The use of a multivariate organizational behavior model in describing individual, group, and intergroup behavior

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The use of a multivariate organizational behavior model in describing individual, group, and intergroup behavior a comparison of three manufacturing firms
Physical Description:
xii, 340 leaves. : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
English, Jon, 1933-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Industrial organization -- Case studies   ( lcsh )
Industrial sociology -- Case studies   ( lcsh )
Management and Business Law thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Management and Business Law -- UF   ( lcsh )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 336-339.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000585259
oclc - 14206016
notis - ADB3892
System ID:
AA00002230:00001

Full Text














The Use of a Multivariate
Describing Individual,
A Comparison of


Organizational Behavior Model
Group, and Intergroup Behavior:
Three Manufacturing Firms


JON ENGLISH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


Page


LIST

LIST


OF TABLES


OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


ABSTRACT


Chapter


INTRODUCTION


S S S S S S SS S S S S C Ii


Obje


active


Study


of the S


Limitations
Importance
Methods of


Data


tudy
the
the


Stud


Study.


Gatherin


* C S S S S S S
* C S 5 9 5 S C C C


and Measurement


Implementation


the Stud


Succ


feeding


Chapt


ers.


THE MELCHER ORGANIZATIONAL


Introduction
Structural V
Leadership V


Behavioral
Limitations
Conclusion


BEHAVIOR MODEL.


5 0 5 0 9 *S S C C S S16


ariables
ariables


Variables


Mode


DATA


DESCRIPTION
Introduction


OF PLANT


Primary
Mediatin


Structure


q tre. ua


Variables


Vari


Plant


ables


Plant A


Leadershi


tensions


Plant A


Behavi


DATA


oral


DESCRIPTION


Profile of

N OF PlANT


Plant A.


Introduction


Primary
Mediatin


Struc


tural


Structural


'Varia~bles


Variable


Plant


Plant


Leader


shin


uimens


ions


'.5.


Pin nt-


IIZ.


;cur~L LI IL








.Page


Leadership
Behavioral


Dimensions
Profile of


of Plant


Plant


S. . 107
. . . 114


CONTRASTS


AMONG


THREE


PLANTS


Introduction
Differences
Differences
Differences


S S t S SS S S 0 124


in Behavior
in Behavior
in Behavior


etwee


Between
Between


Plants
Plants
Plants


A and B


A and
B and


. 125
. 132
. 134


VII.


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION


Summary . . . 137
Conclusion . . . . 138


GLOSSARY


APPENDICES


Memorandum and


estionnaires.


to the Lead


ership


stionnaire


with


Headin


Added


and Non- indomized


Key
Adde


to the Behavioral


d


Primary an
Behavioral


Non-Randomi
d Mediating
Profiles o


Que
zed


stionnaire


Struc


tural


with H


Leade


eadin


rship,


Plant A


Primary


and Mediatin


Structural


Lead


ership


Behavioral
Primary an
Behavioral


Profiles


Mediating
Profiles o


Plant


Structure


Lead


ership


Plant


SELECTED


BIBLIOGRAPHY.


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.















LIST


OF TABLES


Table


Page


Degree


of Cooperation


Obtained


from


Three


Plants


the Research


Study.


S S S S SS 56


Plant A


naire Items


rage
by


Response
Variable


to Primary


and Work


Struc


tural


Ques


tion-


Group.


Plant
naire


A Ave
Items


rage


Response
Variable


to Mediatin


and Work


Struc


Group.


tural


estion-


S. 35


Plant A


rage


Response


Nine


Second


Level


sors


to Leadership


Questionnaire


aluating


the Plant


Manager


Leadership


Style


Variable.


S S S S S S S S U39


Plant A Aver


age Response


Foremen


and Other


Salaried


Personnel
Immediate


to Lead


ership


Superior's


Lead


estionnaire


ership


Style


Evaluatin


Variable


Their


and Work


Group


S a S S S S S S U S S5 043


Plant


Behavior
Variable


Response of
Ouestionna


and Work


Eight


Desc


Group


second
ribin


Level


Supervi


Employee


sors


Behavior


S U S S U S S S S S S S S


Plant A Aver


Personnel
Behavior


age Response


to Behavior


Variable


Ques


Foremen


tionnaire


and Work Group


Desc


Other
ribin


Salari


Employee


S S S S S S 557


Plant
naire


rage


Items


Response
Variable


to Primary


and Work


Structural


Group.


stion-


a S U S S S 568


Plant
naire


Items


rage Response
bv Variable


to Mediating


and Work Group.


Structural


Question-


S S S S U S 571


Plant


Average Response


Second Level


ervi


sors


leadership


Ques


tionnaire


aluating


Plant


Manager


Lead


ership


ySty.


Variable.


S U S S S S U S S S U 574


Plant


Pprgnnnpl -t


rage


Response


-n T.p ndrnrh-n 0


of Foremen a
rn^*cl-i nnnnf-?rc'


Other


Salari


Fvrl in tna


ThP-i r







Table


Page


Plant


B Response


of Five


Second


Level


Supervisors


Behavior Que
Variable and


stionnaire D
Work Group.


describing


Employee


Behavior


. Plant


B Average


Response


Foremen


and Other Salarie


Personnel
Behavior


to Behavior


Variable


stionnaire


Desc


ribin


Emplo


and Work Group


Plant
naire


C Average


Items


Response
Variable


to Primary


Struc


and Work Group


tural


Ques


tion-


S . 102


Plant
naire


C Average


Items


Response
Variable


to Mediatin


and Work Group


Structural


Ques


tion-


S. 106


Plant
Four


C Average
Supervisors


response
to Lead


Assistant


ership Questi


Plant


onna


Mana


Evaluating


Plant Manager


s Leader


ship


Style


Variable.


Plant
Leade


C Average


rship Que


Response


stionnaire


of Supervi
Evaluating


sors


and 3


stant


Plant


Manager


s Lead


ership


Variable


S. 110


Plant


C Average


Personnel
Immediate


to L


Superior


Response


ership Que


s Lead


of Foremen


stionnaire


ership


Style


and Other


Evaluatin


Salaried


Their


Variable


Work Group


Plant


C Response


stionnaire


Desc


Assi


ribin


stant


Employee


Plant


Behavi


Mana


of W


to Behavior
ork Groups


Plant


C Response


scribing


Employee


Supervi


sors


Behavior


to Behavior


Variable


stiornaire


and Work G


roup


Plant


C Average


Resp


onse


Foremen


and Other


sonnel


to Behavior


Ques


tionn


aire


Desc


ribing


Emplo


Behavior


Variable


and Work Group


Summary o
of Plants


Structural


, Leadership


and Behavioral


actors


, and C


Number


of Individual


a Formal


Unit


and the


Corre


spond-


Values


on a Size


Scal















LIST


OF ILLUSTRATIONS


Figure


Page


Re search


D i .* S . 7


Summary


of the Structural


and Leadership


Variables.


. 19


Summary


of the Behavioral


Indices


S. 23


Organization


Char t,


Plant A


S S S S S S S S C 529


Organization Chart


Plant


50 0 S S S S C C S S C 566


Organization


Chart


Plant


S C S S 04 5C S100


Primary
Group 1,


nd Mediating
Plant A. .


Structural


Variable


Profile


Work


Primary
Group 2


Primary
Group 3


nd Mediating
Plant A .


and Mediating
Plant A. .


Struc


Struc


tural


tural


Variable


Variable


Profile


Profil


Work


Work


Primary
Group 4


and Media tin


Plant A.


Structural


Variable


Profil


Work


S S S 4 5 5 5 S S 4 S S S S S 0225


Primary
Group 5,


and Mediatin
Plant A. .


Structural


Variabi


Profil


Work


Primary
Group 6


Primary


nd Mediating
Plant A. .


and Mediatin


Struc


Struc


tural


tural


Variable


Variabi


Profile


Profile


Work


Work


Group


Plant A.


Primary


and Mediatin


Structural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


Plant A.


Plant Manager's


Leadership


Profile


Plant


" -~"


Design








Figure


Page


Second


Level


Supervisor


s Lead


ership


Profile, Work Group


Plant A.


S. . . . 233


Second


Level


Supervisor


s Lea


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant A.


. . . 234


Second


Level


sor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant


a a S S S S S a a a a S a a S S235


Second


Level


Plant A.


Supervisor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


236


Second


evel


Supervi


sor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant


S a C S S S S S S S S S S Sa S237


Second


Level


ervi


sor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant A.


* .238


Behavioral


Profile


of Empl


oyees


rvisor Response


Work


Group


Plant A.


S S S S S S S S S S S S 5239


Behavioral


Group


Profile


Plant A.


Emplo


yees


sor


Resp


onse


Work


241


Behavioral


Profile


Employees


rvisor Re


sponse


Work


Group


, Plant


S......... S 243


Behavioral Profile


Empl


oyees


rvisor Re


sponse


Work


Group 4,


Plant


S S S S S SS S S S S 5245


Behavioral


Profile


Emplo


yees


ervisor


Response


Work


Group


Plant


S. . . . . 247


Behavioral


Profile


Empl


oyees


uperv


isor


sponse


Work


Group 6,


Plant


S S S a S S S S S S S S 5249


Behavioral


Profile


Employees


ervi


sor


sponse


Work


Group


Plant A.


S a . 251


Behavioral


Profile


Employees


rvisor


Response


Work


Group


Plant A.


S. . . 253


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


Empl


oyees


Work Group


Foremen


Plant A


and Other S


alaried


S. 255


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Empl


oyees


Work Croun


Foreme


Plant


I-


n and


I-'


Other


Salaried


- - 9 7








Figure


Page


Behavioral
Personnel

Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response

Profile
Response


of Employees,
Work Group 4,

of Employees,
Work Group 5,


Foremen
Plant A

Foremen


and Other


and Other


Salaried


Salaried


Plant


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Empl


oyees


Work Group


Foremen and


Other Salaried


Plant A


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Emplo


yees


Work Group


Foremen


Plant


and Other Salaried
S . 267


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Emplo


yees,


Work Group


Foremen
Plant A


and Other


Salaried


S S . 269


Primary
Group 1


Primary
Group 2


and Mediating
Plant B. .


and Mediating
Plant B. .


Struc


Struc


tural


tural


Variabi


Variable


Profile


Profile


Work


Work


Primary
Group 3


Primary
Group 4,


and Mediating
Plant B. .


and Mediating


Plant


Structural


Structural


Variable


Variable


Profile


Profile


Work


Work


S S S C S. S S S S S C S C275


Primary


and Mediating


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


Plant


S* . 276


Primary
Group 6,


and Mediating
Plant B. -


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


Plant Manager


s Leadership


Profile


, Plant


* . 278


Second


Level


Supervisor


s Lead


ership


Profil


, Work Group


Plant


S S a S C S S S S S S S S S S 5279


second


Supervisor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant


S S S S C S S S S S S S S S S 5 5280


Second


Leve


Supervi


sor


s Leade


rship


Profile


, Work Group


, Plant


S. . . . 281


second


Leve


Supervisor


s Leadership


Profile


, Work Group


4, Plant B


* S S S S282









Figure


Page


Behavioral
Work Group


Profile


Plant


of Employees


Supervisor


sponse


S S S S 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 4286


Behavioral
Work Group


Profile


Employees


Supervisor


Response


Plant


Behavioral Profile


of Emplo


yees


uperv


isor


Response


Work Group 4,


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5 9 C290


Behavioral
Work Group


Profile


Plant


Employees


supervisor


Response


S S S S S S S S S SS 5292


Behavioral


Salaried


Profile


Personnel


Employees


sponse,


Foremen


Work Group


and Other


Plant


Behavioral


Profile


of Emplo


yees,


Foremen


and Other


Salaried


Personnel


sponse,


Work Group


Plant


Behavioral


Salaried


Behavioral


Profile


Personnel


Profile


of Emplo


Response,


of Emplo


yees,


Work


yees,


Foremen


Group


Foremen


and Other


Plant


and Other


Salaried


Personnel 1


sponse, Work Group


Plant


Behavioral


Salaried

Primary


Profile


Personnel


and Mediatin


of Employees,


sponse, Wor

Structural


Foremen


k Gr


Variable


and Other


Plant


Profile


Work


Group


Plant


Primary


and Mediatin


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


Plant


Primary


Mediatin


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


Plant


Primary
Group 4,


Mediatin


Structure


Variable


Profile


Work


Plant


Primary


Mediati


Structural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


P S . . . .


Primary


and Mediating


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S


Primary


and Mediati


Struc


tural


Variable


Profile


Work


n. -*1 -


Plant


rr


I









Figure


Page


Second


Leve


Supervisor


s Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


, Plant


second


sor


s Lead


ership


Profil


, Work Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S315


Second


Leve


ervisor


s Leade


rship


Profile


, Work Group


Plant


S S S S S S SS SS S S a316


Second


ervisor's Lead


ership


Profile


, Work Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5317


Behavioral


Response,


Profile


of Emplo


Work Groups


yees,
and 3


Assistant


Plant


Plant


Manager


318
S S SS S


Behavioral


Profile


of Employees


ervisor


Response


Work


Group


Plant


S S . S S S S S 320


Behavioral


Profile


of Employees


, Supervisor


Response


Work


Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5322


Behavioral


Profile


of Empl


oyees


, Supervi


sor


Response


Work


Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5 324


Behavioral


Profile


Employees


Superv


isor


sponse


Work


Group


Plant


S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5326


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


Empl


oyees


Work Group


Foremen
, Plant


and Other


Salaried


S 328


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Empl


oyees,


Work Group


Foremen


and Other


Salaried


Plant


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Empl


oyees,


Work Group


Foremen and


Plant


Other


Salaried


. o . 332


Behavioral
Personnel


Profile
Response


of Empl


oyees


Work Group


Foremen
, Plant


Other


Salaried


. . . . . . ^314















Abstract


of Dissertation


Presented


to the


Graduate


Council


of the University


of the Requirements


for the


of Florida


Degree


in Partial


of Doctor


Fulfillment


of Philosophy


OF A MULTIVARIATE


ORGANIZATIONAL


BEHAVIOR MODEL


DESCRIBING


INDIVIDUAL,


GROUP


INTERGROUP


BEHAVIOR:


A COMPARISON


OF THREE


MANUFACTURING


FIRMS


Jon English


August,


1972


Chairman:


Major


Dr. William


Department:


Wilmot,


Management


The p

behavioral


primary ob

patterns


jective

that e


of this


xist


study


in organizati


to describe

ons in terms


and analyze


of the influenc-


forces


of structural


and leadership


variables.


A secondary purpose


of this


study


to emplgy


a new multivariate


"systems"


model


that


purports


to identify


certain


variables


that


explain


human


behavior


within


an organization


assess


the operational


feasibility


of the


in empirical


research.


A field


study was


conducted which


included


three


manufacturing


plants


of the


same


corporation


but geographically


dispersed


within


southeastern


part


of the United


States.


All the salaried


personnel


each


of the three


plants


were


included


in the study.


Data


concerning


the structural


, leadership,


and behavioral


factors


existing within


plants were


there


from


personal


interviews,


observation,


use









Several


general


conclusions


can be reached


from


the results


this


research.


