Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation into the choice of control behaviors within organizations Haridas, Thenkurussi P. 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_1979_A1 H38.pdf [ 9.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094804.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094804-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094804-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094804-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094804-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094804-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094804-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094804-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094804.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHOICE OF CONTROL BEHAVIORS WITHIN  ORGANIZATIONS  by THENKURUSSI  P. HARIDAS  B.Com., U n i v e r s i t y o f M a d r a s , I n d i a , 1967 Graduate Cost Accountant, I n s t i t u t e o f C o s t & Works A c c o u n t a n t s I n d i a , 1971  o f India,  P o s t G r a d u a t e D i p l o m a i n Management, I n d i a n I n s t i t u t e o f Management, C a l c u t t a , I n d i a , 1972 M.Sc.(Commerce), U n i v e r s i t y 1976  of British  Columbia,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE'REQUIREMENTS  FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (FACULTY OF COMMERCE AMD BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION) We a c c e p t to  THE  this thesis  the required  as c o n f o r m i n g  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  September, 1979 (c)  Thenkurussi  P. H a r i d a s , 1979  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree the L i b r a r y  for  that  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It  i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n  of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l written permission.  Department o f _ !  .—J  —  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  E-6  BP 75-51 I E  not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  Abstract  The  o b j e c t i v e o f the present  the  effects of organizational  the  d e c i s i o n problems,  controller  s t u d y was t o examine  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , nature o f  and t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e  on t h e c h o i c e  of control strategies  within  organizations.  A  review o f the l i t e r a t u r e  c o n d u c t e d as a f i r s t research  step.  on c o n t r o l s y s t e m s was  The r e v i e w i n d i c a t e d  on c o n t r o l s y s t e m s u n t i l now i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y  g l o b a l n o r m a t i v e m o d e l s and t h e o r i e s i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s as p r e d i c t o r s systems w i t h i n researcher's  organizations.  inclinations,  organizational  structure,  determinants o f optimal  several  One during  on s i n g l e  o f appropriate  control  various  constructs  technology,  s u c h as  e n v i r o n m e n t and  i n t h e p a s t as  c o n t r o l systems w i t h i n  organiza-  An a t t e m p t was made h e r e t o f o r m u l a t e a m o d e l  which considers the  focusing  D e p e n d i n g upon t h e s p e c i f i c  member n e e d s h a v e b e e n s u g g e s t e d  tions .  that  a l l t h e above v a r i a b l e s and i n t e g r a t e s  (and o f t e n  c o n f l i c t i n g ) past  findings.  m a j o r segment o f t h e a b o v e m o d e l was  the present  study.  b e h a v i o r s were c l a s s i f i e d  For this  purpose  i n t o two m a j o r  tested  control  categories:  behaviors the  that i n f l u e n c e the ' i n t r i n s i c -  subordinates  and B e h a v i o r s  motivation of  that i n f l u e n c e the  'extrinsic'' motivation of the subordinates. hypotheses  were f o r m u l a t e d .  suggested  hypothesis  t h a t members o f ' o r g a n i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e  more l i k e l y behaviors tions.  The f i r s t  to use ' i n t r i n s i c a l l y '  than  motivating  organiza-  C o n v e r s e l y , members o f ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s to use ' e x t r i n s i c a l l y '  c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n organizations. controller's  The s e c o n d h y p o t h e s i s  t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity  choice of control behaviors. suggested  to i n i t i a t e  control behaviors ambiguity.  than  The t h i r d  d u a l s a r e more l i k e l y control  unimportant important  those  i n 'organic'  r e l a t e d the  with h i s or her  Specifically,  'intrinsically'  i t was ambiguity  motivating  those w i t h low t o l e r a n c e o f hypothesis t o choose  suggested  that  'intrinsically'  s t r a t e g i e s when t h e y  indivimotiva-  a r e f a c e d w i t h an  d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m t h a n when f a c e d w i t h an  d e c i s i o n problem.  individuals  motivating  motivating  that individuals with high tolerance of  a r e more l i k e l y  that  control  t h o s e who work i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c '  were h y p o t h e s i z e d  ting  Four major  Conversely,  a r e more l i k e l y  to use  i t was  'extrinsically'  c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s when f a c e d w i t h an  d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m t h a n when d e c i s i o n problem.  The f i n a l  faced with hypothesis  suggested  an  important  unimportant  attempted to  iv  examine the comhi.ned e f f e c t s of,  three independent  v a r i a b l e s ; i t was, suggested  that i n d i v i d u a l s who have  h i g h t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity  working i n ' o r g a n i c  1  firms  and making unimportant d e c i s i o n s are most l i k e l y to use ' i n t r i n s i c a l l y ' m o t i v a t i n g c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s and l e a s t l i k e l y to use ' e x t r i n s i c a l l y ' Conversely,  motivating  strategies.  persons w i t h low t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity  working i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' f i r m s and making  important  :  d e c i s i o n s were hypothesized 'extrinsically' of  to make maximum use o f  m o t i v a t i n g s t r a t e g i e s and  'intrinsically'  motivating  minimal use  strategies.  A l a b o r a t o r y experiment (n = 172) was conducted to  t e s t the v a r i o u s hypotheses.  The f i r s t and t h i r d  hypotheses were s u s t a i n e d ; the f o u r t h hypothesis r e c e i v e d moderate support was  a t best p a r t i a l l y  and the second  supported.  methodology used i n the study, present  hypothesis  The r e s e a r c h  the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the  f i n d i n g s and d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h  i n the area o f c h o i c e o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s a r e discussed.  V  TABLE OF  CONTENTS  Page Table of contents vii  List  of Tables  List  of Figures  List  o f Appendices  ix x  Acknowledgements  CHAPTER  I:  xi  INTRODUCTION Classification systems  1 of control  Dysfunctional effects of c o n t r o l systems CHAPTER  II:  AN OVERVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH ON ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS The  CHAPTER  III:  s t r u c t u r a l views  H 22  33 33  The e n v i r o n m e n t a l a p p r o a c h to c o n t r o l  42  The  47  technologists  The p e r s o h a l i s t i c v i e w s on control  53  A s u g g e s t e d i n t e g r a t i n g model o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l systems  56  PRESENT RESEARCH PROPOSAL AND  62  METHODOLOGY Dependent  variable  i n the study  Independent v a r i a b l e s  64 66  vi.  Page  Hypotheses study  i n the present  76  Method o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n  79  Measure o f dependent  82  Measures o f independent variables  88  Research design  92  The p i l o t  95  The  CHAPTER  IV:  variable  study  experiment  FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION R e s u l t s o f supplementary analyses  CHAPTER  V:  CONCLUSION  Summary  Bibliography Appendices  103 132  145  Implications Limitations study  100  155 o f the present  165  169  vii  List  Table  o f Tables  No.  II.1  Page The r e l a t i o n s h i p between e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b i l i t y and r e s p o n s e g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y o f c o n t r o l systems.  46  III. l  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among r a t i n g s on three dimensions o f d e c i s i o n problems by a p a n e l o f 32 p e r s o n s .  94  IV.1  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among r a t i n g s on three dimensions o f d e c i s i o n problems by 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  105  IV.2  Results of multivariate analysis of v a r i a n c e on e x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  107  IV.3  Results of analysis of variance of s c o r e s r e c e i v e d by 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study.  IV.4  A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s r e c e i v e d by 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  H I  IV.5  A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s r e c e i v e d by 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  112  IV.6  Results o f T-tests o f e x t r i n s i c scores o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e s t u d y .  114  IV. 7  R e s u l t s o f a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  116  IV.8  Results o f T-tests o f i n t r i n s i c scores o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e s t u d y .  118  IV.9  R e s u l t s o f a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s .  119  IV.10  R e s u l t s o f mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f low and h i g h t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity groups.  121  '  109  viii T a b l e 'No,  Page  IV.11  T - t e s t s o f mean d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f low and high, t o l e r a n c e o f amBiguity persons working i n d i f f e r e n t organizations.  123  IV.12  R e s u l t s o f a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on t h e i n t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f 172 participants.  125  IV.13  T - t e s t s o f mean i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s r e c e i v e d By 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s on two t y p e s o f d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s .  127  IV.14  Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the p r e s e n t study.  130  IV.15  Degree o f r o l e i d e n t i t y f e l t p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study.  133  IV.16  R e s p o n s e s o f 96 p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h e q u e s t i o n 'how d i d y o u f i n d t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of North Star A i r l i n e ? '  136  IV.17  R e s p o n s e s f r o m 120 p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h e question ' t o what e x t e n t d i d you l i k e t h e m a n a g e r i a l s t y l e s and p r a c t i c e s at North Star?'  139  IV.18  Results of a n a l y s i s of variance of scores r e c e i v e d By 52 p a r t i c i p a n t s who n e i t h e r l i k e d nor d i s l i k e d the s i m u l a t e d organizations.  140  IV.19  Results of analysis of variance of s c o r e s r e c e i v e d By 53 p a r t i c i p a n t s l i k e d the s i m u l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  141  IV.20  Summary o f p r e s e n t  findings.  By  the  who  143  IX  List  of Figures  F i g u r e No.  Page  1.1  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o n t r o l systems p r o d u c i n g h i g h e x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c motivation.  20  1.2  S i m p l i f i e d Merton Model o f c o n t r o l w h i c h l e a d s t o b u r e a u c r a t i c and d y s f u n c t i o n a l member b e h a v i o r .  26  A p r o p o s e d model control.  59  II.1  of organizational  111.1  Factors i n f l u e n c i n g choice of c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t .  63  111.2  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mechanistic organic organizations.  68  and  X  List  of  Appendices  A p p e n d i x No.  Page  1-A  I n s t r u c t i o n s to the panel of judges (n = 16) f o r r a t i n g t h e b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s on i n t r i n s i c motivation dimension.  184  1-B  I n s t r u c t i o n s to the p a n e l of judges (n = 16) f o r r a t i n g t h e b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s on e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n dimension.  187  2  L i s t o f 18 d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s g i v e n t o p a r t i c i p a n t s d u r i n g the s i m u l a t i o n .  190  3  Questionnaire participants' organization.  used f o r measuring p e r c e p t i o n s about the  212  4-A  'Mechanistic' organization.  d e s c r i p t i o n of  214  4-B  'Organic' d e s c r i p t i o n of organizat ion.  5  Items i n Budner S c a l e f o r m e a s u r i n g Intolerance of Ambiguity.  222  6  Measure o f r o l e i d e n t i t y d u r i n g simulation.  225  7-A  Questionnaire used f o r measuring p e r c e i v e d d e c i s i o n importance.  227  7-B  Questionnaire used f o r measuring perceived d e c i s i o n complexity.  229  7-C  Questionnaire used f o r measuring perceived decision uncertainty.  231  8  Instrument used f o r g e t t i n g p a r t i c i p a n t s ' g l o b a l assessment the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  9  the  the  M u l t i v a r i a t e and U n i v a r i a t e of Variance - a note.  218  233 of  Analysis  235  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I am i n d e b t e d for  to Professor  h i s invaluable  during  t h i s study.  Professors  Special  and s u p p o r t  thanks a r e a l s o  and Ron T a y l o r  who  o f t h i e r time a d v i s i n g  aspects o f the study.  F.Mitchell  advice,  Merle Ace, P e t e r F r o s t ,  Craig Pinder, portion  assistance,  Vance  me  Professors  David  Hayes,  spent a s i g n i f i c a n t on t h e s e v e r a l M i t c h e l l , F r o s t and  Hayes p a t i e n t l y went t h r o u g h my m a n u s c r i p t out  grammatical,  and  logical  you'  orthographical,  errors.  t o them.  I would  Gratitude  like  i s also  due t o  pointing  statistical,  stylistic  t o s a y a b i g 'thank expressed  to  Professors  G . J . J o h n s o n , E . G . R o b i n s o n , W . B o l d t , and K.R.MacCrimmon and  D r . A . L . A n a n t a n a r a y a n a n f o r t h e i r s u p p o r t and  assistance  during  the study;  the former  s e v e r a l hours o f t h e i r time h e l p i n g statistical  matters.  Graduate F e l l o w s h i p Faculty helped  It not  The U n i v e r s i t y  two s p e n t  me on t h e v a r i o u s of British  Columbia  and f i n a n c i a l  assistance  from the  o f Commerce o f U n i v e r s i t y  of B r i t i s h  Columbia  t o make  t h i s study  i s quite  likely  possible.  that  have t a k e n i t s p r e s e n t  t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n would  shape b u t f o r t h e c o n t i n u e d  support  o f my- w i f e , M a l l i k a Das.  devil's  advocate  ideas, provided  M a l l i k a played the  f o r a l l my i m p o r t a n t  t h o u g h t s and  t h e much n e e d e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l  to  me d u r i n g  of  most d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s a n d f i n a l l y  and  typed  t h e many d e p r e s s i v e  the e n t i r e manuscript.  I would l i k e  to dedicate  this  phases  support  characteristic  To t h i s  proof-read great  dissertation.  lady  1  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION  Control  i s an  i n e v i t a b l e aspect  of  Indeed, o r g a n i z i n g  i n many i n s t a n c e s  i s synonymous  the  design  The  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of organizations  t o be  and  maintenance of e f f e c t i v e  d e p e n d e n t on  members t o d e s i g n systems w i t h i n The  to  the  abilities maintain  like  Plato  and  the b e s t  greatest  believed  that  rule  s o c i e t y or  the  o f government.  three  could key  rational and  the  control  spirited  the  Plato  an  for  ' a r i s t o c r a c y ' was  optimal  concerned  passionate  g u i d e and  that  for  the  fitted the  or  to  best  according  b a l a n c e between the  Greek  instance,  were b e s t  intellectual,  the'  Several  s y s t e m o f government  or adventurous  should  o l d as  A r i s t o t l e were  o f human b e h a v i o r :  element,  intellectuals  the  O n l y an  parts  as  Greece.  intellectuals  develop  least  amount o f h a p p i n e s s  number o f p e o p l e .  Plato,  seems  organizational  appropriate  of ancient  greatest  the  systems.  i n most c a s e s ,  of  'control' i s at  identifying  leads  and  philosophy  philosophers with  the  control  with  organizations.  idea of  political  organization.  reasoning  form  to the or  a p p e t i t i v e element,  element. c o n t r o l the  As  such,  behavior  of  2  the general p u b l i c . notion of today.  This i s quite similar  ' c o n t r o l o f i n p u t s ' t h a t we  Aristotle  them p u r p o s i v e ,  The  w r i t i n g s of l a t e r  instance, rules  idea of  suggested  day  ideal  emphasized t o make  i n nature.  philosophers are  'control'.  also  Hobbes f o r  the establishment  or conventions  the  about  o f a l l human a c t i v i t i e s  g o a l s e e k i n g , and  r e p l e t e w i t h the  talk  i n his discourses also  the need f o r c o n t r o l  to  of a set of  f o r each s o c i e t y which  determined  the a p p r o p r i a t e behavior w i t h i n t h a t s o c i e t y . t o Hobbes, t h e r e s h o u l d a l s o be which monitored s o c i e t y and  a law e n f o r c i n g agency  t h e b e h a v i o r o f a l l members o f  took  a c o n t r o l m e c h a n i s m as we  l i k e John Locke, and  liberal  suggested  the establishment  institutions,  modifying  T h i s of course,  understand  advocated  laws,  and  democratic  i t today.  Stuart M i l l forms o f  of c o n t r o l  t h e b e h a v i o r o f t h e common  of control  who  government (e.g.,  and  man.  literature,  i s p e r h a p s as o l d as t h e  w r i t i n g s on management t h e o r y i t s e l f . theorists  is  Even  agencies  courts) for directing  In the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior concept  the  appropriate corrective actions  whenever d e v i a t i o n s were o b s e r v e d .  philosophers  According  the  first  A l l the  l i k e H e n r y F a y o l , L y n d a l l U r w i c k , and  classical James  3  Mooney, e m p h a s i z e d c o n t r o l as of who  a successful executive. i s considered  management  1  as  the  one  of  the  Frederick  father of  a l s o emphasized  key  functions  Taylor  (1911)  'scientific  c o n t r o l of  organizational  activities  t h r o u g h f u n c t i o n a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and  separation  of planning  and  doing.  a t y p i c a l w o r k e r ' s j o b was specialized superior. control  activity I t was  the  respective  to perform a  assigned  performance o f divisions.  c o n t r o l aspect  That s o c i a l  to him  '. a l l w o r k e r s  or  o f a manager's  s y s t e m s h a v e an  several organizational  counteract system.  As  after  entropic  As  the  their writers dealt  inherent  tendency  been n o t e d  (Baker,  absence  Haire,  in a l l viable  (1968; page 3) without  in  pointed  some f o r m  Simon  t h e works o f M e r t o n , key  to  by  1973;  tendencies inherent  the  with  function.  such,  S i m i l a r l y , M a r c h and  concluded that  later  and  some c o n t r o l mechanisms  i s impossible  reviewing  Selznick  are  Tannenbaum  "organization control".  there  the  by  . . d i s i n t e g r a t e d i n the  theorists  Tannenbaum, 1 9 6 8 ) .  in  implicitly  o f e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l mechanisms has  organizations  Taylor,  highly  or her  Almost a l l the  become u n - c o o r d i n a t e d and  1959;  to  the manager's f u n c t i o n t o p l a n  on management h a v e e x p l i c i t l y the  According  theme  to the  out, of  (1958; page Gouldner, of  these  37)  and writers  5  evolution  (Dunbar,  1979).  There i s a second s t r a n d  meanings w h i c h h i g h l i g h t t h e  idea of  information.  o f the  with  the  Some o f  feedback  The  latter  use  original  french  term meaning  the p o p u l a r  of  term i s more,in 'inspection'.  d e f i n i t i o n s o f c o n t r o l are  give  below:  " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l i s the c o o r d i n a t i o n o f the a c t i v i t i e s o f v a r i o u s s u b u n i t s o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n o r d e r t o a t t a i n t h e aims o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as a w h o l e . " ( C h a r n e s and S t e d r y , 1964; page 3) "/.'..the p r o c e s s that resources effectively in organization's 1965, page 27)  by w h i c h managers a s s u r e a r e o b t a i n e d and u s e d the accomplishment o f the objectives." (Anthonys  "The m e a n i n g o f c o n t r o l as we d e f i n e i t , c a n be s e e n ...as a c y c l e b e g i n n i n g w i t h an i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f one p e r s o n , f o l l o w e d byyan i n f l u e n c e attempt addressed to another p e r s o n who t h e n a c t s i n some way that f u l f i l l s the i n t e n t o f the f i r s t . " (Tannenbaum, 1968; page 5) " C o n t r o l i s the d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t programmed a c t i v i t i e s o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n are c a r r i e d out, t h a t the a c t i v i t i e s are a p p r o p r i a t e , t h a t the programs a c t i v a t e d are the p r o p e r o n e s , and t h a t t h e s e t o f p r o g r a m s a v a i l a b l e i s m o d i f i e d and i m p r o v e d . " ( C h u r c h i l l and T e i t e l b a u m , 1967; page 419) " ( C o n t r o l system c o n s i s t s of) a l l sets o f a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and o p e r a t i n g r u l e s w h i c h d i r e c t and c o n s t r a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . " (Dunbar, 1977; page 1) "Management c o n t r o l i i s . . a c o n t i n u i n g s u r v i v a l (and  of  process of ensuring p r o s p e r i t y ) by  line  4  has  been on s t r u c t u r i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n  facilitate members.  control of activities  so as t o  o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  I n t h e i r words: "... t h e g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l systems o f a l l t h r e e w r i t e r s i s remarkably s i m i l a r . They u s e a s t h e b a s i c i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e some f o r m o f organization or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l procedure designed to c o n t r o l the a c t i v i t i e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members "  Control teEias l i k e  has been v a r i o u s l y d e f i n e d .  Quite  often  and i n f l u e n c e t have been  power, a u t h o r i t y ,  u s e d s y n o n y m o u s l y w i t h i t ( s e e f o r example, J D a h l , Rathe  (1960) l i s t e d 57 v a r i e t i e s  most common u s a g e i s t o i m p l y  authority,  (1968) f o c u s e d taking  (e.g.,  on c o n t r o l  place within  c o n t r o l was p r e s e n t  F o r example,  organizations..  (1966) s u g g e s t e d t h a t  systems i s t o ensure t h a t  organizations other  process that  whenever an a t t e m p t was made t o  K a t z a n d Kahn  organizational  Tannenbaum  He a r g u e d  influence behavior.  and  o f power,  as a n i n f l u e n c e  intentionally  control  directing,  r e s t r a i n i n g ) by t h e e x e r c i s e  or influence.  The  t h e d o m i n a t i o n b y one  i n d i v i d u a l o r group o v e r a n o t h e r manipulating,  o f i t s nuances.  1957).  states  In a similar  vein,  the aim o f  desired  are achieved.  behaviors In general,  develop c o n t r o l systems t o dominate  influence  sources and t o guide  organizational  6  r e l a t i n g and a d a p t i n g t o a dynamic e x t e r n a l environment a c c o r d i n g to s t i p u l a t e d c r i t e r i a . " (Lowe and M c l n n e s , 1971;, page 213). " C o n t r o l p r o c e s s .... c o n s i s t s o f t h e following steps: (1) e s t a b l i s h i n g standards of performance (2) m e a s u r i n g c u r r e n t performance i n r e l a t i o n to the e s t a b l i s h e d s t a n d a r d s , and (3) t a k i n g corrective action." ( S i s k , 1977; page 4 3 9 ) . "Management c o n t r o l i s . . . . a s e t o f human w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r u l e s f o r p e r s o n a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f the a c t i v i t y , o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e , and o b j e c t i v e s o f an e n t e r p r i s e . " (Lowe and M c l n n e s , 1971,; page 213). 11  ( c o n t r o l ) ... . r e f e r s t o a l l p r o c e s s e s by w h i c h a p e r s o n o r g r o u p d e t e r m i n e d the'" a c t i v i t i e s o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r group w i t h i n t h e same o r g a n i z a t i o n . " (McMahon and I v a n c e v i c h , 1976; page 6 6 ) .  Finally,  the Webster's  'control'  dictionary defines  the  3  term  as:  " a p p l i c a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s f o r d i r e c t i n g , r e g u l a t i n g , and c o o r d i n a t i n g p r o d u c t i o n , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and o t h e r b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t i e s i n a way t o a c h i e v e the o b j e c t i v e s o f the e n t e r p r i s e . "  As  may  be  have d e f i n e d  seen,  the  different writers  construct  i n somewhat  ways t o h i g h l i g h t c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r a l t h e y were s p e c i f i c a l l y time.  For  definition  o f c o n t r o l emphasizes o f an  researchers  different  dimensions  i n t e r e s t e d i n at a point  example, C h a r n e s and  between s u b u n i t s  and  Stedry's  that of  (1964)  the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p  organization  andwiews  them as here On  interdependent parts  i s on m a i n t a i n i n g  the  Sisk  other  Emphasis  harmony among t h e  subunits.  hand, w r i t e r s  or  as  a means o f  thus emphasizing Other w r i t e r s  Fayol  Anthony  ensuring  (1949)  the key  like  C h u r c h i l l and  and  objectives  environment  also  1966;  of  subunit  activity.  Teitelbaum  have s u g g e s t e d  (1967)  the  that  organizational organization  Ashby,  Lowe & M c l n n e s ,  1971).  Weick  that  the  objective  of  one  of  dealcwith 1956; (1969)  organizational  l e s s determines  i s to design  Yet  control  to  (e;g:,  ( w h i c h more o r  strategies)  efficiency  effectively  suggests  design  to  (1965) h a v e combined t h e s e v i e w s .  systems i s to enable the  Beer,  subunit  separateness of  a n o t h e r group o f w r i t e r s  its  like  (1977) v i e w c o n t r o l i n terms o f c o n f o r m i t y  plans  and  of a whole.  the  control  a s y s t e m t h a t has  the  necessary v a r i e t y of response-generating capacity remove t h e  e q u i v o c a l i t y i n the  a way  the  that  t h u s seem t h a t different control  objectives the  activities.  s y s t e m s may  different  term  are  environment achieved.  in  such  I t would  ' c o n t r o l ' i s used to The  to  describe  emphasis  of  different  c o n s e q u e n t l y be  on  achieving  objectives.  However, i t s h o u l d  be  noted  that  there  is  also  8  a certain  degree o f o v e r l a p i n a l l the d e f i n i t i o n s o f  control.  Most w r i t e r s on c o n t r o l  implicitly is  note  t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f any c o n t r o l  t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f some  objectives  (although  seems t o d i f f e r Tocher on  e x p l i c i t l y or  the l i s t  to another).  (1970) p o i n t e d o u t , a l l c o n t r o l According  the past  so  (she) can n o t c o n t r o l  since  He  predicting  of  focus  t o do  the present  the f u t u r e .  so  This  c o n t r o l l e r must h a v e some method o f  the f u t u r e .  impossible without  Control  c o n t r o l we have l i s t e d  There i s a l s o a h i g h conditions necessary  according  this predictive  on f u t u r e i s o b s e r v a b l e  under c o n t r o l .  As  controller  i n any n a t u r a l s y s t e m t h e r e i s an i n e r t i a  means t h a t e v e r y  focus  a  since the opportunity  t h a t any a c t i o n c a n o n l y a f f e c t  is  systems  to Tocher,  can n o t c o n t r o l i s past.  predetermined  o f o b j e c t i v e s themselves  f r o m one r e s e a r c h e r  future behavior.  system  to Tocher  ability.  i n most o t h e r  The  definitions  above.  d e g r e e o f a g r e e m e n t on t h e  f o rmaintaining  Establishment  any s y s t e m  o f standards  of  p e r f o r m a n c e , measurement o f a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e a n d comparing corrective standards  i t with  standards,  and t a k i n g a p p r o p r i a t e  a c t i o n ( s ) to a v o i d f u t u r e d e v i a t i o n s from seem t o be t h e e s s e n t i a l  steps  i n any  9  c o n t r o l process., Churchill out  The  definitions  and T e i t e l b a u m (1967) e x p l i c i t l y  w h i l e the w r i t i n g s  point.  of Sisk  Tocher  (1970  o f others are less  ; page 160)  c o n d i t i o n s n e c e s s a r y f o r a good  (1977)  and  point  this  so on  this  lists  the o t h e r  control  system:  1.  