‘ ‘1'
O I . I. o I V o I .
V 0‘ .....Vsovo.v.....-01...... ..V . ...}...L ...... v 0.. ... . ... . .... ... ... ... .... .V . ... J . .. . V. V. . . I .
. .......V .. .... .. . V. . IVV . V .. . ...
ionic-9...)....V-o.Vc.I.I ... a. .....s .. ...-o p. ...v.v I. V. o .o.... I ..._.. r. ... _ V. I . on .. .I . V. 4. .I.. . V. ... ... ... I ..I.. . V. .I......... ......V...... ... .
I v. V. .. u. . I. . . V q . .IV. .. I .- I . . V V V . V . _ . . . . . l . V .. V. .1 .I . I I
.9..¢..-V>.>.V v. I... H... ....V ... .. ...V. IV. .. . I c . . . . . . .. .. . c. .I . V c o . ... . V . .. . . o. . .. I r n V. L... V V ... .... .. . .... ..o.. .. I... .I.I V ... ... 31qu2. an. cJ/f-IJI..J....-c 1."..1. 1!. .
‘u..... o‘ .I... . \.......v ~oV...‘. . ... q .. 0 . v . V o|.V. a. .v ..I .V . . . . ...; .a 3.. . . .. . . . ....V...nIoV. .............V. .l.. ...V .. .0...o’.a to.aVI.r1-.IO¢.~J I-alofi.‘ ”It”.
... IV. a.-. . V . .... I .. .... . . .... n . . . . . . ... . a. . . ... :2... . V. . . .V . .. .VVI ...Iooe .. .0... ..V............. V .. ......ana..a.o I'V.§fl¢.9vf....~t
‘0..o.o...q V .... .......I v .......w_.o V... . . . V. o. ._ . II.V o . I. .V.. . ... VV I ... .. ...... ..... ......V... . 0.. ........o..._. .V.... . V .. ’n. .:.V.¢I.../I-o.. ......o?’. a O..f’v fi
. .0 .9 o.I'. .....-.. V. 0.... ..so o-I.s ..... . ... V . . .9 ...? . . . . . 3 ~ .0. o o . . V o c n 0. .AJ..§.~ .a . co. .q . .V. V V .. . . ... . V ......4a¢.¢.a. ....o..oat 0.0. .. .0.4.ro;o'./P.VOJOJ.Im’.’ ... out... %
. . I V . . V .. . . . . V . V . I .. . V . 1 . . V . .
.. ($3.45.... ...V.I...Vu .. .V . V. . .... . V. ...v. . V. .. ‘ ‘V u I . _ . . . . .... 2 . . . . . _ . V ... n. .. . . . . . . . . I a . .V o . .. a... . V. V .V . . . Va... ...... .. q. . o..4 .c. .. o. o o . .... {ii/.0”.....n..a..d....a ....v...o4V’.l.lo/.o on. c’anIO..o’oo-on§o c.
. ...t......o.: . .V... .0 . . . . . .. . . I. . V . . . I..V . .V. 1.. V . o OI. ..I ...V.. . .. .. . . V. ...-...... I.a... . ...II. c . VI. ..8
. Io. . . . . . .. . I V .. . .. .. V . ..V... V . . V . . . .. .. .. .. ' . .. V . o .. . . . . . . .. . V. .V V V ...,a. V. . .V... .. ...... ... . ..rt.. .V . .. . . . ../.p’.u...)..p._.....x....o .... on... v.4 he.» . I. .n .. 2'
. kI ..F . ... .. .V-c . . ...... .. .I~. c... .2. _ .. .. V R w . . v. I . oV . . . I. . .... o . . . .. .I ... .. .1 o o . ..V........ ..IV._ V. Io... a... ......Vo...VI ... .4.~.A0.¢poo!’_. {olvoanlad V.omf’omn ~r c or.
V... . .... .... ..V.. .....V JR... a. .. .... V. .. .V . . V . .... I. ... ...V V V h... .2... V... I . . .o IV... ........V . .. .... V. I. ....V.... ... .......... . .....x.'....V.. V .... .o.VI».../.......¢........ {’20: .04.... ...Vac. o0w.oo Va.
A . 0 V r . . .. ... . I .u . ...) .I. o .. ..o. . ....s .. . . . .0. . V. . V .... . 0 V V 2 .o _ . . .V . 0 V . L V. . . . ... .. oaI .. . . . 3... .. . . . ; .I o I . . ... ...}... ' .... .. ....o. Jiffy! I . . o. to. a a. up. It; no’l'f‘wm
V. . ~ .r o. .o . ..oo I.. .. o. I. s . V.. r: . o . . c . . > . V. . _ I V _ .. . .V L: . . . - .... I .V . .. o . . o . . . V ... 2...... ... ..... .......A..VV . I . . a... . V. . V . o I... a a o . 1.4.4 o .. I .mo.I...V-.ooo.1..01¢ ... o ”VJ/«f ’oVfiafivo.
.. . .QIOI . .' Q. o Q .o _ \Q. s. a... ....9 ... . 0'.._. .1._ . I ... o .I ... g. .. n. . I .0. V I .p o .... . ... .. . . ... . ... a. V _ V. ....o . . a . 4V. V c . a ..a ..I .....on’ ....J-o.¢.p’ ’fap.’1 . y'VO' .4‘“.‘.4 “J 4‘31" r... A .
. I .. I...o .... ... .1 .... .. .... . ... . ....I . . . I V I V . .4. .3... ..r‘ .V.... ... . . ...... .. V.....V .V ... ... ......a I.a....V¢)V. .. ....(o.;/r”—.d./.. Itr ” u .0.
. .....o. . . IV « . o . o. I. . ' o v . . .u . t .u . v. . v . V .. . ‘ .. . . . v . .. . I I. V. .I I I . . .. . . . V . .... oVV.so.V . V. WU”... .. J . _ . ....aro .. .. . .V. 4 ... Ifff . .204”... o 0’. ..o.0ll.2'\.rmfif."ao 041‘.
....a . .v ...-. .. ... I ...V . o . V . a V . ... V . .. . . _V.I V . . .. V. . ’4 ......V. o. .V V. .... . V .V V .
. . . n: . V o I . I . .... . ‘ . u . o o o o I . V . . . . . o o . u . I ... . . V I; . I .4. . s I . I I . n . . 0. ... . . . I ... ... I . o o o ... .I . o o - ... 5 .0 .V.... —V‘C..- oVoOo..o. 1. v... 327.6”... M. ..‘Q .lbfmv. 4
I... I . o... I _.V. o. . . . o. . .. . .. V. I V . I . . _ . . a. .. . V. .. .o_. . .c. .. .... .r... o. .n...V.I l..d..o...4vo...o...a .....Vl- . 0.6- ... r5.
. .9... I . ... I s... ......._... I .....r .. 0.. s . . . . . . V . . O V . _ .4 ... .V . . .... . . ... ..V. .. ...a.. .....Io/ a..l....o.:‘.o 1 .Jc.a’. ...-....1.V3DQ’V-o ...Or Q-NVQ
. . . . . u I o. I V. o .o I . I o . I . . V. r I. 2 .4 .a . I V O. D. o O a ..V
. .V‘.o..oo. s ..u.. I. . a... . . ... . o . . _ I .. ... . I. I . Ia .. .. .. . o.a. 4 . I ..o .. ...... ...... . . . ....O.V..DI.O. .f‘...I.......4.V(V..oodoo ...“.r;.§.z.V-V.>fio..’.eoOODI V
V. V . ... .. .. . ... ... 0 V . I . c . . . I A I . o I .V V . V .... I, ..V. .. .o ... .. ..........IVQ....; ..oo--¢.Jo......b
. o 9 I .I o .. .1... . .... o . I 1 o o a . . . . V I . .V . . . ... c . . . ... I . . . . . c . o _. . . . c . I I. .- .n.. .5)... a... ...V.;V.o-.A :..-..../ n 4 . Id. . g o . o o. o viz.) fl...’wl9tpé A;
.. . V . . . . . V I . . V . V . V V . V . . . .. . V. . V
”I .‘ O . C I ~ 0 I I V V . . . . 0.. O . . I U — I. o . . . ... I V.. V.. ...) . I . o . . . . . . o . . . . V I .... .o I o . . d a J a.. o . . J a a n .1 . c u . ... 3.0- .p a 1 ...lardfivo_1.6.o. . ... ..offlugv...o.b.t”¢u4o .“.I .115...
... .o .4. . I . o . . . I o I V . . . . . . . I .u o . . I I . . . . .. . . .5. o v. .. . . a. I . a. . v
_\ . a v Q . o . . I . . ... I . . . . o o . . .9 . . .. . ...V V . . . I . 1 Z . o . . . . .. . _ . . . V V. . ...... . ... .. I u ... . ’......o .....0 V. . . . . . o . c. I 1.: . o . ... ”M“... a... ..v.«‘/.o.¢.o¢o§.fl‘ «OJ dw’ Crud.
