.21

75.00
90.00
73.33
74.27

25.00

—

—

10.00

50.00

50.00

16.67
24.73

100.00

0.00

81.82

18.18

Staff experience with methods by which objectives are set.
100.00

0.00

10 0 . 0 0

0.00

100.00

0.00

92.33
85.71
80.62

6.67
14.28
19.38

91.67
85.71
90.15

8.33
14.28
9.85

70.00
83.33
86.36

30.00
16.67
13.64

—
100.00

0.00

66.67
63.64

33.33
36.36

—

—

Staff familiarity with supervisors' objectives.
66.67
80.00
82.14
65.89

33.33
20.00

17.86
34.11

50.00
66.67
85.72
73.48

50.00
33.33
14.29
26.52

1 0 0 .Cv,

80.00
66.67
81.82

0.00
20.00

100.00

0.00

33.33
18.18

66.67
86.37

33.33
13.64

—

—

Staff experience with coaching to help implement objectives.
66.67
80.00
75.00
83.72

33.33
20.00

25.00
16.28

75.00
66.67
82.14
81.82

25.00
33.33
17.86
18.18

87.50
90.00
83.33
90.91

12.50
10.00

16.67
9.09

100.00

0.00

66.67
77.28

33.33
22.73

Staff experience in determiningr how objectives will be achieved.
100.00

0 .00

66.67
53.57
49.61

33.33
46.43
49.39

50.00
58.34
71.43
61.36

50.00
41.66
28.57
38.64

50.00
80.00
75.00
63.64

50.00

—

20.00

100.00

0.00

25.00
36.36

66.67
90.91

33.33
9.09

104

Ll
L2
L3
L4

Staff experience with coaching to help write objectives.

105
(Item 21)

All groups indicate favorable per­

centages suggesting that their objectives closely reflect
the goals of the organization.

Erosion from higher to

lower levels is negligible.
(Item 22)

All groups indicate that understanding

of the difference between goals and objectives is highly
favorable.

Erosion between levels is negligible.

(Item 23)

All groups report highly favorable

percentages indicating significant familiarity with the
goals of the organization.

Erosion between levels of

the organization is negligible.
(Item 24)

Thirteen groups report a favorable

experience with coaching to help them write their objec­
tives.

Only Level 1 females across divisions report

a neutral experience.

Erosion between the highest and

lowest levels of the organization is negligible.
(Item 25)

All groups indicate that the method

by which objectives are set is highly favorable.
levels across all groups are
their responses.

100

Highest

per cent favorable in

Erosion is negligible except in the

category of females in business, where some erosion
occurs.
(Item 26)

Level 1 staff in student personnel

indicate less familiarity with their supervisors’ objec­
tives than do Level 1 staff in business.

Similarly,

lower level staff tend to indicate greater familiarity
than do Level 1 staff in student personnel.

Item 29.

Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 30.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 31.

Item 32.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 33.
Ll
L2
L3
L4

33.33
40.00
60.72
57.37

66.67
60.00
39.28
42.63

25.00
33.33
64.28
59.85

75.00
66.67
35.71
40.15

12.50
60.00
50.00
50.00

87.50
40.00
50.00
50.00

75.00
41.66
28.57
31.06

62.50
60.00
75.00
63.64

37.50
40.00
25.00
27.36

-

-

25.00

75.00

0.00

100.00

50.00

50.00

Effect of the appraisal process *
33.33
46.67
71.35
58.14

66.67
63.33
28.65
41.86

25.00
58.33
71.43
68.94

—

75.00
33.33
81.82

25.00
66.67
18.18

Effect of appraisal with regard to implementation of objectives.
66.67
73.33
92.86
79.07

33.33
26.67
7.14
20.93

100.00

0.00

91.67
89.28
89.39

8.33
10.71
10.61

62.50
80.00
91.67
77.27

37.50
8.33
22.73

25.00
30.00
33.33
59.19

75.00
70.00
66.67
40.81

20.00

50.00
33.33
81.82

50.00
66.67
18.18

Degree of emphasis placed on appraisal.
33.33
46.67
53.57
59.79

66.67
53.33
46.43
40.21

25.00
58.34
71.43
66.67

75.00
41.67
28.57
33.33

25.00

75.00

0. 0 0

100.00

81.82

18.18

Effects of: results achieved as i
determinants of employees appraisal.
66.67
92.33
92.86
75.19

33.33
6.67
6.14
25.81

75.00

25.00

100.00

0.00

78.57
78.79

21.43
21.21

87.50
60.00
91.67
86.36

12.50
40.00
8.33
13.64

—
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

95.45

4.55

106

Ll
L2
L3
L4

Favorability of frequency of the appraisal process.

107
(Item 27)

Level 1 staff in business indicate a

highly favorable experience with coaching to help imple­
ment their objectives.

All groups report percentages

which are positively skewed.

Erosion between organi­

zational levels and across all groups is negligible.
Level 1 males in student personnel tend to indicate less
favorability than do the three remaining levels in that
category.
(Item 28)

Level 1 males in student personnel

indicate a favorable experience in determining how their
objectives will be achieved.

Considerable erosion occurs

through the remaining levels of this category.

Females

in student personnel and males in business report an
inverse relationship between most levels and a favorable
experience.

Females in business tend to report per­

centages indicating a favorable experience.
(Item 29)

Five groups indicate an unfavorable

percentage with respect to the frequency of appraisal
of their work efforts.

The remaining nine groups are

clustered about a neutral range.

No group reports per­

centages which reflect a highly favorable response.
(Item 30)

A generalized inverse relationship

exists between organizational level and a favorable
indication of the effects of the appraisal process.

With

the exception of females in business highest level groups
consistently report less than favorable effects of

108
appraisal.

Males in business appear to report percentages

with the greatest consistency between organizational
levels.
(Item 31)

With the exception of the higher levels

of females in business all groups report percentages
indicating a favorable effect of appraisal with regard
to implementation of objectives.

Erosion between organi­

zational levels is negligible, with several lower level
groups reporting highly favorable responses.
(Item 32)

Most groups generally indicate an

increase in favorable percentages reported with a decrease
in organizational level.

Highest level groups indicate

highly unfavorable percentages with respect to emphasis
placed on appraisal.

Only three groups, all located at

the lower levels of females in the categories of business
and student personnel, report that a favorable degree of
emphasis is placed on appraisal.
(Item 3 3)

All groups indicate favorably that

MBO emphasizes appraisal based on results achieved by
employees rather than on more subtle traits, such as
factors of personality.

Erosion between organizational

levels is negligible.
(Item 34)

Twelve groups report percentages

which indicate favorable degrees of employee involvement
in the appraisal of their efforts.

Erosion appears to

be significant only in the category of males in student

Item 34.

Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 35.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 36.

Item 37.
Ll
L2
L3
L4
Item 38.
Ll
L2
L3
L4

100.00

0.0 0

93.33
71.43
55.82

6.67
28.57
44.18

75.00
50.00
64.28
64.39

25.00
50.00
35.72
35.61

87.50

12.50

100.00

0.00

91.67
86.36

8.33
13.64

87.50
90.00
91.67
90.90

12.50

-

—

75.00
33.33
95.45

25.00
66.67
4.55

75.00
66.67

25.00
33.33

100.00

0.00

Fairness of appraisal process.
100.00

0.0 0

93.33
85.72
63.57

6.67
14.28
36.43

75.00
50.00
78.58
70.46

25.00
50.00
21.43
29.55

10.00

8.33
9.10

Reaction to receiving negative feedback as a result of appraisal.
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

78.59
77.52

21.43
22.48

75.00
91.67
82.15
81.82

25.00
8.33
17.86
18.18

50.00
80.00
75.00
86.36

50.00

—

2 0.00

100.00

0. 0 0

25.00
13.64

33.33
86.37

66.67
13.64

Difficulty of arriving at a rating during the appraisal process.
100.00

0.00

93.33
85.71
82.17

6.67
14.29
17.83

75.00
91.67
75.00
87.12

25.00
8.33
25.00
12.88

87.50
90.00
66.67
77,27

12.50

—

10.00

75.00

25.00

33.33
22.73

100.00
100.00

0. 0 0
0.00

75.00
33.33
59.10

25.00
66.67
40.90

People in the organization say what they mean.
100.00

0.00

93.33
60.72
69.53

6.67
39.28
30.47

75.00
66.67
64.29
74.24

25.00
33.33
35.71
25.76

87.50
80.00
66.67
50.00

12.50
20.00

33.33
50.00

109

Ll
L2
L3
L4

Employee involvement in the appraisal process.

110
personnel.

Females across divisions tend to report per­

centages which are slightly less favorable than males.
(Item 35)

Fourteen groups indicate high favora-

bility toward the fairness of the appraisal process.

Only

Level

2females in student personnel indicate a response

which

is less than favorable.
(Item 36)

Thirteen groups indicate a favorable

reaction to receiving negative feedback as a result of
appraisal.

Level 1 males and Level 3 females in busi­

ness, however, exhibit divergence from the generally
favorable percentages reported by other groups.

Little

erosion is noted through organizational levels.
(Item 37)

All groups indicate highly favorable

percentages in arriving at a rating during the appraisal
process.

This finding suggests that few serious problems

are encountered in determining employee ratings of per­
formance.

Erosion between organizational levels is mini­

mal .
(Item 38)

Twelve groups indicate that people in

the organization communicate openly and honestly with
each other.

Only the lower levels of business exhibit

divergence from this finding.

Erosion between levels is

minimal.
(Item 39)

Considerable inconsistency of

favorable percentages exists between most groups, with
regard to sex, division, or level.

Results cannot be

Item 39.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 40.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 41.

Item 42.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 43.
LI
L2
L3
L4

100.00

0.00

60.00
53.57
73.65

40.00
46.43
26.35

50.00
66.67
53.57
78.79

50.00
33.33
46.43
21.21

62.50
70.00
50.00
54.55

Accuracy and honesty of supervisors' expectations
100.00

0.00

93.33
82.14
86.05

6.67
17.86
13.95

50.00
75.00
71.42
88.63

50.00
25.00
28.57
10.37

37.50
30.00
50.00
45.45

-

75.00
66.67
72.73

-

25.00
33.33
27.27

•

87.50
70.00
84.33
77.27

12.50
30.00
16.67
22.73

—

75.00
66.67
81.82

—

25.00
33.33
18.18

Frequency of communication between people in the organization
100.00

80.00
53.57
58.91

0.00
20.00

46.43
41.09

75.00
66.67
64.28
62.12

25.00
33.33
35.71
37.88

100.00

90.00
83.33
71.72

Creative change can occur within the organization
66.67
86.67
78.57
77.52

33.33
13.33
21.43
22.48

50.00
83.34
92.86
85.61

50.00
16.67
7.14
14.39

0 .00
10.00

87.50
90.00
91.67
90.91

16.67
36.36

—

75.00
33.33
68.18

—

25.00
66.67
31.82

•

12.50

—

—

10.00

75.00

25.00

8.33
9.09

100.00
100.00

0.0 0
0.0 0

Supervisors do not transfer blame when a problem occurs.
100.00

0.00

100.00

0.00

93.33
71.43
63.57

6.67
28.57
36.43

66.67
85.71
78.79

33.33
14.28
21.21

75.00
80.00
83.33
59.09

25.00
20.00

16.67
40.91

—

75.00
33.33
72.73

—

25.00
66.67
27.27

Ill

LI
L2
L3
L4

Availability of individuals in the organization with whom discussion can
occur.

112

interpreted beyond a general finding of attitudes toward
the availability of individuals with whom discussion can
occur ranging from neutral to favorable.
(Item 40)

With the exception of Level 1 females

in student personnel, all groups indicate a favorable
percentage of response toward the accuracy and honesty
of supervisors' expectations.

Level 1 females in stu­

dent personnel indicate a neutral percentage.

Little

erosion of favorable attitudes occurs between organi­
zational levels.
(Itern 41)

Highest level groups indicate a

favorable frequency of communication between people in
the organization.

Less favorable responses are indi­

cated with decreasing organizational levels.

Level 3

females in business report unfavorable percentages toward
the frequency of communication.

Erosion is most apparent

at the lower levels of males in student personnel.
(Item 42)

Fourteen groups report a favorable

response indicating that creative change can occur within
the organization.

An inverse relationship generally

exists between organizational level and favorable per­
centages.

Only Level 1 females in student personnel

indicate a less than favorable percentage of neutrality.
(Item 43)

A high percentage of favorable

responses indicates that employees believe that most
supervisors do not transfer blame when a problem occurs.

Item 44.
LI
L2
L3
L4
item 45.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 46.