T h e r e must be a s p e c i f i e d s e t o f t i m e s a t w h i c h a choice of action i s possible,  2.  A t e a c h s u c h t i m e , t h e r e must be a s p e c i f i e d s e t o f a c t i o n s from which t o choose,  3.  A m o d e l must e x i s t w h i c h c a n p r e d i c t t h e f u t u r e h i s t o r y o f the system under e v e r y p o s s i b l e c h o i c e , and  4.  T h e r e must be a c r i t e r i o n o r o b j e c t i v e on w h i c h the c h o i c e o f a c t i o n i s b a s e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f p r e d i c t e d b e h a v i o r o f the system w i t h the objective.  In  t h e same v e i n ,  f o u r key  execution of a c t i v i t i e s ,  i n f o r m a t i o n about maintaining For  any  effective  control  the p r e s e n t purpose,  a p e r s o n o r group influences  that  planning  of  and g a t h e r i n g  of  deviances from p l a n s are n e c e s s a r y  mean a l l s t r u c t u r e ,  groups  (1962) p o i n t e d o u t  elements namely, g o a l s e t t i n g ,  activities,  for  Eilon  processes,  directs,  system.  'control'  i s defined  and b e h a v i o r by  which  motivates, constrains,  t h e b e h a v i o r o f one  o r more i n d i v i d u a l s  to achieve predetermined o b j e c t i v e s  -  to  and/or or  economic  10  or  otherwise.  with in  the  the  various  past.  exhaustive it  This  definition  definitions of  control  i s suggested that  c o n t r o l can  s t r a t e g i e s and  s e v e r a l procedures  and  be  policies,  may  control strategies.  broadest  on  definition  of  For  c o n t r o l focuses  processes within  control  emphasizes  to the  attainment  Mclnnes  survival  of  the  organizational plus  Not  mainly  organization; that  past  be  the  On  rules  without  interpersonal (1965)  objective of  the  that  i s the  c o n t r o l system.  a number o f o t h e r s  the  use  of  a resources  - p r i m a r i l y meaning  (1971) s u g g e s t organization  on  efficient  organization  this  (1977)  Anthony's  the key  in  processes  many  changes i n  o f economic g o a l s .  Lowe and  goals  the  system should  available  of  leadership  operating  t o o much emphasis on  definition  use  E v e n changes  example, Dunbar's  a l l o c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and placing  and  sense: through  c o n t r o l have viewed c o n t r o l i n  sense.  more  organizational  and  power b a s e s .  communication  u s e d as  achieved  changes i n  interpersonal,  definitions  suggested  d e f i n i t i o n s i n one  a v a r i e t y o f methods s u c h as  be  consistent  However, i t i s a l s o b r o a d e r and  t h a n most o t h e r  structure,  i s quite  other  facilitating key  goal  It is felt may  be  hand,  the  of  that  an these  objective  of  11  a  c o n t r o l system.  activities As and  may  Perrow  not  I n d e e d , many o f  the  be  motivated at a l l .  economically  (197 0) p o i n t e d  g r o u p s may  political  or  have d e r i v e d  social  procedures are  out,  organizational  quite often  goals  i n nature.  organizations  w h i c h may  However,  be  purely  control  a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l even i n  these  cases.  CLASSIFICATION OF Typically, control  every o r g a n i z a t i o n uses a v a r i e t y  systems  procedural variance  CONTROL SYSTEMS:  s u c h as  budgets, performance  m a n u a l s , management i n f o r m a t i o n ,  reports,  and  standardized  terms o f  I n most o f t h e  organizations  procedural  p o l i c y manuals w h i c h d e f i n e  appropriate  and  characteristics, be  u s e d by  objectives. existing  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and  a variety of  is  systems, employment. are t h e -.:  the  situational  above c o n t r o l  systems  each o r g a n i z a t i o n to a t t a i n i t s  For  this  purpose a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  c o n t r o l mechanisms may  However, i n t h e single  appraisals,  a c t i o n f o r most r o u t i n e s i t u a t i o n s .  D e p e n d i n g upon t h e  may  o f today there  of  exhaustive  current  be  found u s e f u l .  state of research,  classification  of  no  o f c o n t r o l systems  a v a i l a b l e a l t h o u g h a number o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  of  12  control  systems have been s u g g e s t e d  Reeves and Woodward  (1970) p r o p o s e d  classifying  systems:  and  control  'Unitary-Fragmented'.  dimension  refers  t o how  the o r g a n i z a t i o n . system  An  i n the two  past.  continua f o r  'Personal-Mechanical'  The  personal-mechanical  control  i s exercised  within  example o f t h e p e r s o n a l  i s a manager g i v i n g  instructions  control  to h i s  employees and m o n i t o r i n g t h e i r work p e r s o n a l l y mechanical s u c h as  systems  cost  control  unitary-fragmented control an  processes  unitary  integrated  will  not  and  are  a l l control  while  in a  systems depending the worker's  The various  other.  systems w i l l  fragmented  In ^ be  system  they  control  w i t h m o n i t o r i n g and unlike  upon w h e t h e r  'output'  controlling controls,  they  focus  changing  on  control actual  is  the concerned  outputs.  i n .the c a s e  of  the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n process w i t h i n  f i r m n e e d n o t be known a t l . a l l ,  of  output.  s y s t e m s f o c u s on  behavior  control  classification  behavior or  worker's b e h a v i o r w h i l e  output  t o how  l i n k e d w i t h each  (1977) gave y e t a n o t h e r  ^Behavioral'  Also,  refers  controls  be.  Ouchi  changing  a l l impersonal  variance control.  dimension  system  well  control  include  while  but  reliable  the and  13  v a l i d m e a s u r e s o f t h e o u t p u t s must b e In  an i n t e r p e r s o n a l  o r i n t e r g r o u p c o n t e x t , an  i n d i v i d u a l may t r y t o i n f l u e n c e by  a variety  suggested  of strategies.  seven  such  strategies, strategies indeed  coalitional  seems t o b e an e x h a u s t i v e  strategies  control.  Also,  withdrawal  No m a t t e r the types  organization financial,  this  of strategies  o f these  t y p o l o g y c a n be organizational  t o be some o v e r l a p  what t y p e o f c o n t r o l o f data  f o r control  that  system i s being  are generated  purposes  of a l l control 1  into  (Lawler,  (1976) h a v e  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based  and 'contemporary .  i n an  c a n be g r o u p e d  p r o d u c t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  broad  this  strategies.  u n d e r l y i n g assumption 'classical'  list  i n the context o f  McMahon a n d I v a n c e v i c h  another  While  operationalization  t h e r e appears  among t h e v a r i o u s  yet  further  used  manipulative  ( o r group) t o i n f l u e n c e t h e  i s needed b e f o r e  advantageously  strategies,  strategies,  strategies,  behavior  (1973) h a s  cultural  and p r o c e d u r a l s t r a t e g i e s .  other's behavior,  1976).  Paul Sites  coercive  open t o an i n d i v i d u a l  used,  the other's  strategies:  exchange s t r a t e g i e s ,  available.  provided  on t h e  systems:  The c l a s s i c a l  model  14  assumes t h a t is  c o n t r o l i s t o be v e r t i c a l  i n direction,  a f i x e d amount, i s u n i l a t e r a l a n d i s a f u n c t i o n o f  structure  and a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n  On t h e o t h e r hand,  the contemporary  has  a behavioral  all  directions, i s a variable  b a s e ) assumes t h a t  mutual understanding, nal  model  (which  control  flows i n  amount, p e r f o r m e d b y  and i s a f u n c t i o n  of interperso-  influence.  Vickers and  the organization.  (1967) d i s t i n g u i s h e d  'negative'  to V i c k e r s , kept  controls.  between  'positive'  Positive control,  according  i s a means w h e r e b y c o u r s e s a r e c h o s e n a n d  so as t o r e a c h g o a l s  means w h e r e b y c o u r s e s  while negative  controls are  a r e c h a n g e d so as t o e s c a p e  threats.  In positive controls,  a course,  an ' o u g h t - t o - b e ' w h i c h t h e c o n t r o l l e r c a n  compare w i t h t h e a c t u a l . c o n t r o l must be a b l e make a n a p t r e s p o n s e . o t h e r hand, critical process  there  t h e assembly  Negative  Controls  controls  the system  within  o f b o i l e r p r e s s u r e and  controls  s y s t e m works w i t h i n  passed without  under  on t h e  t e m p e r a t u r e a r e good examples f r o m negative  must be  t o s e l e c t f r o m t h e s i g n a l and  f o c u s on k e e p i n g  limits.  In general, every  Also,  then,  disaster.  are a reminder  engineering. that  l i m i t s w h i c h c a n n o t be  15  Tedeschi,  S c h l e n k e r , a n d Bonoma  (1973) h a v e  p r o v i d e d a n o t h e r model o f c o n t r o l l i n g behavior.  a person's  A c c o r d i n g t o them, t h e i n f l u e n c e modes  that  a p e r s o n may employ i n d y a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n s  c a n be  classified  in a  distinction  i s between  'open' a n d ' m a n i p u l a t o r y ' modes o f i n f l u e n c e ;  the  distinction  second  mediates  2 X 2  matrix.  The f i r s t  i s between whether t h e s o u r c e  reinforcements to the c o n t r o l l e e  open-manipulatory  dimension  which the source attempts behavior  refers  o r n o t . The  to the extent to  to influence  another's  t h r o u g h open o r c l a n d e s t i n e s t r a t e g i e s . The  manipulatory  attempts  the i d e n t i f y i n g  may  take s e v e r a l  characteristic  i s that  forms, " b u t the source  b e h a v e s as i f t h e t a r g e t were unaware  that  was b e i n g e x e r t e d o r as i f t h e t a r g e t  d i d not perceive  t h e s o u r c e ' s own i n t e r e s t s attempt" authors  (Tedeschi suggest  i n making t h e i n f l u e n c e  e t a l . , 1973, page  that  depending  situational  characteristics  o f the c o n t r o l l e r  The  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and and t h e t a r g e t ,  i n f l u e n c e modes may be a p p r o p r i a t e .  In a recent a r t i c l e suggested  88).  upon t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f  the c o n t r o l l e r ,  different  influence  two ' i d e a l '  The a u t h o r s  called  Ouchi  and Johnson  (1978)  types o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  this  'Type A' a n d "Type Z'  control. control  16  systems.  Type A i s a t i g h t l y m o n i t o r e d c o n t r o l  w h i l e Type Z m a i n t a i n s  c o n t r o l through a process o f  acculturation or socialization Type A o r g a n i z a t i o n  o f employees.  incorporates  c o n t r o l meachanism w h i c h o f employee t u r n o v e r  A  are adapted to high  high in  and t o r e l y  apparent  a Type A  frequently  The p e r f o r m a n c e  i n s u c h an o r g a n i z a t i o n  formalized  upon  legitimacy  also  'hard' measures w h i c h have  close  extent.  hand  among The  emphasizes  between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s r a t h e r  specialization.  A Type Z  structurally  t h e same l e v e l  as  organization,  employees w i l l yielding  Finally,  friendship ties  c o n t r o l system on t h e o t h e r  a Type A  evaluation  and i m p e r s o n a l i t y .  organization  coordination  in a  t e n d s t o be  e m p l o y e e s a r e n o t f o r m e d t o any g r e a t Type Z  rates  and c o n s e q u e n t l y e v a l u a t i o n o f  organization.  process  The  those elements o f a  employee p e r f o r m a n c e t a k e s p l a c e Type  system  o r g a n i z a t i o n may  than  display  o f task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n but career  tend to cut across  paths f o r  specialities,  thus  an o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h h i g h s t r u c t u r a l  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n b u t low i n d i v i d u a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . emphasis rather  i n a Type Z  organization  i s on p a r t i c i p a t i v e  than i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n making.  evaluation  tends to take p l a c e  The  Performance  over the long  term, and  17  relies  on  subtle,  people  in this  informal  type of  b r o a d i n t e r e s t i n and  criteria.  organization knowledge o f  a whole p e r s o n i n c l u d i n g  family  associations.  Johnson  O u c h i and  each i d e a l type r e p r e s e n t e d ional  the  U.S.  where as  The  N e l s o n and  chers  (1978) s u g g e s t e d  toaa  Machin  the  cognitive  to  of  integration, external  and  to  facilitate  agencies.  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e p r e p a r e d to  They extent  that  control.  assure  focused  The  control  then suggested  directed  towards t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e  and  the  objecti-  with  that  t o w h i c h c o n t r o l l e r s were  influences,  the  resear-  internal  interactions  external  commitments,  framework  acknowledge t h e i r s u s c e p t a b i l i t y  resource control,  of  organizations.  i d e n t i f i e d three organizational , to  many  possess  s y s t e m dynamics  to promote e f f i c i e n c y  organizat-  organizations  (1976) p r o v i d e d a  aspects  that  specific social  Type A  t o Type Z  classifying control  more on  ves:  similar  as  © m t s i d e work  Japanese o r g a n i z a t i o n s - t e n d  characteristics  for  each o t h e r  observed that  t e n d t o be  the  develop  a mechanism o f  researchers  companies  tend to  and  c o n t r o l which i s adaptive  environment.  Finally,  control  control control  e f f o r t s might  of or  to  be  environments:  interdependent relationships  internal  with  18  external  agencies.  A  3 X 3  m a t r i x made up  combinations of  control objectives  e n v i r o n m e n t s was  g e n e r a t e d f o r the  classifying various  organizational  In h i s recent four  article,  Dunbar  mechanistic,  Mechanistic  adaptive,  The  as  goals  f i x e d ; the  task  t o be  and  of  control  systems.  (1979)  changeable.  relates  system e f f i c i e n c y  to  A d a p t i v e c o n t r o l on influences.  The  tasks  are  organizational-environment are,  in  run.  ths  short  focus  i s on  and  and  on  the  plans' o r  the  are  regarded  however  system  accomplishment. external  variable  relationships.  cognitive  information  on  is  and  intra-organizational  however, c o n s i d e r e d At  influences  h a n d i s open t o  considered  on  f i x e d at  control  level,  information deviances  least  collected.  from plans.  standards are not  organization  images o f o r g a n i z a t i o n  may  modify  or both.  and  Organiza-  effectiveness of action  Where f e e d b a c k i n d i c a t e s t h a t members o f  task  interpretation of  Feedback p r o v i d e s predictions  c a r r i e d out  other  feedback i s focused  t i o n a l plans  T h e s e were  Feedback i n the  the  identified  to e x t e r n a l  work r o u t i n e s  considered  met,  purpose  c o g n i t i v e and s t r u c t u r a l .  control i s closed  o f a system.  the  control  levels of organizational control.  called:  the  and  of d i f f e r e n t  At  being  their the  19  structural self  level,  c o n t r o l may  organizing principles  relevant  to p a r t i c u l a r  members' p r e f e r e n c e s  level  cognitive) and  or h i e r a r c h i c a l  f o r the  on  principles  Organizational .  specific  Dunbar  c o n t r o l systems  focus  b a s e d on u n i v e r s a l  situations.  however, r e m a i n f i x e d . higher  be  c o n t r o l system,  (1979) p o i n t s o u t  (viz.,  qualitatively  that  structural,  different variables  f e e d b a c k i n f o r m a t i o n more t h a n  lower  level  systems  (e.g., mechanistic) . The be  final  briefly  typology  d i s c u s s e d here i s the  arrd Rhode (1976) . all  o f c o n t r o l systems  The  one  g i v e n by  above r e s e a r c h e r s  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l systems i n t o  categories: motivation,  those and  producing  those  m o t i v a t i o n . Figure"'-1.1  high  producing  high  shows t h e k e y  authors  widely  combinations  differing  satisfaction,  o f these  broad work  extrinsic  is  different  two  work  characteristics  i n employees.  The  Lawler  intrinsic  i n t r i n s i c work m o t i v a t i o n explanatory.  will  classified  extrinsic  o f c o n t r o l systems t h a t produce h i g h  self  that  The  emphasize  and  figure that  characteristics  have  c o n s e q u e n c e s on p r o d u c t i v i t y ,  defensiveness,  reporting behavior  o f the  rigidity,  controllee.„  and Of  information course,  i m p o r t a n c e o f the. d i f f e r e n t ..dimensions v a r i e s as  the a  FIGURE  1.1  CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS PRODUCING HIGH EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION  I n t r i n s i c a l l y motivating work s i t u a t i o n s  Extrinsically motivating work s i t u a t i o n s  Characteristics of s e n s o r measures  A. B. C.  A. B. C.  Nature o f  D.  S e t by p e r s o n b e i n g measured E. Moderately difficult  J o i n t p r o c e s s between p e r s o n and s u p e r v i s o r E. Moderately difficult  Source o f discrimination  F. P e r s o n b e i n g m e a s u r e d o r other c r e d i b l e source  F. J o i n t p r o c e s s b e t w e e n p e r son & o t h e r t r u s t e d p e r s o n (  Reeepient of communication  G.  Person  G.  Speed o f communication  H.  Immediate  F r e q u e n c y o f communis cation  I.  C l o s e to time job  Type o f  J. High K. H i g h L. H i g h  standards  activity  Complete Objective Influenceahke  (Source:  D.  b e i n g measured  H.  & Rhode,  P e r s o n w i t h r e w a r d power, p e r s o n b e i n g measured and o t h e r s d o i n g s i m i l a r work Fast  I . As f a s t as a l l o w e d by t h e t i m e span o f d i s c r e t i o n  span f o r  J.  autonomy task i d e n t i t y variety Lawler  Complete Objective Influenceable  1976)  Not  a crucial  factor  21  f u n c t i o n o f the b e h a v i o r a l r e a c t i o n people that  considered.  some o f t h e s e  while I.1)  being  others  Finally,  i t s h o u l d be  characteristics  are not.  and group o f noted  are continuous  In the p r e v i o u s p f i g u r e ( f i g u r e  t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A, B, C, E , H, I , a n d J  according  to the authors,  continuous  variables  c a n be thought  and the o t h e r s  o f as  as d i s c r e t e .  Summary: The  p a s t w r i t i n g s on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l  classified on  control  systems i n t o v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s  the b a s i s o f t h e i r  specific  similarity  dimensions.  At present,  nolzexhaustive c l a s s i f i c a t i o n covering  a l l the dimensions  Reeves a n d Woodward's control  t h e r e seems t o b e  of control of control  behavior.  t h e mode o f  f o c u s e d on t h e  o f s e n s o r measures, namely o u t p u t  Ouchi's characteris-  versus  McMahon a n d I v a n c e v i c h ' s  typology concentrated mostly behind  systems  c o n t r o l w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n .  of the c o n t r o l l e e .  several control  systems.  Similar  (1976)  comments  typologies of control  systems.  i s suggested  behavior  on t h e a s s u m p t i o n s  c a n b e made a b o u t o t h e r e x i s t i n g  It  on  (1970) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f  (1977) m o d e l a g a i n s i m p l y tics  and d i s s i m i l a r i t y  systems d e a l s p r i m a r i l y w i t h  exercising  have  that control  systems a r e  22  inexorably  l i n k e d to p r e v a i l i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  structure,  m a n a g e r i a l and  within  organization,  the  general  in  goals  of  the  prevailing attitudes within  Hence, any should  motivational  exhaustive  describe  general  and  the  s t y l e s used firm,  the  of  control  objectives  of  the  the  focal  systems  organization  control  system  in particular, characteristic organizational and  behaviors  associated with  structure  of  style  assumptions w i t h i n  and  typology better  the  given  control  by  k a w l e r and  identifies systems  structure,  various  the  and  regard  The a  their  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of for  the the v  impact o f  organizational characteristics, the  supervisor  organizational  climate  and have  considered.  DYSFUNCTIONAL EFFECTS OF  chapter w i l l  discussion  managerial  since  behavior within  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of and  system,  organization.  However, e v e n h e r e t h e  been e x p l i c i t l y  brief  and  t h a t have i m p l i c a t i o n s  subordinates,  This  control  processes  Rhode seems t o be  in this  f a c t o r s s u c h as  personality  the  a number o f  processes,  organization.  the  c o n t r o l system,  classification  typology  the  the  organization.  typology  those of  and  on  the  CONTROL SYSTEMS:  not  be  complete w i t h o u t  dysfunctional  effects  a of  not  23  control in  systems.  the p a s t  Several  that  writers  c o n t r o l systems  o f t e n work a g a i n s t ,  rather  have p o i n t e d i n large  1949;  and G o u l d n e r , 1 9 5 4 ) .  This  been a t t r i b u t e d to the r i g i d that  make them l o o k  u s e d by  t h i s may larger  consequence  bureaucratic  Selznick, has  behavior In  good on t h e m e a s u r e s  c o n t r o l systems.  lead  In several  to d y s f u n c t i o n a l  that  instances,  consequences  f o r the  organization:?„  For control  example,  studied  Babchuk a n d Goode  (1951)  show  s y s t e m s when combined w i t h r e w a r d c a n  to d y s f u n c t i o n a l  behavior.  the s a l e s  division  These  employees  volume.  The  on t h e b a s i s r e s u l t was  employees,  organization, example, ' t y i n g up  neglect  of individual  increased  and i n g e n e r a l  there  was  the trade'  such unrewarded  great  as w e l l  among  o f the For  grabbing'  as a g e n e r a l  and unmeasured  sales  confusion.  'sales  sfcfrre  to reward  competition  term goals  considerable  lead  department  introduced  o f long  how  investigators  of a large  where a pay i n c e n t i v e p l a n was  the  1940;  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t e n d t o a c t i n ways  which w i l l  the  accompli-  seems t o emerge i n t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  general  are  bureaucracies  than toward, the  shment o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s . ( M e r t o n ,  out  functions  neglect as s t o c k  and of work  24  and  arranging  Blau  merchandise f o r d i s p l a y s .  (1955) a l s o  cites  an  example  outcomes o f some c o n t r o l s y s t e m s . operation  o f a department i n the  agency o f a s t a t e government. the  a g e n c y was  and  employers  For  this  fill  referring zation  s u c h as  out  the  workers  a l l the  the  operations  of  The  The  t o be  (e.g.,  19).  as  different  Employees of behaviors  them  organi-  very  management  also  that  To  t h e number  managers  of  The  from those  these  evaluate  interviewers,  results  expected  (interviewers)  performed  t h a t were m e a s u r e d  interviewing).  and  i t s major  conducted.rby e a c h e m p l o y e e .  those kinds system  helping  employers.  performed.well.  o f such things  the managers.  page  c o u n s e l l i n g them,  accomplishment  were however, q u i t e  only  1955;  clients,  activities  the performance of i n d i v i d u a l  by  employment  a c o n t r o l s y s t e m t o make s u r e  kept records  of  agency performed a v a r i e t y o f  interviewing  f u n c t i o n s were i n d e e d  interviews  employment  seeking  1  o b j e c t i v e mentioned above. instituted  the  stated objective  workers' ' ( B l a u ,  them t o p r o s p e c t i v e  for  dysfunctional  analyzed  public  The  a p p l i c a t i o n forms,  considered  important  serve  seeking  purpose,  functions to  "to  He  of  They  by  avoided  which would take time w i t h o u t h e l p i n g  them  25  to improve t h e i r interviewing  clients  t o be made o u t . public's lead  (interview)  record,  s u c h as  f o r whom a p p l i c a t i o n f o r m s h a d  They wasted t h e i r  own  t i m e and t h e  t i m e on a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h d i d n o t i n any  to the accomplishment o f the o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  o b j e c t i v e but which would f u r t h e r notes that their  from c l i e n t s  with their  It  goal  improve t h e i r r e c o r d .  and p u b l i c w h i c h w o u l d i n t e r f e r e  attainment.  several other  s i t u a t i o n s where c o n t r o l s y s t e m s l e d t o b e h a v i o r on t h e p a r t  b e h a v i o r h a v e b e e n summarized (1940) e x p l a n a t i o n  shows t h a t emphasis  behavior  rigidity  bureaucratic  o f t h e emergence  of i n d i v i d u a l actions.  n o t e d how  of  1.2.  It  need f o r  But as Rhode  does n o t  a l l i n d i v i d u a l s do n o t r e s p o n d t h i s way on r e l i a b i l i t y .  (1958).  organization's  and f r o m t h e f e l t  and L a w l e r (1976) n o t e , t h i s m o d e l  emphasis  The  b y M a r c h and Simon  stems f r o m t h e  of  dysfunctional  i s shown I h F i g u r e  on r e l i a b i l i t y  defensibility  examples  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.  v i e w s o f a number o f s o c i o l o g i s t s on  bureaucratic  on  made them u n r e s p o n s i v e t o any  i s possible to c i t e  Merton's  Blau  the interviewers'.concentration  i n d i v i d u a l goals  requests  why  way  explain to the  I n d e e d , F r a n k (1959)  some managers v i o l a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  has rules  FIGURE  1.2  SIMPLIFIED MERTON MODEL OF CONTROL WHICH LEADS TO BUREAUCRATIC AND DYS-FUNCTIONAL MEMBER BEHAVIOR  Demand f o r control  J Emphasis on 3 reliability  Defensibility of individual action  R i g i d i t y o f behavior; o r g a n i z a t i o n a l defense o f status.  i\ A m o u n t n o f o d i f f i c u l t y with clients  Intended Unintended  results results  ( S o u r c e : March & Simon, 1958)  F e l t need f o r defensibility of individual action  27  and  standards  i n order  t o keep  their  organizations  functioning  effectively.  I t w o u l d seem t h a t  several  individual,  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , t a s k - r e l a t e d , and c o n t r o l  system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t e r a c t to decide the specific  outcomes o f c o n t r o l s y s t e m s i n e a c h  Lawler effects three 1-  (1976) s u g g e s t s  the d y s f u n c t i o n a l  o f c o n t r o l systems c a n be c l a s s i f i e d  maj o r  bureaucratic  m e n t i o n e d above, r i g i d i t y seems t o o c c u r  behavior:  i n procedures  i n most b u r e a u c r a t i c  and  and b u r e a u c r a t i c  behavior  as  r  behavior  organizations.  s u g g e s t s a v a r i e t y o f s i t u a t i o n s when  inflexible  into  heads:  Emergence o f r i g i d  Lawler  that  case.  may  such  emerge.  These a r e : a.  when a l l b e h a v i o r s are n o t measured,  an i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m s  b.  when t h e s t a n d a r d s a r e s e e n b y p a r t i c i p a n t s as u n r e a s o n a b l e ,  c.  when t h e p e r s o n ( s ) who s e t s . t h e s t a n d a r d s has low e x p e r t i s e a n d l e g i t i m a c y ,  d.  when t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f u n c t i o n i s p e r f o r m e d b y some one o t h e r t h a n t h e a c t o r whose p e r f o r m a n c e i s b e i n g m e a s u r e d ,  e.  when h i g h rewards, a r e t i e d o n l y t o c e r t a i n (or:.:a s m a l l number) o f b e h a v i o r s ,  f.  when o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s a r e n o t v e r y c l e a r t o the p a r t i c i p a n t ( s . ) and/or a r e n o t w e l l - a c c e p t e d b y them, and.  g.  when a h i g h l e v e l o f s u b u n i t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n e x i s t s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  28  2.  P r o d u c t i o n o,f i n v a l i d  may* g e n e r a t e  information:  two k i n d s o f i n v a l i d  data:  a b o u t what b a s b e e n done and i n v a l i d can  be done.  activities  The f i r s t  very d i f f i c u l t  planning very d i f f i c u l t .  data  invalid  while  the second  According  data  d a t a a b o u t what  k i n d makes c o n t r o l  the c o n d i t i o n s which f a c i l i t a t e invalid  C o n t r o l systems  o f day-to-day makes  to Lawler,  some o f  t h e emergence o f  i n organizations are:  a.  when t h e d a t a a r e s u b j e c t i v e i n n a t u r e ,  b.  when t h e d a t a a r e m e a s u r i n g a d i m e n s i o n t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l s e e s a s r e f l e c t i n g on h i s o r o r h e r competence i n t h e a r e a ,  c.  when t h e s t a n d a r d s a r e s e t b y a p r o c e s s w h i c h does n o t p e r m i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e i n d i v i d u a l s b e i n g m e a s u r e d and s t a n d a r d s a r e s e e n b y them as u n r e a s o n a b l e ,  d.  when t h e i n d i v i d u a l h a s c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n function,  e.  when t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i s b e i n g p a s s e d t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s s u p e r i o r who u s e s i t as a b a s i s for rewarding or punishing the i n d i v i d u a l .  