V V. c . I 4. .. .. o. . . m. I I .o.V. I . .. V o .. .... a .. .....V a. . . V a ...... ...o. .. .. ofv'! ....(2;.u4 1...... 32.4..
. . .0 V .‘..I- o .. ..I . ... . . .V I V . . .. . .. ... . . ....I..l.Vb .. ..I.. 0.. ... ........ .J 8...... .V.'..O....I.Q.O.J...(.3|’.
V . . n . . a. . . .. . 0 V o. . . I. . .1 .. V . O .l_—. . .I V . . ...-.....A .. V. .V ‘. a. . a . . .l’.....¢d..¢"4./. .....AOI .- O
‘ ‘0‘ ‘ V1.. .-.. CV. ... to V. t o . . o . . . _ J .. on .. .1. . V A . c 0. .V. e. .V c I . . . . . .. . 0.. .I u .0... .‘n..... 4.. u.qao 0‘. ... 0 d. I . a. D .... J—/.~.Ip.‘.nm‘):
..I 0 . . .19.. . 0 V. .. . . . . . 0 V . 0 V I . . o . V o I .I V . o . . o o . . .a ..o. _ .... ...... i... V . VaV. .V. V. .... . . .... a . .... .. 0.14....H_JV.“{.0 .19.’..... {axis-a.- o.my¢~do. "(8.”:
v. c. . V . . y . V . V - I I_ q . L . . .. . I . .. c . .0 V I.» V;- g. . ... . .. I ..u..a... 01.0.pa'. I {n.oao ‘0’.”
W0 . OIV .. t . . . V V .I . . I. ... I . .I g .V .. ... .. I .1 $... t - ...... I.- I . . u .0... V4!O~4...’5oa0 oor5.4. . o J.
I ... I. _ .. ... .. V . V V V . . .. . . . .. . V _ .... . o. . . . . . . V V -..... .... .. o.....o... .........p .340
Q. a .Q. opl‘. .l _ . .. o . V V o . 0 .- . . V V .. . I V. .. I. a I O J. 1.! u a .5. an... o. . a . I ..(. ...r.V. ...-n, .... .o-JV..O‘Q .‘J. #3.. c ..All 7.- .4’ . 9H...“ fin”, ’0
w . V . . V . . . I I. . I .. V. . . ... . . I .. .V V. . . ...-.. . a ......V V. .. ....I.O..V..I.IV.ao ... oV.V..V .
... . o . . I o . I . . .V . V. ... I... . t . . r. i .. .¢ .. . . . . .... . . . f. 1.. . .. V V... . . V. . . . a . '4. of. I. on . a. ””hnufffo co» o< “....JI.
_‘.V . ... . o s o - . . . . . I U o . . . . ..— . o .. 0.7 . . V ... . . L I . . V . . . I I . .. - ‘I’V. o. .. a. . .... .. ao. 0. ..O_ ‘18 n.a.b‘-¢. 0.. O." .‘I?‘...v?tfl o
u . . I" . .. . V o . .. . . . I. 0 o .. . . . .. a o . c V I V. .. o o -. ._ ....4 . V . A a a a a. I .o . ¢ . . - H. o o. . n I“ y. VOuooo- 4. I... I) v.00... ...
. .... V . . . V . . .. . V I ... . . . .. ... ......V...... ... .....qoa ......V. J'.I.VV...—1VT?\P’44
_. . . . . . V . . . o I v V. I I . I I . . .a I I . ...;- .. . ...... . . t V. . 0.. I .o . ..4 ct .. . ... 1.! .1: .oo.. V. ..’¢- 4.. Ion. .. . ’4 .‘Oar.. ' .6 rr—zo .- 0"
W. . V . . V. . I V I \ . I V .. I .V . I .1 ‘\ . ..I o .. .. .' . V. V .I .o ..s... .. . 14c. . I c 4V. .4 .c p . o ‘. '0 O V..4J .- ‘26.! '1. .4? 00V 6». 3V. ...-
.. .v . V I . I I V V .s o . . I . V O ... ... .. . a V . . . .V ... . I . g .I . . .I.. I 4.. .alpVOoa a Ca .JVJ‘I... .. ...» .40”. V. .. .
w. . I. n. I . . . . . .. I . 0 ..V . V .. .a I. . .Ic . ... .. ...o. .... o .o .’...V(ov/..JOO¢&W’.0&-. '1. .rd .1.’
.. . . . .. V V . ..V a V _ ... ..V. .V V ... . .. VA... (.... I...” . .. IVoIV.I...V.fo. av. V.”
n o. . I .. ..o _ . ... . .. V . I . . . . . .. .V.V.. V. .. IV .. ..¢. . ..pa... .I....a.._v....V on..." ...pIoz of,.~..;.. ‘0 .49.?
v. o VVV. . . . . . .. a . ..b... . II .... . ... a a . 4V .... .. . .. I .o 9... ¢’..’ .8 ....ViiV .0 IcaV CnI..c ’v . V. .
I . . - I . . I V . . I .. . .. .- V o . . ... . .I. . .ol .1 . . .... 0.. .. ... <‘65IJ. IO 1)...‘ ...a".'V..-'4 0' I
\ _ o . . . I . . V. I . I. . V .. 4 VI. .. .I. . 4 .. ..J ... I... dul.up.l.1d:.l0|no . . ..
.a o n I o o .. . . . a .. V I . . J o . g o I o I / _ .V a . o .o I . o o o o l V V. a a . I b . o'o ...! a . ..O‘ a I. «v.. .{A..ol.. - 3 4Vfiwvg co .-
w . V . . . . . V. V. . . . . . . . . . .‘. . ... . . . . . . V V . o. 4 . . .o ..o ....I ....’o... . a 4V.’v..¢...V..’/.I-I . IQII. ' .VV . I. ”if .”.o.
I a .0 I . o J . o. . .. .. . o ... v . V . .V . .o I. o o _ . ’r. 1f ..I. :O'l." 0.. .V.J {980,07 .03... I .4. 40%; 0 Jr my” ¢ 71.4%. V.
n . t I . . I . o .n ... . u v . . .. o O... O ...p. c I? . .1.
fl . . . . . . . . I I . . . V . I . . 0 V. o .... .. 2..., a V A. .1 .1 O 0V ool ...J 04...“. . a ”In; I. I-’.r "r?“fi .0 9“ a? arr)?!
w _. . .I... . II . . . V .... III. ..I .. o . .... .. or. 31...: o. ...!c/. 3.]. . ’é (-1
V. . . V . . . . . . . . V. a. V .. _ .. ... . .. 4 .. .V .. t 0.}. .‘Jclwfl . 0’“.
w I I . . . ... ... .... ..... ........V co. ..o.... :...J...;
u V . . I n V V ... I . . . I .... V ...a r. o. . . ...... 0.1.3....IIVV. 3
v I . . V .. . V a... .V ./V f... ......a/o.._o(oV 0.. .lJr/n o . '-
V . . . . . V . .V . . . .
I . I I s . V V V. o no . ... .0. .n a. ... l. . Va}. ..... 10.'V.I.Ouonr‘ r ¢
v. . .I . . V . . 0 ..V ... V. . . l ... .o...».4o..o.;. . IV~0A«.ao.l.5.’:.....olo’a. .J
-. .I I V . . . . . . I . .I . o. . V. U. V. V... . c 4r . . . .V o......... .V 0.7.0... .04..Kqu.J#. . o. Iv ’r .4 h V 8 a}.
I o . . . . . V . . .. J . n _ I . . . . 0 '0. D V .I .
w. . - . . . . V .. ._ .. .. . . . . .. ..V. ....VVVVV..V..... . 2...... ....IIVWIfl...Iu..r. 15......
I ‘. A . V. . .. . V I. 1 I. o..a. . . oI V. .0 (ods.ol."“¢.ln o .VOo’. O ,4 Ofil'o V 0....
v . . o I a V . . . . . V . . . o . I V . . V I . ......f. . . . . 3.. o . . c . of; . .. . ea t..-p.!affl.w,2ww?rvffluns affirm/...... .8
V V .. . .0 . . . . c on. . I . V. . . v I. n . I ...0. fi .rV a n O VII
. . . o I V . . V V .. . o . . . I . .o o . . ...J .. .53 ... ...I. . a , ..oKr . ...”. . filifl . u.../~J¢%lofl\.
. . ... . V . .. . . . I. . V . .. .V... f'c..ouv.4:4.n OJ 8 0. (fly . a I,
o . . I . I . ... . .44. . .. . J........a’..' o. A... ..IU C. {V '- .Jr .3
. . . . I V. . . . . . o . . .... V.. . . ....I..V.....V...V)c...VVJ....o’.....v.....olmv.a.r ; .v a I . p. c
. . V . f . .V . V . a ._ . . .. .... ..V V . V. . . . . . . . V . . . I V .. ..V.V.t... Ia. a...“ .5“).an 9...?” “J v V V.-
I . I I . . . . . I . . . . . - V V. ; o . V ‘ a .0 . I I .V .. V .
.V . a O. . V I . .V... 9 .. . V . . .o. .. I ....t . . . V. r . .Y . ..o . . ..I V: I o f. . ...VOVVfioucn.o’/I.H/~.luahlrrhoul 1-.