The analyses


of the behavioral


patterns


evidenced


the three


plants


and the variables


which


influ


enced


their


development


were


found


to be almost


entire


in keeping with


the available


research


literature.


This


exploratory


study


not utilize


statistical


techniques


in assessing


the validity


of the model.


The basic


assumptions


and the


initial


conceptualization


underlying


the model


were


assumed


as given


are still


to be


proven


subsequent


research.


The model


did provide


easy


means


to collect


data


in the


very


complex


area


of organizational


behavior.

study when


necessity


employing


to clearly


the model


was


define

probably


and specify

the single


the units


most


under


important


result


of the study


regarding


its operational


feasibility.














QIAPTER


INTRODUCTION


Consultants


and university


professors


management


have


been asked


many


times


practicing


managers:


"How


do we


motivate


our employees?"


"Why


our employees


have


the way


they


do?"


"What


can


we do


change

increase


our organizational

ed realization of


structure


individual


environment


company


to allow


goals?"


for the


Students


organizational


behavior


realize


that


initially


answers


to all these


and other


similar


questions


are based


upon


rather r


limited


and,


many


instances,


tenuous


knowledge


and information.


gains


that


are to be


mad e


in specifically


answering


these


questions will


have


to be rooted


in an


increased


body


of empirical


research


on mere


speculation.


This exploratory


study


then


concerned


with


use of


a multi-


variate


behavioral


model


explaining


behavior


within


an organization


based


upon


data


collected


in three


field


studies.


Objectives


of the Stud


Organizations


continually


facing


the need


to change


because


rapidly


accelerating


technolo


and social-political-economic


pressures,


find


themselves


in the


unenviable


position


of accommodating


all these


exte


rnal


and internal


pressures.


Modification


of what


presently


exists









be integrated


and consistent


throughout


the organization.


example,


a company


tha t


tha t


emphasizes


selects


democratic,


engages


in management


participative


development


leadership


styles


training,

and then


requires


its management


to operate


an organizational


environment


hostile


to this


mode


is asking


for ineffectiveness,


inefficiencies,


frustration,


turnover


and,


in general,


unfavorable


attitudes


and be-


havior


from all


its employees.


primary


objective


of this


study


to describe


and analyze


the behavioral


patterns


that


exist


in three


organizations


terms


the influencing


forces


of structural


and I


ership


variables.


emphasis


will


directed


toward


the analyses


of the


contrasts


between


the three


plants


in the study


not on the


contrasts


within


each


plant.


There


seems


to be


no easy way


to obtain


an overall


understanding


of the multiple


influences


that


exert


pressures


on behavior


organ


zations.


A-t


we are to gain


further


insight


into


organization


behavior we


must


understand


the influence


that


a single


variable


plays


alone,


and then


pursuing


one by


one the influencing


forces


exerted


by a multitude

of the entire


of variables we


organization.


can hope


This


to obtain


understanding


a unified


can best


understanding


be accomplished


use of


a model


that


represents


an organizational


system and


functions


to integrate


data


about


the systemT


behavior


in such


a way


as to provide


information


about


characteristics


of that


behavior.


model


tha t


will


be employed


in this


stud


is the Melcher


Organizational


Behavior


Model


develop


Professor


Arlyn


SMelcher


of Kent


State


*1









aim of


this


exploratory


study


on a


broad


investigation and


understanding


of behavior


tha t


is possibly


influenced


a multitude


of factors


existing within


the organizations.


This


study


is not


con-


cerned


with


investigating


a few


or even


a dozen


variables


that


determinants


of behavior,


but rather


in exploring


the possibility


numerous


factors


which


be influencing


behavior.


this


reason


"systems"


model


developed


Dr. Melcher


best


meets


the objective


of this


study


over


other


existing


organizational


behavior


models which


lack multivariate


measurement


capacity


important


for this


exploratory


study.


The variables


of the Melcher model


have


been


identified


many researchers


and theorists


in organizational


behavior


model


attempts


to integrate


these


efforts


as the basis


for systematically


describing


and analyzing


the determinants


of behavior


and the


contrasts


that


exist.


A secondary


objective


of this


study


then


to employ


a new multi-


variate


"systems"


model


that


purports


to identify


certain


variables


tha t


explain


human


behavior within


the organization.


The underlying


emphasis


of the model


upon


cause


and effect


relationships


in explain-


the determinants


of behavior.


one is able


to identify


explain

plans a


causes


nd actions


of behavior,


to change


he then


or modify


is in


a position


dysfunctional


to develop


behavior


or to


further


strengthen


functional


behavior


in the organization.


There


a clear


advantage


in knowing what


presently


exists


in an


organization


prior


to any


attempts


at modifyin


or influencing


behavior.


- C-


new


are


.I









does


provide


information as


to the direction


of influence


certain


variables


exert


over


behavior.


Further,


the body


of substantive


theory


that


accounts


for and


predicts


human


behavior within


the organizational


context


is in its infancy.


Although


numerous


research


studies


that


focus


upon a


limited


number


of factors


influencing


behavior


are


availa-


ble,


they


tend


to be


narrow


in their


approach.


The resulting


fraction-


action


produced


of the diverse


analytical


perspectives


difficulties


used


in organizational


when attempting


research


to integrate


a number


of the research


organizational


studies


behavior.


into


a multivariate


It is hoped


this


approach


research


in a


study


study will


aid in


developing


the body


of organizational


behavior


theory


in enhancing


the validity


of the research


findings


that


now


exist.


Present


generalizations


organizational


of the


behavior


in which


theory


certain


provides


variables


us with


affect


numerous


behavior.


These


broad


generalizations


are commonly


accepted


students


prac-


ticing


managers.


It is hoped


tha t


this


exploratory


study will


challenge


some


of these


generalizations,


provide


further


insight


into


the limita-


tions


and qualifications


some


of the theories,


support


others,


raise


some


important t


questions


that


need


to be pursued


others


subsequent


studies.


Scope


of the Study


Three


were


process


studi


type


All three


manufacturing


plants


plants


are a part


geographically


same


dispersed,


corporation.


identity


of the corporation


granting


acceptance


for the research


study








individuals


have


been


concealed.


Otherwise


all data are


based


completely


on the actual


situation.


In each


plant


all of the salaried


personnel


which


comprise


management or

few instances

supervision o


the plants,


seven


were


included


persons were


f subordinates.


They


in the study.


not directly

did provide


responsible

necessary in


relatively

for the

formation


were


included


in the sample


size of the study.


including


salaried


personnel,


a better


profile


of the behavioral


patterns


the leadership


dimensions


that


exist


in the plants


was possible


than


would have


been


case


a more


selective


basis


were


used.


There-


fore,


were


management


included


levels


in the study


from


the plant


comprisin


manager


a total


sample


to the foreman


size


level


of eighty-


two individuals


participated


in the


study.


Since


a secondary


y objective


of this


study was


to employ


a new


behavioral


model,


and hopefully


assess


the operational


feasibility


of the model,


a high


degree


of cooperation


from


the employees


of the


three


plants was


necessary


if any meaningful


analyses


and conclusions


were


to result.


that was

degree o


obtained


f cooperate


Table


depicts


from higher

ion from th


the underlying


management


for thi


e employees


extent

s study


elected


of cooperation

and the actual


to voluntarily


participate.


particular


research


design


that


should


be followed


was dictated


the model


model


itself.


fully presented


This


point will


in Chapter


But for


be made


clearer when


our present


discussion


It .s


sliifEir4pnr i-


hrn~iA1 u


inn4? r*nr


rri, n nfl ,-% C 4i


a,, Fa nt -


nn *r n -


T~ r








primary


and mediating


structural


variables were


measured


the plants


and for their


respective


departments.


Largely


these


factors


given


and typically


lie outside


the short-term


control


of the plant


management.

in greater


Chapters


detail


III,


regarding


and V will


the structural


describe

elements


the data

that ar


obtained


e present.


TABLE


DEGREE


OF COOPERATION


OBTAINED


FROM THE THREE


PLANTS


IN THE RESEARCH STUDY


Number of departments
involved

Number of employees
included in the
study

Number of employees
cooperating in the
study

Percent of cooperation
in the study


Total


98.8


100.0


100.0


95.5


leadership


style


of the highest


ranking manager--the


plant


manager--was


measured


along with


leadership


profiles


of the various


department


supervisors


for each


of the three


plants.


Intraplant


leader-


comparisons


will


be described


as well


as the interplant


contrasts


are








were


drawn


between


the three


plants


on significant


behavior


characteris-


tics.


Figure


depicts


the research


design


that was


followed


in this


study.


Fig.


1.--Research


Design


Variable Plant A, Plant B, and Plant C


Plant


Primary


Level


and mediating


structural

Leadership


Individual,
intergroup b

Departmental


Primary


intragroup,
behavior

Level


and mediating


structural

Leadership


Individual
intergroup


, intragroup
behavior


Structural


Profile
visors
nates'


ased


features


the plant


upon


of the plant


manager


immediate


ano super-
subordi-


evaluation


sures
sonnel


Structural


Profiles o
based upon
evaluation


Measures
personnel


of all


management


features


of each


f the department


immediate


and salaried


department


supervisors


subordinates'


management


in each


salaried


department


Limitations


of the Study


A beginning


point


in the validation


a theoretical


model


a statistical


verification


of its adequacies


based


upon


limited


empirical


data,


but rather


the collection


a body


of information


that


can be


--~~-t.-~~~-A--~ -1 a r


I....


-


.r


J .


rr 1


4








must


be conducted


secure


empirical


data on


the variables which


underlie


concepts


of the model.


Data


gained


through


use of questionnaires


direct


observations,


and personal

the variables


interviews


that


during


the model


this


study provide


identifies


information


as influencing


behavior


regarding

r. The


findings


from


this


study,


others


that


follow using


the model,


provide


for the increased


body


of information


which


so necessary


the development


new


or improved


theories.


Therefore,


is not


the intention


of this


study


to critically


analyze


the Melcher


Organizational


Behavior


Model


employing


statis-


tical


measures


of central


tendency


variation;


determination


significant


variable


changes


a T-test,


median


test,


and F-test;


by utilizing


an independent


multiple


variable


regression


can


predict


to determine


the dependent


the strength


variable.


with


This


which


task


will


be left


to other


researchers


that


follow


as they


attempt


to validate


the model;


utilizing


for their


analyses


data


obtained


in many


diverse


studies


such


as this


one.


In addition,


i~ti


not


purpose


of this


study


to single


plant


goals


as being


or obj


more


ectives


successful


whatever


vis-a-vis


these


another


might


in realizing


Therefore,


specific


no criteria


measures


of the relative


success


of the three


plants


were


used.


Importance


of the Study


Beyond


the stated


objectives


of this


study


lies


singular pertinence


to practicing


managers.


If the model


can


identify


those


factors


which


one









on behavior

conducive t


can


o more


place


effective


manager i

problem


n a


psychological


search


into areas


frame

now


of mind

largely


recognized


and/or


ignored


and hopefully,


a better


solution.


time


some


has arrived where


of the organizational


we must


behavior


now move


studies


beyond


and broaden


narrowness


scope,


and necessarily

practicing manag


the complexities,

ers are more conc


our subsequent


:erned with


research.


insufficient


Many


explanation


human


behavior


in organizations


than


they


are with


the increased


com-


plexity


associated with


a more


encompassing


approach.


While


it is


true


that


some managers


are


seeking new


answers


to their


people


problems,


it is also


equally


true,


and probably


a greater


extent


other


prac-


ticking managers


are alarmingly myopic


in their


approaches


to operational


problems.


For example,


consider


an organization


that


finds


itself


with


an extraordinarily


high


absenteeism rate.


Two typically


expressed


reasons


fault


employees


or their

selection

usually


absenteeism


from a n

follows),


problems


lumber


or that


is that


of demeaning


one has


the emplo

statements


to expect


yees

abou


it beca


are at

t their

use of the


(meaning


if the


managers


explain


their


content

are aware


absenteeism


or nature


of the task).


of and understand


problems,


On the other


the variety


they might


hand,


of factors


more


that


inclined


center


their


attentions


on true


problem


solution


engage


symptomatic


actions


or no actions


at all.


systems


model


can aid


managers


in providing


an increase


the knowledge


and understanding


of the multiple


factors


which


influence


un-


I


*


I








Although


the study


several


specific


objectives


toward which


the majority


remiss


of attention


if the underlying


is directed,


importance


the author would


the study were


indeed


noted.


Method s


of Data


Gathering and Measurement


Familiarization


with


the corporation,


the plants,


the manufac-


during


process


was


obtained


over


a one and a half


year


period


in which


the researcher was


engaged


in a


series


management


development


training


programs


at the plant


level.


information


obtained


served


as the basis


for refinement


of the questionnaire


and provided


additional


insights


into


a variety


of interrelationships


that were


important


the final


analyses.


Further,


company


documents


were


surveyed


in order


to gain additional


understanding


of the


nature


and functions


of the


plants


the departments


within


each


plant.


techniques were


use of


employed


a questionnaire


in the actual


(see


collection


Appendix A).


of data.


The second


was


personal


interviews.


During


the early


stages


of the research


structured


interviews


that


were


conducted


covered


a broad


range


areas


and problems


within


the plant


and corporation


Later,


inter-


views


that


followed


were


more


structured


and specific.


Through


interviews


it was


determined


that


reference


to "work


groups"


was


probably


a clearer


designation


than


reference


to departments.


precise


definition


of the various


"work


groups"


under


study


becomes


critical


within


context


of the model.


Therefore,


attention must


be directed


toward


assurance


that


the respondents


understand


what


the various


was


unr-








leadership


dimensions.


Dr. Melcher's


original


questionnaire


with


modifications


purported


intergroup


behavior


measure


behavior.


variables


was used


individual


These


defined


measure


behavior


correspond


behavior.


, intragroup


directly with


in the theoretical


The questionnaire


behavior


the thirty-three


modified


model.


questionnaire,


which


was


used


to measure


behavior,


many


of the


questions


reworded


in keeping with


the organizations


type


of business


vernacular,


the descriptive


headings


omitted


and the order


the questions


was


spondents would


instead


randomized


react


of responding


to these

to the c


o reduce

headings

ontent of


the possibility


and general


each


that


groups


question.


some


re-


of questions


An example


the behavior


questionnaire


appears


as a part


of Appendix A


and Appendix


provides


a key


to the behavioral


questionnaire


with


headings


added


non-randomized.


basis


for the development


of the leadership


questionnaire


Dr. Melcher's


Leadership


Profile


which


purported


to measure


leadership


emphasis, pa

In addition,


dimensions


.rticipation,

miscellaneous


of representation,


direction, r

s leadership


ule


interaction,


orientation,


dimensions


standards,


and motivation.


of technical


qualifi-


cations,


action


orientation,


problem


skills


and personal


abilities


were


included


(see


the glossary


for the operational


definitions


of the


leadership


variables).


The original


instrument


contained


forty-three


questions


with


the last


being an


open-ended


question


requesting


respondent


to list


factors


he felt might


have


been


omitted


in de-


A~ l *~ 4l.~4 ~2 2----


-


some


was


L








appear a

omitted.