f.  when t h e i n d i v i d u a l v a l u e s t h e r e w a r d s t h a t a r e r e l a t e d t o t h e d a t a and t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s a l i e n a t e d from the system,  g.  when t h e outcomes o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e a r e d i f f i c u l t t o measure,  h.  when t h e a c t i v i t y i s r e l a t i v e l y f o r t h e e f f e c t i v e and c o n t i n u e d o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and  i.  when s e v e r a l l i n k s e x i s t i n t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n channel through which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n has t o t r a v e l before i t reaches the c o n t r o l l e r .  unimportant survival  29  3.  Resistance to control  may b e s e e n a s t h r e a t s i n d i v i d u a l needs groups w i t h i n also  systems  t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f many  and hence  r e s i s t e d by i n d i v i d u a l s and  organizations.  Control  systems  a n d g r o u p s who h o l d  the organization.  control  resistance  may i n the  - a n o t h e r r e a s o n why t h e y may be r e s i s t e d  individuals  within and  Control  change t h e e x i s t i n g power r e l a t i o n s h i p s  organization by  systems:  reins  o f power  Some s i t u a t i o n a l  system c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which to control  systems  according  factors  generate high to Lawler are:  a.  when t h e p r o p o s e d c o n t r o l s y s t e m r e p l a c e s a s y s t e m t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.have a high stake i n maintaining,  b.  when t h e p e r f o r m a n c e s t a n d a r d s a r e s e t w i t h o u t any member p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,  c.  when t h e r e s u l t s f r o m t h e c o n t r o l s y s t e m a r e n o t f e d b a c k t o t h e p e o p l e whose p e r f o r m a n c e i s measured,  d.  when t h e c o n t r o l i n a new a r e a ,  e.  when t h e r e s u l t s f r o m t h e c o n t r o l s y s t e m a r e u s e d as t h e b a s i s o f d i s t r i b u t i n g k e y r e w a r d s w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , r:::A  f.  when t h e p e o p l e who a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e y.'.r.. proposed system a r e r e l a t i v e l y s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h i n g s as t h e y a r e a n d t h e y s e e t h e m s e l v e s as c o m m i t t e d t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , and  g.  when t h e p e o p l e who a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e s y s t e m a r e low i n s e l f e s t e e m a n d a u t h o r i t a r i a n .  system measures  performance  30  The  above d i s c u s s i o n  t h a t most p e o p l e r e s i s t (1976) p o i n t e d the  should  n o t be t a k e n  c o n t r o l systems.  As L a w l e r  o u t , c o n t r o l systems f u l f i l l  i m p o r t a n t needs o f p e o p l e and f o r t h i s  many i n d i v i d u a l s d e s i r e within  i n many c a s e s  toward c o n t r o l  In  some o f reason  t o have a good c o n t r o l  the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  employees  t o mean  Lawler also notes  system  that the  express a sense o f ambivalence  systems.  sum, c o n t r o l s y s t e m s when w e l l p l a n n e d a n d  properly  instituted  organization.  can b r i n g  several benefits  The more i m p o r t a n t  contributions of  control  systems  provide  a means o f m e a s u r i n g a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e o f  the  to organizations  to the  organization,  i t s subunits  include:  1) t h e y  and members and  compare t h e s e w i t h p r e d e t e r m i n e d o b j e c t i v e s enabling  t h e d e c i s i o n makers t o i n i t i a t e  a c t i o n s wherever necessary, f o r performance e v a l u a t i o n 3) when p r o p e r l y motivation 4)  within  thus  2) t h e y p r o v i d e  a basis  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members,  instituted,  to coordinate leading  they i n c r e a s e  information  thexiiagencies  the a c t i v i t i e s  to higher  the organization,  they provide guide  corrective  t h e work  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members a n d g r o u p s ,  they help  subunits  thus  and  goal  i n their  congruence  5.) i n some  to external dealings  o f various  instances  agencies w i t h the  which  31  organization.  However, i f t h e c o n t r o l s y s t e m i s n o t  properly  d e s i g n e d and w e l l - e x e c u t e d , i t can a l s o  generate  several  dysfunctional  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. pointed out, dysfunctional  b e h a v i o r s on t h e p a r t  As L a w l e r a n d Rhode (1976) b e h a v i o r s a r e most  likely  t o emerge when: a.  s e n s o r measures u s e d by t h e system a r e incomplete, s u b j e c t i v e , and u n i n f l u e n c e a b l e by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members a n d g r o u p s ,  b.  the performance s t a n d a r d s u s e d by t h e system a r e s e t w i t h o u t any p a r t i c i p a t i o n f r o m members whose p e r f o r m a n c e i s b e i n g . e v a l u a t e d n.and a r e v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o a t t a i n ,  c. d.  when t h e a c t i v i t y b e i n g m e a s u r e d i s v e r y important to the o r g a n i z a t i o n , when t h e s p e e d a n d f r e q u e n c y o f e::of r e s u l t s i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e ,  communication  e.  when t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r e s u p e r i o r s who h a v e r e w a r d power, a n d  f.  when t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n f u n c t i o n i s p e r f o r m e d by someone o t h e r t h a n t h e p e r s o n b e i n g evaluated.  Of c o u r s e , we may n e v e r be a b l e  to achieve a  control  a l l dysfunctional  system which  outcomes.  eliminates  What we a r e a i m i n g a t u s u a l l y : i s t o d e s i g n  a s y s t e m whose b e n e f i t s problems is  and c o s t s .  t o make a s m a l l  useful  'perfect'  f a r exceed the a s s o c i a t e d  The p u r p o s e  of this dissertation  c o n t r i b u t i o n to the search f o r a  and v i a b l e c o n t r o l system.  Specific  hypotheses  32  and r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l s are s e t f o r t h i n l a t e r  chapters.  Before proceeding to them, i t w i l l be u s e f u l to b r i e f l y review the past r e s e a r c h on c o n t r o l systems. T h i s w i l l be done i n the next  chapter.  33  CHAPTER  AN  OVERVIEW OF  II  PAST RESEARCH  ON  ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL SYSTEMS  The can  be  past  broadly  structural, tic  research  classified  environmental,  approaches to  organizational  on  organizational  headings  i s provided  systems  t e c h n o l o g i c a l and An  overview of  the  personalis-  the  major  c o n t r o l systems under  these  here.  STRUCTURAL VIEWS: Traditionally,  control  and  i n the  literature  s t r u c t u r e have n o t  been  d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other. instance,  suggested a theory  or of b u r e a u c r a t i c discussed purely o f an was  control  i n t o f o u r major groups:  control.  findings  THE  on  organizations,  clearly Weber (1947) f o r  of bureaucratic  s t r u c t u r e or both.  control  Graicunas  (1937)  c o n t r o l problems between i n d i v i d u a l s i n a  s t r u c t u r a l manner. organization  pointed  Warkov  Max  on  out  (1961).  (1958), B l a u  and  by  That  the  control  system  i s c l o s e l y embedded i n i t s s t r u c t u r e Caplow  (195 7 ) ,  Other w r i t e r s Scott  and  Anderson  l i k e M a r c h and  ( 1 9 6 2 ) , and  K a t z and  and  Simon Kahn  (1966)  34  have a l s o This has a  discussed  'structuralist  c o n t r o l systems i n s i m i l a r v e i n s . o r ' c l o s e d system  1  l e d to the assumption  that  c o n t r o l i s to occur i n  c l o s e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l system  example,  (Dunbar,  i n Weber's b u r e a u c r a t i c  impersonal r a t i o n a l i t y bureaucratic  notion  perspective'  model,  1977).  For  the i d e a o f  i s fundamental to the  of control.  The t a s k s  t o be  a c c o m p l i s h e d a r e assumed t o be known a n d w e l l  defined  and  a  t h e manager's j o b i s t o r a t i o n a l l y  control  system to achieve  personal  views,  these  inclinations  be  hierarchically  controller at  c o n t r o l systems. organized  n o t be c o n s i d e r e d  t h i s model has p o i n t e d  with  Bennis  out that  organizations.  Bennis  (1973), a l s o  of helplessness  (1959)  criticizing  the bureaucratic presence o f people as q u o t e d i n  saw and d e p l o r e d  trend  this  w h i c h can be seen i n t o d a y ' s  organizations.  found b u r e a u c r a t i c  the p o s i t i o n  Max Weber, h i m s e l f ,  towards i m p e r s o n a l i t y bureaucratic  should  the.ultimate  m o d e l h a s t e n d e d t o deny t h e v e r y in  when  The c o n t r o l s y s t e m  o f the organization holding  the top o f the h i e r a r c h y .  I d e a l l y , the  and i d i o s y n c r a c i e s o f  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members s h o u l d designing  tasks.  design  Indeed, as R e i c h  organizations  may c r e a t e  (1975)  feelings  a n d a l i e n a t i o n among i t s members.  35  Argyris  (1971), L e a v i t t  also pointed  (1962), and L i k e r t  out i n great  detail  the negative  consequences o f such a b u r e a u c r a t i c control  perspective of  i n organizations.  Pugh, H i c k s o n , H i n i n g s , 1969)  (1967) h a v e  McDonald and T u r n e r  s u g g e s t e d t h r e e m a j o r methods  of exercising  control  i n organizations:  control  t h r o u g h s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and c o n t r o l  standardization.  Several  (1968;  c o n t r o l through c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , through  o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e  measures o f each o f t h e s e types o f c o n t r o l a r e a v a i l a b l e t o d a y ; however, that  t h e f i n d i n g b y Payne a n d Pugh  (1976)  t h e r e l a t i o n s between o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e  measures o f t h e s e c o n s t r u c t s  i s often unclear  should  be c a r e f u l l y n o t e d .  Centralization is  o f a l l d e c i s i o n making  authority  one m a j o r f o r m o f e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l i n o r g a n i z a -  tions.  Pugh e t . a l  (1968) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d  t h r o u g h c e n t r a l i z a t i o n by d e v e l o p i n g recurrent  a list  decisions which organizations  make i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e i r  control of t h i r t y  typically  d a y t o day a c t i v i t i e s .  T h e y a r e made a t l o w e r l e v e l s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l hierarchy.  The c e n t r a l i z a t i o n s c o r e  organization Holdaway,  was o b t a i n e d  f o r the  by summing t h e s e  assessments.  Newberry, H i c k s o n a n d H e r o n (1975) d e v e l o p e d  36  s i m i l a r measures t o a s s e s s  the extent o f  in  Alternative  college  organizations.  centralization Bell  and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n  measures o f  were p r o p o s e d b y  ( 1 9 6 6 ) , Hage and A i k e n  (1967) and C h i l d  In  i t i s almost  large  organizations  make a l l c o n t r o l By d i v i d i n g and  centralization  d e c i s i o n s by a s i n g l e  t h e work t o be done i n t o  (1973).  impossible  to  controller. specializations  then a s s i g n i n g , t h e s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to  individual  members whose ^ . a c t i v i t i e s a r e t h e n c o n s t r a i n e d t o these assigned functions, delegate  decision  a controller  making a u t h o r i t y  buti.still maintain control.  can  theoretically  to lower  levels  To o p e r a t i o n a l i z e  this  c o n c e p t , Pugh e t . a l  (1968) i d e n t i f i e d a l i s t  sixteen  specialized  a c t i v i t i e s common t o a l l o r g a n i z a -  tions.  By c o u n t i n g t h e number o f s p e c i a l i z e d  t i e s w h i c h were p e r f o r m e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l comparisons Holdaway  across  et.al  specialization. Hall,  Haas  organizations  of  activi-  members,  c o u l d be made.  (1975) d e v e l o p e d a s i m i l a r measure o f B l a u and S c h o e n h e r r  (1971) and  a n d J o h n s o n (1967) p r o p o s e d  specialization within organizations by  simply  in  an o r g a n i z a t i o n .  that  c o u l d be m e a s u r e d  counting the major d i v i s i o n s  and departments  B l a u and S c h o e n h e r r  p r o p o s e d t h e number o f d i f f e r e n t  degree o f  (1971)  job t i t l e s  utilized  37  by an o r g a n i z a t i o n as yet another measure o f extent  of r o l e s p e c i a l i z a t i o n .  A t h i r d way  a c o n t r o l l e r can e x e r c i s e  i s by d e f i n i n g and  then f o l l o w e d  et.al  control  s t a n d a r d i z i n g work p r a c t i c e s .  procedures f o r r e c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n s are and  the  i n v a r i a b l y (Hickson,  Fixed  established 1965).  (1968) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h i s concept  Pugh  by  developing  a l i s t o f t h i r t e e n procedures, i n c l u d i n g  activities  such as i n s p e c t i o n , stock c o n t r o l , f i n a n c i a l  c o n t r o l , which c o u l d be The  researchers  standardized  then u t i l i z e d 157  r a t i n g s c a l e s to assess the extent  by an  organization.  r a t h e r heterogeneous to which these  a c t i v i t i e s were, i n f a c t , s t a n d a r d i z e d .  Hage (1965)  proposed t h a t s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n can be measured by p r o p o r t i o n of jobs w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n formal job d e s c r i p t i o n s e x i s t and which v a r i a t i o n i n a c t i v i t y i s not these d e s c r i p t i o n s .  to  allowed f o r i n  Blau and Schoenherr (1971) the extent  which the performance e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t s  One  f o r which  the extent  measured s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n by a s s e s s i n g  on standard  the  to  focused  activities.  s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that seems to  more or l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y r e l a t e d to the type  of  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l systems i s the s i z e o f  the  be  38  organization. size  T h e o r e t i c a l l y , as  t h e y w o u l d t e n d t o be  organizations  more d e c e n t r a l i z e d ,  h a v e more s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f a c t i v i t i e s more s t a n d a r d i z e d it  has  procedures.  been found t h a t  these  t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the. s i z e o f  t e n d t o be  specialization,  and  The  the  increase  o r g a n i z a t i o n : s i z e becomes l a r g e r  suggested that  this  t o an  to  aversion  w i t h any  an  increase  the  Shoek, and  organization  a number o f  relating  be  the  support  proposition  tends to size  size.  increase  (Starbuck,  Falbe,  off  as Starbuck,  Rosenthal  (1964)  attributable that  that  as  1965;  The  emerges  results  standardization.  evidence  generally  supervisory  seems  increase span o f  1974:  to  specialiwith control  become l a r g e r i n  O u c h i 6c D o w l i n g , 1976).  of  size with  decentralization,  organizations  McKinley & Tracy,  the  organizational  available empirical  "standardization  organization  not  1955;  stress  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and  In g e n e r a l , the  of  in variety in organizational relations.  studies  decentralization,  degree  does  tapers  (Blau,  phenomenon may  the  rela-  in decentralization,  Payneeand-Pughi(1976) haveasummarized  z a t i o n and  inverse  u n i t and  standardization  Kahn, W o l f e , Q u i n n ,  to have  non-linear  c o n t r o l may}-be e x p e c t e d t h i s  a l w a y s seem t o h a p p e n .  1965).  and  to  E m p i r i c a l l y , however,  r e l a t i o n s . . ^ Thus t h e o r e t i c a l l y w h i l e  centralized  grow i n  Blau,  39  This  inverse relationship  centralization  may  organizations. that in  increased  fact  makingp  however o c c u r o n l y  Blau e t . a l size  resulted  as  specialization  types  personnel  found that  correlated  with  between s i z e , also  of organizations  s p e c i f i c methods  size.  The  be d i f f e r e n t  study as  well  contingency v a r i a b l e  specific and  for different  i n t h e p a s t h a v e f o c u s e d on  of control  adopted by  organizational  size  bureaucratic  Mansfield  (1973)  c o u l d a c t as a  which determined the type o f  strategy u t i l i z e d .  data e a r l i e r c o l l e c t e d  M a n s f i e l d r e a n a l y z e d the  by C h i l d  (1972),  distinguishing  s t r a t i f i e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  found that  decision  (Dunbar, 1 9 7 7 ) .  proposed that  was  of  standardization  as t h e y grow i n s i z e .  sub-samples  agencies  centralization  organizations  control  found  and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n were a l l  A few r e s e a r c h e r s the  f o r example,  Holdaway e t . a l (1975) i n a  Canadian c o l l e g e s ,  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n may  and  i n business  i n more c e n t r a l i z a t i o n  of  relationship  (1976),  i n public  Similarly,  positively  between s i z e  f o r large  business  size.  It  organizations  ( w i t h a v e r a g e number o f e m p l o y e e s = 6,348) t h e relationship  between c e n t r a l i z a t i o n  was  and s i g n i f i c a n t  negative  and  specialization  (Pearson r =  -.67).  40  On t h e o t h e r  hand, f o r r e l a t i v e l y  ( w i t h a v e r a g e number r e l a t i o n s h i p was Mansfield lists  activities over not  close advisors  specialist maintain  them.  firms  the specia-  t o the top managers.  s e r v i c e , t h e t o p managers  a good k n o w l e d g e o f t h e day t o day  of their organizations  and e x e r t  In large organizations,  possible  with  s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e (Pearson r = .51).  were p r o b a b l y  still  organizations  o f e m p l o y e e s = 1 5 0 ) , t h e same  suggested that i n the small  By u t i l i z i n g could  small  f o r the s p e c i a l i s t  control  however, i t was  to consult  frequently  t h e t o p managers and h e n c e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g h a d  t o be d e c e n t r a l i z e d . correlations  Mansfield  a l s o found  b e t w e e n c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and  were g e n e r a l l y  low f o r s m a l l  that  standardization  organizations.  These  c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o n o t c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r direction  across  a l l small  c o r r e l a t i o n s became as  the s i z e  concluded and  increased.  negative Mansfield  the r e l a t i o n between c e n t r a l i z a t i o n  s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n was  O u c h i and M a g u i r e  were more  The  l a r g e r and c o n s i s t e n t l y  of thezorganization  that  were h i g h e r  organizations.  probably  weakly  (1975) f o u n d  that  negative.  as r e s p o n d e n t s  up i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y ,  likely  to r e l y  on s t a n d a r d i z e d  output performance to e x e r c i s e  control.  records  they of  As  r e s p o n d e n t s were i n a l o w e r h i e r a r c h i c a l p o s i t i o n , t h e y  41  were more l i k e l y supervision  to  t o use  closer., i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  control subordinates'  behavior.  Thus  a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n was Maguire a l s o  observedIn  found that  the  this  two  study.  Ouchi  and  c o n t r o l methods i n  the  same o r g a n i z a t i o n were i n d e p e n d e n t o f e a c h Earlier,  Hage and  Aiken  findings:  in their  and  agencies,  health  (1967) h a d  study o f no  any  specific  tion,  are  u s e d by  postulate  determine the specific  f o r a l l types  a n o t h e r and  bureaucratic  more o r  there  less  seems t o be  type of  control strategy  organization.  a highly personal  As  and  Barnard  imposed from h i g h e r  and  chosen  (1938) is  likely  individual.process  involvingajmany emotion p r o v o k i n g impersonally-rational  no  structural characteristics  argued, e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o be  found.  1977).  organizations  g r o u n d t o assume t h a t  any  welfare  s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n was  standardization  (Dunbar,  i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f one  by  social  summary, d i f f e r e n t methods o f  controls  similar  type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e n t r a l i z a -  of organizations  alone  sixteen  f i n d i n g s , i t seems u n w i s e t o  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and  In  reported  significant relationship  b e t w e e n c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and Given these  other.  changes r a t h e r  unchanging r o l e s which  l e v e l s of  organization.  than are  42  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH TO  Several uncertainty control  past as  Stalker  c h o s e n by  In  their  distinct  s y s t e m s and  that  (found  external  approaches  there  relative  environment.  task  the  other  degree o f of  communication.  task  c o n t r o l and  authority, the  (1962) a f t e r s t u d y i n g one  are  to e x h i b i t a  authority,  primarily systems, higher  the  and  more h o r i z o n t a l  organization. g r o w t h and  Chandler  development  that necessitated of  in  r e s u l t e d from environmental  such changes, a g a i n c o n t r o l systems  of  organizations  e a c h m a j o r change i n s t r u c t u r e  these organizations  appropriateness  stability systems  'Organic'  h u n d r e d m a j o r U.S.'^business  concluded that  large  i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e , more d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n  communication w i t h i n  nearly  control  c o n t r o l and  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , and  hand, were f o u n d  two  degree o f  s t a b l e environments)  a hjfcghgdegree o f  on  and  existed  'Mechanistic'  c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of  of  an  t o management  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  lines  the  study, Burns  t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s were i n  in relatively  vertical  environmental  t h e management o f  classic  measure a f u n c t i o n o f ' t h e the  on  dimension a f f e c t i n g  (1961) c o n c l u d e d t h a t  relatively  in  have f o c u s e d  a critical  strategy  organization.  studies  CONTROL:  implying  shifts that  i s a function of  the  43  environments  surrounding  the  In another important (1967) c o n c l u d e d dynamic and industry)  organizations....  s t u d y , L a w r e n c e and  that organizations  complex e n v i r o n m e n t s  required a greater  operating  i n less turbulent  effective  firms  varying  different  example, o r g a n i z a t i o n s employed a f o r m a l  The  significantly  scores  The  call  authors  for  to i n t e g r a t i o n .  very  turbulent  For  environments in  Scott's  (1975)  f i n d i n g s o f L a w r e n c e and  Lorsch.  found that  persons  Scott  greater  a:.,hospital)  T h i s was  higher  more  employed.  i n coordination  production  firms  Also,  integration.  r e s u l t s o f D o r n b u s c h and  D o r n b u s c h and  (e.g.,  differentiation  i n t e g r a t i n g department w h i l e  s u p p o r t e d the  involved  plastics  than d i d those  environments  with  i n more  dynamic e n v i r o n m e n t s o n l y i n d i v i d u a l  i n t e g r a t o r s were  study  and  the  environments.  s t r u c t u r a l approaches  moderately  (e.g.,  i n each i n d u s t r y had  on b o t h d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n concluded that  operating  degree o f  between f u n c t i o n a l departments  Lorsch  t h e number o f  of control a c t i v i t i e s  in a professsional  than i n a f i r m u s i n g  techniques  (e.g.,  an  were  organization assembly  line  electronics firm).  mainly a t t r i b u t a b l e , according  to  the  44  researchers, surrounding The  to the r e l a t i v e the simple  stability  operations  o f environment  o f assembly  line  jobs.  e n v i r o n m e n t o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n on t h e  other  h a n d i s more v a r i a b l e w h i c h n e c e s s i t a t e s 'more  differentiation  ( a n d h e n c e more c o o r d i n a t i o n )  control efforts within  of  the u n i t .  Duncan (1973) s u g g e s t e d t h a t as t h e v a r i a t i o n i n the  e n v i r o n m e n t was p e r c e i v e d  different utilized  types o f o r g a n i z i n g  uncertain  s t r u c t u r e s were  When t h e e n v i r o n m e n t was p e r c e i v e d b u t c o n t r o l l a b l e , more s t r u c t u r e d  l e s s s t r u c t u r e d , more p e r s o n a l  were a d o p t e d t o make n o n - r o u t i n e  .C  This  leaves  us w i t h  to design  decisions.  how i s  equivocality  the objective  should  a system t h a t has the n e c e s s a r y v a r i e t y  of response-generating  capacity  t o remove t h e  i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n s u c h a way  control objectives are achieved.  efficiency  approaches  the question,  (1969) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t  achieving  routine  amount o f s t r u c t u r e tov.be d e t e r m i n e d ?  optimal  Weick be  still  t o be  procedures  more i m p e r s o n a l methods were u s e d t o make  decisions;  the  uncertain,  t o make r o u t i n e a s o p p o s e d t o n o n - r o u t i n e  decisions.  and  t o be h i g h l y  control with  T h i s means t h a t i f  minimum c o s t  are the o b j e c t i v e s  that  and maximum;  o f the designer ( o f  45  control  systems),  then he/she should a l s o  remove any e q u i v o c a l i t y not  summarizes  variability control  similar  in  t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  as d i s c u s s e d by Dunbar  classification  t h e two o t h e r c e l l s  situations.  When t h e r e i s t o o much  internal  s y s t e m may become i n v o l v e d conflicts  environment  response are  t o be c o n t r o l l e d .  generating capacity,  beyond the  organization's  both s i t u a t i o n s ,  over  related  The  environmental  incongruent and t o o  t h e members  of the  i n t o o many lose With  contact with t o o much  new e n v i r o n m e n t s controls  N e m i r o f f and F o r d  a c o n t i n g e n c y model o f c o n t r o l  which  a r e enacted.  the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l  its activities.  provided  lose  control  (1976) h a v e somewhat  t o t h e above schemet o f Dunbar.  above d i s c u s s i o n  exhaustive of  and e v e n t u a l l y  cells  structuring  response generating capacity,  control  the  denote  page 2 9 ) .  Two  between  variability;  of the  different  (1974).  the t a b l e d e s c r i b e a congruence  little  (1977;  f r o m a somewhat  i s p r e s e n t e d i n Hage  Table  environmental  and r e s p o n s e - g e n e r a t i n g c a p a c i t y  system  perspective  In  system which i s  needed t o match e n v i r o n m e n t a l e q u i v o c a l i t y .  II.1  A  i n the c o n t r o l  attempt t o  control  i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o be a n  review of a l l past studies r e l a t i n g systems  to environmental  choice  characteristics.  46  TABLE  II. 1  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENVIORNMENTAL VARIABILITY AND RESPONSE-GENERATING CAPACITY OF CONTROL SYSTEMS C o n t r o l system has r e l a t i v e l y  Low  variability  High  variability  Low r e s p o n s e generating capacity  High  structure  High  structure  High responsegathering capacity  Congruent:  Incongruent:  P r o t e c t e d by subunits at organ i z a t i o n a l bounda r i e s which handle remaining variability  C o n t r o l systems c a n n o t keep i n c o n t a c t w i t h envi r o n m e n t t o be c o n t r o l l e d and hence l o s e c o n t r o l  Low  Low  structure  structure  Incongruent:  Congruent:  C o n t r o l system uses excess equiv o c a l i t y to e n a c t i t s own environment which i s beyond the c o n t r o l o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n  Low b u f f e r i n g o f organization with h i g h dependence on autonomous individual controllers w i t h i n the organization  ( S o u r c e : Dunbar, 1977)  47  The  emphasis here. has. b e e n t o h i g h l i g h t  of major f i n d i n g s following  from  i n this  area.  The  the  direction  major  conclusion  t h e above s t u d i e s w o u l d seem t o be  the o p t i m a l c o n t r o l  s y s t e m w i t h i n any  organization i s  d e p e n d e n t upon t h e p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s environment. is  I t s h o u l d be  the p e r c e p t i o n  emphasized here  o f the e n v i r o n m e n t a l  of  i n understanding  b e h a v i o r s he/she e x h i b i t s , characteristics the  per  ' p e r c e i v e d ' and  significantly  se.  'real'  influence  control behaviors.  