AH QBSERVATIONAL ANALYS!S OF SUPERVESORY BEHAVEGR Thai: for the Dec!“ of M. A. MEG-”GAR STATE QNNER$WY Charges Rainer? Gross 1956 WWWW L AN OBSERVATIONAL ANALKSIS OF SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR By Charles Robert Gross A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1956 —1— Charles Robert Gross Time sampling observations were made of he behavior (activity) of eighteen sugervis rs, qt different supervi- sory levels, and several inV3ntories of variable s of in— terest vere ed31inis ered non-anonymously to the supe ervisors and 121 employees of one dep3rtment of the Detroit Ldison Company. The purpose of the study was to try out the time sampling method which wo ould yield data on the behavior (activity) of supervisors, examine the reliabilities of the me nod an the inventories, and relate the tine szinplin3 bMJIVJuions of SJpervisory behavior to the otiler Viri bles of interezt (obtained from the inventories). Ap repri3t3 statistical procedures were felloued on the obtained data to carry out the purpose of the study. The findings indicated th at e23 ployee p rcepulo of supervisory behavior, employee satisfactions with s ervi- sory behavior, supervisory self-perceptions of sup3rvisory beh3vior are not si3nlfic ntly r l3t;3 to obs 'rV3d super~ visory behnvior. Superv;301y self—pereegtions 0; super— visory beh vior are no: i,”1-1c1_tl. mlated to enployee perceptions of supe.visory behavior. fioxever, unpleyee p rc3Itions of supervi ory b or are significantly l3te3 to e:;loy e sutisfactions .ith supervisory behuvior. Old and new employees agree with each other in their por- ceptions of and satisfactions with sup :rvisory behavior. Further, within enployee nork groues,1plcyees tend to agree with each otne ith rezpsot to both their percep- tions of end setisfactions uith supervizery behavior. -2— Charles Rob rt Gross Both time sampling observations and the inventories more \ significantly and sufficiently reliable ,3 :; uSMful m33— 1 sures of the variables of interest. There are real intrs—supervisory level differences in SUpervisory behavior within some subject (activity) categories. Lithin some other suject categories, no real differences were evidenced. .A preliminary study was conducted of enployee and supervisory perceptions of supervisory behevior and em- ployee satisfactions with supervisory behevior. Unfor- tunutely, he obtained meusures were not congruent with the measures of observed supervisory behavior. The pre- hliminiry study did tend to show the relationship bet een enployye pe:ceptions of supervisory behavior and employee satisfactions with supervisory behevior. Therefore, tee inventories mentioned before were desi3ned and the present study conducted. ACKI‘IO L :I-DGIFZ 33733 The writer 09 this thesis would like to express his sincere appreciation for the helpful guidance given to him by his major professor, Dr. James S. Karslake, and his former major professor, Dr. Frederic R. Sickert. The aid, support and advice of Dr. Greydon M. Horbois and others of the Industrial Psychology division of the De- troit Edison Company made the conduct of this study a genuine learning experience and an ext emely useful addi- tion to his academic training. The writer would also like to express his é—ltitude for the genuine co-Operation given him by the Detroit Edison Company and most particularly, the employees and supervisors of the departnent in which th study was conducted. Bithout the support, co-Opera- (U tion and consideration given by all these, the task of son- ducting this study and writing this thesis wouid have been far less rewarding and satisfienfi’ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.......................................l BACKGROUND.........................................6 HYPOTHESES........................................ll TIME SAMPLING METHOD..............................l4 PROCEDURE.........................................l7 Subjects.....................................17 Behavioral Time Sampling.....................l9 Inventories..................................23 Statistical Analysis.........................25 PRELIMINARY STUDY.................................29 FINDINGS..........................................31 RESULES...........................................52 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION........................56 COMMENTS..........................................62 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................64 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX Fab APPEEDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX F G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I J APPENDIX Lxsr_gr TABLES TABLE RAGE I Percentages of Agreement Batween Observers for Time Sampling Observations at Supervisory Behavior 35 II Cumulative Percentages of Time Spent by All Supervisors in Each of the Saversl Subject (Activity) Categories for Cumulative Days of Observation. 36 III Observed Percentages of Time Spent by Supervisors for Subject Categories 31 IV Observed Percentages of Time Spent'by Supervisors for Place Categories 38 V Observed Percentages of Time Spent by Supervisors for Contact Categories 39 VI lean Observed Percentages of Time_3pent by Different Supervisory Levels for Each of the Several Subject (Activity) Categories ho VII lean Observed Percentages of Time Spent by Different Supervisory Levels for Each of the Several Place Categories hi VIII lean Observed Percentages or Time Spent by'Different Supervisory Levels for Each.or the Soveral Contact Categories #2 IX Significance of Differences in lean Observed Percentages of Time Spent by Different Supervisory Levels for the Soveral Subject (Activity) Categories (using Krusksl-Wallis H Tests) .h} TABEB XI XIII ‘IIV XVI XVII LIST OF TABLES Rank Order Correlation Botween Observed Supervisory Behavior and Supervisory Behavior as Perceived by Employees Bank Order Correlation Between Observed Supervisory Behavior and Employee Satisfactions with Supervisory Behavior Bank Order Correlation Between Observed Supervisory Behavior and Supervisory Behavior as Perceived by the Super sor Rank Order Correlation Between Supervisory Behavior as Perceived by Ennployees and hployee Satisfactions with Supervisory Behavior Rank Order Correlation Between Supervisory Behavior as Perceived by the Supervisor and Supervisory Behavior as Perceived by Employees Rank Order Correlation Between Old ani New Employees for Perceptions of and Satisfactions with Supervisory Behavior Measures of Agreement Among Enployees in Perceived Supervisory Behaviu' Measures of Agreement Among Employees in Satisfactions with Supervisory Behavior PAGE 1,6 in ($9 TABLE XVIII XXII XXIII XXIV LIST OF TABLES 12 Test for the Presence or Absence of Relationship between Observed First- line Supervisory Behavior and Employee Perceptions of First-line Supervisory Behavior Taken from mployee Attitude Questionnaire Perceptual Items 12 Test for the Presence or Absence of Relationship between Observed Assis tent Supervisory Behavior and mployee Perceptions of Assis tent Supervisory Behavior Taken from Employee Attitude Questionnaire Perceptual Items lean Observed Percentages of Time Spent by First-line and Assistant Supervisors Dichotomized into Groups High and Low in Esployee Satisfaction Rank Order Correlation between Observed Supervisory Behavior of Supervisory Levels with High Satisfaction Employees and Observed Supervisory Behavior of Supervisory Levels with Low Sati si‘action Enployees Levels of Significance Arrived at from 1 Test for Presence or Absence 01' Relationship between Employee Attitude Questionnaire Satisfaction Items and Criterion Question Number 37 (General Satisfaction with First-line Supervisor) Supervisor's Number, Level of Supervision and Work Group Number or Enployecs Making Judmcnts (m) and Number of Categories Ranked (n) for Various Work Groups APPENDIX INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTIOI‘I The general area of supervisory leadership in the industrial setting has received considerable attention _ by research.workers for some time. The aim of such research has usually been to provide some sound. re- liable and valid means for selecting better-qualified candidates for supervisory positions. The results of such research have made possible either the development of some predictor(s) to assess the supervisory potential of candidates, or the isolation and identification of some dimensions or variables of supervision significantly related to some criterion measure of supervisory success. A variety of variable classes have been investigated in this kind of research. Leadership traits. one of the classes of variables investigated. at one time. have been the focus of research. The attempt has been.made to discover specific traits that distinguish leaders from non-leaders. This approach has been disappointing, however; a set of leadership traits which seem essential and effective in one leadership situation or setting are often.not essential or effective in other situations or settings. Also no one general trait of "leadership" has been identified. Similar results have been obtained in identifying leader personality variables related to success. Often the two classes of variables have been inter-mixed and confounded; leadership traits have often been personality variables (26) . Much of the focus in identifying the variables which contribute to supervisory success is now directed at situational or functional variables. The successful supervisor or leader behaves in accordance with.the specific demands that are made upon him by the group and/or organization or in the particular setting in which he is a leader. The principle criterion of leader- ship in this approach seems to be whether the leader influences the behavior of the "led" in his leadership role. This view of leadership is shared by many of the research workers in this area (Stogdill and Shartle (28), Knickerbocker (l4), Likert (10), and others). Selection of supervisory candidates can be improved by selecting those candidates who will most likely satisfy the specific demands of the leadership setting. The quality of super~ vision can also be improved by training supervisors and supervisory candidates to realistically use leadership methods and techniques which will meet these specific demands. and thereby influence the behavior of the "led." / The present study is a part of a contemplated series of studies to investigate and explore the possi- bility of designing appropriate selection techniques and training methods for supervisors holding positions ~5- abcve the foreman-level or first—line level (referred to in this study as "higher-level" supervisors). While much.progress has been.made at the foreman or first-line level, such as the work of Herbert H. Meyer's assessment of human relations aspects of work-group leadership (21), little attention has been focused on higher-level posi- tions of supervision. This series of studies has been envisioned by the Detroit Edison.Company and the Industrial Psychology division of the Psychology Department of Michigan State University. This first investigation, carried out by the writer. in cc-operation with the Industrial Psychology division.of the Employment Depart- ment of the Detroit Edison Company. while but a beginning of these studies, hopefully will yield results and.im~ plications for further research and study. In considering the selection and training of the higher-level supervisor, it seemed necessary to first understand the nature of the supervisory positions themselves. The situational determinants or supervisory demands of the positions should be identified to gain insight into the selection and training problems. Further. it seemed possible that when one moved from first-line to higher—level supervisory positions. there might be important differences in the nature of the sup- ervisory behavior at these levels which.would make the selection or training problem.unique at particular super- V1sory_levels. The situational or job demands themselves might be level determined, or peculiar to various supervisory levels. The identification of these demands or situational variables was approached by an analysis or the time spent by supervisors in meeting the various supervisory Job demands. This approach permitted an analysis of EEREEf zigggy behavior, which was preferred to typical Job description or an analysis of supervisory positions as characterized and reported by superiors (usually verbal rather than behavioral data). The original and chief purpose of this study was to try out the efficiency of a method for determining the demands made on the time of supervisors. Several methods were considered (see Method section), but the method of behavioral time sampling or work sampling technique (an observational method) was selected for use, since it offered the greatest possibility of gathering the most useful data. Time sampling observa- tions of supervisory behavior would be collected on a sample of supervisors which.wou1d yield data about the way in which supervisors meet the various Job demands in terms of the distribution of their time. If these supervisory demands can be identified in terms of observable behavior, it may then be possible to consider these demands in making selections for various supervisory positions at different levels. It may also make possible improved insights and methods for supervisory training, in light of these supervisory demands and behaviors. This analysis should else provide information on the differences in supervisory behavior between supervisory levels. If the method does provide reliable estimates of the distribution of time spent by supervisors in various behavior categories, the relationships of observed super~ visery behavior to other variables would be of considerable interest. The relationships and inter-relationships of observed supervisory behavior and employee perceptions of supervisory behavior, employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior and the perceptions of the super- visor of his own behavior would yield useful data for this study and contribute to the literature. Since these relationships and inter-relationships have been little explored and/or reported in the literature (see Background section), methodology and a class of hypotheses for testing needed to be deve10ped. The plan of this study, therefore, was to measure the supervisory behavior of a sample of supervisors using time sampling observations of supervisory behavior and to relate these observations to the above mentioned variables. Appropriate methodology and measuring instru- ments were developed and used in the study. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND A perusal of the literature was conducted to review recent publications on the analysis of supervisory be~ havior. Particularly of interest were objective methods of analysis that might be applied to supervisory behavior. Also of interest were studies relating employee and supervisory perceptions of supervisory behavior and attitudes and/er satisfaction of employees with super— vision and measures of supervisory behaviors. Under Army auspices, the Psychological Corporation carried out research relevant to the activities and behaviors of production supervisorsCZB). The research observer noted the behavior of the subject supervisor for two hour periods. After this direct observation, the observer dictated as many as possible of the be- haviors and activities that he noted of the subject supervisor into recording equipment. Using this method, over 5,500 activities or behaviors were recorded. While this method does not provide for any measurement of the frequency or duration of time spent in various activities, it does yield information of value for an objective ana- lysis of supervisory behavior. The use of a condensed list of supervisory activities, and the notion of re~ cording an activity as to place of occurrence, contact, physical action and tepic were utilized in this research. -7- \ Hadler utilized an occurrence study technique in observing activities of assistant foreman (22). Of particular interest is his method for determining the exact number of observations required to achieve a level of accuracy. Nadler suggests the solution or the standard error of percentages, equation, based upon an estimated percent of time devoted to smallest activity 0 1611181117 0 The J. L. Hudson Company of Detroit, Michigan (8), made a study of floor supervisors' activities similar to Radler's study, but employing Brisley's technique. Brisley (7) presents an adequate discussion of the statistical basis of the work sampling technique, and gives several illustrations of its application to various human activity areas. Brisley notes that ob- servations may be discontinued.when repeated observations produce consistent results. This cut-oft method was adopted for the present study of supervisory behavior. Alederige (1) presents monographs for estimating the number of observations required for given confidense levels, and for control limits to determine variations in obtained data attributable to causes other than chance. They were not able to be utilized for this study, however. Bolda, in an unpublished study (5), uses a method similar to that employed in this study for determining the activities of production supervisors of the Cadillac Motor Car Company. Beardsley (3) produces evidence that the data ob- tained from‘work sampling techniques varied only seven- tenths of a percent from data obtained by continuous time studies. Hence, it is concluded, that the ratio- delay method yields accurate data without the time and cost involved in continuous-type observational methods. Other methods of analysis for supervisory behavior were considered (2, 4, 6, ll, 15, 24, 30), but did not appear as useful methods for the purposes of this study as time sampling observations. This writer could not find evidence of the use of objective methods of analysis for supervisory behavior between various supervisory levels. Literature on the relationships and inter-relation- ships of variables such as employee perceptions of super- visory behavior, perception of supervisory behavior by the supervisor? himself and employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior and observations of supervisory be- havior is virtually non-existent. With the exception.of the Stogdill and Shartle study discussed below, the writer could not find evidence of research relevant to an investigation of these relationships. Stogdill and Shartle (27) report data concerning the relationship of perceptual estimates of the amount of time Spent in various kinds of work done by naval officers and actual recorded time (logged time of work performance kept by the naval officers for a three day period). The results suggested there was a fairly high degree of correspondence between the logged time and the estimated (perceptual) time for objectively observe able performances (such as reading and writing reports, etc.). More subjective, less readily observable per~ formances (such as reflection, etc.) were not as highLy related to the logged performance. These results would seem to indicate the presence of relationship between self-perceptions of supervisory behavior and observed supervision behavior. The writer could not find evidence of published studies relating employee perceptions of supervisory behavior to observed or recorded measures of supervisory behavior.‘ The importance of the supervisor as an influence on employee attitudes has long been noted. Kornhauser and Sharp (17) observed in 1952 that the character of supervision (where other variables were controlled) accounted for great differences in the attitudes of employees toward their jobs. Studies of the Survey Research Center, The University of hichigan, (29), have underscored the importance of the supervisor in the determination of employee attitudes. The job -10- satisfaction literature such as that summarized by Brayfield and Crockett (6) abounds with evidence of the supervisory determinants of employee job satisfac— tion. No studies could be found, however, relating the attitudes and/or satisfactions of employees with.their supervisors to observational measures of supervisory behavior. HYPOTHESES HYPOTHESES TIME SAMPLING OBSERVATIONS OF SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR: l. The relationship between the observations or supervisory behavior of one Observer and the observations of supervisory behavior of another independent observer will not be significantly other than zero; or: r01 02:0. 2. The relationship between observations of any category or supervisory behavior on one day by one ob- server and the observations of the same category of super- visory behavior on other days by the same observer will not be significantly other than zero; or: -o (for 01). r D1 Dz 3. The relationship between observed supervisory behavior of one supervisory level and the observed super~ visory behavior of other supervisory levels will not be significantly other than zero; or: 0. rSLl SL2. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TIME SAMPLING OBSERVATIONS OF SUPER- VISORY BEHAVIOR AND OTHER VARIABLES: 4. The relationship between observations of super- visory behavior (A) and employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) will not be significantly other than zero; or: rAB'O‘ 5. The relationship between observations of super- visory behavior (A) and employee satisfactions with ~12- supervisory behavior (C) will not be significantly other than zero; or: rACuG. 6. The relationship between observations of super- visory behavior (A) and supervisory perceptions of their own.behavior (D) will not be significantly other than zero; or: rAD'O’ 7. The relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior (C) will not be significantly other than zero; or: rBCnO. 8. The relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and supervisory perceptions of their own behavior (D) will not be significantly other than zero; or: anno. 9. The relationship between perceptions of super- visory behavior of older (longer service) employees (El) and perceptions of supervisory behavior of newer (shorter service) employees (32) will not be significantly other than zero; or: r -0. Bl B2 10. The relationship between satisfactions with supervisory behavior of older (longer service) employees (01) and satisfactions with supervisory behavior of newer (shorter service) employees (02) will not be significantly other than sure; or: rC O. 102 -13- 11. The perception of supervisory behavior of an employee within a work group (B31) and perceptions of supervisory behavior of other employees within the work group (BE ) will not be significantly other than zero; n .Oe n 12. The relationship between satisfaction with 01": r 331 BE supervisory behavior of an employee within a work group (CE ) and satisfactions with.supervisory behavior of other 1 employees within the work group (CE ) will not be signi- n ficantly other than zero; or: :-C C -0. I31 En TIME Sillii’LING L'LTHOD TIME SAMPLING METHOD The first phase of investigating supervisory behavior is the selection of an appropriate method for use in the study. Several methods were considered: a) Critical Incident technique; b) Some form of supervisory analysis (similar to worker analysis); 3) "Q” technique of Stephenson; d) Questionnaire method (such as the Ohio State Leadership studies‘ questionnaires and scales); 6) tape and/or film recording of supervisory behavior; f) Sociometric technique (such as the Multi-Sociometric Scale); g) Some objectified observational technique; h) Ratio-Delay time sampling technique. The method of Ratio-Delay time sampling, an objectified observational method, was chosen for its promise of maximum yield of data.with minimum cost and tile as compared.with other methods. Ratio-Delay Method_(Time Sampling) The ratio-delay or work sampling or time sampling method is one that has its origin in industrial engineer- ing problems of product quality (quality control) and machine operation (ratio-delay -~ the ratio of various kinds of delays in machine operation to the total time). It has also been applied to human activity, and is usually referred to as ratio-delay method or work sampling. (It will be referred to as time sampling as well in this study.) Ratio-delay is an instantaneous, randomized method of observation.which permits generalizations to a total range of human activity. The method has the advantage of getting precise information on a given human activity with a minimum or time and cost as compared to continuous observation or a critical incident technique. Two applications that have been made of the method may illustrate its advantages. A large metropolitan hospital studied the work loads and duties of their nurses. As a result of the study, the hospital was able to care for twice the number of patients using the same force of nurses, by assigning the high percentage of nonrnursing work that was being done by nurses (as revealed through the study) to nonpnursing employees. A manufacturing firm was able to reassign non-engineering tasks from their limited force of engineers to clerks, as a result of em- ploying the ratio-delay method to study the activities of their engineers. Thus within a relatively short span of time and at low cost, important organizational changes could be carried out by this method, employing instant- aneous, random observation. The several phases of a ratio-delay method study are the following: 1) Orientation of the study to those responsible for its implications, and to those who will participate in the study. 2) 3) 4) S) 6) 7) 8) 9) .. 16.. Defining the problem and designing the study. Selecting meaningful, appropriate and adequate categories that will be used in the observations. Determining observer agreement or reliability for the selected categories. Preparing an appropriate recording form. Scheduling the observation - randomizing of schedule and sample. I Carrying out the study; making the observations. Checking the stability and consistency of observa- tional results until a stable and consistent pattern of the data is arrived at, and there is a sufficient reduction in sampling error of data. After these phases are completed, the research worker is able to analyze the data, relating it to other important variables of interest. PROCEDURE PROCEDURE Subjects The primary subjects in this study were eighteen supervisors: two third-line supervisors, one second-line supervisor, one supervisor on staff assignment, six first- line supervisors, six assistant supervisors and two work leaders in one department of the Detroit Edison Company. They were engaged in the supervision of technical, rather skilled, service work in the company. The number of em- ployees supervised ranged from one to as many as over twenty-five. With the exception of three, all supervisors worked in one relatively compact area of the company. in examination of the personal data compiled on the super- visors reveals a wide range in the distribution of personal variables, such as age, education, etc., within the popu- lation of this study. Both sexes are represented in this pOpulation of supervisors. Also included as subjects in this study were 121 em- ployees of the various supervisors. Employees completed several inventories used in the study to measure variables of interest. Supervisors and employees are each classified into two groups: old - Holding the same supervisory position (n? employed in the same work group in July 1956 as in June 1955. new - Holding other than the same supervisory position or employed in some other work group in July 1956 than in June 1955. Appendix H shows the supervisor's code number, his supervisory level, and status (whether old or new) and the work group supervised. Appendix J shows the number of employees (m) within each work group according to status (old or new). Two employees (# l9 and 20) were promoted to super— visory positions since June 1955; therefore time sampling observations are not available for their supervisory be- havior. They are included in some of the other analyses, however. Two supervisors (# 11 and 16) left the company between June 1955 and July 1956 and some data are not available for them for certain analyses. Other supervisors (# 4, 9, 15 and 17) were promoted to different supervisory positions between June 1955 and July 1956 so certain data are available for them for two analyses (of the two supervisory positions held during the course of this study). No attempt is made to indicate (other than in Appendix J) the many changes within employee work groups between June 1955 and July 1956. Behavioral Time Sampling Categories for Observation: Since the selection of meaningful, appropriate and adequate categories to be used in observation is extremely important for a ratio-delay or time sampling study, this was an initial phase of the study. It was decided, on the basis of experimental design, that the following in- formation might be useful: the supervisor, time of observa- tion, place observation occurred, the contact made by the supervisor with any other person during the observation, the supervisor's physical action at time of observation, the general subject of his activity at time of observation and the specific topic of his activity. To arrive at the items making up each of these cate- gory areas, the following program was pursued. First, the ‘writer was introduced to the nature of the departments, their operations, specific problems, etc., by each super- visor. Second, casual observation was made for several weeks of the supervisor, the employees and the department itself to develop categories. Third, a listing of possible . categories was made by the writer from the casual observa— tion and comments made by supervisors. Fourth, an interview (or several) was held with each supervisor to get his impressions of, and suggestions for, the categories. The aim was to make them as meaningful (to the supervisors and writer), adequate (covering all phases of super- visory activity), and appropriate as possible. After this was done, the categories were coded and arranged into a standard form. The category coding system for time sampling observations is shown in Appendix A. The Recording Form for Observations: After the categories were completed, a recording form to be used in making the observations was devised, keeping in mind the statistical analyses of the data and the manner in which it would be handled. This recording form is shown in Appendix B. Determining Observer Agreement or Reliability: After several trial schedules or runs (a run or schedule is one round of all eighteen supervisors) had been made to acquaint and familiarize the observer with the nature and peculiarities of the observational method, it was then possible to measure the amount of agreement between two observers as a reliability measure. The observers were the industrial psychologist of the company and the writer. Both observers participated in four runs during the first agreement