LS separate


numbered


modified


questions


questionnaire


and the open-ended


consisted


question was


of sixty-six questions


which


were


worded


to fit the research


study.


The descriptive


headings


of the original


questionnaire were


eliminated


and the order


of the


question was


randomized.


An example


of the leadership


questionnaire


appears


as a part


of Appendix A,


a key


to the leadership


question-


naire


with headings


non


-randomized


arrangement


provided


Appendix B.


model


provide


for personal


observation and


interviewing


key personnel


with


questions


based


on the variables


identified


model


, to be utili


to measure


the structural


elements


that


purport


to influence


and discussion


superior


and determine


behavior


of the variables)


in obtaining


see


This


the structural


the glossary


method


indices


for the d


was considered


since


definition


to be


a considerable


number


of explanations


definitions


and example


were


necessary


assure


that


the respondent


understood


the question.


decided


that


the reliability


and validity


of the structural


data


would


be increased


use of


a combination


of personal


inter-


views,


observation


, and a questionnaire.


A questionnaire


based


upon


the operational


definitions


of the structural


variables was


developed


containing fif

and behavioral


ty-three


questions


questionnaires


see


which


Appendix A)


call


Unlike


for the responded


the leadership

nts own per-


sonal


perceptions,


the structural


questionnaire


that was


developed


asked


for facts


that were


non-personal


by nature.


Therefore,


no attempt was


- -. A- - ----- --A- -- -. S


- r


was


1


l


1.. ,


*1


.,,,_,,,,,, I


J








At the time


that


this


study was


undertaken a


personality


question-


naire


been


thoroughly


developed


to the extent which


the behavioral


and leadership


had.


was decided


that


no appreciable


loss


in meeting


the objectives


of this


study would


result


the exclusion


of the


personality


dimension.


A pilot


test


of the questionnaires


that were


used


was


conducted


a different


but similar


type


of organization


to the three


that


were


included


corrections


in this


were


study.


made


Poorly worded


prior


questions


to administering


the final


other necessary

I questionnaires


to the individuals


in the study.


Implementation


of the Study


Top management


in each


of the plants


fully


cooperated


throughout


the study.


Prior


to the time


that


the questionnaire


was


distributed


to the part


cipants


in the study,


an announcement


was communicated


the plant


managers


the study,


what


to all salaried

the study was


personnel


for,


regarding who was


and briefly


conduct-


its importance.


They were


requested


to attend


a meeting


, during


normal


working


time,


learn


more


the study.


researcher


during


this


meeting


read


aloud


the memorandum


Appendix A.


that


The fact


appears


that


as a part


the study was


of the research


the researcher'


questionnaire


alone


a company


undertaking was


stressed.


The confidentiality


of the study


and the desire


for full


voluntary


cooperation was


repeated


several


times


during


the meeting.


An organizational


chart


depicting


the various work


groups


referred


to in the questionnaire was


drawn


on a


blackboard.








number


(for


the exclusive


use of the researcher)


the work group


was written


on their


individual


questionnaire.


Each


participant


given


a plain


envelope


and instructed


to place


completed


question-


naire


in the envelope


the entire


time


answer


seal


questions


The researcher was

and to personally


available


during


collect


completed


questionnaires


Most


participants


complex


the questionnaire


one hour.


Those


on vacation


high


emplo


yees


completed


percentage


on the night


and returned


of participation and


and afternoon


their


shifts


questionnaires


cooperation


from al


individuals


later.

I three


The

plants


has already


been


noted


and depicted


in Table


Succeeding


Chapters


Chapter


II presents


the rationale


and the thesi


underlying


Melcher


Organizational


Behavior


Model.


The determinants


of human


havior


fully


developed


and their


importance


to the organi


zation


noted.

ship a


The primary


ire discussed


and second

as to their


structural


influencing


variables


effects


along with


on behavior


leader-

Lastly,


Chapter


II deal


with


some


qualifications


that


must


be made


in the


of the model


attempt


at explaining


and predicting


behavior.


Chapters


III,


IV and V follow


an identical


format.


Each


of the


three


chapters


will


describe


one of the plants


covered


in this


study


A longitudinal


behavioral


profile


of each


plant will


be presented


alon


with


necessary


description


and results


of the questionnaire


support


of the behavioral


profile.


are


use








The analyses


plants will


and interpretation


covered


of the


in Chapter


contrasts


significant


among


the three


variabi


that


have


interacted


to cause


behavioral


patterns


tha t


exist in the


three


plants will


be isolated


and their


differences


assessed.


The conclusions


that


result


from


the analyses


of the differences


and their


impact


on behavior will


be dealt


with


in the final


chapter--


Chapter


VII.


Summary


and conclusions


as to the operational


feasibility--


the problems


encountered


with


the model


during


the research


and the


s value


in empirical


research--will


also


be drawn.














CHAPTER II


THE MELCHER


ORGANIZATIONAL


BEHAVIOR MODEL1


Introduction


The basic


model


used


in this


study


a theoretical


behavioral


systems


model


developed


Dr. Arlyn


J. Melcher


of the Kent


State


University


the model


College


is that


of Business


"behavior


Administration.


is caused


The general


identifiable


theme


factors.


model


maintains


that


"individuals


function


in structured


context


behavior


is caused,


part,


pressures


existing within


that


context


and,


part,


the personalities


individual


bring


to the


situation.


set of structural


variables


and the leadership


patterns


that


are present


are used


to define


the structured


context


an organi-


zation.


One of the basic


the determinants


objectives


of behavior


of the Melcher


institutional


model


is to identify


setting


rigorous


analytical


independence


model.

largely


treatment.


Attention


and operational


The factors,


other


been


measure


or variables,


researchers


of each


that


and theorists


directed


fac tor


are included


in the


toward


included


"have


area.


efinitional


in the


been identified

The Melcher


IThis


Systems M
Behavior


chapter


lodel,"
Models


relies


in A.
(Kent


heavily


Negandhi,
Ohio: C


on an article


Schwitter


:omparative


y Arlyn
(eds.),


Administration


J. Me cher


Organizational


sear


ch









model


"attempts


framework


that


of behavior.


to integrate the efforts

is "deliberately designed


The model'


"focus


many


to unrav


on individual


researchers"5

el specific a


behavior,


into


aspectss


lateral


and vertical,


intergroup


relations.


Structural


Variables


The structural


variables


of the model


describe


the existing


struc-


ture


of the organization.


These


factors


have


been


subdivided


into


primary


and mediation


The organization


s size,


work


flow,


spatial-


physical-temporal


factors,


work


demands,


and heuristics


make


primary


structural


variables


As the organization


moves


from what


would


be described


as a simple


organizational


type


one of increased


complexity


(movement


along


the model's


continuums


from


left


to right)


the primary


structural


variables


contribute


toward


a heightening


stress


being


exhibited


in the organization.


example,


if the


"organization


increases


in size,


the work


more


integrative,


work


demands


are more


unstable,


the spatial-physical-temporal


conditions


more


dispersed,


and heuristics


more


unprogrammed,


these


changing


factors


"exert


pres


sure


toward


the disintegration


intragroup


and intergroup


relations.


The resultant


condition


would


one of "communication


breakdown and


increased


conflict.


"Spontaneous


methods


and inter-


personal


interactions


tha t


are adequate


for coordination


and motivation


in simple


organizations


break


down


rapidly with


increased


complexity


5Ibid.


116.


71bid.


4 a a


are


2Z,.


6Ibid.


q


*


,,


r re








The disintegrating


pressures


that


develop


be reversed


mediating


variables


of formal


authority relationships,


control


systems,


information


the model.


systems


article


and their


continues


subvariables


to offer


that


examples


are


provided


of the results


increased


organization


complexity


and the manner


in which


the mediating


variables


operate


to lessen


the impact.


example


"formal


authority


relationships


are specified"12


with


the accompanying


increase


in the


number


of organizational


levels,


movement


toward


departmentation,


movement


toward


an increase


in centralized


decision making.


control


system of


the organization


undergoes


change


with


creased


complexity


in that


moves


from what


is described


as an insti-


tutional


to an individual


stem.


model


recognizes


the need


"explicit


standards,


"an evaluation


system,


. and,


a formal


system


to reward


those


meet


the standards


and apply


sanctions


against


those


do not.


Associated


with


an increase


in organization


complexity


is also


movement away


from an


in formal


communication


system


one that


formally


takes


into


account


the informational


requirements


of the organization.


The information


system


evolves


from


"a complete


network


toward


a single


linkage,


" from a


single


means


to a multiple


method


of communication


channels


being


employed,


"from


real


time


to delayed


time


transmittal,


. and,


filing


toward


current


"formal


provisions


and historical


data,


. made


sorting


for collecting and


and classifying


coding


so that


can be readily


retrieved.


A. I :4 '.


cpnraccntef


a ciimmnr


mrnAr4 at nn


riolr


a rrlr n,


f


s


n













Ii V *a~ w
iCO OJw-4r-4
.44-' m.o.n
S 'U S-u 'U 0
15-U
bOO.rfl U
* 0 ~D Cr4

-0
$4
* .50.

* S


* S C S S

* S S *~ S

* S S S S

* a S C

* S S S *

* S S S

* S S C

* C S


.) >~V 4-'
4C00
4 N 4)

C
04)
1. 5.4 0.
4.34)
*
0$..
* sow
4.3
* S S


* S S


* S-a
0
*
r4
*
cU
0
a,

'4-4 4)
4-4~U
5,-Iwo)


.-'O-I 4.3
Cd C) CU U


*r44-J 0H


V.>'
Ce-~r4

.wtt


* S S
* S S


1-4 5 4
CU
C. S S
0

400


r4LW 0r4

(flea 4~J


S~ S


* S S S S
* S S S S


* S S S S
* 5 C S S


* S S C)
* S S
4,
S S S U
04-JO
r-4Ur-4
040) bOi-44-I

'r4r4d 0)0)
ti2flcnp~c~


4~J .5
r4
5.4 0
o .rI
S. 4.3
4-iWO
~-4bO
>r-4




S S













, tm-I .tr4
Nd uS 004
S Un Z

~4J -.5-a

~ 4)
V
* C
1-4
* a 4


.5-I OrI.rI
14 4.)

Ci2uj
$4 'Cl
4-i C)
02 a 0.4

fr~ S S S


* 0 S S S

* S S S S

* a S 4 5 *


* S S S a S

* S S S S S S

* S S S S S S

* a C S S S S

* S S S S S

* S a 4 0 a S


* S S a S S

* S C S S S S S

* S S S S S S S

* S 4 S S a a


* S S S 4)

* S 5 5*1~I
S
S 5 0 4-4
*n-4 N
.~cu

S4)

C. Ct 0 $4 X 0


* S S

* S S S

* S S

* S


* S S S

* S S S


S S S S
0

0>Wr4
4~r44~t~



gip~-iz








variables


that will


be the bases


of the discussion


in the


next


section.


left


side of


the continuums


describe


simple


organizations


while


the right


side


of the continuums


represent


complex


ones.


Melcher


notes


that while


these are


extremes most


organizations


can be described


being


some


combination along


the scale


values


of the individual


variable


identified


in the model.


Leadership


Variabi


leader


ship


variab 1


which


are a part


of the mod


focus


what


the leader


does


functions,


in performing


task as


group


or organizational


environment which


leader


to a large


He performs


extent,


various


according


functions


to Melcher,


within


determined


and beyond


the short-term control


the leader


lead


ership


varia-


bles


are directed


toward


the development


a profile


which


character


the particular


leader


s approach


to his


job.


The emphasis


upon


a supervisor


relates


to hi


subordinates


superiors


higher


level


management


in the organization.


Although


a leader


largely


operates


with in


a given


structured


con-


text,


"the way in


extent


to which


which


leadership


leadership


will


functions


contribute


are carried


out determines


or further


adversely


affect


the ability


of subordinates


to be effective.


A functional


a dysfunctional


organization


situation


be altered


somewhat


important


leadership


variable


included


in the model.


"The


supervisor


for instance,


be able


to introduce


some


flexibility


into


a situation


that


rigid


and nonadaptable


to conditions.


zes








A "democratic


leadership"


on the leadership


style would


be characterized


continuum presented


in Figure


points

a "general


leadership"


style


would


cover


scale


values


and 6


auto-


cratic


"There


leader" would


probably


be represented


is considerable


scale


interaction


values


between


and 9.


structured


context and


leadership


style,


. with


the unlikely


result


"that


same


The reade


leader

r should


style w

d refer


would


appropriate


to the


ssary


for different


for full


contexts.


discussion,


definition,


operational


measure


for each


the leadership


variables


of the model.


Behavioral


Variables


model


lateral


includes


and vertical


"individual


relations,


behavior


and intergroup


patterns,


relations"


intragroup


as signifi-


cant


"dimensions


of behavior"


that


are "important


to the function


organization.


variables which


compr


ise the behavioral


patterns


an organization


are presented


in Figure


model


includes


nine


factors


of individual


behavior


that


viewed


as being


"important


dimensions" whi


are "essential


to the


function


to meeting


an organization.


standards,


They


initiative,


are "job


involvement,


self-improvement,


work goal


commitment


commit-


ment,


frustration


levels,


sense


of achievement,


absenteeism,


turnover.


Intragroup


and intergroup


relations


are also


considered


in the


model


"Some


as important


significant


dimensions


dimensions


affecting


of lateral


the organization


relations within


s operations.


among


groups


are confidence


trust,


extent


nature


of interaction


patterns,


are


8,












>~i COC >r r- -


.1I 4


* * *

* *

* * S *


r-l r-4 r-( v-i v-I r-4
cUcUCUOcUtU

414144434144
CD 0) U) 02 0)
000000

WA WA WA WA WA WA


* *
* a *S *


* S S *


-Istli-I


4)4 -


00)


WA i- A AW


.1-I
0

4)

'..-400

'dO)
C
~0w
>5
'-4
ufl-4.H
E

rlOO


4-)
C C
0020)


OEWO
S
00

0)0 0<0)
Cfl>$-4WA.d
~ 444-44)
I-i 4-~ 5 0 0 C)
CUUHOI.J 44
0r4 I I 4-~ 0)
CtJu-4.2 02 CDOJ
CU 'H WA $~ U)
cni-n~rx4cn<


'-I C
0) 0
4.)
f-I
CU 00
$4 r4r4
0
43
5W



Ore 00)
'H CC.24'
>0 cU
CU

0) O4-J~
OJr-Qfl
Cr000
04-4

toooo


0)
C)
It-I
O 4.)
44
44 '~1-4
LI-I
p.4 0


a-f












wc0rJ2 ala, men fr,02 Cnu2rflm
C 0 02
o w
4~j 4.3 Cu
44
0 0 '-4
CU


aS 01 it cd cU Cd CU

r4r4 Wr~~4r4r4
CUcUocUcUCdcUCd


>~kfCJ2


trccd


0003


*rdrr


* S *

* *

* S S S S


* S S S

* S S S S 5 4 S


* S S S S S S

* 5 S 4 5 S S

* S S S S S

* S S S a

* S 5 0 5

* S S S a S

* S S S 5 5


* S 5 5 S S S S

* S S S S

* S S S S S S S


* a *

* S a cr3

r4r-lr'4 CO

GJW 0) 0

CU CU Cd i-I


S
* S


.tU


I-4$4$-4 4 $


r-lr 0- r-4


r4 r r-l


0)0002


CU d r


[tUdt


nV
OP


r4 C cr3
cU~~
uca.
Sr4~
tilt
5.4.3
000)
>00
CC
ow
S.