Item 47.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 48.
LI
L2
L3
L4

100.00

93.33
71.43
64.33

0.00
6.67
28.57
35.67

75.00
50.00
71.42
78.03

25.00
50.00
28.57
21.97

100.00

0 .00

—

—

70.00
91.67
68.18

30.00
8.33
31.72

75.00
66.67
72.73

25.00
33.33
27,27

When a problem occurs supervisors engage in a problem-solving process
involving subordinates.
100.00

93.33
85.71
78.30

0.00
6.67
14.29
21.70

75.00
83.33
92.85
89.40

25.00
16.67
7.15
10.60

100.00

0.0 0

—

—

70.00
91.67
81.82

30.00
8.33
18.18

50.00
66.67
95.45

50.00
33.33
4.55

87.50
80.00
66.67
68.28

12.50

—

—

20.00

75.00
66.67
77.27

25.00
33.33
22.73

Supervisors face problems directly.
100.00

86.67
75.00
77.52

0.00
13.33
25.00
22.48

75.00
75.00
75.00
87.88

25.00
25.00
25.00
12.12

33.33
31.72

Ability of individuals to effect major change in the organization.
100.00

66.67
92.86
63.57

0.00
33.33
7.14
36.43

50.00
66.67
78.58
67.43

50.00
33.33
21.43
32.57

87.50
70.00
58.33
72.73

12.50
30.00
41.67
27.27

—

25.00
66.67
59.09

75.00
33.33
40.91

—

—

Promotion and development potential within the organization.
66.67
87.67
67.86
57.36

33.33
13.33
32.14
42.64

75.00
83.33
75.00
56.82

25.00
16.67
25.00
43.19

62.50
10.00

41.67
72.73

37.50
90.00
58.33
27.17

50.00

50.00

100.00

0.00

50.00

50.00

113

LI
L2
L3
L4

Supervisors share blame when a problem occurs.

114
Only Level 3 females in business tend to respond unfav­
orably.

Some erosion is evident at the lower organi­

zational levels, but positive responses are maintained.
(Item 44)

Fourteen groups indicate a favorable

percentage of response that supervisors share blame when
a problem occurs.

Only Level 2 females in student per­

sonnel fail to indicate a favorable percentage.

Some

erosion occurs between levels as well as some inverse
relationships existing at the middle organizational levels.
Males tend to indicate a slightly more favorable per­
centage than females.
(Item 45)

Females in business tend to indicate

a strong inverse relationship between level and favorable
percentages.

All remaining groups indicate a highly

favorable percentage of response regarding supervisors
involving subordinates in problem-solving processes.
Erosion between organizational levels is negligible.
(Item 4 6 )

All groups indicate a favorable per­

centage suggesting that supervisors face problems
directly when they occur.

Level 1 and Level 2 males

across groups tend to report slightly higher percentages
than do equivalent levels in female categories.
(Item 47)

Except Level 1 females across divisions

all groups report favorable percentages of response
regarding the ability of individuals to effect major
change in the organization.
organizational levels.

Some erosion occurs between

Item 49.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 50.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 51.

Item 52.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 53.
LI
L2
L3
L4

100.00

86.67
60.71
58.91

0.00
13.33
39.29
41.09

75.00
58.34
60.71
58.34

25.00
41.67
39.28
41.67

62.50
40.00
66.67
87.27

37.50
60.00
33.33
22.73

—

—

25.00
33.33
81.82

75.00
66.67
18.18

—

—

Supervisors are supportive of the organization in general.
100.00
100.00

0.0 0
0.0 0

100.00
100.00

96.43
90.69

3.57
9.31

100.00
93.94

0 .00
0 .00
0 .00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

84.33

16.67

6.06

100.00

0,0 0

100.00
100.00
100.00

0,00
0.00
0.00

supportive of the MBO system.
Generally, supervisors are i
100.00

73.33
67.86
76.56

0.00
26.67
32.14
23.44

75.00
83.33
78.58
85.61

25.00
16.67
21.42
14.39

75.00

—

25.00

100.00

0.00

83.33
86.36

16.67
13.64

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

86.36

13.64

supportive of individual development.
Generally, supervisors are :
100.00
100.00

92.86
78.30

0.00
0.00
7.14
21.00

50.00
91.67
85.71
85.61

50.00
8.33
14.29
14.40

62.50
70.00
83.33
90.91

37.50
30.00
16.67
9.09

—

—

75.00

25.00

100.00

0 .00

81.82

18.18

—

—

Generally, supervisors are supportive of organizational goals.
100.00
100.00

92.86
89.92

0.00
0.00
7.14
10.08

75.00
91.67
96.43
90.91

25.00
8.33
3.57
9.09

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

91.67
95.45

8.33
4.55

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

95.45

4.55

115

LI
L2
L3
L4

The organization places its emphasis on the future.

116
(Item 48)

The potential for promotion and

development within the organization is indicated to be
favorable by Student personnel respondents.

Considerably

less favorable percentages are reported by the business
staff.

Of particular interest is the extremely low pro­

motion and development potential indicated by Level 2
males in business.

Some erosion occurs between organi­

zational levels.
(Item 49)

Highest level student personnel staff

of both sexes indicate that the organization places
emphasis on the future.
organizational levels.

Some erosion occurs between
An inverse relationship exists

between level and favorable response for both sexes in
the business division.

Higher levels of business sta'f

are skewed in the region of neutrality and unfavorability.
(Item 50)

All groups indicated very favorable

responses regarding supervisors being supportive of the
organization in general.

Erosion between levels is

negligible.
(Item 51)

All groups indicated favorable per­

centages of responses regarding supervisors being sup­
portive of the MBO system.

Erosion of favorable per­

centages between organizational levels is negligible.
(Item 52)

Fourteen groups indicated favorable

percentages regarding supervisors being supportive of
individual development.

Level 1 females in student per­

sonnel are clustered in the region of neutrality; however,

Item 54.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 55.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 56.

Item 57.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 58.
LI
L2
L3
L4

66.67

33.33

100.00

0.00

75.00
72.09

25.00
27.91

100.00
83.34
82.14
84.09

0.00

16.66
17.86
15.91

75.00
60.00
83.33
86.36

25.00
40.00
16.67
13.64

—

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

72.73

27.27

Generally, supervisors are supportive of professional associations.
100.00

0.00

66.67
78.57
73.64

33.33
21.43
24.36

75.00
58.33
78.57
81.68

25.00
41.67
21.43
18.32

37.50
60.00
83.33
86.36

62.50
40.00
16.67
13.64

50.00

50.00

100.00

0.00

90.91

9.09

Generally, supervisors are supportive of providing services and assistance
to students •
100.00

0.00

86.67
96.43
88.37

13.33
3.57
11.63

75.00
83.33
96.43
95.45

50.00
16.67
3.57
4.55

100.00

90.00
91.67
100.00

0.00
10.00

8.33
0.00

_
100.00
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0 .00

81.82

18.18

Supervisors are more effective leaders as a result of MBO.
100.00

80.00
67.86
62.79

0.00
20.00

32.14
37.21

50.00
83.33
85.72
80.31

50.00
16.67
14.29
19.69

62.50
60.00
75.00
63.63

37.50
40.00
25.00
36.37

Supervisors ' planning is adequate and involves subordinate staff.
66.67
92.33

33.33
6.67

100.00

0 .00

89.15

10.85

75.00
83.33
92.86
90.91

25.00
16.67
7.14
9.09

87.50
90.00
83.33
86.36

12.50
10.00

16.67
13.64

—

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.0 0

95.45

4.55

117

LI
L2
L3
L4

Generally, supervisors are supportive of subordinates.

I
118
no erosion is evident between organizational levels in
this category.

Of interest is the inverse relationship

existing for males in business at all organizational
levels.
(Item 53)

All groups report highly favorable

percentages indicating that supervisors are supportive
of organizational goals.

Virtually no erosion occurs

between organizational levels across all groups.
(Item 54)

All groups report favorable percentages

which indicate that supervisors are supportive of subor­
dinate staff.

Level 2 males in business indicate the

lowest percentage of support of all groups.
(Item 55)

All groups in student personnel indi­

cate that supervisors are supportive of professional
associations.

Higher level groups in business, however,

indicate considerably less support than do equivalent
levels in student personnel.

Some erosion occurs between

levels.
(Item 56)

All groups consistently report per­

centages which indicate that supervisors are highly sup­
portive of providing services and assistance to students.
(Item 57)

Fourteen groups indicate agreement

that supervisors are more effective leaders as a result
of the MBO system.

Level 1 females in student personnel

report a neutral percentage.

Little erosion is apparent

between organizational levels across all groups.

Item 59.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 60.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 61.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 62.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 63.
LI
L2
L3
L4

Supervisors can generally be described as on the offensive and sensitive.
66.67
73.33
71.43
60.47

33.33
26.67
28.57
39.53

100.00
83.33
71.43
57.58

0.00
16.67
28.57
42.42

87.50
70.00
75.00
77.27

12.50
30.00
25.00
22.73

50.00
66.67
68.18

50.00
33.33
31.82

MBO has led supervisors and subordinates to better understand each others'
areas of responsibility.
66.67
80.00
71.43
55.82

33.33
20.00
28.57
44.18

25.00
75.00
82.14
56.06

75.00
25.00
17.86
43.94

37.50
40.00
58.33
54.55

62.50
60.00
41.67
45.45

75.00
66.67
72.73

25.00
33.33
27.27

Perceived supervisory response to unsatisfactory employee performance,
100.00
100.00
92.86
86.04

0.00
0.00
7.14
13.96

75.00
75.00
96.42
93.94

25.00
25.00
3.57
6 .66

100.00
90.00
100.00
95.94

0.00
10.00
0.00
4.55

100.00
66.67
86.37

0.00
33.33
13.64

Preferred supervisory response to unsatisfactory employee performance.
100.00
93.33
96.43
97.67

0.00
6.67
3.57
2.33

100.00
100.00
100.00
98.48

0.00
0.00
0.00
1.52

100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

Perceived supervisory response to satisfactory employee performance.
100.00
93.33
92.86
75.97

0.00
6.67
7.14
24.03

75.00
66.67
89.29
77.28

25.00
33.33
10.71
22.72

75.00
60.00
75.00
81.82

25.00
40.00
25.00
18.18

75.00
100.00
77.28

25.00
0.00
22.73

120

(Item 58)

All fifteen groups report highly

favorable percentages which indicate that supervisors'
planning efforts were adequate and that subordinate staff
were involved in the planning.

Erosion between organi­

zational levels is negligible.
(Item 59)

Fourteen groups report percentages

which indicate that supervisors are generally on the
offensive and sensitive.

The Level 1 females in busi­

ness, however, indicate neutrality.

Some erosion occurs

between levels.
(Item 60)

Highest levels of females in student

personnel and all levels of males in business report per­
centages which indicate that MBO has not been significant
in leading supervisors and subordinates to a better
understanding of each others' areas of responsibility.
The remaining groups indicate favorable responses.

Some

erosion occurs between organizational levels.
(Item 61)

All groups report a highly positive

percentage, indicating that subordinates are favorable
to supervisors* responses regarding unsatisfactory per­
formance.
(Item 62)

All groups report a highly favorable

percentage of responses, indicating that the preferred
supervisory response reflects agreement with the per­
ceived supervisory response.

Highly favorable percentages

indicated for this item tend to parallel the highly
favorable percentages indicated in the preceding item.

Item 64.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 65.

66.

0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

100.00

0.00

92.86
86.05

7.14
13.95

92.86
96.97

7.14
3.03

100.00
90.91

0.00
9.09

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

The organization rewards its employees' significant contributions with praise,

Item 67.

0.00
13.33
28.57
35.66

50.00
66.67
67.86
72.73

50.00
33.33
32.14
27.27

87.50
80.00
83.33
81.82

12.50
20.00
16.67
18.18

75.00
100.00
63.64

25.00
0.00
36.36

The organization rewards its employees' significant contributions with more
responsibility.
100.00

0.00

53.33
50.00
46.52

46.67
50.00
53.48

50.0,
75.00
67.85
38.63

50.00
25.00
32.15
61.37

100.00

0.00

41.67
72.72
67.31

58.33
27.28
32.69

75.00

25.00

100.00

0.00

77.28

22.73

The organization rewards its employees' significant contributions with merit
pay.
0.00

100.00

0.00

100.00

12.50

87.50

6.67
7.14
10.85

93.33
92.86
89.15

8.33
3.57
6.06

91.67
96.43
93.94

0.00

100.00

8.33
13.64

91.67
86.37

-

-

0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

22.73

77.27

121

LI
L2
L3
L4

LI
L2
L3
L4

100.00
100.00

100.00
86.67
71.43
64.34

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item

Preferred supervisory response to satisfactory employee performance.

122

(Item 63)

All groups report percentages which

indicate that subordinates are favorable to the response
of supervisors regarding satisfactory employee performance.
(Item 64)

All groups report a highly favorable

percentage, indicating that the preferred supervisory
response reflects agreement with perceived supervisory
response.

The highly favorable percentages reported for

this item tend to be skewed in a somewhat more positive
direction than the percentages for the preceding item;
however, responses for both items indicate a highly
similar and parallel relationship.
(Item 65)

Fourteen groups indicate that signifi­

cant contributions are rewarded with praise.

Level 1

females in student personnel are clustered in the region
of neutrality.