or reliability check, and in four other runs in the second check. The manner of observation was: a) both observers observed each supervisor at the same predetermined instant as timed by a stop-watch (such as 11:05 50"); b) each of the ob- servers independently recorded the activity of the super- visor into the several categories; c) after each observa- tion was completed and the recording made any special problems were discussed apparent in the observation, but the recording was not altered. It should be noted that the order of supervisors to be observed was randomized for each run from a table of random.numbers. ‘The time of each observation.was assumed to be random by the nature of the observational method itself; 1.9., beginning of the schedules at different times, the unequal interval of times between each observa- tion, and the variety and unequal nature of the super- visors' behaviors. ~Recording Form'When Supervisors Were Not Available: A checklist was devised to determine the information necessary in the time sampling study when the supervisors were not available. Usually this situation arose when supervisors were phoning, or out of their office attending a meeting or engaged with other matters. The checklist is given in Appendix 9. The supervisors in the study were co-operative and careful in completing the checklist so that on a later run it could be collected and the in- formation recorded as on a typical observation. The -22- observer could usually quite easily code and record the information given; if not, the observer briefly questioned the supervisor to get more specific information so it could be coded and recorded. Control Limits and Precision of Study: It was decided not to arbitrarily estimate the number of observations needed for the study, since the time sampling method was being applied in a novel setting. That is, it would be difficult to set such an estimate because of the nonprepetitive nature of the supervisors' behaviors. Instead, the observations were to continue until sampling error fluctuations in the data reduced with cumulative observations over cumulative days. When it appeared that consistent and stable amounts of time spent in the various subject categories for all supervisors in the study were arrived at, the observations would be considered completed. That is, additional observations would not substantially alter the percentages of time spent by the supervisors in the several subject categories. Sub- Ject categories were used for this procedure since the percentages of time spent in these categories mould be related to other variables. The data then could be ana- lysed and related to other variables at this cut—off day of observation(on the basis of stability and consistency). Carrying Out the Observations: Observations were then made of the supervisory be- havior of the eighteen.supervisors in each of the several categories. The observations were conducted over a period from March 14, 1955 to July 1, 1955. There were twenty-five days of observation in all. The observer made observations on the average of two days each week. Approximately three and one half runs (each run consisting of one observation of each of the eighteen supervisors) of observations were conducted each day. By the twenty-fifth day, the percent- ages of time spent by supervisors in each of the several subject (activity) categories appeared sufficiently stable and consistent to cease the observations. The total number of observations for all supervisors was 1558. The percent~ ages of time spent by each supervisor in each of the several subject (activity) categories were based upon the total number of observations of each supervisor. Supervisors # 6, 12, 18 of work group D were observed on a reduced schedule (about half the number of Observa- tions of other supervisors) because of their location away from the remainder of the department. The Inventories Employees completed two inventories in July 1956. The Sgpggvisory Work Analysis Form measured the perceptions of employees of the amount of time spent by their super- visors on the several subject (activity) categories. Also completed was the Supervisory Satisfaction Form which measured the satisfactions of employees with the time spent by their supervisors on the several subject (activity) categories. These inventories are shown in Appendices E and F. All employees (old and now) completed both inventories on their first-line and assistant supervisors. In certain work groups where there were supervisory changes since June 1955. old employees completed inventories on their old supervisorCs) as well. Both inventories were constructed using the paired comparisons method. Each of the eight subject categories was paired with the other seven; employees circled the subject category which seemed most apprOpriate for the supervisor being considered for each inventory. The paired comparisons method was used instead of simple ranking because of its higher reliability. The pairs were randomized from a table of random order of pairs when each of eight objects is paired with the other 897911 0 Although the inventories were completed non-anony- meusly for purposes of the identification of groups for the analysis, this would not appear to be a limitation of these inventories. The nature of the inventory and the relatively high reliabilities within groups would discount this as a limitation. All supervisors completed the Supervisory Work Ana- lysis Form. It was used to measure supervisors perceptions -25- of the amount of time they spent on the several subject (activity) categories. These may be thought of as super- visor self-perceptions of supervisory behavior. Statistical Analysis The time sampling observations were analyzed in the following manner: 1. The agreement between two observers was obtained by the percentage of agreement method. This may be thought of as one measure of reliability for the time sampling observations. 2. All frequency data of the time sampling observa- tions were converted into percentage data for the various categories for the several supervisors. 3. The cumulative percentages of time spent by the several supervisors for the several subject (activity) categories were computed for cumulative days of observa- tion. The increasing stability and consistency of the data with cumulative days of observation may be thought of as another measure of the reliability of the observa- tions. 4. The observed percentages of time spent by each of the several supervisors for the subject, place and contact categories was computed based on the total number of observations for each supervisor in each category. (Note: This was not done for the physical action and -25- topic categories because of the low reliabilities of these categories and the smaller number of observations in each of these categories.) These percentages were then ranked for each supervisor for subject categories. 5. The mean observed percentages of time spent by each of the different supervisory levels (above first-line, first-line and below first-line) for the subject, place and contact categories was computed based on the total number of observations. This was also done for all super- visory levels taken together. 6. Significance of differences in mean observed per- centages of time spent by different supervisory levels for the several subject (activity) categories was tested using Kruskal-Wallis H tests. If a significant H is obtained, the null hypothesis that the different supervisory levels are samples of a common pepulation with a common mean ob- served percentage of time spent in any subject category is rejected. The inference that the supervisory levels do differ in this respect may be made (9). The procedure for testing the relationships and inter- relationships of the other variables to the time sampling observations was as follows: 7. The frequencies with which each subject category was chosen by each employee or supervisor on either of the two inventories (Supervisory Work Analysis and Super- visory Satisfaction Forms) were ranked. -27- 8. The mean ranks for subject categories on each of the two inventories was obtained for employees of the several work groups with respect to both the first-line and assistant supervisor of each.work group. This same procedure was followed for former (old) supervisors of any work group when a change of supervision.had occurred between June 1955 and July 1956. This data was obtained for old and new employees of each work group. 9. Rank order correlation coefficients were com- puted between the ranks of any of the variables of interest to test the several hypotheses. These variables for which ranked data was obtained were: a. Supervisory Behavior (Time Sampling Observations for the Subject Categories) b. Employee Perceptions of Supervisory Behavior (Supervisory Work Analysis Form) c. Employee Satisfactions with Supervisory Behavior (Supervisory Satisfaction Form) d. Supervisors Perceptions of their Supervisory Behavior (Supervisory Work Analysis Form). 10. Measures of agreement for the mean ranks for subject categories on each of the two inventories for the various employee groups (old and new) of the several work groups with respect to both the first-line and assis- tant supervisor (both old and new) of each work group were . computed. The measures used were the coefficient of concordance (corrected for continuity), the mean value of the possible rank correlation coefficients and the reliability of the mean ranks (9 and 10). PRELIMINARY 8T (DY PRELIMINARY STUDY In June 1955. a preliminary study of employee porn captions of supervisory behavior and employee satisfac- tions with supervisory behavior was conducted. A seventyuone item questionnaire was administered to the 107 employees of the various supervisors. The questionnaire was a compilation of questions used by the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, in their long-range program of assessing employee attitudes in various companies. The Survey Research Center has been active in this area in the Detroit Edison Company since 1948. The questions are of the Likert-scale type, and have been analyzed for reliability by the Survey Research Center group. Twelve of the questions concerned background data on the employees, twenty-four concerned the satis- faction of the employees with their first-line supervisor and their perceptions of his behavior, twenty-one asked the same questions about the assistant supervisor and eleven were other job satisfaction questions which were used as control questions. The questionnaires were ad- ministered anonymously, exeept that work groups of super- visors could be identified (the supervisor‘s and assistant supervisor's names were requested). A similar questionnaire was also used to measure the supervisor's perception of his own behavior, his satisfaction with his supervision, and other job satisfaction areas. Both questionnaires appear in Appendix G. Unfortunately, these measures were not congruent with the time sampling observational data and the rela- tionships of interest could not be measured.. Therefore the two inventories discussed previously were designed. Some results of these questionnaires used in the preliminary study are also presented in Appendix.G in Tables XVIII - XXII. These results led to the specific interest in the relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior and employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior. Such a relationship tended to be shown by the results of the preliminary study. FINDIMS W Table I shows percentages of agreement between two independent observers for time sampling observations or supervisory behavior. Two checks of observer agreement gave percentages of agreement or 82.5% and 83.0%. The percentages of agreement for the various categories are also shown for the first check of agreement. Table II shows the percentages of time spent by all supervisors in each of the several subject (activity) categories. The increasing stability and consistency of the observations over time may be noted. Graphic repre- sentations (Figures I, II, and III in Appendix‘;) of cumulative percentages of time spent by all supervisors in subject categories show increasing stability and con- sistency of the various subject categories over time. Table III shows the percentages of time spent by each supervisor for each subject category from the time sampling observations. (The supervisor‘s code number, supervisory level and work group supervised are given in Appendix g.) Table IV shows the percentages of time spent by each supervisor for each place category from the time sampling observations. -5 - Table V shows the percentages of time spent by each supervisor for each contact category from.the tins sampling observations. Table VI shows the mean percentages of time spent by all supervisory levels and by each.supervisory level (above the first-line, firstnline, and below the first— line) for each subject category from the time sampling observations. Table VII shows the mean percentages of time spent by all supervisory levels and by each supervisory level for each place category from the time sampling observations. Table VIII shows the mean percentages of time spent -by all supervisory levels and by each supervisory level for each contact category from the time sampling observa- tion. e Table IX shows the significance of differences in mean observed percentages of time spent by different supervisory levels for each subject category (using Kruskal Wallis H test). Table I shows rank order correlation coefficients between observed supervisory behavior and supervisory behavior as perceived by employees. Table XI shows rank order correlation coefficients between observed supervisory behavior and employee satis- factions with supervisory behavior. -55- Table XII shows rank order correlation coefficients between.observed supervisory behavior and supervisory behavior as perceived by the supervisor. Table XIII shows rank order correlation coefficients between supervisory behavior as perceived by employees and employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior. Table XIV shows rank order correlation coefficients between supervisory behavior as perceived by the supervisor and supervisory behavior as perceived by employees. Table XV shows rank order correlation coefficients between the perceptions of supervisory behavior of older (longer service) employees and the perceptions of super~ visory behavior of newer (shorter service) employees. Rank order correlation coefficients are also reported between the satisfactions with supervisory behavior of older and newer employees. Table XVI shows measures of agreement among employees within.work groups in their perceptions of supervisory behavior. Coefficients of concordance, mean values of the possible rank correlation coefficients, and the reli- ability of the mean ranks are reported. (The number of employees making judgments (m) and the number of behaviors ranked (n) for each work group are given in Appendix g.) Table XVII shows measures of agreement among employees within.work groups in their satisfactions with supervisory behavior. Coefficients of concordance, mean values of the possible rank correlation coefficients, and the reli- ability or the mean ranks are reported.. TABLES TABLE I PERCENTAGE CF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OBSERVERS FOR TIME SA'MIPLING OBSERVATIOB OF SUPERVIS ORY BEHAVIOR «I'M-’9‘...- --¢.—-.¢-—-—- .— -.--A a- llmnber at cheer-"tions % of Agreement mm check 233 826$ Second check 138 83.0% By Categorioa: Place L7 89% Contact 11,? 