0444.4
r400
~o0
Cr300



cr30
04
~4~J 44
omen

00 5-4 5.4


to
C
CrI

'v-lw

~
U
$4
o 0
4-4 ~.d
C 04-I
1-4 n-I Cd
4J~
'V cd $4
000
4'H'J-4

0St-I

*3)00


Ci 04

a) 0

CD

C) C

bfl.rACd
rItfl 4~i
~r4Cfl
U
4-4 Q)tJ~4
000


000

cU~0
O~) 4~i

wow
UCO
0CU0
-a-cc


0r4
00
4J$4Q)


PUU
E-4

* S S SS S -


ur


t~ h 3\


Ema


me I


la


vl


vr u!


a








cohesiveness,


group


loyalty.


Vertical


superior/subordinate


rela-


tions within


same


group


are also


important.


They


include


mutual


"trust


and confidence,


"accuracy


completeness"


of superior


requested


information,


and the


extent


"to which


subordinates


initiate


communication


upward.


The additional


behavior


variables


of "coopera-


tion,


teamwork,


loyalty,


and subordinates


' acceptance


of decisions


made


supervisors


or specialist


groups


outside


the department,


included


in the model


as key


elements


in the


proper


functioning


organization.


Dr. Melcher


states


that


"these


behavioral


dimensions


are important


since


they


affect:


The degree


of cooperation and


coordination


among


individuals


groups


that


perform specialized


tasks.


extent


that
than


permits


to which


efforts


group maintenance


spontaneity in
to be directed


functions


sonal


to task


as mediating


relations


requirements


develops


rather


conflict.


The degree


of coll


section and


exchange


current


information


(needed


in making


daily


decisions


on the


job,


and in short


term planning
the data and


and policy


those


formulation)


among


those


have


need


extent


of technical


unique,


to which


there


and profe


regular,


ssional


recurring


an exchange


training t
problems.


ideas


solve


both


a pooling
unusual,


extent


to which


organizational
individuals an


attention and


oals rather
groups."25


than


effort
toward


is directed


the self


toward


interest


A questionnaire,


which


includes


all these


behavioral


indices,


used


to develop


a "behavioral


profile"


that will


allow


for the drawing


contrasts


among


and/or within


organizations


and "showing


the changes


- --


are


can








Figures


and 3


together make


the behavior


systems model.


overall


model


assumes


tha t


generally


identical


organizational


contexts--


expressed


terms


of the structural


and leadership


variables--should


result


in similar


is equally


true


behavioral


according


patterns


to the logic


emerging.


reverse


of the model.


Melcher


of this


states


that


"the


test


of the mod


basically


is whether


one can predict


explain


causes


of behavior


organizational


setting.


summary,


the environment


in which


a person


operates--


defined


terms


of the structural


variables


and the leadership


style exerts


pressures


upon


individuals


and groups which


results


in a


predictable


and explain-


able


behavioral


pattern


emerging.


Limitations


of the Model


model


does


not


take


into


consideration


pressures


upon


behavior


as a result


of membership


in multiple


organizations,


other


than


the work


organization


for example,


which


the individual


primarily


identifies with.


In addition,


"the model


does


not


include


a set of


environmental


differences


that


exert


pressures


on an


organization.


assumption


generally


that


is that t

important


he external

in molding


environmental

organizational


pressures

behavior.


are not

Exceptions


to this


statement


do exist


but they


are


atypical


typical


instance.


Further,


"it is assumed


. that


individual


perception measures


approximate


objective


reality,


"the


model


is static


in character,


. and that


it "is


a behavior


model


an effectiveness


model.


~I~4 'no In


28.t.-i


2 9,,.~


27,,


i 7n


t ^n


-* a^ -








A qualification is


noted


regarding


this


last point:


"The


emerging


behavioral


patterns


presumably


are directly


relevant


to the effectiveness


of the organization.


Conclusion


In concluding


the article


Dr. Melcher


notes


several


benefits which


are associated


with


the model.


In an abbreviated


summary


form


they


are:


Presenting a s

cal discipline


et of variables

on precisely d


in model


form imposes


efining variables


so that


an analyti-


they


complementary


additivity


studies


is increased.


possibility


doing


controlled


studies


when


one or more


variables


are systematic


call


explored


is increased.


model


contributes


to the ability


to critically review


assess


integrate


the literature.


Permits


placing


the question


of determinants


of behavior


organizations


in a


larger


perspective.


finally,


the model


expre


ssly


identifies


the multiple


sets


of variables


that may


be influencing


behavior


thus


providing


the leverage


points


necessary


for achieving


change.


are














CHAPTER


DATA


DESCRIPTION


OF PLANT


Introduction


Description


of the data


collected


for Plant


A is presented


this


chapter.


Each


variable


and all important


sub-variables


constitut-


the major


ship,


areas


and behavioral


of primary


elements


structural,


are discussed.


mediating


structural


The reader


should


, leader-


refer


to the glossary


for a complete


definition


of each


variable.


Summary


profiles


depicting


pictorially


responses


to the various


factors


also


presented


in Appendix D


as a supplemental


to the tables.


A total


of forty


salaried


personnel


structured


into


two levels


eight work groups


or departments,


comprise


Plant


A of the research


study.


plant manager was


not


requested


to parti


cipate


in the study


although his


Figure


leadership


4 depicts


style


was


the organization


described


structure


immediate


Plant


subordinates.


One point


clarification


needs


to be made


regarding


the superior-subordinate


relationships


directly t

work group


involving work group


o the plant manager


on others.


the office


on some work matter


The supervisor


supervisor r

s and to the


of work group


reports

supervisor,


evaluated


leadership


style


of the plant


mana


ger,


but the clerks


of work


group


evaluated


the leadership


style


of the office


supervisor.


This


relation-


- -


are


..


.. .









.5-i
'-'WI

Cd,'

t


Cu
C)
5.4
0

-V


'.4
0
COW
*dt)
>'r4
$4
Wt4-4
0~0
:1
U,

4
U)


coo


0
S
C)
1-4
0
r


E


2
$4
C)
C-,


2
5-i
C)

-4




-I
Cu
S
0)
1-4
0
it


'-4
0)
C,





2
5.'
0)
C.,


0)0


2
'-I
0)
-4
C-,


.3-


5-


.


(U
S
0
$4
0


s-i
0
~L4


mr


1W~C


r
Cu
S
0)
0

~1~~


r


5'
CO

0'
To


Cu


S
T)


mn


Cu
S
C)

$4

+


5'
C
5.4
0


Cu
E
C)
s-I
0
~L40)


CO


e
(U



m -


U,
*0

$4
0-


.5


s-a
o I-
ci)


a. e
U,


$4
0 j
ci,
0-
$400
a.


s-I
o

w3$J
C. 0'
C,,


'S


s-


S-I
0
a) en.
4,-i

000~
C,
to


5-'
0
en
N
>20-
$4 $4

0
Ca


I I








Primary


Structural


Variables


of Plant A


Size,


work


flow,


spatial-physical-temporal


factors,


work demands,


and heuristics


are


the primary


structural


variables.


Table


reports


average


responses


to the primary


structural


questionnaire


items


the particular


variable


and work


group


of Plant A.


Size


The size


of the work


groups


is the total


number


of subordinates


formally


assigned


to the department


and the number


of levels


from


first


line


supervisor


to the plant


manager.


The numerical


value


obtained


from


the size


table


included


in the glossary.


levels


each


department


are under


study--the


operative


or foreman


level


(the


first


level)


and the supervisory


level


(the


second


level).


Work


groups


through


can be described


as medium size


whereas


work


groups


through


are decidedly


small


in size.


Work Flow


degree


of input-output


relationships


that


exists within and


between


the eight


work


groups


can be described


as ranging


from non-


integrated


to integrated.


A nonintegrated


work


flow


exists


where


within


same


unit


or between


each


unit


of the organization


there


relationship


between


the input-output


resources


taking


place.


other


words,


each


person


within


same


unit


and each


unit within


organization


autonomous


as far as the work


flow


is concerned.


integrated


work


flow


exists


where


outputs


become


inputs


for individuals


r2 2 .


2 .


-- a -I -.- .- t... -. S.


-.. I I











TABLE


PLANT


A AVERAGE


RESPONSE


TO PRIMARY


STRUCTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE
VARIABLE AND WORK G


Variable


Sizea

Work Flow:
Intragroup
Intergroup:
Work group 1
"2
nl n
II II 3
II II 4

6
II 1? 7
"I 8


S-P-T Factors:
Intragroup
Intergroup:
Work group 1
2
1I II 3

4
II II 5

"6
11 11 7
II II 7
"8

Work Demands

Heuristics


ITEMS


ROUP


Work Group


aThe


which


size


ears


average
in the 2


responses


are arrived


at by


using


Table


sary.









Intragroup


work


flow


Only work


group


can be classified


as somewhat


nonintegrated


whereas work groups


through


7 have


partially


integrated work


flows


existing within


their


respective


work groups


or departments.


There


exists within


work group


a lower


degree


of job


specialization,


less


interdependency

utilization of


between group


adjustments


members,


to any work


a more

flow d


extensive


disruption,


change


and a higher


degree


of job


interchangeability


between


group


members


than


that


existing


in the other


seven


work groups.


Intergroup


work


flow


important


intergroup


work


flows


that


existed


among


the various


departments


was


established


during


the initial


observation


and inter-


view


sessions


that


took


place


prior


to the actual


data


collection.


are interested


in the significant


relations


that


are


present within


the organization


that


could


contribute


to the orderly


or disjointed


flow


Plants


task

B and


requirements


a process


of the various


type


departments.


manufacturing


Plant


A (as


operation.


are


actual


production


and 3.


of the product


The degree


takes


of work


place


flow


within


integration


nd between

is fairly


work

high


groups

between


these


three


work groups


but is moderated


somewhat


the existence


departmental


storage


facilities.


This


allows


for a high


degree


of ad-


justments


to take


place


within


a specific


production


department


case


of disruption


occurring


in the previous


stage


the production


process.


Work


groups


through


are essentially


supportive


apartments.


,









important,


or the


one that


is somewhat


more


inte


rated


than


the others


is work


group


and work


group


6.4 response)


The least


inte-


grated


the three are work groups


and 3


4.7 response).


Consider-


the overall


degree


of work


flow


inte


tion


existing


between


work


groups


and 3


can be said


that


the production


process


of Plant


s commodity


is fairly


integrated.


This


is also


true


a great


extent


for the relations


tha t


exist


between


the remaining work


groups.


There


appears


a fairly


consistent


response


rate


across


all the work


groups.


exceptions


would


work


groups


and 8.


Work


group


s de


gree


of work


flow


integration


with


group


through


more


closely


integrated


with


these


four


groups


than


that


existing


between


other


groups


in the plant.


Finally,


group


can be characterized


as the


group


having


most


nonintegrated


work


flow


impact


on groups


through


(responses


ranging


from 3.


4.8).


Spatial-Physical-Temporal


Factors


extent


to which


the work


groups


in Plant


can


be characterized


as being


concentrated


or dispersed


is measured


the factors


of distance,


spatial


orientation,


physical


barriers,


time,


and noise


level.


spatial-physical-temporal


(S-P-T)


factors


for intragroup


and intergroup


that


exist


within


Plant A


were


measured.


Intragroup


s-p-V


factors


production


work


groups


(groups


through


were


somewhat


21a


-- n I r f


-----~--


'I


II


1


*








Intergroup


s-p-t


factors


Work


group


is moderately


to somewhat


dispersed


from


the three


important work


groups


for which


data


were


obtained.


This relationship


generally


holds


true


for work groups


and their


separa-


tion


from


other


groups.


Work


groups


and 8


exhibit


the highest


degree


of separation


from


those


work


groups


that


were


measured


. Work


group


shares


the 1


east


amount


separation


from work


group


somewhat


concentrated)


of all the work


groups


(Work


groups


and 8


are on the


same


floor


across


the hall


from


each


other


Work


Demands


relative


gree


of stability


in the demands


that


are


made


upon


the work


groups


as they


perform


their


jobs


can be describe


as ranging


from


stable


to unstable.


Work group


the highest


stability


in work demands


eight work


groups.


work


group


that


the least


amount


stability


-- group 4


-- with


can be


described


as having


about


half


the time


stable


e/unstable


demands.


work


groups


in Plant A


fall


the stable


side


of the work demand


measurement


continuum.


Heuristi


last


variable


to be considered


regarding


the primary


structural


variable s


of Plant


A is


heuristics


extent


that


the work


groups


tasks


are predictable


and the


extent


that


help


from


others


to solve


particular

r*hnrQ!,n^-/ nr


problem is a


vailab

4-I-tn -f


All work


nnC: na


groups


-.- n4 4f


in Plant

tflnr *


can


- n Lt j-. .


*.








Figures


summarizing


the primary


structural


variables


in a


profile


form


for all


work


groups


in Plant A appear


as part


of Appendix D.


profile


of the mediating


structural


variables


which


will


be discussed


in the


next


section,


is also


included


in Appendix


Mediating


Structural


Variables


of Plant A


major mediating


structural


variables


are formal


authority


relationships,


control


system,


and information


system.


Three


elements


comprise

and (3)


the formal


authority


departmentation.


Table


relationship:


reports


delegation;


responses


levels;


to these


questionnaire


items


but the discussion


in this


section


is in terms


the main


variable.


reader


again


should


refer


to the glossary


a full


definition


of all the main


variables


and their


sub-variables.


TABLE


PLANT


A AVERAGE


RESPONSE


TO MEDIATING


STRUCTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Variable


Formal Authority:
Delegation
Levels
Departmentation

Control System

Information System:


Intragroup
Intergroup
v- S 9


Work


Group








Formal


Authority


The formal


authority relationships


that


exist within


each


of the


eight


work groups


of Plant A


can be described


as fairly


diffuse.


Work


group


the highest


extent


unsp


ecified


formal


authority relation-


ships


at 3


while work


group


at the other


extreme


with


a rela-


tively


higher


degree


specified


formal


authority


at 4.6.


Each


of the


remaining work


groups


between


these


two narrow


ranges.


Control


System


formal


system for


evaluating


performance


which


includes


stand-


ards,


measuring


penalties


instruments,


constitutes


the existing


the procedure


control


for allocating


system of


rewards-


Plant. A.


system may


range


from an


institutional


type


where


there


are no formal


specifications


established


one where


formal


individual


performance


systems


clearly


exist.


Work groups


and 8 have


a partial


control


system


formalized


regarding


employee


performance


(responses


4.7,


5.3 and


respectively).


remaining


work


groups


have


a relatively


higher


incident


of formalized


individual


performance


systems


existing within


their work


group.