Erosion between levels is most evident

in the category of males in student personnel; remaining
categories indicate negligible erosion.
(Item

66?

Level 1 males across divisions indi­

cate a response highly favorable to receiving a reward
of increased responsibility for significant contributions.
Considerable erosion, however, occurs through decreasing
organizational levels for males across divisions.
Level 1 females in student personnel indicate neutral
percentages; remaining levels in that category tend to
reflect a variety of responses, with considerable erosion
occurring at the lowest level.

Only the category of

Item

68.

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 69.
LI
L2
L3
L4

LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 71.
LI
L2
L3
L4

66.67
66.67
71.43
51.17

33.33
33.33
28.57
48.83

100.00

0.00

58.33
67.86
53.78

41.67
32.15
46.21

62.50
60.00
75.00
68.18

37.50
40.00
25.00
31.82

25.00
66.67
54.55

75.00
33.33
45.45

Merit pay increases are a necessary compensation for rewarding employees'
significant contributions in an MBO system.
66.67
73.33
53.58
46.51

33.33
26.67
46.42
53.49

75.00
75.00
64.28
42.42

25.00
25.00
35.72
57.58

75.00

25.00

100.00

0.00

91.67
81.82

8.33
18.18

-

-

25.00
33.33
86.37

75.00
66.67
13.63

Working in the MBO system increases job satisfaction.
66.67
86.67
64.29
53.49

33.33
13.13
35.71
46.51

75.00
83.33
57.14
53.79

25.00
16.67
42.86
46.22

100.00

0.00

70.00
83.33
59.09

30.00
16.67
40.91

123

Item 70.

The organization rewards its employees' significant contributions with
written recommendations.

75.00

25.00

100.00

0.00

63.64

36.36

—

—

Working in the MBO system increases job performance.
66.67
86.67
71.43
65.12

33.33
13.33
28.57
34.88

75.00
75.00
75.00
65.91

25.00
25.00
25.00
34.09

100.00

80.00
75.00
72.72

0. 0 0
20.00

25.00
27.28

75.00

25.00

100.00

0.00

63.64

36.36

124
females in business indicate generally favorable per­
centages through all organizational levels.
(Item 67)

All groups strongly indicate that the

organization does not reward its employees' significant
contributions with merit pay.

Percentages remain con­

sistent between organizational levels and across divisions.
(Item

68)

Males in both the student personnel and

business divisions tend to indicate favorable percentages
and general consistency between organizational levels
with respect to receiving written recommendations for
significant contributions.

With the exception of Level 1

females in student personnel, females in both divisions
tend to be less favorable and indicate less consistency
between organizational levels.
(Item 69)

With the exception of females in busi­

ness higher level groups consistently report percentages
favorably indicating that merit pay increases are a
necessary compensation for rewarding employees' signifi­
cant contributions in an MBO system.

Lower level groups

in student personnel indicate less favorable percentages
than do higher level groups, suggesting considerable
erosion between organizational levels.

Only the cate­

gory of males in business report consistently favorable
percentages between organizational levels.

A strong

inverse relationship exists between levels and favorability for females in business.

Item 72.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 73.
LI
L2
L3
L4
Item 74.

Item 75.
LI
L2
L3
L4

100.00

80.00
85.71
82.95

75.00

25.00

0.00
20.00

100.00

0.00

14.29
17.05

82.14
90.15

17.86
9.85

87.50
70.00
83.33
86.36

12.50
30.00
16.67
13.64

-

-

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

68.18

31.82

Supervisory response to unsatisfactory employee performance.
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

92.86
87.33

7.14

96.43
93.94

3.57
6.06

12.66

87.50

12.50

100.00
100.00
100.00

0.0 0
0.0 0
0.00

—

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

86.36

13.64

—

—

Supervisory response to satisfactory employee performance.
100.00

0 .00

93.33
96.43
91.47

6.67
3.57
8.53

100.00
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

100.00
100.00

0.00
0.00

99.25

0.75

95.45

4.55

95.46

4.55

MBO emphasizes job performance rather than personality.
100.00

0 .00

63.33
78.57
63.57

26.27
21.43
36.43

25.00
75.00
71.42
65.91

75.00
25.00
28.58
34.09

87.50
40.00
75.00
77.27

12.50
60.00
25.00
22.73

—

50.00
66.67
77.27

—

50.00
33.33
22.73

125

LI
L2
L3
L4

Present job is challenging and leads to increasing achievement levels.

126

(Item 70)

Level 4 responses across groups indi­

cate percentages which suggest that working in the MBO
system has not significantly increased job satisfaction.
Most other groups generally tend to indicate that working
in an MBO system is favorable to job satisfaction.

Some

erosion occurs between organizational levels across all
divisions.
(Item 7 1 )

All groups indicated that working in

an MBO system is favorable in increasing job performance.
Consistency exists between organizational levels and
across groups.
(Item 7 2 )

All groups indicate that their present

job is challenging and leads to increased achievement
levels of performance.

Little erosion is present between

organizational levels and negligible differences exist
across groups.
(Item 7 3 )

Responses are skewed in a highly

positive direction across all groups and through all
organizational levels.

The positive percentages indi­

cated that supervisors see themselves responding to
unsatisfactory employee performance in a manner appro­
priate for use in an MBO system.
(Item 7 4 )

Responses are skewed in a highly posi­

tive direction across all groups and through all organi­
zational levels.

The positive percentages indicate

127
that supervisors see themselves responding to satisfactory
employee performance in a manner appropriate for use in
an MBO system.
(Item 75)

Twelve of the fifteen groups indicate

that MBO reduces variables of personality while emphasiz­
ing the job performance of personnel.

Of concern is the

unfavorable percentages reported by Level 1 females in
both the student personnel and business divisions, and
Lev-fl 2 males in business.

The three groups reporting

unfavorable percentages have not, however, generated
erosion through lower levels of the organization.
Summary
In this chapter the data were analyzed for sta­
tistical significance between fifteen groups.

The data

were also subjected to visual inspection to determine
practical differences which may have existed between
groups.

In addition, an item analysis was presented to

describe and evaluate responses to individual question­
naire items.

Chapter V contains the summary and con­

clusions drawn from the analysis and recommendations and
implications for further research.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to describe and
evaluate the attitudes of the professional and paraprofessional housing staff at Michigan State University in
response to working under the accountability system of
Management by objectives.

Specifically, this investi­

gation was designed to explore employee attitudes toward
(1) The effects of a Management by Objectives system
on erosion of communication between employees
occupying different levels in the housing
organization;
(2) The effects of MBO on the coordination of work
efforts between the student personnel and busi­
ness divisions of the housing organization;
(3) MBO with respect to the presence of significant
differences, if any, existing between male and
female employees; and
(4) The effects of leader behavior in managing an
organization using MBO.

129
The target population was divided into different
categories in order to conduct the research.

The cate­

gories were ordered and defined on the basis of the
following differences:
(1) Position occupied by respondents in the organi­
zation, constituting four organizational levels;
(2) Division occupied by respondents in the organi­
zation, either student personnel or business;
(3) Sex of the respondents.
In addition, the entire target population was redefined
on the basis of reporting to different operations super­
visors, constituting four sub-groups in student personnel
and two sub-groups in business.

These sub-groups were

compared to determine any attitudinal effects existing
as a result of differences in leadership between the six
highest level supervisors.
Methodology
A questionnaire containing seventy-five content
items and four code items was distributed to 535 subjects
in Spring Term, 1974.

Four hundred thirty-two, or 80.7

per cent, returned usable answer sheets which were
analyzed for statistical and descriptive purposes.
The instrument was a significantly modified
version of one developed for soliciting information

130
regarding Management by Objectives published by Lahti.^
The instrument was not scaled.

However, a content

analysis indicated that it did explore representative
areas of importance to MBO and did exhibit content
validity.

The Hoyt technique was employed to generate

a reliability coefficient for the instrument, which was
computed to be .92.
A summated rating, or Likert—Type Scale, was used
for the questionnaire.

Four degrees of response indi­

cated attitudes toward a specific characteristic of MBO.
Responses ranging from "highly favorable" to "highly
unfavorable" were used for each item.

The four responses

were assigned weights ranging from zero (0) for "highly
favorable," to three (3) for "highly unfavorable."
Responses were so ordered that the lower the mean scores
for respondents, the more favorable their attitudes
toward various characteristics of a Management by Objec­
tives system.
The five major and two minor hypotheses were
tested by analyzing the data using a Multivariate analy­
sis of variance test for significant differences.

Inter­

action effects of sex by division, sex by level, level
by division, and sex by level by division were also
tested using the Multivariate analysis.

In addition,

"'‘Lahti, Innovative College Management, pp. 124-39.

131
mean scores of several sub-groups were descriptively
analyzed on the basis of degree of divergence between
the sub-groups.
The Scheff£ post hoc technique was used to attempt
to more specifically determine exact sources of signifi­
cance between sub-groups.

Finally, an item analysis was

conducted on the instrument generating contingency tables.
The contingency tables reported percentage differences
on the basis of response by sex, housing division, and
organizational level for each item.
Conclusions
Major null Hypothesis 1 of this study sought to
solicit information regarding differences that may exist
between employees occupying different levels within the
organization.

Null Hypothesis 1 states:

There are no significant differences existing
between organizational levels occupied by employees
as measured by scores obtained on the MBO Evalu­
ation Questionnaire.
A review of the literature indicated that the
higher the level an employee occupies the more that
employee will be considered to be a leader.

And, the

more employees are identified as leaders, the greater
will be those individuals' support of the goals and
objectives under their responsibility.

Such support

tends to generate increased attitudes of commitment to

132
the successful achievement of goals of the organization.
Conversely, increasing erosion of attitudinal commitment
is generally expected to occur as employees occupy lower
level positions within the organization.

Management by

Objectives is considered to be a viable technique, as it
purports to reduce the amount of such erosion.
On the basis of the analysis of data, null Hypothe­
sis 1 is accepted.

The Multivariate analysis failed to

indicate significant differences at the .05 confidence
level existing between employee groups occupying dif­
ferent levels within the housing organization.
Sub-Hypothesis a and Sub—Hypothesis b sought to
solicit information regarding differences between
employees occupying different levels within the separate
divisions of student personnel and business.

Null Sub-

Hypothesis a states:
There are no significant differences existing in the
student personnel division between organizational
levels occupied by employees as measured by scores
obtained on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Null Sub-Hypothesis b states:
There are no significant differences existing in
the business division between organizational levels
occupied by employees as measured by scores obtained
on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
On the basis of analysis using the Multivariate
analysis of variance test, no differences were found

133
between employees occupying different organizational
levels within either the student personnel or business
divisions of housing.
A visual inspection of data indicated that the
maximum spread of group mean scores for three of the con­
trasts between Level 1 staff and Level 4 staff, by sex
and by division, did not exceed 12.26.

With a maximum

theoretical spread of zero to 225, this finding tends to
provide additional justification for accepting null
Hypothesis 1 and Sub-Hypothesis b.
However, a spread of 29.48 was found between
Level 1 and Level 4 males in the student personnel
division.

While not statistically significant, this

finding could indicate greater erosion between levels
for this category than in any of the other categories.
On the basis of the analyses it is concluded
that employees' attitudes toward MBO do not significantly
differ between four organizational levels.

This finding

supports tenets of Management by Objectives as reflected
in the literature purporting that MBO tends to reduce
erosion between levels within an organization.
Major null Hypothesis 2 of this study sought to
solicit information regarding differences that may exist
between employees of the two major divisions of the
housing organization.

Null Hypothesis 2 states:

134
There are no significant differences existing
between employees of the student personnel division
and business division, at all levels of each organi­
zation, as measured by scores obtained on the MBO
evaluation questionnaire.
Different divisions within an organization are
normally charged with specific responsibilities which,
though different, must be coordinated to contribute to
achievement of total organizational goals.

It was

expected that the greater the integration and coordi­
nation of such responsibilities the more efficient the
organization could perform.

A review of the literature

indicated that Management by Objectives purports to maxi­
mize the integration and coordination of work activities.
The results of the Multivariate analysis for sig­
nificant differences indicated that the null Hypothesis 2
be accepted.

At the .05 confidence level no significant

differences in attitudes toward MBO were found between
employees working in the student personnel and business
divisions of housing.

Similarly, a visual inspection

of mean scores for both groups indicated a spread of
5.10 which can be considered negligible.
On the basis of the analyses it is concluded that
employees' attitudes toward MBO do not differ signifi­
cantly between the student personnel division and busi­
ness division of housing.

This finding supports tenets

of Management by Objectives as reflected in the literature

135
purporting that MBO aids in the coordination of activ­
ities between divisions of an organization.
Major null Hypothesis 3 of the study attempted
to determine differences which may exist between male
and female employees.

Null Hypothesis 3 states:

There are no significant differences existing
between male and female employees in both the
student personnel division and business division,
at all levels of each organization, as measured
by scores obtained on the MBO evaluation question­
naire .
While considerable research has been reported on
apparent differences existing between male and female
employees at low organizational levels, little work is
available concerning differences, if any, which may
exist at the higher, managerial levels.