Of  As  the type  characteristics  of  reality. The  o r may  than., t h e  environmental  course,  the f i t between  environments  would  the o p t i m a l n a t u r e o f p o i n t e d o u t by W e i c k  Weick c a l l s  effectiveness  t o be  not this  •THE  correspond  to  the " e n a c t e d "  o f any;- c o n t r o l  system  these  (1969), such  objective environment. would  a f u n c t i o n o f the accuracy w i t h which  management p e r c e i v e s i t s  be  control  managers r e s p o n d .to what t h e y p e r c e i v e and p e r c e p t i o n s may  the  that i t  (by t h e d e c i s i o n maker) w h i c h i s c o n s i d e r e d t o more c r u c i a l  that  seem  the  environments.  TECHNOLOGISTS: Woodward (1958;  relating  1965)  organizational  was  one  o f the  pioneers  s t r u c t u r e and p r o c e s s e s  with  48  the  production  technology  organization. 100  firms  A f t e r her  located  suggested that organization mass, t o  study of  i n south, e a s t  the  as  E n g l a n d , Woodward of  a more h i g h l y  However, a t continuum  the  (i.e.,  more s u c c e s s f u l formalized controls  be  ends o f  u n i t and firms  the  continuous  employed  a greater  through also  formalized appropriate technology.  technological process),  less structured,  managerial s t y l e s with  and  more  u s i n g mass p r o d u c t i o n  two  She  structured,  c o n t r o l s y s t e m may  organizations  an  i t moves f r o m u n i t ,  continuous process production.  bureaucratic  the  approximately  t e c h n i c a l complexity  increases  concluded that  for  c u r r e n t l y u s e d by  degree o f  fewer r u l e s  less and  interpersonal  interaction. Hickson e t . a l  (1969) a n d  A s t o n Group") f o u n d t h a t structural but  only  and  variables,  s u c h as  function.  In  dictates units. validity  small  structure  o f an  ("the  intervening  size,  organizations,  or  departmental  technology  i n production  conclusions  largely  related  S u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d seem t o q u e s t i o n of e a r l i e r  the  organization  additional  organization  only  (1973)  technology a f f e c t e d  c o n t r o l design  as m o d e r a t e d by  Pugh  the  by Woodward and  others  49  that  technology  Thompson rationality  determines  as  the e x t e n t  into  about  (2) m e d i a t i n g  technology.  Long l i n k e d  by  serial  interdependence  operations on  Thompson (1)  long  technology, technology  through  interdependent  linked and  is  Mediating  different  a linking  operations or  Intensive  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by u n i q u e n e s s  sequence.  In the i n t e n s i v e  techniques  i s drawn  by  feedback  page 1 7 ) .  from  is,  task  a variety  the  order of a p p l i c a t i o n the o b j e c t i t s e l f that  a  are  determined  (Thompson, structure  The  1967; is a  attempt  structure  d e p e n d e n t upon t h e t y p e o f  of  selection,  v e h i c l e by w h i c h o r g a n i z a t i o n s  a c h i e v e bounded r a t i o n a l i t y . however,  of  upon i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e  Thompson s u g g e s t e d  fundamental to  and  technology  o b j e c t , but  of  departments  technology  change i n some s p e c i f i c  intensive  technology,  standard operating procedures.  combination,  (3)  characterized  o f a number o f  or departments.  dictated  classified  t h e o t h e r hand, i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  otherwise  technical  cause-effect relationships  t h r e e groups:  technology,  or  1977).  to which a c t i v i t i e s  d e s i r e d outcomes.  technology  (Steers,  (1967) d e f i n e d t e c h n o l o g y  by p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f s produce  structure  itself  interdependence  50  among s u b u n i t s . . o f these (3)  a s y s t e m w h i c h may f a l l  categories:  reciprocal.  mechanism to extent  on the  For pooled  that  type  example,  be  Yet  unless  one p a r t  can,  procedures  used  of  rules  for  subunits the  a very  not  the  one  plans  for  the  for  dynamic  organization  sense  be  adequately, effective;  threaten  the  the  total  failure continued  Thompson s u g g e s t e d of  'plans'  situations Finally,  any  survival  a l l  rules  and  in~,s.uch a s i t u a t i o n .  is  the  input  and i s  characterized  for  of  very by  in a situation  The be  two  (i.e.,  be more  establishment  units  and  Where  interdependent  may h o w e v e r  the  of  that  internally consistent  interdependent  environments.  ,.:  i n the  subunit  involve  by  interdependent  appropriate  c o o r d i n a t i o n by  subunits.  direct  arensequentially of  control  i n any  'standardization'  must be  of  or  other  performs  hence,  parts  of  great  among  making r e c u r r i n g d e c i s i o n s .  output  Use o f  the  upon each  system.  is  to  interdependence  may b e  c o o r d i n a t i o n by  coordinating or  depend  one  sequential,  in a situation characterized  each  the whole  set  of  dependent they  of  used w i l l  organization w i l l  of  type  interdependence,  may n o t way.  The  be  (2)  (1) p o o l e d ,  into  the  when next)  relevant. schedules  appropriate changing  task  characterized  51  by  r e c i p r o c a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o r where o u t p u t s o f  e a c h u n i t become by  inputs  f o r the others,  'mutual a d j u s t m e n t ' may  essentially during  involves  be more a p p r o p r i a t e .  the transmission  an o n - l i n e  Extending studied units,  control  this notion,  but focusing  Mahoney  and F r o s t  organizational classified  t o t e c h n o l o g y a s p r o p o s e d by Thompson and i n t e n s i v e  M a n a g e r s were a s k e d t o r a t e of unit effectiveness  development,  initiative,  of o v e r a l l u n i t  technology.  t h e i r u n i t s on 24 (such  (1967):  as,  specific  planning,  e t c ) a n d one g l o b a l m e a s u r e  effectiveness.  a l t h o u g h c r i t e r i a were o f t e n assigned  (1974)  organizational  on h e t e r o g e n e o u s  long-linked, mediating,  facets  information  almost  297 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s were  according  This  system.  t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y homogeneous  subunits.  I t was  found  that  s i m i l a r , the p r i o r i t i e s  were d i f f e r e n t as a r e s u l t o f u t i l i z a t i o n  d i f f e r e n t technologies.  was most i m p o r t a n t  Smoothness o f  f o r long-linked  f l e x i b i l i t y was most i m p o r t a n t technologies, tion  o f new  the p r o c e s s o f a c t i o n or something  resembling  of  coordination  and m u t u a l  task  technologies,  f o r mediating  support  ensuring  o f a l l s k i l l s made t h e most i m p o r t a n t  to g e n e r a l  effectiveness  production  i n intensive task  task  the u t i l i z a contribution technologies.  52  I t would thus utilized, t o be  seem t h a t  as:, . d i f f e r e n t  different evaluation  more o r  less relevant  Harvey'(1968) a l s o w i t h more s t a b l e degrees o f zation,  criteria  found that  c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , span o f Aiken  be  expected  control.  higher  degree o f  speciali-  c o n t r o l , and  program  (1967) a f t e r  concluded  that  studying  16  s o c i a l welfare  agencies,  of  t e c h n o l o g y and  subordinate p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  routineness  m a k i n g were n e g a t i v e l y  related.  a l s o h a v e e x a m i n e d the  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  and  structure  of organization  f i n d i n g s have been r e p o r t e d  are  organizations  exhibited  s t r u c t u r i n g m e a s u r e d by  Hage and  can  for successful  technologies  specialization.  technologies  Many o t h e r  a l t h o u g h no  decision  studies technology  consistent  ( F u l l a n , 1970;  Hrebiniak  1974) .  In  summary, t h e r e  between t e c h n o l o g i c a l structure. itself  seems t o be  of  nature of  this relationship  some r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n  on  Also,  t o be  paid  there  technology  ( E u l l a n , 1970), w h i c h  c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n has  structure  organizational  f a r f r o m a s i m p l e one.  worker a t t i t u d e s  that  a definite link  c o m p l e x i t y and  However, t h e  a p p e a r s t o be and  seems t o be  suggests  to  the  effect  organizational processes  and  behavior  53  before  d e c i d i n g to i n t r o d u c e  structural  THE  any major changes i n the  design.  PERSONALISTIC VIEWS ON CONTROL:  Many r e s e a r c h e r s  and w r i t e r s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  behavior have maintained t h a t the s t r u c t u r e and systems w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s to f a c i l i t a t e  should be designed so  f r e e expression  members o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n . t h e o r e t i c a l formulations  control as  of the needs of i n d i v i d u a l Using Maslow's (1954)  emphasizing a person's  need to use h i s / h e r c a p a c i t i e s and  inherent  s k i l l s i n a mature  and p r o d u c t i v e manner, these w r i t e r s have argued f o r a l t e r i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s  s t r u c t u r e and  c o n t r o l system  to a l l o w f o r the human quest f o r s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and  growth.  One  of the major advocates of t h i s view has  Chris Argyris  been  (1964) whose major premise i s that  there i s a l a c k of f i t between requirements of bureaucratic  organizations  and  the n e e d s j o f i n d i v i d u a l  members to achieve ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l  success'.  McGregor (1960) i n a s i m i l a r v e i n proposed as:a  'Theory Y'  s o l u t i o n to the problem of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  improvement.  Other t h e o r i s t s have a l s o ( i n whole or  54  part) did  f o s t e r e d a s i m i l a r p o i n t of., view...  so b y  arguing  participation)  that  i s the  'System - 4' only  Likert  (trust  Gellerman  suggested  power s h o u l d  t h a t competence and  general motives  systems Mouton  should  and  take  into  (1964) a l s o s u g g e s t e d  leadership concern  style  f o r both  i s one the  Several other  where t h e  task  Kulick react  like  Schein  and  researchers  perceptions people's  o r g a n i z a t i o n on  of i t .  tions,  must u n d e r s t a n d  to  one  respect  that  these  Yates  their  are based to  within  organiza-  a b o u t a m a j o r change i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n s  from the w r i t i n g s o f K u r t  on  Hence,  individuals  T h i s v i e w has  and  people  differ  to s e v e r a l p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s .  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.  high  from  the b a s i s o f  change o r g a n i z a t i o n s means i n most c a s e s  primarily  effective  ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and  c o n t r o l human b e h a v i o r how  and  within organizations.  and m o t i v e s .  and  Blake  subordinates.  These p e r c e p t i o n s  needs, v a l u e s ,  control  have d e p a r t e d  ( 1 9 6 5 ) , Hunt  understand  with  the  considered  l e a d e r shows  (1977) f o r example, m a i n t a i n e d to t h e i r  be  t h a t t h e most  g l o b a l v i e w s o f human b e h a v i o r Writers  account.  can  (1963)  t h a t s t r u c t u r e and  these  and  l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e which  y i e l d maximum e f f e c t i v e n e s s .  as  (1967)  :  Also,  bringing  of originated  L e w i n and  the  55  Hawthorne g r o u p . has  The  perceptual  s i n c e been a p p l i e d  t i o n a l phenomena.  to  the  Vroom  a p p l i e d Lewin's g e n e r a l  m o d e l o f human B e h a v i o r  stud}?- o f  £L964) f o r i n s t a n c e , theory  of  the  abilities  a function of required  on  which the  person perceives  abilities  and  of  degree  such a b i l i t i e s .  writings  of  Y a t e s and example,  and  Kulick  the  job,  himself  the  Lawler  (1977).  as  having values  ( 1 9 6 8 ) , Van Y a t e s and  and  Maanen  Kulick  to  these the  possession the  March  (1975),  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members have  e n v i r o n m e n t a l v a r i a b l e s may  and  t o member p e r f o r m a n c e .  be  r e l a t e d t o one  that  there  only  concerning another  Newly r e c r u i t e d members  believe  and  (1977) f o r  quasi-normative understanding  generally  the  perception  degree  i n c l u d i n g Cyert  how  organizations  the worker's  S i m i l a r assumptions u n d e r l i e  suggested that  intuitive,  has  hypothesizing  t o w h i c h he  several others  (1963), P o r t e r  an  the  organiza-  of p e r s o n a l i t y to  study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior, p e r f o r m a n c e t o be  several  should  of  be  a h i g h p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e f f o r t  and, s u c c e s s  on  this  a job,  but  practical  view  (Yates & K u l i c k ,  out,  i n the  are  long  d e p e n d e n t on  run its  principles underlying  experience modifies  1977).  As  Dunbar  organizational  control  member's b e l i e f s the  process,  (1979)  about  naive  pointed  processes the  ;  56  A  SUGGESTED-INTEGRATING. MODEL. .OF, ORGANIZATIONAL  CONTROL SYSTEMS:  As an  was m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s  overview o f research  systems, testing  structure),  control  set  system.  largely  c o n t r o l systems.  observed  This,:it  appropriate  any  that  is felt,  as d i s c r e t e v a r i a b l e s .  i s due to t r e a t  The  underlying  the e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l results  changes i n any one o f t h e s e  example,  needs  consistent  researchers  s y s t e m more o r l e s s a u t o m a t i c a l l y  that  human  the effectiveness of  a s s u m p t i o n w o u l d seem t o be t h a t  For  (e.g.,  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f  t o the attempts by p a s t  above f a c t o r s  (e.g.,  technology,  I t was a l s o  explaining  h a s b e e n on  (e.g.,  t o date has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d  of variables  specific  the  i n explaining  providing  control  organizational  or person-related  theory) f a c t o r s  research  of specific  research  organization-related  environments),  focal  on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  t h e f o c u s o f most p a s t relevance  section  from  variables.  the s t r u c t u r a l t h e o r i s t s would  suggest  t h e e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l s y s t e m i s more o r l e s s a  function  of appropriate  technologists  s t r u c t u r a l changes.  The  on t h e o t h e r hand, w o u l d g i v e t h e  p i v o t a l p o s i t i o n to p r e v a i l i n g t e c h n o l o g y and task sequence w i t h i n  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  a n d recommend n e c e s s a r y  57  changes i n t h e s e v a r i a b l e s The of  personalists  effective  attain effective control.  e m p h a s i z e human d i g n i t y and  employees as n e c e s s a r y  organizational  to  conditions  performance,  organizational  synonymous w i t h  self  since  integrating  approach takes the  above t h r e e  organizational  interrelated,  and  that  interrelationship c o n t r o l and  t o most o f  by  them less  employees. A  suggested  p o s i t i o n that  dimensions are understanding  in greater  higher  for effective  c o n t r o l i s more o r  c o n t r o l by  self-growth  detail,  organizational  a l l the  closely  this  better  organizational  effectiveness  can  be  achieved.  It  i s suggested  connecting  the  three  attitudes.  The  p e r s o n s and  things  s h a p e d by  his/her past  construct  i s individual cognition the  individuals  in their relevant they appear to  the  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d image o f  learning,  physical  values  often  image o f  areas  central  the  n o t h i n g new  see  and  and  relevant  a r o u n d us  reality  social  not  created  i n psychology,  the by  and  the w o r l d  traits,  set.  reality, This  Each  because  environments,  us. in  are  individuals.  perceptual  and  to  environment  image i s a p r o d u c t o f p e r s o n a l i t y  n e e d s and quite  an  the  responses of  t h e way  p e r s o n has  that  We  but  an  idea  is  organizational  58  behavior,  at  l e a s t one  school  of  thought  (headed  K a r l Weick) views o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e a l i t i e s of  'enacted environments'.  selectively react very  organized,  by  even to  were i d e n t i c a l  a l l members, t h e y a r e  of  per  se.  their  Figure  of  actions  to behave  as  strategies. variables his/her  external  on  predictors  than the  of a person's  by  better realities  control  systems  perceptual  choice  a first  set  of  control  of  i n f l u e n c i n g a manager's c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s  authority  reward system w i t h i n  and  nature of  processes within individual's  i t .  A  perception the  structure,  the  d e c i s i o n m a k i n g and  suggested here that  is  of organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  existing organizational  the  perceived  external  of  These i n c l u d e  and  differently  realities  p e r s o n a l i t y and  I t i s suggested that  perceptions  to  stimuli.  and  conceptually  I I . l^shows 'a'; m o d e l  which h e a v i l y r e l i e s variables  likely  actions.  i n d i v i d u a l s w o u l d seem t o be of  very  cognition of a s i t u a t i o n  likely  However, p e r c e p t i o n s  predictors  are  identical  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e i r n e e d s , a b i l i t i e s , instrumentalities  i n terms  cognition i s  d i f f e r e n t persons  differently  Even i f there  Since  by  organization, communication  second major v a r i a b l e i s o f his/her...task.  an  It is  same i n d i v i d u a l w i l l  react  FIGURE  IJ. S  A PROPOSED MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROL  ORGANIZATIONAL & ORGANIZATION RELATED FACTORS (Structure, technology, environments, etc) PERCEPTIONS OF ORGANIZATIONAL & TASK CHARACTERISTICS * .PERSONALITY VARIABLES  7TC  i  CHOICE OF CONTROL BEHAVIOR  4  INDIVIDUAL & ORGANIZATIONAL CONSEQUENCES  60  quite task  d i f f e r e n t l y d e p e n d i n g on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e (e.g.,  research  i t s importance).  on l e a d e r s h i p  differing  & Yetton, model t h a t control  A third  a l l past system.  variables  ( F i e d l e r , 1967; Vroom i n the  of specific  personality  The p e r s o n a l i t y  learning  different  appropriate  set of variables  i s his/her  needs a n d b e l i e f s .  belief  that  d e t e r m i n e s a manager's c h o i c e  strategies  include  styles are  task s i t u a t i o n s  1973).  the e x i s t i n g  seems t o i n d i c a t e  d e c i s i o n making and c o n t r o l for  Indeed,  traits,  variables  a n d t h e manager's  also  general  The i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p e r s o n a l i t y  and i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s  of  organizational  andx t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t o determine the e x e c u t i v e ' s present  control behavior  i nthe  model.  Summary:  R e s e a r c h on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l now i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d theories  focusing  control  constructs  technology,  until  by g l o b a l n o r m a t i v e models and  on s i n g l e  independent  D e p e n d i n g upon t h e s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h e r ' s various  systems  s u c h as s t r u c t u r e ,  variables. inclinations  environment,  a n d human n e e d s h a v e b e e n u s e d as  determinancts o f optimal  control  systems w i t h i n  an  61  organization.  Among t h e s e c o n s t r u c t s ,  s t r u c t u r e has always e n j o y e d  the prime p o s i t i o n .  I n d e e d , many a u t h o r s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d synonymous w i t h little  consistent  f i n d i n g s however, e x i s t w h i c h  consistent  there  appropriate  c o n t r o l mechanisms.  s y s t e m s , most w r i t e r s  various  exist  I n the case of control  have emphasized t h e  the perceptions  organizational  o f members o f  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s before  control strategy.  appropriate  an  a t t e m p t was made t o f o r m u l a t e a c o n t r o l m o d e l h e a v i l y on t h e p e r c e p t u a l  variables  from a l l c u r r e n t  control process,  a l l of  these v a r i a b l e s .  specific  research  methodology a r e p r e s e n t e d  T h i s model  give minimal  The p r e s e n t  proposal,  that  differs  models o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  which  to t e s t the e m p i r i c a l v a l i d i t y  chapter,  s t y l e and p e r s o n a l i t y  o f i n d i v i d u a l managers.  significantly  to  In this  choosing  an  relies  very  have t a k e n a n o r m a t i v e and g l o b a l  O n l y a few w r i t e r s  need t o c o n s i d e r  justify  f i n d i n g s w h i c h c a n g u i d e us i n  o f p e r s o n a l i t y and c o g n i t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n s  approach.  Very  I n t h e case o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l and  t e c h n o l o g i c a l models o f c o n t r o l a l s o  selecting  c o n t r o l t o be  the s t r u c t u r e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n .  such assumptions.  little  organizational  research  i s an a t t e m p t  o f t h i s model.  hypotheses  i n the next  importance  The  and r e s e a r c h chapter.  62  CHAPTER I I I  PRESENT RESEARCH PROPOSAL AND METHODOLOGY  In  the last  chapter a model o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  c o n t r o l was p r o p o s e d w h i c h c o n s i d e r s task,  and p e r s o n a l i t y  was a l s o  indicated  have v a r y i n g processes,  impact  variables  that  simultaneously.  s t y l e s may  on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  structure,  Clearly,  i n the present  o f time.  among f o u r  perceptions of organizational facing  design What was  s t u d y was t o t e s t t h e f o l l o w i n g  hypothesized relationships  characteristics  t e s t i n g t h e complete  a longitudinal research  which i s not f e a s i b l e at t h i s point attempted  It  different control  and b e h a v i o r .  model would i n v o l v e  the organizational,  variables:  characteristics,  t h e d e c i s i o n maker,  namely,  task  personality  of  t h e c o n t r o l l e r , and t h e c h o i c e o f c o n t r o l  behavior  by  the f o c a l c o n t r o l l e r .  this  study  investigated  organizational  how s p e c i f i c p e r c e p t i o n s o f  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and  the personality  the  choice of control  (see  Figure  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  III.l).  o f the c o n t r o l l e r determine behavior  i nvarious  situations  FIGURE  FACTORS  III.l  INFLUENCING THE CHOICE OF CONTROL IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT  BEHAVIORS  PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS  PERSONALITY CHARACTERIS TICS OF CONTROLLER  CHARACTERISTICS OF DECISION PROBLEM(S) FACING THE CONTROLLER  )  CHOICE OF CONTROL STRATEGIES (BEHA VIOR) BY CONTROLLER  64  DEPENDENT VARIABLE  For  IN THIS STUDY:  the purpose o f t h i s  manager's c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s  study,  an i n d i v i d u a l  were s c a l e d on two  dimensions: i)  the extent  t o which such b e h a v i o r s  i n c r e a s e o r decrease) part ii)  (i.e.,  t h e e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n on t h e  o f h i s o r h e r s u b o r d i n a t e ( s ) , and the extent  increase part  influence  to which such b e h a v i o r s  o r decrease)  influence  (i.e.,  t h e i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n on t h e  of h i s or her subordinate's).  E x t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g work s i t u a t i o n s a r e t h o s e where r e w a r d s f o r good p e r f o r m a n c e by t h e employee come f r o m o u t s i d e t h e .task.  Offer of large  m o n e t a r y r e w a r d s a n d o t h e r b e n e f i t s , a n d good w o r k i n g conditions,aetc.,  a r e some f a c t o r s w h i c h l e a d t o h i g h  e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f w o r k e r s . the  importance o f such  work m o t i v a t i o n w i l l another  Of course,  rewards i n the context o f  differ  f r o m one employee t o  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e s t r e n g t h o f d i f f e r e n t  needs i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l  concerned.  I n t r i n s i c a l l y motivating hand, a r e t h o s e  situations,  "where p e r f o r m i n g  on t h e o t h e r  well i s a  rewarding  65  e x p e r i e n c e , t o . the. i n d i v i d u a l or promotion i s i n v o l v e d "  e v e n t h o u g h no  (Lawler  page 6 5 ) .  L i k e a good g o l f  landscape,  good j o b p e r f o r m a n c e must  o f accomplishment. situations task  are  identity  shot  and  In g e n e r a l  Rhode,  l e a d to  raise 1976;  or'painting a  intrinsically  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by and  pay  good  feelings motivating  high variety,  autonomy,  feedback.  Variety;  the degree to which the c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s f a c i l i t a t e employees t o p e r f o r m a w i d e r a n g e o f a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r work o r t o use a v a r i e t y o f e q u i p m e n t and procedures on t h e j o b .  Autonomy.  the degree to which the c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s a l l o w t h e employees t o have a m a j o r 'say' i n s c h e d u l i n g t h e i r work, i n s e l e c t i n g t h e e q u i p m e n t t h e y w i l l u s e , and i n d e c i d i n g on p r o c e d u r e s t o be f o l l o w e d .  Task identity  the degree to which the c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s f a c i l i t a t e t h e employees t o do an e n t i r e o r 'whole' p i e c e o f work and c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y the res.ults o f t h e i r e f f o r t s .  Feedback  the degree to which the c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s e n a b l e t h e employees t o r e c e i v e as t h e y are working, i n f o r m a t i o n which r e v e a l s how w e l l t h e y a r e w o r k i n g .  Several past presence of these motivation. variety, related  research core  Oldham  feedback,  s t u d i e s have r e l a t e d  dimensions  intrinsic  (1974) f o r example, and  autonomy were  to i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n  employee.  to  Hackman and  Lawler  on  the  found  that  significantly  the p a r t o f  (1971) i n a  study  the  66  involving  208- employees o f a  t h a t when j o b s  a r e high.^on  telephone  company  the four core  dimensions,  employees who a r e d e s i r o u s o f h i g h e r o r d e r n e e d faction found  tend  t o have h i g h e r m o t i v a t i o n .  Farr  t h a t j o b s w h i c h a r e h i g h on t h e c o r e  tend  to generate  part  o f workers.  indicated  higher  correlated  satif-  (1976)  dimensions  i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n on the  P a s t r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have  t h a t these  found  core  dimensions  also  are positively  ( a l t h o u g h w e a k l y i n some c a s e s ) ; a s s u c h  we c a n e x p e c t  them t o c o v a r y  (Hackman & L a w l e r ,  i n t h e same  1971; Oldham,  direction  1974).  INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:  1.  Perceived Organizational Characteristics:  The  first  independent  v a r i a b l e was t h e manager's  perceptions o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . It  i s felt  existing will  are  p e r c e p t i o n s about the  organization structure,  significantly  towards in  that a person's  influence his/her  the appropriateness  general.. likely  strategies  processes  Structural to a f f e c t  attitudes  of various control  characteristics  a person's  i n specific  and b e h a v i o r  systems  particularly  choice o f control  situations.  67  F o l l o w i n g B u r n s and were c l a s s i f i e d their  structural  'mechanistic' III.2, quite are  into  the  and  authority,  'organic'.  f r o m one  high lines  by  of  It tions lead  to  a higher  greater  approach  This  to  adopts a  use  and  primarily systems  degree o f  control  on  task of  authority  the  workers  On  the  o t h e r hand, i n an  part  centralization,  that  part of  self  which  their  organization participative  decisions,  develop n a t u r a l l y  i t is unlikely  the  organiza-  behaviors  democratic or  and  by  the  and  Organic  i s b e c a u s e i n an  performance a p p r a i s a l s  the  systems  control  managers i n o r g a n i c  to making i m p o r t a n t  autonomy on  are  Mechanistic of  styles:  Figure  styles  decentralization  i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n on  which g e n e r a l l y  two  in  on  communication.  more l i k e l y  subordinates.  tion,  another.  i s suggested that  are  these  communication.  managerial  indicated  task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ,  interdependence, horizontal  of  and  As  organizations  categories based  centralization  o t h e r hand e x h i b i t  and  distinct  characteristics  characterized  the  two  (1961)  characteristics  different  vertical  Stalker  control  participative of  activities  ( L a w l e r & Rhode,  autocratically  run  1976).  organiza-  meaningful p a r t i c i p a t i o n  of workers  can  develop.  