91 Physical Action in 71; Subject M; 63 Topic #6 71+ -36.. TABLE II CUNULATIVE PERCENTAGES OF TIME SPERT BYUALL SUPERVISORS IN EACH CF THE SEVERAL SUBJECT (ACTIVITY) CATEGORIES FOR CUMULATIVE DAYB OF OBSERVATION at to De Obse at Subject 1 5 10 15 20 23 2h. 25# 1* 25.7 18.8 20.9 20.11 19.0 18.6 18.3 18.0 B - 1.1 3.0 3.0“ 3.2 3.1; 3.6 3.6 c 11.1; 111.2 15.6 16.0 15.2 14.5 111.5 111.7 0 20.0 10.6 8.7 8.9 10.2 10.0 9.9 9.9 E 8.6 17.0 18.8 19.1 19.8 19.0 18.7 18.8 F 5.7 6.1; 7.1 10.5 10.1 10.3 10.6 10.7 G 2507 18.3 1105 901 905 11.2 11.5 11.5 K 209 1.303 13.8 13.0 12.9 13.0 13.0 12.8 mmMWof ‘ ammun- 53 263 596 959 121w who 1502 1558 “ Key to symbols: hfiMflnm mewwvomb Safety and Housekeeping swummmgumrmmmm; Service to Outside Department Contact: Employee Relations and.Contaotl Reports and Paperwork Heating: and Conference: Miscellaneou- MEEIH; OBSERVED PERCENTAGES 0F TIHE SPENT BI'SUPERVISGRS ‘ mmsmmwrmmmmnw Supervieor ¥g* B 0 D E A; F k G__ ‘51 1 . 2.5 3.7 1.2 8.6 110.7 19.8 23.5 2 1.0 5.15 6.2 5.15 9.3 33.0 36.1 1.1 3 5.11 1.1 22.8 9.8 117.1 10.9 30.5 5.11 1+ 1.3 - MM 23.7 - 5.3 19.7 5.3 5 7.5 5.1.. 3.2 22.6 16.1 11.8 20.1; 12.9 6 18.7 14.2 10.1; 1.2 16.7 16.7 2.0 27.1 7 11.2 1.2 19.8 5.2 20.8 111.6 8.3 22.9 8 17.2 8.0 17.2 9.2 18.1 2.3 11.5 16.1 9 5.11 17.3 23.6 9.7 33.3 2.2 12.9 8.6 10 10.8 - 26.5 6.0 30.1 9.6 9.6 7.3 11 1711.6 7.3 11.8 12.0 10.8 7.3 2.1; 10.8 12 25.5 10.6 19.2 8.5 6.1 10.6 - 19.2 13 21»? - 7.0 23.5 7.0 10.6 1.2 25.9 11 28.3 2.1 18.5 18.5 16.3 7.6 - 8.7 15 20.0 6.25 13.751.25 118.75 1.25 2.5 6.25 16 37.8 - 15.6 1.11 22.2 2.2 11.11 13.3 17 60.0 2.1 5.3 - 17.9 2.1 - 12.6 18 27.5 1.95 1.95 3.9 117.1 3.9 - 13.7 '* Key to Symbolet anwual mafiuuoub Surety end Housekeeping Scheduling and P1 Service to Outside quartment Contacts Employee Relations and Contact: Reports and Paperwork fleeting: and Confereneee Inmnhmmn a an - TABLE IV OBSERVED PERCENTAGES OF TIME SPENT BY SUPERVISORS FOR PLACE CATWORIES Superviecr 1* 2 3 '1- 5 6 7 1 76e5 '9 205 1.2 . 205. 909 7e“ 2 111.2 - 7.2 7.2 8.2 5.2 31.0 3 . . 1.3.5 1.3.0 8.7 7.6 1.1 26.1 h - 59.2 2.6” 5.3 6.6 5.3 21.0 5 - 33.3 31.2 5.11 1.1 1.1 27.9 6 - 60.1.. 27.1 - ‘ 2.1 - 10.1.. 7 - 62.5 11.1} 11.2 11.2. - 17e7 8 - 30.7 18.2 3.11 13.6 8.0 26.1 9 - 36.8 30.5 5.3 7.11. 5.3 111.7 10 - 37.3 31.3 - 13.3 3.6 111.5 11 - 8.11 72.3 - 3.6 1.2 117.5 12 - 69.1 11.9 - 7.1 -‘ 11.9 13 - 70.0 ‘ 6.7 - 11.1; . 2.2 16.7 111 - 61.9 15.2 1.2 3.3 10.8 7.6 15 - 22e5 “e25 lees 8e75 "I 1.25 16 - 37.9 110.0 11.11 8.9 11.11 M 17 - 1.0 91.8 - 2.1 - 11.2 13 "' 1906 23.5 " 1507 ' #102 —- __-_. * Key to cymbal” Office Deck Aree Lnother'e 021-1.. Another'e Dee]: Another'e Area Other . “MN“ TABLEV OBSERVED PEROEMAGES OF TIME SPENT BY SUPERVISORS FOR CONTACT CATEGORIES 02 m 011 05 08 Supervieer 00* 1 61.2 - 1.2 1.2 18.5 13.6 1.2 2 30.9 5.2 1.1 6.2 23.7 16.5 13.1 3 18.5 5.1 - 13.0 31.5 8.7 22.8 1 25.0 9.2 11.5 7.9 11.5 22.1 6.6 5 32.3 8.6 20.1 7.5 7.5 7.5 16.1 6 56.2 10.1 2.1 1.2 16.7 2.1 8.3 7 11.7 16.7: 8.3 7.3 13.5 3.1 9-11 8 21.6 12.5 12.5 11.1 25.0 5.7 11.1 9 19.1 30.9 1.8 10.7 26.2 8.3 - 10 37.1 25.3 3.6 9.6 16.9 2.1 1.8 11 - 57.8 - 18.1 7.2 - 3.6 1.8 8.1 12 59-5 9.5 2-11 111.3 1.8 11.8 198 13 21.1 28.9 13.3 5.6 3.3 6.7 17.8 11 31.5 19.6 27.2 1.3 6.5 7.6 3.3 15 ales 53"; 3e75 13.75 3e” " 3e” 16 10.0 21.1 6.7 17.8 1.1 ‘ - 6.7 17 65.9 20.2 1.1 1.3 1.3 - 1.3 18 13.1 15.1 2.0 3.9 - - 5.9 * Key to eymbcle: 00 Alone 01 Own Eznployee 02 Another” Employee Another Supervisor 01' Dep ertment 0 0th? 0 Imediete Supervieor Another Supervisor TABLE VI MEAN OBSERVED PmCEfiTAGES OF TIE-IE SPENT BY DIFE‘ERENI' SUPERVISOR! LEVLLS FOR EACE OF TIE SLVLJU’LL SUBJECT (ACTIVITY) CATEGORIES Supervisory Level 1* B c D E F a 11 Above FHSt‘lin. 1.9 2e“. 1903 9e9 8.0 22e5 26e5 9e5 First-line 10.6 he“. 16e8 905 22e6 9.5 1.008 15.8 Below First-Ibo 33e5 308 10e8 9e0 22.]. 5e? 1e3 13e8 1111 Level- 18.9 3.6 11.7 9.1 19.1 10.7 10.1 13.5 _- _- ._._ L — ' A ._‘. ’ Key to eymbclu Production Safety and Houeekeming Scheduling and Planning Service to Outside Department Contacts Employee Relati one and Contact! Reports and Paperwa'k Meeting: and Conferencee Miscellaneous mommUcwr is“; 113m VI; REA! OBSERVED PERCENTAGES OF TIME SPENT BY DIFFERENT SUPERVISOR! LEVELS FOR EACH OF rm SEVERAL PLACE CATEGORIES Above First-line 29.1; 25.7 6.3 5.6 6.2 5.11 21.11 First—line " #305 .. ZSeO 3.0 700 31.0 1° .5 Below First-11m - 36 e3 “1 e0 e9 6 e? 2.3 12.7 All “7&1. 6e; 3603 28.0 206 6e? 3.2 160‘ “ Key to symbols: Office Desk 1 2 Ares é. Another's Office Another's Desk Another“ Am 7 Other x , [I -42.. TABLE VIII MEAN OBSERVED PERCENTAGES OF TIME SPENT BY DIFFERENT SUPERVISORY LEVELS FOR EACH (F THE SEVERAL C ORTACT GATES CRIBS 8 erviso ”gulf? 00" 01 02 03 d. as 08 Above First-11m Bit-e7 500 500 7.1 22.0 15.3 110° First-line 31“? 17.14. 3.6 3e5 1706 1609 803 Below Fun-11m L2.9 27.1; 8.0 8.0 3.8 3.0 6.9 All LQVOII 38 e3 19 e1 7 e5 5 .0 12.5 6 e3 8 0.3 _._._ 1__ * Key to symbols: Alene Om mnployee Another's Employee Immediate Supervism' Another Supervisor of Department Another Supervisor Other ° °888 . 43 - TABLE IX SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES IN MEAN OBSERVED PEECENTAGES OF TIME SPENT BYTDIFFEREET SUPERVISORY LEVELS FOR THE SEVERAL SUBJECT (ACTIVITY) CATEGGRIES (USING KRUSKAL-WALLIS H TESTS) W W Subject H, Level of Significance A? 11.22 .001 B 1.16 N.S. 0 1.8L. N.s. D .28 u.s. E 5.63 .10 F 5.20 .10 0 12.6u .01 H 2.98 ms. *KquSnmfln Production Safety and Housekeeping Scheduling and Planning Service to Outside Department Contact: Employee Relations mnd.Contacts Reports and Paperwork Meetings and Conferences Miscellaneous mowwunwb TABLEX RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVED SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR AND SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR ‘u--——— ‘nuuo-e—u- -- ' - A3 PERCEIVED BY EMPLOXEES Supervisory u.- .a--..———- .- .n—W—aoq-c. ~~-.—.—_-—. ~-*-”m"—._’—-—”’ . - —..—i.-v.- coo ..-- n -_-..4. Work Old New Group Level Bnploye ea L.S . Enployeee Ins: B Old Std! .111 N .8 . - - 0 First-line .16 13.3 . .05 N .S . 0 Old Assistant 0&9 N.S. .70 .10 D First-line - - .17 11.3. D Ani- tent - - .32 ms . E Firetnllno e01 N03. .001 NeSe “IiItmt .17 NeSe e72 e10 F F11- et-line .70 .10 -.09 N.S. P A881 stunt e56 NeSe e28 NeSe G 01d First-11m -007 E .3 e " '- 0 Old Aesletant .18 151.3. - - H First-line .83 .05 .87 .05 H Old A001: tent .30 11.3 . - - * Level (1' Significance nhSQ TABLE XI RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVED SUPERVISORY BEHAVIW AND EMPLOYEE SATISFACTIONS 'WI TH SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR -- .u- —--———u--.u—.—.— m-‘hmaw- M~ - - -- --- - work Bupe nieory Old * New Grow Level Employees L.S . mpleyeee L.3. 3 on 3‘3“: e80 e05 '3 '- First-1.1.110 0 N .S . .35 N .S . C Old “813th e75 005 e90 e01 D First-line '- . e07 H as e D Lula tent " " e21 N es 0 E Hut-1m. -.OS 13.5. -.09 N.S. E Aunt-at .b,0 11.3 . .51. 11.3. F Firlt-lim 012 HeSe -002 Nese F A831! tant 61‘ Rose e16 NeSe 0 Old Flre 0-1111. .5). ms . - - 0 Old Mill tent -.05 N .S . - - H First-line .39 .01 .71 .10 H 01:: A831: tant .38 N. E: . - «- * Level of 8191111011100 .u... $5313 XII RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN 033mm) SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR AND SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR A3 PERCEIVED B! THE SUPERVISOR Work Supervisory Supervisor“ Level 01' Group Level +4 Humbu- . r' Blgnlflomee A Third-line 1 .55 ms. 1 third-line 2 .86 .05 1 Second-line 3 .77 .05 B 01d start I; .30 ms. 0 Pint-line 5 -e10 Hose 0 Work Leader 17 .66 .10 D Pint-line 6 .61; 11.8. D Aeeletent 12 .06 3.3. E Firth-11m 7 eh? NeSe E Aeeietent 13 .63 3.3. F Meietent 1!; .29 ms. 0 Old First-line 9 .29 13.3. 0 010. Aeeietent 15 .50 ms. 11 First-1m. 10 .146 N.S. ‘1‘]. TABLE XIII RANK ORDm CORRELATI OH BETWEEN SUPEVI 30R! BEHAVIO‘ LS 1,5303]:on BY EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOEE MTISFACTIONS WITH SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR Work Supervisory Old lee 073011;) Level mployeee- Ina.” Employee! Ina. a 010. Start .67 .10 - «- 3 NOV Stiff e80 e05 - " 0 Fume-line .89 .01 .18 ms . 0 Old Anni-tent: .91 .01_ .76 .05 0 New “.1. me .98 .01 .86 .05 D Fired-line - .. .91 .01 D Leel- teub - - .95 .01 E Fulfill” e91}. e01 e98 e01 s “Intent .95 .01 .88 ‘.01 P First-111» e67 e10 e79 H e05 F Mill ‘3“ e91 e01 e93 e01 0 Old Pint-line .38 H .3. - - 0 010 Auletenf. .91 .01 - I - G H" First-line e99 e0]. e7“- .05 0 New Aeeie tent .78 .05 .33 3.3 . H Firth-1111. .86 e05 I e9“. .01 3 Old keel: tent .175 11.3 . - - B ‘0' Alli. tm e86 005 e95 e01 * Level or Significance -ua. TABLE XIV RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR AS PERCEIVE BY Tm SUPERVISOR AND SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR AS PERCEIVED BI EMPLOYEES Old In Work Supervleory Supemeor'e - mployeee mployeee Group Level Number ~ 1" 1" 3 Old Stet! ' 1, .78“ .. ‘ B I" 315.1: 9 e27 " 0 First-line 5 «01. -.07 0 Bee Aux. stunt 17 .15 ."I1.‘. 0 Pint-line 6 - .173 D Aeeletent ' 12 " e88“. 2 ruse-11m ‘ 7 .60 .81" E Auletent 13 .39 .68“ r Aedetent 11+ .69* .80" 0 Old nut-nu. 9 .06 . - 0 Old Auietont 15 .88” , - -. 0 New run-11x1. , 15 .62 .55 0 Nu Aeoletent 19 .76” .88” 3 Fire t—line 10 .51 .76“ B New Auletent 20 -.21 .38 * Similoently other than zero Pet .10 level ** Significantly other than zero at .05 level we Significantly other than zero et .01 level TABLE IV RANK ORDER CORRELATIOH BETWEEN OLD AND NEW EMPLOYEES FOB PERCEPTIONS OF AND SATISFACTIONS WITH SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR Work Supervisory Emploge Mployoe Group Level Peroep one Batisteotlom c nut-11m .89“ .13 0 01:: Assistant .62 .89“ 0 New Assistant .88“? .98“ z First-line .50 .65” E Ann “at .50 .91*** F First-lino #5 .31. 1a Anni-tent .86“ .71.” 0 New First-line .90mm .35“ 0 New unetmt .117 .60 H First-line .90“ .83“ n In Aulltant .67* .71.” ' Signitieantly other than zero et .10 level ” Significantly othor than zero at .05 level on Sigriitloently other than sen e1: .01 level -50. TABLE KY; MEASURES OF.AGREEMENT.LMONG EMPLOYEES IN PERCEIVED SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR W Work Sup ervie or: '0' ‘o i" ' 1"in: Group Level Old L3. New LS. Old New on New a 010 Start .81 .05 - - .62 - .77 - B ‘0' 3%“: e50 H.3e - - e25 " .50 '- 0 Punt-line e63 e01 e81 e01 e58 e75 992 .92 0 on “Cth e31 e01 e66 001 e21 055 .68 ea, c How “Silt“ e51} e01 e69 e01 e1}? e59 e88 e85 D First-line - - .51 .01 - .179 - .97 D “813 tent - " 4+2 e01 - .110 " e95 E P 11‘8'3-111' e 55 e01 e56 e01 .h'h' 052 e80 e92 E A3818 tant 4+0 e 05 e 56 e0]. e25 4&9 e63 e87 F F138”. line e56 e01 e 7’..- .05 eh? ell-8 e8“ e65 P All” tent e58 001 0% e01 e50 e92 e86 0% 0 010 First-line .12 ms. - - .01.. - .33 - 0 Old Anointed; .117 .01 - - 4.2 - .90 - G 110' Fuflt‘MO e29 e01 e55 e0]. e2]. em e73 e8? 0’ 30' Moietmt e18 Nose e28 e05 e09 e16 .50 e5? 3 Phat-line 49 e0). e59 e01 e145 e51 e91 ea? 3 Oldileeietent .19 .05 - - .ll - .58 - a New Assistant .30 .01 .62 .01 .217 .517. .79 .88 * Key to cymbals: W. Coefficient of concordance (Corrected for continuity) 13.8. Level of Significance ;: lean value 01' the possible rank correlation r5 Reliability of the mean ranks coefficients .4 TABLE XVI;w MEASURES OF.AGREEMENT.AMOHG EMPLOYEES IN SATISFACTIONS WITHISUFERVISORY BEHAVIOR r22 work Supervisory we” we 5" Group Level Old L.3. New LS. Old New Old New ' B Old Stiff .70 Reg. "- - Oil-o “ CS7 ‘ B New Staff .56 N.S. - -- .31; - .61 - c First-line .30 .05 .22 ms. .20 «01+ .67 -.18 0 010 Assistant .45 .01 .65 .01 .37 .53 .82 .82 0 new Aeeietent .55 .01 .67 .01 .179 .56 .88 .81; D Phlt‘din. "' " .35 e0]- " 033 "’ e93 D Assistant - - .172 .01 - .uo - .95 E First-line e53 e01 e53 e01 ell]. el‘B e78 e91 E Aeeietent .36 .05 .179 .01 .20 .111 .56 .83 P First-11m .63 .01 .63 17.3. .56 .26 .88 .171 r Assistant .65 .01 .84 .05 .58 .68 .89 .81 0 Old First-line .08 3.3. - - "00‘; - -.05 - G on A881! tant e31]. e01 - 'I' .28 - e82 - 0 Nov First-line .22 .05 .10 ms. .13 -.05 .60-.50 0 nos AniItent .09 ms. .16 N.s.-.01 .02 -.12 .13 H PREV-1111. 43 e0]. . e71 e01 e38 e65 e89 092 H Old Assistent s19 .05 - - sll - s58 - a 1m Assistant .116 .01 .61; .01 .m .57 .88 .89 * Key to symbols: coefficient of concordance (Corrected for continuity) Level of Significance lean value of the possible rank correlation coefficients Reliability of the mean rank. RESULTS TIME SAMPLING OBSERVATIONS OF SUPERVISDRY BEHAVIOR: l. The hypothesis that the relationship between the observations of supervisory behavior of one observer and the observations of supervisory behavior of another independent observer would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: r01 02% O. Percentages of agreement between two observers in two checks on agree- ment were 82.9% and 83.0%. 2. The hypothesis that the relationship between the observations of any category of supervisory behavior on one day by one observer and the observations of the same category of supervisory behavior on other days by the same observer would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: rD1 D2’10. Graphic representations of cumulative percentages of time spent for all subject categories show increasing stability and consistency with cumulative days of observation. 5. The hypothesis that the relationship between ob- served supervisory behavior of one supervisory level and the observed supervisory behavior of other supervisory levels would not be significantly other than zero was tenable for subject categories B, C, D and H; or: rSL so (for B, C, D, H). The hypothesis was untenable 1 SL2 .. 5,3... for subject categories A, E, F and G; or: r #0 SL1 SL2 (for A. E, F and G). H tests demonstrated significant differences of mean observed percentages of time spent on subject categories A, E, F and G between supervisory levels. RELATIONSHIPS ETEJEEN TREE SAMPLIHG OBSERVATIOES OF SUPER- VISORY BEHAVIOR AND OTHER VARIABLES: 4. The hypothesis that the relationship between observations 01 supervisory'behavior (A) and employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) would not be significantly other than zero was tenable; or: rAB'O' Although there were some significant relationships within some groups. there was not a consistent pattern of rela- tionships over all groups. 5. The hypothesis that the relationship between obserVations of supervisory behavior (A) and employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior (C) would not be significantly other than care was tenable; or: rAC'O’ Although there were some significant relationships within some groups, there was not a consistent pattern of rela- tionships over all groups. 6. Tbs hypothesis that the relationship between observations of supervisory behavior (A) and supervisory perceptions of their own behavior (D) would not be signi- ficantly other than zero was tenable; or: rADso. Although there were some significant relationships within some -54. groups, there was not a consistent pattern of relation- ships over all groups. 7. The hypothesis that the relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and em- ployee satisfactions with supervisory behavior (C) would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: rBCflO. Although there were non-significant relationships within a few groups, there tended to be a consistent pattern of relationships over all groups. 8. The hypothesis that the relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and supervisory perceptions of their own behavior (D) wnuld not be significantly other than zero was tenable; or: rBD-O. Although there were some significant relations ships within some groups, there was not a consistent pattern of relationships over all groups. 