This hypothesis

represents, at best, a point of departure for the sys­
tematic investigation of areas of sex differences.
Specifically,

the hypothesis sought to solicit infor­

mation to test for differences between the sexes regard­
ing attitudes toward MBO.
The results of the Multivariate analysis for
significance between male and female employees indicates
that null Hypothesis 3 be accepted as significance was
not found at the .05 confidence level.

A visual

inspection of mean scores for both groups indicated
a range of 5.83, which is considered negligible.

136

On the basis of the analyses it is concluded
that attitudes toward MBO do not differ significantly
between male and female employees working in the housing
program.

While the literature on MBO does not refer to

purported influences on sex differences, it can be
extrapolated that Management by Objectives may tend to
equalize performance at a high level and that MBO may
have a possible effect on reducing apparent differences
between managerial level employees on the variable of sex.
Major null Hypotheses 4 and 5 of this study
sought to determine differences in the attitudes of
employees as may occur as a result of influences by
different supervisors.

Hypothesis 4 solicited infor­

mation regarding the four supervisors in the student
personnel division, and Hypothesis 5 solicited infor­
mation regarding the two supervisors in the business
division.

Null Hypothesis 4 states:

There are no significant differences existing between
employees of the student personnel division report­
ing to different supervisors as measured by scores
obtained on the MBO evaluation questionnaire.
Null Hypothesis 5 states:
There are no significant differences existing between
employees of the business division reporting to dif­
ferent supervisors as measured by scores obtained on
the MBO evaluation questionnaire.

137
A review of the literature indicates that for
implementation of a Management by Objectives system to
occur, support and leadership should be initiated at
the top levels of supervisors and consistently cascade
downward through succeedingly lower organizational levels.
Support from high level supervisors is considered vital
to a successfully implemented and maintained MBO system.
In addition, the efforts and activities of leadership
at equivalent high levels must be consistent between
supervisors or divergence between various sub-units of
the organization will result in generating less than
acceptable coordination of work activities by all staff.
The results of the Multivariate analysis for
significant differences between attitudes of employees
reporting to four different supervisors in the student
personnel division indicated that null Hypothesis 4 be
accepted as significance was not found at the .05 level
of confidence.

A visual inspection of the mean scores

for the four groups indicated a maximum spread of 7.98,
which is considered negligible.
The results of the Multivariate analysis for
differences between attitudes of employees reporting to
two different supervisors in the business division
indicated that null Hypothesis 5 also must be accepted.
Significance was not found at the .05 confidence level.

138
A visual inspection of mean scores for the two groups
indicated a spread of 6.82, which is considered negli­
gible .
On the basis of the analyses it is concluded that
employee attitudes toward the Management by Objectives
system do not differ significantly between six groups of
staff reporting to six supervisors in the housing program.
This conclusion tends to support the tenets of MBO, as
reflected in the literature, purporting to equalize
leader behavior in a consistent manner across supervisors.
Extrapolating, it is further concluded that the six
highest level supervisors tend to exhibit consistently
similar leadership in fulfilling their supervisory
responsibilities.
In addition to testing the hypotheses for sig­
nificance the data were also treated with the Multivariate
analysis of variance to determine significance for the
interaction effects for sex by level, sex by division,
division by level, and sex by division by level.

Only

the interaction effect of division by level was found to
exhibit significant differences at the .05 level of con­
fidence.

The remaining three interaction effects did not

result in significant differences.
Eight divergent sub-groups within the category
of division by level were contrasted using the Scheffe
technique.

Treatment with Scheff£ post hoc comparisons

139

at the 95 per cent confidence interval failed to determine
precise sources of difference.

Thus, while significance

was found for interaction between division and level, the
Scheff£ post hoc technique did not indicate sources of
the significance.
As a result of the tests of the hypotheses for
statistical significance, it is concluded that no sig­
nificant perceptual and attitudinal differences exist
between employees of the housing program at Michigan
State University with respect to Management by Objectives
systems.

Agreement was found on comparisons based on

sex, organizational level within the housing program,
and on the two major administrative divisions of housing.
In addition, it is also concluded that agreement exists
between groups of employees reporting to different super­
visory personnel.
Additionally, a visual inspection of group mean
scores indicated that all scores were clustered within
a range of 59.67 to

8 9.19.

On a continuum of all theo­

retically possible scores of zero to 225, this cluster
was found to be skewed directionally toward the highly
favorable end point of zero.
the mid-point of 112.5.

All mean scores rested above

Thus, it is further concluded

that the majority of employees indicated favorable
responses to the questionnaire items and exhibited

140

positive attitudes and perceptions regarding the Manage­
ment by Objectives system in the housing program.
A caution is recommended in interpreting the
results of the statistical tests.

The division of the

target population resulted in assignment of respondents
into fifteen categories.

This assignment resulted in

unequal numbers of respondents being placed in each cate­
gory

(cell).

Results of significance cannot be claimed

with a high degree of certainty as unequal cell sizes
tend to generate unusually high levels of error variance.
Thus, while null Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 initially indi­
cated some slight significance it was determined that the
significance was a result of error due to unequal cell
sizes, and it was concluded that these three null hypothe
ses should be accepted.
Analysis of Questionnaire Items
Analyses by visual inspection of individual
questionnaire items were conducted to determine dif­
ferences between groups regarding responses favorable
and unfavorable to specific characteristics of MBO.
Data were converted to percentage differences by sex,
level, and division.

The following discussion concerns

items which elicited an unfavorable response from spe­
cific groups.

Items which are not discussed elicited a

generally favorable response from most groups.

141
Differences by Sex
The most apparent differences existed between
sexes.

Specifically, Level 1 females in student personnel

indicated the greatest divergence from all other groups
by reporting percentages which were either unfavorable or,
at best, neutral to twenty-nine of the seventy-five items.
Also apparent was the finding that the relatively
unfavorable response from employees in this category
did not result in similar erosion effects through lower
organizational levels of females in student personnel.
This would seem to indicate that the unfavorable atti­
tudes of staff in a high, supervisory position of leader­
ship were either not communicated downward or were com­
municated but rejected by subordinate personnel.

In

addition, it was evident that females in business, unlike
Level 1 females in student personnel, tended to be gen­
erally favorable to the vast majority of the items.
Differences by Division
Differences between employees of the business
division and student personnel division were negligible.
Only three items elicited responses which could be inter­
preted as indicating disagreement with respect to the
degree of favorability.

For two of the items the busi­

ness division responded less favorably than did the

142

student personnel division? on one item the student per­
sonnel division responded less favorably than did busi­
ness personnel.
Differences by bevel
Some erosion occurred between levels, with the
higher levels generally indicating the more favorable
percentages of response.

For most items, however, the

differences as a result of erosion could not be considered
appreciable.

Considerable erosion occurred in the stu­

dent personnel division for five items and in the business
division for two items.

Erosion was severe for both

divisions in six items.

Males tended to exhibit more

erosional effects than did females, across both divisions.
All groups indicated generally unfavorable
responses to only three items.

This finding may be of

some practical significance, however, as these three items
sought information concerning the appraisal

(evaluation)

process, a process which is considered to be of major
importance to an effective Management by Objectives sys­
tem.
Two items, numbers 15 and 39, generated responses
for which no general conclusions were possible.

Responses

ranged from highly favorable to unfavorable and were
scattered across sex and divisions, and through organi­
zational level.

The two items were:

Item 15 - MBO helps

143
correct inefficient utilization of facilities, and
item 39 — Availability of individuals in the organization
with whom discussion can occur.
In general, item analysis tended to indicate that
most categories of employees reported favorable percentages
of response to specific characteristics of the Management
by Objectives system.
Conclusions of Practical
Significance
The results of the statistical tests of the null
hypotheses indicated a conclusion that the null hypotheses
must be accepted.

The conclusion of no statistical sig­

nificance is of considerable practical significance for
the housing program at Michigan State University.
A review of the literature on organizational and
leadership theory suggests that organizations face four
major problems in maintaining or increasing their produc­
tivity.
(1) The selection of methods to develop adequate com­
munication with, and supervision of, employees
who occupy increasingly lower and lower levels
within an administrative structure;
(2) The coordination of efforts and activities
between divisions, or sub-units, of the total
organization;

144
(3) The maintenance of consistent leadership between
supervisory personnel at various organizational
levels; and
(4) The selection of methods by which staff are
influenced to maximize their job performance.
The impact of these problems is magnified as organizations
grow, generating increased complexity and diversity.
Early systematic studies

{see Drucker, p. 25) of

industrial organizations lead researchers to conclude
that those which were most often characterized as success­
ful found resolution to the above problems by prescribing
job responsibilities in terms of precise objectives to
be accomplished.

Managing the work activities of

employees through the utilization of objectives tended
to reduce erratic performance while increasing communi­
cation, supervision, coordination, and leadership con­
sistency .
The housing program at Michigan State University
can easily be categorized as a very large and complex
organization.

As the largest residential housing program

in the nation it employs in excess of 500 professional
and paraprofessional staff.

Specific job responsibili­

ties are diverse and are organized within a hierarchical
structure of four distinct administrative levels.

As

opposed to the material products of industry, the
"product" of the housing program is service oriented

145
toward students within an educational environment.

Thus,

additional complexity is generated which can further
magnify the problems found in organizations.
Management by Objectives purports to reduce the
negative impact of the four major problems with which
organizations must cope.

This study sought to determine

the presence of significance to assess and evaluate the
impact of MBO on a large and complex housing program.
The results of the tests of the hypotheses and
the analysis of questionnaire items strongly indicate
that the impact of a Management by Objectives system on
residence hall personnel at Michigan State University is
perceived as being quite favorable.

The findings of no

significant differences between the four organizational
levels, the two major divisions, and the six groups
categorized on the basis of supervisors indicate con­
siderable agreement among a large and diverse staff
regarding positive attitudes toward, and a favorable
perception of, working within an MBO system.
Several practical conclusions are readily apparent.
First, communication with staff occupying four different
organizational levels is effective in reducing differences
between groups with respect to attitudes and perceptions.
This would indicate that the majority of housing person­
nel within both the student personnel and business
divisions tend to receive accurate and consistent

146

communication which aids in maintaining their effective
functioning within the organization.
Secondly, coordination of work efforts between
the two major divisions appears to be operating on a
consistently favorable basis.

This conclusion tends

to indicate that both the student personnel and business
divisions, although based on different objectives, ser­
vices, and products, maintain sufficient coordination
of job activities to maximize the contribution of each
to the total housing program.
The finding of no difference between employee
groups reporting to different supervisors also indicates
that the practical effects of Management by Objectives
parallels the theoretical constructs of the system as
reflected in the literature.

While the factors which

comprise effective leadership are most difficult to
isolate and define, MBO purports to make consistent the
direction and supervision exercised by different leaders
within an organization.

The results of this study

strongly indicate that the six highest level operational
supervisors tend to exhibit similar leadership, training,
and guidance to their respective personnel.
The results of the item analysis suggest that
the attitudes and perceptions of housing personnel at
Michigan State University are not only consistent
between the sub-groups studied but also indicate a

147
moderately high degree of favorable response to specific
characteristics of the housing organization and to the
MBO system.
This conclusion also would support previous
research on Management by Objectives systems which
reported increases in employee satisfaction following
the implementation of such a system.
This study did not investigate the problem of
improving employee job performance.

However, the find­

ings and conclusions reached as a result of the research
would tend to suggest that housing personnel at Michigan
State University could be predicted to perform their

30b

responsibilities in a satisfactory and appropriate manner.
Implications of the Study
1.

The study brings systematic research to bear on
a nationally popular accountability system in a
large residence hall program.

At the present

time all aspects of higher education are exper­
iencing considerable interest in accountability
processes.

It is likely that such interest will

continue, and perhaps increase, in the fore­
seeable future.

Results of this research may

help residence hall employees to better assess
their programs' success to this point in time
and provide a data base for further improvement
and planning efforts.

148
2.

The study contributes to the potential for
institutional self-study using management
methods and indicates that the use of management
methods has practical significance for evaluating
housing programs.

3.

The study provides comparisons and contrasts to
the theoretical base of Management by Objectives.
These comparisons provide a reference point for
evaluating the practical results of implementing
an MBO system with the theoretical tenets of
that system.

4.

The results of the research should be of value
in generating greater organizational effective­
ness in identifying and responding to areas of
apparent weakness in the MBO system as applied to
housing.

The results may also help to evaluate

and modify, if necessary, specific characteristics
of the MBO system which may not be applicable
to a large housing program.
5.

The results of the study provide a data base and
body of knowledge which should be communicated
to significant reference groups of importance to
the housing program.

Students, faculty, parents,

alumni, legislators, the general public, and
highest level university officials oft times ask

149
questions and express concerns regarding resi­
dential housing-

Such groups also exert influence

over decisions which affect the housing program.
Communication of the results of accountability
measures to such groups can lead to increased
support and understanding of housing as an integral
part of the academic community.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are many characteristics of a fully imple­
mented and maintained Management by Objectives system.
This study focused on one aspect, an analysis of attitudes
regarding MBO.