Work


group


has the


most


formalized


control


system specified


of all


eight work groups


Information


in Plant


System


formal


network of


receiving


and transmitting


centers


and the


communication


relationships


that


exist


comprise


the information


system


1*' C1Q*IT mfi ~t rn


Trh Prctiltnn


ho~ Aacr~;hoA


no r3nn nt- Mrr


circtpm


Ill








Intragroup


information


system


work groups


can be characterized


as possessing


a moderate


complex intragroup


information


system.


That


within


their


respec-


tive


groups


the system is


partial rationalized


and defined


as to the


network


that


exists


for receiving


and transmitting


information.


Intergroup


information


system


The information


system


that


exists


between


the eight


work


groups


of Plant A


can


be described as


moderate


simple/complex.


response


values


depicted


in Table


for this


variable


range


across


center


of the information


system


continuum


from


to 5


Vertical


information


system


Generally


system


same


for Plant A as


pattern


was


true


exists


for the vertical


for the intergroup


system.


information


That


be described


as moderate


simple/complex with


variable


values


from


to 5.5


on the information


system continuum.


Figures


appearing


in Appendix


D pictorially


show


the similarity


that

well


exists


for all the work groups


as the other


two main mediating


-a-vis


structural


the information


variables


system as


previously


discussed.


Leadership


Dimensions


of Plant A


leadership


style


of the plant manager,


as evaluated


immediate


subordinates


(the


second


level


supervisors),


and the leader-


ship


styles


of the eight


second


level


supervisors


as they


are evaluated


can








of leadership.


These


dimensions


are:


representation,


inter-


action


, (3)


standards,


goal


emphasis


, (5)


participation,


direc-


tion,


rule


orientation,


motivation


, (9)


technical


qualification,


(10)


action orientation


, (11)


problem


skills


and (12)


personal


abiliti


In describing


arbitrary


the lead


classification


ership


scheme


styles


used


present


some


in Plant


instances.


a broad


classic


fiction


scheme


that


used


for the first


eight


leadership


dimensions


listed above


response


values


of 1.0 to 3.5,


classified


as an


example


of a "democratic"


leader


ship


style;


values


of 3


to 6.


termed a


"general


style;


responses


6.5 to 9


regarded


"autocratic"


leadership


indicators.


the four mi


tive


classification


scellaneous


scheme


leadership


as follows:


dimensions


response


he broad

values


descrip-

of 1.0


to 3.5 are


termed


examples


"low competency"


values


of 3.6


described


as "moderate


competency";


and (3)


responses


of 6.5


to 9


are described


as '"high


competency.


some


measurement


instances

continue.


the descriptions


For example


are in


an average


terms of the individual

response of 3.1 to the


three


questions


measuring


the dimension


of "standards"


could


described


terms


of the measurement


continuum ran


from


high


standard s


or in


terms


of the broad


classification


scheme


as an


example


"democratic


leadership.


This


same


approach


followed


in describing


the leadership


dimensions


of Plant


in Chapter


and Plant


in Chapter


es.


are














TABLE


PLANT A AVERAGE RESPONSE


OF NINE


SECOND


LEVEL


SUPERVISORS


TO LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE


EVALUATING


PLANT


MANAGER'S


LEADERSHIP


STYLE


BY VARIABLE


erage
sponse


Variable


Leadership


Dimensions


Representation

Interaction. .


Standards.


S a a 5


Goal


Emphasis.


a a a aa a S S S S6


Participation.


S S a a a a a a a a a 53


Direction.


Rule Orientation


Motivation


Miscellaneous


Leadership


Dimensions


Technical


Qualifications


S a S a a S 57


Action Orientation


Problem Skill


a a a a a S a a


a a a a S S


Personal


Abilities


and Orientation









included with


the eight


supervisors who


evaluated


the plant manager


since


a significant


superior-


subordinate


relationship


existed


in this


instance.


Representation


plant manager


viewed


as usually


representing


subordinates


' interests


to higher


evel


management.


He usually


acts


as the spokesman


and defender


of the


nine


supervi


sors


to hi


superiors


other


groups.


Interaction


Quite


often


lateral


integration


among


the nine


supervi


sors


encouraged


the plant


manager


He usually


tries


to meet with


supervisors


in order


to work out


some


common


work


problems


but still


encourages


mor e


lateral


interaction


between


the various


supervisors


than


with himself


Standards


Moderate


high


standards


are empha


the plant


manager


while


usually


still


allowing


the supervi


sors


some


freedom


in the estab-


lishment


of the


evel


performance.


Goal


emphasis


Somewhat


individual


goals


are emphasized


as opposed


group


, in reali


zing


complex


tion


with


stress


usually


y being


plac


upon


individual


responsibility.









Direction


General


direction


(4.2)


of his


subordinates


is followed


plant


manager.


He usually prefers


to be flexible


and somewhat


passive


when guidance


Rule


is required.


orientation


As far a

characterized


s rule


orientation


as possessing


is concerned,


a general


attitude


the plant

towards


manager

observing


can


rules,


policies,


and procedures


that


are established.


Motivation


nine


second


level


supervisors


responded


that


use of rewards


to motivate


performance


was


the usual


approach


used


the plant


manager.


Motivation


and participation


which


was


previously


discussed,


were


two dimensions


approximately


a democratic


rthest to t

leadership


h


e left

style


on the leadership


for these


continuum


two dimensions.


Technical


qualifications


plant manager'


subordinates


viewed


technical


qualifications


in the performance


of his


as rather


extensive


(7.5).


Action


orientation


A high


egree


decisiveness,


hard


work,


enthusiasm,


and responsi-


ability


toward


his job


characterizes


the plant


manager.


A value


of 8.1


regarding


this


dimension


was the highest


of all the twelve


dimensions


measured.








Personal


abilities


orientation


Regarding his


communicating and


personal


inclinations


the plant


manager


viewed


as quite


itivel


oriented


(7.1).


By way


represents


summary


a summary


the leadership


profile,


Figure


profile


the plant manager


, which


the plant


s leadership


include


mana


style


in Appendix D


From


can be describe


as "general"


with


two important


ects


-- partic


ipation


motivation


as tending


more


toward


a "democratic


" leadership


style.


He i


viewed


as b


eing highly


competent


in performing


as the plant


manager


responses


to the miscellaneous


dimensions


all fell


near


extreme


right


side of the continuum.


Second


Level


Supervisors


Leadership


Styles


Tabl


represents


average


response


the second


level


super-


visors


immediate


subordinates


to the leadership


questionnaire.


foremen and


other


salaried


personnel


of all eight work


groups


in Plant


A evaluated


along


their


same


direct


twelve


superior


leadership


as to hi


dimensions


leadership


discussed


characteristic


in the previous


section.


Representation


supervisors


of work groups


and 6


tend


to represent


their


subordinates


to higher management


slightly more


than


remaining


supervisors.


supervisor


of work


group


exhibits


the highest


tendency


toward


upward


representation


while


the supervisor


of work group


4 An S


r .I r


h r


..














TABLE


PLANT A AVERAGE


RESPONSE


OF FOREMEN AND


OTHER


SALARIED


PERSONNEL T
THEIR


O LEADERSHIP
IMMEDIATE S


QUESTIONNAIRE


SUPERIOR


EVALUATING


LEADERSHIP


STYLE


Variable


Leadership Dimensions


Representation


Interaction


Standards


Goal


Emphasis


Participation


Direction


Rule


Orientation


Motivation


Miscellaneous


Leadership


Dimensions


Technical


Action


Qualifications


Orientation


Problem Skills


Personal Abilities


Orientation


BY VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Work Group









Interaction


eight work groups


exhibit


a combination


of lateral


and verti-


cal interaction


in their


assessment


of the supervisor


values


grouped around


center


of the interaction


continuum


from


the lowest


to the highest


at 5.9.


Standards


supervi


sors


of work


groups


and 8


can


be describe


as establishing moderate


standards


as measures


of their


subordinates


performance


(responses


of 5


, 4.2


, 4.8


and 4.8


respectively)


supervi


sors


groups


both


demand


same


moderate


high


standard


level


of 6.7


Work


group


evaluated


their


supervisor


establishing


the highest


standards


of all


groups


Goal


emphasis


groups


with


exce


ption


group


, describe


their


super-


visor


s goal


emphasis


as a combination


group-individual,


tending


slightly


toward


individual


performances


(responses


rangi


from


Group


characterizes


their


supervisor


as employing


a combination


of emphases


tending


toward


group


as important.


Participation


supervisor


group


the only


group


leader


that


seeks


moderate


remaining


egree

seven


of partic


supervisors


ipation


from his


all employ


subordinates


fairly


extensive


participation


in arriving


at deci


sions.


are








subordinates.


The supervisor


group


shows


the highest


deviation


from


this


norm,


tending


toward


close


direction


(6.1)


Rule


orientation


In their


attitudes


toward


rule


adherence


, the supervisors


of the


first

taking


seven work

a position


procedures.


groups


are describe


requiring a

responses of


somewhat


these


their


strict


seven


subordinates


adherence


groups


as often


to formal


are narrowing,


clustered


between


and 5.


. The


exception


supervisor


scribed


as allowing


subordinates


to de


viate


from


established


in the performance


of their


jobs.


Motivation


supervisors


tend


to employ


reward


to motivate


their


subordi-


nates.


The supervisor


group


uses


rewards


as a means


to motivate


to the


greatest


extent


of all the supervi


sors


in Plant


Technical


qualifications


The supervi


sors


groups


and 7


are described


as possessing


fairly


extensive


degree


technical


qualifications.


The remaining


supervisors


are characterized


their


subordinates


as exhibiting


a rather


extensive


gree


of technical


qualifications


relevant


to their


requirements.


Action


orientation


supervisors


can be describe


as quite


active


in their


approach


to their


jobs.


Only


one supervisor was


rated


below


rating








Problem skills


Regarding


this


aspect


of leadership,


generally


can be said


that


ervi


sors


as a group


scored


lower.


sors


and 8


scored


below


while


the remaining


scored


from


to 7


Personal


abilities


and orientation


While


personnel


least


all supervi


skill


oriented


sors


wer


the supervisor


toward


evaluated


group


the positive


as being


8 was


positive


described


end of the


in their


as being


measurement


continuum.


Figures


16 through


which


appear


in Appendix


pictorially


present


the leadership


of each


of the eight


work


group


super-


visors


of Plant


A broad


description


of the leadership


style


Plant A'


second


level


supervi


sors


would


they


are all empl


a general


style


of leadership


somewhat


extensive


participation


rewards


as motivators


are the


two most


significant


actors


influenc-


their


leadership


styles


toward


the democratic


end of the continuum;


high standard


emphasis


probably


the sing


important


factor


scored


toward


the autocratic


side of the leadership


continuum;


all supervi


sors


of Plant A


can be character


as p


assessing


high


degree


competency


in carrying


out their


respective


duti


Behavioral


Profil


Plant A


In thi


the partic


section


pants


responses


of Plant A


to thirt


are reported


three


(see


behavioral


Chapter


mndi


ces


II where


indices


were


first


presented)


The indi


ces


are grouped


into


four


broad


categories


) individual


1 behavior


intraPorninn


hphd i nr


* 1nt rPrn1


es.


* A.


| I








The questionnaire


Appendix A


used


with Appendix


to measure


as the key


behavior


needed


is included


to unscramble


as part


the items


into


the four


categories


mentioned


above.


responses


of eight


second


leve


supervisors


and the


avera


responses


foremen and


other


salaried


personnel


(the


first


level)


each


of the eight work


facilitate


the general


groups


are reported


scussion


the existing


discussed.


behavior


In order


in Plant A,


three


behavioral


groupings


or types,


have


been


arbitrarily


established.


groupings


are:


response


values


of 1


to 3


are designated


"'fI


behavior;


values


of 3.6 to 6.4


are described


as "general"


behavior;


response


values


ranging


from


to 9.0


are "positive"


behavior


indicators.


Summary


behavioral


profile


gures


for the tabular


data are


also


presented


in Appendix


Supervisors


' Description


of Empi


oyees


Behavior


responding


to the behavioral


questionnaire


the supervisors


were


describing

tions. Ta


the empl


ble


of the eight


oyees


reflects


work groups


behavior


these


according


individual


of Plant A.


to their


attitudes


The di


individual


each


scussi-on


this


percep-


supervisor


section


primarily


in terms


of the three


types


of behavior


-- "negative


"general


" and "positive


-- within


the four


broad


cate


ornes


individual


, intragroup


lateral


, intragroup


vertical


and intergroup


behavior.


Tn r A.a rlab nr i







TABLE


PLANT


A RESPONSE


OF EIGHT


SECOND


LEVEL SUPERVISORS


TO BEHAVIOR


QUESTIONNAIRE


DE SCRIBING EMPLOYEE


BEHAVIOR


Variable


Individual


Behavior


Involvement


Commitment to Meeti
Initiative. .
Self-Improvement. .
Work-Goal Commitmen
Frustration Levels.
Sense of Achievemen
Absenteeism .
Turnover. .

Intragroup Behavior:


Confidence


Related


Non- Job


.ng


Standards


S S S
S S S 5 0
L t. S S
S S S S S
it. S S S S
S S S S


Lateral


and Trust. .
Communication .


Related


Cooperation
Group Unity
Interaction


Intragroup


Trust
Trust


Communication


Patterns.


Behavior:


Job

Verti


and Confidence-
and Confidence-


Requested Inf
Communication


S S S S S

cal


-Downward


-Upward


formation


Scre


Job Information
Human Relations
Cooperation and


Acceptance
Supervis
Acceptance
Manageme
Acceptance


Decisions.


Intergroup


Confidence


Communi


ca


ening


Information
Teamwork. .


of Immediate


Decisions


Level


of Higher


Deci


sions


* S S


Staff Group
. S S S S


behavior


and Trust.


tions Accurac'


S S S 5 0
V S S S a


BY VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Work Group


r I I I I I I


I








behavior


of their


immediate


subordinates.


These


are the employees


which


the supervisors


have


the greatest


amount


of contact with


daily.


Job involvement.


--Some


employee


involvement


in their


jobs was


described


supervisors


and 8


, placing


them


in the "negative"


behavior


grouping.


Supervisor


felt


that


considerable


involve-


ment


-- "positive"


behavior


-- was typical


of his


emplo


yees.


remaining


supervisors


' descriptions would


fall


within


the "general"


behavior


type.


Commitment


to meeting


standards


--Only


supervisor


described


employees


as sometimes


trying


to meet


or exceed


established


work


standards


(2.0


response).


Five


supervisors


felt


their


employees'


commitment


to doing


a full


days work


was "positive.


" Two


elt only


"general"


behavior


attitude


existed.


Initiative.


--Supervisors


and 7


responded


that


employees


exhibit


a relatively


low degree


of initiative,


or "negative"t


behavior


according


our grouping


scheme,


while


three


supervisors


felt


that


"positive"


behavior


regarding


this


variable


best


described


their


employees.


Three


supervisors


descriptions


Self-improvement.


would


--Only


be in the "general"'


supervisors


and 8


behavior


described


grouping.


their


employees


as "generally"''


trying


to improve


themselves.


Five


super-


visors


responses


indicate


"negative"


behavior.