9. The hypothesis that the relationship between perceptions of supervisory behavior of older (longer service employees (B1) and perceptions of supervisory behavior of newer (shorter service) employees (32) would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: rBl 132l0. Although there were some non-significant rela- tionships within some groups, there tended to be a con- sistent pattern of relationships over all groups. 10. The hypothesis that the relationship between satisfactions with supervisory behavior of older (longer -55. service) employees (Cl) and satisfactions with supervisory behavior of newer (shorter service) employees (02) would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: r01 Cafe. Although there were some non-significant rela- tionships within some groups, there tended to be a consis- tent pattern of relationships over groups. 11. The hypothesis that the relationship between perceptions of supervisory behavior of an employee within a work group (RBI) and perceptions of supervisory behavior of other employees within the work group (BEn) would not be significantly other than zero was untenable; or: r3 BE {0. Measures of agreement tend to show a consis- E tent pattern of relationships over all groups. 12. The hypothesis that the relationship between satisfaction.with supervisory behavior of an employee within a work group (0E1) and satisfactions with super- viscry behavior of other employees within the work group (CEn) would not be significantly other than zero was un- tenable; or: rCE C #0. Measures of agreement tend to E show a consistentlpattern of relationships over all groups. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION The hypothesis that the relationship between the observations of supervisory behavior of one observer and the observations of supervisory behavior of another in- dependent observer would.not be significantly other than sero was rejected as untenable by the findings in this study; or: r01 02IO. The relatively high percentages of agreement obtained using time sampling observations of supervisory behavior tend to show this method is re- liable (in terms of observer agreement). The lower per- centages of agreement obtained for physical action and topic categories than those for other categories indicate that observers cannot achieve a high percentage of agree~ ment in these categories either because the categories are ambiguous and difficult to make discriminaticns between or because an insufficient number of observations was made to obtain a reliable estimate of these categories. The hypothesis that the relationship between the observations of any category of supervisory behavior on one day by one observer and the observations of the same category of supervisory behavior on other days by the same observer would not be significantly other than zero was I'Dl DEKO e The stability and consistency of cumulative percentages rejected as untenable by the findings; or: of time spent by all supervisors in each of the several -57... subject (activity)=categories for cumulative days of observation tend to show that the time sampling method is reliable (in terms of the consistency and stability of obtained results). The hypothesis that the relationship between observed supervisory behavior of one supervisory level and the observed supervisory behavior of other supervisory levels would not be significantly other than zero was accepted as tenable by the findings for subject categories B, C, D and H; or: rSL1 SL2‘0 (for B; C, D, H). The hypothesis was rejected as untenable by the findings for subject categories A, E, F and G; or; rSL1 SLzflo (for A, E, F, G). Significant differences of mean observed percentages of time spent on subject categories A, E, F and G between the different supervisory levels, as demonstrated by Kruskal-Wallis H tests, were obtained. This finding indicates that there are real intra-supervisory level differences in behavior (time spent) in categories A, E, I and G, but no real intra-supervisory level differ— ences in behavior (time spent) in categories B, C, D and H. The hypothesis that the relationship between observa~ k tions of supervisory behavior (A) and employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) would not be significantly other than zero was accepted as tenable by the findings; or: rABaO. A conclusion that can be drawn from this finding is that employees do not perceive the behavior of supervisors in terms of what he does or in terms of the distribution.of his time in the several subject (acti- vity) categories. This conclusion would tend to be cone trary to a logical or common-sense belief that employee perceptions of supervisory behavior are related to super- visory behavior. The hypothesis that the relationship between observa— tions of supervisory behavior (A) and employee satisfac- tions with supervisory behavior (C) would not be signi— ficantly other than zero was accepted as tenable by the findings; or: rAC'O' That the satisfactions of employees with supervisory behavior are not in terms of what the supervisor does or in terms of the distribution of his time in the several subject (activity) categories can be concluded. This conclusion.would tend to be contrary to a logical or common-sense belief that employee satisfac~ tions with.supervisory behavior are related to supervisory behavior. The hypothesis that the relationship between observa- tions of supervisory behavior (A) and supervisory perceptions of their own.behavior (D) would not be significantly other than core was accepted as tenable by the findings; or: rApeo. The conclusion can be drawn that supervisors' self- perceptions of their behavior are not related to their be- havior, which.would be contrary to the logical or common- sense belief that such a relationship does exist. The hypothesis that the relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and employee satis- factions with supervisory behavior (6) would not be signi— ticantly other than zero was rejected as untenable by the findings; or: rBCKO. Significant positive rank-order correlation coefficients were obtained in almost all groups between these two variables; in those groups where the find- ing was not upheld, it may be noted that low mean rank reliabilities of one or both measures existed. Perhaps more reliable measures might also have supported the find- ing. This finding leads to the conclusion that employee perceptions of supervisory behavior are related to (or in terms of) their satisfactions with supervisory behavior. This conclusion would appear to be of considerable con— sequence and.will be discussed further later in this section. The hypothesis that the relationship between employee perceptions of supervisory behavior (B) and supervisory perceptions of their own behavior (D) would not be signi- ficantly other than zero was accepted as tenable by the findings; or: rBD-O. The conclusion may be drawn that supervisory self-perceptions and employee perceptions of the same supervisory behavior are not related, which is again contrary to a common~sense, logical belief. The lack of relationship can be understood. however, since neither of the perceptions are related to the supervisory behavior itself (as observed). -60... The hypotheses that both the perceptions of supervisory behavior and satisfactions with supervisory behavior of old and new employees would not be related significantly other than zero was rejected as untenable by the findings; or: rBl Bafo and rCl 02#O.. The conclusion drawn is that relationships exist for both the perceptions of (between old and new employees) and satisfactions with (between old and new employees) supervisory behavior. This con- clusion is of interest since one might expect time of employment under a supervisor to be a factor influencing the accurracy of both perceptions and satisfactions. The hypotheses that both of the measures of the perceptions of supervisory behavior and satisfactions with supervisory behavior of an employee within a work group and these same measures of other employees within the work group would not bgeé%ggificantly other than zero was rejected as untenable by the findings; or: BE; 0 and rCE CE which.wer; obtained within most work groups lead to the #0. The significant measures of agreement conclusion that the inventories used were reliable measures of the variables being measured.. The absence of relationships between both employee and supervisory perceptions of supervisory behavior and observed supervisory behavior. the absence of relationships between employee satisfactions with supervisory behavior and observed supervisory behavior and the presence of relationship>'between employee perceptions of separvisory -6 I... behavior and employee satisfactions with supervisory be- havior are of considerable interest. If employees and/or supervisors perceptions of supervisory behavior are not re— lated to observed supervisory behavior, than much methodol- ogy which utilizes verbal or tritten estimates of super- visory behavior may be subject to further scrutiny. Job- analysis and job evaluation procedures, in which report- ing of activity is used, might also be ro-oxamined. If employee perceptions of supervisory behavior are related to satisfactions with supervisory behavior, than sound and adequate training programs might be designed which consi- der this relationship. In human relations training, for example, an effort directed at changing employee percep- tions of supervisory behavior might be as effective (in terms of attitude change) as changing the behavior of the supervisor. Other implications of this finding may be ap- pare t to the reader. The implications of the conclusions and findings of this study for research are obvious. The findings and conclusions should be tested with other sanples of pop- ulations and/or in other industrial settings. If the findings and conclusions are upheld in sue; a study, pro- gress may have been made in understanding some additional dynamic factors of the industrial enviornmont. COMMENTS COffidEI‘ITS An analysis of the relationships between employee satisfaction and their perceptions of the behavior (activi- ties) of the supervisor and other relationships within work groups might have modified some of the conclusions reached as to the tenability of some of the hypotheses. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of this thesis, but should be noted in connection with.possiblo interpretation of conclusions reached in this study. Some Justification should, perhaps be made for the limited size of the sample of supervisors used in this study. The entire department used in this study was chosen because it represented the largest number of supervisors and employees in any department in the company in a cen- tralized location. Even within this department, however, there were some small n's at some supervisequevels. It was decided to proceed on this basis because this study was to be used to evaluate the time sampling method; hence the suggestion that inter-industry research be conducted to test the findings and conclusions of this study. The time sampling method appears to be a useful method for this kind of research. One desirable improvement which might be made in future research would be the addition of some qualitative or interaction categories for observation, as well as the quantitative categories used. This could add to an understanding of the effect (if any) of super- visory behavior upon employee perceptions and satisfactions. ~65- It was doubtful whether the assumption of normality of the distribution of the population with respect to any of the variables of interest could be made. Therefore non— parametric statisticsCfor'which this assumption is not required) were used throughout the analysis. The use of non-parametric statistics was also desirable because of the small samples in some analyses. It is believed that all assumptions of the statistics used have been satisfied. One additional comment should be made concerning the lack of correSpondence of this data to the Shartle (27) data. Shartle found a significant relationship between the perceptions of performance (activity) of naval officers and logged time of their performance, using the Work Analy- sis Forms he developed. It should be noted that this re- lationship was for only a three-day period (not for some on-going behavior or performance as in this study), and that the logs were kept by the officers themselves (not independent observations of the behavior or performance as in this study). Shartle does state, however, that this relationship is no indication of the true validity of the Work Analysis Forms. No other validity information appears to be available, however. Indeed, one might speculate that validity would be lacking in this approach to measuring per- formance by the use of inventories from the findings of this study. BIBLIOGRAPHY ~~‘(1) (2) (5) ‘(4) (5) ‘(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) “(11) (12) .(13) BIBLIOGRAPHY Alederige, John M. 'Work sampling without formulas. Facto Management and Maintenance, Mar. 1954, ’ V0 . . NO- 3. pp. 136-38. Bales, Robert F. Interaction Process Analysis, 1950, AddisonPWesley Press, Inc. Beardsley, D. W. Ratio delay studies and their application in the Cadillac Machine Shop. Fifth Year Re art, 1950, Cadillac and G. M. Institute. Biggane, Robert J. How we determine training needs. Personnel Journal, May 1950, 6, Ho. 1. Bolda, Robert A. A Determination of Supervisors' Activities, Cadillac Motor Car Division, general Ectors Corporation (unpublished study). Brayfield, A. H. and Crockett, W. H. Employee attitudes and employee performance. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, Sept. 1955, 52, 5,pp. 396-4 . Brisley, c. L. How you can put work sampling to work. Fact H em at and Maintenance, July 1952, V0 0 g 9 PP. ‘ Business Week, Studying a Job by work sampling, DOOe 12'-19539 pp. 58-61e Edwards, Allen L. Statistical methods for the Behavior Sciences, 165E, Rinehart and Company, Inc., Few York. Chapters 8, 10, 15, 14, 15, 19. Festinger, Leon and Kate, Daniel. Research Methods- in the Behavioral Sciences, The Dryden.Press, flew York, Chapters 3, 6, §,'IO and 15. Flanagan, John C. Principles and Procedures in EvaluatingpPerformance, Personnel, her. 1952, ES, 5. Ghiselli, E. C. and Brown, C. W. ‘Personnel wmi Industrial Psychology, (Second Edition), 1955, MoGraw— 1 Book Company, Inc., New York. Chapters 2, 15, 15. Hemphill, John K. Situational Factors in Leader- ship, 1949, Leadership Studies No. 4;_Columbus, 0; Personnel Research Board, The Ohio State University. -65- (14) Haslett, Schuyler Dean. Human Factors in Manage- ment, (Second Edition), 1951, Part I, Harper and Brothers, New York, pp. 1~55. (15) Rouseknecht, A. H. Who needs training - and why. Personnel, Jan. 1950, 26, 4. (16) Johnson, Palmer 0. Statistical Methods in Research, 1949, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York. Chapter VIII. “(17) Kornhauser, A. and Sharp, A. Employee attitudes: Suggestions from a study in a factory. Personnel \(18) Lawsche, C. H., Jr. Productivity and morale. Journal of A- lied Ps cholo , 1950, 52, 2. (l9) Maier, N. R. F. Psychology in Industry, Houghton— Mifflin Company, 1946. (20) Meier, N. R. F. Principles of Human Relations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1952. (21) Meyer, H. H. Factors Related to Success in the Human Relations Aspect of Work -‘§roup Leadership, Tsychology monograph, 1951, 65, E0. 