Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Links between person-thing orientational, organizational images, and allocation of organization activities Timms, Diana M. 1979

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A4_6 T55.pdf [ 5.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094797.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094797-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094797-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094797-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094797-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094797-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094797-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094797-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094797.ris

Full Text

LINKS BETWEEN PERSON-THING ORIENTATION, ORGANIZATIONAL IMAGES, AND ALLOCATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES by DIANA M. TIMMS B.A., The University of Brit ish Columbia, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1979 © Diana M. Timms, 1979 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. .Department nf COMMERCE  The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date MARCH 28, 1980 D E - 6 B P 7 5 - 5 1 1 E i i . ABSTRACT The main objective of this study is to examine links between the orientation of people to their environment, the images they hold, and the way they allocate time to organizational act iv i t ies . Emphasis is upon the neglected role of human capacities and energies (such as sense-making) and its relationship to organizational phenomena. Sensemaking is seen in terms of one's primary orienting ideology. This part of the study draws upon empirically supported results which suggest that people do orient themselves to the environment in general on the basis of two primary independent phenomena. Sensemaking is enriched by one's rational and arational energies. Organization design is seen as being influenced by the tension between rational-arational polarities - the 'strategic choice' which Child (1972b) proposes as the c r i t i ca l variable in understanding organization design differences. Use is made of stories of peoples' images of their ideal organizations. This part of the study draws upon theoretical support for the impact of one's subjective processes, in particular, images, meta-phors and fantasies, on one's enactment/behavior. Profiles of time a l lo-cation provide one approximation of organization design. The findings of this study may provide another way of understanding why organizations are the way they are. Differences in organization form can be related to factors of environment, size, and technology - plus the subjective processes of the individuals who are making sense of their organizational world. The implications and uses of the current study with some suggestions for the direction and focus of future studies are discussed. i i i . TABLE OF CONTENTS Paoe. Abstract i i L ist of Tables iv List of Figures v L is t of Appendices vi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO THE MODEL 7 1. ORIENTING IDEOLOGY 10 1.1 Specialization Theory 11 1.2 Contributing Research from Person-Thing Orientation Studies 16 1.3 A Summary Statement on the Role of Orienting Ideology 23 2. RATIONAL ENERGY 23 3. ARATIONAL ENERGY 27 ' 4, THE NOTION OF OPPOSING TENSIONS 30 5. OPPOSING POLARITIES AND ORGANIZATION DESIGN . . . 35 6. THE IMAGES ONE HOLDS: SENSEMAKING 35 CHAPTER II: OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 38 CHAPTER III: STEPS IN THE STUDY 46 1. Description of the Sample 46 2. Orienting Ideology - Person-Thing Orientation . . 48 3. Arationality - Stories of the Ideal Organization. 49 4. Rationality - Allocation of Time 51 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS OF THE STUDY 54 1. Description of the Sample 55 2. Links Between Orientation and Images 57 3. Links Between Orientation and Time Allocation . . 60 ' 4. Links Between Organizational Images and Time Allocation 64 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 65 1. Other Findings 65 2. Other Considerations 76 CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD 81 Bibliography 84 Appendix 90 i v. LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Summary of contributing research linking person-thing orientation to personality and behavioral measures. . . .* 17 Table 2: Description of the sample group by sex, age, years of work experience, and years of management experience 46 Table 3: Types of positions held by subjects 47 Table 4: Types of organizations in which subjects were employed . 47 Table 5: Mean scores on Person-Thing Scales with d istr ibu-tion into four specia l ist Groups 52 Table 6: Pearson correlation coefficients for Person-Thing orientation and Story Content of images of the ideal organization for the whole group and each special ist group 58 Table 7: Mean scores for Time-Structuring of organizational act iv i t ies for each special ist group 60 Table 8: Pearson correlation coefficients for Person-Thing orientation and allocation of time. 62/68 Table 9: Links between organizational images and organiza-tional act iv i t ies 69 Table 10: Inter-Activity correlations 70 Table 11: Intra-Activity Correlations - Thing Act iv i t ies . . . 71 Table 12: Intra-Activity Correlations - Person Act iv i t ies . . . 71 Table 13: Mean number of days allocated to each act iv i ty by each special ist group 76 Table 14: Frequency distributions by Frost/Barnowe P-T scale scores and by story content means . 77 V . LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Basic Model Used in the Study 8 Figure 2: Reciprocally reinforcing links between the three energy domains as presented by L i t t le (1972a, 1976).-. 13 Figure 3: Four-fold typology of primary special ist groups. . . . 14 Figure 4: The types of relationships this study hypothesizes between person-thing orientation, organizational images and allocation of time to organizational act iv i t ies 39 Figure 5: The expected relationships between Story Content and Person-Thing scores for the four special ist groups 41 Figure 6: I l lustration of the expected balance of time allocated by each of the three special ist groups to Person Act iv i t ies and to Thing Act iv i t ies 43 Figure 7: Relationships expected between story content and time allocation 45 Figure 8: Expected balance of time allocated by each of three special ist groups compared against results obtained 63 v i . LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: L i t t l e T-P Scale; Frost/Barnowe P-T Scale; instruc-tions and scoring for both. Appendix B: Instructions to subjects to obtain images of the ideal organization. Appendix C: Examples of organizational images from each of the four special ist groups. Appendix D: Instructions to judges for rating content of the organizational images. Appendix E: Complete l i s t of judges' ratings and means calculated for a l l organizational images. Appendix F: L ist of the 11 organizational act iv i t ies pre-judged for involvement with people and involvement with things. Appendix G: Mean results of judges' ratings of the 11 organiza-tional ac t iv i t i es . Appendix H: Time-Structuring instrument used in the study. Appendix I: Correlation results for Person Content arid Thing Content of organizational images for a l l special ist groups. 1. This study examines links between orientation of people to their environment, their images, and the way they allocate time to organizational ac t iv i t i es . Emphasis is upon the neglected role of the human capacities and energies and i ts relationship to organizational phenomena. Traditional treatment of organizational variables such as technology, structure, size and environment has contributed signif icant findings to the understanding of organizations and their designs. An analysis of the conceptual and empirical contributions from major researchers in the f ie ld (for example, Duncan, 1972; Perrow, 1967; the Aston Group, Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner, 1968; Woodward, 1965; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) reveals that they have explored a wide variety of variables such as: var iab i l i ty , complexity and change rate of environmental factors; sequenc-ing, routineness and analyzabil ity of technological factors; and the size and structure of organizations. However, these investigations often surface contradictory phenomena, often arrive at statements of 'multiple technologies' 'multiple environ-ments' and 'multiple infrastructures' (Jelinek., 1977) and the variables identif ied typical ly do not account for large amounts of variance in organizational forms arid relationships (Child, 1972b). Moreover, most types of explorations appear to arrive - from different directions - at a similar impasse: further conceptual and empirical progress in under-standing organizations demands focus on the strategic role played by human capacities and energies. To i l l us t ra te , consider the conceptual development of the following variables: environment, structure, and technology. i . Environment Studies of the organization's environment have changed over time from 2. measures of an objective, independent variable external to the organiza-tion such as that conceptualized by Emery and Tr is t (1965) in terms of customers, suppliers and competitors to analysis of environment as a variable that is both external and internal to the organization measured by people's subjective predictions, their predictions concerning the environment's impact on organizational success, plus their degree of confi-dence in their predictions (Duncan, 1972). i i . Structure The Aston Group, under Pugh, Hickson,.et. a l . (1963, 1968) was largely responsible for empirically establishing several independent dimensions of organizational structure (for example, routinization, specialization and control) in a rigorously objective manner. Blau (1973), however, introduced the idea that structure is not only related to s ize, location, and other contextual factors as suggested by the Aston Group, but is also related to subjective processes such as perceived status inequities. John Child's (1972a, 1972b) contributions then directed attention more speci f ica l ly to behavioral implications for organizational structure. He carried out a replication of the Aston studies (Child, 1972a) but proposed that the choice behavior of the organization's decision-maker(s), that i s , choice of administrative control strategy, plays a c r i t i c a l role in the structuring process. i i i . Technology Investigations of the technology variable have changed from the empirical analyses of Woodward (1965) who identif ied technology as an objective variable c lass i f ied in terms of small batch, mass and process categories and of Hickson, Pugh, and Pheysey (1969) who focused on the concrete workflow dimension of "operations technology" to include per-3". ceptions of what is known (what i s , routine and analyzable) and what is not known (Perrow, 1967). Technology, at f i r s t an independent variable treated objectively, now involves two much less objective aspects: The f i r s t is . . . the degree to which stimuli are per-ceived as familiar or unfamiliar . . . The second is the nature of the search process that is undertaken by the individual when exceptions (the unfamiliar) occur. (Perrow, 1967: 195-196) 1. Bringing Mind Back In Clearly recent trends in organizational research have been towards "Bringing Mind Back In". As Pondy and Boje (1975) argue in their paper bearing that t i t l e , one way to expand the framework for understanding organizations is by incorporating man's unique subjective capacities, that i s , his 'def in i t ion' of the situation, into the arena of resources available for theorizing about and researching organizations. The writings of several other leading theorists (among them, Weick, 1969, 1977; and Mitroff and Kilmann, 1976) support this trend and indicate some of the methodological and philosophical implications of introducing to the study of organizations the way people perceive and think about their world. i) Methodological Implications Including human subjective capacities such as perceptions and images may mean that certain longheld cultural constraints on organization re-search wil l have to be loosened. For example, the 'Functionalist' (Morgan and Smirchich, 1979) paradigm within which a great many organiza-tional studies have been carried out emphasizes l inear logic, object ivity, and predefined hypotheses. As wel l , reliance on stat is t ica l rules of acceptance may have to be lessened. The traditional analytical framework has been the subject of conten-4. tion from many directions. Hinrichs (.1970) c r i t i c i zes the use of untested methodologies, the lack of use of dynamic methodologies, and the general lack of transferabi l i ty of research results. Meltzer and Nord (1973) plead for more open research that would include interdiscipl inary knowledge and more diverse methods. For Vroom (1969), too, the increasing rate of research and the absence of standardized concepts and measures, and for Kelmann (1974) the reliance on convenient, 'inexpensive' variables only serve to perpetuate the dilemma. Frost (1977) also cal ls for attention to "blindspots" in organizational research, teaching, and concept application. The "blindspots" he isolates are just those for which the traditional analytical framework is inade-quate. Along with Pondy (1976), Frost argues that future, relevant under-standing of organizations can not progress beyond the present level of refinement unless issues such as value systems, inventiveness, and p o l i t i -cal behavior can be integrated in to the analytical framework used to research organizations. However, as Morgan and Smirchich (1979) point out, other paradigm orientations, such as the 'Interpretive' paradigm they describe, necessi-tate different methodologies for generating knowledge. Knowledge gener-ated by ethno-methodology, for example, would not meet the tradit ional ly held demands of a more pos i t iv i s t i c approach such as the 'Functionalist' paradigm. But nor should i t . Knowledge generated by each different para-digm must be judged by the c r i ter ia consistent with i ts own ontological and epistemological base. i i ) Philosophical Implications Including human capacities and energies as one of the key variables influencing organizational phenomena as well as recognizing the reflex-5. iv i ty inherent in addressing the same subjective capacities and energies on behalf of those theorizing about organizations may surface the values -and the l imits - implied by various philosophical positions. The foundations of one's own ontological assumptions about the nature of man and social real i ty influences the metaphors (for example, the analytical framework) one chooses to serve as an investigative medium. Theorists from some points along the objective-subjective ontological con-tinuum (Morgan and Smirchich, 1979), by the nature of their own root meta-phors of man as 'social producer', wil l find i t more acceptable to break through the impasse to further conceptual and empirical progress in under-standing organizations than those theorists who hold "machine" root metaphors of man as "responder". Organization theory is becoming increasingly complex as more variables are not only brought forth for consideration, but are considered from diverse perspectives. Much of the value of contributions made wil l be lost unless some synthesizing patterns can be bui lt such that future directions, especially those that appear diverse and/or contradictory, are seen, not as alternatives but rather as additions to past history and knowledge. Locating organization theory development within the deeper philoso-phical superstructures may mean that less investment of energy and resources wil l be lost on attempts to prove or disprove one argument against another. It wil l become clearer as Burrell and Morgan (1979) point out, that different questions are being asked at different times in the historical development of organization theory, that different questions arise from different metaphors and paradigms, and that the value l ies in c lar i fy ing the question - answer process, not in legitimizing only one type of 6. question about organizations. Recently, c r i t i c a l thinkers from different f ie lds have presented somewhat similar approaches to building synthesizing patterns for ph i l -osophy and research. Ritzer (1975) in the f ie ld of sociology, Sarbin (1976) from psychology, Pondy and Boje (1975) and Burrell and Morgan (1979) from organizational studies make the links more expl ic i t between different ontological bases, the different grounds foreknowledge and the directions of theory development implied by metaphors such as "machine", "organism", and "theatre", and, in turn, the commitment of researchers to variously appropriate methodologies implied by such metaphors. The orientation of this study derives from a point on the ontological continuum (Morgan and Smirchich, 1979) where man is viewed as being at the c r i t i c a l choice position in creating social rea l i ty . This study attempts to capture one aspect of the "theatre" model in terms of the sense a person makes of his/her organizational world via orientation to the environment and images and the role strategic choice ('producing a social scene') plays in the allocation of time to selected organizational processes. 7. Chapter I THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC CHOICE John Child (1972b) and Carl Jung (1971) both express, in the language of their respective d isc ip l ines , why human capacities and energies are the focal interest in this model (Figure 1): This 'strategic choice' typical ly includes not only the establishment of structural forms but also the manipula-tion of the environmental factors and the choice of relevant performance standards. (Child, 1972:1) For i t is the function of consciousness not only to recog-nize and assimilate the external world through the gateway of the senses, but to translate into v is ib le rea l i ty the world within us. (Jung, 1971:46) Human energy continues to be r ichly conceptualized from several direc-tions (Ornstein, 1972, 1976; Campbell, 1971, and Jacobi, 1971 on Carl Jung; Progroff, 1973; L i t t l e , 1972a, 1976; Low, 1976; Ingalls, 1976; Krishnamurti, 1969) yet each suggests similar, basic aspects of human energy and the notion of opposing tensions and balance. Similar it ies include acknowledgement of man's rational processes, his arational processes, and, emanating from both of these, man's acts - his behavior in the world. Figure 1 represents the links that this study explores between the orientation one indicates to the environment in general, the organizational images one holds and the emphasis one allocates to selected organizational 'processes. This model l inks three basic parts: Part I: Orienting Ideology; Part II: Rationality, Part III: Arationality. The model is an adaptation from the work of John Child (1972b) and Brian L i t t l e (1972a; 1976). Child presents a strong case for the role of INFORMATION FEEDBACK TO PRIMARY ORIENTATION INTERNAL BEHAVIOR thinking, ordering analyzing RATIONALITY o ORIENTING IDEOLOGY: PERSON-THING ORIENTATION EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR Allocation of Time TENSION ARATIONALITY INTERNAL BEHAVIOR intuit ing, forming images,' metaphors EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR written stories Figure 1: Links Between Orientation, Organizational Images, and Allocation of Organizational Act iv it ies 9. strategic choice in organization design as played out by the organization's dominant decision-maker(s): . . . i n which economic and administrative exigencies are weighed by the actors concerned against the opportunities to operate a structure of their own and/or other organiza-tional members' preferences. (Child, 1972b: 16) For Child, however, although 'strategic choice 1 is seen as a function of 'prior ideology', his conceptualization of prior ideology is not stated: Their prior ideology is assumed to color this evaluation in some degree. The choice of goals or objectives for the organization is seen to follow from this evaluation. (Child, 1972b: 17) One key focus of this study is to expand the notion of prior ideology by incorporating the concepts developed by L i t t l e (1972a; 1976) who views 'prior ideology' in a dynamic framework interacting with one's environ-ment. In the following section on Part I, Orienting 'Ideology', of Figure 1, L i t t l e ' s concept of specialization theory is presented to develop the notion of an ideology (for example, People centeredness of the world vs. Thing centeredness of the world) which dictates one's attitudes and -actions. Contributing research from Person-Thing orientation studies pro-vides some knowledge of the profi les of individuals orienting themselves to certain primary phenomena in the environment. One's primary orienting ideology is the f i r s t stage in how one makes sense out of the environment. 