No supervisors


indi-


cated


"positive"''


behavior


on the


part


of their


employees.








"negative


" grouping.


The remaining


two descriptions


are "general"


types.


Frustration


evel


--Empl


oyees


in work


groups


and 2


were


scrib


their


supervisors


as usually


y possessing


a feeling


frustration


in performing


their


jobs--


negative


behavior


according


our scheme


of classification.


A lower


degree


of frustration


perienced


in the "positive"


behavior


groups


and 7


while


remaining


four work


groups


can be typed


as "general"


behavior


Sense


of achievement


--"Negative


behavior


can


be ascrib


to work


groups


degree


and 4


of empl


regarding


oyee


this variable


satisfaction


while


out of doing


the relatively


ood job,


higher


evidenced


group s


are examples


"general"


behavior.


Only


super-


visors


and 6


felt


their


empl


oyees


behavior was


such


to allow


their


inclusion


in the "positi


ve" behavior


grouping.


Absenteeism.


--Job attendance was


felt


to have


an unstable


effect


on operations


groups


and 8


resulting


in "negati


ve" be


havi


extent


that


sometimes


absentee


sm affected


operations


as responded


supervisors


and 5


indicated


a "positive"


behavior


orientation.


responses


of supervi


sors


and 7


were


a "general"


behavior


indicator.


Turnover


--Only


the supervisor


group


felt


that


empl


oyee


con-


tinuity


usually


affected


operations


The remaining


seven


supervi


sors


expressed


the attitude


that


sometime s


or rarely


turnover


affect


S tt S I I


was


ex-


. 1 o


II


**








degree


of "negative"


orientation


on the


part


of his


emplo


yees


while


supervisor


group


responded


with


most


"positive"


indicators


individual


behavior.


Intragroup


behavior


lateral


relations


indices


comprise


the lateral


intragroup


behavior


category.


supervisors


are describing


the lateral


relations


which


they


perceive


to exist


within


their work


groups


responding


to the questionnaire


items.


Confidence


trust.


--All


ervisors


with


the exception


supervisor


expressed


"general


behavior


and supervisor


expressed


"negative"


behavior,


felt


that


members


of their work


groups


have


a high


degree


of confidence


trust


in each


other.


related


communication.


--"General"


behavior


regarding


related


discussions


can be attributed


to work


groups


and 7,


while


the remaining


seven


groups


are best


described


the supervisors


"positive"t


behavior


indicators.


Non-job


related


communications


--Low


grees


of non-job


related


discussions


describes


take


place within


groups


and 7


groups


Only


and 8.


group


"General"


exhibits


behavior


"positive"


behavior.


Cooperation


patterns.


--"Negative"


behavior


is indicated


super-


visor


for his work


group


in the


extent


of cooperation


and assistance








Group


unity


--The supervisor


group


again has


response


falling within


the "negative"


behavior


grouping.


supervisors


are of


the attitude


that


behavior


regarding


intragroup


unity


exists


while


only


one supervisor


s reply


lies


within


"general"


type


of behavior


grouping.


Interaction


the job.


--Informal


intera


actions


off the job


described


as "positive"


group


"general"


groups


and 8


"negative"''


for the remaining


five


work


groups.


Summarizing


responses


to the lateral


intragroup


behavior


ques


tions,


supervi


sor


the highest


number


of "negative" behavior


indicators


while


supervisor


most


positive"


replies


Intragroup


behavior:


vertical


relations


indices


are included


in this


category


of behavior.


The eight


supervi


sors


relations


' responses


that


exist


are their


, primarily


perceptions


between


regarding


superiors


the vertical


and subordinates,


within


their work groups.


Trust


confidence


downward


--Supervi


sors


of work


groups


all felt


that


usually


supervisors


have


trust


and confidence


subordinates


(all


responses were


and the supervisor


group


felt


that


this


almost


always was


case


response)


All


five


groups


in the


posit


ive" behavior


grouping.


Groups


and 4


possess


general"


behavior


orientation.


No supervisor


repli


in the


manner


allow


response


to be termed


"negative


" behavior.


are


are


"positive''








"negative"


behavior


aspect.


"Often"


is the situation


groups


, 5,


or "general"


in the "positive"


behavior.


oriented


groups


always"


is the situation


and 6.


Communication


screening.


--Half


the work groups


can be described


as "general"


and the other


four


as "positive"


behavior


vis-a-vis


situation


that


exists


within


the work


groups


on volunteering


job-related


information


upward


to superiors.


Job information.


--"Usually"


or "almost


always"


do subordinates


bring


problems


to the attention


is the view


of the supervisors


work


groups


and 7.


A "positive"


behavior


indicator.


remaining work


groups


can be classified


as possessing


"general"


behavior.


Human


relations


information.


--The


supervisor


of work


group


felt


that


rarely


do his


subordinates


bring


to his


attention human


relations


problems


response


of 1).


The supervisors


groups


and 8


also


a "negative"


(both responses


description


were


of their


Groups


groups


and 7


a lesser


possessed


extent


"positive"


orientation while


group 4


was


described


as "general"


behavior.


Cooperation


and teamwork.


--The


sense


of teamwork and


cooperation


between


subordinates


and superiors


within


work groups


4 and 7


scribed


as only


sometimes


existing


--a "negative"


behavior


aspect.


Three


supervisors


responded


"generally"


(each


response


was


supervisors


groups


and 6


each


respond


"positively"


(responses


of 7


raE nor 4r ,,n 1 ,


was


"almost








"very


often"


acceptance


of their


decisions


subordinates was


case


described


the supervi


sors


groups


Supervi


sors


responded


in the "general"


behavior


grouping.


Acceptance


of higher


level


management


deci


sions


--The supervisor


of work group


toward


felt


acceptance


that


of higher


group


members


management


a "negative"


decisions


while


behavior


groups


best


be described


as "positive"


behavior


oriented.


Groups


and 8 fall


within


the "general


behavior


grouping.


Acceptance


of staff


group


decisions


--This


last


variabi


in the


broad


category


of intragroup


vertical


behavior


a similar


pattern


response


to the preceding


variable


Again,


the supervisor


of work


group


describes


group


as possession


negative"


behavior


Groups


4 and


are


"positively"


oriented


while


groups


and 8


lie within


the "general"


behavior


grouping.


Summarizing


the supervisors


responses


to the vertical


intr


group


behavior


category we


find


tha t


ervi


sor


again had


the highest


number


"negative"


responses


with


supervisors


and 6


tyin


most


"positive"


responses with


ten each


Intergroup


behavior


Eight


variables


comprise


last


maj or


cate


gory


behavior.


supervi


exist


sors


are


between


expressing


their work


their


groups


attitudes


and other


-a-vi


groups


the relations


within


that


the plant.


3 .J ---~- l rt1 l I. 1- .1t t 1 **


can


t_ .


Iln


r?


"


1








characterized


as being


"negative


" behaviorally


oriented


extent


of trust and


confidence


which


exists


between


work


groups.


Communications


accuracy


--The


accuracy


and completeness


of inter-


group


communications was


described


as bein


ative"


supe


sors


"general"


and 8


, and "positive"


and 6


Communications


screening


--All


supervi


sors


felt


that


only


some-


times"


or "rarely"'


does


important


information


restrict


screened


between


work


groups.


The result


was


a unanimous


"positive


behavior


type


for the eight work


groups.


Informal


communications


--Non-job-related


scussions


were


rated


as "negative


" by


supervisors


and 8


, as "general"


supervisor


4 and


"positive


and 6.


Cooperation and


teamwork.


--Only


ervi


sor


felt


that


"positive


behavior was


exhibited


group members


regarding


the de


gree


voluntary


cooperation


and teamwork


between


various


groups.


upervi


sors


had a


"negative


attitude


response


to the


same


question


while


responded


a manner


to place


their work groups


the "general"


behavior


grouping.


Team


spirit.


--Team


spirit


exists


almost


ah1Nay s


among


the various


groups.


was


the attitude


expressed


supervi


sors


and 6


response


supervi


sors


placed


their work


groups


in the


"negative"


group


ing.


The remaining


four


groups


can be


classifi


are


. A








Acceptance


of deci


sions.


--Work groups


are described


their


supervisors


as being


"negative"


in their


acceptance


of deci


sions


made


other work groups.


Supervi


sors


and 8


express


a "positive"


behavior


indicated


their employees


and the remaining


groups


-- 4


-- are


"general


behavior


types


Interaction


patterns.


--In


responding


to thi


last


variable


in the


intergroup


behavior


category


, and the last


variabi


in the behavioral


part


of the model,


responses


were


similar


to the intragroup


lateral


behavior


question


about


interaction


job.


Five


supervi


sors


were


of the opinion


that


"rarely,


or "sometimes,"


do empl


oyees


informally


meet


aside


from company


sponsored


events.


Supervisors


groups


expressed


positive"


behavior


on the


part


of their


empl


oyees.


Only


group


8 was


described


as fitting


the "general"''


behavior


type.


summary,


the supervisor


of work


group


express


most


negati


ve" behavior


aspects while


group


was


most


"positive"


oriented


regarding


intergroup


behavior


Groups


and 8


both


had the


greatest


number


of "general


behavior


aspects


within


this


broad


category.


Figures


24 through


which


appear


in Appendix


, represent


behavioral


profiles


of the eight


second


level


ervisors


' responses


describing


their work groups.


data


from


Tabi


are plotted


provide


profiles.


Foremen


Other


Salari


sonnel


Desc


ription


Employees


' Behavior


responses


of the foremen and


other


salari


personnel


to the








TABLE


PLANT A AVERAGE


PERSONNEL
EMPLOYEE


RESPONSE


TO BEHAVIOR


BEHAVIOR


OF FOREMEN AND
QUESTIONNAIRE


OTHER


SALARIED


DESCRIBING


BY VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Variabi


Individual


Behavior


Involvement.


Commitment
Initiative


to Meetin


Self-Improvement


Work-Goal


Frus


tration


ense


Commitmw


Leve


Achie


Standards


nt . .
ent .a .


t .


yemenl


senteeism.


Turnover

Intragroup


Confidence
Job Related
Non-Job Rel
Cooperation


Group


behavior:


Corn


ated


Pat


Lateral


Trust . .
munication. .
Communication.
terns . .


Unity.


Interaction


Intragroup


Trust
Trust


behavior


Job.

Verti


and Confidence-
and Confidence-


Requested


Information


Communication Sc
Job Information.
Human Relations
Cooperation and


ceptance


f In


Supervisor


eptance


n


cal


- Downw


-Upward .
. 9 .


:ree


Information. .


Teamwork
mediate


Deci


of Hi


Management
Acceptance of


Deci

Intergroup


Confidence
flrnirns a,-* n* 4* f- 4


Decis
Staff


sons.


Leve


ions.


* a


Group


sions


behavior


and Trust


I-


9.


Work Group


6.8
2.8


8.0
6.5
3.5
6.5
7.8
5.0
6.0

6.5

6.2

6.2


6.8
t C


7.5
8.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
7.5


7.5
7.0
6.0
6.0
7.5
2.0


7.5
7.5
7.5
8.0
8.0
5.5
7.0

8.0

8.0

8.0


6.0
y '


.~n~1t n4 ff l


I









Individual


behavior


involvement.


- -Work


group


was


the only


group


that


responded


"positive"


regarding


this


variable--the


remaining work groups


exhibit


a "general"


behavior


orientation.


Commitment


to mee


ting


standards.


--Group


felt


that


only


sometimes


employees


do a full


work


-- a "negative"


response


-- and


work


group


responded


in the


opposite


direction


in that


they


felt


employees


usually


do a full


day's


work


-- a "positive"


reply.


The remaining


work


groups


fell


within


the "general"


behavior


area.


Initiative.


--The


degree


of job


initiative


shown


employees was


described


as moderate


by work groups


and 8,


placing


these


groups


in "general"


behavior.


The remaining work


groups


felt the


employees


have


shown


considerable


amounts


of initiative,


thus


placing


these


groups


in the "positive"


behavior


end of the continuum.


Self-improvement.


--Two work groups


and 8)


replied


"negatively"


regarding


this


variable.


group


felt


that


considerable


attempts


at self-improvement


were


evidenced,


thus


a "positive"


position,


and the


remaining work


groups


fell


within


the "general"


behavior


descriptive


grouping.


Work-goal


commitment.


--The


typical


viewpoint


of the work


groups


that


often


empl


oyees


are willing


to chan


the work


pace


to meet


goals


(six of


the eight


groups


replied


in this


fashion).


Their


behavior


- UI ftft -r 1 1 U*S.


was


Ir


n


II


__ I 1 1


r r









Frustration


levels.


--The


feeling


of frustration


was


described


occurring


often


by work


groups


,4,


and 8,


placin


these


groups


in "general"


behavior.


On the other


hand,


work


groups


and 6


would


be in the "positive"


behavior


grouping.


group


responded


negatively.


Sense


of achievement.


--Four work


groups


felt


that


the empl


oyees


often


satisfaction


out of doing


a good


job.


This


"general"


havior was


mentioned


groups


and 7.


The remaining


four


groups


responded


i.e.


, response


values


from


to 7.6


placing


these


groups


on the right


side


of the behavior


continuum.


Absenteeism.


--The


first


three


groups


responded


"negative"


in that


they


felt


absenteeism usually


affected


the operation


of the


plant.


Four


work


groups


have


a "general"


behavior


orientation


only


one group,


regarding


this


variable,


could


be described


as "positive.


This


was work


group


with


a response


8.0.


Turnover.


--Only work


grcup


felt


that


turnover


very


often


affected


the operation


of the plant


("general"


behavior).


remain-


seven


work


groups


responded


that


sometimes


to rarely


did the


question


of employee


continuity


become


important.


Therefore,


seven


the eight


work


groups


were


"positive"


behavior


oriented


according


our classification


scheme.


Intragroup


behavior:


lateral


relations


Confidence


trust.


--Work


groups


and 7


replied


that


their work


- A i t-


* .1


and


* 4q '1


"positive,


.-. I


_Ir. r








related


communication.


--The


work


groups were


evenly


split


between


"general"


and "positive" behavior


orientation when


comes


to this variable,


the lowest


response


being


5.0 by work group


the highest


"positive"


response


of 8.0 being made


groups


4 and 8.


Non-job


related


communication.


--All


work groups


responded


"general" behavior


terms with


the exception


group


s response


value of


6.6 placing


themselves


in the "positive"


behavior


grouping.


Cooperation


patterns.


--For work


groups


4 and 8


there


exists


usual


amount


of cooperation


among


the groups'


co-workers,


placing


these

groups


response


groups


described


by group


in the "positive"


the degree


behavior


of cooperation


representing


the lowest


position.

as existing


value)


remaining


"often"


one of "very


often"


being


case


-- a "general"


behavior


reply.


Group


unity.


high


degree


of work


group member


unity


exists


six work


groups.


Groups


and 7


exhibit


a relatively


lower


degree


unity


a "general"


behavior


orientation,


than


the six other


groups


which


can be depicted


as "positive"


behavior.


Interaction


the job.


--Only


sometimes


do employees


meet


infor-


mally


the job


according


to the


responses


five


work


groups.