task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n ,  and  and  Hence vertical  FIGURE  III.2  CHARACTERISTICS OF 'MECHANISTICo AND ORGANIZATIONS  Mechanistic  'ORGANIC'  Organic  T a s k s a r e h i g h l y f r a c t i o n a t e d and s p e c i a l i z e d ; l i t t l e r e g a r d p a i d to c l a r i f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between t a s k s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s .  T a s k s a r e more i n t e r d e p e n d e n t ; e m p h a s i s on r e l e v a n c e o f t a s k s and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l obj e c t i v e s .  Tasks t e n d to remain r i g i d l y d e f i n e d u n l e s s a l t e r e d f o r m a l l y by t o p management.  Tasks are c o n t i n u a l l y adjusted and r e d e f i n e d through i n t e r a c t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members.  Specific role definition (rights, o b l i g a t i o n s , and t e c h n i c a l methods p r e s c r i b e d f o r e a c h member).  G e n e r a l i z e d r o l e d e f i n i t i o n (members accept general r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r task accomplishment beyond i n d i v i d u a l r o l e definition.  H i e r a r c h i a l structure:'' of ^ c o n t r o l a u t h o r i t y , and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . S a n c t i o n s d e r i v e f r o m emphoyment c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n e m p l o y e e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Network s t r u c t u r e o f c o n t r o l , a u t h o r i t y , and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Sanctions derive more f r o m community o f i n t e r e s t than than from c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p .  I n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o s i t u a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r m a l l y assumed t o r e s t w i t h c h i e f e x e c u t i v e .  L e a d e r n o t assumed t o be o m n i s c i e n t , k n o w l e d g e c e n t e r s i d e n t i f i e d where l o c a t e d throughout o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Communication i s p r i m a r i l y v e r t i c a l b e t w e e n s u p e r i o r and subordinate.  C o m m u n i c a t i o n i s b o t h v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l d e p e n d i n g upon where n e e d e d information resides.  ?  Mechanistic  Organic  Communications p r i m a r i l y take form o f i n s t r u c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s i s s u e d by s u p e r i o r s , o f i n f o r m a t i o n and r e q u e s t s f o r d e c i s i o n s s u p p l i e d by inferiors.  Communications p r i m a r i l y t a k e f o r m o i n f o r m a t i o n and a d v i c e .  I n s i s t e n c e on l o y a l t y t o o r g a n i z a t i o n and o b e d i e n c e t o s u p e r i o r s .  Commitment t o o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s and g o a l s more h i g h l y v a l u e d l o y a l t y or obedience.  Importance and p r e s t i g e a t t a c h e d t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with organization and i t s members.  tasks than  "Importance and p r e s t i g e a t t a c h e d a f f i l i a t i o n s and e x p e r t i s e i n e x t e r n a l environment.  to  70  communication . c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f m e c h a n i s t i c tions  are  likely  systems t h a t it  that  influence  reinforce  the  organization w o u l d use  other.  lead  thereby  the  controller:  controlier.  of  of  widely  the  the  Decision  in several  control  cases an  i t i s that  motivating  i t s members behaviors  t o more w o r k e r autonomy increasing  the  the  decision  situations  organic  and  nature  problems  i n the  facing  model i s  problems f a c i n g facing  the  the  o v e r p u r c h a s e and  are  t h e i r importance,  to  the  organization. sale  seen, as more i m p o r t a n t  of  continued For  than c o n t r o l  over  the  complexity how  survival  example,  c a p i t a l assets  the  controller  'Importance' h e r e connotes  decisions  aifd s u c c e s s o f  decision  i n terms o f  uncertainty.  crucial  strategies)  second independent v a r i a b l e  characteristics  and  organiza-  organization.  Characteristics  differ  control  Indeed,  (viz.,  Thus t h e more o r g a n i c  intrinsically  2.  A  variables  i s , t h e more l i k e l y  participation, the  two  e a c h ' o t h e r and  which i n turn w i l l  of  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  mutually  control  generate . e x t r i n s i c motivation..  is believed  tional  t o make managers r e l y on  organiza-  is the  control  typically length  of  71  c o f f e e , breaks. that, a s u b o r d i n a t e It  is felt  behaviors activity refers  t h a t how  i s s t r o n g l y i n f l u e n c e d by  to b o t h the  considered factors.  and  the  t o be  must be  of c a p a b i l i t i e s  Many o f  these  Control and  f a c t o r s are  the  complexity  decisions  can  maker. widely  o f f a c t o r s to  among  Finally,  know a b o u t t h e  and  exact  resources,  classified  t h e number and considered  by  hand.  into  Thus some o f other  the  are not.  'simple'  interconnections the  decision  surrounding  d e c i s i o n maker may nature of  and  the  o r may  problem,  the  the  latter  vary the not  the the  c o n s t r a i n t s f a c i n g him/her.  d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s are In  a  behaviors.  consequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e courses o f a c t i o n ? available  of  managerial decision s i t u a t i o n s  The  many  outside.  light  problem at  i n terms o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t y  d e c i s i o n maker.  example,  also highly inter-related o f the  f a c t o r s t o be  for  of a great  i n the  be  these  possible future  a l s o be  'complex' b a s e d on  among t h e  and  the  'Complexity'  evaluation  considered  day.  control  work s u p e r v i s o r ,  and  the  important  both ;within t h d : o r g a n i z a t i o n  variety  to  them.  interconnections  identification  Each candidate  adding  by  how  sheer- m u l t i p l i c i t y  R e c r u i t i n g a new  candidates  during  p e o p l e adopt d i f f e r e n t  i s perceived  involves  takes  case,  there  certain  while  i s a lack  of  72  appropriate factors  on  the  same v e i n , into  and. adequate, i n f o r m a t i o n , a b o u t  ' c e r t a i n ' and  uncertainty  may  While  can  'uncertain'.  decision be  Personality  Of  importance,  a l s o be course,  r e l a t e d to each  i n c l u s i o n of  In  considerations  on  classified the  three and  other.  the  controller:  several personality  justified  the  complexity,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  w o u l d seem t o be practical  o f the. ^ d e c i s i o n maker.  a l l control decisions  dimensions of  3.  part  various  conceptual  necessitate  the  measures  grounds, choice  of  a  i single, the  important,  purpose of  a m b i g u i t y ' was this  trait  the  (i.e.,  sources of "the  by  prefer  this  defined  and  situations  situations  Ambiguity a r i s e s i n s i t u a t i o n s  who  are  r e g u l a r i t y to  and/or  as  as as  characteri-  insolubility.  i n t o l e r a n t of ambiguity change,  to  of ambiguity  ambiguous  to  Intolerance  tendency  ambiguous  tolerance  since  more r e l a t e d  "the  for  of  s i n g l e measure  as  complexity,  trait  'Tolerance  other t r a i t .  interpret)  threat"  novelty,  Individuals  study.  t h a n any be  personality  conceptually  tendency to p e r c e i v e  desirable." zed  present  seems t o be  o f a m b i g u i t y may  relevant  c h o s e n as  control behaviors  perceive  and  clarity  to  tend  to  ambiguity,  73  balance etc.,  to imbalance,  while  t h o s e who  concreteness  to  abstraction,  are t o l e r a n t  seem t o  prefer  the o p p o s i t e .  Tolerance in  the  Olsen  (1976) p o i n t o u t  important  decision that  of intention  inconsistent  and  understanding technology, (i.e.,  ill-defined  (i.e.,  a d e c i s i o n maker  (i.e.,  uncertain).  are  In such  to i n i t i a t e  make most d e c i s i o n s b y r e s e a r c h on persons  low  h i g h e r degree themselves.  from  likely  others  t o be more c r e a t i v e  doing things  findings,  (Streufert,  (Tuckman,  1966).  history  i t c a n be  hypothe-  ambiguity  of control  has  the  shown  They  suggest  B a s e d on  past  to are  n o v e l ways  the  i t c a n be h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t p e r s o n s  and  that  sensitive  1966). and  of organi-  by members i s  Indeed,  t o l e r a n c e -of a m b i g u i t y  of  i t happened,  tolerance of  with h i g h t o l e r a n c e are l e s s  deviance  of  ambiguity  circumstances,  with  of  about  e t c ) , ambiguity  t o h a p p e n ) , and  ambiguity:  ambiguity  pattern of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  that persons  likely  also  goals),  what h a p p e n e d i n t h e p a s t , why  zation  of  the presence  l a c k o f knowledge  environments,  and w h e t h e r i t h a d  sized  (i.e.,  trait  making.  an o r g a n i z a t i o n f a c e s f o u r m a j o r t y p e s  ambiguity  of  i s an  context of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  M a r c h and in  iof: a m b i g u i t y  above with  74  high  tolerance,  o f . a m b i g u i t y are. more l i k e l y  ' i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g .control systems' more autonomy This  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  to t h e i r  to use  thus g i v i n g subordinates.  i s b e c a u s e any d e l e g a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n m a k i n g  involves  creation of uncertainty  p e r s o n s who  have  be f a v o u r a b l y  low t o l e r a n c e  inclined  (or ambiguity)  and  o f a m b i g u i t y may  t o open up new  sources  not  of  uncertainty.  Past  r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  d e c i s i o n making a b i l i t y conceptual  structure.  i s i n f l u e n c e d by h i s / h e r Shroeder,  D r i v e r , and S t r e u f e r t  (1965) p r o p o s e d a d i m e n s i o n o f ' a b s t r a c t n e s s ' 'concreteness' structure. use  'Concreteness'  a person's  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e  process  schemata;  'abstractness'  that  tolerance  .of. a m b i g u i t y  'abstractness'.  Goode,  and a  a n d Day  a m b i g u i t y was  In other  (1965) i t was a very  and t o use  The a u t h o r s  suggest  i s conceptually related r e s e a r c h by found that  important  among a l l s u c c e s s f u l U.S.  simple  i s the tendency  many d i m e n s i o n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n  a complex i n t e g r a t i v e s c h e m a t a .  to  conceptual  o f a few d i m e n s i o n s o f i n f o r m a t i o n  integrating to  t o measure  versus  Stogdill, tolerance  personality  senators,  trait  corporation  of  75  presidents,  a n d u n i o n , leaders...  Persons  t o l e r a n c e 'ip.f. a m b i g u i t y , h a v e been, f o u n d conventional i n values (rather This  than novel)  is likely  ambiguity and  and b e l i e f s  courses  with  somewhat i n e f f e c t i v e  rapidly  changing  t o be more  and t o a d o p t  of action  t o make p e r s o n s  w i t h low  (Budner,  1962).  low t o l e r a n c e o f  i n dealing with  situations  proven  calling  complex  f o r novel  strategies.  It 6f:r  i s expected  ambiguity  will  bohtrolrbehaviors to  Deci  (1975),  that persons  engage i n i n t r i n s i c a l l y on y e t a n o t h e r  ground.  Thus,  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  motivating  c h a l l e n g e s and r e d u c i n g  intrinsic  tendency  motivating According  one t y p e o f i n t r i n s i c a l l y  behavior i n v o l v e s conquering incongruity.  with high tolerance  motivation arises  from  t o seek and conquer c h a l l e n g e s  which a r e o p t i m a l f o r him.  Thus i t seems l i k e l y  that  persons  motivation w i l l  have  high  with high i n t r i n s i c  t o l e r a n c e of., a m b i g u i t y .  motivated person and v a l u e s it  to others  to project  h i s own  needs  with high tolerance of "  ( i n c o n t r a s t to those w i t h  ambiguity)  intrinsically  (including h i s subordinates)  w o u l d seem t h a t p e r s o n s  ambiguity for  is likely  S i n c e an  also  a r e more l i k e l y  low t o l e r a n c e  to i n i t i a t e  intrinsically  76  motivating, c o n t r o l  behaviors.  HYPOTHESES IN THE PRESENT  The  present  STUDY:  study r e l a t e s  the c o n t r o l l e r ' s  perception of organizational characteristics, teristics traits  of decision  situations,  o f the c o n t r o l l e r  control behaviors. open up new a r e a s  carefully  than  hypotheses.  as h y p o t h e s e s  I A:  organizations behaviors persons  I B:  behaviors  t o choose  study.  control  'extrinsic' motivation  .'.organic'  Individuals  a r e more l i k e l y  that generate  than persons  the f o l l o w i n g  f o r the present  a r e more l i k e l y  who work i n  organizations  i n mind,  I n d i v i d u a l s who work i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c '  that generate  Hypothesis  new  t o make r i g o r o u s t e s t o f  W i t h t h e above c a v e a t  Hypothesis  i s d e s i g n e d more t o  o f e n q u i r y and t o generate  formulated  were a d o p t e d  and p e r s o n a l i t y  to h i s o r her choice o f  The s t u d y  r e s e a r c h hypotheses  charac-  u  than  organizations.  who work i n ' o r g a n i c '  t o choose  'intrinsic'  control  work m o t i v a t i o n  who work i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  77  Hypothesis  II:  of"- a m b i g u i t y behaviors than  a r e more l i k e l y  that  t h o s e who  Hypothesis  I n d i v i d u a l s who  lead  are high i n tolerance  t o adopt  to ' i n t r i n s i c '  work m o t i v a t i o n  a r e low i n t o l e r a n c e  I I I A:  Individuals  control  o f r ambiguity.  a r e more l i k e l y t o  choose c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s t h a t  lead  m o t i v a t i o n when t h e d e c i s i o n s  t h e y h a v e t o make a r e  relatively  unimportant  to ' i n t r i n s i c '  work  t h a n when t h e s e d e c i s i o n s a r e  important.  Hypothesis  I I I B:  Individuals  choose c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s  that  a r e more l i k e l y t o  lead to  work m o t i v a t i o n when t h e d e c i s i o n s are are  relatively  IV:  t h a n when t h e s e  decisions  Choice o f s p e c i f i c  control behaviors  s i g n i f i c a n t l y ' i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e combined  of personality, variables. ambiguity, and  t h e y h a v e t o make  unimportant.  Hypothesis is  important  'extrinsic'  effects  d e c i s i o n - r e l a t e d , and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  An i n d i v i d u a l who  i s low i n t o l e r a n c e f o r  employed i n a ' m e c h a n i s t i c '  f a c i n g an i m p o r t a n t  d e c i s i o n problem i s l e a s t  to use c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s m o t i v a t i o n on t h e p a r t  organization  that  generate  'intrinsic'  o f s u b o r d i n a t e ( s ) a n d most  likely  78  likely  t o use  motivation 6-f  control strategies, that  on  their, p a r t .  ambiguity  employed i n  unimportant  on  the  part  of  that  their  :to c h o o s e b e h a v i o r s  The  r e a d e r may  proposed about the c o m p l e x i t y and facing The  the  t h a t when an situations, important  note  t h a t no  there  whenever the  decisions  s u r v i v a l and  This  of  course implies  lead  to h i g h  of  subordinates  are  most  likely motivation.  decision situations  h i s or her  faces  control  to  to  involved success that  decision  centralize a l l  are  within that  the  there  t o be  is in  to  the  organization.  control behaviors on  unit.  participants  critical  the  motivation  less likely  and  some-indication  lower l e v e l  of  behavior(s).  (1971),  'critical'  hypothesized  'intrinsic'  use  h y p o t h e s e s were  (1977) p r o v i d e s  be  to  motivation  to ' i n t r i n s i c '  i s a tendency  i t may  facing  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between  l e s s autonomy g i v e n  continued  and  (1963), Khandwalla  organization  and  tolerance  least likely  d e c i s i o n making a c t i v i t i e s  Accordingly, general,  lead  'extrinsic'  in  'extrinsic'  that  uncertainty  Vertinsky  firms  subordinate(s)  specific  work o f Hermann  Smart and  'organic'  l e a d to  c o n t r o l l e r and  to  Individuals high  d e c i s i o n problems are  control behaviors  lead  the  that  part  u s e d when  the  of  79  decisions theses and  are. v e r y  / c a n n o t be  uncertainty  past research variables. ship  For the  the  d e s i g n was  over  section, used.  of  laboratory. variables  strategies, be  variables  high  a laboratory  It is believed  the  the  control  relationbehavior  hypotheses  that  systematic  independent v a r i a b l e s  and  i s more e a s i l y p o s s i b l e  the  relationships: degree o f  potential that  confidence  choice of  cause  to  i s , to that  control in  a  control  state with  changes i n  dependent  control behavior/strategy). pointed  of  specify  (e.g., p e r s o n a l i t y  changes i n t h e  (1969; page 303)  stated  experimentation  S u c h s y s t e m a t i c v a r i a t i o n and  controller)  as W e i c k  l i n k i n g these  and  t e s t i n g the  o r more i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  (e.g.,  no  exploratory.  also provides  cause-effect  the  found  since  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  purpose of  'treatments'  fairly  two  complexity  DATA COLLECTION:  last  variation  could  present  essentially  METHOD OF  in  with control  studies  The  However, s i m i l a r h y p o -  made r e l a t i n g , d e c i s i o n  between t h e s e  t h u s was  important.  a  one of variable  Besides,  out:  " t h e y ( l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t s ) i l l u s t r a t e the d e t e c t i o n o f u n n o t i c e d causes, causes t h a t  80  a r e w o r t h n o t i c i n g and t h a t b e a r continued noticing. I t seems c l e a r t h a t e x p e r i m e n t a l organizations are useful f o r locating problems as f o r v e r i f y i n g h y p o t h e s e s . " On t h e o t h e r been s e v e r e l y  critiques. tation  counts:  out again  i n many  and a g a i n  by  F r o m k i n and S t r e u f e r t  several  this research  these c r i t i c i s m s ,  research  Further,  Argyris (1969)  o f some o f t h e w e a k n e s s e s Notwithstanding  laboratory  e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n has  i n organizational  because o f the o p p o r t u n i t y  v a r i a t i o n (thus  reducing  alternative explanations).  practical  problems h i n d e r  t h e number o f A multitude  the wide use o f r e a l  organizations  f o r research  purposes  accessibility  to a l l relevant  the  eliminate  potential  (e.g.,  of  life  lack of  t y p e s .of o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,  the n a t u r e o f the hypothesis being number o f v a r i a b l e s  behavior  i t provides  t o c o n t r o l v a r i a b l e s and  uncontrolled  (1963)  methodology.  t o be p o p u l a r  researcher  experimen-  ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and R o s e n t h a l and Rosnow  good d i s c u s s i o n s  continued  (1976).  of  studies  i s a v a i l a b l e i n Campbell and S t a n l e y  provide  the l i m i t e d  of f i n d i n g s , the a r t i f i c i a l i t y  A good d i s c u s s i o n o f l a b o r a t o r y  ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Orne  of  e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n has  on s e v e r a l  s e t t i n g s , and l a c k o f r e a l i s m  have been p o i n t e d  and  laboratory  criticized  generalizability lab  hand,  tested  and t h e l a r g e  t o be c o n t r o l l e d , t h e l i m i t e d  81 t i m e and etc.).  resources Also,  are used content  at the  as W e i c k  to t e s t  (.1964)  specific  is largely  command o f t h e pointed  In t h i s  the  1964,  setting  o f t e n i s absent  use  1970)  has  Clardy,  and  experimental  less  simple  similarity  simulations  simulations  P e n n e r 6c  (e.g.,  partial  of r e a l - w o r l d  events  some o t h e r s  perfect miniature organizations. laboratory  are  replicas  of  1962)  1968).  (e.g., Abelson, designed  while  1965)  Kennedy,  intentionally  replications  Patten,  (e.g., S t r e u f e r t , 6c S u e d f e l d ,  Schroder  of  Jones,  Many s i m u l a t i o n s a r e  in  by  (Weick,  forms  Bern, 1968;  (e.g.,  free simulations  computerized  1969),  not  natural  Zanna, & Brehm, 1968;  Driver, Karlins,  t o more o r  t o one  unnecessary  v a r i e d from r e l a t i v e l y  Kiesler,  and  and  of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l simulation i n l a b o r a t o r y  r o l e p l a y i n g experiments Linder,  and  their  4).  page  The  experiments  theory  s e n s e a one  b e t w e e n l a b o r a t o r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s and organizations  out,  p r o p o s i t i o n s and  d e t e r m i n e d by  the r e f e r e n t event.  researcher,  designed  to  be  (Zelditch, to  be  real-life  Indeed, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i m u l a t i o n s settings  of forms i n the p a s t  6c J a c o b s e n , 1964),  have  taken  s u c h as p r o o f  railroad-game  a variety;'  reading  (Adams  (Jensen,  1961),  82  cardsorting stories  ( F r e n c h & Snyder,  (Burns,  (Leavitt,  1964)  1960).  subject Fromkin laboratory possesses  and  detective  common t a r g e t  In t h e i r and  1959),  games  review a r t i c l e  Streufert  on  the  (1976) s u g g e s t e d  that  e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n as a method o f r e s e a r c h unique  contributions  a d v a n t a g e s and  t o knowledge.  page 3 5 3 ) , p o i n t e d  can p r o v i d e v a l u a b l e  A l s o , as Z i g l e r  (1963;  out:  "what t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r i s s a y i n g i s t h a t i f s u c h and s u c h h o l d s i n t h e r e a l w o r l d b e c a u s e o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s expounded i n the p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r y under i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e n s u c h and s u c h s h o u l d h o l d i n t h e w o r l d w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r has c r e a t e d . T h i s t r a n s l a t a b i l i t y i s what g i v e s t h e o r e t i c a l import to experiments which i n v o l v e phenomena w h i c h , t a k e n i n i s o l a t i o n , n o t o n l y a p p e a r p i c a y u n e b u t seem t o h a v e l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h what one o b s e r v e s in nature."  MEASURE OF  The  DEPENDENT VARIABLE:  dependent v a r i a b l e  as m e n t i o n e d  i n the l a s t  i n the study r e p o r t e d  section,  was  the  here  control  b e h a v i o r s o f d e c i s i o n makers w i t h i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . S i n c e t h e r e a r e no measuring motivating necessary  scales  'intrinsically'  currently available and  'extrinsically'  control behaviors of i n d i v i d u a l s , to decelop  for  i t was  some o p e r a t i o n a l m e a s u r e s o f  these  83  concepts.  For  t h i s purpose,  consisting  of  with several ioral 18  alternative  situations.  1) As  that  the  step,  are  The  the  subordinates  steps  dismissal, symbols.  dimensions  on  organizational  Next, a j o b  the  decision  control  of control  behavior  are The  variety,  the autonomy,  dimensions of  control  e x t r i n s i c motivation of  items  available  from p r o f e s s i o n a l  2)  feedback.  These i n c i d e n t s  currently  design of  motivation of  s u c h as  t e n u r e , w a r n i n g s and  the  i n the  the  were i d e n t i f i e d w h i c h were  a f f e c t the  of  ( i n behav-  g i v e n below:  intrinsic  include  along  d e c i s i o n maker f o r e a c h o f  d e c i s i o n maker's s u b o r d i n a t e s  that  situations  o r more d i m e n s i o n s o f  various  t a s k i d e n t i t y and  developed  twenty s i x m a n a g e r i a l  o f one  influence  behavior  was  courses of a c t i o n  various  (incidents)  illustrative behavior.  The  inventory  a first  situations  inventory  18 m a n a g e r i a l d e c i s i o n  t e r m s ) open t o  behavioral  an  behavior  pay,  in-basket and  promotion,  a number o f  were s e l e c t e d  status  f r o m some  tests,  b a s e d on  the  case books  ideas  coming  colleagues.  position within  a simulated  organization  84  s e t t i n g was  identified  c o u l d be r e a l i s t i c a l l y was  to:which, many o f t h e s e fitted..  The p o s i t i o n  t h a t o f a Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n ,  airline  c a l l e d North  Star A i r l i n e s ,  fitted  into  One  the context  Canada.  The v a r i o u s c o u r s e s  The  to s u i t the  i n c i d e n t w h i c h c o u l d n o t be o f t h e above m e n t i o n e d  o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d r o l e was  3)  identified  of a simulated  i n c i d e n t s were m o d i f i e d where n e c e s s a r y , above j o b p o s i t i o n .  incidents  dropped.  of action  ( i n b e h a v i o r a l terms)  open t o t h e j o b i n c u m b e n t when f a c e d w i t h  each  decision  To  s i t u a t i o n were n e x t  when t h e d e c i s i o n maker  finds  identified.  illustrate,  t h a t one o f h i s V h e r  subordinates  i s coming c o n s i s t e n t l y  he  among o t h e r t h i n g s , do any o f t h e s e :  ( s h e ) may  (a) w a r n t h e s u b o r d i n a t e , all  those  late  (b) p u n i s h ,  ( c ) r e w a r d on  o c c a s i o n s when t h e s u b o r d i n a t e  or  (d) i m p r e s s  on  time.  upon t h e s u b o r d i n a t e  These a r e c a l l e d  to the o f f i c e ,  comes  on  time,  t h e n e e d t o come  the ' b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s '  open t o t h e manager.  4) Two managers and  one g r a d u a t e  (working student  i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n Vancouver) i n t h e F a c u l t y o f Commerce,  U n i v e r s i t y o f British-Columbia (with managerial  experience)  were shown  seven.years'  the l i s t  o f twenty  =  85  five and  incidents, along with t h e i r behavioral asked to evaluate  incidents of  them f o r  and a l t e r n a t i v e s ,  the b e h a v i o r a l  incident.  The i n c i d e n t s  a) t h e r e a l i s m  and  alternatives  alternatives o f the  b) t h e e x h a u s t i v e n e s s  mentioned under  and b e h a v i o r a l  each  alternatives  were m o d i f i e d where n e c e s s a r y , b a s e d on comments these three  persons.  5) A p a n e l o f j u d g e s alternative control  (n=16) n e x t r a t e d  Vindicating  behavior that  the  extent  that  rated  would i n f l u e n c e  each b e h a v i o r a l  subordinates. members, f i v e students, University  scale,  graduate students  Columbia.  low on a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l  of  '3' t o i n d i c a t e 1A, I B ) .  to i n d i c a t e  behavior  that  o f two  and n i n e  faculty  undergraduate  The j u d g e s were  alternative  o f '-3' t o i n d i c a t e  is  (Appendix  control  (n=16)  o f Commerce, a t t h e  each b e h a v i o r a l  a rating  the i n t r i n s i c  the e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n o f  a l l o f the F a c u l t y  asked to r a t e  i t represents  alternative  Each panel c o n s i s t e d  of British  behavioral'  A second p a n e l  to which i t - r e p r e s e n t s  would i n f l u e n c e  each  t o what e x t e n t  m o t i v a t i o n o f the s u b o r d i n a t e s . similarly  from  that  on a  7-point  the behavior  d i m e n s i o n and a r a t i n g  i t i s h i g h on t h e d i m e n s i o n  86  The on  judges  a 5 point  1)  a l s o were a s k e d t o r a t e  scale  on t h e f o l l o w i n g  three  incident  dimensions:  importance o f the d e c i s i o n problem mentioned,  2) d e g r e e o f u n c e r t a i n t y p r o b l e m , and rating 'not  of  surrounding  3) t h e c o m p l e x i t y  '1'  meant t h a t  a t a l l important',  while a rating of was  each  of the d e c i s i o n .  A  the d e c i s i o n problem i s  'very c e r t a i n ' , o r 'very  '5'  'very important',  the d e c i s i o n  meant t h a t  the d e c i s i o n  vvery u n c e r t a i n ' ,  or  simple', problem  'very  complex'.  6)  The mean r a t i n g s  and t h e s t a n d a r d  r a t i n g s b y t h e two p a n e l s a l t e r n a t i v e were n e x t  f o r each  calculated.  deviation of  behavioral All  behavioral  a l t e r n a t i v e s whose r a t i n g s h a d a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f more t h a n 1.0 were removed. criteria  u s e d by H a r a r i  Smith and K e n d a l l  because o f high  variance  final  (19$3) a n d  inventory.  behaviorally  behavioral  i n their  from the f i n a l  qualified  more  alternatives  ratings  s i t u a t i o n s t o be u s e d d u r i n g  Nineteen incidents  than the  A l l i n c i d e n t s which l o s t  associated  members were e l i m i n a t e d decision  arid Z e d e c k  is stricter  (1963) i n d e v e l o p i n g  anchored instruments. t h a n 20% o f t h e i r  This  by p a n e l  list  of  the experiment.  f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the  However, one a d d i t i o n a l  decision  87  s i t u a t i o n where t h e r e was members as  t o w h e t h e r i t was  'unimportant' the  final  7)  The  no  a g r e e m e n t among t h e an  decision situation,  f i n a l behavioral s i t u a t i o n s and  t i v e s was  p r e t e s t e d on  attending  evening  Columbia.  a l s o was  inventory  c l a s s e s at the  I t appeared from t h i s  inventory.  