'Sense-making' is enriched by one's rational and arational energies. The tension between the opposing rational and arational polarit ies - or how they interact - influences the 'enact-ment' (Weick, 1977) or organizational design that results. Experience of the organizational design, then, as a part of one's environment becomes a 10. factor in one's continuing 'orienting ideology' as new information, either reinforcing or confronting one's primary orientation and, in turn, as in-put for future rational and arational behavior. The discussion on Part II, Rationality of Figure 1, explores some of the internal and external aspects of one's rational approaches to sense-making and focuses on one of these in particular - how one allocates time to selected organizational ac t i v i t i es . The discussion on Part III, Arationality of Figure 1, explores some of the internal and external aspects of one's arational approaches to sense-making and focuses on one of these in particular, how one expresses one's image of the ideal organization in the form of a story. The notion of opposing tensions, that i s , interaction between polar-i t ies of Rationality and Arationality is central to the model both for understanding individual sense-making and for understanding organization design. Organization design is seen as being influenced by the rational-arational interaction - the 'strategic choice' which Child (1972b) proposes as the c r i t i c a l variable in understanding organization design differences. Organization design is discussed in this study as an 'enacted environment" comprised of interacting processes (opposing polarit ies) balanced by allocating varying degrees of emphasis to them. Profi les of time al loca-tion to one's image of the ideal business organization provides one approximation of organization design. 1. 'Orienting Ideology' Ideology: "a systematic scheme or co-ordinated body of ideas or concepts especially about human l i f e or culture" "a manner or content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture" 11. "concerned with the origin and nature of ideas" (Webster's Third International Dictionary) Our rational and arational processes are ways people have of making sense of the environment (Weick, 1977). The kinds of images one holds and the ordering one imposes on a set of variables would be influenced in many ways but one of these could be the way in which one orients him/her-self to the environment in general. Specialization theory, as developed by Brian L i t t l e (1972a) allows identif icat ion of some of the primary differences in the individual-environment interaction. 1:1 Specialization Theory Specialization theory grew out of controversy experienced within the personality research discipl ine for a more comprehensive, less l imiting model of man, and out of fresh perspectives on the nature of the environ-ment i t s e l f . F i r s t ly , L i t t l e (1972a) developed a model of man as 'spec ia l is t ' to respond to the need for a model that could incorporate the notion of "active" man found in both non-reflexive and reflexive models but a model that would not l imit man to a particular prototype (for example, "scientist" or "humanist", see L i t t l e , 1966, 1972b) based upon a particular set of values. In his formulation of specialization theory, L i t t l e aimed for a model that would not embrace one domain at the expense of another. Figure 2 indicates the reciprocally reinforcing links between the three domains. Specialization theory provides a viable framework for exploring how people make sense of their environment since there is empirical support for the proposition that people orient themselves to their environment on the basis of two independent, phenomena - People and Things. The term 12. ' spec ia l is t ' implies "connotations of select iv ity" in which some people "opt for some competencies at the expense of others" ( L i t t l e , 1972a: 111). L i t t l e (1972a) conceptualizes the environment - not as a global, undifferentiated mass, but in terms of two discrete, primary objects: Persons and Things. He developed his model of special izing or orienting to the environment in terms of these two. A short, rel iable assessment instrument is available to measure Per-son-Thing orientation - the T-P Scale ( L i t t l e , 1972a). L i t t l e ' s i n i t i a l report of findings from several samples support the orthogonality of the person-thing scales (r = -.10 to r = .11; L i t t l e , 1972a). A variety of other studies also confirm the orthogonality of the dimensions and the val id ity and r e l i a b i l i t y of this sca le , (L i t t l e , 1976; Mains, 1978; Carlsen, Anderson and Viksne, 1977). The uncorrelated nature of the person-thing scales yields a four-fold typology of primary special ist groups: i) Person Specialists who rank high on person orientation and low on thing orientation; i i ) Thing Specialists who rank low on person orientation and high on thing orientation; i i i ) Generalists who rank high on both person orientation and thing orientation; iv) Non-Specialists who rank low on both person orientation and thing orientation. (See Figure 3) Quite independent of L i t t l e ' s research into the individual-environ-mental interaction, Frost and Barnowe (1977) developed a second Person-Thing Scale consistent with the same theoretical foundations as L i t t le -that people orient themselves to two primary environmental phenomena: people and things. The Frost/Barnowe P-T Scale arose out of a longitudinal 13. COGNITIVE DOMAIN Figure 2: Reciprocally reinforcing links between the three energy domains as presented by L i t t l e (1972a, 1976). Figure 3: Four-Fold Typology of Special ist Groups 15. investigation of business school students1 career choices. As the authors state in their description of the development of the scale: Individuals were conceptualized as approaching their choice of occupation or major endeavor fundamentally in terms of two independent dimensions, their orienta-tion toward or preference for dealing with people or with things. (Frost and Barnowe, 1978:3) Support for the orthogonality of the two dimensions is available from the f i r s t sample (r = .12; n = 278) (Frost and Barnowe, 1977), as well as from subsequent studies using a variety of populations including business school students, mil itary of f icers , and natural resource sc ient ists . Cronbach's r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients range from .73 to .81 for the Person scale and from .73 to .79 for the Thing scale. These results plus complete r e l i a b i l i t y and validation analysis of this scale are reported by Frost and Barnowe (1978) giving comparative tables of most of the studies using the P-T Scale to that date. This report also describes the empirical over-lap between the L i t t l e and Frost/Barnowe scales and sets the stage for the merger of the two scales.* From two independent directions, then,there is clear support for the hypothesis that people orient themselves to their environment on the basis of two primary, independent phenomena: Persons and Things. In neither development is the typology of the special ist groups prescriptive in supporting one special ist group as superior to another. Locating an individual in a special ist group serves merely to indicate his/her focus of interest, direction of cognitive development, and propensity for action emphasis. _ A third Person-Thing Scale has since been developed on this basis and is now in use in the continuing investigation into vocational choice patterns and other studies. 16. Since construction of the P-T Scales, other studies have been carried out linking Person-Thing orientation to attributes of personality and behavior. An examination of some of the research findings from these studies provides a body of knowledge from which the hypotheses were formu-lated concerning expected patterns in the images people hold, the orienta-tion people indicate, and the action/enactment decisions people may be expected to express with respect to allocation of time to selected organ-izational ac t iv i t i es . 1:2 Contributing Research from Person-Thing Orientation Studies Research findings from several studies provide a body of knowledge indicating: i) the relationship of Person-Thing orientation to personality measures, and; i i ) the relationship of Person-Thing orientation to behavioral measures. Table 1 summarizes the relationships from contributing research linking Person-Thing Orientation to personality and behavioral measures. i) Relationship of Person-Thing Orientation to Personality Measures L i t t l e (1972a) explored relationships between Person-Thing special iza-tion and the nature of people's cognitive systems by incorporating the use of Kelly's (1955) Repertory Grid methodology. What evolves from each subject's Repertory Grid are major bipolar dimensions of meaning with respect to each stimulus. L i t t l e 0976) adapted the Repertory Grids to use many other types of stimuli besides persons (e .g . , physical objects of various types, music, poetry, environmental situation) to explore correlations between the content and structure of personal constructs and Person-Thing Scale scores. L i t t l e (1972a; 1976) reports results of several PERSON SPECIALIST THING SPECIALIST GENERALIST SELF-SPECIALIST Construct System Mainly psychological Mainly physical -i s t i c both ego-centric Introvers.-Extraversion Extravert Introvert Extravert Tolerance for Ambiguity ">Person & Thing Spec. Field Perspective Dependent-Hol ist ic Independent-Discrete Independent-Discrete V.P .I . High in "self control" "enterprising" "social interaction" High in "masculinity" "real ism" High in most scales-except "self control" "status con-cern" Low in most scales-expcept "self control" "infrequency of response" Social Inter-action High in social involvement High in expressive (encoding) behavior Vocational Choice: Influence factors person (teacher) chal1enge externals (salary, job market) challenge person (teacher) chal1enge Table 1: Summary of Contributing Research Linking Person-Thing Orientation to Personality Measures and Behavioural Measures. 18. studies which indicate that the Special ist groups of the Person-Thing typology appear to have d is t inct ly different energy systems with respect to constructs used and vocational interest preferences. In another study, Frost and Barnowe (1977), correlated Person-Thing orientation with f i e ld dependency, tolerance for ambiguity, and introversion-extraversion. Some of the main differences among the Special ist groups as indicated in the L i t t l e (1972a, 1976) and Frost and Barnowe (1977) studies are outlined below. a) Person Specialists Person special ists experience their environment personally construing the stimuli in terms that ref lect psychological states of the people in-volved, such as moods, feelings or motives, or in terms that ref lect functional relevance to persons of things in the environment ( L i t t l e , 1972a; 1976). Person Specialists score as extraverts (Frost and Barnowe, 1977; L i t t l e , 1972a) and indicate a propensity for vocational f ie lds offering social interaction ( L i t t l e , 1976). Person Specialists score as " f ie ld dependent" persons who are characterized as being slower to extract c r i t i ca l elements from the task context (Witkin and Cox, 1975). They tend to favor a global view that de-emphasizes analytical functioning and allows for 'open-ended' (not pre-defined) social opportunities. Person Specialists are l i ke ly to orient themselves to the overall social frame of reference - that i s , identifying feel ings, taking account of others, views - and use the social climate as a resource (Witkin and Cox, 1975). The Frost and Barnowe (1977) study used both P-T Scales - the Frost-Barnowe Scale as well as L i t t l e ' s scale - to obtain Person-Thing orienta-tions. 19. b) Thing Specialists Thing Specialists experience their environment physically construing the stimuli in terms that ref lect differences in s ize, structural or technological characteristics or in terms that ref lect information about peoples' roles or physical appearances ( L i t t l e , 1972a, 1976). Thing Specialists score as introverts (Frost and Barnowe, 1977; L i t t l e , 1972a) and indicate a propensity for vocational f ie lds offering 'hard data' and a practical focus ( L i t t l e , 1976). Thing Specialists score as " f ie ld in-dependent" persons who are characterized by the ab i l i ty to extract c r i t i c a l elements from the task environment quickly and to consider them separately. (Witkin and Cox, 1975). They are l ike ly to pay close attention to deta i ls , to be competent in analyzing, and to be often unaware of social cues, thereby less responsive to others' views. c) Generalists Generalists experience the world both personally and physically con-struing stimuli in terms that attend to "higher-order qualitative d i f fer-ences" ( L i t t l e , 1976: 93) between places or that ref lect functional rele-vance to people (or society) in general ( L i t t l e , 1976). Generalists score as extraverts (Frost and Barnowe, 1977) and indicate a greater toler-ance for ambiguity than any other special ist group. Generalists have the capacity to orient themselves to the environment in terms of Persons or of Things as appropriate to the situation, and thereby can tolerate more diverse, less certain, situations because they can 'make sense' of their environments in more than one way. Generalists indicate a broad range of vocational interests not necessarily centered on "self" or "status" as the focal point. Generals score as " f ie ld independent" persons who have the capacity for analytical rigor (Witkin and Cox, 1975) but, with 20. their high Person Scale score, also indicate a predisposition for social interaction contexts. d) Self-Special ists CNon Specialists) Self-Special ists experience their environment in terms of sel f using a large number of self-constructs that ref lect personal needs and conven-ience, often with respect to energy and effort expenditure,(Litt le, 1976). Self-Special ists tend to have comparatively lower scores on a l l Vocational Preference Inventory Scales except for "infrequency of response" and "self control" indicating a preference for vocational situations centered on the "self" as focal point but involving less energy expenditure. i i ) Relationship of Person-Thing Orientation to Behavioral Measures From the preceding discussion of some of the chief characteristics of each of the four special ist groups, relationships between the cognitive, affective and behavioral components of L i t t l e 1 s :Specialization Theory begin to emerge. L i t t l e (1976) hypothesizes certain reinforcing links between the components of the primary person-specialization loop as shown in Figure 5. He tested these hypotheses in several exploratory studies ( L i t t l e , 1976) focusing mainly on people's affective states and expressive (encoding) behavior. There is support for positive links between person specialization and increased use of expressive and encoding behavior. Other studies in L i t t l e (1976) and by others (Frost and Barnowe, 1977; Barnowe and Frost, 1977; Mains, 1977; Rosenberg and Lee, 1974) also explore the behavioral domain and i ts relationship to person-thing orientation with respect to social interaction behavior, leadership behavior and vocational choice behavior. Again, there appears to be some support for consistent patterns of action for each of the primary special ist groups. Highlights of the findings are outlined below. 21. a) Social Interaction Behavior Rosenberg and Lee (1977) report a study which examines relationships between Person-Thing orientation and v is i tor involvement behavior (social involvement or natural involvement) on nature walk programs. There is support for their hypothesis that Person orientation correlates positively with observed social behavior. The results of the study also indicate that social involvement behavior increased as person orientation increased and that, as focus on naturally-oriented topics (thing focus) decreased, social involvement behavior for Person Specialists increased. The findings of Rosenberg and Lee are consistent with L i t t l e ' s (1976) findings from a p i lot study focusing on the use of expressive behavior by Person Special ists. There is support for his hypothesis that Person Specialists engage in more expressive behavior - behavior designed to en-code effective cues when interacting with others. The Rosenberg and Lee study (1977) reports no support for their hypothesis of a. main effect between Thing orientation and Natural Involve-ment behavior. They suggest that "perhaps behavior units perceived by the researcher as 'natural' (for prior categorization) were social in con-text to walk participants" (Rosenberg, and Lee, 1977: 10). While a trend for certain act iv i t ies to stress 'thing involvement' can be indicated, many act iv i t ies have a foundation level of 'person involvement'. This suggests that differences in behavior patterns for Person-Thing orientation might best be explored on the basis of how the social inter-action component is put to use. Reflecting back to other conceptualiza-tions such as discussed in Ingalls (.1977), is the social interaction com-ponent being construed in terms of "I-It" (people as objects/roles) or "I-Thou" (people as people)? Mains (1977) found results ' related to this 22. issue in exploring relationships between Person-Thing orientation and leadership behavior. In the leadership situations set up for his study, results for Thing Specialists appeared to be affected by the base level of 'person' involvement in each of the situations. b) Vocational Choice Behavior Studies of vocational choice behavior of business school students (Frost and Barnowe, 1977; Barnowe and Frost, 1977) offer some support for the proposition that Person-Thing orientation would direct ly affect business f ie ld choices: " . . . students would react differently to their courses and teachers", (would perform differently as determined by grades), and have different perceptions of career f ie lds as a function of Person-Thing orientation" (Barnowe and Frost, 1977:2). Person Specialists and Generalists (both with above-median Person orientation scores) appear to be influenced in choice behavior by people ( i . e . , teachers they had judged as having influenced them), whereas Thing Specialists show no similar choice patterns in terms of which teachers had been in f luent ia l . Thing Specialists report that a teacher in a given f i e l d had influenced their thinking about vocational choice on the one hand, but i t does not follows (as i t does with Person Specialists and Generalists) that Thing Specialists also opt for the same f ie ld choice as the teacher with influence. The vocational choice behavior of Thing Specialists appears to be more clearly related to influence from 'harder' data, external factors such as job market and salary. Considering the role influence plays for Person Specialists in rela-tion to preference for a c t i v i t i e s , Person Specialists could be expected to indicate a preference for - and allocate more time to - act iv i t ies offer-23. ing potential for personal contact. Opportunities for increased inter-action with others increase the poss ib i l i t ies for increased knowledge and understanding of others which would contribute to c lar i fy ing the degree of influence. On the other hand, since influence that affects choice behavior of Thing Specialists comes from environmental factors, Thing Specialists could be expected to indicate a preference for - and allocate more emphasis to - those act iv i t ies related to bringing in data and in-creasing understanding of the external context such as price changes in the market or sources of materials and equipment. 1:3: A Summary Statement on the role of 'Orienting Ideology' Person-Thing orientation is presented as one way to understand one's primary orientation to the world, or basic ideology. One's primary orien-tation dictates and influences how one makes sense of the world in general. How one makes sense of the world in general is a function of one's rational and arational energies and the interaction or tension between them. Weick sums up the direction of this study very well with his statement that: People invent organizations and their environments and these inventions reside in ideas that participants have superimposed on any stream of experience. (Weick, 1977:288) 2. Rational Energy Rational energy is characterized by attention to cognitive, l inear, analyt ical , goal-directed behavior. It represents our ordered thinking patterns and is usually exp l i c i t , categorical and verbal. Thompson (1967) outlines a four-fold decision strategy typology which may prove helpful to understand the nature of rational and arational energy as presented in this study. In Thompson's typology (1967: 134), decision strategy is a function of the degree of certainty of two basic 24. decision variables: a) the bel ief one holds about cause/effect relat ion-ships; and b) the preferences one holds for possible outcomes. Thompson suggests that, in situations where both the cause/effect relationships is certain and the outcome preferred is certain, an ordered, l inear ("com-putational") decision strategy is appropriate. In other words, under such certain conditions, a rational approach to 'making sense' out of one environment (the data) would be appropriate. In the study of organizations, emphasis on the rational domain has often proceeded on the basis of some taken for granted assumptions about the cognitive processes of individuals. The i n i t i a t i v e , arising from early views of "Rational Man", resulted in expl ic i t decision-making "sat isf ic ing" models. These models presuppose order and predictabi l i ty and are often aimed at risk-reduction and preserving the stable state (Schon, 1969; Ingalls, 1976). The rea l i t ies of people's involvement with organizations, however, a not always found to be rational and well-ordered - (or they are given meaning, order, and reason in retrospect). Many recent writings attest to the discrepancy between emphasis on the rational domain and observed phenomena, or as Schon (.1969) called i t , the "myth of rat ional i ty" , (for example, Leavitt, 1975; Mintzberg, 1976; McKenney and Keen, 1974). Most conclude, as Mintzberg did, that " . . . effectiveness does not l i e in that narrow minded concept ' ra t iona l i ty ' ; i t is in a blend of clear-headed logic and powerful intuit ion" (Mintzberg, 1976: 58). As Weick comments, ' ra t iona l i ty ' , i t s e l f , is highly individualized -there is no one clear ' ra t iona l i ty ' ; " . . . Rationality is best understood as in the eye of the beholder." (Weick, 1969:10). 