This study raises questions concerning

additional characteristics of Management by Objectives
which merit further research.
1.

This study did not investigate the merits of the
goals and objectives of the organization.

While

employees could indicate a favorable attitude
toward Management by Objectives they could also
be working to implement objectives which generate
less than satisfactory results in terms of
organizational goals.

Additional research is

recommended for the study of appropriate goals
for housing programs.
2.

The evaluation of employee performance is con­
sidered to be an integral part of a successful

150
Management by Objectives system.

While this study

solicited responses regarding attitudes toward
evaluation, it did not compare and contrast dif­
ferent methods of evaluation.

Additional research

is recommended for the study of various evaluation
processes in an effort to identify those most
appropriate for use in an MBO system in college
and university housing.
3.

Management by Objectives is a sophisticated
accountability system which can be easily
sabotaged.

Staff must be made aware of the

theoretical and practical significance of
accountability and be able to work within the
system following prescribed methods of implemen­
tation and review.

Further research is recom­

mended for the study of training and orientation
methods to determine those most effective in
generating necessary support and commitment of
staff.
4.

Other accountability systems are in operation
in a wide variety of organizations.

Such sys­

tems include program planning and budgeting, pro­
grammed evaluation and review techniques.

Com­

parative research on the merits of the various
systems, as applied to higher education and to

151

housing, would contribute to the data base of
knowledge regarding applicable accountability
processes.
5.

There may be variations existing between prospec­
tive employees on the basis of personality,
previous experience, ethnic and racial factors,
formal educational training, or age which affect
their acceptance of accountability systems.
Additional research which explores these variables,
and others, could contribute to more effective
recruitment, employment, and training practices.

5.

Additional variables could account for the
apparent lack of significant differences between
groups tested in this study.

Comparative research,

involving several institutions operating under
both an MBO system and under no formal accounta­
bility system, could help to determine the prac­
ticality of cost/benefit ratios involved in
implementing and maintaining MBO systems.
7.

Attitudes of groups both external and internal
to the university may affect the performance of
staff working under accountability systems.
Additional research regarding the effects of
such groups could aid in the development of basic
expectations for housing, and generate goals

152
and objectives which may more closely parallel
those of significant reference groups.
8.

The results of this study reflect attitudes of
residence hall staff at a point in time of
relative calm on the campus.

A longitudinal

study would provide data regarding organizational
adaptation and level of growth and change within
a time— frame.
Concluding Statement
The concerns expressed by significant reference
groups have generated pressures for higher education to
become increasingly more accountable for its practices
and programs.

Of major importance and visibility to

Michigan State University is the performance of the
largest residential housing program in the nation.

In

response to these concerns the housing program has imple­
mented the accountability system of Management by Objec­
tives, a system which purports to specifically define
and evaluate the performance of employees.

This study

was conducted to evaluate the effects of the Management
by Objectives system on the attitudes of residence hall
staff.
Through an analysis of the results of the study,
it is apparent that the vast majority of professional
and paraprofessional residence hall employees at

153
Michigan State University are favorable toward working
within a system which precisely defines and delimits job
expectations at all organizational levels and which
expects a high degree of personal and professional
accountability for fulfilling job responsibilities.
In addition, it is also apparent that residence hall
staff are favorable to periodic evaluation and assessment
of their job performance.
If the housing program at Michigan State University
is to continue to obtain sufficient resources and use them
in the best interests of the institution, continued sys­
tematic evaluation of accountability systems and employee
performance within those systems must occur.

The results

of the evaluations should be openly communicated to sig­
nificant reference groups to ensure that housing, as an
integral part of the educational process, continues to
provide the most appropriate experiences to students and
to the society which higher education ultimately serves.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE

M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY

e a s t la n s in g • M ic h ig a n

48B2)

OFFICE OF ['HE D EA N OF STUDENTS * S T U D E N T SERVICES B U IL D IN G

February 11, 1974

Robert E. Lahti, President
William-Rainey College
Palatine, Illinois
Dear President Lahti:
I read with considerable interest your book, Inno­
vating College Management. I am interested in the appli—
cation of accountability systems to higher education and,
in particular, the introduction of Management by Objectives
to student personnel services.
As Assistant Coordinator in the Office of Residence
Hall Programs, I have participated in the development and
implementation of a modified Management by Objectives sys­
tem for the Residence Hall Programs at Michigan State
University.
Michigan State operates a vast residence hall
physical plant housing 17,500 students and staffed with
approximately 500 Student Affairs specialists, and 150
business specialists.
The operating budget is 25 million
dollars and the administrative structure is a hierarchical
line of four distinct organizational levels.
My current assignment is to evaluate the success of
the M.B.O. program as it has developed thus far and make
recommendations for system updates.
In addition, I plan
to utilize the data gathered from this project for my
doctoral dissertation.
I am asking for permission to
modify and make use of the M.B.O. questionnaire cited
in the appendix of your book as my evaluation instrument.
I have been advised by the University research staff that
some minor modifications of the questionnaire will be
necessary to permit retrieval of demographic data and
to permit answer sheets to be machine scored.
I am most
interested in receiving information concerning studies of
a similar nature which incorporates the use of your
questionnaire, and I would also like to secure information
regarding any tests of validity and/or reliability you
have conducted on the instrument.
I will, of course, be most happy to share the results
of my study with you and to appropriately cite your work
as it contributes to my research.

154

155

Robert Lahti, President
Page 2
February 11, 19 74

I want to thank you in advance for your help and
consideration of this request.
Should you have any further questions, please con­
tact me either in writing or by calling me collect.
Sincerely,

Douglas S. Zatechka
Assistant Coordinator
Office of Residence Hall Programs
338 Student Services Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Phone:
(517)
353-3780
DS Z :nmo

156

W ILLIAM RAINEY HARPER COLLEGE A lC O N tJ U IN A KOSM.I.I ROADS, PALATINI

IAI
- f I O f I HI

PRESIDENT

February 26, 1974

Mr. Douglas S. Zatechka
Assistant Coordinator
Office of Residence Hall Programs
338 Student Services Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Dear Mr. Zatechka:
I have your letter of February 11 and I hereby
grant you permission to modify and make use of the
MBO questionnaire cited in my book, Innovative
College Management.
We do not have any tests of validity and/or
reliability on the questionnaire instrument,
therefore I am unable to send this material to
you.
I would indeed appreciate receiving a copy of the
results of your study.
Sincerely,

Robert e,. Lanti
President
REL/dg

,itl

-if

l.lKw.

157
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY

[•AST LANSING • MICHIGAN 48823

OFFICE OF T H E DEAN OF STUDENTS ■ S T U D E N T SERVICES D UILDING

Fe bruary 2 0 ,

197**

Dr. Gary North
Coord i n a t o r
Residence H a l l Programs
338 S tud ent S e r v i c e s B u i l d i n g
Campus
Dear Dr.

North:

As we have d i s c u s s e d , I am in t h e process o f f o r m u l a t i n g a proposal f o r
r e se a r ch c o n c e r ni n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a Management by O b j e c t i v e s system
t o t h e Residence H a l l S t a f f .
I am i n t e r e s t e d in s e c u r i n g y ou r p e r m is s i o n
and s up p or t f o r my r e s e a r c h .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , I would t i k e t o a d m i n i s t e r an a t t i t u d i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o
th e Resi dence H a l l A d v is o r y S t a f f per so nne l who u l t i m a t e l y r e p o r t to you.
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e should t a k e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y minutes t o c o m p le t e .
I can a s s u r e you t h a t I w i 11 a d m i n i s t e r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e In a way which
p r ov id es f o r the l e a s t p o s s i b l e i n t r u s i o n upon y ou r s t a f f ' s v e r y busy
schedule.
R e s u lt s from t h e i n s t r u m e n t may be u s e f u l t o d e t e r m i n e s t a f f
a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r use o f a MBO system in c a r r y i n g o u t t h e i r
res pons ib i 1 i t ies .
I w i l l , o f c o u r s e , be happy t o s h a r e t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h w i t h you
and p r o v i d e f ee dba ck r e g a r d i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e se a r ch to y o u r s t a f f .
I want t o tha nk you in advance f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s m a t t e r .

S i n ce re 1v .

DZrbp

158
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY

LA ST LANSING - M IC H IG A N

48823

OFFICE OF T H E D EA N OF STUDEN TS • S T U D E N T SERVICES B U IL D IN G

Fe br ua r y 2 2 ,

197^

H r . Douglas S. Z a t e c h k a
A re a D i r e c t o r
Residence H a l l Programs
338 S t u d e n t S e r v i c e s B u i l d i n g
Campus
Dear Mr.

Zatechka:

I have revi ewe d y o u r l e t t e r o f F e b r u a r y 20 r e q u e s t i n g a p p r o v a l to
a d m i n i s t e r a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t in r e s i d e n c e h a l l s de s ig n e d t o e v a l u a t e
o u r management by o b j e c t i v e s s y s t e m .
I am a p p r o v i n g t h i s r e q u e s t and
would e x p e c t t h a t you wo ul d conduct y o u r s t u d y a c c o r d i n g t o g u i d e l i n e s
and e x p e c t a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e U n i v e r s i t y Research C o r m i it t e e .
F u r t h e r I wo ul d e x p e c t you to i n t e r p r e t y o u r f i n d i n g s bac k t o t h o s e
pe o p le who p a r t i c i p a t e d in y o u r s t u d y .
I f I can be o f any a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e
h e s i t a t e t o c o n t a c t me a t any t i m e .

S incerel y ,

GN:bp

t o you In t h i s

p ro jec t,

do no t

159
MI C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY

I1ASI LANSING • M IC H IG A N

-IMH21

OFFICE OF T H E D I-A N OF STUDENTS • S T U D E N T SERVICES B U IL D IN G

Fe bruary

12,

197**

Hr. Ro be rt Underwood, Manager
Res id e n c e H a l l s
West 190 Holmes H a l l
Campus
Dear H r .

Underwood:

As you may be a w a r e, I am i n i t i a t i n g a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t c o n c e r n i n g
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f Management by O b j e c t i v e s t o a U n i v e r s i t y ho u s in g prog ram.
The purpose o f t h i s s t u d y i s t o e v a l u a t e and d e s c r i b e t h e e f f e c t s o f M .B .O .
on the p r o f e s s i o n a l ho u s in g s t a f f a t M ic h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
The s t u d y r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f in a l l l e v e l s o f managemen
com ple te a q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n
about t h e p e r c e p t i o n s wh ich employees have o f t h e M .B .O . system and w i l l t a k e
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 m in u t e s t o c o m p l e t e .
I am a s k i n g f o r y o u r a s s i s t a n c e in ad­
m i n i s t e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i re.
I t is n e c e s s a r y t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o t h e f o l l c w i n g menbers
o f your o r g a n iz a tio n :
A l l o f t h e c e n t r a l s t a f f , a l l H a l l Mana ger s, and a l l
Food Managers, a l l s t a f f a t t h e l e v e l o f S t u d e n t Pe rs o nn e l S u p e r v i s o r .
For
purposes o f r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , i t would be most b e n e f i c i a l t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e
q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o a l l o f y o u r h a l l managers a t t h e same t i m e , and t o a l l o f
th e r e m a i n i n g s t a f f a t t h e same t i m e .
Your m o n t h ly s t a f f m e e t i n g w i t h a l l o f t h e H a l l Managers and A re a Manager:
and Mr. Ted S m i t h ' s w e e k l y m e e t i n g w i t h Food S e r v i c e Pe rs o nn e l would be i d e a l .
The responses from a l l s t a f f w i l l be a n a l y z e d t o d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r e n c e s
e x i s t i n g between l e v e l s o f y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n .
F u r t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s between
male and f e m a l e employees w i l l be d e t e r m i n e d .
H o p e f u l l y , I w i l l a l s o be a b l e
t o o f f e r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses in y o u r M . B . O . syste m.
I w i l l , o f c o u r s e , be most happy to s h a r e t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s t u d y w i t h y o u .