520. (22) Nadler, Gerald. Do you know what your supervisors ‘ do? Personnel Psychology, 1955, 6, pp. 545-554. (25) Personnel Research Section Report #946, Dept. of the Army, Activities and Behaviors of Production Su ervisors, April'1952. (2a) Shartle, Carroll L. ‘Leadership and Executive Perfgrmance, American management Association, XX 9 , Ppe 570-80e (25) Smith, H. C. Psychology of Industrial Behavior, 1955. McGraw-Hill Book COmpany, Inc., flew York. Chapters 6, 10, 14, 16. (26) Stogdill, Ralph M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, pp. 55-71. (27) Stogdill, Ralph M. and Shartle, Carroll L. Methods in the Study of Administrative Leadership, Research Monograph ho. SO, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University. (28) Ste gdill, Ralph M, Shartle, Carroll L. and Asso- ciates. Patterns of Administrative_Performance, Research Monograph No. 81, Bureau of Business Research, The Ohio State University. (29) Survey Research Center; University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan, The Detroit Edison Stu , a_§2§pagyawide Study of—Emplgyee Attitudes, 9. (50) U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Job Analysis Procedure - War Manpower, Commission "Tra g a e erence Manual for Job Analysis," Washington, D. 0., 1944, p. 1030 APPENDICES APP .1 ~41“: D Iii A CATEGORY CODING SYSTEM FOR TIME SAMPLING OBSERVATIONS (Place, Contact, Physical Action Categories) Place Categories Contact Categories 1 Office 00 Alone 2 Desk Ol Own employee 5 Area 02 Another employee 4 Another's Office 05 Immediate supervisor 5 Another's Desk 04 Another supervisor in Dept. 6 Another's Area 05 Another supervisor 7 Other 08 Other Physical Action Categories 00 Plans 11 Ol Talks 12 O2 Listens 15 O5 Discusses 14 04 Looks or observes 15 O5 Inspects 16 O6 Examines 17 07 Roads 18 08 Writes 19 09 Phones 20 10 Distributes Picks up, obtains Demonstrates Explains Instructs Walks Manipulates Computes Files, Sorts Meeting Other ATEGORY CODING srsrsu nos TIME SAHPLIHG OBSERVATIOHS (Subject, Topic Categories) Subject Categories A Production B Safety & Housekeeping C Scheduling & Planning D Service to Outside Dept. Contacts E Employee Relations, Contacts F Reports & Paper Work 0) ‘01?me (D'Qmw‘F-‘WNH (cannons #WNH \fl-F’WNH #KNNH U1~PUINH 7 Topic Categories Productive work Special work problem Checking work Distributing & Collecting work Miscellaneous Safety activity Housekeeping activity Supply activity Miscellaneous Scheduling of work Follow-up work progress Work routine planning Rescheduling Miscellaneous Requests for service Inquiries on progress Follow—up on service Inquiries on usage, past service, etc e Change in routine Request from outside co. Request to another dept. Request to outside co. Miscellaneous Work problem Personal problem Interviewing and hiring Induction Follow-up reports Job instruction.& training General supervision Miscellaneous Production statistics Employee follow—up reports Activity reporting Reports for group meetings Attendance, time & personnel reports Analysis of reports Miscellaneous reports (Subject, Topic Categories - cont.) Subject Categories G Meetings and Conferences H Miscellaneous 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 l 2 5 4. 5 6 7 8 9 Topic Categories Departmental meetings Informational meetings Work simplification meetings Group meetings Interdepartmental meetings Informal meetings Committee meetings Conferences outside company Miscellaneous meetings Vacation Illness Other absence Coffee break Lunch hour Personal business Outside company business Professional Ass'n. activities Miscellaneous e o- - . 3).“.‘75‘5". “I7 ILL L 1-111314“; B TE APA DAY COMMENTS PAGE NO. '4? t I ‘Illl‘lllpll‘llv i Ill-III 1" Illll‘ll‘l , u : . é \ ‘ y I 111! (I41 ilJll 4| 11.1 I‘ll Iil‘lllll‘ll ‘1 Jul '1 I11! :11 4 A PPIJND IX C Since you were busy, I didn't want to disturb you. 'Wbuld you please check below to complete my observation? ' Supervisor L L Phoning Time Meeting With whom? Employe of my own group Some other employs My immediate supervisor Another supervisor in Accounting Services Department Another supervisor of different department My assistant supervisor My work leader Someone other than above (If so, please list below): About what? (Please state in a brief sentence) Thank you, gain APPLJND IX D Name I A ‘Work Group SUPERVISORY WORK ANALYSIS FORM The Detroit Edison Company Industrial Psychblogy Division Supervisor ‘Were you working in this group in June 1955? Yes or No (Circle One) The purpose of this analysis it to determine the relative amount of -your time) devoted to major supervisory responsibilities and activities. These major supervisory responsibilities and activities are: l. 2. 3. h. S. 7. PRODUCTION - Productive work, special work problem, checking work, distributing and collecting work, miscellaneous productive activity. SAFETY AND HOUSEKEEPING - Safety activity, housekeeping activity, supply activity, miscellaneous safety and/or housekeeping activity. SCHEDULING AND PLANNING - Scheduling of work, follow-up on work progress, work routine planning, rescheduling of work, miscellaneous scheduling and planning activity. SERVICE TO OUTSIDE DEPARTMENT CONTACTS - Answering requests for service from outside department personnel, making inquiries on progress of service, follow- up on service, inquiries on usage or past service, making changes in routine to accomodate outside contacts, request from outside the Company, making a request to another department, making a request to another company, miscellaneous outside contact. EMPLOYE RELATIONS AND CONTACTS - Dealing with employe's work problem, dealing with personal problem of employs, interviewing and hiring, induction of new employs, making follow-up reports on employee, Job instruction and training, general supervision, miscellaneous employs relations and contact activity. REPORTS AND PAPERWORK - Production statistics reports, follow-up reports, reporting activities to supervision and management, attendance reports, employs time reports, personnel reports, analyzing reports, miscellaneous reports. MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES - Departmental meetings, informal meetings, work simplification meetings, group meetings, inter-departmental meetings, informal meetings, committee meetings, conferences outside the Company, miscellaneous meetings and conferences. MISCELLANEOUS - Coffee break, lunch period, personal business, outside company activities, professional association activities, other miscellaneous activities not covered above. -2... E‘RVISORY SATISFACTION FORM Again, please consider your supervisor’s entire range of duties from day to day ing at least a month period. , For each pair of supervisory responsibilities and activities, circle'the one for ch you are more satisfied with the amount of time your supervisor spends on the activity. this for every pair. For example: PRODUCTION or (SCHEDULING &: PLANNING If you circled SCHEDULING & PLANNING (as in the example) this would indicate that are more satisfied with the amount of time your supervisor spends on SCHEDULING & PLANNING n you are with the (amount of) time spent on Production. m more satisfied with the amount of time 11w supervisor spends on: PRODUCTION or SAFETY & HOUSEKEEPING 16. SCHEDULING & PLANNING or MISCELLANEOUS SERVICE TO OUTSIDE or SAFETY & . 17. SAFETY & HOUSEKEEPING or SCHEDULING & DEPARTMENT CONTACTS HOUSEKEEPING PLANNING REPORTS & PAPERWORK or SAFETY & ' 18. SAFETY 8r. HOUSEKEEPING or EMPLOYE RELATIONS HOUSEKEEPING & CONTACTS MISCELLANEOUS or SAFETY & HOUSEKEEPING 19. SAFETY & HOUSEKEEPING or MEETING & CONFERENCES SERVICE TO OUTSIDE or MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT CONTACTS 20. MISCELLANEOUS or EMPLOYE RELATIONS & CONTACTS REPORTS & PAPERWORK or MISCELLANEOUS 21. MISCELLANEOUS or MEETINGS & CONFERENCES MISCELLANEOUS or PRODUCTION 22. PRODUCTION or EMPLOYE RELATIONS & EMPLOYE RELATIONS or REPORTS & PAPERwORK . CONTACTS & CONTACTS 23. MEETINGS & CONFERENCES or REPORTS & EMPLOYE RELATIONS or MEETINGS<& . PAPERWORK & CONTACTS CONFERENCES 2h. PRODUCTION or SERVICE TO OUTSIDE MEETINGS &'CONFERENCES or PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT CONTACTS SERVICE TO OUTSIDE arm 5’4 ”LOVE“ 25. REPORTS & PAPERWORK or SERVICE TO OUTSIDE DEPARTMENT CONTACTS CONFERENCES figmgfis DEPARTMENT CONTACTS .SERVICE TO OUTSIDE or MEETINGS & 26. PRODUCTION or SCHEDULING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONTACTS CONFERENCES ‘ ‘ 27. EMPLOYE RELATIONS & CONTACTS or SCHEDULING REPORT & PAPERWORK or PRODUCTION & PLANNING SCHEDULING & PLANNING or SERVICE TO 28. MEETINGS & CONFERENCES or SCHEDULING & OUTSIDE DEPARTMENT CONTACTS . _ PLANNING SCHEDULING & PLANNING or flSCE'EITNEUUS , 05 #0 A 7’; :- PA } 67/2 Lu [J/L) /~—_. APPLE-'1) IX G FORM 1 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY DIVISION East Lansing, Michigan June 13, 1955 INSTRUCTIONS 1. Most of the questions can be answered by checking one of the answers (q’) listed under the question. If you do not find the exact answer that fits your case, check the one that comes closest to it. Or, if you wish to, write your own answer. 2. Please answer the questions in order. Do not skip about. 3. Please make use of the space at the end of the questionnaire to make as many additional comments as you wish. Background Information People differ in the way they feel and the ideas that they have. This may be because of the number of years they have worked, the amount " of money they make, and the kind of job they have. To note these differences for purposes of this study on supervisory demands, we need to know a few basic facts about you. THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. This information begins on next page. 11. 12. 13. -1- Name of your department. Name of your work group. What is your sex? ‘_____.Male ._____ Female Are you - Single _____ Widow or widower Married ______Divorced or separated How much schooling have you had? (Check the highest completed.) Some grammar school Completed grammar school ______Some high school Business or trade school plus some high school ._____ Completed high school ______Completed high school and business school Some college ‘_____ Completed college What is your age? (write in) How long have you been with the company? ( write in) years How long have you worked with your present supervisor? months years How many people are there in your work group? number What is your present Job, grade or classification? ( write in ) What are your weekly wages (before deductions)? How many dependents do you have? What is the name of your first-line supervisor? The following questions are about this person. 1h. How much interest does he take in your getting along on your job? (Check only one answer) Very little interest Some interest Fairly interested A good deal of interest . Very much interest . 15. How well do you know what he expects of you? (Check only one answer) Not well at all, I am never sure of what he expects of me. Not too well, I am generally not sure of what he expects of me. Sometimes I know what he expects of me and sometimes I don't know. Quite well, I am generally sure of what he expects of me. Very well, I am always sure of what he expects of me. 16. How much emphasis does your supervisor put on getting out the work? (Check one) A great deal of emphasis a he emphasizes this more than anything. . . Quite a bit of emphasis a he emphasizes this a loto Some emphasis m it is one of the most important things about the job, but it is not the only one. Not too much emphasis - he feels that a good many other things are just as important. He doesn't put much emphasis on getting out a lot of work. 17. In what way does he supervise you and the people in your work group? one answer for each line.) This phrase Often I lOften q Fairly Occa- sionally Once in a while (Check Very'seldom Arranging the work Seeing that the work is done properly Making work assignments Enforcing the rules Keeping the employes supplies with materials, etc. Hearing complaints and grievances Helping with work problems Keeping employes posted on how well they are doing Discussing personal matters with employee Making recommendations for promotions, transfers and pay increases Taking care of other personnel matters like time off, vacations, etc. Training new employes Training old employes for better jobs Discussing matters and providing information in group meetings I a I d 18. How much time and effort does your supervisor in planning and scheduling the work for your work group? (Check one) He spends a great deal of time planning and scheduling the work for my work group. He spends considerable time planning and scheduling work for my work group. He spends a little time planning and scheduling work for my work group. He Spends very little time planning and scheduling work for my work group. 190 20. 21. 22. How well does your supervisor do the technical requirements of his work - understanding the practical problems of the group's work,vknowing how to do all the work done in your group, planning the work schedule, etc.? He handles the technical part of his job extremely well. Very'well Fairly well Handles some of the technical parts of his job fairly well. He does not handle the technical part of his job at all well. How well does your supervisor do the human relations side of his JOb - getting people to work well together, building a team, giving recognition for good work done, letting people know where they stand, etc? (Check one) He handles the human relations part of his job extremely well. Very'well Fairly well Handles some of the human relations parts well, and others not so well. He does not handle the human relations part of his job at all well. When was the last time he reviewed your work with you? (Check only one answer) Within the last three months Three to six months ago Six months to a year ago ._____ A year to two years ago More than two years.ago Never has reviewed my work with me How closely does your supervisor supervise your group? (Check one) He uses very general supervision; the group is definitely.on its own. He uses fairly general supervision; the group is pretty much on its own. He uses a moderate amount of supervision. He uses fairly close supervision. He uses very close supervision. -5- 23. How much help do you feel you get from him when you really need it? Never gives me any help when I really need it. _____ Hardly ever gives me any help when I really need it. Is sometimes helpful when I really need it. ._____ Is usualIy helpful when I really need it. ______Always gives me all the help I really need. 2h. From your dealings with your supervisor, how well would you say the following comments fit him? Fits him Fits him.VDoesn't (Doesn't This phrase very well fairly' fit him. fit him well too well at all Considerate of our feelings Unnecessarily strict with us Reasonable in what he expects Is a "leader" of men Bossy Quick to criticize Is a "driver" .Liksable Carries "weight'I with his boss ‘Willing to try out new ideas Too anxious to please his boss; 25. How often are there group meetingsin.which employes in your work group can discuss things with the supervisor? (Check only one answer) Often Occasionally Practically'never Frequently Seldom 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. -5- Do these group discussions do any good? (Check only one answer) Yes, he likes to get our ideas and tries to do something about them. No, not really, it”s just talk. No, we don't get a real