25. It becomes important then to explore the nature of people's rational energy. Construct theory, f i r s t conceptualized by Kelly (1955) and later developed by Bannister and Mair (1968), provides one vehicle for explor-ing the rational domain. Constructs are seen as bi-polar, personal, pro-visional devices for discriminating between events, organizing events, and anticipating future poss ib i l i t i es . Constructs are the verbal expression of the way we mentally represent parts of the environment relevant to us. They form together in an inter-related, hierarchical system. The under-lying thesis of construct theory is c learly expressed by Bannister and Mair (1968:7): Man is a form of perpetual motion with the direction of the motion controlled by the ways in which events are anticipated. The ways in which a person anticipates events are defined by his personal constructs. A con-struct is a way in which some things are interpreted as being alike and at the same time different from other things. Construct theory leads logical ly to a set of techniques that enable quantification of an individual 's cognitive patterns, thereby permitting empirical analysis of 1 inkages with behavior (Hudson, 1974; Harrison and Saare, 1971). Use of these techniques, variations of Repertory Grids, has been well developed in individual and c l in i ca l use and has more recently been adapted to person-environment studies concerned with town planning, marketing, consumer behavior and geographical studies. Repertory Grids are not well known in organizational studies. Major crit icisms of the Repertory Grid techniques stem from the fact that most grid studies must rely on verbal statements, plus the fact that interpretation of the grids often rel ies on the cognitive patterns of the researcher him/herself. Grids are also sensitive to administer, especially to groups, and time-consuming, thus inhibit ing the ab i l i ty to 26. make sound generalizations across groups. It is f e l t that use of Reper-tory Grid would benefit from complementary use of some techniques to tap the arational energy domain and that these, in turn, must be linked more often with actual behavior patterns. The model in Figure 1 of this study suggests that one's 'orienting ideology' constitutes an i n i t i a l influence over one's bel ief about cause/ effect relationships and one's preference for certain outcomes. Another way to explore people's rational energy may be to explore how they a l lo -cate time to certain act iv i t ies since the act iv i t ies available (time structured in for them) would tend to fac i l i ta te certain outcomes and not others. One typology of organizational processes comes from the work of Bakke (1959). Bakke believed that to understand organizational effectiveness, one needed f i r s t to understand the organization's essential processes. He provides in expl ic i t detail and with many specif ic i l lustrat ions a typology of the processes he fe l t were essential to every organiza-tion. These include,' for example, "Identif ication", "Production", and "Fusion" processes. His typology proved to be a useful c lass i f icat ion "tool" that was soon incorporated into research on comparisons across organizations with particular emphasis on structural differences (for example, Pugh, Hickson, et. a l . , 1968). Support is growing (Weick, 1969, 1977; Hedburg, Hystrom and Starbuck, 1976) for the study of organizational processes and how they interact, for, as Weick states: The point is that the crucial events to be explained are processes, their structuring, modification and dissolving. It is not the tangible fixtures in an organization that are cruc ia l . These merely provide the media through which the processes are expressed. Since these media are them-selves f a i r l y stable features of the organization, i t is 27. easy to miss the point that they are important only as they become incorporated into the processes involved in organizing. (Weick, 1969:16) Hence, this study begins to explore some of the ways in which the structur-ing of some of organizational processes may d i f fer . One way that d i f fer -ences may be influenced is the way in which people order and emphasize certain processes. For example, one may emphasize the information gather-ing, categorizing and organizing processes within an organization and indicate this by giving high pr ior i ty of time allocation to financial and administrative ac t iv i t i es . On the other hand, one may emphasize long range planning and developmental processes and indicate this by giving high pr ior i ty to leadership ac i t i v i tes . The internal rational behavior for this study consists of ordering and analyzing data concerning certain core organizational act iv i t ies while the external rational behavior is expressed by the pr ior i t i z ing of the act iv i t ies and the allocation of time from a fixed amount available to the set of pre-defined organizational ac t i v i t i es . Following from the model (Figure 1) there should be some differences in the time-structuring behavior of people who hold different basic orientations to the environ-ment. 3. Arational Energy Arational energy encompasses images, intu i t ion, insight. The term 'arational ' connotes independence of rational dist inct ions: arational energy is an alternative to f ixed, ordered ways of thinking or predetermined patterns. It is often impl ic i t , ho l i s t i c , v isual . It often infers a 'sense' of the potential of a situation not necessarily rooted in analyz-able fact. As noted by those exploring r ight- le f t brain functions, (Ornstein, 1972, 1976; Sagan, 1977) the right brain (the side responsible 28. for intuit ive awareness) processes simultaneously in para l le l , rather than sequentially. In terms of Thompson's (1967) decision strategy typology, the arational approach, because i t provides a more f lexible (that i s , organic) approach than the rat ional , would be more appropriate for those situations in which the cause and effect relationships are not clearly known (certain) nor is i t certain which outcome is preferred. Thompson suggests an "Inspira-tional" mode for these situations. Such a mode would best be stimulated by multiple inputs, images, metaphor or other visual patterns of thought. This energy mode is not widely explored in organizational studies however. Even in other discipl ines (sociology and anthropology, for example) there seems to be only a recent acknowledgement of the consequences of the tendency to view cultures from a ' rat ional ' theoretical perspective. Ironical ly, a deeper understanding of anthropology is leading to an awareness that "abnormal" behavior in tr ibal contexts is closely related to behavior patterns which the Western culture has placed at the summit of human endeavor (that i s , capacity for mystical, co-natural contact with the world). In their chapter on the "Sociological Study of Mysticism", Greeley and McCready (.1974) quote Mi.rcea Eliade as saying: Yet i f one takes the trouble to understand the ideology that underlies a l l these manifestations, i f we study the myths and symbols that condition them, we can free ourselves from the subjectivity of impressions and obtain a more objective view. Sometimes an understanding of the ideology is enough to re-establish the "normality" of a kind of behavior. Only more recently has interest turned to exploring other aspects of the arational domain such as myths, stories, symbol systems and meta-phors, and exploring these in context - that i s , with, attempts to show linkages between arational energy modes and some organizational phenomena 29. such as design, conf l ict patterns or goals. Sarbin (1976) argues, in a recent psychological review, that l i t t l e is acted or thought that is not based on metaphor. Some organizational theorists._seem to affirm this perspective. For example, Dandridge and Hogner (1978) propose a tentative typology of organizational symbol ism as one of the f i r s t steps in exploring this dimension. To Mitroff, Nelson and Mason (1974), too, "the corporate myth is the ' s p i r i t ' of the organization and is infused into a l l levels of policy and decision making" (page 372). Myths provide the 'vehicle' to carry some universal truths or elemen-tary ideas throughout history (Campbell, 1971; Levi-Strauss, 1978). Each culture, or sub-culture (for example, organizational industry) expresses the myths with i ts own unique series of symbols. One seeks, then, as Mitroff et. a l . (1974) suggest, to understand the role or application of the symbol system to reveal the elementary ideas which hold across cu l -tures and outside of time. To attempt to bring some order to the study of the role of myths in organizations, and to be able to compare myths across organizations, Mitroff et. a l . (1974) developed a "Management Myth-Information System". There is some empirical support for their hypothesis that much of the information conveyed to organizational participants is received as infor-mation only when embedded in appropriate myths or stories. Also in the organizational context, recent managerial techniques to develop creativity often focus on increasing awareness of one's arational energy through metaphoric techniques. These techniques can include use of personal analogies, identifying oneself or someone else with an object or process; fantasy analogies:, making an improbable connection between 30. the world as we know i t and one where anything is possible as long as i t can be imagined; or symbolic analogies, using an image which, although technically inaccurate is aesthetically satisfying for the moment as a way of looking at the problem. From physics (Bohm, 1977), from philosophy (Schon, 1969), and from organizational studies (Mitroff, 1976) come similar themes claiming that for too long the rational view has assumed the research and application imperative. The arational domain has been underemphasized. Hypotheses have been mistakenly regarded as the main part of science rather than insight. Insights have been viewed as valuable only as they might lead to hypotheses which can be analyzed into component parts and made subject to rational control, order, and predictabi l i ty . Insight, intuit ion and imagination have been made to serve the analytic mode, say Bohm (.1977), Schon (1969) and Mitroff (1976) from their respective viewpoints. They argue, with some reservations, for an 'about face' - the analytic mode, they propose, must serve insight (innovation, invention). The reservations refer to the fact that a mere replacement of the rational focus by a focus on the arational would not serve creative under-standing of our organizational world. The values derived from the arational and rational domains are qual itatively different and both are essential . Bohm, Schon, and Mitroff a l l incorporate into their arguments some notion of the tensions between the energy modes and the need for osc i l lat ion of interplay such that neither is continuously suppressed. * 4. The Notion of Opposing Tensions The nature of human energy is not s tat ic , but dynamic, in continuous tension, one pole against another. As Weick (1969) and Schon (1969, 1971) 31. propose, i t is c r i t i c a l to preserve both the rational and arational poles Opposed tendencies . . . must be preserved i f the system is to survive. (Weick, 1969: 103) The drive and dynamism of the system - the creative force - derives, not from compromise, but from a continuously moving 'point of balance' which permits f i r s t one, then another, of the opposing poles to surface. What sometimes tends to occur is that the system gets 'stuck' on one pole or on one cycle between poles such that tension is lost . The system that is stat ic (stable) for too long loses i ts sensit iv i ty to new input and loses i ts adaptiveness, i f not i ts survival , capacities. People's images of the ideal are one type of polarity opposing the ' rea l ' phenomena. Tension between the ideal and the real creates energy energy that can be expressed in acts. The tension is v i t a l . People can retain tension in the system, shifting the point of balan from one pole to another, only through a r t i s t i c perception, or art , pro-posed Morse Peckham (.1967) in his book, "Man's Rage for Chaos": Art, as an adaptational mechanism, is reinforcement of the ab i l i ty to be aware of the disparity between behav-ioral pattern and the demands consequent upon the inter-action with the environment. Art is rehearsal for those real situations in which i t is vital for our survival to endure cognitive tension . . . Art is exposure to the tensions and problems of a false world so that man may endure exposing himself to the tensions and problems of the real world . . . It is a biological adaptation which, serves to keep man a l ive , aware, capable of perceiving that he is neither adequate nor inadequate but a perilous mixture of the two, capable of innovation. (Peckham, 1967: 314). The notion of opposing polarit ies also infers the notion of balance of timing - or balance of emphasis - such that both polarit ies are inte-grally retained. This concept is not unique to models of organizations as inter-acting processes, but is an intergral part of dynamic models of 32. the individual, ( L i t t l e , 1976) the group, (Harrison and Lubin, 1965) and the organization (Weick, 1969). In organizational theorizing, Weick (1969) argues for legitimizing the chaotic. Weick's main argument is that an equally disordered or equivocal system for processing input is necessary in order to remove equivocality. Weick also emphasizes the crucial need to retain opposing forces in the system. Organizations build up processes for coping with (registering or removing) equivocality. These processes are structured, inter-related, and/or modified based upon certain 'rules' for making them operational and upon certain cycles of interlocked behaviors available. An organization must, Weick argues, disrupt i ts processes from time to time, that i s , shake up the orderliness in order for new/different (in direction or amount) input to be processed. A fixed processing system can render only a small portion of the input unequivocal. Part of Weick's thesis, then, is aimed at the "requisite variety" of one's internal envir-onment. L i t t l e ' s (1976) focus on construct systems of the individual and specialization loops can be viewed in much the same way. His model of specialization loops implies that a construct system which is not challenged but which is constantly reinforced has the potential for becoming in-creasingly ineffective. . . . the frequency of behavioral encounters, the encod-ing and decoding of affect, and the appropriate use of psychological constructs are too frenetical ly paced to be manageable. ( L i t t l e , 1976: 109) Weick's (1969) "requisite variety" of the organizational system, Harrison and Lubin's (.1965) confrontation with opposites in group composi-t ion, and L i t t l e ' s (1976) notion of over-specialization in one's person-33. a l i ty system are a l l related to the notions of opposing polarit ies and balance. In homogeneous group conditions (Harrison and Lubin's study, 1965), a l l individuals were of a similar orientation and situational fac-tors (environmental input) were 'unequivocal' - that i s , the demands were consistent with the behavioral competencies (known, well-ordered rules) associated with that particular orientation. No var iab i l i ty occurred. No var iab i l i ty , no learning (removal of more equivocality); no learning, no growth - a restructuring, an incorporation of previously unused/unknown styles/rules/constructs into the processing system. This was assumed to take place in Harrison arid Lubins' study when the work-oriented persons were confronted with their opposites - persons or situational factors that clearly were not within their functioning construct system - and they were "faced with evidence that (their) opposites (were) viable and effec-tive" , (Harrison and Lubin, 1965: 576). For this heterogeneous group whose learning was judged superior, both conditions were met, a) confrontation with opposites; and b) support for one's personal style: By support for one's current orientation, we mean the assurance that others, whom one can respect, hold views and ways of operating similar to one's own. In this way a continuous tension between poles (emphasis added) is maintained. The person neither 'loses himself nor can he fa i l to take account of opposing orientations, (page 576) Do organizational processes provide opportunities for confrontation with opposites and for support and reaffirmation of s imi lar i t ies? The interacting processes of an organization are in a constant state of tension between a number of opposing polar i t ies: f l e x i b i l i t y / s t a b i l i t y , adaptation/manipulation, coherence/fragmentation, center/periphery, independence/dependence. (See Weick, 1969:39, 104-105; Low, 1976: several instances; Hedburg, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976:55.) 34. Polarity implies 'two faces' , d is t inct , yet both derived from the same elements; that i s , the elements in both are the same yet as long as one is pursued or considered, the other disappears. Balance does not imply compromise. Compromise means a washing out of the v ital aspects of each of the opposing polar i t ies . The point of balance is that point at which the opposing polarit ies are reconciled - one in focus, the other not - or, as Weick has stated: . . .by alternation between s tab i l i ty and f l e x i b i l i t y or by simultaneous expression of the two necessities in different portions of the system. (Weick, 1969:39) Growth - an increase in the capacities and potential i t ies of the system - is achieved at the point of balance (or points of balance). Similar to Hedburg, Nystrom and Starbuck's "prescriptions for a self-design-ing organization" are these words from Low: Growth is 'self-regulated expansion' along a l l dimensions. As long as the center of gravity can move freely between  a l l dimensions (emphasis added) in the company, growth becomes possible. But i f the center of gravity becomes fixed in one or two dimensions, then expansion alone can occur, and this gives r ise to the cataclysmic approach to organization in which periodically a total shi ft is necessary... (Low, 1976:79) Somewhere between the extremes is a balanced organization that regards i ts environment as partly an unknown to be discovered, partly a set of constraints to be sat is i fed,-partly an alternative to be selected, and partly a setting to be resculptured. (Hedburg, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976:56) Balance, i t appears, is a crucial issue. How these polarit ies are balanced depends, to some degree, on the allocation of varying degrees of emphasis (resources) to the processes of organizing. It also depends on the relative input of each of the major energy modes: the interaction between rat ional ity and arational ity. 35. 5. Opposing Polarit ies and Organization Design An emerging view of organization designs as interacting processes that do not always follow a predefined, logical plan is gaining theoretical support and some empirical support. Leavitt (1975, 1976) and Low (1976) are among those who encourage a more intu i t ive , more imaginative "right brain" influence in the designing process i t s e l f . Design means newness; newness needs invention; invention needs arational as well as rational in-put (Leavitt, 1976). The use of both poles (rational and arational) creates a tension. What is realized (made rea l , "enacted") is a repre-sentation of the balance achieved between the opposing forces - a simul-taneous expression of both. "The republic was destroyed by the destruction of the forces opposing i t . " (Fowles, 1977) On an empirical study of the influence on organizational design of different personality types, Johnson (1976) found that although the "pro-posed design may be presented as a rat ional , analytic solution to the problem . . . the most proactive members of the organization apply their subjective, intuit ive c r i ter ia to modify the intended design to better suit their needs" (Johnson, 1976:6). Without input from both resources, organization design - and organ-ization - potentially falters (Low, 1976; Weick, 1969:39, 103-105). L i t t l e is understood about the arational forces. This study i s , in part, an i n i t i a l , exploratory attempt in that direction. 