a .. a . I . u . . b. a . u .. . . V . f 0'. .. . . [.1 I J. O '4 w-.callw¢.nl I I 4.3!-
w. . . V V . . I. V .. - .... a o .. ..II..r4. ... r....o.. or .tn/JVHII'JVIV.(J-a.<w
. . .. . 4.. o . . . .vf. V ... 0.001erIb.P. IV. 7. liar
I . . I . v . _ . o. . n . . I . . . .. . .s. D. Y... u....l;.d¢ o ...).l VVI’II-Jpv.;.u
. o. . I.. . p . . ... ... I. I. .. .... .l . .4..oa‘lro I oJJD ... a..."
. V .V . o a c . . I V . I V'- . a .. .‘ C. I I...
.. . . V . V . . V. . . . . . . . . » o. a . . .... V.. .. . p ...a. ...}..IJIJIastfia... er. .0 ...WJ.
. . a . . . .. V . V'. . u . I a... - I. . fl.- lV.4 . Irv-.1 II o.¢ar;P-r~.d-Vla. .uif
* V l V .. . u ._ . . .V .0 . . . .. . . o. .. ..oPVIo ..a..... .VVOoVu'.~IIf..IIO .oo.‘
‘ . V . o O o .. o. . .... a o. a no — .0. V v. do;.{ I. on. . u H ‘O_Il\o’a r9“...
. . . . a I V A. . a vial I. _ . . . Va. IV. D ..V I ...
. . n . V . .V . . ..V. . V. ..U. I.... n . .9 4;..qu ¢c I o. HIVLP ...-.....vop.
~ . . u . I. I o O. a. a .c .401. .1 urlcv, . ...1. r7. .r:" I 0.... .V
. . V . . V. o . . . . I. o . . I . s. . o I V I, o o ..l c. .2. p'lv flu: oVIvIvrA/iv dc. III.
C . . .D o. . . a . .. .. I n .l . a . . .. c v; . v..3lI 0 off. ..I I.’ .QHVYa...JWH .II ... DC
I . . . . . I . .V . . ..V V. ... V..D .Io. . . .
. . I .V . . V. o . . . . . V o . y . o ... .. ... . ...a ..o... . of... II 4f .o. I 'Sfiu...’o II, . Jf(‘lflh;v.olfl
V . . V V . . V . . o . . .. V .. .u .. I .... .a . a. ...YI......... itfiI Ital-WI Yt.d~.?..o
. . . . V V o. o. .... o .I .— .0 pavr.l.od. 1.»... a.’. It’llo‘... o 4.75
t . . e . V .o . .. . o . . V. ..o . no. .. .. .. . ... .ooVJ...’..VI ..Sro.(.r...V.: .VPA'HIVIIIJIQ ‘OIJ ‘V [.6
o c _ . I . . . . ..I ... . I ... ..V C! Ioa. V I
o . . I 4 V I . I . . V _ .. . . . . . . ~ 2: ...I. . . I. n .. 91...”. 0’. :1 .Pfi.|arlr4 3.0! V. IIVHJHVKLIJ
.0 . . I . V . ... . . . . .. .V V ......I/.o.v?aa’ 1er Ilrflcl. btlfr 1.1..‘
9 . . . . . . . V o I ~ r . . . . u . . . .I V a ... . I . I V . . .V’V 71.7.... .rJVV-d’flfl ffiroya I!” t
. a . . . . V V . . I . . . . . . .. v V. I V, .... Io. .. “041.1 VI}. . V.I We .- fl
~ .-. I . . I . ... .... ...... ...? ((0. I4)" 1.. “.1. .
a . . I o. 4‘ Va . 0 I V I ”
'. .r . . o p . I . . I r I o . Iv . ‘oJu...-4 ‘ (A. .P II..." .'_Vo‘(.v1"l£¢o «In “Au-IMOvV-H“
. .. . _ I . I. . .I . . . . ... I’OI . ....de-dV’VVIOIn .. I‘V’ . .
I . o . I . ... . .. . ... ... .. a... I'vo¢ o I ..al'n..r.ao.... u 1.0,..40
A "u”. . n . I . . . . I I . . .I. a ..I.o . 0.10. ... I..o//IV.II I‘Ao‘fflrfio.nI “Jvc-VUN.
. V . ‘f I - . . V . V. V I ..V.. V. ...I 91.... 3:3... ....IVI V
I . V I . I. . 5V. ..I . . I .AOz'Io .13 . o.lv ..brIV/lnt).ts.\Ibt-rc)9a ..I
v o o . . . .. 4.0. on .....r: 3...... co.»- l‘td .);V...!~s..c
A . V 5 I o . . . I o ; V V .. ... 9' . I Infra . anpr$ er' O I. P'.rll-‘..l).'\."
“a I . .. . I 7' I Io. .... It" . V Y.
_ O I . . . .. I1... 4 I o‘ no.1 II ”XVI. C’s: (of) 5.0V'I..-Jf.dllfl “fin. h'uvwou,
...V'. . I . .I . I . A J . . . . . v . I I .Io I. ...II. .V. .3.Iu...'.u.o...w JQURJde .Ap-(TVA'IYI .rl IVIOW.
. . .VV . . . . .V 11.. .p — .I..o0.vx..'r. IVIl’fn" ..f.
. . . a 1 VI. I. I I - . II I O I
I . o . I a o I .Io I o ‘0. 1.7 . I . Art-pr“. cud I'd‘OP .J.p.ol.: c J
V . .. . I V. . I. I .Y .. .
. . o . no I .I . o. 0.1. n It 8 . o . ......V qu. . 0. {all} ...:N. _ .-
I‘l. . I I o . .8 I . .0 - 1.I . 9.. . ‘11-.. a . I V: v ’rto f. . V . I’. I'ar. I...
. o .. A I -V . o. f.p 'Ao...obu . 5. . ’0 (’Iq tart )-
. . . n . o I V. I o . . I. l. I CI...” 1 V II.“I—.-.w~..‘.-fhfiv-’~.fi
. . o . I .Y I . '-.l
.1 . I . . I . o a . 0.. van. t I Vr.¢ . .I IprlI'Luland VA. 0.”! 'I. I
. V a . . o I o I o :4. ..p‘f'lu ‘0 -.....z.
. V ; . . . .o. .r v o I.Ior. 1 .3 .p-II’IIIX
. . a O o a . v . .I o O O o f. . I ’aoonl'l 1’01pOS'ItlII‘
I I . lcv '0... .IIJOO 1/." I191”. 'IoltII
. ‘ . I I I o o o A I .4 r . I. .10 I J'Otit ..- L lit.»
~ I . . I .I II .1031! IV... I I 1".. ’..\Il’.ll|.’f¢
V I . . I I . . .I . .I I I. . V)! ..I . I
. It? ..ot.. . II 1..)P‘OII‘I.I.D.(
.w . . I A . . I o I .I... I. a./II..I.I ' .I
v . . o u I I to. If I. I’d: 7".10104'
. I . . I . II II I II. . VI .7
V. V . V . . . V . IV. .. ... I. (IN) . .III.
C I of. .I 0-. or
c . I v ”II V I 0.0... rIIt) I .9- IoVIJ¢Il I
I o v. . I I 'l...II0III...
. . . a O . O.II I.V OI IIV.J’ 'I
o w . ... olI’l . .Ilfl‘} ..rI I P
. x . . . . ... .AI I V . . .V In... I.... O
. L . V. . .I V . V. (I ...II I! .Ill' I.IIII
. I n I . . c . .1 . . I. “1,... [II I.
_ . . . a V I .a. 0...». .. ‘I¢II‘ 0-,. r
I o. . V I . I V. a a .. OI.
_ .. Kn";- . . l . r.V ' r ..
v ' o C v o “I v. I a I I I no 44‘. Irrc. I ' It.
__ 4 I I I. a .01 .f .I. .o IQII
“V I o I I I n I I I (U.
L . o I.'.b .ooo . c I! o $(‘IDII
O o I . I p I .I.'.c II... 0-...
m I I . -..V. .....I.u
' .. . . r . . I a .I I IL o aVo .... .. to ...): .
M. I n o o o .llII.o‘ OIII‘.MII It.
. I I .o I o I I . a .v -
a I o ... [I
n . . . - . . . - V -
n o I 0 CI I I O c: 'l I | ‘0
. . V
p t O -
z. . . .V .- -
‘fi . I i o .. II I OIII
9 . V . I. -
Vt. V r . I I . .
O . I I. I. f .
. . . . V. -
._ V V - . . z . .V .I
o
.. P t I
.. I O 0 I
. l
C I
.. . . . o I I I I I I 0
' O Q Q
J‘i. - I .... V V. c Q II . . I If. I
{V t V I a ‘3‘. 0.. I. . V . . .. o . I I .VIIICI".rI III..-
'2‘. I . . I . .50....5; .... $3.... ..n‘..- .A.0‘.....o‘IV.‘..u.»VtI.Io.:.Ao. oa.II¢: o. J.l.. t .0 V . o I. . II.$0I..u
I at. '5. . V... q. H I. ...:II ....... . ......JoI . . . I .I. .. .o ...... ...‘oOOoobv.Oo.Iv.Dn... II . I
Q . . . I .V V. . ... V . ... . . .I V I I . . ...... . .V .a.... ......xf..o&. .c...u.a.2r.riav.3le¢:.16.... 4.2!. .37»)...:.A. €3$ilefi9x ....I. .II. on. . .. k . . . a ... I I I JVIIL 9E!IY:QI}!3J..§§I.
at V I I V. . .IO‘. c-‘..V. Ho—|{.~.I&."hivfil’o$\1\ld‘-.II .. .. I O .. II\ O ....V. o .
. I . 1. 2 . . . .
V I V. V ..A .a ... .I. C.m4%..§lm.!?v¢huho¢«1€m «m:
5‘
.... k