Next,  g i v e n by  consisting of  a g r o u p o f 21  changes were c a l l e d  University of pretest that f o r i n the  t h e mean i n t r i n s i c  the  two  panels  and  f o r the  instrument  were e x a m i n e d f o r s t a t i s t i c a l  found t h a t the  scores  correlated positively,  not  r =  .30;  e x p e c t e d as  t o t a l l y mutually  correlation value  two  exclusive.  and  was  not  Finally,  the  two  panels  degree  Also,  the  more  or  s t r a t e g i e s are though  significant,  major problems i n implementing  five  independence.  o v e r l a p was  expected  no  final  t o a modest  This  British  extrinsic  the  motivational  is statistically  i s small,  g i v e n by  although  p<£.005). the  18  final  eighty  a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c l u d e d i n the  less  from  students  behavioral  (pearson  excluded  associated behavioral alterna-  substantive  I t was  or  list.  decision  scores  'important'  panel  to  the  i t s absolute  cause  research  any  design.  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n mean s c o r e s  of  the  88  85  behavioral  control  a l t e r n a t i v e s on i n t r i n s i c  dimensions provided  j u d g e s was t e s t e d . item  scores  control The  T h i s was done t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e  (i.e.,  intrinsic  t o w a r d s any one  or e x t r i n s i c ) .  The t e s t does n o t r e q u i r e  normality  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d a t a and i s c o n s i d e r e d  high  power e f f i c i e n c y when compared  designed f o r the matched-pair The  i n bias  W i l c o x e n t e s t f o r two m a t c h e d s a m p l e s was u s e d f o r  t h i s purpose. of  b y t h e two p a n e l s o f  are free of b u i l t  dimension  and e x t r i n s i c  p r o b a b i l i t y that  to other  with their given  very  methods  s i t u a t i o n (Hays,  1973).  t h e two sample means a r e i d e n t i c a l  was f o u n d t o e x c e e d 0.76 and h e n c e was satisfactory.  t o have  The f i n a l  eighteen  associated behavioral  considered  decision situations alternatives are  i n A p p e n d i x 2.  MEASURES OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:  1.  Organizational characteristics:  As  stated earlier,  a role description, of  Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n was f o r m u l a t e d of a simulated  organization  called  'North S t a r  Canada". The o r g a n i z a t i o n was d e s c r i b e d the  first  v e r s i o n gave t h e p i c t u r e o f a  organization  i n the context Airlines,  i n two ways: 'mechanistic'  b y h i g h l i g h t i n g s u c h d i m e n s i o n s as  89  centralized  d e c i s i o n making, v e r t i c a l  networks, h i g h span of rules the  task  c o n t r o l and  and  specialization, a fairly  procedures.  features  o f an  The  'organic'  upward c o m m u n i c a t i o n  and  r u l e s as  A panel  and  r e l a t i v e l y higher  'mechanistic'  the  organizations  and  two  organization.  these  and  (as o u t l i n e d i n B u r n s and  'organic' Stalker,  Changes where n e c e s s a r y w e r e made t o h i g h l i g h t characteristics  The 21  final  evening  University after  the  about  the  the  Columbia.  was  a group  o f Commerce a t  of the  Each p a r t i c i p a n t  d e s c r i p t i o n (mechanistic  of North Star  perceptions  pretested using  in.:the F a c u l t y  of B r i t i s h  1961).  organizations.  v e r s i o n was  students  reading  version)  of these  the  graduate  degree to which 'mechanistic'  or  organic  asked to i n d i c a t e h i s / h e r  o r g a n i z a t i o n on  c  procedures  ( t h r e e f a c u l t y members i n  Organizational Behavior f i e l d ,  descriptions portrayed  on  ( r a t h e r t h a n mere  number o f f o r m a l  compared t o a  students) evaluated  emphasis  and  the non-omniscient nature of  a smaller  of f i v e judges  degree  loosely defined  horizontal  leader  formal  f i r m s u c h as h i g h  tasks,  downard c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) ,  small  second v e r s i o n h i g h l i g h t e d  interdependent  the  relatively  l a r g e number o f  of d e c e n t r a l i z e d d e c i s i o n making,  and  communication  the  form  given  90  i n Appendix  3.  I t was  found that  a l l the p a r t i c i p a n t s  e x c e p t oner, p e r c e i v e d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as p r e d i c t e d by  the r e s e a r c h e r .  The  final  v e r s i o n o f the d e s c r i p t i o n  Airlines  i s g i v e n i n Appendix  2.  importance,  Task  As m e n t i o n e d judges  and  situation)  complexity.  judges,  and c o m p l e x i t y :  i n this  ( i n two p a n e l s ) were a s k e d  (or d e c i s i o n  Based  c h a p t e r , t h e 32 to rate  In the f i n a l incidents),  incident  uncertainty,  on t h e s c o r e s g i v e n b y t h e  'uncertain-certain', v e r s i o n o f the scale  into  and  'important -  'complex-simple'.  (consisting  o f 18  9 i n c i d e n t s were i m p o r t a n t and 9  unimportant,  12 u n c e r t a i n a n d 6 c e r t a i n ,  and  7 simple.  3.  T o l e r a n c e ;of a m b i g u i t y : As m e n t i o n e d  earlier,  intolerance  may be d e f i n e d as t h e t e n d e n c y situations  each  f o r i t s importance,  a l l i n c i d e n t s were c l a s s i f i e d  unimportant',  as s o u r c e s o f t h r e a t  a n d 11  complex  o f ambiguity  t o p e r c e i v e ambiguous (Budner,  1960).  While  the concept o f i n t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity i s c l o s e l y related  Star  4A a n d 4B.  uncertainty  earlier  of North  to r i g i d i t y , t h e s  former  i s a perceptual  91  characteristicwhereas: The  rigidity  a v a i l a b l e measures o f  include  the A z z a g a d d i  i s a q u a l i t y of  'intolerance of  test  (see Davids,  ambiguity  1956),  McReynold's concept  formation  sociometric  (MaCandless & Holloway,  ratings  Tolerance-Intolerance (Siegel,  1954),  the  of other  ambiguity the  s u c h as  Coulter  discussed  In  Scale  Cat-Dog t e s t  reliability  the H a m i l t o n S c a l e , and  present  construct  being  on  test-retest  split  and 1960).  t h e Walk  Scale  subject's by  This  16  Scale,  are  item  tolerance  f a r the  a 7-point to  of  (1955).  scale  f o u n d t o be  half reliabilities  d e s i g n e d by  its Stanley  worded  a l l the  items  from The  s c a l e over a  .85  f o r the  was  .'of  supporting  scale ranging  f o r the  scale  greatest test-retest  'strongly disagree'.  reliability  weeks was  test  (Budner,  e i g h t n e g a t i v e l y worded items;  scored  1955),  1955),  consists of eight p o s i t i v e l y  'strongly agree'  o f two  Princeton  e m p i r i c a l evidence  validity.  B u d n e r i n 1960 i t e m s and  the  study, Budner's  t h i s had and  Scale  1956),  t e s t s f o r measuring i n t o l e r a n c e  u s e d t o measure t h e a m b i g u i t y as  Davids,  (French,  of Ambiguity  i n Saunders  the  (see  o f Cognitive Ambiguity  Budner's I n t o l e r a n c e Details  test  behavior.  or above. s c a l e have  period The ranged  92  between appear  .39 lower  to  .62.  Although  the alpha  t h a n t h e more common s p l i t  the instrument  seems t o h a v e a c c e p t a b l e  reliabilities  half  coefficients,  reliability  c o n s i d e r i n g i t s probable m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y (Robinson & Shaver, to  1976).  support  There  the v a l i d i t y  correlations  i s some e m p i r i c a l of this  scale,  t h e Walk s c a l e ,  significant validity ratings  and  studies  the v a l i d i t y  (Robinson  & Shaver,  i n Appendix  instrument  indicates  intolerant  o f ambiguous  .36  and  intolerance o f Budner's  .54.  Other on  of- a m b i g u i t y  also  instrument  Budner's  5.  that  score i s i n d i c a t i v e . o f  (e.g., the P r i n c e t o n  i n t e r j u d g e agreement  1976).  reproduced  on  t h e C o u l t e r s c a l e ) have been  involving  on r e s p o n d e n t s '  The  s c a l e w i t h those  scales  r a n g e d between  supported  Sfz  instrument.  o f s c o r e s on B u d n e r ' s  other t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity  evidence  16  item scale i s  A h i g h s c o r e on the respondent  is  the relatively  s i t u a t i o n s where as a the respondent's  low  high tolerance  ambiguity.  RESEARCH DESIGN:  T h e r e were t h r e e i n d e p e n d e n t experiment (2)  (1) o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  t o l e r a n c e of • ambiguity  variables  i n the  characteristics,  o f t h e d e c i s i o n maker,  and  93  (3) i m p o r t a n c e  of the d e c i s i o n problems f a c i n g  d e c i s i o n maker,  The  first  two  groups of s u b j e c t s ; the l a s t designed subject  as a  variables  of experimental  Johnson,  treatments.  ' u n c e r t a i n t y ' and  importance  'complexity' separately  the  especially  cannot  be  dimensions  a r e shown i n T a b l e 3 X 2  associated with  manipulated  correlations with  of the d e c i s i o n problems.  correlations  a  This i s  of  1977).  t h e s e had v e r y h i g h p o s i t i v e  thus  extraneous tests  . differences  Pearsonian  was  individual  and/or measured r e l i a b l y ( H a r r i s ,  d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s were n o t  rated  the  t h u s p r o v i d e s more p o w e r f u l  specified precisely  as  Within  among s u b j e c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o  and  The  of  across  variable-was  'within subject variable'.  u s e f u l where a l l i n d i v i d u a l  1975;  independent  to d i s c o u n t the e f f e c t s  differences  effects  were m a n i p u l a t e d  or r e p e a t e d measures d e s i g n a l l o w s  researcher  the  among t h e t h r e e  factorial  r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s on d e c i s i o n  Each p a r t i c i p a n t  III.l.  The  decision  The  final  design with  design  two  importance.  i n the experiment  s c o r e s f o r e a c h d e c i s i o n h e / s h e made: which the p a r t i c u l a r  the"  d e c i s i o n was  likely  received Cl)  two  the extent  to  to i n f l u e n c e the  TABLE I I I . 1  INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATINGS ON THREE DIMENSIONS DECISION PROBLEMS BY A PANEL OF 32 PERSONS  Importance  Importance  Complexity  1.00  ,  Complexity  A l lcorrelations  Uncertainty-  0.89  0.96  1.00  0.92  Uncertainty  Note:  OF  1.00  are s i g n i f i c a n t  a t p <'. 001 l e v e l .  95  extrinsic motivation (2)  the  likely  extent  to i n f l u e n c e the  score'  The  score'  discussion. levels  former  of  is called  Tolerance  tolerance  and  mentioned before,  of  was  experimental described  i n the  experimental done t o  task  and  the  design  and  THE  PILOT STUDY:  'important'  steps  The  i n data  conducted,  problems  to r e f i n e the  Twelve students  (two  the  of  collection Before  a pilot  i f any,  and high as each  'unimportant' the  are  the  study  associated  actual was with  procedures.  graduate students  f o u r were f e m a l e s .  f r o m t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n two  :  of  levels:  details  undergraduates) p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p i l o t were m a l e s and  rest  importance  and  following sections.  the  is called  subject v a r i a b l e ,  experiment.  s t u d y was  identify  'extrinsic  organic,  two  Decision  a within  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s had  a m b i g u i t y had  tolerance.  the  latter  study: mechanistic,  p a r t i c i p a n t making b o t h during  the  was  of  the p a r t i c i p a n t f o r the  in this  low  the  Organizational  control.  decisions  and  i n t r i n s i c motivation  o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t and  'intrinsic  three  subordinate(s),  to which the p a r t i c u l a r d e c i s i o n  subordinate(s).  this  of the  and  study.  ten Eight  D a t a were c o l l e c t e d  instances.  On  the  first  96  occasion  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were r e q u e s t e d  some b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n work e x p e r i e n c e . requested of  Instrument, groups: those  A t t h e same t i m e ,  those  with  B a s e d on t h e i r  with high  scores  f o r Intolerance  on t h e B u d n e r  latter  subdivided these  into  ('organic  assume t h e r o l e  arranged  'mechanistic',  a d e s c r i p t i o n of North  version').  randomly.  i n the  The d e c i s i o n s were  The p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  the.role  to which they  a f t e r making the  could identify  o f t h e manager i n t h e s i m u l a t e d  s c o r e o f '1' meant  Star  They were a s k e d t o  o f Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n  a n d make 18 d e c i s i o n s .  extent  three  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the 'organic'  18 d e c i s i o n s were a s k e d t o r a t e on a 5 - p o i n t the  these  c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r members.  g r o u p were p r o v i d e d w i t h  airline  score  g r o u p s o f two  Thus e a c h o f t h e s e  On t h e s e c o n d o c c a s i o n ,  Airlines  three  Each o f  g r o u p s were c a l l e d  and ' c o n t r o l ' .  groups  and  s c o r e s were b e l o w o r above t h e mean  two g r o u p s was  two  d e p e n d i n g upon  a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the the group.  ^organic',  into  t o l e r a n c e f o f ambiguity  low t o l e r a n c e f o f a m b i g u i t y  persons each:  and  t h e y were a l s o  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were c l a s s i f i e d  whether t h e i r of  s u c h as age, s e x  t o complete the Budner S c a l e  Ambiguity.  to provide  that the p a r t i c i p a n t  scale  themselves airline. could  with A  identify  97  himself/herself a rating  o f '3' meant  (See, Appendix  The  'very l i t t l e '  were n e x t  'moderately'  a n d '5' ' v e r y much'.  o f North S t a r g i v e n to each  f o r the purpose  o f m a k i n g t h e 18  taken back from the p a r t i c i p a n t s  researcher.  E a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was  tion,  dimensions  number  number  of hierarchical  task  levels,  f o r this  The  purpose  and a u t h o r i t y  uncertainty,  the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  are g i v e n i n appendix h e r e was  i n terms  3.  to r a t e  each  of overall  a n d c o m p l e x i t y as p e r c e i v e d  The forms 7A,  to f i n d out which  c o n s i d e r e d as i m p o r t a n t , the  based  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e  p a r t i c i p a n t s were n e x t a s k e d  importance, by  of decentraliza-  i s given i n appendix  o f t h e 18 d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s  Airlines  specialization,  on p o s i t i o n p r e s e n t i n t h e a i r l i n e . used  by t h e  North Star  s u c h as d e g r e e  o f formal rules,  decisions  then asked to  i n d i c a t e h i s / h e r p e r c e p t i o n s about on s e v e r a l  while  6).  descriptions  participant  w i t h the r o l e ,  used  for this  7B, a n d 7C.  The  d e c i s i o n problems  purpose  objective were  complex, a n d u n c e r t a i n b y  participants.  Finally,  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d  to p r o v i d e  98  a g l o b a l 'organic' versus  'mechanistic'  the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which they experimental definition t i o n was  setting.  had j u s t worked i n the  For this  purpose,  group e x c e p t  organiza-  (please see,  s t e p s were f o l l o w e d f o r t h e  t h a t t h e y were g i v e n  version o f North Star's 'organic'  a  'mechanistic'  'mechanistic'  d e s c r i p t i o n i n s t e a d o f an  version.  In the case were n o t g i v e n  o f t h e c o n t r o l group,  They were s i m p l y Cargo D i v i s i o n  the course  a s k e d t o "assume  o f an a i r l i n e  o f the experiment.  the r o l e  o f Manager,  i n Canada" and r e s p o n d  t o t h e 18 d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s p r o v i d e d case,  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  any d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r  which they worked d u r i n g  this  brief  8).  Identical  in  a  o f an ' o r g a n i c ' a n d ' m e c h a n i s t i c '  given to each p a r t i c i p a n t  appendix  assessment o f  t o them.  Also  t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s were n o t r e q u i r e d t o  give t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r which t h e y worked; n o r were t h e y  a s k e d t o make t h e f i n a l  g l o b a l e v a l u a t i o n 6 f the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  The  pilot  opportunity  study  provided  t o t e s t how  the researcher w i t h  realistic  various  decision  an  99  p r o b l e m s and It  the  a l s o enabled  two  the r e s e a r c h e r  the p a r t i c i p a n t s with it  the r o l e  gave an  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s were. to f i n d  could i n fact  out  identify  themselves  o f t h e manager d u r i n g t h e  study.  o p p o r t u n i t y to the r e s e a r c h e r  feasibility  of manipulating  the  whether  Finally,  to t e s t  the  subjects' perceptions  about the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  during  the  s tudy.  The  results  o f the p i l o t  encouraging.  Of  in  o n l y one  the  study,  organizational the  the  twelve  s t u d y were  persons  failed  given  correctly.  dimension  appropriate  An  was  a l s o s h o w e d t t h a t :the p a r t i c i p a n t s  with  the  a score of  '3'  (moderately)  s c a l e u s e d f o r the p u r p o s e . had  a score of  much).  During  participants they  found  '4'  and  the p o s t  could  In f a c t ,  f o u r had  the  five  a score of  experimental  on  had  5-point persons '5'  briefing,  researcher  decision situations  study  identify  A l l o f them  o r above on  a l s o mentioned to the  the v a r i o u s  here,  a n a l y s i s o f the p i l o t  quite well.  the  i n the  data  assigned roles  Even  to the s i m u l a t e d a i r l i n e  the o r g a n i c - m e c h a n i s t i c direction.  participated  t o p e r c e i v e some o f  characteristics  global rating  who  extremely  (very the that  t o be  quite  100  realistic  and i n t e r e s t i n g .  THE EXPERIMENT:  180 s t u d e n t s  i n the F a c u l t y  Business Administration, participated and  22 y e a r s .  various  had  steps  i n the f i n a l  to those followed  changes i n t r o d u c e d rated  uncertainty,  students.  e x p e r i m e n t were  i n the p i l o t  asked t o i n d i c a t e on a 5 - p o i n t  disliked',  'iriiildly l i k e d ' ,  the  graduate  study.  The  a n d c o m p l e x i t y , he o r s h e  'mildly  style  20 were  were: a f t e r e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t  disliked',  extent  132 were m a l e s  t h e 18 d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s f o r t h e i r  importance, was a l s o  Columbia,  The m e d i a n age f o r t h e g r o u p was  a n d 9 were d i p l o m a o r o t h e r  identical only  experiment.  151 were u n d e r g r a d u a t e s ,  students,  The  University of British  i n the f i n a l  48 were f e m a l e s .  o f Commerce a n d  disliked',  'neither  a t North Star.  de-briefing period,  t o i n d i c a t e on a 5 - p o i n t  the managerial  Also,  the extent  he o r she f o u n d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l North Star A i r l i n e s  l i k e d ' ) the  during  e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t was scale  realistic.  ('strongly  l i k e d nor  and ' s t r o n g l y  to which the p a r t i c i p a n t l i k e d and p r a c t i c e s  scale  requested  to which  description of  The s c a l e u s e d h e r e  101  was:  'very u n r e a l i s t i c ' ,  'neither r e a l i s t i c and  'very  The  'mildly  unrealistic',  nor u n r e a l i s t i c ' ,  'mildly  realistic'  realistic",  responses  o f a l l t h o s e p e r s o n s who d i d n o t  (1) p e r c e i v e a t l e a s t  5 o f the 7 dimensions o f  the  organization  described  i n appendix  or  (2) d i d n o t make t h e c o r r e c t  the  o r g a n i z a t i o n on t h e o r g a n i c - m e c h a n i s t i c d i m e n s i o n ,  were removed f r o m a l l s u b s e q u e n t  3  correctly,  global rating of  analysis.  p a r t i c i p a n t s were removed f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s  Seven u s i n g these  criteria.  173 u s a b l e r e s p o n s e s were a v a i l a b l e purpose  o f data a n a l y s i s .  was d r o p p e d the  (randomly  two c o n t r o l  tolerant)  even  groups  (i.e.,  and e q u a l .  list  high tolerant  F o r data a n a l y s i s  a n d low purpose,  f o r the 'mechanistic'  60 f o r t h e ' o r g a n i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n , a n d  52 ::in t h e c o n t r o l samples  One c a s e f r o m t h i s  p i c k e d ) t o make t h e numbers i n  60 r e s p o n s e s were a v a i l a b l e organization,  f o r the  group.  H a l f o f each o f these  were p e r s o n s w i t h h i g h t o l e r a n c e  and h a l f were w i t h l o w t o l e r a n c e  On a v e r a g e ,  each p a r t i c i p a n t  f o r ambiguity  f o r ambiguity.  t o o k 40-50  minutes  102  m a k i n g t h e 18 d e c i s i o n s .  for  devoted  approximately  E a c h s u b j e c t was p a i d in  the study  In a l l ,  two h o u r s  each  participant  to the entire  study.  $3.-50 f o r h i s / h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n  a n d two c h a n c e s t o w i n a l o t t e r y o f  $25.00 sample o f 172  participants consisted  128 m a l e s a n d 44 f e m a l e s .  T h e i r m e d i a n age was  The of  final  22 y e a r s .  T h i s g r o u p c o n s i s t e d o f 145  20 g r a d u a t e  students, and 7 diploma  undergraduates,  students.  this  g r o u p h a d some work e x p e r i e n c e e i t h e r  time  o r p a r t time  employee.  t i m e work e x p e r i e n c e . had  O f t h e 172  scale  score o f the respondent  f o r Intolerance o f  standard  The  full  34% h a d f u l l  p a r t i c i p a n t s , 477o  some s u p e r v i s o r y o r m a n a g e r i a l  average  The  Of these,  as a  98% o f  experience.  The  group on t h e Budner  Ambiguity  was 48.8  with a  d e v i a t i o n o f 9.7.  data emerging from  details  o f data a n a l y s i s  g i v e n i n the dext" chapter.  t h e s t u d y were n e x t  analyzed.  and the f i n d i n g s a r e  103  CHAPTER  FINDINGS AND  The  primary  a s s e s s how  For  DISCUSSION  o b j e c t i v e o f the  and p e r s o n a l i t y  c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s by t h i s purpose,  the  traits  data  from  Some o f t h e c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e of Variance  V a n c o u v e r , and for  University,  University of C a l i f o r n i a ,  Los  the present  (namely,  during  study.  'mechanistic',  tolerance the  of  ambiguity  study.  Co-variance.  Halifax,  as a  on Columbia,  were  used  i n c l u d e d the  Sciences  (SPSS)  and  i n the  Angeles.  As m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s  in  and  computer p r o g r a m s d e v e l o p e d  designed  choice  were  computer p r o g r a m s  S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l  was  i n f l u e n c e the  the experiment  the purpose o f data a n a l y s i s . These  importance  decision  i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Dalhousie  BMDP: B i o m e d i c a l  to  d e c i s i o n makers i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  subjected to A n a l y s i s o f Variance  Analysis  c u r r e n t s t u d y was  organizational characteristics,  characteristics of  IV  chapter,  decision  'within subject variable'  Organizational characteristics ' o r g a n i c ' , and were  ' c o n t r o l ' ) and  ' w i t h i n group  variables'  104  The p e r c e p t i o n s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s on  the o v e r a l l  importance  i n the  o f the v a r i o u s  decision  p r o b l e m s w e r e compared w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e earlier I t was  to the found  same p r o b l e m s by  that  classification  done e a r l i e r  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  As  t h e r e was  i n the  i n the case  scores given  t h e p a n e l o f 32  84% by  experiment  agreement between the judges  and  the  those  by  experiment.  o f the p a n e l o f judges,  considerable positive  judges.  c o r r e l a t i o n between  there  was  respondent's  p e r c e p t i o n s o f d e c i s i o n problems'  importance,  uncertainty  and  among t h e s e  dimensions  complexity.  The  f o r the p a r t i c i p a n t s  correlations  g r o u p i s shown i n T a b l e  In view of the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s no-separate of  analysis  ' u n c e r t a i n t y ' and  the e n t i r e types:  o f d a t a u s i n g t h e two ' c o m p l e x i t y ' was  a n a l y s i s was  done f o r two  unimportant  complex),  (and c e r t a i n  Each, p a r t i c i p a n t s c o r e and data  analysis  an  and  had  'intrinsic'  dimensions,  dimensions  attempted. major  !(1) d e c i s i o n s w h i c h were i m p o r t a n t  u n c e r t a i n and  in  among t h e s e  IV.1.  Thus  decision (and  (2) d e c i s i o n s w h i c h were  and  two  simple).  s c o r e s : an  score.  'extrinsic'  These s c o r e s were  analysis jointly  ( i n the case o f  o f v a r i a n c e ) and  s e p a r a t e l y ( i n the case  used  multivariate of  TABLE  IV. 1  INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG RATINGS ON THREE DIMENSIONS OF DECISION PROBLEMS BY 172 PARTICIPANTS  Importance  Importance  1.00  Complexity  Complex  Uncertainty  0.76  0.91  1.00  0.70  Uncertainty  Note:  A l lcorrelations  1.00  are s i g n i f i c a n t  at p <  .001  level.  106  univariate  analysis  these analyses  of variance).  and f i n d i n g s  pages o f t h i s c h a p t e r . multivariate the  are given  and u n i v a r i a t e  are given  As a f i r s t  analysis  Variance  of variance  and  9.  a Multivariate Analysis  of  (MANOVA) was p e r f o r m e d on t h e d e p e n d e n t  variables  (viz.,  organizational level,  on  s i g n i f i c a n c e of present  i n Appendix  step,  i n the remaining  A b r i e f discussion  t e s t s used f o r a s s e s s i n g  findings  The d e t a i l s o f  intrinsic  and e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s )  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , tolerance  and d e c i s i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  variables.  with  of ambiguity  as t h e i n d e p e n d e n t  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s  a r e shown i n  T a b l e IV.2.  As may b e s e e n , on a l l t h r e e Pillai's Wilks  criterion,  trace  (namely,  statistic,  Lambda) a l l t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  significant all  Hotelling's  criteria  at  .001 l e v e l .  or b e t t e r ,  except  were  The i n t e r a c t i o n s among  i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were a l s o  .005 l e v e l  and  s i g n i f i c a n t at  i n the case of the  i n t e r a c t i o n between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (viz.,  mechanistic,  tolerance  organic  of ambiguity  level  or control)  and t h e  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  TABLE,  IV,2  RESULTS OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 'EXTRINSIC' AND 'INTRINSIC' SCORES OF 172 PARTICIPANTS  Source o f variation  Pillai's criterion  Hotelling's statistic  value  ON  Wilks'  Lambda  value  F  114.537*  4.181  229.937*  .191  2,12.718*  value  T y p e o f O r g n (0)  .817/  Tolerance of ambiguity (A)  .063  11.131*  ,067  11.131*  .937  11.131*  Decision importance  .093  17.055*  ,103  17.055*  .907  17.055*  0 X A  .021  1.739  ,021  1.163  .979  1.742  0 X D  .367  37.278*  539  29.653*  .643  40.856*  A X D  .033  5.735**  035  5.735**  .967  5.735**  0 X A X D  .062  5.312*  065  3.579**  .938  5.341*  .* P ^ **.p t P L  (D)  -001 .005 • 01  o  108  Box's M s t a t i s t i c for At  testing the p 4  (.see, A p p e n d i x 9) was  computed  the homogeneity o f d i s p e r s i o n m a t r i c e s . .001 s i g n i f i c a n c e  level,  the n u l l  hypothesis  of homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e - c o v a r i a n c e m a t r i c e s rejected The  ( F = 5.498 w i t h  Bartlett's  chi-squared  index  33, 224012 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m ) .  o f s p h e r i c i t y , which has a  d i s t r i b u t i o n had a v a l u e o f  degree o f freedom.  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  dependent v a r i a b l e s a r e o r t h o g o n a l sustained of  at the p 4  .001 l e v e l .  t h e above two t e s t s ,  variance present  (ANOVA) was study  .618 w i t h namely, t h e  t o each other  the  an u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f  the i n t r i n s i c  and e x t r i n s i c  and e x t r i n s i c  d e s i g n was u s e d . shown i n T a b l e  shown a  scores.  The r e s u l t s  IV.3.  carried  out on:  A repeated  of this  As may b e s e e n ,  are  t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity, significant  among  at p 4  a l l the main level  and d e c i s i o n i m p o r t a n c e  .001 l e v e l .  A l l interactions  the independent v a r i a b l e s except  between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of ambiguity  measures  analysis are  e f f e c t s namely, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , of  scores  .30.  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was n e x t  intrinsic  was  B a s e d on t h e r e s u l t s  of the b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s had e a r l i e r  An  one  c o n s i d e r e d more a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h e  although  correlation of  was  are s i g n i f i c a n t  at p ^  the i n t e r a c t i o n and t o l e r a n c e  .005  level.  