6. The Images one Holds: Sense-making The images one holds are internal , visual representations of the variables one would include and the connections one would make between variables. Mitroff and Kilmann (1976), in an exploratory study of par t i c i -36. pants' images of the ideal organization, comment that for two of the personality types, the "ideal of one type is the absolute hell of the other and vice versa" (page 193). Frost and Hayes also (1978) explore the implications for understanding organizations and theory building based on differences in peoples' 'cause maps' (images). Images, myths, stor ies, intuit ion or hunches a l l describe an aspect of human energy with something in common. They can be interpreted as ways people have of making sense of the flow of events streaming by. Several theorists, among them Silverman (1971), Shutz (1967), and Weick (1969, 1977) interpret the individual-environment interaction from a sense-making perspective. Weick (1977), in part icular, has explored at length the notion that: the environment is located in the mind of the actor and is imposed by him on experience in order to make the experience more meaningful. (Weick, 1977:274) Summarizing the understanding of Weick's (1977) "enactment processes" for this study, our images are sources of energy for acts. The images one holds form part of the i n i t i a l phases of the enactment processes which "generate" and/or "bracket off" certain portions on one's experience. These portions, i n i t i a l l y coupled or linked by virtue of one's past history and present "mode of attention" (Weick, 1969), serve as the impetus for action/"enactment" - a "punctuation" or structuring of the outside world in forms which one can then use to make sense of one's experience. Sense making is retrospective and depends, in part, on images, and in part on action/enactment. Only through action - actually arranging, connecting, imposing on what's "out there" - is meaning possible. But actions derive from prior images. Thus, understanding the dynamics of the individual-environment interaction unit is paramount to understanding 37. both the individual and the environment. As Weick points out, sense-making is arbitrary; one set of punctua-tions and connections is equally as plausible as another. For example, a recent study of architectural firms by Blau and McKinley (1979) reveals that the "work motifs" - the ideas about what the objectives of the design process ought to be (an ideal) - d i f fer d is t inct ly among the key decision makers of the companies studied. Furthermore, these differences in ideas, independent of structure and environment, account for s i g n i f i -cant variations in innovation and complexity among the firms. How, then, are we to increase our understanding of individuals and environments? One way may be through exploring links between people's images, their orientation to the environment, and their decisions with respect to organization designing. As Weick states: The process of sense making is better understood by examining what is in people's heads and imposed by them on a stream of events than by trying to describe what is "out there". (Weick, 1977:271) Where Weick speaks of generating and bracketing, we speak, of image-making and orientation; where Weick speaks of enacted environments, we speak of time-structuring organizational processes (designing proxy). The kinds of images one holds would be influenced in many ways, but one of these could be the way in which one orients him/herself to the environ-ment. To the extent that is true, there should be some correspondence between the way people orient themselves to the environment (that i s , specialize) and the images they hold. Organizing, or connecting the variables of one's image in different patterns should have implications for acts expressed in terms of structuring or allocating time, to organiza-tional 'processes. 38. Chapter II OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study aimed at exploring relationships between one's primary orientation to the environment in terms of People and of Things, the images one holds in terms of stories of one's ideal organization, and organizational act iv i t ies in terms of time structuring of eight core organizational ac t iv i t i es . Figure 4 depicts the types of associations hypothesized. 1. Hypotheses I A relationship is expected between an individual 's orientation to the world in terms of People and of Things and his/her image of the ideal organization such that a high Person Scale score is associated with high Person Content of organizational images and a high Thing Scale score is associated with high Thing Content of organizational images. Speci f ica l ly , i) People c lass i f ied as Person Specialists (high Person Scale score) wil l express images of the ideal organization that focus on person issues. Their stories of the ideal organization wil l stress attention to people's needs, to relationships between people, and to social interaction to a greater degree than people who measure low on the Person Scale. i i ) People c lass i f ied as Thing Specialists (high Thing Scale score) will express images of the ideal organization that have a strong task focus. Their stories of the ideal organization wil l stress attention to defining'work roles, statements of rules and procedures, and points of control, and specif ic descriptions of structure such as physical f a c i l i -ties or hierarchical levels to a greater degree than people who measure low on the Thing Scale. 39. Figure 4: The Types of Relationships this Study Hypothesizes Between Person-Thing Orientation, Organizational Images and Allocation of Time to Organizational Act iv i t ies . 40. i i i ) People c lass i f ied as Generalists (high Person Scale score, high Thing Scale score) will express images of the ideal organization that focus on both people and task issues. Their stories of the ideal organiza-tion wil l stress attention to both the needs of people and their develop-ment as well as the task commitment of the organization and i ts structure to a moderately high degree. iv) People c lass i f ied as Self-special ists (low Person Scale score), low Thing Scale score) wil l express images of the ideal organization that do not show a strong focus on either attention to people or to task. This Special ist group has been characterist ical ly described as idiosyncratic and no consistent pattern is expected. Figure 5 depicts the expected relationships between Person-Thing Scale scores and Story Content of organizational images. 2. Hypotheses II A relationship is expected between an individual's orientation to the world in terms of People and of Things and his/her time structuring of core organizational act iv i t ies such that a high Person Scale score is associated with a high emphasis on time allocated to core organizational act iv i t ies with a high degree of Person Involvement (e.g. Motivation Act iv i t ies , Leadership Act iv i t ies) and that a high Thing Scale score is associated with a high emphasis on time allocated to core organizational act iv i t ies with a high degree of Thing Involvement (e .g . , Finance Act iv i -t ies , Resource Acquisition Ac t iv i t i es ) . Speci f ica l ly , i) People c lass i f ied as Person Specialists (high Person Scale score) wil l allocate more time to the core organizational act iv i t ies with, a high degree of Person Involvement, Personnel, Motivation, Leadership, Communica-tion than any other special ist group. PERSON SPECIALISTS GENERALISTS mean THING SPECIALISTS mean o o oo o 00 THING SPECIALISTS GENERALISTS mean mean | i PERSON SPECIALISTS •*STORY CONTENT: PERSON •STORY CONTENTiT THING Figure 5: The expected relationships between Story Content and Person-Thing scores for the four special ist groups. 42 . i i ) People classified as Thing Specialists (high Thing Scale score) will allocate more time to the .core organizational activities with a high degree of Thing Involvement (Financial, Servicing, Administrative, Resource Acquisition) than any other specialist group. i i i ) People classified as Generalists (high Person Scale score, high Thing Scale score) will allocate time to the core organizational activities such that both activities with a high degree of Person Involvement and activities with a high degree of Thing Involvement are emphasized. Generalists will balance allocation of time to both types of activities such that those core organizational activities with a high degree of Person Involvement (Personnel, Motivation, Leadership, Communication) will be emphasized slightly more than those activities with a high degree of Thing Involvement. iv) No hypotheses were made concerning-how those people classified as Self-Specialists (low Person Scale score, low Thing Scale score) would allocate time to core organizational a c t i v i t i e s . However, some observa-tions will be made concerning the emphasis Self-Specialists give to specific a c t i v i t i e s . Figure 6 depicts the relationships expected between orientation to People and to Things and allocation of time to core organizational a c t i v i -ties. 3. Hypotheses III A relationship is expected between the images of an ideal organiza-tion expressed by an individual and his/her allocation of time to core organizational ac t i v i t i e s . Specifically, i) People with a high Person Content score on their images of the ideal organization will allocate more time to those core organizational 43. Figure 6: I l lustration of the expected balance to time allocated by each of the three special ist groups to Person Act iv i t ies and to Thing Act iv i t ies in the organization. PERSON ACTIVITIES Personnel Motivation Leadership Communication PERSON SPECIALISTS wi11 allocate more time to Person Act iv i t ies than to Thing Act iv i t ies . THING ACTIVITIES Finance Service Administrative Resource Acquisition THING SPECIALISTS wil l allocate more time to Thing Act iv i t ies than to Person Act iv i t ies . GENERALISTS wil l balance allocation of time to both Person Act iv i t ies and to Thing Act iv i t ies with a s l ight ly larger portion given to Person Act iv i t ies in recognition of the fact that, while organizations exist and work through the needs, goals and competencies of people, these needs, goals and competencies demand a sound practical, and f inancial ly viable vehicle through which to operate. 4 4 . act iv i t ies with a high degree of Person Involvement (Personnel, Motiva-t ion, Leadership, Communication). i i ) People with a high Thing Content score on their images of the ideal organization wil l allocate more time to core organizational a c t i v i -ties with a high degree of Thing Involvement (Financial, Servicing, Admin-is t rat ive , Resource Acquisition). Figure 7 depicts the relationships expected between Story Content and allocation of time to core organizational ac t i v i t i es . Figure 7: Relationships Expected Between Story Content and Allocation of Time 46. Chapter III SAMPLE AND METHOD 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 1:1 Demographics The sample group was drawn from five different management oriented classes at a major technological inst i tute. Of the 76 persons who part i -cipated, 3 were not included in the analysis because of missing data. Of the 73 subjects used in the analysis? 58 were members of night school classes and are employed by day while the remaining 15 subjects were day school students taking an Operations Management program. The day.school students tended to be younger and were not employed except for part-time weekend jobs. Table 2 shows the distribution by sex, age, years of work experience, years of management experience for the total group and each of the two sub-groups. Sex M F Total Sample N=73 49 i 24 Night School N=58 37 21 Day School N=15 12 3 Age Mean Min.-Max. Work Experience Mean Min.-Max. 28.9 yrs. 18-49 9.7 yrs. 1-31 yrs 30.5 yrs. 19-49 10.9 yrs. 2-31 yrs. 20.1 yrs . 18-23 3.6 yrs. 1-6 yrs . Management Experience Mean Min.-Max. 2.8 yrs. 0-20 yrs. 3.2 yrs. 0-20 yrs. .6 yrs. 0-2 yrs . Table 2 47. Subjects varied greatly in years of work experience and age. There were twice as many males as females. Night school subjects were employed in a variety of positions as outlined in Table 3. TYPE OF POSITION NUMBER RESPONDING Sales 2 Administrative Assistant 7 Secretary/Clerk 8 Supervisor/Management Trainee 8 Technician 3 General Manager 7 Accountant 2 Researcher 2 Table 3: Types of positions held by subjects Night School subjects represent a variety of types of organizations as well . Table 4 below reports the number of respondents working in the various types of organizations. TYPE OF ORGANIZATION NUMBER RESPONDING Manufacturing 7 Sales/Service (Hotel, Hospital) 15 Government 11 Education 4 Natural Resource 3 Technical 4 Transportation 6 Financial 4 Table 4: Types of organizations in which subjects "were employed These differences contribute to a good population mix for this i n i t i a l study. Both Night School and Day School subjects were used together in the analysis since age, work and managerial experience characteristics of the two groups are v i r tual ly ident ical . 4 8 . 2. METHOD AND INSTRUMENTATION: 'ORIENTING IDEOLOGY' - PERSON-THING ORIENTATION  2:1 Operationalization Subjects' orientation to the environment is measured by two separate, independently developed scales; one developed by L i t t l e (1972) and one developed by Frost and Barnowe (1978). L i t t l e ' s Person-Thing Scale con-sists of 24 act iv i ty statements - 12 statements pertaining to people and 12 statements pertaining to things - to operationalize the basic assumption that individuals orient themselves to the world on the basis of two ortho-gonal dimensions: People and Things. The Frost/Barnowe Person-Thing Scale also consists of 24 items - 12 pertaining to person orientation and 12 per-taining to thing orientation. Neither of the P-T Scales is organization speci f ic . They are both easily administered to a l l types of populations, taking subjects only a few minutes for each one. Both scales, with instructions and scoring appear in Appendix A. Mean scores on the Person Scale and Thing Scale for both measures were calculated and the sample sp l i t into the four special ist groups: Generalists (high Person,' high Thing orientation); Person Specialists (high Person, low Thing orientation); Thing Specialists (low Person, high Thing oriention); and Self-special ists (low Person, low Thing orientation). Frequency distributions for the two measures were compared. Intra-scale correlations were calculated to test for orthogonality of the measures. Cronbach's alpha coeff icient was calculated to test for r e l i a b i l i t y . Inter-scale correlations were calculated to test that the two instruments (L i t t le and Frost/Barnowe) measure a similar construct. Based on strong inter-scale correlations, a decision was made to use 49. the Frost/Barnowe means to sp l i t the sample into the four Specialist groups for further analysis. Links between Person-Thing orientation, organizational images, and allocation of time to organizational act iv i t ies are analysed by Pearson correlation coefficients for the whole sample and each special ist group. 3. METHOD AND INSTRUMENTATION: ARATIONALITY - STORIES OF THE IDEAL ORGANIZATION  3:1 Operationalization The arational energy component of human capacities and energy is operationalized by exploring the subjects' images or mental picture of their ideal organizations. This approach is based on previous work by Mitroff and Kilmann (.1976) in which they analyzed the organizational stores, "raw, projective images", of their subjects. This part of the study was carried out f i r s t with a l l subject groups. The instructions to the subjects, both verbally and in the short written preamble (Appendix B) are designed to encourage as spontaneous and imagina-tive a response as possible. Although a 15 minute time l imit is suggested for the story, i t is not s t r i c t l y enforced but is meant as a guide. Most subjects complete their writing within 10-15 minutes quite easi ly. Examples of organizational images from each of the four special ist groups are presented in Appendix C. The stories of the ideal organizational image were content analyzed by f ive independent judges on the basis of two dimensions. The judges, 4 males, 1 female, drawn from academic/teaching, business/administrative, and social work backgrounds provide diverse perspectives beyond the tradi-tional business orientation. The judges were instructed to rate each 50. story independently on two 10-p6int scales: one scale measuring the extent to which the story reflects emphasis on people, for example, "what oppor-tunities that organization offered for meeting the psychological or emotional needs of individuals"; and the second scale measuring the extent to which the story reflects emphasis on things, for example, "what measures that organization took to structure the tasks (and) define the goals objectively" (Appendix D). A score of 0 indicates very'low or v i r tual ly no emphasis while a score of 10 on either scale represents very high or strong emphasis. Judges were instructed to score a l l stories on both scales, noting that the story content could be high on both scales, low on both scales, or high on one and low on the other. Complete instruc-tions as presented to the judges are given in Appendix D. Two separate mean scores for each organizational image were calcu-lated using the closest 4 of the 5 ratings given by the judges; one for Person Content and one for Thing Content. In each case, the most extreme rating was not used. In some cases where a l l f ive ratings are the same or have a difference of only 1 or 2, a l l 5 ratings were included in ca l -culating the mean scores. A complete l i s t of the judges' ratings and mean scores calculated is presented in Appendix E. These mean scores are the results recorded for Person Content and for Thing Content for each subject's story of his/her image of the ideal organization. Mean scores for Story Person Content and Story Thing Content were calculated for the whole sample group, as wel l , and the sample sp l i t into four 'spec ia l is t ' groups using these means. This was done in order to com-pare the frequency distribution among the four special ist groups with the frequency distribution yielded by Person-Thing Scale score means. However, mean scores were calculated for Story Person Content and Story Thing Con-51 . tent for each of the four special ist groups yielded by the Frost-Barnowe P-T Scale means as well for use'in Pearson Correlation analysis. 4. METHOD AND INSTRUMENTATION: RATIONALITY - ALLOCATION OF TIME TO SELECTED CORE ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITIES  4:1 Prejudging of Organization Act iv i t ies Bakke's (1959) c lass i f icat ion of organizational act iv i t ies served as the basis for the i n i t i a l l i s t of eleven organizational ac t iv i t i es . Bakke's c lass i f icat ion is comprehensive, covering a wide range of organizational ac t iv i t ies , yet i t is not specif ic to one organization type. It also has some history of use in research on organizations by major theorists (Pugh, Hickson, et. a l . , 1968). Use of Bakke's c lass i f icat ion in this study in-cluded some minor changes in his original wording to modernize some of the terminology. Each of the act iv i t ies in the core l i s t of 11 act iv i t ies was prejudged by 12 independent judges on two 5-point scales. One scale measures the extent to which each act iv i ty involves people: This means that the act iv i ty is essential ly associated with people, with relationships among/between people... (Appendix F); the second scale measures the extent to which each act iv i ty involves things: This means that the act iv i ty is essential ly associated' with numerical data or factual data . . . or with physical objects and f a c i l i t i e s . . . (Appendix F) The 12 judges, including 10 males and 2 females, are a l l instructors in the Business Division of a large technological inst i tute. All judges have over 10 years work experience and at least 2 years in a supervisory or managerial position. 52. Mean results of the judging (reported in Appendix G) provided a second l i s t of eight organizational, ac i t iv i tes that discriminate between person involvement and thing involvement. The new l i s t includes 4 a c t i v i -ties that tend to involve people more than things: Person Act iv i t ies -Personnel, Motivation, Communication, and Leadership; and 4 act iv i t ies that tend to involve things more than people: Thing Act iv i t ies - Financial, Servicing, Administrative, and Resource Allocation. These 8 organizational act iv i t ies form the basis for the Time-Structuring instrument in this study. 4:2 Operationalization Each subject was asked to allocate a given amount of time (100 days) to the set of 8 core act iv i t ies the way he/she would l ike i t to be empha-. sized in his/her ideal business organization. By stipulating that the organization 'receiving time' be the subject's ideal rather than imposing a real organizational type, the study aimed to avoid lack of famil iar i ty problems and biases and to focus more purposively on Weick's proposition that: People invent organizations and their environments and these inventions reside in ideas. . . (Weick, 1977:288) The instrument l imits subjects to using 100 days to fac i l i ta te scoring, comparability of results, and to allow subjects to think in terms of per-centages. It was permissable for subjects to allocate zero days to one or more ac t i v i t i es , as they weighed the act iv i t ies and time. The a l loca-tion exercise did not allow zero time to be allocated to a l l eight a c t i v i -ties however, A sample of the time-structuring instrument and instructions appears in Appendix H. Each subject's time allocation for each of the 8 organizational act iv i t ies was recorded as well as a mean score calculated for the 4 Person 53. Act iv i t ies and a mean score for the 4 Thing Act iv i t ies . Mean scores for the separate act iv i t ies and for Person Act iv i t ies and Thing Act iv i t ies are calculated f.or the whole sample group and within each special ist group (sp l i t by P-T Scale score). These mean scores are included in Pearson correlation analysis with the results from Person-Thing orientation and organizational stories. Complete results of Pearson correlation coeff ic-ients for Person Act iv i t ies , Thing Act iv i t ies and Person-Thing dimensions of orientation and story content are presented in Chapter IV. 54. Chapter IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY Results of the study are discussed in the following sequence: 1. Person-Thing Orientation Results of both the Frost/Barnowe and L i t t le person-thing scales giving frequency distribution into the four special ist groups; support for the orthogonality of Person-Thing Orientation; and inter-scale corre-lations. 