These


replies


place


the five


groups


in the "negative"


behavior


end of the


continuum.


Three


work


groups,


and 8,


responded


in a


"general"


behavior


orientation


while


no group


responded


a manner


to place


them


In rhofI^ *'rnnara r-r win, n r


nlnrrn; fi n









Intragroup


behavior:


vertical


relations


Trust


and confidence


downward.


--Work


groups


express


"general"


behavior


attitude


in that


they


felt


supervisors


often


have


trust


and confidence


in subordinates.


other


six work


groups


responded


a more


"positive"


behavior


attitude


vis-a-vis


this


variable.


Trust


and confidence


upward.


--The


degree


trust


confidence


shown


subordinates


in their


superiors


was


described


by work groups


and 7


in terms


a "general"


behavior


pattern.


The other


five


work groups


expressed


a higher


degree


trust


being


case.


These


groups


would


fall


within


the "positive"t


grouping.


Request


information.


--Work


group


avera


ge response


indicates


behavior


orientation


in that


they


felt


employees


only


sometimes


provided


accurate


requested


data


to supervisors.


Groups


and 7


replied


that


often


this


was


case


-- "general"


behavior


while


the remaining


five


work groups


replies would


have


to be depicted


as "positive"


behavior


indicators.


Communication


screening.


--The


extent


of intentional


withholding


distortion


of information


subordinates


is described


as existing


often


work groups


and 7.


situation


one of "sometimes"


to "rarely"


existing


as expressed


the remaining


five


work


groups


tha t


lie within


the "positive"


portion


of the behavior


continuum


1Within


work group


e category
response


y of intragroup
to this variable


behavi


or:


is the


vertical


nega


relations,


tive"


S*- 1


a "negative"


r 1 r


(1,


t


- <








information.


-- In


evaluating whether


subordinates


bring


problems


to the attention


of their


supervisors,


eight work groups


fall


within


the "positive"


behavior


area.


Human relations


information


--"General


behavior


character


work


groups


-a-vi


variable.


The subordinates


volunteering


human


relations


information


was


described


as "often"


being


case.


Coop


eration


and teamwork.


--Half


the work


groups


responded


"general" behavior way while


the remaining


four would


have


to be


placed


in the "positive"


behavior


grouping


regarding


the degree


that


cooperation


and teamwork


exists


between


supervisors


and subordinates.


Acceptance


of immediate


supe


rvisor


decisions.


--Work


group


average


response


of 6.4 places


it in the "general


behavior


grouping


while


the other


seven work


groups


respond


a manner


to allow


their


placement


in the


positive


" behavior


area.


Acceptance


of higher


level


management


decisions


--Five


work


groups


be describe


as possess


a "general"


behavior


attitude


towards


variable


while


the remaining


three


work


groups


' responses


place


them in


the "positive


" behavior


grouping.


Acceptance


of staff


group deci


ons


--Work


groups


and 7


responded


and 4.7


respectively


to thi


variable


-- a generall


behavior


attitude


-- while


the remaining work


groups


expressed


that


empi


oyees


usually


accepted


decisions


staff


groups.


Such


responses


place


these


zes


can








Intergroup


behavior


Confidence


trust.


--All


degree


of intergroup


confidence


trust


that was


described


ranged


from work


group


s "sometimes"


exist-


3.7 response)


to "almost


always"1


being


case


as expressed


work group


(8.8


response).


Following


the grouping


classification


which


we are using,


work


groups


and 7


would


be "general"


behavior while


groups


Communications


and 8 are


accuracy.


"positive"'


--Work groups


behavior


and 8


oriented.


expressed


a "positive"


behavior


group


attitude


information


regarding


exchange,


accuracy


while


and completeness


the remaining work


of inter-


groups would


classified


as "general"


behavior.


Communications


screening.


--Only


one work


group


-- group


-- expressed


other


than a


"positive"t


behavior


perception


vis-a-vis


extent


that


there


exists


related


information


restriction.


Work group


would


be classed


as "general"


behavior.


Informal


communications.


--"Negative"


behavior was


indicated


work


groups


work


groups


felt


that


often


informal


discussions


took


place


between


departments


but onl


to the


extent


to place


these


groups


in the "general"


behavior


grouping.


Cooperation


and teamwork.


--Work


group


perceived


a relatively


high


gree


cooperation


and teamwork


(7.5)


between


departments


with


remaining


groups


falling


slightly


lower


into


the "general"


behavior


area.








other


five


groups'


"general"


behavior


responses


indicate


a lower


attitude


orientation


regarding


extent


of intergroup


team


spirit.


Acceptance


of decisions.


--"Usually"


("positive"


behavior)


work


groups

best d


and 8


describes


accept


the other


other

groups


groups'


decisions.


orientation


toward


"General"


this


behavior


variable


intergroup


behavior.


Interaction


patterns.


--This


last


variable


in the


category


also


the last


of the total


behavioral


indices


that were


measured


five


ponses


in the "negative"


grouping.


The low degree


of intergroup


informal


interaction


was


expressed


groups


and 7.


Work groups


and 8 would


be in the generall"


area


of the behavior


continuum.


Figures


32 through


included


in Appendix


pictorially


portray


the behavior


patterns


of the


eight work groups


based


upon


average


responses


reported


in Table


Chapter


leadership,


VI will


describe


and behavior


in general


of Plants


terms


B and


contrasts


next


in structure,


chapter


will


describe


Plant


following


same


format


as was


used


in the


present


chapter.


res














CHAPTER


DATA


DESCRIPTION


OF PLANT


Introduction


The description


of Plant


based


upon


the data


collected


pre-


sented


in this


chapter.


Plan t


is described


terms


of the primary


structural,


mediation


structural,


leadership,


and behavioral


factors


that


existed


during


the study.


The glossary which


follows


the final


chapter


provides


necessary


definitions


and operational


measures


of the structural


and leadership


variables.


The tabular


data


are aug-


mented


summary


profiles


depicting


responses


to the various


variables.


Plant


is structured


into


six departments


or work


groups,


basically


two management


levels


-- the foremen


and the supervisory


levels.


personnel


A total


comprised


twenty-one


the research


supervisors,


study


foremen,


population.


and other


plant


salaried


manager


not


include


style was


in the study


described


as a respondent


his subordinates.


although


Figure


depicts


leadership

the organi-


zation


structure


of Plant


supervisor


of work


group


participated


in the study


responding


to the structural


and leadership


questionnaires.


Since


the study was


confined


to management


and other


salari


personnel,


description


the leadership


style


of supervisor


and his


perceptions












s-I
0
U)
04

00
04 C


'.4
0
U,
0-.
~.s-JI
s-I 00

04

U)


s-I
0
(12
04
s-I 00

04 0

Cl)


'-4
4Jw
060
CUcj

0.4 CU


o cn

$400

CO
S04 0
U)^


1.-I
0
w
04
$400

04 0

C,)


------









Primary


Structural


Variables


of Plant


Size,


work


flow,


spatial


-physical-temporal


factors


work


demands,


and heuri

described


stics


in this


comprise


section.


the primary


Table


structural

represents


variables that


average


are


responses


to the questionnaire


items


covering


primary


structural


elements


Plant


Size


Work


group


with


two levels,


is the largest


of the six depart-


ments


in the plant.


Although


it is


larger


than


the other work


groups


all six groups


can


be described


as small


in size.


Work


Flow


extent


among


of input-output


the work groups


relationships


can be described


that


terms


exist within


a continuum ranging


from non-integrated


to integrated


work


flow.


Intragroup work


flow


Work group 4


the least


work


flow


integration


of the six work


groups


response).


Its members


are moderately


unrelated


to each


other


as far as the work


flow


existing


within


their


group


is concerned.


remaining


five


groups


are best


describe


as having


partial


integra-


tjion


of work


flows within


their


respective


departments.


Intergroup


work


flow


Data


were


collected


for only


the important


intergroup


relations


* S *_


1.,l --


t n - I i ... 1. i I .St '4


ml


-L-l. 1 L


1 1 rre r


1


TI


,,














TABLE


PLANT


B AVERAGE RESPONSE


TO PRIMARY


STRUCTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE


ITEMS


VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


aThe size average responses are arrived


at by


using


Tabi


which


ears


in the e


lossary.








The degree


of work


flow


integration


is highest


between groups


and 1


-- a partially integrated


intergroup


work


flow


(7.0)


and the


work


flow


relations


between


groups


and 5


is the lowest


at 5.2 -- only


moderately


integrated.


Considering


extent


of intergroup work


flow


for all departments within


Plant


, it


can be said


that


partial


integration


of the work


flows


exists


in the plant.


Spatial-Physical-Temporal


Factors


work groups


' concentration


or dispersement were


measured


intra- and


Intragroup


intergroup


s-p-tt


relations.


factors


members


groups


and 6


are fairly


dispersed


from each


other


(responses


and 7.0 respectively).


Groups


through


best


be described


as moderately


concentrated


within


their


groups.


Intergroup


s-p-t


factors


Work


groups


and 6


are fairly


dispersed


from


the other


groups


for which


data


were


obtained.


Group


exhibits


least


total


degree


of separation


from


the other


groups.


Work


group


separation


from


group


is the highest


at 8.1,


while


the lowest


degree


of separation


is between


groups


and 3


at 3.8 -- fairly


concentrated.


Overall,


with


the exception


groups


and 4


and their


relations


with


each


other,


Plant


can


be described


as having


fairly


dispersed


departments.


Wnrk


nPmfnnd


can








Heuristics


last


variable


to be described


in the major


category


of primary


structural


come


is heuristics


of actions


-- the


or decisions.


extent


one is able


work groups


to predict


in Plant


have


out-


their


actions


or decisions


predictable


to a great


extent.


Group


greatest


degree


of predictability


(1.7)


while


Group


the least


4.0.


Figures


Table


40 through


in a profile


45 (see


for each


Appendix E)


of the work


summarize


groups.


the data


The mediation'


from

g struc-


tural


variables,


which


will


be discussed


in the


next


section,


are also


included


in Figures


40 through


Mediating


Structural


Variables


of Plant


Formal


authority


relationships


control


system,


and information


system are


the elements


of the mediating


structural


variables.


Data


obtained


for the sub-variables


of formal


authority


are reported


the discussion


is in


terms


of the main


variable.


Table


reports


average


responses


to the questionnaire


the work


groups


of Plant


Formal


Authority


formal


are largely


authority


unspecified


relationships


-- or fairly


that


exist


diffuse.


for all work


response


values


groups


ranged


from a


low of 3.5


(group


a high


of 4.1


(groups


and 5).


Control


System


formal


system


for evaluation


performance


range


from an








groups


have


a fairly well


defined


individual


control


system.


Groups


can


be characterized


as possessing


a partially


defined


system


to control


members


' performance


with


only


group


tending


toward


an institutional


system


(response


of 4.2)


where


standards,


measuring


instruments


and the allocation


of rewards-


penalties


are


less


clearly


established.


TABLE


PLANT


B AVERAGE


RESPONSE TO MEDIATING


STRUCTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE
VARIABLE AND WORK G


Variable


Formal Authority:


Delegation


Levels


Departmentation


Control


System


Information


System:


Intragroup


Intergroup


Vertical


ITEMS


ROUP


Work Group


Information


System


information


system


-- the formal


network


of receiving








Intragroup


information


system


six work groups


some


aspects


of Plant


an unrationalized


B can all

informal


be describe

intragroup


as possessing


information


system


as well


as a formal


rationalized


one.


values


ranged


across


center


of the continuum


from 4.8


to 5


Intergroup


information


system


intergroup


information


system was


describe


as a combination


simple/complex


system by


groups


through


Group


can be described


as having


a simple


information


system--


little


or no formal


methods


to handle


Vertical


intergroup


information


information.


system


vertical


system which


exists within


Plant


a combina-


tion


simple/complex


system.


Excluding


group


, all work groups


have


basically


similar


intragroup


intergroup


, and verti


information


systems.


Figures 40


through


(included


in Appendix E)


depict


the similar-


and differences


that


exist


the primary


and mediating


structural


variables


Plant


Leadership


Dimensions


of Plant


leader


ship


styles


of the plant manager


and five


second


level


supervi


upon


sors


are


responses


describe


of the


in this section.


immediate


The di


subordinates


scus


to the


sion


lead


based


ership


questionnaire


which


measures


same


twelve


dimensions


of leadership









Plant


Manager'


Leadership


Style


Table


reports


average


responses


of six supervisors


the leadership


questionnaire


directed


at evaluating


plant


manager.


The leadership


style


of the plant


manager


described


using


twelve


dimensions


of leader


ship.


Representation


six supervisors


perception


the plant


manager


that


he usually promotes


the interests


of the supervi


sors


to higher


manage-


men t.


The average


response


of 3


on the democratic


end of the


leadership


continuum.


Interaction


Generally


the plant


manager


encourages


supervisors


to meet


together


to work


common


problems


more


than


encoura


interaction


with


himself


His orientation


toward


lateral


interaction


among


supervi


sors .


Standards


Typic


ally,


the plant


manager


allows


the supervisors


to set their


performance


standards while


at the


same


time


he emphasis


need


to establish


relatively


high


standards.


supervisors


' per-


ception


that


moderately


low (a


response


of 3


standards


encouraged.


Goal


emphasis


* ~~ .1 U. 4


own


zes


are


d


A


- ?


q


r. *















TABLE


PLANT B AVERAGE


RESPONSE


OF SIX SECOND


LEVEL


SUPERVISORS


TO LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE


EVALUATING


PLANT


MANAGER


LEADERSHIP


STYLE


BY VARIABLE


Variable


Average
Response


Leadership


Dimensions


Representation.

Interaction .


Standards


Goal


U S S a S S a S S


Emphasis


Participation . . . . .

Direction .


Orientation.


a a S a a a SS S S S S S 55


Motivation.



Miscellaneous


Leadership


Dimensions


Technical


Qualifications.


S S S a S S S S S a a 57


Action


Orientation.


Problem Skills .

Personal Abilities and Orientation. . . .









Participation


Usually the plant

the supervisors on job


manager

related


solicits

matters.


comments

They vi


and suggestions


ew him as


from


encouraging


open


discussion


and participation


regarding


common


problems


-- a


response


of 3.9 indicating


rather


extensive


use of participation.


Direction


plant manager


is perceived


as utilizing


general


direction


(4.0).


more


or less


allows


the supervisors


to handle


their


problems


with


only


occasional


direction and


guidance.


Rule


orientation


Generally,

to policies, pr


the plant


ocedures


manager

and rules


stresses t

but still


he necessity


allows


of adhering


for a certain


degree


of flexibility


and personal


judgment.


Motivation


Basically


the plant


manager


relies


upon


use of rewards


motivate


supervisors


instead


of the threat


of punishment.


response


but does


of 4.3 doesn


point


indicate


out the orientation


a high


toward


degree


of rewards


rewards


away


emphasis


from


punishments


Technical q


as a motivator.


qualifications


Rather


extensive


te chnical


qualifications


are possessed


plant


manager


(7.4).


His professional


training,


work


experience,


own








that


possesses


only


a moderately


high


degree


competency


Problem skill


reasoning


skill


, conceptual


ability,


innovati


veness


comprehension


of the plant manager


were


rated


the lowest


the four miscellaneous


leadership


dimensions.


responses


indicate


a moderate


competency


level.