TABLE  IV. 3  RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES RECEIVED BY 172 PARTICIPANTS ".IN THE STUDY  Source  Mean  of variation  Organizational characteristics  squares  degrees o f freedom  F  (0)  2876.,58  2  211.26*  Level of tolerance of ambiguity (A)  121, ,99  1  8.96*  22.,08  2  1.62  13,,62  166  280. ,56  1  28.43* 40.69*  0  X  A  Error  Decision  importance  (D)  -  D  X  0  441..59  2  D  X  A  95,.61  1  8.81**  D  X  0  82,.37  2  7.59*.  10,.85  166  X  A  Error  *p ^  .001  **p  ^  .005  ,01  -  ****p 4  .05  110  N e x t , an ANOVA was c a r r i e d o u t on i n t r i n s i c of p a r t i c i p a n t s using A  similar analysis  the  participants.  given i n tables seen,  the three independent  The d e t a i l s o f t h e s e a n a l y s e s a r e  IV.4 and IV.5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . and d e c i s i o n  came o u t as s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s of the i n t r i n s i c  ( a t .004 l e v e l o r  and e x t r i n s i c scores  participants.  of  a m b i g u i t y was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r  The p a r t i c i p a n t ' s  received  level of  tolerance  of h i s or her  scores, but not the e x t r i n s i c scores.  interactions  between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  The i n t e r a c t i o n s  o f t h e dependent  among a l l t h r e e  independent  variables  were s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r s  intrinsic  scores, but not the e x t r i n s i c scores.  on  these i n i t i a l  organizational  analyses,  i n d e e d good p r e d i c t o r s  use  intrinsically  strategies for  o f a person's Based  i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d e c i s i o n  are  The  and d e c i s i o n  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were good p r e d i c t o r s variables.  A s may b e  characteristics  by  intrinsic  variables.  was done o n t h e e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s o f  the organizational  better)  scores  importance  o f a person's i n c l i n a t i o n t o  versus e x t r i n s i c a l l y motivating  or behaviors.  A person's l e v e l o f  a m b i g u i t y a p p e a r e d t o be a good p r e d i c t o r  person's i n c l i n a t i o n to use i n t r i n s i c a l l y  control  tolerance of a  motivating,  c o n t r o l .behaviors, b u t n o t t h e e x t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g ones.  Same c o n c l u s i o n s may b e drawn-about t h e  TABLE  IV. 4  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON INTRINSIC SCORES RECEIVED BY 172 PARTICIPANTS  Source o f v a r i a t i o n  Type o f o r g a n i z a t i o n (0) Tolerance f o r Ambiguity l e v e l  Mean  squares  degrees o f freedom  9184.37  P'  608.85  .001  (A)  327.11  1  21.22  .001  D e c i s i o n importance (D)  128.38  1  8.33  .004  0 X A  50.37  2  3.27  .039  0 X D  86.00  2  5.58  .004  A X D  43.42  1  2.82  .094  143.51  2  9.31  .001  15.41  332  0 X A X D Error  TABLE  IV, 5  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON EXTRINSIC SCORES RECEIVED BY 172 PARTICIPANTS  Source  of variation  Type o f o r g a n i z a t i o n (0)  Mean s q u a r e s  Degrees o f freedom  460.65  2  59.65  .001  (A)  4.57  1  0.59  .443  D e c i s i o n importance (D)  185.56  1  24.03  .001  0 X A  1.44  2  0.19  .830  0 X D  651.79  2  84.40  .001  A X D  71.59  1  9.27  .003  0 X A X D  11.63  1  1.51  .223  7.72  332  Tolerance of ambiguity l e v e l  Error  Ni  113  predictive  ability  independent  Hypotheses  As  o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n s among  the three  variables.  I A-  and I B :  t h e r e a d e r may remember, t h e f i r s t  (hypothesis  IA)  hypothesis  was:  I n d i v i d u a l s who work i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r e more l i k e l y t o c h o o s e c o n t r o l behaviors that generate ' e x t r i n s i c ' m o t i v a t i o n t h a n p e r s o n s who w o r k i n ' o r g a n i c ' o r g a n i z a tions.  To  test  of  a l l participants  was  this  hypothesis,  compared w i t h  'organic'  compared w i t h  similar  i n Table for  score,  of those  i n the  The mean e x t r i n s i c  t h a t o f the c o n t r o l group.  groups.  differences  score of  The r e s u l t s  was  T - t e s t s were  o f mean s c o r e s o f  of the analysis  I V . 6 . The a n a l y s i s was r e p e a t e d  after  a r e shown controlling  i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e d e c i s i o n s made b y t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  These r e s u l t s seen, and  score  i n the 'mechanistic' o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s o  performed f o r t e s t i n g different  'extrinsic'  i n the 'mechanistic' o r g a n i z a t i o n  organization.  participants  t h e mean  are also  shown i n T a b l e  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s  i n the hypothesized  decision  situations.  when a l l d e c i s i o n  IV.6.  As may  be  o f the groups a r e s i g n i f i c a n t  d i r e c t i o n f o r the  'important'  The r e s u l t s w e r e v e r y  similar  s i t u a t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d  together.  TABLE  IV. 6  RESULTS OF T-TESTS OF EXTRINSIC SCORES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY (n = 172)  All  decisions  Group  Important d e c i s i o n s only  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  78.49  2.31  37.97  1.93  Organic  86.03  46.22  5.16  4.02  79.61  * P ^ .001 * * p ^ .01 *** p  4 .05  3.51  S.D.  40.52  1.56  40.02  2.90  t  -1.55 39.81  3.18  9.20)  7.61* Control  Mean  14.34*  10.14* Mechanistic  t  Unimportant d e c i s i o n s only  0.40 39.59  2.43  115  In  the case o f 'unimportant'  i n mean s c o r e s  decisions,  the differences  o f ''mechanistic* a n d ' o r g a n i c '  were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t ,  groups  hut i n a d i r e c t i o n opposite  to  what was h y p o t h e s i z e d .  A one-way the  analysis  e x t r i n s i c scores  organizational variable. out  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t h e s i n g l e  the extent  to the d i f f e r e n c e s alone.  shown i n T a b l e T V . 7 . characteristics  variable  i n organizational  The r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s a r e As may be s e e n ,  the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  d i d come o u t as a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r  t h e v a r i a t i o n i n t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s .  Scheffe  Test  performed  and Duncan's M u l t i p l e Range T e s t  The were  t o t e s t t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y  o f mean d i f f e r e n c e s for  independent  o f t h i s a n a l y s i s was t o f i n d  o f v a r i a t i o n i n the"dependent  characteristics  of  was p e r f o r m e d on  o f p a r t i c i p a n t s using the  The o b j e c t i v e  attributable  of variance  o f the three  d e t a i l s o f these t e s t s ) .  differences  groups  (see Appendix 9  As may be s e e n , t h e  a r e s i g n i f i c a n t and i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d  direction.  Overall, hypothesis  t h e r e s u l t s seem t o s t r o n g l y  IA e x c e p t  f o r those  p a r t i c i p a n t s make•'unimportant'  support  s i t u a t i o n s when decisions.  TABLE  IV. 7  RESULTS OF A ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE EXTRINSIC SCORES OF 172 PARTICIPANTS  Source  of v a r i a t i o n  Mean s q u a r e s  Organizational characteristics Within  groups  Mean Mechanistic  85.89  O r g a n i c Orgn  (0)  78.49  Control  (C)  79.61  group  .001  941.55  2  14.87  169  63.30*  score  (M)  * p ^  Orgn  degrees o f freedom  Scheffe's  t e s t = M>0  a n d C;  0 = C  Duncan's  :test = M>0  and C;  0 = C  117  Hypothesis  IB was;  I n d i v i d u a l s who w o r k i n ' o r g a n i c ' organizat i o n s a r e more l i k e l y t o c h o o s e c o n t r o l Behaviors that generate 'intrinsic' work m o t i v a t i o n . To  t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , mean i n t r i n s i c  of participants  i n the 'organic'  control  scores  g r o u p were compared  w i t h t h e mean s c o r e s o f t h o s e i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' and control  groups.  T-tests  were p e r f o r m e d t o t e s t t h e  s i g n i f i c a n c e o f :'these d i f f e r e n c e s . this  analysis  The r e s u l t s o f  a r e shown i n T a b l e I V . 8 .  The  was r e p e a t e d a f t e r c o n t r o l l i n g f o r d e c i s i o n The  results of this analysis  T a b l e IV.8. significant  at the  p 4: .001 l e v e l  shown i n  and i n t h e  direction.  A one-way a n a l y s i s intrinsic  of variance  was p e r f o r m e d on  scores o f p a r t i c i p a n t s using  characteristics  as t h e s i n g l e i n d e p e n d e n t  The  r e s u l t s a r e shown i n T a b l e I V . 9 .  the  organizational  significant  importance.  As may be s e e n , a l l mean d i f f e r e n c e s a r e  hypothesized  the  are also  analysis  variable.  As may be  seen,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i d come o u t as a  predictor  intrinsically  organizational  o f a person's  motivating  control  i n c l i n a t i o n to use  behaviors.  B a s e d on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e above a n a l y s e s , i t  TABLE  IV. 8  RESULTS OF T-TESTS OF 'INTRINSIC SCORES OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY 1  Group  A l ldecisions  Mechanistic  Mean  S.D.  67.05  7.32  'important' d e c i sions only t  Mean  SiD.  32.75  4.66  31.28* Organic  101.72  4.50  90.03  * p ^ ** p 4 ***  p ^  .001 .01 .05  6.91  Mean  S.D.  34.30  4.44  24.14* 49.44  2.64  10.11* Control  t  'unimportant' d e c i sions only  23.61* 52.28  3.89  4.24* 45.00  7.63  t  9.96* 45.03  3.79  TABLE  IV. 9  RESULTS OF A ©NE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTRINSIC SCORES OF 172 PARTICIPANTS  Source o f v a r i a t i o n  Mean squares  Degrees of 'freedom  1877:0.16.6  2  4:0/;l6  169  Organizational  characteristics W i t h i n groups  r  Mean score M e c h a n i s t i c Orgn (M) Organic Orgn  (0)  C o n t r o l group  (C)  67:. 0.4: 1GLL..72. 9,0;.  W  Scheffe's test:  0>C>M  i  Duncan's *.p <1 .001  test:  0> C> M  467.40*  120  w o u l d seem t h a t t h e r e i s s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r h y p o t h e s i s IB,  Hypothesis  As in  II  t h e r e a d e r may  the present  study  remember,  the second  hypothesis  was:  I n d i v i d u a l s who a r e h i g h i n t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y a r e more l i k e l y t o a d o p t c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s t h a t l e a d t o i n t r i n s i c work m o t i v a t i o n t h a n t h o s e who a r e l o w i n t o l e r a n c e f o r ambiguity. To  test  the hypothesis,  the i n t r i n s i c  scores of  p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h low t o l e r a n c e f o r ambiguity compared w i t h t h o s e  o f p a r t i c i p a n t s who  s c o r e on t o l e r a n c e f o r a m b i g u i t y . previously,  low t o l e r a n t p e r s o n s  a score higher results  than  of t-tests  had a h i g h  As m e n t i o n e d were t h o s e who  48.8 on t h e Budner s c a l e . on t h e mean i n t r i n s i c  and h i g h t o l e r a n t  The  mean d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n g r o u p s were the  taking  p  'important'  separately.  g r o u p s a r e shown i n T a b l e  . 02 l e v e l .  Similar  In the case  IV.10.  performed  decisions  o f unimportant  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s were a g a i n  The  significant  t e s t s were  and 'unimportant'  had  scores of  low  at  were  decisions,  significant  at the  TABLE  RESULTS  Group  All  Low t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity  IV.10  OF T-TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN I N T R I N S I C ' SCORES OF LOW AND HIGH TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY GROUPS 1  decisions  'important' decisions only  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  83.92  17.00  41.49  9.78  42.43  8.84  -2.09*** High tolerance of ambiguity  * P ** P P  .001 -01 -05  'unimportant' decisions only  88.25  15.00  2.13***  1.15 43.06  7.91  •t  45.20  8.13  122  4 -02 level.,'  p  In the case o f important  decisions,  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s were i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d direction, but not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .  The  above a n a l y s e s w e r e p e r f o r m e d  controlling it  f o r organizational  will The  n e x t a t t e m p t was of T-tests  o f a m b i g u i t y o f members  p e r f o r m e d on t h e s c o r e s In four  of the study  out of nine  t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t  p $ .01 l e v e l organizations,  or better.  F o r ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' and  i n the case of unimportant  r e s u l t s were i n t h e p r e d i c t e d  tically  different results.  to i d e n t i f y these i n t e r a c t i o n s .  shown i n T a b l e I V . 1 1 .  comparisons,  the  and t o l e r a n c e  organizational  i n t e r a c t t o p r o d u c e somewhat  Results are  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . However,  i s r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t  characteristics  without  significant.  two o u t o f t h r e e  decisions,  d i r e c t i o n and  mean d i f f e r e n c e s  in intrinsic  One somewhat b a f f l i n g  was  decisions,  of  f o r important  the 'organic'  motivating tolerance  g r o u p u s e d more  control strategies of ambiguity.  sound e x p l a n a t i o n  statis-  F o r t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p , however,  were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . that  'organic'  low  scores  finding  t o l e r a n t members  intrinsically  t h a n members who h a d  At the present  time there  a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s phenomenon.  high i s no One  TABLE  IV.11  T-TESTS OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN 'INTRINSIC' SCORES OF LOW AND HIGH TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY PERSONS WORKING IN DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS  All n Mechanistic  decisions  Important d e c i sions only  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  63.64  6.27  31.55  3.80 -2.26***  32.10  4.18 •3.93  t  Unimportant decisions only  Orgn  Low t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity  30  High tolerance of ambiguity  30  70.45  6.76  34.25  5.35  36.20  .3.90  30  100.67  5.11  50.38  2.31  50.40  4.47  Organic  •4.04*  Orgn  Low t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity High tolerance of ambiguity Control  t  -1.65  2.93**  •4.27*  30  102.67  3.63  48.50  2.65  54.16  1.84  26  89.30  6.52  44.13  5.10  45.17  3.22  group  Low t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity High tolerance of ambiguity * p ^ .001  -1.51 26  92.17 ** p  7.11  4 .01  -2.36*** 47.28 * * * p £ .05  4.50 (one-tail)  0.27 44.89  4.35  124  possible may  conjecture  i s that  a l s o have l e s s a b i l i t y  low t o l e r a n t to withstand  d i s s o n a n c e and i n t r a p e r s o n a l faced  with  cognitive  conflict.  significant differences  individuals  Hence when  between t h e i r  m a n a g e r i a l s t y l e and p r e v a i l i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t h e y c h o s e t o comply w i t h readily  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t may b e t h a t  p e r s o n s when f a c e d cope w i t h  w i t h an o r g a n i c  laissez-faire '.intrinsic'  no  tolerance variable. Table  scores  statistically  i n t e r p r e t e d as  the study.  evidence i s a v a i l a b l e ,  of variance  was p e r f o r m e d on  of participants using  As may b e s e e n ,  the l e v e l of  independent  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a l y s i s  between low a n d h i g h  are  during  o f a m b i g u i t y as t h e s i n g l e  IV.12.  literally  c a n b e r e a c h e d on t h e phenomenon.  one-way a n a l y s i s  intrinsic  could  they chose a  s t y l e w h i c h was  further research  firm conclusions  A the  leadership  t h e mean  a r e shown i n differences  t o l e r a n t groups a r e n o t  s i g n i f i c a n t , although the differences  i n the predicted  of  low t o l e r a n t  work s i t u a t i o n  In despair,  control behaviors  However, u n t i l  tolerance  t h e s i t u a t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y and  t h r e w up t h e i r h a n d s .  practices,  norms more  t h a n t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s who h a d h i g h  ambiguity.  not  organizational  own  direction.  B a s e d on t h e above f i n d i n g s ,  i t may be c o n c l u d e d  TABLE  IV. 12  RESULTS OF A ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE INTRINSIC SCORES OF 172 PARTICIPANTS  ^Source o f v a r i a t i o n  Mean  squares  Degrees o f freedom  Level of tolerance of ambiguity  653.84  1  Within  256.91  170  groups  Mean Low t o l e r a n c e High tolerance  group  84.35:  group(H)  88\ 2*5-  test:  Duncan's t e s t :  Note:  F hot s i g n i f i c a n t  at  2.55  score  (I)  .Scheffe's  F  L = H L = H  p ^.05  level ho  126  that  t h e r e I s some s u p p o r t  However, t h e r e a r e a l s o significantly in  from  f o r the  a few  relationship level  and  can be  f i n d i n g s which deviate  arrived  empirical  a t about  between a p e r s o n ' s  H y p o t h e s e s I I I A and  the  Hence,  e v i d e n c e no  firm  precise  tolerance of  his/her choice of s p e c i f i c  Hypothesis  hypothesis.  the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n s .  the absence o f a d d i t i o n a l  conclusions  second  ambiguity  control  behaviors.  IIIB  IIIA  was:  I n d i v i d u a l s a r e more l i k e l y t o c h o o s e c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r s t h a t l e a d t o ' i n t r i n s i c ' work m o t i v a t i o n when t h e d e c i s i o n s t h e y have t o make a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i m p o r t a n t t h a n when these d e c i s i o n s are important. Hypothesis  IIIB  was:  I n d i v i d u a l s a r e more l i k e l y t o c h o o s e c o n t r o l behaviors that l e a d to ' e x t r i n s i c ' work m o t i v a t i o n when t h e d e c i s i o n s t h e y h a v e t o make a r e r e l a t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t t h a n when these d e c i s i o n s are unimportant. To all  test hypothesis participants  on  I I I A t h e mean i n t r i n s i c important  s i t u a t i o n s were compared. The  results  For  the purpose  extrinsic  o f the a n a l y s i s  scores  and u n i m p o r t a n t  T - t e s t s were  decision  performed.  a r e shown i n T a b l e  IV.13.  o f t e s t i n g h y p o t h e s i s I I I B t h e mean  scores of the p a r t i c i p a n t s  of  f o r the  two  TABLE  IV.13  T-TESTS OF MEAN 'INTRINSIC' AND 'EXTRINSIC' SCORES RECEIVED BY 172 PARTICIPANTS ON TWO TYPES OF DECISION SITUATIONS  Intrinsic  S.D,  42.47  8.40  43.79  8.57  41.49  4.73  39.99  2.51  score  Important  decisions  Unimportant  Extrinsic  Mean  decisions  , ... -1.45  : score  Important  decisions  Unimportant  decisions  , . 3.68" 0  * p 4-001 * * p ^ .01 *** P • 05 ho  128  types of d e c i s i o n of  this analysis  In control  are also  i n the present  (that  s i g n i f i c a n t (p = i s , hypothesis  were i n t h e p r e d i c t e d .001.  is  The r e s u l t s  IV.13.  (relating  importance), study.  'intrinsic' t h e r e was  T h e mean  were i n t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d d i r e c t i o n , b u t n o t  statistically  fully  IIIA  strategies with decision  differences  p  shown i n T a b l e  the case o f hypothesis  o n l y weak s u p p o r t  scores  s i t u a t i o n s w e r e compared.  at least partial  IIIB),  t h e mean  differences  d i r e c t i o n and s i g n i f i c a n t a t  Thus t h e r e s u l t s  and I I I A w e a k l y .  .08). F o r e x t r i n s i c  supported hypothesis  I t may b e c o n c l u d e d  support  that  f o r the hypothesis  IIIB there  that  i m p o r t a n c e o f d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s i s a good p r e d i c t o r o f an  individual's choice of control  behaviors.  H y p o t h e s i s IV:  As  t h e r e a d e r may remember, t h e f i n a l  hypothesis  was: Choice of s p e c i f i c c o n t r o l behaviors i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e combined effects of personality, decision-related and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . An i n d i v i d u a l who i s l o w i n t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y , employed i n a ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n and f a c i n g a n i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m i s l e a s t l i k e l y to use control behaviors t h a t g e n e r a t e ' i n t r i n s i c ' m o t i v a t i o n on  129  the p a r t o f s u b o r d i n a t e s and most l i k e l y to u s e c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s t h a t l e a d t o ' e x t r i n s i c ' m o t i v a t i o n on t h e i r p a r t , I n d i v i d u a l s h i g h i n tolerance f o r ambiguity employed i n ' o r g a n i c * f i r m s and f a c i n g unimportant d e c i s i o n problems a r e l e a s t l i k e l y to use c o n t r o l behaviors that l e a d t o ' e x t r i n s i c ' m o t i v a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d most l i k e l y to choose b e h a v i o r s t h a t l e a d to ' i n t r i n s i c ' m o t i v a t i o n .  For  the purpose o f t e s t i n g  this hypothesis,  scores  t h e mean  intrinsic  and e x t r i n s i c  of participantsi n  different  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g r o u p s were c a l c u l a t e d and  compared.  T h e mean s c o r e s o f d i f f e r e n t  with  standard  their  The and  d e v i a t i o n s a r e shown i n T a b l e  significant  i n the case  Persons working i n 'organic'  unimportant  decision situations  scores  compared w i t h (viz.,  (mean = 5 4 . 1 6 ) .  the next  highest  of  'extrinsic' hypothesized  scores  in  'intrinsic'  h a d t h e h i g h e s t mean When t h i s intrinsic  s c o r e was score  (p <- .001) .  t o be '--  In the case o f  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were i n t h e  direction,  Persons working  direction  and f a c i n g  50.40) t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d  s t a t i s t i c a l l y "-significant  IV.14.  organizations,  w i t h high l e v e l o f t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity  intrinsic  along  mean d i f f e r e n c e s were i n t h e p r e d i c t e d  statistically  scores.  groups  but not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  mechanistic  significant.  organizations,  with  .TABLE  IV. 14  .MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF 'INTRINSIC' AND 'EXTRINSIC' SCORES OF 172 PARTICIPANTS IN THE PRESENT STUDY  ,Tolerance of ambiguity level  Decision  (  Organization  Important  situation Unimportant  intrinsic  extrinsic  intrinsic  extrinsic  Low  31.55 (S.D. 3.80)  47.16 (S.D. 4.41)  32.10 (S.D. 4.18)  39.03 (S.D. 3.30)  High  34.25 (S.D. 5.35)  45.29 (S.D. 3.42)  36.20 (S.D. 3.90)  40.69 (S.D. 2.90)  Low  50.38 (S.D. 2.31)  38.27 (S.D. 1.79)  50.40 (S.D. 4.47)  40.09 (S.D. 1.68)  High  48.50 (S.D. 2.65)  37.67 (S.D. 2.05)  Low  44.13 (S.D. 5.10)  40.46 (S.D. 3.54)  45.17 (S.D. 3.22)  39.58 (S.D. 2.12)  High  47.28 (S.D. 4.50)  39.58 (S.D. 2.04)  44.89 (S.D. 4.35)  39.60 (S.D. 2.75)  Mechanistic  Organic  Control  54.16 (S.D. 1.84)  40.94 (S.D. 1.33)  131  low  t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity  decision scores with  situations  facing  B u t when t h i s was  h i g h e s t mean  'extrinsic'  45.29) t h e d i f f e r e n c e was n o t f o u n d significant  important  i n f a c t had the highest  (mean = 4 7 . 1 6 ) .  the next  and  extrinsic  compared  score  t o be  (viz.,  statistically  (p = . 0 7 ) .  F o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s IV, p e r s o n s  working i n  organic o r g a n i z a t i o n s , with high t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity and  f a c i n g unimportant  decision  s i t u a t i o n s were  t o h a v e t h e l o w e s t mean e x t r i n s i c not  found  t o be t h e c a s e .  was i n f a c t h i g h e r t h a n study.  Again,  But t h i s  T h e i r mean s c o r e  (viz.,  important  decision  lowest  group score  significant  d i d h o l d good.  (viz., (viz.,  31.55) when compared 32.10) was f o u n d  t o be  score  to the next statistically  (p <..005).  support  intrinsic  scores.  The mean i n t r i n s i c  B a s e d on t h e above f i n d i n g s , partial  who  situations  were p r e d i c t e d t o h a v e t h e l o w e s t mean i n t r i n s i c  of this  40.94)  o r g a n i z a t i o n s , w i t h low t o l e r a n c e  and f a c i n g  This prediction  was  t h a t o f some o t h e r g r o u p s i n t h e  according to the hypothesis, persons  work i n m e c h a n i s t i c of ambiguity  score.  expected  f o r hypothesis  t h e r e seems t o be  IV.  s c o r e s gave s t r o n g s u p p o r t  C o m p a r i s o n s o f mean f o r the hypothesis.  132  However, i n t h e c a s e findings great  of 'extrinsic'  d i d not support  scores the  the present hypothesis  extent.  RESULTS  OF SUPPLEMENTARY  Besides possible  were a l s o  ANALYSES:  t h e above a n a l y s e s , t h e e f f e c t s  independent v a r i a b l e s  'intrinsic'  and ' e x t r i n s i c '  examined.  supervisory  scores of p a r t i c i p a n t s  Analyses  experience  o f v a r i a n c e s were  of participants  None o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  as c o v a r i a t e s . predictor  p ^ .05) o f t h e s c o r e s r e c e i v e d b y t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s .  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  on a 5 - p o i n t the r o l e and role). it  and p a s t  emerged as a s i g n i f i c a n t  As was m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r , by  of other  a n d c o v a r i a t e s on t h e  p e r f o r m e d u s i n g t h e s e x , p a s t work e x p e r i e n c e  (at  t o any  was  found felt  organization  s c a l e C.1 = v e r y  little  identification  with  5 = very high i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the across organizations,  t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r o l e by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e y w o r k e d i n was  of this  and t h e t y p e o f  significant.  a n a l y s i s a r e shown i n T a b l e  may b e s e e n p a r t i c i p a n t s tion felt  identity, f e l t  d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t was m e a s u r e d  When t h e d a t a were a n a l y z e d  identity  results  the r o l e  The IV.15.  i n the 'mechanistic'  t h e maximum r o l e  identity,  As  organiza-  f o l l o w e d by  those  TABLE  IV.15  DEGREE OF ROLE IDENTITY FELT BY THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY  Degree o f 'role Type o f Organization  2 very little  3 moderately  Mechanistic  Organic  18  Control  17  Chi Eta  square  identity  14  Total  t .,  very much 31  21  60  22  11  60  16  52  = 35.00 w i t h 8 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m (p <,001) = .43 w i t h r o l e i d e n t i t y a s t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e ,  u> u>  134  who of  worked i n the  'organic'  control  g r o u p had  p o s s i b l e reason for  organizations  life  hence the  'ideal'  tion.  are  participants  role  of  the  t h o s e who  managers i n an identity. role  This of  Using f e l t  did  role  identity  identify  the  emerge as  identity  m u l t i p l e R was  and  .47  i n the  organiza-  control  imagine that  an  themselves  the  were i n the  they  group are  least  role  understandable:  as  imagining  any  a covariate,  s c o r e s r e c e i v e d by  the  figures  such  p e r f o r m e d on  was  .88  case of  overall d i d not  the  Role (p  .001  predictability improve  case of  'extrinsic'  'intrinsic'  covariate  i n t r o d u c e d as i n the  an  participants.  a significant  dependent v a r i a b l e s  Before r o l e  worked f o r  task.  i n b o t h c a s e s ) ; however the the  real  works f o r  less  truly  company m a y * i n : f a c t p.Eove'-'-to be  a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was 'extrinsic'  that  One  in  a manager i n a company w i t h o u t  a very d i f f i c u l t  identity  identity.  fact  i n Canada) had  i s more o r  i n f o r m a t i o n about the  of  fully  were a s k e d t o airline  members  a minority who  manager who  The  role the  still  Note., t h a t p e r s o n s who  (i.e.,  and  least  o r g a n i z a t i o n c o u l d not  w i t h the  the  the  t h i s m i g h t be  'organic' and  organizations,  a  covariate  'intrinsic'  scores.  remained unchanged even a f t e r  significantly.  role  scores  These identity  was  135  introduced  In  as  the  a  covariate,  post-experimental debriefing,  p a n t s were a s k e d f o r t h e i r comments on present  i n the  description  the  18  decision  The  comments t h a t  encouraging. of  the  realistic that  and  interesting.  the  i n the  q u e s t i o n "how  d i d you  of  'realism'  Airlines  p a r t i c i p a n t s were the  ( w h i c h was  task.  decision  situations  This  an  was  t o be  the  description  responded to  on  very  were the  of  North  a 5-point  'very u n r e a l i s t i c ' , ' u n r e a l i s t i c ' , ' s l i g h t l y  tic',  'somewhat r e a l i s t i c ' ,  people responded summary o f Table  responses to  be  'mechanistic'  noted  or better.  