2. Links Between Orientation and Images Degree of support for Hypotheses I ( i , i i , i i i , i v ) : Pearson correla-tion coefficients for the whole sample and each Special ist group with respect to Person-Thing orientation and the content of images of the ideal organization. 3. Links Between Orientation and Time Allocation Degree of support for Hypotheses II ( i , i i , i i i ) : mean allocation of time to organizational act iv i t ies for each Special ist group; Pearson corre-lation coefficients for the whole sample and each Specialist group with respect to Person-Thing Orientation and each specif ic organizational act iv i ty . 4. Links Between Organizational Images and Time Allocation Degree of support for Hypotheses III ( i , i i ) : 55. 1. Orientation 1:1 Frequency Distribution Table 5 indicates the mean scores on both the Frost/Barnowe and L i t t l e Person-Thing Scales with distribution into the four special ist groups. FROST/BARNOWE LITTLE SCALE PERSON SCALE N Mean SD Rel. Freq.% Mean SD Rel. Freq.% Whole Sample 73 41,32 7.02 37.49 7.08 Generalists 18 47.50 4.45 24.7 41.56 6.61 26 Person Spec. 16 47.13 7.32 21.9 41.38 5.44 26 Thing Spec. 22 35.46 4.74 30.1 33.82 5.89 28.8 Self-spec. 17 36.88 2.98 23.3 34.29 6.55 19.2 THING SCALE Whole Sample 73 36.55 7.13 34.29 8.32 Generalists 18 41.56 3.76 37.80 8.86 Person Spec. 16 30.06 5.66 30.69 7.60 Thing Spec. 22 41.68 3.99 37.59 7.30 Self-spec. 17 30.71 4.51 29.59 6.18 Table 5: Mean Scores on Person-Thing Scales In common with other studies using the Person-Thing Scales, the results of this study show a fa i r l y even distribution among the four special ist groups. The fact that Thing Specialists make up a s l ight ly larger percen-tage of the population in this study may be accounted for by the fact that the sample source drew upon a number of Operations Management students - a program that places heavy emphasis upon attention to materials, equipment and numerical analysis. A previous study by Frost and Barnowe (.1978) indi-56. cates some support for the hypothesis that persons with high scores on the Thing Scale (Thing Specialists) are l ike ly to select thing-oriented careers for study. While their study does not spec i f ica l ly name Opera-tions Management programs, the courses that are defined as thing-oriented tend do emphasize 'things' as opposed to people (for example, Transporta-tion) and numerical analysis (for example, Finance and Accounting). 1:2 Orthogonality of Person-Thing Orientation Correlations between the Person-Thing Scales for both measures (Frost/Barnowe and L i t t le) and their r e l i a b i l i t i e s support the orthogona-l i t y of Person-Thing dimensions as independent primary environmental phenomena (Frost/Barnowe: r = .11, Cronbach's alpha coeff icient Person Scale = .78; Cronbach's alpha coefficient Thing Scale = .73; L i t t l e : r = .02). These results are consistent with results from previous studies (Frost and Barnowe, 1978, L i t t l e , 1972; 1976). 1:3 Inter-Scale Correlations Strong inter-scale correlations between the Frost/Barnowe measure and the L i t t l e measure indicate support for the proposition that the two instruments measure a similar construct (r = .71 Person Scale; r = .59 Thing Scale, p = .001). The same pattern holds throughout the special ist groups for a l l correlations between Person Scales and Thing Scales of the two measures except when the Frost/Barnowe measure Self-special ists are compared with the L i t t l e measure Sel f -specia l ists . The inter-measure correlation for the Sel f-specia l ist groups indicates no correlation between the two scales (r = .19, p = 470); low negative correlation between the Thing Scale and the Person Scale of the two measures (r = - .31, r = - .45, p = .073); and no correlation between the two measures 57. for Thing Scale.scores (r = .11, p = 681). The negative correlations constitute weak dispute of orthogonality of the Person and Thing dimen-sions and for the proposition that the two instruments measure a similar construct. However, certain aspects of the Sel f-specia l ist group should be noted. Self-special ists (in L i t t l e and in Frost/Barnowe referred to as Non-special ists) have been notably characterized as "idiosyncratic", that i s , for interpreting the environmental stimuli in terms of ' s e l f , such as use to self or convenience to se l f . Therefore, i t is not surprising that correlation results for this group do not conform to the pattern found for the whole sample and the other three special ist groups. For the analysis which follows, the subject sample was sp l i t into the four special ist groups using the Frost/Barnowe Person-Thing Scale means (Person Scale T = 41.32; Thing Scale X" = 36.55). 2. Links Between Person-Thing Orientation and Images Hypotheses I: A relationship is expected between an individual's orientation to the world in terms of People and of Things and his/her image of the ideal organization such that a high Person Scale is associated with high Person content of organizational images and a high Thing Scale score is associated with high Thing Content of organizational images. Pearson correlation coefficients for the whole sample and for each special ist group are reported in Table 6. For the whole sample high Person Scale scores correlate in the expected positive direction with Person Content of the images of the ideal organiza-tion (r = .32, p = .007, n = 7;3). This finding lends support to Hypothesis I in general. However, results for the whole sample do not support the 58 . Frost/Barnowe Story Content Person Scale N Person Thing Whole Sample 73 .32 (p=.007) - . 1 2 (p=.307) Generalists 18 .46 (p= .060) - . 1 3 (p=.604) Person Spec. 16 ,196(p=.483)v .03 (p -v898) Thing Spec. 22 .35 (p=.105) - . 0 1 (p=.960) Self-spec. 17 .196(p=v449)' .13 (p=.613) Thing Scale Whole Sample - . 1 8 (p=.127) .18 (p=.138) Generalists - . 2 3 (p=.369) .25 (p=.321) Person Spec. - . 2 0 (p=.471) - . 1 0 (p=.609) Thing Spec. . 13 (p=.577) - . 1 0 (p=.689) Self-spec. - . 1 2 (p=.644) - . 009 (p=.970 ) Table 6: Pearson correlation coefficients for Person-Thing Orientation and Story Content of images of the ideal organization for the whole group and each special ist group. general Hypothesis I in terms of the relationship expected between high Thing Orientation and the degree of Thing Content in organizational images (r = . 1 8 ; p = . 1 3 8 ) . Of the special ist groups, Generalists indicate positive correlation between Person orientation and Person Content, even considering the small n of the sample (r = .46, p = . 0 0 7 , n = 1 8 ) . This finding lends support to Hypothesis I ( i i i ) . However, Generalists indicate very low (not significant) correlation between Thing Scale scores and Thing Content of images (r = . 2 5 ; p = . 3 2 1 ) . The result is in the right direction but is not strong enough to support Hypothesis I ( i i i ) which states that General4 ists wil l express images of the ideal organization that focus on both people issues and task issues. 59. Results for Self-Special ists indicate no signif icant correlations (r = .196; p = .449 for Person Orientation/Person Content; r = -.009; p = .970 for Thing Orientation/Thing Content). Hypothesis I (iv) postu-lates no relationship since Self-Special ists have been shown to experience their world in no consistent pattern but in terms of their own individual-i s t i c concerns. Thus, Hypothesis I (iv) gains some support. Hypothesis I (i) postulates a positive relationship between the Person Scale scores of Person Specialists and degree of Person Content of their images. This hypothesis is not supported (r = .196; p = .483; n = 16). Hypothesis I ( i i ) postulates a positive relationship between the Thing Scale scores of Thing Specialists and degree of Thing Content of their images. This hypothesis is not supported (r = -.10; p = .689; n = 22). Results for the whole group, and for Generalists part icular ly , offer some support in the direction hypothesized for links between Person-Thing orientation and the content of images of the ideal organization. Since Generalists would be the group least affected by scoring weaknesses or response set, this support merits further investigation of the hypothesis of the relationships. Organizational symbolism or the use of myths, r i tua ls , and/or material symbols is only just becoming recognized as a legitimate source of study to further the understanding of organizations. The degree of support for Hypotheses I is not overwhelming, but i t does suggest that there exist some signif icant links between how people orient themselves to the world and how they make use of arational modes such as images and stories of the ideal to make sense of their organizational world. 60. 3. Links Between Person-Thing Orientation and Allocation of Time Hypothesis II: A relationship is expected between an individual 's orientation to the world in terms of People and of Things and his/her time structuring of core organizational act iv i t ies such that a high Person Scale score is associated with a high emphasis on time allocated to core organizational act iv i t ies with a high degree of Person Involvement (Person-nel, Motivation, Leadership, Communication Act iv i t ies) and that a high Thing Scale score is associated with a high emphasis on time allocated to core organizational act iv i t ies with a high degree of Thing Involvement (Finance, Service, Administrative, Resource Acquisition Act iv i t ies) . 3:1 Mean Allocation of Time Mean scores for allocating time to Person Act iv i t ies (Personnel, Motivation, Leadership, Communication) and to Thing Act iv i t ies (Finance, Service, Administration, and Resource Acquisition) by each special ist group indicate partial support for the general Hypotheses II. Results are presented in Table 7. Mean Number of Days Allocated To: Person Act iv i t ies Thing Act iv i t ies Generalists Person Spec Thing Spec. Self-Spec. 53.7 60.3 61.1 57.9 46.3 40.1 38.4 40.7 Table 7: Mean scores for time-structuring of organizational  act iv i t ies for each special ist group Person Specialists indicate a trend towards allocating more time to core organizational act iv i t ies with a high Person Involvement than to Organ-61. izational act iv i t ies with a high Thing Involvement (60.3 vs. 40.1). Generalists indicate a trend towards balancing the allocation of time to both Person Involvement act iv i t ies and Thing Involvement act iv i t ies (53.7 vs. 46.3). In neither case are the results s ta t i s t i ca l l y signif icant but the expected trend of the general Hypotheses II is indicated. Results of time-structuring by Thing Specialists are somewhat sur-prising. (Person Involvement 61.1 vs. Thing Involvement 38.4), however Thing Specialists have been described as attributing 'thing' status even to people so may have viewed the organizational act iv i t ies differently than did Person Special ists. Figure 8 shows the expected balance of time allocated by each of the three special ist groups compared with results obtained. 3:2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Person-Thing Orientation and Time-Structuring  Table 8 gives results of Pearson Correlation coefficients for Person Thing Orientation and allocation of time to each organizational act iv i ty for the whole sample and for each Special ist group. Only those correla- • tions above .30 are indicated. It i s , perhaps, s ignif icant to note that the relevant correlations above .30 available were obtained within the smaller n Special ist groups. No signif icant correlations were obtained linking the specif ic organizational act iv i t ies to the whole sample. High Person Scale scores for Generalists, and Person Specialists correlate posit ively with allocation of time to three of the organizational act iv i t ies with a high degree of Person Involvement. (Generalists: r = .48 for Personnel and r = .50 for Leadership; Person Special ists: r = .32 for Communication) whereas Thing Specialists indicate a negative 62. Time-Structuring for PERSON ACTIVITIES: PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES MOTIVATION ACTIVITIES LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES W (N73) G (N18) P (N16) T (N22) SS (N17) W G P T SS W G P T SS w G P T SS Time-Structuring for THING ACTIVITIES: FINANCE ACTIVITIES SERVICE ACTIVITIES ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES RESOURCE ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES W G P T SS w G P T SS N G P T SS w G P T SS Person-Thing Orientation PERSON SCALE-' ' THING SCALE .48 (.04) ,50 (.033) ,32 ,32 (.229) ,32 (.214) -.31 (.204) ,37 (.146) ,33 (.190) ,37 (.160) .42 (.110) .43 (.048) .44 (.089) .31 (.153) Table 8: Links Between Person-Thing Orientation and Organizational Act iv i t ies Key: W = Whole sample group; G = Generalists; P = Person Special ists; T = Thing Special ists; SS = Self-special ists 6 3 . Figure 8: Expected balance of time allocated by each of the three special ist groups compared against results obtained. RESULTS EXPECTED RESULTS OBTAINED 64. correlation with one of the Person Involvement act iv i t ies (r = -.32 for Leadership). These results lend some support to Hypotheses II ( i ) . Thing Scale scores of Thing Specialists correlate posit ively with one Thing Involvement act iv i ty (r - .43 for Finance) which lends some support to Hypotheses II ( i i ) . Hypotheses II ( i i i ) is only partly supported in that Generalists indicate the above mentioned positive correlations with Person Involvement organizational act iv i t ies but indicate no results for similar relat ion-ships expected with Thing Involvement ac t iv i t i es . 4. Links Between Organizational Images and Time Allocation to Organiza-tional Act iv i t ies  Hypotheses III states an expected relationship between the content of organizational images and the allocation of time to core organizational ac t i v i t i es . There are no signif icant correlations in the whole sample linking Story Person Content or Story Thing Content of images to either of the two groups of organizational a c t i v i t i e s , that i s , those high in Person Involvement and those high on Thing Involvement. There are also no signif icant correlations in the whole sample l ink-ing Story Person Content or Story Thing Content of images to any individual organizational act iv i ty either of the Person Involvement Group or the Thing Involvement Group. The model for this study suggests that-individuals f i r s t orient them-selves to the world on a fundamental basis in terms of People-centeredness or Thing centeredness and that within one's 'orienting ideology' (that i s , Special ist orientation).images are a way of making sense of the world. In the discussion chapter later results wil l be examined for links between the content of images and time-structuring within each Special ist group. 65. Chapter V DISCUSSION 5:1 Other Findings of the Study Other findings that contribute to the thesis of this study come from exploring links between organizational images and allocation of time within each Specialist group. These results are provided in Table 9. Further results which highlight differences and s imi lar i t ies among the Specialist groups are available from exploring relationships between the separate organizational act iv i t ies themselves within each special ist group. Table 10 presents results of correlations between the separate Person Act iv i t ies and Thing Act iv i t ies (Inter-Activity Correlations) for the whole sample and each special ist group. Tables 11 and 12 present results of correlations between each separate act iv i ty within Person Act iv i t ies and within Thing Act iv i t ies (Intra-Activity Correlations) for the whole sample and each special ist group. Results wil l be discussed with reference to the above Tables by way of drawing a composite picture of each of the four special ist groups: Generalists, Person Special ists , Thing Special ists, arid Sel f -specia l ists . (Table 8, showing links between Person-Thing Orientation and time al loca-t ion, from Chapter IV, is reproduced here to fac i l i ta te comparisons among the Specialist groups on a l l relevant findings.) 1. GENERALISTS Balanced emphasis to both people and things in their environment and a broad, long range perspective are two characteristics of the Generalist orientation that have been supported by previous studies ( L i t t l e , 1976). 66. Generalists concern themselves with people in general, rather than persons individually; and with broad, long range developments, rather than present, particular needs. There is some support in this study for these Generalist characteristics in the way Generalists allocated time to the separate organizational ac t iv i t i es . Only Generalists indicated positive correlations with both Person Act iv i t ies and Thing Act iv i t ies (Tables 8 and 9). Several strong positive correlations were obtained for Person Act iv i t ies (for example, r = .50, Table 9, page 69 for Personnel; r = .50, Table 8, page 68 for Leadership). The trend towards achieving a balanced emphasis on Person Act iv i t ies and Thing Act iv i t ies is indicated by the correlation obtained for Generalists with Finance Act iv i t ies (r = .33, Table 9). This result is somewhat low, but in the right direction and important considering the small number in the sample and the fact that no other special ist group indicated any positive linkages with both types of act iv i ty sets. A more signif icant result supporting the notion that Generalists, of a l l the special ist groups, appear to strive for balanced emphasis to people and things is the inter-act iv i ty correlation between Personnel Act iv i t ies and Finance Act iv i t ies (r = .58, Table 10, page 70). Personnel Act iv i t ies ensure the "continued ava i lab i l i ty of people and their qual i t ies" , while Finance Act iv i t ies "ensure the continuation of capital resources" (Appendix H). No other special ist group appeared to balance development with the necessary financial support. Since Finance Act iv i t ies represent a consolidation of funds and an investment in the continued v iab i l i t y of the organization, but Service Act iv i t ies represent a dispersement of resources for immediate, ' in house' necessities, i t is not surprising that Generalists indicated a positive 67. correlation with Finance Act iv i t ies (r = .33, Table 9) but a negative correlation with the more immediate, particular needs of repair and main-tenance (r = - .33, Table 8; r = -.46, Table 9 for Service Ac t iv i t i es ) . Other results also support the long range, external perspective of Generalists. Only Generalists appeared to consistently structure organ-izational act iv i t ies to emphasize the ongoing, future-directed growth and development of the organization and its people. Of a l l the special ist groups, only Generalists indicated strong positive correlations with Personnel Act iv i t ies (r = .48, Table 8; r = .50, Table 9) and with Leadership Act iv i t ies (r = .50, Table 8). The high positive correlation with Leadership act iv i t ies is especially notable when compared with results obtained for Thing Specialists (r = -.32, Table 8). Leadership Act iv i t ies "provide vision or imagination as to the develop-ments in the organization or i ts environment and the in i t ia t ive for launch-ing development or growth for effective adaptation or change" (Appendix H). Only Generalists indicated a positive l ink with this process direct ly and in relationship with other ac t iv i t i es . Generalists show a strong (r = .60, Table 10) correlation between Leadership and Resource Acquisi-tion Act iv i t ies . Thus i t would appear that the more emphasis Generalists allocate- to developmental i n i t i a t i v e , the more emphasis is allocated to ensuring accessibi l i ty to future resources. However, for Generalists, Leadership Act iv i t ies were not compatible with the more immediate, f iner detailed, internally focused Administra-tive Act iv i t ies (r = - .40, Table 10). Other results also indicate that Generalists appeared to opt for an external focus rather than focusing speci f ica l ly on the internal workings of the organization. Table 11 indi-cates a negative correlation between Administrative Act iv i t ies and 68. Time-Structuring for PERSON ACTIVITIES: PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES MOTIVATION ACTIVITIES LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES W G P T SS w G P T SS w G P T SS w G P T SS SERVICE ACTIVITIES ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES RESOURCE ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES (N73) (NTS) (N16) (N22) (N17) Time-Structuring for THING ACTIVITIES: FINANCE ACTIVITIES Person-Thing Orientation PERSON SCALE THING SCALE .48 (.04) W G P T SS w G P T SS W G P T SS W G P T SS ,50 (.033) ,32 ,32 (.229) ,32 (.214) 31 (.204) ,37 (.146) ,33 (.190) ,37 (.160) .42 (.110) .43 (.048) .44 (.089) .31 (.153) Table 8: Links Between Person-Thing Orientation and Organizational Act iv i t ies Key: W = Whole sample group; G = Generalists; P = Person Special ists; T = Thing Special ists; SS = Self-special ists 69. Time=Structuring for PERSON ACTIVITIES: PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES MOTIVATION ACTIVITIES LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES Time-Structuring for THING ACTIVITIES: FINANCE ACTIVITIES SERVICE ACTIVITIES ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES RESOURCE ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES Content of Organizational Images: PERSON CONTENT THING CONTENT W (N73) G (N18) P (N16) T (N22) SS (NT7) U G P T SS w G P T SS w G P T SS ,50 (.04) W G P T SS w G P T SS w G P T SS W G P T SS .35 (.169) ,56 (.019) ,33 (.201) ,32 (.151) .34 (.180) ,46 (.064) ,31 (.227) .37 (.161) .45 (.062) .51 (.021) ,31 (.182) .56 (.02) •.41 (.076) .39 (.123) Table 9: Links Between Organizational Images and Organizational Act iv i t ies Key: W = Whole sample group; G = Generalists; P = Person Special ists; T = Thing Special ists; SS = Sel f -spec ia l is ts ; Dash (-) indicates no signif icant correlations 70. PERSON ACTIVITIES: THING ACTIVITIES W(N73) G(N18) FINANCE SS(N17) PERSONNEL MOTIVATION LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION ,58(.01) .44(.078) -.45(.078) .35(.113) -.34(.179) -.48(.024) -.52(.001) -.53(.024) -.62(.01) -.64(.006) SERVICE W G P T SS -.34(.163) -.34(.003) -.41(.09) -.31(.235) 31(.163) -.40(.127) ADMINIS-TRATIVE W G P T SS 56(.02) .32(.006) •.42( .103) .58(.005) .33(.197) .46(.053) -.31(.008) -.40(.127) -.59(.012) RESOURCE W ACQUISITION G P T SS ;52(.014) .51(.04) ,33(.202) ,604(.008) .46(.'07T)' -.46(.058) Table 10: Inter-Activity Correlations Key: W = Whole sample gruop; G = Generalists; P = Person Special ists; T = Thing Special ists; SS = Self-special ists . Blank indicates no signif icant corre-lations. 