Mr. Underwood
Page 2
Fe br ua r y 12, 197*t

160

I am a s k i n g t h a t you a ppr ov e y o u r s t a f f ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s p r o j e c t .
I f a pp r o v e d , I would a p p r e c i a t e a t t e n d i n g y o u r m o n t h ly s t a f f m e e t i n g as e a r l y
as p o s s i b l e in A p r i l , 197**A d d i t i o n a l l y , i would want t o c o n t a c t Mr. Ted
Smith t o a r r a n g e t o a t t e n d one o f h i s Food S e r v i c e S t a f f m e e t i n g s in e a r l y
A p r i l , 197*4.
P l e a s e a c c e p t my a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r y o u r t i m e and e f f o r t in c o n s i d e r i n g
and c o o p e r a t i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t .
Should you have any q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e
c o n t a c t me.
Sin eerely,

Douglas S. Z a t e c h k a ,
A ss ista n t Coordinator
Residence H a l l Programs
DSZ: nmo

161
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF RESIDENCE HALLS

EAST L A N SIN G ■ M IC H IG A N ■

March 5, 1974

Mr. Douglas Zatechka, Assistant: Coordinator
Office of Residence Hall Programs
338 Student Services Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
48824
Dear M r . Zatechka:
I am in receipt of your February 12 letter requesting my management
staffs* participation In your study of Management by Objectives in the
housing program at Michigan State University. Our staff has been working
with an MBO system since Spring, 1973, and should be able to provide you
with some data.
As I understand your research design and methodology, you wish to
administer a questionnaire to all of my staff.
Our monthly staff meeting
with our Central Staff and Hall Managers would be appropriate for part of
your population. Please contact me to arrange a specific date, time, and
place.
Mr. Ted Smith, our Director of Food Service, holds periodic meetings
with food service personnel.
I will appraise him of your study and
request his cooperation. You should contact Mr. Smith to arrange for
securing data from the food service people.
Your study may have merit for our organization.
Because of this
I would like to be appraised of the results and would like your inter­
pretation of the data when completed.
Best of success In your effort.
Sincerely,

Robert C. Underwood
Manager, Residence Halls

cc:

M r . Ted Smith
file

APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

On the following pages -is a list o f questions that are being used to
evaluate a Management by Objectives system.
Each item describes possible
benefits and drawbacks of the system as that system effects you.
Although
some items may appear similar , they express differences that are important
in describing and evaluating a Management by Objectives system.
Each item
should be considered separately. Thi3 is_ not a test of your ability y nor
a test o f consistency in making answer's.
Theve are no "right" or "wrong"
answers.
Its only purpose is to make it possible to~3escribe and evaluate
a Management by Objectives system as that system effects the people working
within it.
NOTE:

The phrases Management by Objectivesy Goal and Objective
Achievement, Planning and Evaluation , and Administration
by Objectives all mean the same thing for purposes of this
3tudy.

DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME OR ANY PERSONAL IDENTIFYING MARKS OR COMMENTS
ON EITHER THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR THE ANSWER SHEET.

162

163
DIRECTIONS:
a.

READ each item carefully.

b.

CONSIDER what the item asks and haw that relates to you.

c.

- DEC IDE 'which response you feel is the most accurate description
o f you as you work in your job.

d.

MARK the appropriate response in the numbered box on the answer
sheetj using the special pencil.

Examp1e :
I.

I have found
t h e problems
1.
2.
3.
*».

t h a t MBO h e l p s my s u p e r v i s o r t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d
I have w i t h my j o b .

A 1 1 o f th e tlme
Most o f t h e time
S e 1dom
Never

I f y o u r c h o i c e is "Most o f t h e t i m e " you mark t h e box numbered
" 2 " on t h e answer s h e e t .
1.

NOTE:

[1]

[2]

[3 ]

[4]

[5]

Notice that the answer sheet contains spaces for answers
[ l ] through [ 1 0 ] ,
DO NOT mark any answers in boxes [ 5 ]
through [ 1 0 ] .
ALWAYS choose a response from numbers
[ 1 ] through [ ^ ] .

ANSWER EVER/ QUESTION
MAKE YOUR MARKS HEAW AND BLACK!"
ERASE COPPLETELY IF YOU CHANGE M ANSWER"!

164
1.

To i d e n t i f y y o u r sex mark t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number on t h e answer s h e e t .

1
2
2.

To i d e n t i f y y o u r d i v i s i o n mark t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number on t h e answer s h e e t .
1
2

3-

Management
S t u d e n t Perso nne l

To i d e n t i f y y o u r j o b use t h e
1
2
3
4

k.

Male
Female

f o llo w in g key.

Management C e n t r a l S t a f f , R es id e nc e H a l l Programs
H a l l M a na ge r , Head A d v i s o r , H a l l D i r e c t o r
Food Mana ge r, A s s i s t a n t M anager, A s s i s t a n t A d v i s o r ,
S t u d e n t Food S u p e r v i s o r , R e s i d e n t A s s i s t a n t

Central

S taff

Graduate A dvisor

To i d e n t i f y w h e r e you w o r k mark t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number on t h e answer s h e e t .
A d y j s o r y S t a f f - answer o n l y 1 t h r o u g h *♦, NOT 5 o r 6 .
Management S t a f f - answer o n l y 5 o r 6 , NOT 1 t h r o u g h *1.
*
2
3
**
5
6

South Campus Complex - Case, W i l s o n , Wonders, Hold en H a l l s
Brody Complex - B a i l e y , B u t t e r f i e l d , B r y a n , A r m s t r o n g , R a t h e r , Emmons H a l l s
Ea st and Cedarwoods Complex - Fee, A k e r s , Hubbard, Holmes, M c D o n e l, Shaw Hal
West C i r c l e and Red Cedar Complex ~ Mason, A bb ot ,
S n y d e r - P h i 11 i p s , Mayo,
W i l l i a m s , G i l c h r i s t , Y a k e l e y , Landon, Campbell H a l l s
Ea st Complex
West Comp l e x

ITEMS 5 THROUGH 12 ARE ANSWERED BY THE FOLLOWING KEY:
1
2
3
A
5.
6.

7.
8.

9.

S t r o n g l y A gr ee
A gr ee
Disagree
S tro n g ly D isagree

MBO does n o t cause t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s
MBO sounds good
organ i z a t ion.

In t h e o r y

and has

t o be bogged down in a m i r e o f p a p e r w o r k .

a p o s itiv e e ffe c t

on members o f

the

The MBO system h e lp s members p l a n b e t t e r .
The MBO s y s t e m a i d s employees
performance.
MBO g e n e r a t e s

necessary,

10,

MBO p r o v i d e s o b j e c t i v e

H.

MBO c a l l s

bu t

in d e v e l o p i n g th e m s el ve s

not e x c e s s ,

to

improve t h e i r

a n x i e t y among t h e e m pl oy e e s .

c r i t e r i a by which employees can be f a i r l y

f o r n e c e s s a r y c o a c h in g and c o n f e r e n c e s .

evaluated.

12.

MBO r e q u i r e s

13.

Rate t h e d e g r e e t o w h ic h you a r e p e r s o n a l l y
1
2
3
k

1*K

n e c e s s a r y m e e t i n g s t o make d e c i s i o n s .
com mitte d t o MBO.

Check one.

Very committed
Comini t t e e d
In d iffe re n t
Opposed t o i t

What e f f e c t

does MBO have on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ?

1

I t causes t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
o r i e n t e d t ow ar d p e o p l e .

2

I t produces a te nd e nc y in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
and concern f o r p e o p l e .

3

It

4

I t causes t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
toward p e o p l e .

Check on e.

t o be v e r y h u m a n i s t i c and s t r o n g l y

produces a t e n de nc y toward

t o w a r d more humanness

les s humanness
t o be much

andconcern f o r

people.

le s s h u m a n i s t i c and o r i e n t e d

ITEMS T5 THROUGH 23 L I S T NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
MBO MAY HELP IN CORRECTING.
USE THE FOLLOWING KEY BELOW TO INDICATE WHICH ASPEC1
MBO HAS BEEN MOST EFFECTIVE AND LEAST EFFECTIVE IN CORRECTING.
1
2
3
A
15.
16.

Most e f f e c t ive
E ffe c tiv e
In e ffe c tiv e
Very i n e f f e c t i v e

P lacid
L a c k in g

leadership.
in management s k i l l s

and syst em s.

17.

Poor l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s .

18.

Lack o f c l e a r l y

19.

In e ffic ie n t

20.

I n e f f i c i e n t budgeting p r a c tic e s
th e c o s t s .

21.

I n e f f i c i e n t decision-m aking.

22.

Lack o f agreement about p r i o r i t i e s

23.

In s u ffic ie n t

d efin ed goals.

u tiliza tio n

of fa c ilitie s .

evaluations

—

t h e more money a v a i l a b l e ,

the higher

among members o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n .

o f th e q u a l i t y o f o u t p u t .

166
2k.

25.

When you w r i t e y o u r own o b j e c t i v e s ,
results?
Check one,
My o b j e c t i v e s

2

My f i n i s h e d o b j e c t i v e s a r e a c c u r a t e , b u t d o n ' t a d e q u a t e l y
t h e Im p o r t a n c e o f my d u t i e s .

reflect

k

[ f in d c r e a t i v e goals are s t i f l e d
w r i t i n g process.

as a r e s u l t o f t h e o b j e c t i v e s

To wh at d e g r e e do y o u r f i n i s h e d o b j e c t i v e s
organization?
Check on e.
They
They
They
They

are
are
are
are

r e l a t e t o t h e go al s o f y o u r

c lo sely re la ted .
somewhat r e l a t e d .
seldom
related .
not r e l a t e d .

How w e l l do you know and u n d e r s t a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e between g o a l s and
ob jectives?
Check o n e.
Very we 11
Somewhat
Seldom
Not a t a l 1

How f a m i l i a r a r e you w i t h

the goals o f your o r g a n iz a tio n ?

Check o n e .

Very fami l i a r
Somewhat fami 1 i a r
Have a vague idea
Have no Id ea

What has been y o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c o a c h in g t o h e l p you w r i t e y o u r
ob jectives?
Check o n e .
1
2
3
k

29.

re s p o n s ib ilitie s .

My w o r k is d i f f i c u l t t o q u a n t i f y and, t h e r e f o r e , my o b j e c t i v e s
d o n ' t a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t my j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

1
2
3

28 .

job

the

3

1
2
3
k
27.

r e f l e c t my t o t a l

a r e you w i t h

1

1
2
3
*1
26 .

accu rately

how s a t i s f i e d

I
I
I
I

have no need f o r c o a c h in g .
have r e c e i v e d t h e h e l p I
needed from my s u p e r v i s o r .
have r e c e i v e d t h e h e l p I
needed from persons o t h e r th an my s u p e r v i s o r .
needed h e l p b u t c o u l d n ' t
ge t i t from anyone.

How a r e y o u r o b j e c t i v e s s e t ?
1

Check one.

T h e r e Is an i n t e r a c t i o n process wh er e by my s u p e r v i s o r and m y s e l f
a g r e e and m u t u a l l y d e t e r m i n e my o b j e c t i v e s .

2

I s e t my own o b j e c t i v e s

3

My s u p e r v i s o r d e t e r m i n e s

k

My o b j e c t i v e s

a r e s e t by

and my s u p e r v i s o r m e c h a n i c a l l y a p p r o v e s .
my o b j e c t i v e s

f o r the

my s u b o r d i n a t e s .

coming y e a r .

How f a m i l i a r a r e you w i t h y o u r s u p e r i o r ' s
1
2

We go o v e r them t o g e t h e r in d e t a i l .
I am f a m i l i a r enough so t h a t my o b j e c t i v e s
w i t h my s u p e r v i s o r ' s .

3

I

have a vague

k

I

have no id ea what h i s

id ea o f what h i s o b j e c t i v e s
ob jectives

What has been y o u r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h
your o b je c t iv e s ?
Check one.
1
2
3
*1

objectives?

I
I
I

Check one.

u s u a l l y mesh

are.

are.

coa c hi n g t o h e l p you implement

have no need f o r h e l p .
have r e c e i v e d s u f f i c i e n t h e l p from my s u p e r v i s o r .
have r e c e i v e d t h e h e l p I needed from persons o t h e r than
my s u p e r v i s o r .
I needed h e l p ,

but c o u l d n ' t

get

it

from anyone.

Once y o u r o b j e c t i v e s a r e d e t e r m i n e d , who d e t e r m i n e s how t h e s e
o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be ach iev ed ?
Check one.
1

My s u p e r v i s o r p r o v i d e s some g e n e r a l
the o b je ct iv e s .

2

My s u p e r v i s o r m a i n t a i n s some c o n t r o l
o b ject i ves.

3

I s o le ly determine
gu i d e l i n e s ) .

^

My s u p e r v i s o r m a i n t a i n s
o b je cti ves.

the

gu idelines

Imp lem en ti ng

on how 1 Implement th e

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n process
close control

for

( w i t h i n budget

on how 1 implement t h e

Hew many tim e s s i n c e t h e school y e a r s t a r t e d have you and y ou r s u p e r v i s o r
r evi ew ed your o b j e c t i v e s and y o u r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r oc e s s7
( T h i s is
c a lle d th e a p p ra is a l process)
Check one.
1
2
3
k

T h r e e time s
Two ti m e s
One time
Never

What was t h e e f f e c t o f t h e r e v i e w process w i t h
Check one.
1

T h e r e was e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w and mutual
d e l e t e some o b j e c t i v e s .

2

T h e r e was some r e vi ew and some agreement
some o b j e c t i v e s .

3

T h e r e was l i t t l e r e v i e w and l i t t l e
d e l e t e some o b j e c t i v e s .

k

T h e r e was no e f f e c t

--

r e g a rd t o y o u r o b j e c t i v e s ?

agreement t o
to

revise and/or

revise and/or d e le te

agreement t o r e v i s e a n d / o r

i t was a v e ry m e ch an ic a l

process.