 

n.
W.
- I F. I} E

zummmumm wrmnmn mm x 9

301088 0098 4: :mchigan State
Unimsity

 

 

 

 

 

.r"

H”:

P’\

‘1‘

117%

ABSTRACT r c. 0
(- 5,! ' .' ‘
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRUENCY
AND

PRODUCTIVITY, JOB SATISFACTION AND TYPE OF JOB

3!
Joseph Anthony Martella

Congruency, as discussed by Argyris (19573196h), was
related theoretically to organizational identification
(Katz and Kahn, 1966; Brown, 1969; and Hall gt.gl., 1970).
Specifically, congruency, which refers to the degree of .
perceived communality that exists between an individual's
goals and the goals of his organization, was discussed as
the static aspect of the larger concept of organizational
identification.

This study investigated the relationships between
congruency and common organizational variables such as
productivity, Job satisfaction, and type of Job.

The subject sample consisted of luuz employees of a
medium sized industrial organization.

The measure of congruency was based on sixteen Job-
related goals that were included in a questionnaire. Each
§_was asked to rate how important a particular goal was
for himself, and how important he thought it was for his
company. Differences were obtained between these individual

ratings, and the differences were squared.

Joseph Anthony Martella

The results indicated that there was no relationship
between congruency as measured in this study and producti-
vity, that there was no difference in the amount of congru-
ency reported by line or staff people, and that there was a
positive relationship between congruency and Job satisfaction,
and a negative relationship between congruency and the amount
of variance in job satisfaction reported at different levels

of congruency.

Thesis Committee:

 

 

/Z ,9 (21 _» I/,/
Dr. Carl Frost, Chairman Approved: ('{,7¢g«oeygapaé
,I’)
x/ ,. (/
Dr. Frank Schmidt Date: 1/ 1;; /€2_,/;, /
/
./

Dre RObort Ruh

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONGRUENCY
AND
PRODUCTIVITY, JOB SATISFACTION AND TYPE OF JOB

By

Joseph Anthony Martella

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1971

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to Mr. Edward Leonard,

Mr. Roger Vogler, and Members of the Employee Relations
Department for their help in collecting and suggestions for
analyzing the performance data.

Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Robert Ruh and
Frank Schmidt, members of my committee, who more than once
made sense out of chaos.

I also wish to thank Dr. Carl Frost, my major adviser
for this project. In addition to facilitating the relation-
ships with the organization and stimulating my thoughts
about data, Dr. Frost has never rejected my requests for
advice and guidance at any time or on any subject. He has
been an invaluable mentor and friend to this point in my
career.