71. THING ACTIVITIES: THING ACTIVITIES: FINANCE SERVICE ADMINIS-TRATIVE W(N73) G(N18) P(N16) T(N22) SS(N17) W G P T SS W G P T SS FINANCE SERVICE -.26(.027) -.44(.07) -.33(.207) ADMINISTRATIVE . 2 8 ( . 0 2 ) .56(.023) .59(.013) RESOURCE ACQUIS. .30(.219) .35(.110) .407(.105) •. 304( .219) RESOURCE  ACQUIS. (no correlations) Table 11: Intra-Activity Correlations - Thing Act iv i t ies (Blank indicates no signif icant correlations) PERSON ACTIVITIES: U G PERSONNEL MOTIVATION LEADERSHIP P T SS W G P T SS w G P T SS COMMUNICATION PERSON ACTIVITIES: PERSONNEL MOTIVATION LEADERSHIP COMMUNICATION 32(.207) - . 3 9 ( . l l l ) - . 4 2 ( . 1 0 6 ) ,44(.075) .354(.163) .42(.051) (no correlations) . 39(.140) .39(.138) .32(;142) .35(.166) Table 12: Intra-Activity Correlations - Person Act iv i t ies (Blank indicates no signif icant correlations) 72. Resource Acquisition for Generalists (r = -.304). Resource Acquisition infers fu tur i s t i c , externally oriented ac t iv i t i es , whereas, as stated, Administrative act iv i t ies relate to the internal organization (see Appendix H). Also, Table 11 suggests a positive l ink between ensuring resources (Resource Acquisition) and supporting these act iv i t ies f inancial ly (r = .30). No other special ist group indicates these combinations of results. 2. PERSON SPECIALISTS Person Specialists have been shown to rely more upon face to face encounters than the other special ist groups ( L i t t l e , 1976). They tend to use the social climate - the moods, feelings, needs expressed or created - as a source of data. Of al l of the organizational act iv i t ies included in this study, both Communication Act iv i t ies and Motivation Act iv i t ies most clearly allowed for personal, individual encounter with others. Motivation Act iv i t ies included giving and withholding rewards to influence people's behavior. Communication Act iv i t ies depended upon "social interaction . . . to c la r i fy objectives,. . .develop relationships, or exchange information..." (Appendix H). Person Specialists indicated no other positive linkages in their time allocation except with Communication Act iv i t ies (.32, Table 8). As can be noted from Table 8, as wel l , only one other special ist group indicated a positive l ink with Communication Act iv i t ies and that group also depends upon 'personal' intervention - the Sel f -spec ia l is ts . Allocating time to Communication Act iv i t ies , however, appeared to be incompatible with emphasis allocated to Personnel Act iv i t ies for Person Specialists (r = - .39, Table 12). Personnel Act iv i t ies are those associated 73. with hir ing, instructing, and training. One suggestion for understanding this result may l i e in the fact that Personnel Act iv i t ies are more structured, more formal than the Person Specialist l ikes . The Person Special ist , in allocating time to Communication Act iv i t ies , may be respond-ing to the informal, spontaneous, nature of these ac t iv i t i es . This same reasoning may also explain, then, the positive link between Communication Act iv it ies and Motivation Act iv i t ies (r = .39, Table 12). Perhaps, structuring in time for building rapport is seen as posit ively linked to influencing people's behavior by the Person Special ists. No results were obtained linking Person Specialists with Motivation Act iv i t ies d irect ly . However, Person Specialists did appear to link time structuring of Motivation Act iv i t ies indirect ly with other ac t iv i t i es . Results from Table 10 indicate that for Person Specialists Motivation Act iv i t ies - giving or withholding rewards to influence behavior - are not comptabiblewith emphasis allocated to Finance (r = - .45), Administrative (r = - .42), or Resource Acquisition (r = -.51) Act iv i t ies . This would suggest to us that Person Specialists did not see the development of the organization's human resources in the same broad perspective as the Generalists who had supported their emphasis on person-oriented act iv i t ies with finances and f a c i l i t i e s . This suggestion gains support in view of inter-act iv i ty correlation results for Generalists and Person Specialists on another key develop-mental/structural support axis - Leadership X Resource Acquisition Act iv i -t ies : results for Generalists, as discussed above, were strong and posi-tive (r = .604) results for Person Specialists - the only other group indicating a linkage - were fa i r l y strong and negative (r = -.46)(Table 10). This would suggest that the more emphasis Person Specialists allocate to 74. development, long range i n i t i a t i v e , the less emphasis is allocated to ensuring resources for the future. 3. THING SPECIALISTS Thing Specialists have been characterized by a preference for order, c la r i ty and predictabi l i ty ( L i t t l e , 1976). They tend to draw upon con-crete, specif ic facts and figures as a data source rather than social interaction. Thing Specialists indicated a positive relationship with time a l lo -cated to Finance Act iv i t ies (r = .43, Table 8; r = .32, Table 9). Only Generalists, who also scored high on Thing orientation, also support this positive l ink with Finance Act iv i t ies . Also, contrary to the trend indi-cated by the other special ist groups, Thing Specialists showed a positive link between emphasizing the organization's reward structure (Motivation Act iv i t ies) and Finance Act iv i t ies (r = .35, Table 10). This would suggest that Thing Specialists acknowledge a relationship between influenc-ing the direction of people's behavior by giving or withholding (monetary?) rewards and act iv i t ies that ensure the financial v iab i l i t y of the organ-ization. Such is not the case, however, for the Thing Special ist 's perspec-tive on future developments of the organization (Leadership Ac t iv i t i es ) . Whereas Generalists indicated a positive l ink direct ly with Leadership Act iv i t ies (r = .50, Table 8), Thing Specialists indicated a negative link direct ly with Leadership Act iv i t ies (r = -.32, Table 8) - that i s , the higher the Thing orientation score for Thing Special ists, the less emphasis was allocated to "providing vision" and "launching developments" (Appendix H). This is reinforced by the negative correlation (r = -.48, Table 10) obtained between Leadership and Finance for Thing Special ists. 75. It would appear that Thing Specialists are prepared to structure in financial support in conjunction with internally focused (Motivation) act iv i t ies but not in conjunction with externally focused (Leadership) ac t iv i t ies . So, Thing Specialists appear to motivate in a different way from Generalists and Person Special ists , that i s , i t appears to be based on impersonal motivation. 4. SELF-SPECIALISTS Self-special ists (or Non-specialists) have been described as those who orient to the world in terms of convenience or interest to themselves. Thus their orientation patterns are understandably idiosyncratic. Self-special ists had not been included in the time-structuring hypotheses because the requirement that the subjects (for this study) allocate exactly 100 days to the given act iv i t ies le f t l i t t l e option for idiosyncratic choices. However, some observations can be made regarding the emphasis Self-special ists give to specif ic ac t iv i t i es . Table 13 l i s t s the mean number of days allocated to each act iv i ty by each Special ist group. Self-special ists allocated more days than any other special ist group to Personnel Act iv i t ies (14.6), to Communication Act iv i t ies (17.8), and to Finance Act iv i t ies 0 3 . 7 ) . Self-special ists allocate fewer days than any other specia l ist group to Leadership Act i -vit ies (13.4) and to Resource Acquisition Act iv i t ies (6.4). Since Self-special ists have been described as those who look out for themselves and are less concerned for the global picture, i t is not surprising, perhaps, that they should allocate time to - or structure in opportunities to ensure -those organizational act iv i t ies that would contribute to their 'having a job' (Personnel), 'knowing the ropes' (Communication), and 'being paid 76. MEAN TIME STRUCTURED FOR: GENERALIST SPECIALIST PERSON SPEC. GROUP THING SPEC. SELF-SPEC PERSONNEL 11.4 11.2 12.8 14.6 FINANCE 12.7 11.6 12.8 13.7 MOTIVATION 12.2 14.2 13.4 12.1 SERVICE 12.7 9.1 7.3 9.4 LEADERSHIP 14.2 18.7 17.9 13.4 ADMINISTRATIVE 13.8 10.9 10.0 11.2 COMMUNICATION 15.9 16.2 17.0 17.8 RESOURCE ACQ. 7.1 8.5 8.3 6.4 Table 13: Mean Number of Days Allocated to Each  Act iv ity by Each Specialist Group for the job' (Finance), at the expense of time structured for act iv i t ies that provide for whole organization development (Leadership) and future growth f a c i l i t i e s (Resource Acquisit ion). This suggestion is supported by correlations from Tables 8 and 9 which indicate that Self-special ists link positively to structuring in Communication Act iv i t ies (r = .32, Table 8; r = .56, Table 9), thus ensur-ing face to face encounters as a source of input and l ink negatively with Resource Acquisition (r = - .31, Table 9), the only special ist group to so indicate. 5:2 Other Considerations In retrospect, the operationalization of both the organizational images and the time-structuring instrument need some consideration. a) In judging the Story Content of images, judges were not aware of distinctions made in Specialization Theory between reference to and concern for people in general (either the social community at large or the organ-77. ization's human resources) and references to a concern for the individual respondent (self) him/herself. Hence, a .subject making many, strong references to satisfying "my needs" or meeting "my goals" in the spir it ; of sel f- interest descriptive of the Self(rion)-specialists could conceiv-ably receive as high a rating for People Content as a subject expressing concern for the organization's satisfying community needs or attending to staff development needs. Both these concerns represent a d is t inct ly different orientation within Specialization theory. Any distortion in scoring, that i s , the tending to categorize subjects' images as high on Person Content when a l l references were actually to sel f , would be most evident for Self(non)-special ists. Differences between frequency d i s t r i -butions obtained by Person-Thing Orientation (Frost/Barnowe P-T Scale means) and by Story Content means give some evidence of a degree of possible distortion since by P-T means 23.3% of the population are cate-gorized as "Self Special ists", whereas by Story Content means, 9.6% of the population are categorized as "Self Special ists". Results are provided in Table 14 below. Relative Frequency % By Frost/ Barnowe P-T Scale means GENERALISTS 24.7 PERSON SPEC. 21.9 THING SPEC. 30.1 SELF-SPEC. 23.3 By Story Content Means 21.9 35.6 32.9 9.6 Table 14: Frequency Distributions by Frost/Barnowe P-T Scale scores and by Story Content Means Distortion in the judging may also result from a 'halo' effect, whereby stories rated high on Person Content were rated high on Thing Content, or stories rated low on Person Content were also rated low on Thing Content. 78. In both cases, any consistent correlation pattern between orientation and images for Person Specialists and for Thing Specialists/Thing Content may. be distorted. Generalists and Self-special ists would be less affected because the Person-Thing score pattern is both high or both low respectively. This type of distortion may have occurred in the judging since there are high negative correlations between Person Content and Thing Content (range: r = -.67 to - .75, p = .003 to .001) in the whole sample and each of the four special ist groups. Appendix E presents complete correlation results between Person Content and Thing Content for a l l special ist groups. This is contrary to the orthogonality of the Person-Thing dimen-sion of the orientation measure and indicates that the content analysis was not as valid or rel iable as the Frost/Barnowe P-T measure. Judges appeared to be operating from a bi-polar perspective. This problem in judging the story content would affect the results of Person Specialists and Thing Specialists more than Generalists and Self-special ists because both Person Specialists and Thing Specialists characterist ical ly have one high, one low score (are not bi-polar) on the orientation measure. Results bear this out since the results for Pearson correlation coefficients were poorest for the Person Specialists and Thing Specialists in most areas investigated. For example, of a l l the special ist groups, the Person Scale scores of Person Specialists were expected to correlate most posit ively with the Person Content of organiza-tional images. Instead, results indicate no correlation at a l l , which means there appeared to be no consistent pattern by which Person Specialists linked orientation to images they held about the ideal organization (see Table 6 in Chapter IV, page 58). Some suggestions for changes, should this approach be used in the 79. future, may include the following. The organizational images could be rated on a four-fold typology to allow for differences between types-( 'qual i ty ') of references to people. It might be more appropriate to have one set of judges rate content for reference to people and another set of judges rate content for reference to things to minimize the 'halo' effect. Ultimately, two special ist group distributions could be achieved, one by P-T Scale scores and one by story content results. The overlap could pro-vide one special ist group distribution for use in further analysis. Other changes could include alternative means to operationalize this arational energy component of how individuals 'make sense' of their world. For example, subjects could be asked to bui ld, draw, or otherwise symboli-cal ly represent an organization, thus eliminating, or supplementing, a written description. 5:2 b) When debriefing the judges who had rated the i n i t i a l set of organizational act iv i t ies for Involvement with People and Involvement with Things, i t became apparent that a clear dist inct ion between involve-ment with people and involvement with things for each organizational act iv i ty was hampered by the fact that a l l act iv i t ies are ultimately carried out by people. Taking this view to i ts extreme, some judges re-ported scoring "5" indiscriminately for a l l act iv i t ies on the People Involvement scale and varying their ratings only on the Thing Involvement scale. Another consideration is that such a l i s t of organizational act iv i t ies might "departmentalize" the organization unnecessarily with, for example, reference to Personnel, Finance, and Service. This possibly creates an unintentional bias or set response in the minds of participants. Should this approach be used in future studies changes in operation-80. al iz ing the time allocation concept may include some of the following. Either separate sets of judges may be used to rate People Involvement and Thing Involvement or more refined instructions could be set for the judges to c la r i f y the dist inction between People Involvement and Thing Involve-ment. Another c lass i f icat ion or typology of organizational processes that cuts through the total organization regardless of department, level or function may be used. Recent processual models (Weick, 1969, 1977; Hedburg, Nystrom and Starbuck, 1976; and, possibly, Frost and Hayes, 1977) were not considered to be specif ic enough for the purposes of this explor-atory study. Also a different typology could theoretically be linked to people's orientations and use of images on other bases without necessarily being judged for involvement with people and things. 81. Chapter VI CONCLUSION: LOOKING AHEAD In conclusion, this study provides another way of looking at why organizations are the way they are. It serves as an impetus for continued exploration of the role played by human capacities and energies in account-ing for some of the variations in organizational forms and relationships. One's 'def in it ion' of the situation - how one makes sense of the world -appears to have a relevant influence on organizational phenomena. This would argue for a "contingency-plus" perspective on organizations. Differences in organizational forms can be related to factors of the environment, s ize, and technology - plus the subjective processes of the individuals who are making sense of their organizational world. A "contingency-plus" perspective towards understanding organizations may hold the potential to: bring value issues into organization design; c la r i fy conf l ict issues; integrate problem-solving constructively. Some questions for future explorations may include: - What degree of conf l ict in organizations can be attributed to the fact that people who hold fundamentally different orientations to the world are attempting to enact their images? - How much of the design difference attributed to technological or environmental factors should be reassessed to take account of the role played by subjective perceptions or sense-making of people who hold fundamentally different orientations to the world? - Do organizations allow for confrontations with opposites as well as support for s imi lar i t ies in order to use to advantage 82. the tension between opposing polarit ies? - What implications are there for the effectiveness and growth of organizations which do have climates that encourage and incorporate the arational energy modes of their people (for example, intuit ion and images) as a part of the organ-ization's l i f e? Future studies could focus on homogeneous populations by type of organization, by sex, or by type of position as another way of exploring relationships between one's sense-making and organizational design differences. This study emphasizes that people's arational energies are integral to how they make sense of their organizational world - and, consequently, have implications for variations in organizational forms and relat ion-ships. Future investigators are encouraged to 'press on' with imagina-tion and rigor for, as the poem by Marily Thompson suggests, both the rational and the arational resources are essential: Poem For the Left and Right Hand The le f t hand t r a i l s in the water The right is tying knots The right stitches a seam The le f t sleeps in s i lk The right eats The le f t l istens under the table The right swears The le f t wears the rings The right wins, the right loses The le f t holds the cards And the le f t strikes the chords while the right Runs, runs up and down, up and down And when the right can't sleep and travels around the world Against the clock The le f t is buried. Oh le f t hand,'you're so quiet Do you have children, a dog, mistress, debts It 's the right that buys the groceries Drives the car Runs for high off ice Feeds the baby l i t t l e s i lver spoonfuls It 's the right that grabs the knife To hack off the le f t hand The le f t hand waits A blind dog Holding in its mouth The r ight 's glove The knife f a l l s , clatters The le f t hand is the r ight 's only chance. 84. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M. The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. Academic Press: New York, 1968. Bakke, E. Wight. "Concept of the Social Organization", in Haire, M. (ed.), Modern Organization Theory, John Wiley: New York, 1959. Barnowe, J . Thad and Frost, Peter J . "Influences of Personality, Organizational Experiences, and Anticipated Future Outcomes on Choice of Career." Working Paper No. 537, University of Br it ish Columbia, 1977. Blau, Judith and McKinley, William. "Ideas, Complexity and Innovation." Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1979, 200-219. Blau, Peter M. "Presidential Address: Parameters of Social Structures." American Sociological Review, Vol. 39 (Oct.), 1974, 615-635. Bohm, David. "Imagination, Reason and Insight in Scient i f ic Research and Life as a Whole." Unpublished Lecture, Center for Continuing Education, University of Br it ish Columbia, 1977. Burre l l , Gibson and Morgan, Gareth. Socialogical Paradigms and Organiza- tional Analysis. Heinemann: London, 1979. Campbell, Joseph. The Portable Jung. Viking Press: New York, 1971. Carlson, Norah, Anderson, Win, and Viksne, Uldis. "Psychological Andro-geny and Person-Thing Orientation." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, Br it ish Columbia, June, 1977. Child, John. "Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study." Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 2, 1972a, 163-177. Child, John. "Organization Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice." Sociology, 1972b, 1-22. Dandridge, Thomas and Hogner, Robert. "Organizational Symbolism: Mythology and Ideology in Industrial Settings." Presented at Annual Meeting of American Anthropological Assoc., Los Angeles, Cal i fornia , November, 1978. Duncan, Robert. "Characteristics of Organizational Environments and Perceived Environmental Uncertainty." Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, 3, 1972, 313-327. Emery, F.E. and T r i s t , E.L. "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments." Human Relations, Vol. 18, 1965, 21-32. 85. Fowles, John. Daniel Martin. Coll ins Publishers: Toronto,- 1977. Frost, Peter J . "Blindspots in the Study of Organizations: Implications for Teaching and Application." Paper presented at the Academy of Management Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida, August, 1977. Frost, Peter J . and Barnowe, J . Thad. "Convergence on a Construct: A Serendipitous Meeting of Measures." Paper presented at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, June, 1977. Frost, Peter J . and Barnowe, J . Thad. "Specialization Theory: Conver-gence on the Measurement of People's Orientation to Persons and to Things." Working Paper No. 638, University of Br it ish Columbia, 1978. Frost, Peter J . and Hayes, David C. "Having One's Cake and Eating It Too: Middle Range Content and Generalized Process as Ways of Understanding Organization. Working Paper No. 562, University of Br it ish Columbia, 1978. Frost, Peter J . and Hayes, David. "An Exploration in Two Cultures of Pol i t ica l Behavior in Organizations", in Anant Neghandi (ed.), Cross- Cultural Studies in Organizational Functioning. Kent State University Press: Kent, Ohio, 1979. Greeley, Andrew M. and McCready, William C. "Some Notes on the Sociological Study of Mysticism" in Tiryakian, Edward A. (Ed.), On The  Margin of the Vis ib le . John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1974. Harrison, Roger and Lubin, Bernard. "Personal Style, Group Composition and Learning." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 1, 1965, 286-301. Harrison, J.A. and Saare, P. "Personal Construct Theory in the Measure-ment of Environmental Images." Environment and Behavior, 3, 1971, 351-374. Hedburg, Bo, Hystrom, Paul, and Starbuck, William. "Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization." Administrative  Science Quarterly, March, 1976, 41-65. Hickson, D.J. , Pugh, D.S. and Pheysey, D.C. "Operations Technology and Organizational Structure: An Empirical Reappraisal." Administrative  Science Quarterly, 14, 1969, 378-397. Hinrichs, H.R. "Psychology of Men At Work." Annual Review of Psychology, 21, 1979, 519-554. Hudson, Ray. "Images of the Retailing Environment: An Example of the Use of Repertory Grid Methodology." Environment and Behavior, 6, 1974, 470-494. 86. Ingalls, John D. Human Energy: The Cr i t ica l Factor for Individuals and  Organizations. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass., 1976. Jacobi, Jolande. The Psychology of C.G. Jung. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 1973. Jelinek, Mariann. "Technology, Organizations and Contingency." The  Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, 1, January, 1977, 17-26. Johnson, Russell H. "Interactions Between Individual Predispositions, Environmental Factors, and Organization Design", in Ralph H. Kilmann, Louis R. Pondy and Dennis D. Slevin (Eds.), The Management of Organiza- Design, Vol. II. North-Holland Press: New York, 1976. 31-58. Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton: New York, 1955. Kelman, H.C. "Attitudes are Alive and Well and Gainfully Employed in the Sphere of Action." American Psychologist, 29, 1974, 310-324. Kilmann, Ralph H., Pondy, Louis, and Slevin, Dennis D. The Management  of Organization Design, Vol. I and II. North-Holland: New York, 1976. Krishnamurti, J . Freedom From the Known. Harper and Row: New York, 1969. Lawrence, Paul R. and Lorsch, Jay W. Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press: Boston, 1967. Leavitt, Harold. "Beyond the Analytic Manager." California Management Review, Spring, Vol. XVII, No. 3, 5-12, No. 4, 11-21, 1975. Levi-Strauss, Claude. Myth and Meaning. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 1978. L i t t l e , Brian. "Psychology as an Exercise in Paradox." Bulletin of the  Brit ish Psychological Society, 19, 6, 1966, 21-26. L i t t l e , Brian. "Person-Thing Orientation: A Provisional Manual of the T-P Scale." Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, 1972a. L i t t l e , Brian. "Psychological Man as Scientist , Humanist and Special ist ." Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 95-118, 1972b. i L i t t l e , Brian. "Specialization and the Varieties of Environmental Experience: Empirical Studies Within the Personality Paradigm", in Experiencing the Environment, Wapner, S., et. a l . (Eds.), Plenum Press: New York, 1976. Low, Albert. Zen and Creative Management. Anchor Press: New York, 1976. McKenney, James L. and Keen, Peter G. "How Managers' Minds Work." Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1974, 79-90. 87. Mains, Gordon. "Person-Thing Orientation as a Determinant of Leader Behavior within a Simplified Interactional Model of Leadership." Un-published Masters' Thesis, University of Br it ish Columbia, 1977. Meltzer, H. and Nord." Walter. "The Present Status of Industrial and Organizational Psychology." Personnel Psychology, 26, 11-30, 1973. Miles, Raymond and Snow, Charles C. Organizational Strategy Structure  and Process. McGraw-Hill Inc.: New York, 1978. Mintzberg, Henry. "Planning On the Left Side and Managing on the Right." Harvard Business Review, July-Aug., 1976, 49-58. Mitroff, Ian I. "Zen and the Art of Implementation: Speculation on a Hol ist ic Theory of Management." Paper presented at the University of Pittsburgh Conference on Implementation, Feb., 1976. Mitroff, Ian I . , Nelson, John, and Mason, Richard 0. "On Management Myth-Information Systems." Management Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, December, 1974, 371-382. Mitroff, Ian I. and Kilmann, Ralph H. "On Organizational Stories: An Approach to the Design and Analysis of Organizations Through Myths and Stories", in Kilmann, Ralph H., Louis R. Pondy and Dennis D. Slevin (Eds.), The Management of Organization Design, Vol. II. North-Holland Press: New York, 1976, 189-207. Morgan, Gareth and Smircich, Linda. "The Case for Qualitative Research in Organization Theory." Unpublished Manuscript, University of Lancaster, England, 1979. Ornstein, Robert. The Psychology of Consciousness. Viking Press: New York, 1972. Ornstein, Robert. The Mind Fie ld. Viking Press: New York, 1976. Peckham, Morse. Man's Rage for Chaos: Biology, Behavior and the Arts. Schocken Books: New York, 1967. Perrow, Charles. "A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organiza-tions." American Sociological Review,. 32, 1967, 194-208. Pondy, Louis. "Beyond Open System Models of Organizations." Paper pre-sented to the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Kansas City, Missouri, August, 1976. Pondy, Louis R. and Boje, David M. "Bringing Mind Back In: Paradigm Development as a Frontier Problem in Organization Theory." University of I l l i n o i s , Unpublished Working Paper, 1976. Progroff, Ira. Jung, Synchronic!'ty, and Human Density - Noncausal Dimensions of Human Experience. Julian Press, Inc.: New York, 1973. 88. Pugh, Derek, Hickson, D.J . , Hinings, C.R. et. a l . "A Conceptual Scheme for Organizational Analysis." Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 1963, 289-315. Pugh, Derek, Hickson, D.J . , Hinings, and Turner, C. "Dimensions of Organization Structure." Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1968, 65-106. Ritzer, George. "Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science." The American  Sociologist, Vol. 10, August, 1975, 156-167. Rosenberg, Karen D. and Lee, Robert G. "Person-Thing Orientation and Vis itor Involvement in Nature Walks at Yosemite." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, June, 1977, Vancouver. Sagan, Carl . The Dragons of Eden. Ballantine Books: New York, 1977. Sarbin, Theodore R. "Contextualism: A World View for Modern Psychology." Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1976, 1-36. Schon, Donald. Beyond the Stable State. W.W. Norton and Co.: New York, 197 . Schon, Donald.. Technology and Change. Delacorte Press: New York, 1967. Schuta, Alfred. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Northwestern University Press: Evanston, I l l i n o i s , 1967. Silverman, David S. The Theory of Organizations. Basic Books: New York, 1971. Simon, Herbert A. The Sciences of the A r t i f i c i a l . MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1969. Thompson, James. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1967. Vroom, J.H. "Industrial Social Psychology," in Lindzey G. and Aronson, E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd edit ion), Vol. 5, Chapter 39, 1969, 196-268. Weick, Karl. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass., 1969. Weick, Karl. "Enactment Processes in Organizations," in Staw, B.M. and Salancik, G.R. (Eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press: Chicago, 1977, 267-300. Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. and Karp, S.A. A Manual for the  Embedded Figures Test. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, C a l . , 1971. 89. Witkin, Herman A. and Cox, Patrician W. "Cognitive Styles: New Tool for Career Guidance?" Educational Testing Service, Vol. II, Number 3, 1975. Woodward, Joan. Industrial Organizations. Oxford Univ. Press: London, 1965. 90. APPENDIX A Person-Thing Scale (L i t t le) This section is concerned with how much you l ike to be in situations where you might do the things l i s ted . Use the following scale, and place the appropriate number in the space next to the sentence. Try, i f possible, to use the fu l l range of the scale from 1-5. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at a l l SIightly Moderately so Quite a lot Extremely so P 1. Join in and help out a disorganized children's game at a public park. T 2. Take upon yourself the building of a stereo set or a ham radio. P 3. Interview people for employment in a large hospital. T 4. Explore the ocean f loor in a one-man sub. T 5. Process computer cards in a large industrial centre. T 6. Breed rare forms of tropic f i sh . T 7. Climb a mountain on your own. T 8. Stop to watch a piece of machinery at work on the street. P 9. Listen in on a conversation between two people in a crowd. T 10. Become proficient in the art of glass-blowing. P 11. Interview people for a newspaper column. T 12. Remove the back of a mechanical' toy to see how i t worked. P 13. Strike up a conversation with a beggar on a street corner. T 14. Attempt to f ix your own watch, toaster,etc. T 15. Observe the path of a comet through a telescope. P 16. Listen with empathic interest to an old-timer who s i ts next to you on a bus. P 17. Note the idiosyncracies of people about you. P 18. Make f i r s t attempts to get to know a new neighbour. P 19. Attend an address given by a person whose character you admire, without being aware of the topic of the address. P 20. Attempt to comfort a total stranger who has just met with tragedy. T 21. Go sky-diving. P 22. Gain a reputation for giving good advice for personal problems. T 23. Make a hobby of photographing nature scences and developing and printing the pictures yourself. " P 24. Help a group of children plan a Halloween (or Guy Fawkes) party. P = Score for Person Orientation T = Score for Thing Orientation 91. APPENDIX A Person-Thing Scale (Frost/Barnowe) This section is concerned with your interests. A number of job t i t l e s , ac t i v i t i es , and amusements are 1isted below. For each, show how you would feel about doing that kind of work, or taking part in that act iv i ty or way of having fun. Indicate the extent to which you would LIKE or DISLIKE each kind of work, act iv i ty or amusement by placing the appropriate number in the space next to the item. For jobs, don't worry about whether you would be good at the job or about not being trained for i t . Forget about how much money you could make or whether you could get ahead. Think only about whether you would l ike to do the work done on that job. For act iv i t ies and amusements, give the f i r s t answer that comes to mind. Do not think'over various poss ib i l i t ies Think only about whether you would l ike to do what is stated. Work fast and answer every one. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Indifferent Somewhat Strongly Dislike Dislike Like Like JOB OCCUPATIONS T 1. Astronomer P 2. Church worker T 3. C iv i l engineer T 4. Computer operator P 5. Elementary School teacher T 6. Mechanical engineer P 7. Receptionist P 8. Social worker T 9. Stat ist ic ian P 10. YMCA/YMWCA staff member ACTIVITIES T 11. Operating machinery T 12. Adjusting a carburetor P 13. Interviewing job applicants P 14. Meeting and directing people T 15. Making stat is t ica l charts T 16. Operating off ice machines P - 17. Interviewing prospects in sel l ing T 18. Organizing cabinets and closets P 19. Starting a conversation with a stranger P 20. Interviewing cl ients AMUSEMENTS T 21. Solving mechanical puzzles P 22. Being active in a church young people's group T 23. Building a radio or stereo set P 24. Entertaining others. 92. APPENDIX B YOUR NUMBER There are probably as many ways to think about ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of prof i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the ideal organization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the community; some people think in terms o f business organiza-tions, education or voluntary organization, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without con-straining your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe i t? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lust rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your  ideal organization. You have 15 minutes for this project. 93. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF GENERALIST There are probably as many ways to think about ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organization in terms of prof i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the commun-i ty ; some people think in terms of business organizations, education or voluntary organization, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe it? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lus t rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization. You have 15 minutes for this project. - dynamic - successful in human relations and monetary ventures - allow people to develop their latent talent - constantly growing - catering to the needs of the people i t serves and the people that serve - committed to problems of not just the community of i ts surroundings but on nations and global matters. It should be involved in things l ike pol lut ion, conservation, unemployment, equal opportunity, human rights. - organizations, e.g. those on a global scale, to bridge the gap between nations and those of different ethnic backgrounds. They have the means to implement such, e.g. transfer scholarships, personnel exchange. The time has come for organizations to think more on a global scale due to identical and interrelated problems that different nations face. - constantly changing to the times and also to influence future changes for a more positive environment. Need to have constant change so as to have new ideas, inventions and exchanges between people. Subject # 35 94. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF PERSON SPECIALIST There are probably as many ways to think about 'ideal' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organization in terms of prof i t a b i l i t y or efficiency; some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of its success in new ventures or its role in the commun-ity; some people think in terms of business organizations, education or voluntary organization, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most like to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can reflect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe it? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, illustrations, or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization. You have 15 minutes for this project. - there are different structures for each type (i.e. business, educational, voluntary) according to their situations. It is d i f f i c u l t to pick one way of seeing an ideal organization. I believe that every organization should be people-concerned because its basis is people. An organization should be lead by a number of people with various but compatible backgrounds. An organization should try to remain relatively small or break into coop groups. Large organization tends to loose its human interest. Each person (employee or executive) should be as important to the organization as any other person. Lines of Communication Subject # 23 95. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF PERSON SPECIALIST There are probably as many ways to think about ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organization in terms of prof i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the commun-i ty ; some people think in terms of business organizations, education or voluntary organization, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the'ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, t h a t ' i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe i t? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lust rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization. • You have 15 minutes for this project. My ideal organization should consist of participation and communication at a l l levels of management at an even standard. By this I mean par t i c i -pation should be equal by a l l members. Also communication should not only flow up or down or vice versa but also sideways. With this c r i te r ia of a social norm in a setting, a l l tasks can be solved in achieving the organization's need and goal. Personal esteem within the group wi l l be enriched. Better input and responsibi l ity wil l be taken by individuals in meeting this new social norm of co-operation. In most organizations of today two major obstacles to overcome are relationship between management-labour and the poor communication system being used. By achieving to override the two obstacles I think an ideal organization wil l emerge. Subject # 46 96. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF THING SPECIALIST There are probably as many ways to think about . ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organization in terms of pro f i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the commun-i ty ; some people think in terms of business organizations, education or voluntary organizations, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe i t? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lust rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization. You have 15 minutes for this project. The organization I would most l ike to be a member in and be actively involved in would be a product research and development organization. The organization would develop and market new products in any area from solar energy to new innovative construction products and construction methods. The financial success would be important only to the point where one makes an adequate l iv ing and is able to afford the occasional t r ip abroad, etc. I would l ike to be both a manager and a developer in this organization so that I could see the development of things from ideas to actual working products on the market. Subject # 21 97. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF THING SPECIALIST There are probably as many ways to think about ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the : ideal organization in terms of prof i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the ideal organ-ization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the commun-i ty ; some people think in terms, of business organizations, education or voluntary organizations, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe i t? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lus t rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization. You have 15 minutes for this project. The ideal organization, I would most l ike to be a member of would be my own private computer services company. The organization would be com-prised of two or three highly sk i l led partners, each of which would hold a one-third interest in the company. Support staff would be managed by an appointed supervisor not necessarily by one of the partners. The role of the partners would be to sel l and service cl ients in the small to mid-sized company range. New technological advances and software releases would be evaluated and offered to our cl ients as their business requirements grew and/or changed. A form of prof it and loss sharing would be offered to the staff as well as stock option purchases and com-petit ive rates of pay. Control of the organization would rest with those stock holders based on % of shares owned. Subject* 57 98. APPENDIX C SAMPLE OF IDEAL IMAGE OF SELF(NON)SPECIALIST There are probably as many ways to think about ' ideal ' organizations as there are people working in them. Some people see the ideal organization in terms of prof i tab i l i ty or eff ic iency; some people see the'ideal organ-ization in terms of i ts success in new ventures or i ts role in the commun-i ty ; sime people think in terms of business organizations, education or voluntary organizations, etc. We're interested in your mental picture of the ideal organization - that i s , the organization you'd most l ike to be a member of. Without constrain-ing your image of the ideal organization in any way, that i s , i t can ref lect any setting, business, voluntary, education, whatever, how would you describe i t? Write a short story below to describe your mental picture of your ideal organization. Use words, i l lus t rat ions , or whatever form you feel comfortable with to express your image of your ideal organization You have 15 minutes for this project. My idea'of an organization is something where I spend a great deal of time. I enjoy the people I work with, I l ike the surroundings and believe in what the organization contributes to the public or otherwise. I would l ike the organization to be successful. I would l ike to feel a part of i t and feel I am making good contributions towards my own personal goals and the company's goals. A casual but ef f ic ient place. I do not want to take my job home with me. Subject # 12 99. APPENDIX D These stories represent how different people describe their mental pic-ture or image of their ideal organization - the organization they would most l ike to be a member of. Please sort these stories on the basis of how much emphasis the writer places on reference to People - that i s , the degree to which the writer exemplifies the characteristics of a "PERSON SPECIALIST" as defined below - and on the basis of how much emphasis the writer places on reference to Things - that i s , the degree to which the writer exemplifies the character-is t ics of a THING SPECIALIST as defined below. The grid indicates the two scales: one for PERSON SPECIALISTS from 0 - 10; and one for THING SPHCIALISTS from 0 - 10. Please indicate on both scales how you would rate the content of each story with respect to emphasis on People and with respect to emphasis on Things. A score of 0 indicates very low or v i r tual ly no emphasis while a score of 10 on either scale represents very high or strong emphasis. Try to use the complete range of the scales from 0 - 1 0 for both People and Things. NOTE: the. story content can be: . i) HIGH ON BOTH scales, that i s , indicate a strong emphasis on both People (PERSON SPECIALIST characteristics) and Things (THING SPECIALIST characterist ics); i i ) LOW ON BOTH scales, that is indicate l i t t l e emphasis on either People or Things; i i i ) HIGH ON PEOPLE and LOW ON THINGS; or, iv) HIGH ON THINGS and LOW ON PEOPLE. To guide you in determining what is meant by emphasis on People and emphasis on Things, use the following description of PERSON SPECIALIST characteristics and THING SPECIALIST characterist ics. A PERSON SPECIALIST is one who expresses marked interest in a wide variety of encounters with people and l i t t l e interest in the world of physical objects. S/he has a high disposition for act iv i t ies involving opportunities for face to face encounters, for increasing understanding of others and~self, and for showing concern or giving support to others. S/he tends to focus upon emotional aspects of other people and to make statements about people in terms of their dispositions, t r a i t s , emotions or states of mind. S/he often is not analytical ly oriented but prefers to operate with an overall "sense of the situation". In organizational terms this means that the Person Special ist would be l ike ly to describe an organization in terms of what opportunities that organization offered for meeting the psychological or emotional needs of the individuals. S/he is l ess . l i ke ly to describe specif ic details of tasks or work roles but to place greater emphasis on describing a setting that is conducive to social interaction and f l e x i b i l i t y . F lexi-b i l i t y is valued because the Person Special ist acknowledges the unique individual ity of people. For this reason, too, to allow for people's '"sel f-actual iz ing" tendencies (growth and development), l i t t l e emphasis wil l be placed on measures which control, constrain, confine, or other-wise delimit or restr ic t the social/personal development of the indi-viduals. Nonpersonal aspects of organizational structure of physical objects, f a c i l i t i e s , materials, e tc . , may be mentioned but in terms of their relevance to the individuals. 100. A THING SPECIALIST is one who expresses interest in a wide range of encounters with physical objects, machines, a r t i -facts, things. S/he has a high disposition for act iv i t ies involving opportunities for operating machines, engines, computers, for mechanizing things, and for gathering facts and analyzing details or data. Because s/he has a high preference for order, c l a r i t y , and pride in his/her pract ica l i ty , there is often focus on external considerations and concrete facts (that i s , things that can be objectively assessed) rather than on emotional or personal considerations. S/he generally tends to be adept at extracting and analyzing discrete, c r i t i ca l elements from the whole situation and considering them apart from the whole situation. In organizational terms this means that the Thing Specialist would be l ike ly to describe an organization in terms of what measures that organ-ization took to structure the tasks, define the goals objectively, and order the people so as to effect pract ica l , e f f ic ient goal-attainment. S/he would l ike ly emphasize details of specif ic tasks, definitions of work roles or positions, and details of the authority/responsibility structure. S/he wil l place emphasis on the value of accurate, complete information. L i t t l e wil l be le f t to chance. Control and predicta-b i l i t y are valued. Emphasis on the emotional or psychological needs of individuals wil l be non-existent or minimal. Instead, people wil l be addressed in terms of work roles or positions, objects to serve the functioning of the organization. S/he wil l l ike ly emphasize aspects of the external or physical environment of the organization, for example, the type of f a c i l i t y , size and/or technical aspects of the structure, specifications of the equipment, materials, or machines or aspects of physical comfort. PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON THE STORIES NOTE YOUR RANKINGS FOR BOTH SCALES FROM 0 - 10 ON THE SHEET PROVIDED OPPOSITE THE APPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. ************ THANK YOU ************ THANK YOU ************ THANK YOU **** 10 9 8 7 1— oo 1—1 6 _ l 1—1 5 PERSON SPEC 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TO THING SPECIALIST APPENDIX E Person Scale CO (~\ —^  1—1 •- C\J CO L O 1 3 6 0 3 5 4 . 3 2 7 7 10 9 8 8 . 0 3 6 5 1 5 5 5 .3 4 5 5 5 5 7 5.0 5 8 6 7 10 8 7 .3 6 3 4 2 2 3 2 .7 7 9 4 - 7 7 7 .7 8 9 5 4 5 4 4 . 5 9 1 2 0 2 0 1.3 10 10 1 2 8 8 9 . 0 11 10 3 8 8 9 8 . 6 12 8 8 4 5 4 5 .8 13 7 3 5 5 7 6 14 9 4 2 5 8 6 . 5 15 - - - - - -16 7 4 1 3 8 5.5 17 10 7 9 3 10 9 18 9 9 6 2 9 8 . 3 19 9 8 2 6 10 5 .6 20 2 1 1 2 1 1.4 21 2 3 0 0 1 .8 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6 9 8 6 10 7 . 3 24 8 8 3 4 4 4 . 8 25 4 5 2 2 2 2 . 5 26 3 2 1 3 4 2 .7 27 10 9 10 5 10 9 . 8 28 8 6 7 6 10 6 . 8 29 8 7 6 2 6 6 .8 30 4 2 2 2 8 2 .5 31 10 10 9 5 8 9 . 3 32 3 2 4 1 2 2 .0 33 7 8 5 3 8 7 .0 34 8 3 6 6 7 6 . 8 35 10 7 9 7 9 8 36 3 1 1 2 3 2 37 9 8 6 8 9 8 .5 38 10 10 8 10 10 9 .9 O) Q " O ' . ^ - CM CO L O 39 9 9 9 9 10 9 40 4 2 2 2 5 2 .5 41 10 10 10 8 10 9 .9 42 1 0 0 0 1 .4 43 2 2 0 1 6 1.3 44 3 3 1 1 9 2 45 8 7 6 6 9 6 . 8 46 8 5 1 4 10 6 .8 47 10 10 5 3 10 8 . 8 48 10 9 6 3 8 8 . 3 49 7 7 7 5 9 7 50 5 8 8 4 9 7 .5 51 6 8 7 3 9 7 .5 52 6 6 1 2 4 3 .3 53 1 2 2 1 5 1.5 54 4 5 3 1 4 4 55 6 7 5 5 6 5 .8 56 5 7 2 3 5 3 .8 57 1 0 0 0 1 .4 58 8 8 - 7 8 7 .8 59 8 7 1 8 9 8 60 6 5 1 7 5 5.8 61 5 2 0 2 5 3 .5 62 3 8 1 1 4 2 .3 63 10 9 7 1 4 7 .5 64 10 7 8 6 9 7 . 5 65 5 8 2 4 10 6 . 8 66 8 6 4 0 9 6 .8 67 10 9 7 7 10 8 . 6 68 10 8 8 5 10 9 69 6 6 0 2 4 3 70 2 0 1 3 4 1.5 71 10 8 5 5 5 5 .8 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 2 0 74 5 9 1 3 6 3 .8 75 7 7 2 2 6 4 . 3 76 5 4 0 2 6 4 . 3 CD O") T3 Q •- CM CO 1 9 0 9 7 2 3 2 0 3 3 8 6 10 8 4 5 9 5 5 5 7 8 3 8 6 9 10 8 9 7 3 4 - 7 8 4 5 5 7 9 10 8 8 6 10 6 10 7 6 11 3 8 0 4 12 6 3 3 5 13 8 7 4 6 14 6 8 8 8 15 - - - -16 10 9 7 7 17 3 2 0 6 18 3 2 0 5 19 3 3 7 5 20 10 10 6 7 21 9 5 5 8 22 10 10 8 9 23 5 2 0 2 24 6 5 3 4 25 8 5 5 4 26- 10 10 7 8 27 2 3 0 5 28 4 4 1 4 29 4 5 0 7 30 8 7 0 6 31 3 3 1 5 32 10 10 2 8 33 5 2 3 7 34 6 7 3 4 35 8 5 6 6. 36 8 8 1 7 37 5 3 2 5 38 1 0 0 0 APPENDIX E  Thing Scale CU =«= CD • a Q •"0 Ln •-2 8.3 39 2 3 2.8 40 10 8 7.5 41 3 5 5 42 10 6 7.3 43 10 10 9.5 44 8 4 3.5 45 1 3 4.3 46 6 10 9 47 3 8 6.8 48 6 6 3.3 49 5 4 3.8 50 5 5 6 51 6 8 8 52 4 - - 53 10 6 7.7 54 7 1 1.5 55 5 1 1.5 56 6 1 3 57 10 10 9.3 58 5 10 8 .59 5 10 9.8 60 8 0 1 61 10 4 4 62 10 7 5.3 63 3' 9 9.3 64 2 1 1.5 65 8 3 3.8 66 5 10 6.5 67 0 4 6.3 68 3 5 4 69 4 10 9.5 70 6 9 7 71 0 7 6 72 10 9 6.3 73 10 8 7.8 74 9 7 5 75 5 0 0 76 5 CM ro 2 1 2 2 2 10 7 7 9 8.6 1 0 1 3 2 9 10 9 10 9.6 10 10 9 9 9.6 8 7 6 2 7.3 0 0 1 6 .5 5 4 5 2 5 0 0 2 0 .5 1 2 6 8 6.7 2 1 6 7 6 1 1 7 8 6.7 1 2 7 5 6 6 6 7 9 7 9 2 8 • 4 9 6 4 7 6 6.5 4 6 7 7 6.3 4 3 8 5 4.5 10 9 10 10 9.9 3 - 2 5 3.8 4 5 6 5 5 7 4 7 9 7.8 8 8 9 9 8.8 2 6 6 5 4.7 1 2 9 5 2.8 2 1 5 3 2 7 9 8 8 8 4 5 9 5 4 0 3 5 6 2 1 1 7 6 2.8 2 7 7 4 5.5 5 8 7 9 7.5 0 0 5 3 .8 10 10 10 10 9.9 8 9 9 9 9.3 0 6 5 7 6.8 2 7 7 6 6.3 5 8 7 4 5.3 103. APPENDIX F We're interested in how you perceive organizational activit ies with respect to involvement with people and with things. For the following l i s t of activit ies which are common to most organizations, please indicate on the scales provided the degree to which you think that the activity rates with respect to: 1. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: This means that the activity is essentially associated with people, with relationships among/between people and that the social atmosphere or results of people's interactions is used as a resource input or information source for the organization; 2. THING INVOLVEMENT: This means that the activity is essentially associated with numerical data or factual data, its communication or analysis, or with physical objects and fac i l i t ie s and that the facts and figures from things unrelated to people are used as a resource input or information source for the organization. USE BOTH SCALES FOR ALL ACTIVITIES - Any activity may be high on both scales, low on both, or opposite. Rate each activity on both 5-point scales as follows: i f you think that act ivity 's involvement with people is extremely high, rate i t 5; quite a lot, rate i t 4; moderate, rate i t 3; slight, rate i t 2, not at a l l , rate i t 1. If you think that activity 's involvement with things is extremely high, rate i t 5; quite a lot, rate i t 4; moderate, rate i t 3; slight, rate i t 2; not at a l l , rate i t 1. ******************** 1. Personnel act iv i t ies, such as hiring, instructing in duties or training, to ensure the continued avai labi l ity of people and their qualities to the organization. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 2. Financial act iv i t ies, such as stock issues, budgeting or statement preparation, to ensure the continuation of capital resources for the organization. THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 3. Servicing act iv i t ies, such as repair and maintenance activit ies or supply requisi-tioning, to ensure continued availabi l ity and operation of materials, equipment and fac i l i t i e s . PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at a l l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 4. Evaluation activit ies such as reviewing, appraising and rating performers, perfor-mance and results or giving/receiving feedback according to standards established. THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 5. Motivation activit ies such as giving or withholding rewards - either tangible rewards (e.g., merit increases) or intangible rewards (e.g., praise) - to influence the behaviour of people in the organization in the direction desired by the organization. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Administrative activit ies such as the collection, compilation and recording of information or the dissemination of recorded information for planning and scheduling purposes. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 104. APPENDIX F 7. Resource acquisition activit ies such as land purchases for expansion of f ac i l i t i e s , locating resources or renewing resources through recycling to ensure the continued accessibility of required natural resources to the organization. THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 8. Distribution activit ies to consumers such as sel l ing, shipping, or deliverying the product/service for which the organization is responsible. THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 9. Production activit ies which create the organization's product/service. These activit ies form the core of the work flow tasks or things to be done by the organ-ization to transform raw materials into finished product/service. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at a l l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extrem THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 10. Communication activit ies which depend upon social interaction (formal or informal), such as meetings, appointments, telephone or personal contacts, to clarify objectives and plans, develop relationships, or exchange information on resources and expec-tations to contribute to the co-ordination of the organization as a whole. THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at al l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 11. Leadership activit ies which provide vision or imagination as to the developments in the organization or its environment and the init iat ive for launching development and growth for effective adaptation or change. PEOPLE INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at a l l Slight Moderate Quite a lot Extreme THING INVOLVEMENT: 1 2 3 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THANK YOU! Please f i l l in the following to help us ut i l ize your response. Male Female Number of Years Work Experience Number of years in Supervisory/Managerial Position Presently employed in Supervisory/Managerial Position? Yes No 105. APPENDIX G ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIVITY X SCORE PERSON INVOLVEMENT X SCORE THING INVOLVEMENT DIFFERENCE PERSONNEL 4 42 2 33 2 .09 FINANCIAL 3 0 4 33 1 .33 SERVICING 3 16 4 08 .92 EVALUATION 4 58 2 75 1 .83 MOTIVATION 4 42 2 50 1 .92 ADMINISTRATIVE 3 41 4 00 .59 RESOURCE ALLOCATION 3 25 3 92 .68 DISTRIBUTION 3 50 3 .92 .42 PRODUCTION 4 08 4 33 .25 COMMUNICATION 4 58 2 83 1 .75 LEADERSHIP 4 83 2 43 2 .40 Original l i s t of 11 organizational act iv i t ies taken from Bakke's typology and prejudged by 12 independent judges for extent of person involvement and thing involvement. 106. APPENDIX H Most organizations have certain core activities in common. Some of these are listed on the next page. However, different organizations allot vary-ing degrees of time or emphasis to these activities. If you had the opportunity to distribute time among these activities according to the way you would like i t to be emphasized in your ideal of  a business organization, how would you distribute it? Think in terms of 100 days in the lif e of your ideal business organization and think of how you would like the time to be distributed across the core activities. PLEASE PROCEED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Prioritize the activities listed, from 1-8, that i s , rank order the eight activities in the order your ideal of a business organization  will emphasize them. Rank as #1, the activity that will be most  emphasized; rank as #8, the activity that will be least emphasized in your ideal of a business organization. 2. Indicate the amount of time (from the 100 days total) that will be allocated to each activity in your ideal of a business organization. Please be sure to use every activity in your rank ordering and to note every activity with respect to time allocation - even i f you allocate  0 days to one or more activities. EXAMPLE: Suppose the activities listed were Evaluation, Production, and Distribution (NOTE: that these are NOT included in the l i s t on the- next page; they are included here for illustra-tion only). If you' were to allocate the 100 days among these activities, you might decide that the allocation of time in your ideal of a business organization would be: Evaluation - 20 Days Production - 50 Days Distribution - 30 Days Please turn the page for the l i s t of organizational acitivities. Allocate time to these 8 activities as you would like i t to be emphasized in your ideal of a business organization. *************************************** When you have completed the exercise on the next page, please f i l l in the following to help us utilize your responses better: Male Female Age Number years work experience Number years managerial/supervisory experience Presently employed in management/supervisory position? Yes No Title of Position Type of business/industry you are presently employed in If you wish to receive individual feedback from this study, please give your name and mailing address here: 107. APPENDIX H. LIST OF CORE ACTIVITIES COMMON TO MOST ORGANIZATIONS 1. PERSONNEL act iv i t ies, such as hiring, instructing in duties or training, to ensure the continued avai labi l ity of people and their qualities to the organization. 2. FINANCIAL act iv i t ies, such as stock issues, budgeting or statement pre-paration, to ensure the continuation of capital resources for the organiza-tion. 3. MOTIVATION activit ies such as giving or withholding rewards - either tangible rewards (e.g., merit increases) or intangible rewards (e.g., praise) - to influence the behaviour of people in the organization in the direction desired by the organization. 4. SERVICING act iv i t ies, such as repair and maintenance activit ies or supply requisitioning, to ensure continued avai labi l ity and operation of materials, equipment and fac i l i t ie s . 5. LEADERSHIP activit ies which provide vision or imagination as the develop-ments in the organization or its environment and the init iat ive for launching development and growth for effective adaptation or change. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE activit ies such as the collection, compilation and record-ing of information or the dissemination of recorded information for planning and scheduling purposes. 7. COMMUNICATION activit ies which depend upon social interaction (formal or informal), such as meetings, appointments, telephone or personal contacts, to clarify objectives and plans, develop relationships, or exchange information on resources and expectations to contribute to the coordination of the organization as a whole. 8. RESOURCE ACQUISITION activit ies such as land purchases for expansion of f ac i l i t i e s , locating resources or renewing resources through recycling to ensure the continued accessibility of required natural resources to the organization. RANK ORDER ACTIVITY THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TIME DIS-(#1 - Most TRIBUTED IN YOUR IDEAL OF A BUS-emphasized) INESS ORGANIZATION - 100 DAYS TOTAL PERSONNEL DAYS FINANCIAL D A Y S MOTIVATION D A Y S SERVICING D A Y S LEADERSHIP : • D A Y S ADMINISTRATIVE D A Y S COMMUNICATION D A Y S RESOURCE ACQUISITION . D A Y S After rank ordering the act iv i t ies, take your two top ranked activit ies (your #1 and #2) and allocate time to thse two (out of 100 days total). Indicate how many days in the space provided opposite each activity. Next, take your two bottom ranked activit ies (your #7 and #8) and allocate time to these two. Indicate how many days in the space provided. Now that you have allocated time to these 4 (top two, bottom two) act iv i t ies, allocate time over the  middle four activit ies from the time you have remaining. Indicate how many days in the space provided opposite each activity. You're finished...Thank you...Please be sure that the time allocation you have indicated across the core activit ies truly represents how you would like these  activit ies emphasized in your ideal of a business organization. ****************************** APPENDIX I Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Person Content and Thi Content of organizational images for the whole sample and each special ist group. Whole Sample - r = -.71 (.001) Generalists - r = -.67 (.003) Person Spec. - r = -.74 (.002) Thing Spec. - r = -.69 (.001) Self-Spec. - r = -.75 (.001) 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094797/manifest

Comment

Related Items