168
What was th e e f f e c t o f t h e r e v i e w process w i t h
im p l e m e n t a t io n o f y ou r o b j e c t i v e s ?
Check one.

r e g a r d t o th e

1
2

No e f f e c t — I had t h i n g s w e l l under c o n t r o l .
We d i s c o v e r e d a few area s where more emphasis needed t o
be p l a c e d .

3

We d i s c o v e r e d e x t e n s i v e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l

U

No e f f e c t

—

i t was a very mechanical

In my o r g a n i z a t i o n the a p p r a i s a l
1
2
3
k

process

h e l p and a d v i s e .

pr oce ss.
is:

Check one.

D e f i n i t e l y a p p r o p r i a t e wi th necess ar y emphasis.
D e f i n i t e l y a p p r o p r i a t e , bu t ov er em ph asi zed .
D e f i n i t e l y a p p r o p r i a t e , b u t not emphasized enough.
Not a p p r o p r i a t e and not emphasized.

In th e a p p r a i s a l

process how do you f e e l

you a r e

ra te d ?

Check one.

1
2
3

I am r a t e d on t h e r e s u l t s I a c h i e v e .
My s u p e r v i s o r r a t e s everyone in t h e m i d d l e .
I am r a t e d on my p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s — my s u p e r v i s o r l i k e s
me o r he d o e s n ' t l i k e me.

k

My s u p e r v i s o r

In t h e a p p r a i s a l
1
2
3

r a t e s ever yon e a t t h e top.
process hew is y o u r r a t i n g dete rmi ned ?

Check one.

My s u p e r v i s o r and I agree on my r a t i n g .
My s u p e r v i s o r t e l l s me my r a t i n g .
I determine the r a tin g I w i l l re ce iv e .
I d o n ' t knew — I have not been r a t e d .

How f a i r l y
Check one.

do you f e e l

you a r e r a t e d d u r i n g t h e a p p r a i s a l

process?

1
2

I f e e l I am r a t e d f a i r l y .
1 f e e l I am u n d e r r a t e d .
I know o t h e r people in th e o r g a n i z a t i o n
doing no b e t t e r jo b than I am who r e c e i v e b e t t e r r a t i n g s .

3

I f e e l I am o v e r r a t e d .
I know o t h e r pe op le in the o r g a n i z a t i o n
d o in g a b e t t e r j o b than I am who r e c e i v e s i m i l a r r a t i n g s .
I d o n ' t know - -

I have n e v e r been r a t e d .

What is your r e a c t i o n when you r e c e i v e n e g a t i v e feedback i n t h e
a p p r a i s a l process?
Check one.
1
2

I welcome f e e db a c k, both n e g a t i v e and p o s i t i v e .
I u s u a l l y welcome fe e d b a c k .
However, i f I f e e l
was u n f a i r I l e t my s u p e r i o r know about i t .

3

I have an immediate n e g a t i v e gu t r e a c t i o n , bu t l a t e r I o b j e c t i v e l y
e v a lu a te the c r i t i c i s m .
I f I f e e l the feedback was f a i r , I t r y to
c o r r e c t my b e h a v i o r ; i f u n f a i r , I ig n o r e t h e c r i t i c i s m .

k.

I haven't

the c r i t i c i s m

r e c e i v e d any f e e d b a c k , n e g a t i v e o r p o s i t i v e .

r

i

169
41.

What k in d o f problems do you e n c o u n t e r a r r i v i n g
th e a p p r a i s a l process7
Check one.
1
2

No p a r t i c u l a r pr oblems.
I t Is d i f f i c u l t t o measure t h e
obj e c t i ves .

results

at a r a tin g during

c alled fo r

in the

3

I t is d i f f i c u l t t o reach agreement w i t h my s u p e r v i s o r on
w h e t h e r o r not th e o b j e c t i v e has been a c h i e v e d .

4

No p a r t i c u l a r problems - -

it

is a v e r y mechanical

pr o c e s s .

ITEMS 42 THROUGH 45 ARE ANSWERED BY THE FOLLOWING KEY:
1
2
3
4

S t r o n g l y agree
Agree
D is a g r e e
Strongly disagree

42.

Most pe op le

43.

Th ere a r e many i n d i v i d u a l s in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h whom I f e e l
f r e e t o d is c u s s my r e a l f e e l i n g s c o n c e r n in g my j o b .

44.

My s u p e r v i s o r d o e s n ' t b u t t e r me up — he shoots s t r a i g h t from
t h e h i p about what is e x p e c t e d o f me.

45.

People in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n g e n e r a l l y t a l k

t o each o t h e r enough.

46.

Can c r e a t i v e change o c c u r r e a d i l y w i t h i n

the o r g a n iz a tio n ?

1
2
3
4

In th e o r g a n i z a t i o n say what

they mean.

Check one.

Yes, whenever t h e change can be j u s t i f i e d .
Only a f t e r e f f o r t and a f a i r l y long p e r i o d o f t i m e .
Only a f t e r a monumental, superhuman e f f o r t .
No change.

QUESTIONS 47 THROUGH 50 ARE ANSWERED BY THE FOLLOWING KEY:
1
2
3
4

S t r o n g l y agree
Ag ree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

When a problem occurs hew do you p e r c e i v e most s u p e r v i s o r s
re a c t ing:
47.

They do not se ar c h f o r someone t o blame.

48.

They s h a r e i n t h e blame.

in y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n

170
49.

They engage
f o r them.

50.

They f a c e t h e p r ob le m head on.

51.

Do you f e e l you have the a b i l i t y
organization?
Check one.
1
2
3
4

52.

53-

I
I
I
I

in a p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g proce ss

i n v o l v i n g th o s e who work

t o e f f e c t m a j o r change

in t h e

can have a g r e a t deal o f
in flu e n c e .
can have some i n f l u e n c e .
hav e s l i g h t i n f l u e n c e .
f e e l c o m p le te ly powerless.

D e s c r i b e t h e p r o m o t i o n and dev elo pm ent p o t e n t i a l
as f a r as you a r e c o n c e r n e d .
Check one.

in y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n

1

My p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r p r o m o t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l
a r e l i m i t e d o n l y by my own a b i l i t i e s .

2

There a re f a i r l y
developmen t .

3

T h e r e is l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p r o m o ti o n and l i t t l e
f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e lo p m e n t .

4

1 f I am e v e r a b l e t o be promoted o r d e v e l o p p r o f e s s i o n a l l y ,
w i l l have t o move e l s e w h e r e .

good p o s s i b i l i t i e s

Where is y o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s
1
2
3

de v e lo p m e n t

f o r p r o m o t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l

g r e a t e s t emphasis?

op portunity
I

Check on e.

I t looks and pl an s t o t h e f u t u r e .
I t is most conce rne d about t o d a y .
I t g l o r i f i e s the past.
I t v a c i l l a t e s between a l l o f t h e above .

QUESTIONS 5*t THROUGH 60 ARE ANSWERED BY THE FOLLOWING KEY:
1
2
3
4

S tr o n g ly agree
Agree
Disagree
S trongly disagree

G e n e r a l l y I f i n d my s u p e r v i s o r s u p p o r t i v e o f
organization.
54.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n

55.

The MBO system.

56.

In d ivid u al

57.

O rganizational

58.

The s u b o r d i n a t e s .

in g e n e r a l .

d e v e lo p m e n t .
goals.

th e f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s o f

the

171
59 .

The p r o f e s s i o n a l

60.

P r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s and a s s i s t a n c e t o s t u d e n t s .

61.

Do you f e e l y ou r s u p e r i o r
o f MBO? Check one.
1
2
3
it

62.

63 .

Not o n l y
process.

is your s u p e r v i s o r engaged in p l a n n in g ?

is h i s p l a n n i n g a d e q u a t e , b u t

I was

Check on e.

in v o lv e d

in th e

The p l a n n i n g t h a t he has engaged in seems to be a d e q u a t e , bu t
I was not engaged in i t — I was s im p ly informed what th e s e
plans were.

3

The p l a n n i n g t h a t he has engaged in

if

I f my s u p e r v i s o r is engaged

is t o o narrow and i n a d e q u a t e .

in p l a n n i n g ,

I am n o t aware o f

My s u p e r v i s o r can g e n e r a l l y be d e s c r i b e d as:
P r o a c t i v e (on t h e o f f e n s i v e )
proactive
S ensitive
R e a c t i v e (on t h e d e f e n s i v e ) .

How has MBO a f f e c t e d
Check one.

it-

Check one.

and s e n s i t i v e .

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between you and y ou r s u p e r v i s o r ?

1

I t has le d both o f us t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f each o t h e r ' s
areas o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

2

I t has led both o f us t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f my a r e a
o f respons ib i 1 i t y .

3

I t has had no e f f e c t .
I t has s t r a i n e d

65 .

l e a d e r as a r e s u l t

2

1
2
3
**
6*t.

is a more e f f e c t i v e

D e f i n i t e l y yes
Maybe
P r o b a b l y not
D e f i n i t e l y no t

To what e x t e n t
1

association.

and harmed th e

relatio n sh ip .

When you have pe rf or m e d a s i g n i f i c a n t t a s k u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , how
does y o u r s u p e r v i s o r h a n d le th e s i t u a t i o n ?
Check one.
1

My s u p e r v i s o r c a l l s me in im m e d ia te ly and informs me o f my
u n s a t is f a c t o r y performance.

2

My s u p e r v i s o r l e t s me know about my u n s a t i s f a c t o r y performance
by a s e r i e s o f i n d i r e c t cues.

3

My s u p e r v i s o r says n o t h i n g in p e r s o n , b u t p r o b a b ly notes the
u n s a t i s f a c t o r y pe rf or m a n ce on records o r recommendations.

*1

My s u p e r v i s o r says n o t h i n g , l e t t i n g me c o n t i n u e w i t h u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
performa nce f o r a w h i l e , and then suddenly e x p l o d e s .

172
66.

67.

68.

When you have perfor med a s i g n i f i c a n t ta s k u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , how
would you p r e f e r y ou r s u p e r v i s o r t o h a n d le th e s i t u a t i o n ?
Check one.
1

C a l l me in im m e di a te ly and i n f o r m me o f my u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
per for ma nce .

2

Let me know about my u n s a t i s f a c t o r y per forman ce by a s e r i e s
o f i n d i r e c t cues.

3

Say n o t h i n g in pers on, bu t n o t e t h e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
on r e co rd s o r recommendations.

U

Say n o t h i n g f o r a w h i l e , then get mad when
in an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y manner.

performance

1 continue performing

When you have performed a s i g n i f i c a n t tas k in a most s a t i s f a c t o r y
manner, how does y o u r s u p e r v i s o r handle t h e s i t u a t i o n ?
Check one.
1
2
3

My s u p e r v i s o r c a l l s me in and g i v e s me p o s i t i v e fee dba ck.
My s u p e r v i s o r l e t s me know w i t h a s e r i e s o f i n d i r e c t cues.
My s u p e r v i s o r says n o t h i n g , bu t notes the pe r for ma nc e on
records and recommendations.

*1

My s u p e r v i s o r makes no p e r s o n a l ,
p e rf or m a n ce .

nor f o r m a l , mention o f t h e

When you have perfo rme d a s i g n i f i c a n t t a s k in a most s a t i s f a c t o r y
manner, how would you p r e f e r y ou r s u p e r v i s o r t o h a n d l e t h e s i t u a t i o n ?
Check one.
1

C a l l me i n , g i v e me p o s i t i v e fe e d b a c k , and no te th e performance
on reco rds and in recommendations.

2

Call

3

Say n o t h i n g in pe rs on, but n o t e t h e per forman ce on re co rd s
and in recommendations.

U

me i n and g i v e me p o s i t i v e

Make no p e r s o n a l ,

fe edb ac k.

nor f o r m a l , mention o f th e pe rf orm an ce.

ITEMS 69 THROUGH 72 ARE ANSWERED BY THE FOLLOWING KEY:
1
2
3
^

S tro n g ly agree
Agree
D is a g r e e
Strongly disagree

69.

Our o r g a n i z a t i o n rewards
w i t h words o f p r a i s e .

i t s employees ' s i gn i f i ca nt c o n t r l b u t ions

70.

Our o r g a n i z a t i o n rewards i ts e m p lo y e e s 1 s i gn i f i c a nt c o n t r i b u t ions
w i t h more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

71.

Our o r g a n i z a t i o n rewards i t s e m p lo y e e s ' s i gn i f i can t c o n t r i b u t i o n s
w i t h more money — m e r i t pay.

173
72.

Our o r g a n i z a t i o n rewards i t s em ploy ee s'
w i t h w r i t t e n recommendations.

73.

T h e r e a r e many ways t o reward e m p lo y e e s ' s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s .
P l e a s e p i c k t h e one_ which is most i m p o r t a n t t o you.
1
2
3
k

M e r i t pay i n c r e a s e s .
More r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in y o u r j o b
Personal p r a is e
W r i t t e n recommendations

s ig n ific a n t

functions

contrib ution s

and p r o m o t i o n s .