Finally I wish to thank my severest (and yet kindest)
critic of all, my wife Snow. I thank her for her countless
hours of typing and proofreading, not the most exciting jobs
in the world. But more importantly I thank her because this
thesis is written for her, and if she can understand it then

I have fulfilled a major objective I set out to accomplish.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables.......................................
List of Figures......................................
Introduction.........................................
Methods..............................................
Data Collection................................
Research Site and Subjects.....................
Measurement of the Variables...................
Data Analysis..................................
Results..............................................
Discussion...........................................
Summary of Results.............................
Limitations....................................
Conclusions....................................
Bibliography.........................................
Appendix A

JOb AttItUdO Measures.........................o

iii

iv

10
10
10
11
1h
16
2h
2b,
2h
25
29

31

TABLE I

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE h

TABLE 5

TABLE 6

LIST OF TABLES

Means and Standard Deviation

for the Measures of Congruency,

Job Satisfaction, and Pro-
duetivitYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoee17

Summary of the Distribution of
Mean Congruency within the
Sample.O...OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...17

Correlation and Eta Coefficients
between Congruency and Pro-
duet1'1ty0000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.18

Summary of Analysis of Variance
for the Relationship between
Congruency and Productivity............18

Mean Congruency for Line and
Staff Individuall.o.oo.............o...20

Variance in the amount of Job

Satisfaction reported for
levdhlI”?congruency.......o.........oo22

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 The Relationship between
Congruency and Productivity.............. 19

INTRODUCTION

The basic theme that pervades much of the theory and
research within organizational psychology is the relation-
ship between an organization and the individuals who are a
part of that organization. Within this general conceptual
framework, Argyris (1957;196u) discusses the concept of con-
gruency between goals as one specific problem. Specifically
congruency refers to the degree to which the goals of the-
individual and the goals of the organization are compatible
or are perceived to be compatible. In this sense it would
seem that congruency is a static psychological state of
being that exists at a particular time in a particular sit-
uation. This conception of congruency as a situation-
specific variable implies that the level of congruency can
be altered. This process of altering the level of congruency,
specifically increasing the compatibility between the indivi-
dual's goals and the organization's goals, has variously been
labeled "Goal Integration", "Internalization", or "Identifi-
cation". The processes are seemingly similar enough to merit
discussion within the same paper.

Barret (1970) states that there are three models which
have been developed to explain how the individual's goals

and the organization's goals become increasingly congruent:

2

The exchange model; the socialization model; and the accom-
modation model. Although each model starts from a different
set of assumptions and each model utilizes different means,
all are goal integration mechanisms. Organizations operat-
ing under either the exchange model or the socialization
model attempt to influence or to condition members toward
valuing activities which are instrumental to achieving organ-
izational objectives or to disvaluing activities which are
not instrumental in achieving organizational objectives.
However, organizations operating under the accommodation
model assume that the individual's needs and motives are
given and place emphasis on considering these individual.
goals while determining organizational objectives. Barret
discusses the theory of Argyris (196k) as an example within
the accommodation model.

A somewhat more specific theoretical approach has been
developed by Katz and Hahn (1966) and researchers following
their tradition (Brown, 1969; Hall g£,§l., 1970; and Patchen
1965). Katz and Kahn, while discussing the psychological
basis of organizational effectiveness (Chapter 12) label
four motivational patterns which are used and can be used in
organizational settings: legal compliance; instrumental sat-
isfaction; self-expression and self-determination; and inter-
nalization of organizational goals. In an age when the
effectiveness and even survival of an organization may well
depend on its adaptability and its flexibility (Bennis,l966),
Katz and Kahn (1966) indicate that internalization of

3

organizational goals is "The most effective of motive
patterns and the most difficult to evoke within the limits
of conventional organizational practice and policy (p. 389)."

In terms of Barret's (1970) taxonomy this motivational
pattern would be consistent with either the socialization
model or the accommodation model contingent upon the strategy
for implementation, i.e. directed toward the organizational
objectives or toward the accommodation of individual needs.
However, the essential idea of the motivational pattern is
that the goals and values of the organization become in-
corporated as a part of the value system of the individual.
Such a motivational system allows the individual to esta-
blish his self-identity within the organization and to ex-
press the values appropriate to that image. The rewards to
the individual stem from the establishment and clarification
of his self-concept, and also from seeing the self-concept
approach his self-ideal.

Several studies (Brown, 1969: Hall 22.21., 1970 and
Patchen, 1965) have treated this concept developed by Katz
and Kahn (1966) in an empirical rather than a strictly
theoretical way. These authors, however, label the process
"Organizational Identification". Hall 32.31., (1970) speci-
fically define organizational identification as "the process
by which the goals of the organization and those of the
individual become increasingly congruent (PP. 176-177)."

One purpose of Patchen's (1965) work at the TVA was to

develop a set of items to measure identification with the

h

work organization which he defines as "a sense of solidarity
(i.e. of common interest and purpose) with other members of
the organization, especially with the top leaders (p. 55)."
Such a sense is accompanied by a willingness to label one-
self as an organization member and by a willingness to
support the organization. Starting with a sample of 13 items,
Patchen reports that 8 items had acceptable reliability and
validity to be included as a measure of identification. In
particular, Patchen reports as evidence of validity a signi-
ficant relation between identification and displaying a TVA
sticker and between identification and expectation of re-
maining with the organization. There was no relationship-
between identification and absenteeism or between identifi-
cation and turnover. The items Patchen (1965) developed
were used in a study by Brown (1969).

The primary focus of Brown's (1969) study was on the
determinants of organizational identification, and the
most general conclusion is that identification is mediated
by what Brown terms "symbolic motivation". Symbolic moti-
vation refers to a state of ego-involvement in an individu-
al's activities. According to Brown pragmatic motivation,
on the other hand, refers to a state of deficiency where the
result rather than the activity performed is valued by the
individual. While satisfaction of symbolic motives leads to
identification, satisfaction of pragmatic motivations more
often leads to dependence. Consequently Brown predicted

that identification should be independent of pragmatic

5

rewards ordinarily available in organizations. The results
confirmed his predictions for the following pragmatic re-
wards: promotion, supervision, salary, co-workers, seniority
and rank.

Brown also argued that identification will be negatively
related to factors which diminish the visibility and the
potency of the organization as a source of potentially gra-
tifying Opportunities. Thus he predicted that there would
be a negative relationship between identification and group
cohesiveness and between identification and task interdepen-
dence. Brown's data confirmed the relationship between iden-
tification and group cohesiveness and between identification
and task interdependence. The relationship between identi-
fication and group cohesiveness, while in the predicted dir-
ection, was not significant.

The Hall 23.31. (1970) study was a study of the person-
al dynamics of organizational identification in the 0.8.
Forest Service. This study provided support for the Katz
and Kahn (1966) contention that identification would in-
crease as a function of tenure and hierarchical position.

In addition the Hall 23,31. study found that identification
was related to intrinsic need satisfaction - specifically
the satisfaction of needs for autonomy and self-fulfillment.
Due to the specialized nature of the sample, one must be
wary of over generalization when interpreting the results

of the Hall 23,31. study.

6

An important point to note at this time is that mea-
sures of this process have been Likert-type items. Speci-
fically Brown (1969) used a measure Patchen (1965) develop-
ed. Barret (1970) argues that it was necessary to combine
the scores on his two items through a transformation to
avoid measuring mere compatibility of goals (cf. Barret,
1970, pp. 135-136 for the specific transformation employed).

Whether the process is called integration, internali-
zation, or identification the result of the process is an
increase in the amount of congruency at a particular time,
in a particular situation. Despite the relative importance
attached to congruency by some authors (Argyris 1957;196h)
very little research has focused exclusively on this vari-
able.

In 1957 Argyris prOposed a series of ten postulates
concerning the lack of compatibility between an individual's
goals and organizational objectives. The most significant of
these postulates is the first which states that there is a
large amount of incongruency in most situations. Farris
(1962), on a sample of scientists, and Kornhauser (1965), on
a sample of blue-collar industrial workers provide support
for this proposition. This result of Kornhauser's study was
actually incidental to the study which focused on job comp
plexity and its relation to mental health.