hearing from our own ideas. We never have group discussions. How well do you know what he thinks about your work? (Check only one answer) I know very definitely what he thinks of my work. '_____ I have a good idea of what he thinks of my work. I have some idea of what he thinks of my work. I am not sure of what he really thinks of my work. I have very little idea of what he thinks of my work. How good is he at handling people. (Check only one answer) Excellent Average Poor Good Fair How free do you feel to diScuss important things about your Job with him? (Check only one answer) very free _____Quite free _____Not very free _____Not at all free How free do you feel to discuss your personal problems with your supervisor? _____Very free _____Fairly free _____Not very free _____Not at all free Do you feel that he will go to bat or stand up for you? (Check only one answer) _____Yes, definitely ”____Probably'will _____May or may not _____Probably won't _____No, he won't Do you feel that he is fair in dealing with the people you work with? (Check only one answer) Very fair Quite fair About average Rather unfair Very unfair 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. AO. e7- How does your supervisor usually treat employes with complaints? (Check only one answer) Discourages complaints ______Neutral toward complaints nufl_mCoes to bat for them How reasonable is he in what he expects of you? (Check only one answer) Very reasonable m_m_MFairly reasonable _____About average Not very reasonable _m”"uQuite reasonable Does he pull for the Company or for the man? (check only one answer) He is usually pulling for the Company He is usually pulling for himself He is usually pulling for the men He is usually pulling both for the Company and the men In general, do you feel your supervisor is getting better or worse as a supervisor? (Check one) Getting better as a supervisor . _ _Staying about the same Getting worse as a supervisor Taking all things into consideration, how satisfied are you with your supervisor? (Check one) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied ‘___ _Very dissatisfied What is the name of your assistant supervisor? The following questions are about this person. How much interest does he take in your getting along on your job? (Check only one answer) Very little interest ‘_____Some interest _____Fairly interested ____WA good deal of interest '____;Very much interest How well do you know what he expects of you? (Check only one answer) Not well at all, I am never sure of what he expects of me Not too well, I am generally not sure of what he expects of me -8— Sometimes I know what he expects of me and sometimes I don't know Quite well, I am generally sure of what he expects of me ____;Very well, I am always sure of what he expects of me hl. How much emphasis does your assistant supervisor put on getting out the work? (Check one) A great deal of emphasis a he emphasizes this more than anything. Quite a bit of emphasis - he emphasizes this a lot. Some emphasis - it is one of the most important things about the job, but it is not the only one. Not too much emphasis - he feels that a good many other things are just as important. He doesn't put much emphasis on getting out a lot of work. A2. In what way does he supervise you and the people in your work group? (Check one answer for each line.) This phrase Often , Fairly Often Occa- sionally Once id a while Very'seldom Arranging the work Seeing that the work is done properly Making work assignments Enforcing the rules Keeping the employes supplies with materials, etc. Hearing complaints and grievanaes #4 Helping with wOrk problems Keeping employes posted on how well they are doing Discussing personal matters with employes Making recommendations for promotions, transfers and pay increases Taking care of other personnel matters like time off, vacations, etc. Training new employee Training old employes for better Jobs Discussing matters and providing information in group meetings h3. How much time and effort does your assistant supervisor in planning and scheduling the work for your work group? (Check one) He spends a great deal of time planning and scheduling the work for my work group. He spends considerable time planning and Scheduling work for my work group. He spends a little time planning and schedulhng work for my work group. , He spends very little time planning and scheduling work for my work ‘ group. -10- hh. How well does your assistant supervisor do the technical requirements of his work - understanding the practical problems of the group's work, knowing how to do all the work done in your group, planning the work schedule, etc.? He handles the technical part of his job extremely well Very'well Fairly well Handles some of the technical parts of his job fairly well He does not handle the technical part of his job at all well hS. How well does your assistant supervisor do the human relations side of his Job - getting people to werk well together, building a team, giving recognition for good work done, letting people know where they stand, etc? (Check one) He handles the human relations part of his Job extremely'well. Very well Fairly'well Handles some of the human relations parts well, and others not so well. A He does not handle the human relations part of his deb at all well. h6. How closely does your assistant supervisor supervise your group? (Check only one) He uses very general supervision; the group is definitely on its own _____He uses fairly general supervision; the group is pretty much on its own. ._____He uses a moderate amount of supervision. _____He uses fairly close supervision He uses very close supervision. h7. How much help do you feel you get from him when you really need it? _____Never gives me any help when I really need it. ‘_____Hardly ever gives me any help when I really need it. _____Is sometimes helpful when I really need it _____Is usually helpful when I really need it. Always gives me all the help I really need. -11- AB. From your dealings with your assistant supervisor, how well would you say the following comments fit him? Fits him Fits him Doesn't Doesn't This phrase very well fairly fit him. fit him well too well at all Considerate of our feelings Unnecessarily strict with us Reasonable in what he expects Is a "leader" of men Bossy Quick to criticize Is a "driver" Likeable Carries "weight" with his boss 'Willing to try out new ideas Too anxious to please his boss h9. How well do you know what he thinks about your work? (Check only one answer) I know very definitely what he thinks of my work. I have a good idea of what he thinks of my work. I have some idea of what he thinks of my work. I am not sure of what he really thinks of my work. I have very little idea of what he thinks of my work. 50. How good is he at handling people. (Check only one answer) Excellent Average Poor Good Fair 51. How free do you feel to discuss important things about your job with him? (Check only one answer) Very free Quite free Not very free Not at all free S2. 53. 5h. 56. 57. 58. -12- How free do you feel to discuss your personal problems with your supervisor? Very free Quite free Not very free Not at all free Do you feel that he will go to bat or stand up for you? (Check only one answer) Yes, definitely May or may not No, he won't Probably will Probably won't Do you feel that he is fair in dealing with the people you work with? (Check only one answer) Very fair About average Very unfair Quite fair Rather unfair How does your assistant supervisor usually treat employes with complaints? (Check only one answer) Discourages complaints Neutral toward complaints Goes to bat for them How reasonable is he in what he expects of you? (Check only one answer) very reasonable Fairly reasonable About average Not very reasonable Quite unreasonable Does he pull for the Company or for the man? (Check only one answer) He is usually pulling for the Company. _____ He is usually pulling for himself. He is usually pulling for the men. He is usually pulling both for the Company and the men. In general, do you feel your assistant supervisor is getting better or worse as an assistant supervisor? (Check one) Getting better as an assistant supervisor ~ Staying about the same Getting worse as an assistant supervisor E13. 59. Taking all things into consideration, how satisfied are you with your assistant supervisor? (Check one) Very satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Fairly satisfied Very dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 60. How satisfied are you with the amount of information you get about what is going on in the Company? (Check one answer only) Very well satisfied , Somewhat satisfied but could get more Fairlywell satisfied Not very well satisfied 61. Now, considering you job as a whole, how well do you like it? (Check only one answer) I like it very much ______Don‘t like it too well Like it fairly well _“____Don't like it at all Like some things about it, dislike others 62. How well do you feel your department is managed? (Check only one answer) Not managed well at all ."____ Fairly well managed _____ Not managed very well ._____ Very well managed 63. How well do the people you work with help one another? (Check only one) ._____ When you need help it's difficult to get. ______ You can usually get people to help if you ask them. When you need help people are there pitching in almost before you ask them. In my work it is not possible for anyone to help me. 6h. How do you feel your group compares with other groups doing similar work in getting the Job done? (Check only one) One of the best Above average Better than most A little below average A little above average One of the poorest In my job I do not work with any one group of people. 65. 67. 68. 41,- How do you feel your group compares with other groups when it comes to sticking together to get what the group wants or wants to do. (Check only one answer) One of the best groups at sticking together to get what the group wants. Better than most groups at sticking together to get what the group wants. About average group at sticking together to get what the group wants. Not as good as most groups at sticking together to get what the group wants. . One of the poorest groups at sticking together to get what the group wants. Do you feel that you are really a part of your work group? (Check only one) Yes, I feel I really belong. Yes, I feel I am included in.most ways but not in all. Yes, I feel I am included in some ways but not in others. No, I don't feel I really belong. In my'job I do not work with any one group of people. How satisfied are you with your present wages? (Check only one answer) Completely satisfied Dissatisfied a little Very well satisfied , Quite dissatisfied Fairly well satisfied Very dissatisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied How important do you feel the work you do is to the operation of The Detroit Edison Company? (Check only one answer) The Company could not run without the kind of work I am doing. The Company would have difficulty operating without the kind of work I am doing. The Company'might have some difficulty operating without the kind of work I am doing. The Company would have little difficulty operating without the kind of work I am doing. The Company would have no difficulty operating without the kind of work I am doing. -15- 69. In general, how do you feel about the working hours here at The Detroit Edison Compamy? (Check only one answer), . __ I like them very much. I like them fairly well. __ I like some things about them, dislike others. __ I dislike them somewhat. I don't like them very much. 70. How do p§ople you work with feel about working for The Detroit Edison? (Check only one __ They really want people outside the Company to know they work here. __ They rather like to have people outside the Company know they work here. __ It doesn't really matter to them whether people know they work hers. __ They don't like people to know they work for Detroit Edison. 71. Taking things as a whole, how satisfied are you? (Check only one answer) I'm very satisfied with the Company and aw Job and would not want to see them make any changes. ' I'm very satisfied but I know of some things that could be changed. I'm quite satisfied with the Company but there certainly are many things that could be changed. I'm not very satisfied but I can see no way things could be changed. I'm not satisfied and there are a great many things that could be changed. ‘ -16- PLEASE GO BACK OVER ALL THE PAGES TO BE SURE YOU DID NOT SKIP ANY OF THE QUESTIONS. The rest of this page and the next page are for any other points you would like to make. We would appreciate your comments. Thank you for your cooperation. Supervisors June 13, 1955 Form 2 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY DIVISION EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN INSTRUCTIONS 1. Most of the questions can be answered by checking one of the answers (J) listed under the question. If you do not find the exact answer that fits your case, check the one that comes closest to it. Or, if you wish to, write your own answer. 2. Please answer the questions in order. Do not skip about. 3. Please make use of the space at the end of the questionnaire to make as many additional comments as you wish. BACKGROUND INFORMATION People differ in the way they feel and the ideas that they have. This may be because of the number of’years they have worked, the amount of money they make, and the kind of job they have. To note these differences for purposes of this study on super- 'visory demands, we need to know a few basic facts about you. THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. - 1. Name of your department 2. Name of work group you supervise 3. What is yOur supervisory title? (write in) b. What is your sex? Male Female 5. Are you Single rried 'Widow or widower Divorced or separated 7o 10. ll. 12. 13. - 2 - How much schooling have you had? (Check the highest completed) Some grammar school 'ompleted grammar school . one high school Business or trade school plus some high school ‘ompleted high school A Completed high school and business school Some college Completed college What is your age? (Write in) How long have you been with the company? (Write in) How long have you.been a supervisor? What other supervisory positions, other than present position, have you had? How long have you held your present supervisory position? About how many employes do you have reporting directly to you? number How many supervisors, if any, do you have reporting directly to you? number If you.have any supervisory assistants, how long have they been assisting you? months years (List others below) How long have you been under*zpur present supervisor? As a supervisor: months years As an employes months years 15. 16. 170 18. 19. 