How has y o u r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h y o u r j o b changed s i n c e you s t a r t e d
w o r k i n g in an MBO system?
Check on e,
1
2
3
^4
75.

My
My
My
(t

changed s i n c e you

e f f e c t i v e n e s s is much g r e a t e r .
e f f e c t i v e n e s s is unchanged.
e f f e c t i v e n e s s is l o w e r .
is h a r d t o j u d g e .

How would you d e s c r i b e y o u r p r e s e n t jo b?
1

I t c h a l l e n g e s me so I am c o n s t a n t l y
1 eve 1.

2

I t c h a l l e n g e s me, b u t a t
e n r i chment.

3

I

can h a n d l e
It

77.

s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e j o b is much h i g h e r .
s a t i s f a c t i o n level
is unchanged.
s a tis fa c tio n level
is much l o w e r .
is har d t o j u d g e .

How has y o u r e f f e c t i v e n e s s t o p e r f o r m y o u r j o b
s t a r t e d w o r k i n g In an MBO system7
Check one.
1
2
3
4

76.

My
My
My
It

is

i t w ith

Check on e.

i n c r e a s i n g my ac hi e v e m e nt

t h e same t im e

I wo ul d l i k e some j o b

lit t le effo rt.

so unchal l e n g i n g

t h a t I am b o a r d .

When someone under you has pe rf or me d a s i g n i f i c a n t
u n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , how do you h a n d l e t h e s i t u a t i o n .
i m m e d i a t e l y and i n f o r m them

1

I c a l l them in
performance.

2

I
l e t them know about t h e i r u n s a t i s f a c t o r y p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h
s e r i e s o f i n d i r e c t cues.

3

I say n o t h i n g in p e r s o n , b u t u s u a l l y n o t e t h e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
p e r f o r m a n c e on reco rd s o r recommendations.

^

I say n o t h i n g , b u t
s o o n e r o r 1a t e r .

if

th e b e h a v i o r

of

project
Check one.

continues,

theu n s a tis fa c to ry

I'll

a

blo w my top

174
When someone un d e r you has pe r f o r m e d a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o j e c t in
a most s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, how do you h a n d l e t h e s i t u a t i o n ?
Check one.
1

I c a l l them In and g i v e them p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k , and n o t e
t h e p e r f o r m a n c e on r e co rd s and In recommendations.

2

I call

3

I say n o t h i n g in p e r s o n , b u t n o t e t h e p e r fo r m a n c e on
re c o r d s and in recommendations.

k

I make no p e r s o n a l ,

them in and g i v e them p o s i t i v e

feedback.

nor f o r m a l , m e n t io n o f t h e p e r f o r m a n c e .

MBO makes t h e emphasis away from p e r s o n a l i t y
jo b performance.
1
2
3
A

S tro n g ly agree
Agree
Disagree
S trong ly disagree

and p l a c e s

i t on

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Bernard J.
"Organizational Leadership and Man­
agement by Objectives with Emphasis on Student
Affairs Operations."
The MSU Orient 6 (Fall
1971):17— 27.
Abbott, Charles C.
"Governing Boards and Their Responsi­
bilities."
Journal of Higher Education 41
(October 1970):524-34.
Adams, John D., and Stoner, James A. F.
"Development of
an Organizational Change Role." The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 8 (July-August 19 7 2):
438-48.------ ------------Alfert, Elizabeth.
"Housing Selection, Need Satisfaction,
and Drop-out From College." Psychology Reports
19 (August 1966):183-86.
“
Association of College and University Housing Officers.
Proceedings, Association of College and University
Housing Officers, 1973 National Convention. A
Report Prepared by the Association.
Vancouver,
British Columbia:
Office of the Director of
Residences, University of British Columbia, 1973.
Astin, Helen S. The Woman Doctorate in America.
Y o r k : Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.

New

Barak, Robert J.
"A Systems Approach to Residence Hall
Planning."
NASPA Journal 10 (January 1973):
255-58.
Barro, Stephen M.
"An Approach to Developing Accounta­
bility Measures for the Public Schools." Phi
Delta Kappan 52 (December 1970):196-205.
Big Ten Housing
Housing
Mich.:
versity

Conference.
Papers of the 1973 Big Ten
Conference, Student Personnel. Ann Arbor,
Office of the Director of Housing, Uni­
of Michigan, 1973.
(Mimeographed.)

175

176
Brayfield, Arthur H . , and Crockett, Walter H.
"Employee
Attitudes and Employee Performance."
Psychological
Bulletin 52 (September 1955):396—424.
Chesser, Rodney J.
"MBO as a Behavioral System: A Focus
on Change Relationships and Inferences of Cau­
sality."
Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1971.
Chiet, Earl F. The New Depression in Higher Education.
New York!
McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Crockett, William J.
"Team Building— One Approach to
Organizational Development." The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 6 (May-June 19^6):
251 -306 .---------------Crookston, Burns B.
"An Organizational Model for Student
Development."
NASPA Journal 10 (July 1972):
3-13.
Devereus, Edward C.
"Parsons* Sociological Theory."
In
The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons. Edited by
Max Black.
Englewood Cliffs, N . J . : PrenticeH a l l , Inc., 1961.
Drucker, Peter.
The Practice of Management.
Harper and Row, 1954.

New York:

Etzioni, Amitai.
Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.:
Prentice - Hall, Inc. , TTT64 .
Finn, J. D. Multivariance:
Fortran Program for Uni­
variate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance
and Co-Variance. Buffalo, N . Y . : State Uni­
versity of New York at Buffalo, 1967.
Glendening, Linda.
"POST HOC: A Fortran IV Program for
Generating Confidence Intervals Using Either
Tukey or Schefffe Multiple Comparison Procedures."
Occasional Paper No. 20. East Lansing, Michigan:
Office of Research Consultation, College of Edu­
cation, 1973.
(Mimeographed.)
Gross, Bertram M.
New York:

Organizations and Their Managing.
The Free Press, 1964.

Halpin, Andrew.
The Leadership Behavior of School
Superintendents. Chicago: Midwest Administrative Center, University of Chicago, 1959.

177

Harriett, Rose A., and Elton, Charles F. "Sex and Occu­
pational Choice." Journal of Counseling Psy­
chology 18 (September 1971):456-61.
Hartnett, Rodney T. Accountability in Higher Education.
Princeton: College- Entrance Examination Board,
1971. ED 054 754. MF-0.65.
Harvey, James.
"Administration by Objectives in Student
Personnel Programs." Journal of College Student
Personnel 13 (July 1972}":TT3-9"6.
Hills, R. Jean. Toward a Science of Organization.
Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study
of Educational Administration, University of
Oregon Press, 1968.
Hollander, E. P. Leaders, Groups, and Influence.
York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

New

Hountras, Peter T . , and Brandt, K. R. "Relation of Stu­
dent Residence to Academic Performance in College."
Journal of Educational Research 63 (April 1970):
351-54.-------------------------Hungate, Thad L. Management in Higher Education. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1964.
Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology
of Organizations. New York! John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1956.
Kaufman, Roger A. Educational System Planning. Englewood
Cliffs, N . J ~
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Kennedy, John D.
"Planning for Accountability via
Management by Objectives." Journal of Secondary
Education 45 (December 1970) :348-54.
Lahti, Robert E. Innovative College Management. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1973.
________ . "Management by Objectives." College and Uni­
versity Business 50 (July 1971):3l.
Lawler, Edward E . , and Porter, Lyman.
"The Effects of
Performance on Job Satisfaction."
Industrial
Relations— A Journal of Economy and Society 7
Tbctober lT<r?)T22-2FT ------ ----------

178
Lessinger, Leon.
"A Historical Note on Accountability
in Education."
Journal of Research and Develop­
ment in Education^ 5 (Fall 1971)': 15—18.
Likert, Rensis.
"A Motivational Approach to a Modified
Theory of Organization and Management."
In Modern
Organizational Theory. Edited by Mason Haire.
New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959.
Locke, Edwin A.
"Motivational Effects of Knowledge of
Results:
Knowledge or Goal Setting?"
Journal
of Applied Psychology 51 (1967): 3 2 0 - 2 4 .
^

_____ , and Bryan, Judith.
"Performance Goals as
Determinants of Level of Performance and Boredom."
Journal of Applied Psychology 51 (1967):120-30.

Loring, Rosalind, and Wells, Theodora.
Breakthrough:
Women into Management. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold C o ., 1972.
Marcus, Philip M . , and House, James S.
"Exchange Between
Supervisors and Subordinates in Large Organi­
zations ." Administrative Science Quarterly 18
(June 1973):209-22.
McCord, Bird.
"Identifying and Developing Women for
Management Positions." Training and Development
Journal 25 (November 1972):2— 5.
McGregor, Douglas.
"An Uneasy Look at Performance
Appraisal."
Harvard Business Review 35 (MayJune 19 57):89=531
Miller, L. The Use of Knowledge of Results in Improving
the Performance of Hourly Operators. General
Electric Company:
Behavioral Research Service,
1965.
Minear, Leon P.
"Management by Objective." American
Vocational Journal 45 (December 1970):54-55.
Moore, Michael L.
"Management by Objectives." Paper
delivered at Managing Tomorrow"s Community Col­
leges, Conference held at Michigan State Uni­
versity, July 14— 16, 1971.
North, Gary, and Danimiller, Kathleen.
"Management by
Objectives for Housing Personnel." American
Personnel and Guidance Association. A report
presented at the American Personnel and Guidance
Association, 1973.

179
North, Gary; Danimiller, Kathleen; and Zatechka, Douglas.
"Management by Objectives for Housing Personnel."
Working papers to be presented at the 1974
National Convention, Association of College and
University Housing Officers.
East Lansing, Mich.:
Office of Residence Hall Programs, Michigan State
University, 1974.
(Mimeographed.)
Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill1 Book Company, Inc., 1967.
Odiorne, George S. Management by Objectives.
Pitman, 1965,

New York:

Parsons, Talcott.
Structure and Process in Modern
Societies.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,

--tfzo:

Patten, Thomas H.
"OD, MBO, and the Reward System."
In
O p , Emerging Dimensions and Concepts. Edited by
Thomas H. Patten.
Development Division, American
Society for Training and Development, 1973.
Peterson, William D . , and Svoren, Donald S.
"Proposal
for a Staff Self-Study." A report to the Dean
of Students Office, Michigan State University.
Prepared by a Committee to Review Evaluation
Procedures for Student Affairs.
East Lansing,
Michigan, 19 71.
(Mimeographed.)
Popham, James W.
"Objectives-Based Management Strategies
for Large Educational Systems." The Journal of
Educational Research 66 (September 1972):4-9.
Proshansky, Harold, and Seidenberg, Bernard.
Basic
Studies in Social Psychology. New Yorlc: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc,, 1965.
Reddin, W. J.
York:

Effective Management by Objectives.
McGraw-Hill BooJ^ Company, 1970.

New

Rizzo, John R . ; House, Robert; and Lirtzman, Sidney L.
"Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organi­
zations." Administrative Science Quarterly 15
(June 1970):150-63.
Rudolph, Frederick.
The American College and University.
New York: Alfred a . Knopf, Inc., 1962.
Ryan, James L.
"College Freshman and Living Arrangements.
NASPA Journal 8 (October 1970):127-30.

180
Simon, Herbert A.
New York:

Administrative Behavior.
The Free Press, 1965.

2nd ed.

Slevin, Dennis P. "What Companies Are Doing About
Women's Equality." Personnel 4 8 (July-August
1971):8-18.
Smith, E. E.
"The Effects of Clear and Unclear Role
Expectations on Group Productivity and Defensive­
ness." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
55 (July 1957) S213-17'.-------------------- -----Temple, Charles M.
"Management by Objectives at the Uni­
versity of Tennessee."
Intellect 102 (November
1973):98—100.
Thompson, James D., and McEwen, William J.
"Organizational
Goals and Environment:
Goal Setting as an Inter­
action Process." American Sociological Review
23 (February 1958):23— 31.
Tosi, Henry L.
"Organizational Stress as a Moderator
of the Relationship Between Participation and
Job Satisfaction, Job Anxiety, and Productivity."
Paper delivered at XV International Meeting, The
Institute of Management Science, Sept., 1968.
________ , and Carroll, Stephen.
"Some Factors Affecting
the Success of 'Management by Objectives,'" Journal
of Management Studies 7 (May 1970):209-22.
________ , and
. "Management by Objectives."
Personnel Administration 33 (July—August 1970):
'
4 4-4 8 .------------------________ , and Tosi, Donald.
"Some Correlates of Role
Conflict and Role Ambiguity Among Public School
Teachers." Journal of Human Relations 18 (1970):
1068-75.
Vroom, Victor H. Some Personality Determinants of the
Effects of Participation^ Englewood Cliffs, N . J .:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
. Work and Motivation.
and Sons, Inc., 1965.

New York:

John Wiley