The study by Farris (1962), which was part of a larger
project by Pelz and Andrews (1966), also investigated two
other propositions of Argyris (1957) which concern the

7

relation of this incongruency to disturbance, frustration,
failure, short time perspective, and risk taking, and the
relation between congruency and job level. In addition
Farris investigated the relation between congruency and
performance, and whether or not different patterns of con-
gruency emerged for different subgroups with his sample.

Unlike the studies cited above which focused on the
process of increasing congruency, Farris (1962) and Pelz
and Andrews (1966) used difference scores to measure the
major variable. Such an approach is consistent with the
conception of congruency as a psychological state of being.

Farris found general support for the propositions test-
ed. He also found a positive correlation between measures
of congruency and judgements of job performance and useful-
ness to the organization. When he divided his sample into
subgroups, Farris found stronger relationships for non-
doctoral scientists, development departments, and co-ordinated
departments. Farris suggests that this difference might be
due to the fact that scientists in these situations may be
more dependent on their organization for satisfaction of
their needs. This result does suggest that individuals
occupying different types of jobs may report different
amounts of congruency.

The Pelz and Andrews (1966) study contains a more de-
tailed analysis of the relationship between congruency and
(performance than does the earlier report by Farris. Their

results indicate that individuals who expressed a high degree

8

of congruency produced many reports. However, scientists

who reported only moderate congruency produced more pgpers
(which the authors designate as work of greater scientific
value and of greater usefulness to the organization). The
authors conclude that a mild degree of stress is stimulating,
as was suggested by Argyris (l96h). The relationship between
congruency and performance has yet to be investigated in an
industrial setting.

This study was designed to investigate the relationship
between congruency and other variables within an industrial
setting. Three important points about this study should be
mentioned. First, the study focused on levels of congruency -
the degree of compatibility between an individual's goals
and the objectives of his organization at a particular time.
As a consequence the process of increasing congruency and
the relationship between this process and other variables was
not investigated. Second, the sample for the study consisted
of individuals employed in a manufacturing industry. Farris
(1962) and Pelz and Andrews (1966) studied the same sample
consisting of scientists employed in a research and develop-
ment organization. Third, due to the lack of research focus-
ing on congruency, much of this study is exploratory in nature.
Specifically, while not hypothesizing a linear or a curvi-
linear relation, the study examined the relation between
congruency and productivity. The study also explored the re-
lationship between congruency and job satisfaction as well as

whether there were any differences in the amount of congruency

reported by individuals occupying different types of jobs.

METHODS

Data Collection Procedures

With.the exception of the productivity data, the
measurement of all the variables in this study was based
on the responses to a questionnaire administered to employ-
ees of a medium sized manufacturing organization. The data
were collected in the summer of 1968 as part of a larger
project involving six organizations which are members of
the Midwest Scanlon Associates. That survey was conducted
by research teams from the Department of Psychology at
Michigan State University. A detailed description of the.
exact data collection procedures is contained in a recent
report by Ruh (1970).

To supplement that data performance data were collected
for a five month period extending from January 1, 1970 to
May 23, 1970.

Research Site and Subjects

 

The organization selected for this study was the
largest organization that participated in the 1968 survey
with approximately 3,000 employees. It is located in
Michigan and has 1h separate plants.

With respect to management philosophy, the organization
is a juxtaposition of two somewhat antagonistic systems.

On the one hand, the organization employs the Scanlon Plan
(Lesieur, 1958). On the other hand the organization has

10

11

used and is using compensation systems that are contrary to
the tenets of the Scanlon Plan. In 1968 most of the pro-
duction employees were paid on a piece rate basis. In 1970
the company introduced a measured day rate system.of compen-
sation.

0f the two factories from which performance data were
collected, Factory x is located in the same city as the
corporate headquarters while Factory Y’is located so miles
away. The return rate of the 1968 questionnaires for Factory
X was .650 and for Factory Y'was .606. The return rate for
the total organization was .670.

In this study, any subject who failed to answer more‘
than one-fourth of the questions that constitute any of the
variables was eliminated when analyzing these variables.

The resulting overall N was 1hh2, which is 82% of the
questionnaires returned. There were performance data for
198 of these 2s.

Measurement 32 the Variables

 

Congruency: It was mentioned above that one difference
between studies focusing on the process of increasing con-
gruency (Brown, 1969; Hall 32.31., 1970) and studies focus-
ing on the psychological state of being or the result of
that process (Farris, 1962; Pelz and Andrews, 1966) is a
methodologocal difference. The Brown and Hall 32.31. studies
employed Likert-type items as the measure of identification,

while Farris and Pelz and Andrews utilized difference scores

12

as the measure of congruency. In particular they asked each
§'to rate the importance of a particular need and then to
rate how adequately the organization provided means to
satisfy this need.

The 1968 survey included a section where each § rated
on a Likert-type scale the importance to him of sixteen job-
related goals, and a section where he rated how important
he thought these same goals were to his company. Differences
between an individual's rating on particular goals for him-
self and his rating for his company were squared. The aver-
age of these squared difference scores yielded the measure
of congruency. The specific goal importance items are in-
cluded in Appendix A. Coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1961)
for the measure of congruency was .75.

Several factors should be noted about this measure of
congruency. Conceptually, congruency refers to the degree
of perceived communality between the goals important to an
individual and the extent to which the organization provides
opportunities to realize these goals. It seems reasonable
to assume that the organization will provide opportunities
to realize goals which it believes are important. Obtaining
a measure of the importance of various goals to the organi-
zation, then, is at worst an indirect measure of the oppor-
tunities that exist within the organization for an indivi-
dual to realize his own goals.

Finally, the difference scores were squared to facili-

tate interpretations of the scale. Earlier analyses

13

involving the unsquared scores were difficult to interpret
because the underlying scale was not unidimensional. Rather,
two conditions existed: some individuals perceived the or-
ganization as not providing enough opportunities to realize
their goals while other individuals perceived the organiza-
tion as "overproviding" Opportunities. This study assumes
that the two conditions are psychologically the same in that
they both indicate a lack of congruency. Consequently the
individual difference scores were squared and the average

of these squares functioned as the measure of congruency.

Job Satisfaction: The 1968 survey included two Likert-

 

type items which functioned as the measure of job satisfac-
tion. The two items were designed to measure the degree of
overall positive affect which the individual feels for his
job situation (Ruh, 1970). Thus the measure was not as
specific as other measures of job satisfaction (cf. Smith
32.31., 1969). The specific items are included in Appendix
A. Coefficient alpha for this measure of job satisfaction
was .82.

Productivi2y: The measured day rate system employed by
this company requires that the plants keep weekly records of
an individual's percent of standard produced. This percent
is calculated for an individual's primary job and for his
total performance and takes into account machine down time
and other work stoppages which are not the individual's
fault. The measure of productivity was the average during

the above mentioned 20 week period (adjusted for vacations,

1(4-

sick leave, and other absences) of an individual's performs
ance rating (or percent of standard) on his primary job.

Line and Staff: The line and staff classification may

 

be a misnomer in that the dichotomization was not based on
types of authority as is traditional (Blau and Scott, 1962).
Rather the dichotomy was based on the type of work an indivi-
dual performed, and how his job related to the overall pro-
duction. If an individual's job was directly connected with
the production process his job was classified as a line type
job. All other jobs (of those which could be identified)
were classified as staff type jobs. For example, all jobs in
the manufacturing plants with the exception of "maintenance",
"mechanic", or "clerical" were classified as line jobs. All
jobs in the warehousing facilities were classified as staff
jobs since these people were not directly involved in the
production process. In all plants industrial engineers were
classified as having line jobs. This dichotomy resulted in
96h individuals classified as having line-type jobs and 282
as having staff-type jobs. The remaining 202 §s could not
be classified, primarily because they failed to answer that
questionnaire item.