20. _ 3 - Taking all things into consideration, would you say your future in Detroit Edison looks better or worse than a few years ago? (Check one) Hy future with D. E. looks much better than a few years ago Somewhat better About the same as it did Somewhat‘worse My future with D.E. looks much worse than a few years ago How well do your employee know what you.expect of them? (Check one) “They are never quite sure of what I expect of them :They are not too sure of what I expect of them :They have some idea of what I expect of them :They are generally sure of what I expect of them :They are quite sure of what I eXpect of them How much attention do you give to training your employes? (Check one) I give a great deal of attention to training employee I give considerable attention to training employee I give some attention to training employes “I give a little attention to training employee I give very little attention to training employes How well do your employes know what you.think of the work they do? (Check one) They know very definitely what I think of the work they do They have a good idea of what I think of the work they do They have some idea of what I think of the work they do They are not too sure of what I really think of the work they do They have very little idea of what I think of the work they do How much emphasis do you put on getting out the work? (Check one) _A great deal of emphasis, I emphasize this more than anything else :Quite a bit of emphasis, I emphasize this a lot _Some emphasis, it is one of the most important things about my 36b, ut it is not the only one Not too much emphasis, I feel that a good many other things are just as important I don't pay much attention to production or getting out a lot of‘work How much time and effort do you spend in planning and scheduling the work for your work group? (Check one). I spend.a great deal of time planning and scheduling the work for my work group I Spend considerable time planning and scheduling the work for‘my‘work group I spend some time planning and scheduling work for my work group I spend a little time planning and scheduling work for my work group I spend very little time planning and scheduling work for my work group -14- 21. How do you feel about the amount of time you.have to spend on personnel work in your job? (Check one) 'Would like to spend much more time on this 'Would like to spend a little more time on this {Am spending about the right amount of time now WOuld like to spend a little less time on this WOuld like to spend much less time on this 22. Some supervisors feel that they are "in the middle" between workers and management. How does it work out in your case? (Check one) I do not feel I stand in the middle I have a slight feeling of standing in the'middle I have a fairly definite feeling of standing in the middle I have a definite feeling of standing in the middle 23. In what ways do you supervise the people in your work group? (Check only one answer (1)0ften (2)Fairly (3)0ccasion- (h)0nce in (5)Very Often ally a while Seldom .Arranging the work Seeing that the work is done properly ‘Haking‘work assignments Enforcing the rules Keeping the employes supplied ‘with materials, etc. Hearing complaints and grievances Helping with work problems Keeping employes posted on how 'well they are doing Keeping employes informed on 'what is happenigg in the Company Discussing personal matters 'with employes ing recommendations for pro- rnotionsltransfers and pay increases aking care of other personnel :matters like time off,vacations,etc. Training new employes Training old employes for better 49133 Discussing matters and providing information in group meetings 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. -5- Considering your group as a whole, dO'you have the kind of people‘who need to be closely supervised, or can they be put on their own? Do not consider new employes who are being trained. (Check one) They need very general supervision; my people are definitely on their own They need fairly general supervision; my people are pretty much on their own They need a moderate amount of supervision They need fairly close supervision They need very close supervision How often do you get togetherrwith your employes as a group to discuss prdblsns which concern both you and'them? (Check one answer) Often Frequently Occasionally Seldom Practically never How do you feel the group that works for you compares‘with other groups doing similar work in getting the job done? (Check one) One of the poorest Poorer than most A little below average About average A little above average Better than most One of the best HHI In general, how much do the people in your work group have to say about how things are done? (Check one) ,I give them a great deal of say in how things are done I give them quite a bit of say I give them some say I give them a little say I give them hardly any'say at all in how things are done How many of your employes would you say are satisfied with the company and their jobs as a whole? (Check only one answer) Almost none of them A quarter of them Half of them Three fourths of them Almost all of them Taking all things into consideration now, how confident do you feel to handle your job as a supervisor? (Check one) Completely confident to handle my job as supervisor very confident to handle my Job Quite confident to handle my job Fairly confident to handle my job Not too confident to handle my job as supervisor 30. 31. 32. 33. 3h. 35. 36. -6- How good is your department head at handling peOple? (Check one) Poor Fair Average Good Excellent Do you feel that your department head will go to hat or stand up for1you? (Check only one answer) No, he won't Probably'won't May or may not Probably‘will Yes, definitely How free do you feel to discuss important things about.your job with your department head? (Check only one answer) very free Fairly free Not very free Not at all free How free do you feel to discuss personal problems with your department head? (Check one) Not at all free Not very free Fairly free very free How sure are you of how you stand with your department head? (Check one) very sure Fairly sure Not sure How does your department head treat you when you have a complaint? (Check one) Discourages complaints Neutral toward complaints Goes to bat for me Does your department head supervise you closely, or does he put.you on your own? (Check one) He uses very general supervision; I am.definitely on my own Fairly general supervision; I am.pretty much on my own A moderate amount of supervision Fairly close supervision He uses very close supervision; he doesn't put me on my own 37. 38. 39. h0. h1. h2. - 7 - How much attention does your department head give to developing you and other supervisors under him? (Check one) He gives a great deal of attention to developing us Considerable attention to this Some attention to this A little attention to this He gives very little attention to developing us How much emphasis do you feel your department head puts on getting the work out? (Check one) A great deal of emphasis, he emphasizes this more than anything else Quite a bit of emphasis, he emphasizes this a lot Some emphasis, it is one of the most important things about the job, but it is not the only one Not too much emphasis, he feels that a good.many other things are just as important He doesn't pay much attention to production or getting out a lot of work Taking all things into consideration, how satisfied are you with your department head? (Check one) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied . Very dissatisfied How good is your assistant department head at handling people? (Check one) Poor Fair , Average Good Excellent ' l Do you feel that your assistant department head will go to hat or stand up for you? (Check only one answer) No, he won't Probably won't May or may not Probably will Yes, definitely How free do you feel to discuss important things about your job with your assistant department head? (Check only one answer) Very free Fairly free Not very free Not at all free I I l b3. DE. h6. b7. h8. - 8 _ How free do you feel to discuss personal problems with your assistant department head? (Check one) Not at all free Not very free Fairly free Very free I I How sure are you of how you stand with your assistant department head? (Check one) Very sure Fairly sure Not sure How does your assistant department head treat you when you have a complaint? (Check one) Discourages complaints eutral toward complaints Goes to bat for me Does your assistant department head supervise you closely, or does he put you on your own? (Check one) He uses very general supervision; I am.definitely'on.my own “Fairly general supervision; I am pretty much on my own “A moderate amount of supervision Fairly close supervision He uses very close supervision; he doesn't put me on my own How much attention does your assistant department head give to developing you and other supervisors under him? (Check one) He gives a great deal of attention to developing us Considerable attention to this Some attention to this A little attention to this He gives very little attention to developing us I How much emphasis do you feel your assistant department head puts on getting the work out (Check one) A great deal of emphasis, he emphasizes this more than anything else “Quite a bit of emphasis, he emphasizes this a lot :Some emphasis, it is one of the most important things about the Job, ”but it is not the only one Not too much emphasis, he feels that a good.many other things are just as important He doesn't pay much attention to production or getting out a lot of work b9. 50. _ 9 _ Taking all things into consideration, how satisfied are you with your assistant department head? (Check one) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 Taking things as a whole, how satisfied are you? (Check one) I'm very satisfied with the company and.my job and would not want to see them make any changes I'm very satisfied but I know of some things that could be changed I'm quite satisfied with the company but there certainly are many things that could be changed I'm not very satisfied but I can see no way things could be changed I'm not satisfied and there are a great many things that could be changed -10- This page is for any other points you would like to make. We would like to have you Sign your name so that we can be sure to match your questionnaire with those of your employee for some analyses. As in the past, none of the data will be reported in ways that will identify individual work groups or supervisors. Your name PLEASE GO BACK OVER ALL THE PAGES TO BE SURE YOU DID NOT SKIP ANY OF THE) QUESTIONS. 12 TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE a? RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED FIRST-LINE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR m Eurmm BEROEPTIONS G’FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR! BEHAVIOR TAKEN FROM EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE PERCEPTUAL ITEMS“ Item Phi-en Category I..S J" Direction 17 ‘ ‘ 15907 901 ”a b A 19.93 .01 r I 1 8090 001 ’ e 0 .111; H.8e ‘ ‘ 70M .01 P e B 8.19 .01 n**“* O A 2910 3e30 r E .11 N.S. 8 TE .33 l.3. S A 17.77 .01 P h B 1.09 ms. 1 E .01. 11.3. 1 E .99 LS. k B .06 LS. 1 B 5.62 .02 r I E 5.23 .02 P n G 15.55 .01 I 18 - c .001; ms. * Question. #17 and #18 ** Love]. of Significance m Positive m“ Negative C D - . f '. i . b D l- . I .e D g s O O O O - O . o O a I o o 5 Q O Q 1) V. TABLBxIx :2 TEST FOR THE PRESENCE 0R ABSENCE 0? RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBSERVED ASSISTANT SOTERVISORI BEHAVIOR Am EmIEE PERCEPTIONS auSSISTAm' SUPERVIsmI BEHAVIOR TAKEN FROM EIELOIEE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE PERCEPTUAL ITEMS“ “ _ 1 r v 1 ‘4‘ u 4‘ 3 Direction Item Phrase Category 12 Les .‘H’ 1.2 e A 13.91 .01 34*“ b A 20.31 .01 l e A 31.18 .01 l e 0 1km .05 l d L 10e99 001 H 0 B 2.01 1.8. e A 2.01 N.S. 1' E l...86 .05 R 3 E 2.72 N .3. 3 A 11+.92 .01 l h E 8.88 .01 I i E 2.90 La. 1 E 2.67 ms . k E .67 11.3 . 1 E .66 11.3 . u E .11 H .8 . n G 1349 .01 n E3. - c 1.60 LS. * Questi on: #112 and #10 ** Level of Significance m Roget-Ave .‘e TABLE XX MEAN OBSERVED PERCENTAGES OF TIEE SPEET BYWFIRST-LINE ARD.ASSISTAHT SUPERVISORS DICHOTOMIZED IHTO GROUPS HIGH.AND LOW IN EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION ================== A *~:%============3 Supervisory Level A“ B 0 D E F G R First-lins Employee Satisfaction High 11.2 2.8 18.9 5.1 22.5 13.6 6.6 19.1 100' 10.0 509 me? 1308 22.6 501.- ”+09 1205 Assistants Employee Satisfaction 111611 26.2 to? ill-o9 16-3 9-9 9.6 oh» 1709 L0. 3A.]. 1‘05 1101‘- 509 2703 306 301 10s]. * Key to symbols: memmuowh Production Safety and Hbusekeqping Scheduling and Planning Service to Outside Dgpartment Contacts Employee Relations and Contacts Reports and Paperwork Hastings and Conferences Hiscellmneous . ~eL TAB-LE Jog RANK ORDER CORRELATION BETWEEN OBSERVED SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR OF SUPERVISORY LEVELS WITH HIGH SATISFACTION EMPLOYEES AND OBSERVE) SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOR OF SUPERVISOR! WEI-‘3 W TH LOW SATIWAC‘I‘IOH EMPLOYE Supervisory r’ * “ Level atéb Level _# 1h’ Significance First-line .38 N.S. Assistants .76 .05 * Key to symbols: c ‘rlh. Rank correlation between low and high employee satisfaction supervisors 11313 x111 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE ARRIVED AT FROM X2 TEST FOR PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE SATISFACTION ITEMS AND CRITERION QUESTION NUMBER 37 ‘GENERAL SATISFACTION WITH FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR) Iton L.s.* Direction Item Ins.” Direction 1h. .001 P** 28 .001 P 15 .001 P 29 .10 P 16 3.3. 30 N.S. 19 .001 P 31 .001 P 20 .001 P 32 0001 P 21 .01 P 33 .001 P 22 .05 P 3b. .001 P 23 .001 P 35 .001 P 21‘. ‘ 0001 P 36 .05 P b P.s. 60 .05 P o .01 P 61 N.S. d .001 P 62 .001 P s .001 u*** 63 .001 P r .001 N 61.. ms. 3 .001 R 65 .01 P h .001 P 66 .001 P 1 .10 N 67 .001 P J N.S. 68 N.8. k .0o1 P 69 N.S. 25 005 P 70 .01 P 26 001 P 71 .05 P 27 x.s. * Level of Significance ** Positivo *** negativo APPENDIX H TABLE XXIII SUPERVISOR'S NUMBER, LEVEL OF SUPERVISION - AND WORK GROUP A____ fir A :2: A ~a Numbsr Supervisory stsl Work Grow Third-line Third-line Ssoo ad.- 1111 Surf Firs t-lino . Firs t-lim First-lino Firs t-line Firs 1:- line Firs t-line Assistant As sis tant As sis tant As sis tant Assis tant 16 Assistant \OGNO‘UI-F‘UNP f" O {RE-53¢ 17 Work Group Lesdor vomowauomomnuauppp 18 Work Group Leader APPEJND IX I EXPLANATION OF FIGURLS I, II and III Figures I, II and III show the observed percenp tages of time spent by all supervisors on the several subject (activity) categories. The cumulative percen- tages of time Spent are plotted against the cumulative days of observation. These percentages of time spent indicate the re- duction in sampling error of the time sampling observa- tions for the several subject categories. Fluctuations of the percentages are reduced with additional days of observation. This may be seen by the reduction (over time) of the curve indicating the cumulative percentages near the end of observation (particularly days 21-25) in terms of the curve's amplitude. Then, the stability of the observational percentages may be noted. Error of Till Bupline Chou-rations FIGURE I Reduction in < .n .3 a. .1 12 :ar. H; . .. 2... . _ a 2 4 .r. .J S 5:2 1...... 2: _ ........5a 2 Made In U. S. A. W SQUARES TO TH! INC“ Reduction.in.sanp for Sub FIGURE III Error of Tina Sampling Observation: 3 G B All Inllvful. -. til ___ __ ______1____———~, 7 APPEND IX J bJ. TABLE XXIV MIMBER CF EMPLOYEES HAHNG JUDGHEN'I’S (11) AND NUMBER OF CATEGORIES RANKED (11) FOR VARIOUS WORK GROUPS Work Supervisory n I: Group Level 01d Enployou New Enployou n B 016. star: 2 - 8 B New Start 3 - 8 C First-11m 8 1+ 8 0 Old Main tant 8 h. 8 C New Assistant 8 h. 8 D First-lino - 29 8 D Ania tant - 29 8 E First-lino 5 ll 8 E Ania tant 5 7 8 F First-lino 6 2 8 F Auiatant 6 2 8 0 01d First-lino 12 - 8 G Old Again tant 12 - 8 0 New First-lino 10 7 8 G How A3818 tant 10 7 8 H Firat-lino 13 6 8 H Old Ania tant 11 - 8 R New Assistant 12 6 8 Rom. USE cm HICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES IIH ll Ulllll I 9 312 3008083044