Personal abilities


and orientation


supervisors


responded


seven


questionnaire


items


in evalu-


eating


aspect


of the plant manager


s leadership


style.


average


response


value


of 7


indicates


a positive


orientation


resulting


in a


high


competency


level.


Figure


46 (included


as a part


of Appendix E)


represents


the leader-


ship


profile


the six


of the plant manager


supervisors


reported


based


in Table


upon


average


From


responses


summary


profile,


the plant


manager'


leadership


style


can


describe


as:


"demo-


cratic"


for only


one


dimension


-- representation


a "general"


leadership


style


with a


definite


tendency


toward


the democrati


of the continuum for


the remaining


seven


dimensions


in the leadership


functions


area;


competency


viewed


as mostly


on the low


end of the "high


competency


area


with


the level


of problem


skill


described


as equating


a "moderate"


degree


competency


Supervi


sors


Leadership


Styles


c" end













TABLE


PLANT B AVERAGE RESPONSE


OF FOREMEN AND


OTHER


SALARIED


PERSONNEL


TO LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE


EVALUATING


THEIR


IMMEDIATE


SUPERIOR'S


LEADERSHIP


STYLE


BY VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Work Group
Variable ..
1 2a 3 4 5


Leadership


Dimensions


Representation

Interaction

Standards


Goal


Emphasis


Participation

Direction


Orientation


Motivation


Misc


ellaneous


Leader


ship


Dimensions


Technical

Action Or


Qualifications


ientation


Problem Skills


Pers


onal


Abilities


Orientation


A-











The supervisor


of work


group


was


responsible


for hourly workers


only.


Since


the study


included


management


salaried


personnel,


evaluation


of the leadership


style


supervisor


was


not possible.


discussion


in this


section


is in


terms


of the


same


twelve


leadership


dimensions.


Leadership


profiles


for the five


supervisors


included


in Appendix


Representation


supervisors


of work groups


and 5


often


have


a tendency


as spokesmen


and buffers


for higher


management


vis-


a-vis


their


subordinates


in the department.


This


is also


true


for supervisor


a lesser


degree


whereas


supervisors


are described


usually


representing


their


subordinates


to higher


management.


Interaction


subordinates


responses


to the interaction


questions


indicate


that


supervisors


through


4 emplo


a combination


of lateral/vertical


personal


interaction.


Supervisor


mor e


nearly


oriented


toward


encouraging vertical


interaction


within


his work


group


response


6.3).


Standards


Supervisor


is described


as establishing moderately


low standards


for his


group


while


the remaining


four


supervisors


are depicted


as employing and


emphasizing


moderate


standards.


cmnn fl a a


are


Ilnst









"autocratic"

superiors as


leadership


encouraging


style.


The other work groups


a combination


group


describe


their


and individual


values


ranged


across


center


of the


measurement


continuum


from


to 5


-- or a "general"


leadership


style


Participation


Supervisor


employs


rather


extensive


parti


cipation


in arriving


at a decision


remaining


ervisors


are perceived


as being


somewhat


selective


in the


extent


to which


they


allow


subordinates


participate


in the decision


process.


Direction


five


supervisors


are describe


their subordin


ates


employing


"general


direction


in exercising


their


leadership


functions.


Rule


orientation


subordinates


of each


of the five work groups


expressed


attitude


tha t


their


supervisor


at times


allowed


some


personal


judgment


flexibility


he emphasized


regarding


a stricter


adherence


following


to rules while


of the formal


at other


policies,


times


procedures


responses


as Table


11 indicates


are clustered


around


center


of the continuum


from 4.5


to 5.7


Motivation


supervisor


group


uses


reward


to motivate


subordinates


a greater


extent


than


other


supervi


sors.


rvisor


was


described


es.








4.2,


respe


actively)


or punishment


(supervisor


and 5 with


responses


of 6


and 5


as means


to motivate


their subordinates.


Technical


qualifications


Professional


training


, work


experience,


techni


cal know-how


wpre de


scribed


as very


extensive


for supervi


sors


response)


and 5


Work


group


described


their


ervisor


possessing


a moderately


high


gree


competency


while


super-


visor


was


described


subordinates


as only moderately


competent


regarding


technical


qualifications


associated


with


the leadership


function


Action o


4.4 response).


orientation


average


responses


the subordinates


of supervi


sor


to the


questions


tha t


escr


ibed


approach


to his


handling


of decisions


indicated


and emergencies


a very


work


slight passive


commitment


orientation


, enthusiasm,


This


drive


equates


"moderate


competency


evel.


remaining


four


supervi


sors


were


describe


as d


ecidedly more


active


in their


approach


(responses


ranging


from


to 8


a high


degree


competency.


Problem


skill


very


similar


response


pattern


to the previous


dimension


indicated


assessing


the problem


skill


the supervisors.


Super-


visor


was


described


as possessing


only


a moderate


degree


of reasoning,


was









Personal


abilities


The similarities


responses


continued


for this


last


dimension


describing


the supervisors


' leadership


styles


of Plant


Supervisor


is best


described


as possessing


moderate


competency,


while


remain-


supervisors


can be characterized


as having


a relatively


higher


degree


competency


in their


personal


abilities.


Figures


47 through


51 (Appendix E)


represent


the leadership


pro-


files


each


supervisor


of Plant


The profiles


depict


that


Plant


the supervisory


leadership


styles


that


exist


are:


almost


total


"general"


style


of leadership with


only


three


exce


ptions--


standards


supervisor


tends


to employ


low standards)


and participation


(supervisor


falling


on the "democratic"


end of the continuum,


goal


emphasis


supe


rvisor


on the "autocratic"


end of the leadership


continuum--and


the supervisors


possess


a high


degree


competency


in performing


thei


jobs


(the


only


general


exception


is supervisor


who was


described


as possessing


a moderate


degree


of competency).


Behavioral


Profile


of Plant


responses


to the behavioral


questionnaire


the supervisors


the foremen and


other


salaried


personnel


are


reported


and discussed


in this


section.


same


classification


scheme


followed


in the


previous


chapter


for the behavioral


section


is employed


in describing


the behavior


measured


in Plant


Behavioral


profile


figures


for the tabular


data


are included


Appendix E.








Supervisors


Description


of Employees


' Behavior


Table


reports


to the behavioral


responses


questionnaire


of the five


describing


their


supervisors

employees'


of Plant

behavior.


discussion


behavior


in this


-- "negative,


section is


" "general,


primarily


" and


terms


"positive,


of three


" within


types


the four


categories


of individual,


intragroup


lateral


, intragroup


vertical,


intergroup


Individual


behavior.


behavior


supervisors


described


their


empl


oyees


individual


behavior


by utilizing


the nine


indices which


comprise


this


category.


description


that


follows


is in


terms


of these


nine


individual


behavior


indices.


Job involvement.


--A "negative"


type


of behavior


was


indicated


supervisors


and 4.


Considerable


involvement


-- "positive"


behavior


indi


cator


-- of their


employees


was


case


as perceived


supervisors


and 7


Commitment


to meeting


standards.


--The


extent


that


employees


to meet


or exceed


established


work


standards


was


described


as "ne


tive"


in work


groups


and 2;


"general"


groups


and 5;


and "positive"


only


group 4.


Initiative


--The


degree


of initiative


was


moderate


groups


and 3


general"


behavior


type)


while


was "negative"


and highl


"positive"


I


in work


grouD p (a


response


of 81.


Cro







TABLE


PLANT


B RESPONSE


OF FIVE SECOND


LEVEL


SUPERVISORS


BEHAVIOR


QUESTIONNAIRE


DESCRIBING


EMPLOYEE


BEHAVIOR


BY VARIABLE AND WORK GROUP


Work Group
Variable
1 2 3 4 5


Individual


Behavior


Involvement


Commitment ti
Initiative.
Self-Improvei
Work-Goal Coi
Frustration


Sense


of Ach:


o Mee


stin


Standard


.* . .
ment .. . .
mmitment. . .
Levels. . .
ievement. . .


Absenteeism


Turnover. .

Intragroup Behavior:


Confidence
Job Related


Non-Job


Lateral


and Trust.


Communication


Relat


Cooperation


Group


Communic


nation


Patterns.


Unity


Interaction


Intragroup


Trus
Trus
Requ


off the


Behavior:


and Confid
and Confid


ested


Job .

Vertical


ence--Downward
ence--Upward.


Information


Communications
Job Information


Human


Relations


Cooperation
Acceptance
Supervis
Acceptance
Manageme
Acceptance


Decisions.


Intergroup


Confidence


Communications


Screenii


S S S S S
ag. S S S S S


Information .


and Teamwork.
of Immediate


Decisions


of Higher


Level


sions


* S S


Staff Group
. . .


Behavior


Trust.


curac


* I








"negative"


behavior


grouping.


supervisor


of work group


employees


exhibited


a "general


behavior


orientation


-a-vi


variable.


The supervisor


group


not


respond


to thi


item.


Work-goal


commitment.


--Tabl


12 indicates


that


supervisors


regard


their employees


as having


a relatively


high


egree


of "positive"


behavior


orientation


(both


supervi


sors


' responses


were


At the


other


extreme


, supervi


sors


and 2


indicated


a "negati


ve" behavior


type with


responses


of 1


respectively


Supervisor


indicated


"general"


behavior with


response


Frustration


levels


--Only


ervisor 1


indicated


"negative"


behavior,


while


supervi


sors


and 5


described


"general


supervi


sors


and 4 indicated


positive


" behavior


types.


Sense


of achievement.


--Empl


oyees


in work


groups


and 4


were


described


their


supervi


sorTS


as p


ossessing


negative


behavior


according


our scheme


of classification


(each


response


was


Work


groups


and 5 were


depicted


as "general


positive


" behaviorally


oriented


, respectively.


Absenteeism.


--Three


work


groups


-- 1


and 5


-- possess


"negative"


behavior


.e.


, job


attendance


was fe


to have


an unstable


effect


operations.


remaining


two


groups


are classified


as generall"


behavior.


Turnover


--Groups


and 2


were


epicted


types of









turnover


supervisors


sometimes


responded


affects


that


the group'


"general"


operations.


behavior was


remaining


case.


Summarizing


responses


of the five


supervisors


to the individual


behavior


questions


shows


that


supervisor


expressed


the highest


number


of "negative"


replies with


eight,


while


supervisor


had the


highest


number


of "positive"


responses with


four.


Intra


behavior:


lateral


relations


indices


comprise


this


category


of behavior.


The five


super-


visors


' responses


from Table


are discussed


within


context


these


six variables.


Confidence


trust.


--"Positive"


behavior


characterizes


groups


and 5,


while


group


was described


as possessing


"negative"'


behavior


group


"general"


behavior.


Supervisor


not respond


to this


question.


related


communication.


--Only


supervisor


responded


in the


manner


to place


group


in the "negative"


behavior


grouping with


other


replies


being


positive.


Non-job


related


communication.


--Supervisors


felt


that


their


employees


exhibit


low de


grees


of non-job


related


communication


(both


resp


onses


were


"3", placing


these


groups


in the "negative"


area).


Groups


and 4


were


characterized


as "positive"


in their


lateral


intragroup


behavior.


gyqup








Group


unity.


--"Positive" behavior was


characterized


supervisors


Only


supervisor


s attitude was


included


in the "general"


grouping.


Supervisor


respond


to thi


question.


Interaction


the job.


--Informal


interactions


the job


were


depicted


as "negative"


supervisors


Supervisor


only


respondent


to reply


in a


manner


to allow


response


to be


eluded


in the "po


sitive"


behavior


grouping -


remaining


super-


sors


described


generall


behavior.


summary,


five


of the six


variable


in the intragroup


lateral


behavior


category were


described


ative"


supe


rvisor


while


supervisor


all six


responses


in the "positive"


behavior


grouping.


Intragroup


behavior:


vertical


relations


five


supervi


sors


described


their


employees


vertical


nations


within


the work group


responding


to ten


estions


directed


at measur-


the exi


of the


sting


behavior.


ten variables


The discussion


comprisin


category


in this section


of vertical


terms


intragroup


behavior.


Trust


and confidence


downward


--The


response


of supervisor


dicates


negative


" behavior


regarding


trust


and confidence


that


supervisors


have


in subordinates.


Supervisors


respond


"positively"t


with


and 8


reply


respectively,


while


"general"


havior was


indicated


supervisors


was









Requested


information.


--Three


supervisors


and 5)


described


their work


groups


as exhibiting


"positive"''


behavior


regarding


accuracy


and completeness


of information


which


they


request


from em-


ployees.


Supervisors


and 4


indicated


"negative"''


behavior.


Communication


screening.


--Only


supervisor


4 described


his employees


as almost


always


limiting


important


upward


information


-- a "nega-


tive"


orientation.


the remaining


three


Supervisor


supervisors


not respond


indicated


to this


"positive"


item,


behavior


while


for their


work


groups.


Job information.


--Groups


and 5


were


described


as "positive


i.e.


, they


usually


bring


problems


to the attention


of the supervisor.


Supervisor


response


was


a "general"


behavior


indicator


and a "nega-


ve" reply


was


recorded


for supervisor


Human


relations


information.


--The


extent


that


subordinates


volun-


teer


useful


human


relations


information


was describe


as "positive


only


supervisor


Three


supervisors


felt


that


a "negative"


orienta-


tion


existed


within


their


work groups.


Supervisor


elected


not to


respond


to this


question.


Cooperation


and teamwork.


--The


responses


of supervisors


are in the "negative"


behavior


grouping whereas


supervisors


and 5


both


indicated


a "positive"


egree


of cooperation


and teamwork


between


supervisor


and his subordinates.








Acceptance


of higher


level


management


decisions


--Supervisors


felt


that


"'fatve


behavior was


indicated


within


their


groups


vis-a-vis
vis-a-vis


this


variable.


The remaining


supervisors


expressed


''oitv''


behavior


to be the


case


for their


groups.


Acceptance


of staff


group


decisions.


--All


supervisors were


of the


opinion


that


their


employees


exhibit


'''oitv'


behavior


in accepting


decisions


made


staff


groups.


Summarizing


the five


supervisors


responses


within


this


third


major


category


of behavior


shows


that


the orientation


is definitely


toward


"positive"''


the "positive"


responses


supervisor


replied


behavior


seventeen


in each


end of the


"negative,

instance


continuum


" and

with a


three


(twenty-seven


"general")


behavior


description;


supervisor


indicated


the highest


number


"negative"t


aspects


within


category.


Intergroup


behavior


Eight


variable s


constitute


this


last


major


cate


gory


of behavior.


responses


of the five


supervisors


reported


in Table


12 indicate


their


opinions


regarding


the intergroup


behavior


tha t


exists


between


their work groups


others


of Plant


Confidence


trust.


--Res


ponse


values


of "7" indicated


super-


visors


4 and 5


fall


within


the "positive"


behavior


grouping.


Super-


visor


felt


tha t


a "negative"''


orientation


existed


between


his work


group


and other


groups


regarding


ergroup


confidence


trust,


while


"positive''