Data Analysis

 

Farris (1962) reported a linear relationship between
congruency and performance, while Pelz and Andrews (1966)
reported a curvilinear relationship. Since there is no rea-
son to favor one finding over the other, this study utilized

two analyses to investigate the relationship between

15
congruency and productivity. First, the simple correlation
coefficient between the two variables was calculated. Second,
the Eta coefficient between the two variables was calculated.

To calculate Eta, gs were divided into three categories of

 

congruency:
Category Range N
Medium 2e00'3e99 73

This trichotomy yielded comparable N's in each category and
permitted later psychological interpertations of data.

To test for differences in the amount of congruency
reported by individuals occupying line jobs and individuals
occupying staff jobs, a simple two-tailed t test was calcu-
lated. There is no evidence in the literature that would
justify a specific prediction at this point.

To investigate the relationship between congruency and
job satisfaction, the correlation coefficient between these
two variables was calculated. Furthermore, if Argyris is
correct theoretically in implying that congruency is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for job satisfaction,
there may be a positive relationship between the amount of
congruency reported and the variance in the amount of job
satisfaction reported. To investigate this relationship
the correlation coefficient between levels of congruency
and the variance in the amount of congruency and the variance
in the amount of job satisfaction reported at each level was

calculated.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for
the variables included in this study. It is important to
note that the means reported in Table 1 cannot be directly
compared. Each of the variables was calculated on a differ-
ent type of scale as was mentioned earlier. Because of the
nature of the congruency measure, a mean of 0.00 would in-
dicate maximum.congruency while a mean of 16.00 would in-
dicate maximum incongruency. The distribution of means
actually ranged from 0.00 to 15.50. Nine gs reported that
they were perfectly congruent with their organization and
only one § reported that he and the organization were ex-
tremely incongruent. Only twelve 3s reported a mean con-
gruency greater than 7.50 (which theoretically might be
construed as approximately the midpoint of the scale). The
median score fell in the range from 2.00 to 2.25. Approxi-
mately 65% of the sample (937 2s) reported a mean score
between 0.00 and 2.99. Thus, although 2.59 is significant-
1y different from.0.00, it seems reasonable to conclude that
this sample did not express a great deal of incongruency.
This data is summarized in Tables 2 and 6.

Tables 3 and h and Figure 1 present data relevant to
the relationship between congruency and productivity. None
of the statistics presented in Tables 3 or u are significant.
Figure 1 represents a graph of the relationship between the

two variables. Individual comparisons between the

16

17

TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations for the
Measures of Congruency, Job Satisfaction,
and Productivity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Mean S.D. N

Congruency 2.59 1.7h iuuz

Job Satisfaction 3.33 1.05 lth

Productivity 107.05 17.97 I 198
TABLE 2

Summary of the Distribution of
Mean Congruency within the Sample

 

 

 

X N
0.00-2.00 937
0.00 9
2.00-2.25 728
7.50-15.50 12

15.50 1

 

18

TABLE 3

Correlation and Eta Coefficients Between
Congruency and Productivity

 

 

 

 

 

 

r Eta
Congruency
0.09 0.06
Productivity
N=l98
TABLE A

Summary of Analysis of Variance for the
Relationship Between Congruency
and Productivity

 

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Congruency 2 115.20 .35
Error 195 326.76

Total 197 7 1

 

 

110
109
108
107
106
105
1011
103
102
101
100

 

l9

 

(108.08)
(107.76)
(105-73)
4. 1 .L
Low Moderate High
Congruency
Figure l

The Relationship Between
Congruency and Productivity

20

productivity means for the high, moderate, and low
categories of congruency also failed to yield any signifi-
cant results. However, despite this total lack of any
significant relationships, Figure l is interesting because
it does mirror the data reported by Pelz and Andrews (1966).
In the Pelz and Andrews data, however, there were significant
relationships and the relative values of the productivity
means for the "high" and the "low" groups were Opposite
what they are here.

The results presented in Table 5 indicate that there
is no significant difference in the amount of congruency
reported by individuals occupying line or staff jobs. It.is
important to note that job level was 332 controlled in this
analysis. Argyris (1957;196h) suggested that there would
be a negative relationship between congruency and job level.
Because Of the nature of the classification, the probability
is quite high that many 28 in the line sample are from.the
lower levels of the hierarchy.

TABLE 5

Mean Congruency for line and Staff Individuals

 

 

 

Mean S.D. N* t
Line 2.63 1.72 96h 1.05 NS
Staff 2.u3 1.57 282

 

 

 

 

 

* 202 §s could not be classified

21

The correlation between congruency and job satisfaction
was -0.31, which is highly significant. (The negative re-
lationship was due to the scoring of the variables. Maximum
congruency was indicated by a score of 0.00 and maximum job
satisfaction was indicated by a score of 5.00). Because the
nature Of the two measures was so different very little of
this relationship can be attributed to some sort of response
set or overall affect towards a particular type Of scale
which are common criticisms levelled at relationships cal-
culated between questionnaire items.

Table 6 presents the data used to analyze the exten-
sion of this hypothesis based on the "necessary but not
sufficient" implication. The table presents the levels of
congruency, the interval each level includes, the number of
Ԥs per level, and the amount of variance in job satisfaction
reported at each level. Theoretically there could have
been 6h levels. In fact, only 6 levels above level 30 in-
cluded any 33 at all and the maximum number of §sin any
of these 6 levels was three. Consequently, the analysis
involved only 30 levels.

The correlation between the levels of congruency and
the amount of variance in job satisfaction reported at each
level was +0.h0 which is significant (p<.05, dfl=28). This
correlation suggests that as congruency increases (i.e.
moves from level 30 to level 1), the amount of variance in
job satisfaction reported at each level decreases. As §e

become more congruent, as a group they are becoming more

22

TABLE 6

Variance in the amount of Job Satisfaction
reported for levels of Congruency

 

Job Satisfaction

Variance in

N

Interval

Level

 

 

767h71993025060u288193172h0037
17919987870281189002342h785260
0000.000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
100100000011011001111212000211
029978328h50033065867088312595
36751907067686635h3122 ll
1 1 1

505950595059505950595059505950
257925792579257925792579257925
00OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...
hemmasaaaeeeeeeeammmssee888evv
061606160616061606160616061606
025702570257025702570257025702
00.00.00.000 0.. 00..
0000ll1122223333huh85555666677

123h567890123u56789
1111111111

23

consistent in at least one other job attitude. At the same
time as each 28 is becoming more congruent, he is feeling
more positively toward his total job situation.

It should be noted that this relationship between levels
of congruency and variance in the amount of job satisfac-
tion reported at each level is not consistent with the
"necessary but not sufficient" implication. Such an im-
plication predicts an opposite relationshipk i.e. as con-
gruency increases the amount of variance in job satisfac-
tion reported would also increase. This prediction results
from.the assumption that individuals at low levels of con-
gruency should report little, if any, job satisfaction. In-
dividuals at higher levels of congruency would have no

restrictions on the amount of job satisfaction they report.

DISCUSSION

Summary 32 Results

1. There was no relationship between congruency and pro-
ductivity. The data did mirror the data reported
by Pelz and Andrews (1966).

2. There was no difference in the amount of congruency
reported by individuals occupying line or staff type
jobs.

3. As congruency increased, job satisfaction increased,
and the variance in the amount of job satisfaction '
reported decreased.

Limitations

 

There are several considerations about this study
which must be recognized before any interpretations or
conclusions are justified. First, there were not complete
data for every individual in this study. This, however,
is not viewed as a serious limitation. It is unlikely that
the lack of significant results can be attributed to the
reliability of the measure of congruency. The alpha co-
efficient (.75) for this measure is quite adequate for
research purposes.

An additional limitation results from the almost two-
year lag between the original survey and the collection of
the productivity data. In itself, the time lag would pro-

bably have very little effect on the results. However,

2h

25

during this two-year period the organization underwent a
major change moving from piece rates to measured day rates.
Furthermore, the two plants from which the productivity
data were collected had not been on measured day rates the
same length of time. The same five month period was chosen
for both plants, however, due to the availability of records.
Consequently the samples from the two plants may not be
homogeneous and it might not have been legitimate to combine
the data.

Finally, there is the problem of control. Many vari-
ables, such as job level and tenure, should have been
controlled or held constant but were not. Actually this is
a limitation only in the sense that these variables may
have obscured or confounded some of the relationships in-

vestigated.

Conclusions

 

Unfortunately, the results of this study do not yield
any substantive answers to the questions investigated. Con-
sequently, it is difficult to develop forceful statements
about the nature and function of congruency within an organ-
izational settings. Nevertheless the concept is still be-
lieved to be important and worthy of further research. In
view of the increasing number of companies declaring bank-
ruptcy in the face of the pressure of increased wages and
expensive fringe benefits and the competition of foreign

imports, the concept of congruency between the goals of the

26

individual and organizational objectives would seem to be a
major industrial concern. Following Argyris' (1957;196h)
contention that an alienated worker may be a very productive
worker, but he will be a productive worker at a high cost to
the organization, it would appear that the cost of this in-
congruity is becoming exorbitant and survival is threatened.
This contention has been recognized at managerial levels

and programs have been developed to reduce this alienation
at these levels.

The central procedure in one well-known program,
Management By Objectives (Drucker, 195h), revolves around
a mutual evaluation and goal-setting session involving an
individual and his superior. The result of this session is
a set of objectives which, while derived from the goals of
the organization takes into account the abilities, needs,
and expectations of the individual. In other words, some
degree of congruency is established between an individual
and his organization. Unfortunately typical M.B.0. programs
are designed for and utilized at managerial levels.

A program.which is analogous to M.B.0. programs but
functions in the total organization rather than just in
dyadic relationships within the organization is the Scanlon
Plan (Lesieur, 1958). Many prominent organizational theorists
and researchers (Argyris, 196A; McGregor, 1960; and Katz and
Kahn, 1966) assert that the Scanlon Plan is one managerial
and organizational philosOphy that facilitates the integra-

tion of an individual's goals and his organization's goals.

27

This is particularly significant because unlike the Kornhauser
(1965) and the Ferris (1962) studies, this study did not find
a great amount of incongruency expressed by the sample, and
the sample was drawn from an organization which employs the
Scanlon Plan. It appears to this author that the most
valuable research in this area would be comparative studies
designed to validate the efficacy of the Scanlon Plan.
Specifically such studies should be designed to uncover what
conditions must exist within an organization to facilitate
the development of congruency. Such studies would be most
valuable if they are accompanied by methodological improve-
ments in studies designed to crystallize theoretical formu-
lations. Once the theories are clarified and the conditions
isolated the logical extension of the research would be
studies investigating specific relationships between con-
gruency and other organizational variables.

Some specific relationships that merit investigation
have been implied above. The relationship between congruency
and job level; the relationship between congruency and turn-
over; the relationship between congruency and demographic
variables such as sex, education, etc. furthermore, it
seems reasonable that few, if any, of the relationships
cited above will be simple relationships, and one could
expect a number of interactions.

Finally, it would be valuable to investigate the con-
current relationship between congruency and productivity

and to investigate this relationship at managerial levels.

28

This study did not statistically support the Pelz and Andrews
(1966) result that the greatest performance occured at mod-
erate levels of congruency. In a sense the score is tied

on this issue and further studies are needed to break this
tie. If the result of these studies support the Pelz and
Andrews result the next question is why. What is it about
moderate levels of congruency (or mildly stressful situations)

that seems to be motivating?

BI BLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Argyris, C. Integrating the Individual and the
Organization. New York: Wiley, l96h.

 

Argyris, C. Personality and Organization. New
York: Harper, 1957.

Barret, J.H. Individual goals and organizational
Objectives: A study of integration mechanisms. Technical
report, Institute for Social Research, University Of Michigan,
1970.

Bennie, W.G. Changigg Organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966.

 

Blau, P.M. and W.R. Scott. Formal Organizations:
A Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler
Publishing Company, 1962.

 

Brayfield, A.H. and W.R. Crockett. Employee
attitudes and employee performance. Psychological
Bulletin, 1955,52, 396-h2k.

 

Brown, M.E. Identification and some conditions of
or anizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarter1y,

19 9e Eb 3&6'3550

Drucker, P. The Practice 32 Management. New York:
Harper, 195k.

 

 

 

Farris, G.F. Congruency of scientists' motives with
their organizations' provisions for satisfying them:
It's relationship to motivation, affective job experiences,
styles of work, and performance. Mimeographed,
Department of Psychology University Of Michigan, 1962.

29

Hall, D.T., B. Schneider, and H.T. Nygren. Personal
factors in organizational identification. Administrative

 

Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 176-190.

 

Katz, D. and R. L. Hahn. The Social Psychology Lf
Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1966.

 

 

Kornhauser, A. Mental Health Lf the Industrial
Worker. New York: Wiley, 1965.

 

 

Lesieur, F.G. (ed.). The Scanlon Plan. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1958.

 

McGregor, D. The Human Side Lf Enterprise.
New York: McGraw-HIII'f_I9EU'

 

Patchen, Martin. Some Questionnaire Measures of

Emgloyee Motivation and Morale. survey Research Center,
n vers ty of MIC HIgan, I955.

Pelz, D.C. and P.M. Andrews. Scientists in
Organizations: Productive Climates TOrIResearcE-and
DeveIOpment. New York: Wiley, 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

Ruh, R.A. The effects of ego-need gratification
and extra-work socialization on employees' responses to
their jobs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin. The
Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement.
Chicago: Rand'McNa IIy, I959.—

 

 

3O

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

Job Attitude Measures

 

Measure of Congruency

The numbers following each statement refer to the

questionnaire in the form of Company Goals-Personal Goals.
The Company Goals' section preceded each statement with
"How important to your company is:". The Personal Goals'
section preceded each statement with "How important to

you is:".
l. A feeling that the work you are doing is important
(153-93)
2. Being recognized and appreciated for doing good work
(lué- 87)
3. Having) responsibility on your job
(1&5 9)
h. Turning out high quality work
(16h-91)
5. Having good chances for promotion
(159 S
6. Being able to decide how to do your job
(156-92)
7. A sense of achievement in the work you are doing
(163-95)
8. Being able to learn new skills and gain experience
on your job
(155-9h)
9. Having a challenging job
(162-7A)
10. Being trusted by the people you work with
(1&3-77)
11. Being liked by the peOple you work with
(157-8h)
12. Working under good (safe, clean, pleasant) conditions

(161-83)
31

APPENDIX A (CONCLUDED)

Measure Of Congruency (concluded)

13.

1h.

15.

16.

Receiving fair pay
(11411-78)

Having a supervisor who really knows his job

(1&7-73)

Steadg work and steady wages
(152- 1)

Having relations of trust and confidence between
superior and subordinates

(1h9-75)

Measure of Job Satisfaction

The number following each statement refers to the

questionnaire.

1.

2.

How much do you actually enjoy performing the day-
tO—day activities that make up your Job? (58)

How much do gou look forward to coming to work
each day? (6 )

32

ICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

III" II II “I
1

 

HI ll)!" lllll NIH
8

312930 08 0098