t h i s q u e s t i o n are  that  p a r t i c i p a n t s who  organizations  description  earlier, that  realis-  'very r e a l i s t i c ' )  'somewhat r e a l i s t i c '  given  scale  most The  in  IV.16.  I t may  the  and  quite  indication  In p a r t i c u l a r , to  find  and  description  e x p e r i m e n t most p a r t i c i p a n t s  well-involved  Star?"  the  partici-  each p a r t i c i p a n t s .  Most p e o p l e c o n s i d e r e d  and  during  given to  came f r o m t h e  organization  the  of North Star  situations  the  t o be  the  more r e a l i s t i c .  t h i s might p o s s i b l y  t r u l y 'organic'  during  worked  study As  considered  .mentioned  be,on a c c o u n t o f  organizations  are  in  still  the a  fact  rarity  TABLE  IV.16  RESPONSES OF 9 6 PARTICIPANTS TO THE QUESTION "HOW DID YOU FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF NORTH STAR A I R L I N E S ? "  Organization  unrealisvery unrealis- t i c tic  slightly realistic  somewhat realistic  very realistic  Total  Mechanistic  2  26  18  51  Organic  0  21  10  45  Total  2  47  28  96  13  Chi-square  = 9.07 w i t h 4 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m  Eta  = 0.31 w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  (p <  .06)  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as d e p e n d e n t  variable.  137  in  real l i f e  participants felt  and s i n c e a m a j o r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e h a d some work e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e p a s t ,  the 'organic'  f o r m t o be more an i d e a l r a t h e r  a t r u e model o f today's o r g a n i z a t i o n s . differences  i n t h e i r perceptions  organizational  they  descriptions  Note t h a t  than the  about r e a l i s m i n  a r e however, n o t  statistically  significant.  An a n a l y s i s 'intrinsic'  and  organizational organic),  of variance  was  p e r f o r m e d on t h e  ' e x t r i n s i c ' scores  characteristics (i.e.,  tolerance  o f ambiguity  level  i m p o r t a n c e as i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s in  organizational  realism  however, not  effects  covariate  No  and  (p  <v01);  and  and p e r c e i v e d  apart  using  decision  from  realism  Perceived  d e s c r i p t i o n d i d emerge  the o v e r a l l p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  change.  mechanistic  d e s c r i p t i o n as a c o v a r i a t e .  i n organizational  significant  of participants  as a  this,  o f the scores d i d  observable differences  i n the main  and i n t e r a c t i o n s among i n d e p e n d e n t  variables  occured.  At who to  t h e end o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t ,  worked i n the s i m u l a t e d show t h e i r l i k e  practices  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  organizations  or d i s l i k e  were  asked  f o r the managerial  at North Star A i r l i n e  on a 5 - p o i n t  scale  138  Gstrongly  d i s l i k e d , m i l d l y d i s l i k e d , n e i t h e r liked-in'or  d i s l i k e d , m i l d l y l i k e d , and s t r o n g l y l i k e d ) .  The  summary o f t h e i r responses a r e shown, i n T a b l e  IV.17.  I t may be seen from the t a b l e t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between members o f the two o r g a n i z a t i o n s or d i s l i k e f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n s significant  i n their like  are not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  (p ss . 4 7 ) .  The reader may a l s o note that 52 o f the 120 participants neither tions  (called  l i k e d nor d i s l i k e d t h e i r  'group 1' f o r s h o r t ) .  equal number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ( v i z . ,  An almost 53) e i t h e r m i l d l y  or''.strongly l i k e d t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s here)'.  organiza-  (called  'group 2'  An a n a l y s i s was done to f i n d out whether  were any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the response  there pattern  of these two groups.  First,  an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  ' i n t r i n s i c ' and ' e x t r i n s i c ' scores of group 1 u s i n g nee  r e c e i v e d by members  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t o l e r a - -j  o f ambiguity l e v e l and d e c i s i o n importance as the  independent v a r i a b l e s . are  was done on the  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s  shown i n T a b l e IV.18.  analysis  A s i m i l a r analysis of  v a r i a n c e was performed f o r scores r e c e i v e d by group 2. These  are shown i n T a b l e IV.19.  As the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e  TABLE  'IV.17  RESPONSES FROM 120 PARTICIPANTS TO THE QUESTION "TO WHAT EXTENT DID YOU L I K E THE MANAGERIAL STYLES AND PRACTICES AT NORTH STAR?"  neither m i l d l y , l i k e d nor m i l d l y disliked disliked liked v  Organization  strongly disliked  (  v  , strongly liked  tot  Mechanistic  29  18  6  Organic  23  23  6  52  41  Total  Chi Eta  12  s q u a r e = 3.60 w i t h 4 d e g r e e s o f freedom, (p = ,47) = .019 w i t h ' l i k i n g f o r m a n a g e r i a l p r a c t i c e s as d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e .  12  at North  12  Star'  TABLE  IV.18  RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES RECEIVED BY 52 PARTICIPANTS WHO NEITHER LIKED NOR DISLIKED THE SIMULATED ORGANIZATIONS  Intrinsic  scores  Extrinsic  scores  Mean squares  F  p  CO)  7643. 05  724. 70  .001  274 23  32.00  .001  Level of tolerance of ambiguity (A)  134. 34  12. 74  .001  15  .02  .894  99. 31  9. 42  .003  225 80  26.35  .001  o x;*A  39. 88  3. 78  .055  82  .10  .758  X  D  49. 53  4. 70  .033  592 12  69.10  .001  A X  D  54. 54  5. 17  .025  11 05  1.29  .259  13. 20  1. 25  .266  37 30  4.35  .030  Organizational characteristics  Decisionsimportance (D) 0  0  XA X  D  Multiple  R  -  8 57  10. 55  Error  Mean squares  .94  .50  o  TABLE  IV,19  RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES RECEIVED BY 53 PARTICIPANTS WHO LIKED THE SIMULATED ORGANIZATIONS  Intrinsic  Organizational characteristics  Mean squares  F  scores  Extrinsic  scores  P'  Mean squares  F  P  (0)  7045.50  428.20  .001  459.24  70.15  .001  Level of tolerance of ambiguity (A)  144.88  8.81  .004  36.42  5,56  .020  Decision  144.85  8.81  .004  34.63  5.29  .024  39.20  2.38  .004  : 1.67  .26  .615  0 X D  .21  .01  .910  488.47  74.61  .001  A X D  64.96  3.95  .050  95.57  14.60  .001  0 X A X D ;  37.03  2.25  .137  4.11  .63  .430  Error  16.45  6.55  -  -  0 X A  Importance (D)  Multiple  R  .90  -  .55  142  there  a r e a, few d i f f e r e n c e s  i n t h e mean s c o r e s ,  FVvalues,  and  s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s o f independent v a r i a b l e s i n  the  two g r o u p s .  appreciably  Note t h a t  the m u l t i p l e  d i f f e r e n t i n t h e two c a s e s ,  An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e 'intrinsic'  (viz.,  ' t o what e x t e n t  styles  and p r a c t i c e s  but  o f t h e 120 p a r t i c i ^  on t h e above  d i d you l i k e  there  a t N o r t h S t a r ? ' ) as a  (namely, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  tolerance  o f ambiguity  covariate.  (p *=. .003):  were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  a n d i n t e r a c t i o n s among t h e t h r e e  variables  question  the managerial  d i d emerge as a s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t e  effects  of  was p e r f o r m e d o n t h e  and ' e x t r i n s i c ' s c o r e s  pants i n c l u d i n g t h e i r score  It  R's a r e n o t  on t h e m a i n independent  characteristics, level  and d e c i s i o n  importance).  Summary:  The  major f i n d i n g s  s t u d y were d i s c u s s e d variance  i n t h i s chapter.  and c o v a r i a n c e  and  t - t e s t s were u s e d  the  several hypotheses.  strongly  support  a r i s i n g from t h e p r e s e n t Analysis of  ( u n i v a r i a t e and m u l t i v a r i a t e ) to analyze the data Results  and t e s t  o f t h e s t u d y seem t o  some o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s  set forth i n  143  TABLE  IV.20  SUMMARY OF PRESENT FINDINGS  Hypothesis  IA.  Present  findings  Members o f ' m e c h a n i s t i c ' o r g a n i z a t i o n s tend to use ' e x t r i n s i c ' c o n t r o l strategies  Moderate  Members o f ' o r g a n i c ' organizations tend to use ' i n t r i n s i c ' c o n t r o l strategies  Strong  II.  Individuals with high tolerance o f ambiguity tend t o choose 'intrinsic' control strategies  Some s u p p o r t ; t h e r e a r e a l s o a few f i n d i n g s which s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e v i a t e from predictions.  IIIA.  I n d i v i d u a l s choose 'intrinsic' control s t r a t e g i e s when t h e y have t o make u n i m p o r t ant decisions  Weak s u p p o r t  I n d i v i d u a l s choose 'extrinsic' control s t r a t e g i e s when t h e y h a v e t o make i m p o r t a n t decisions  Strong  Organizational characteristics, d e c i s i o n importance, and l e v e l o f t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity interact a d d i t i v e l y to determine an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c h o i c e of control strategies.  Moderate  IB  IIIB.  IV.  support  support  support  support  144  chapter  3; and p r o v i d e some s u p p o r t  A Brief  summary o f t h e p r e s e n t  T a B l e TV.20. discussed  The i m p l i c a t i o n s  i n the next  chapter.  f o r the others,  findings  i s given i n  o f these  findings are  145  CHAPTER  V  CONCLUSION  The that  most i m p o r t a n t  organizational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s exert  i n f l u e n c e on t h e c h o i c e d e c i s i o n makers who particular,  likely  research  i n 'organic'  variable  that  p a r t i c i p a n t s was  organizations  be e x p e c t e d and  research  evidence  in  t o emerge u n t i l  introduction  leadership  t h e y were  i t would  styles (especially  o f the c o n t r o l r e l a t e d behaviors)  c l i m a t i c changes occur  a mere  independent  the experiment.  appear t h a t major changes i n m a n a g e r i a l the context  present  the c o n t r o l d e c i s i o n s o f  B a s e d on the., c u r r e n t  in  a r e most  control strategies.  the nature o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n  to during  that  control strategies  t h e s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t  influenced  In  a r e most  i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s were u s e d i n t h e  design,  assigned  by t h e  organizations  to use e x t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g  research  was  significant  evidence i n d i c a t e s  to use i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g  While three  study  these o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  t h o s e who work i n ' m e c h a n i s t i c '  likely  a  of c o n t r o l behaviors  work w i t h i n  the current  c o n t r o l l e r s working  and  f i n d i n g i n the present  of  can n o t  some i m p o r t a n t s t r u c t u r a l within  the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  Thus  s o p h i s t i c a t e d t r a i n i n g programs  p r a c t i c e s may n o t b r i n g  about the d e s i r e d  146  effects do and In  not  i n the perceive  climate this  control behaviors the  t o be  organizational characteristics::  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s e new  sense, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  prevailing  organization  are  characteristics,  the  i n f l u e n c e d by the  reverse  a l s o be  organizations  tend  an  e f f e c t s on  h i t h e r t o been  the  control  suspected.  an  organizational  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  significant.  to encourage use  Thus i f of  these  'organic'  intrinsic  inter-member t r u s t at a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t u r n make t h e  Similarly,  'mechanistic'  emphasis on  the use  members may  increase  the  appropriate  s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h r e s u l t i n more autonomy  t h e s e may  at  and  control strategies within  v a r i a b l e s may  control  have g r e a t e r  o f managers t h a n has  Also, while  practices..  'socialization'  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms a b o u t  m a n a g e r i a l b e h a v i o r may behaviors  o f managers i f t h e y  of  o r g a n i z a t i o n more  organizations extrinsic  the  rewards to  r e w a r d power o f  d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the  organization.  power d i f f e r e n t i a l s b e t w e e n any  organizational hierarchy over a p e r i o d adds t o t h e  with  may  show an  two  the  levels, 'organic'. their motivate managers  Consequently, l e v e l s of  increasing  the  trend  to time.- a f a c t o r which u l t i m a t e l y  'mechanistic'  nature of  the  organization.  147  This  two-way- r e l a t i o n s h i p Between o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  teristics not  Be  and  control  examined w i t h i n  research  d e s i g n , But  further  may  framework o f  Be  study  the  choice of  i s the  e f f e c t s of  examined i n the decision  present  present  likely  and  decision that  complex t h e  for  the  mentioned d e c i s i o n less  suBordinates.  such cases,  s u B o r d i n a t e s may  i s not  of  increase  the  increase  be the  the In  decision the  above  too  autonomy,  task v a r i e t y surprising:  autonomy t o  already I t can  averse to decision  important,  controllers'also  further  uncertainty.  controllers will  which w i l l  delegate  the  The  s i t u a t i o n i s , the J  f e e d b a c k and  This  provision  c o m p l e x i t y and  complexity.  concerned w i t h p r o v i d i n g  t a s k i d e n t i t y , immediate  were  importance,  suBordinates.  situations  on  makers.  decisions  t h e more  c o n t r o l l e r i s to  from  characteristics  decision  decision  m a k i n g power t o h i s o r h e r  seem t o Be  decision  study: d e c i s i o n  evidence indicates and  f i n d i n g emerging  organizational  uncertainty  uncertain  the  the  could  f r u i t f u l , area  c o n t r o l B e h a v i o r s By  Three dimensions of  their  a very  s e c o n d most i m p o r t a n t  the  present  the  t h e .managers  research.,  The  less  strategies- of  charac^  Be  to  in  the  high level  of  expected  that  taking  any  complexity  and  actions uncert-  148  ainty,. should  Two m a j o r q u a l i j ; I c a t t o n s t o t h e a h o y e b e made,  First,  i f t h e d e c i s i o n maker h a s a  h i g h degree o f c o n f i d e n c e  i n t h e d e c i s i o n making  of h i s o r her subordinates abilities various  intrinsically  possess the to  ( a n d h e n c e the'  motivating  control strategies.  the s p e c i f i c  knowledge o r s k i l l s but perceive  e i t h e r on a c c o u n t o f e x i s t i n g  choose t o d e l e g a t e subordinates long  occur  specialization o f the p r e v a i l i n g  S e c o n d l y , a manager  that such  delegation  t e r m b e n e f i t s w h i c h more t h a n  compensate  short term c o s t s  ( i n t h e form o f i n c r e a s e d  However, no c o n c l u s i o n s  decision (1973)  f o rchoice o f s p e c i f i c  situations are provided  The  Some  strategies i n several b y Vroom and Y e t t o n  w h i c h may be u s e d a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t  research  uncertainty  can be a r r i v e d a t  t h e a b s e n c e o f f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l evidence.;  guidelines  may  t h e d e c i s i o n making t o h i s / h e r  i f i t i s perceived  of outcomes). in  subordinates  T h i s may  high task  system.  relevant f o r  their  the o r g a n i z a t i o n o r inadequacies  management i n f o r m a t i o n  for  This i s  a s i t u a t i o n where t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s do n o t  have t h i s knowledge o r s k i l l .  brings  subordinates'  outcomes)., t h e f o r m e r may s t i l l u s e  decision situation,  within  abilities  to reduce the o v e r a l l uncertainty..of the  decision  typically  statement  f o rfurther  i n the area.  three  dimensions d f d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s used  149  in  the  present  ones. and  However, o t h e r i m p o r t a n t  may  he  relevant  Three other of r i s k of  the  associated  for similar research  decision  w i t h the  and  t h o s e where t h e  Many o f  losses  the  decisions)  several  decisions  parties,  others  algorithms  be  In  solved  and  the decision.  actions  outcomes o f o t h e r s ,  (c)  preference orderings  on  parties  are  the  Taylor,  1976).  aware o f In  the  the  less  s i t u a t i o n s and  not  decision  uncertain  Conflict in  there  are  p e r s o n can  a  multiple affect  the  p a r t i e s have d i f f e r e n t outcomes  situation  present  s i t u a t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d  repetitive  standard  be  (a)  o f one the  repetitive in  general,  using  h e n c e may  s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s when the  about  (especially policy  are n o n - r e p e t i t i v e ,  (b)  decision  t o a bad  are  p e r h a p s l e s s complex) i n n a t u r e .  decision  tain  outcomes and  out,  d i m e n s i o n i s p e r h a p s more a p p a r e n t .  d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s can and  decision  (1976) p o i n t e d  o f r e s o u r c e s due  organizational  n a t u r e whereas-  (and  i n the  s i t u a t i o n s are  repetitiveness  rules  conflict  decision  of  degree  r e p e t i t i v e nature  Taylor  possibility  future,  to mind:  MacCrimmon and  about the  exist  i n the  As  maker i s . u n c e r t a i n  The  decision,  degree of  apparent  d i m e n s i o n s do  d i m e n s i o n s come i m m e d i a t e l y  situation. risky  s t u d y a r e p e r h a p s t h e most  as  treated  and  (d)  (MacCrimmon.&  study, r i s k y a  the  decision  s p e c i a l case of as  uncer-  a d i f f e r e n t dimension  150  as  It  such.,  situations extent  Is. a l s o  l £ k e l y t h a t most h i g h . r i s k d e c i s i o n  are By nature important  this  d i m e n s i o n was i n c l u d e d  another) i n the present that  the high r i s k  fundamentally effects  The  study,  and low r i s k  different  on c h o i c e  i s likely  in  the l i s t  subordinates  that  however,  decision situations are  i n character  as f a r a s t h e i r  o f c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s are concerned.  i n the present  i n character  although  some o f t h e d e c i s i o n p r o b l e m s  may r e c u r , ( e . g , , coming l a t e  to the o f f i c e ) .  t h a t most n o n - r e p e t i t i v e  because a l l b u r e a u c r a t i c  included  the problem o f s e v e r a l  a l s o b y n a t u r e more u n c e r t a i n  standard  ( I n one„..fo,rm o r  decision situations included  it  l e a s t t o some  I t i s Believed,  study a r e m o s t l y non r e p e t i t i v e  be n o t e d  and a t  I t may  also  d e c i s i o n problems a r e  a n d complex.  organizations  tend  This i s to develop  d e c i s i o n p r o c e d u r e s f o r m a k i n g most r o u t i n e and  repetitive  decisions.  non-repetitive,  there  F o r d e c i s i o n s which are , i s no p r e v a i l i n g p o o l o f  knowledge t o h e l p  t h e d e c i s i o n maker t o i d e n t i f y t h e  interdependencies  among d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e  consequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e a c t i o n s definition situation. conflict  i s ann u n c e r t a i n The t h i r d  involved  - and t h i s b y  a n d complex  decision  d i m e n s i o n , namely, degree o f  i n t h e d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n was n o t  151  studied  to  Many o f  the  of  the  any  decision  present  conflict  s i g n i f i c a n t extent  of  s t u d y do  for  t h e manager may  reflect  example, like  the  the  various participants  of  However, t h e r e  interests  taken of  and  the  degree of  of  at  on  participants. a d o p t e d by described be  t o be  The  see  Taylor  which of  c h o s e n by  of  that  m e a s u r e s were the  conclusions  are  e f f e c t s of  strategies  strategies  cargo,  conflict  interests  maker i n c o n f l i c t  MacCr imon and to  No  the  control  this  of  speed  assume  14  conflict  by  t h a t may  be  situations  (1976) and  are  i t would  these s t r a t e g i e s  are  d e c i s i o n makers i n s p e c i f i c  organizations.  present findings  also  of p e r s o n a l i t y  traits  influence of  choice of  a decision by  types of  of  h e n c e no  Some p o s s i b l e  interesting  likely  conflict  t h i s time concerning  interests  speed  unloading  ground to  did perceive  and  present  to r e d u c e the  i s no  the  p r o b l e m number  and  acted accordingly.  controllers perceived possible  loading  workers would l i k e  belt.  purpose  c o n t r o l l e r and  to m a i n t a i n the  the  the  study.  some u n d e r l y i n g  in decision  conveyor b e l t used f o r  whereas  present  problems i d e n t i f i e d f o r  i n t e r e s t s between the  controllees;  the  i n the  control  behaviors.  The  indicate on  an  the  possible  individual's  specific relationship  choice  between  152  the  personality  tolerance  t£a,£;t u s e d  o f ambiguity  £n t h e p r e s e n t  level)  b e h a v i o r by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s current  As  relationship  sons o f mean i n t r i n s i c to  Table  IV.11;  i n four  out o f nine  As  differences  or better  (please  there  t o what  i s no one t h e o r e t i c a l  the observed r e l a t i o n s h i p  between a p e r s o n ' s  t o be a s i m p l e one.  i n Chapter I I I , t o l e r a n c e  of  a m b i g u i t y was c h o s e n as t h e s i n g l e p e r s o n a l i t y t o be u s e d to  i n the present  the f a c t that  more r e l a t e d  personality  study.  this trait  trait,  trait  Partly  t h i s was due  seemed t o be  conceptually  to; a person:'s c h o i c e o f c o n t r o l  t h a n any o t h e r  between  o f a m b i g u i t y and c h o i c e o f c o n t r o l  b y no means a p p e a r s  mentioned  see  B u t i n some c a s e s t h e  The r e l a t i o n s h i p  of tolerance  strategies  level  At present  model w h i c h e x p l a i n s  level  ^.01  compari-  (belonging  were i n a d i r e c t i o n o p p o s i t e  was h y p o t h e s i z e d .  variables.  exists.  scores of p a r t i c i p a n t s  fordetails).  mean d i f f e r e n c e s  the  t h a t , some  d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s ) t h e mean  were s i g n i f i c a n t a t p  the  i s not clear.from  between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s  t h e r e a d e r may remember,  (yiz, ,  and.choice of c o n t r o l  evidence but the data indicate.,  possible  study  However, a v a r i e t y  behaviors  of other  dimensions a r e worthy o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r  their possible  influence  on a p e r s o n ' s c h o i c e o f  153  control self  behaviors.  concept,  To m e n t i o n a few, a p e r s o n ' s  anxiety  level,  n e e d f o r power, l o c u s o f  control,  orientation  external  w o r l d , n e e d f o r a c h i e v e m e n t , dogmatism and  Machiavellianism related  and many o t h e r s w o u l d  i n greater  choice of s p e c i f i c attributes and  like  processing  t o w a r d s p e r s o n s and t h i n g s  control  capacity,  personality not  traits  Indeed, f o c u s i n g  Psychological  information  taking  propensity  affect a  control  strategies.  effectiveness  on t h e s p e c i f i c  control  A variable  models o f  behaviors.  strategies  available.  seems r e l a t e d  choice of control behavior about t h e p e r s o n a l i t y individuals  way o f  leadership  t h a t was n o t i n c l u d e d  study but conceptually  should  of other  f o r the study of c o n t r o l  currently  Practical  study but t h i s  t o mean t h e i r r e l e v a n c e  the various  and  decision  u s e d b y a d e c i s i o n maker may o f f e r a p o s s i b l e integrating  storing  the choice of a single  i n .'.the p r e s e n t  be i n t e r p r e t e d  personality  ability,  l e v e l may a l s o  necessitated  trait  strategies.  risk  maker's c h o i c e o f s p e c i f i c considerations  seem t o be  o r l e s s e r degrees t o a person's  perceptual  general aspiration  i n the  i s his/her  i n the present to a person's perceptions  of the controllee.  i n t h i s w o r l d who p r e f e r  T h e r e a r e many  d i r e c t i v e or  154  ; t o a,, p a r t i c i p a t i v e  ,au-to.cr£'tic_leadership style of leadership,  The s t u d i e s  o f Vroom  or democratic (19-60)  and  French,  I s r a e l , and As ([I960) i n d i c a t e  Use  of i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivating  control  is  not l i k e l y  w i t h p e r s o n s who  t o be s u c c e s s f u l  this fact,  strategies have  h i g h n e e d f o r d e p e n d e n c e and c l e a r j o b i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m above. traits  Further research  o f subordinates to the choice of s p e c i f i c control  strategies  by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s  Finally, effects traits of  r e l a t i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y  the present  of organizational and d e c i s i o n  control  i s considered  study i n d i c a t e s  study  The d a t a  further  indicate  organizational  importance exerted very person's jointly. specific  independent  In t h i s study  significant influence strategies  type o f o r g a n i z a t i o n  on a  t o one  i n the study d i d choose  d i f f e r e n t from those  types o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  same o r g a n i z a t i o n  i t was  - i n d i v i d u a l l y and  Thus i n d i v i d u a l s who were a s s i g n e d  s t r a t e g i e s w h i c h were q u i t e  the  an a d d i t i v e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d e c i s i o n  choice of control  worked i n o t h e r  choice  r e p l i c a t i o n s o f the present  can c o n f i r m t h i s f i n d i n g .  found that  personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s oh a p e r s o n ' s  strategies.  but only  t h e combined  characteristics,  m o d e l o f r e l a t i o n s h i p among t h e t h r e e variables  fruitful.  participants  Also,  who  within  systematically  varied  155  their  c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s d e p e n d i n g upon t h e  decision  s i t u a t i o n f a c i n g them.  of ambiguity,  the  for  the  details).  influence  The  that  the  significant Tables  of  that  these three or  IV.4,  and  study  see  -  Table  variables  The  three  or b e t t e r  but  seem  did a  reader  may  variables  (please  or  IV.14  l e s s e r d e g r e e s ) on  control strategies.  -C.005 l e v e l  degree  e v i d e n c e would thus  i n t e r a c t i o n s among t h e  at p  IV.3,  current  tolerance  strategies  in this  (please  of  case of  significant  earlier  (to greater  personAs choice note  a very  d i d happen even h e r e  to support the n o t i o n exert  to  directions predicted  variations  the  the - v a r i a t i o n s i n c o n t r o l  d i d happen, a l t h o u g h , n o t in  In  type  are  see  IV,5),  IMPLICATIONS:  Perhaps the the  current  role in  that  s i n g l e most  findings  i s the  organization  recognition  structure  and  implication of  the  climate  a l l c o n t r o l d e c i s i o n s made by members o f  zation.  Hence e x p e c t a t i o n s  c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s may organizational structural if  important  the  organization  any  h a v e t o be  structure  c h a n g e s may  of  be  and  climate.  hard  to  i s l a r g e and  crucial play  the  major changes  p r e c e d e d by  organiin  changes  in  However,  implement has  of  been i n  - especially existence  156  as; a, s u c c e s s f u l u n £ t , a , /£ela.t$yely: l o n g t^me,'  A l t h o u g h members o f  dissatisfied practices, major  By  t h e y may  going  Be  willing  power.  t h e new  in fact  Resistance  emerge.  the  m a j o r change.  f o r t h e new  memhers may  on  organizational  not  w i t h any  guarantee that  will  part  structure lose  Unless of  new  there  control  s y s t e m has  Be  current  structure  i s a very  Be  fail,'  In  Been a B l e t o p r o v i d e  any  uncertainty  Better  that  hierarchy also in  and  practices commitment  organizational this  sense,  monitor The  a person's  level  i n the  especially i f  managerial  a person's  would  c o n t r o l measures o t h e r s  former's performance  nature of  the  tasks  to  control strategies.  organizational heirarchy  the  any  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l memBers.  a f f e c t s h i s or her  determine the  and  satisfactory  seems r e a s o n a B l e t o assume t h a t  the  and  privileges  T h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e a v a i l a B l e c u r r e n t l y indicate  with  organizational  strong  self-reinforcing,  outcomes t o a m a j o r i t y  and  is.no  the  a s i z a h l e numBer o f k e y  s y s t e m may  great  There  some o f  their  t o any  structure  the  of  are  to experiment  structure w i l l  memBers change a t t e m p t s may  the  organization  the  s t r u c t u r a l changes B e c a u s e o f  associated  By  current  period  By  status  partially w o u l d use  (HreBiniak,  c a r r i e d out  It  to  1973).  t h e memBers i n  157  d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i c a l l e y e l s and  the.preyailing  m a n a g e r i a l assumptions about the work r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s of  t h e s e members w o u l d i n f l u e n c e t h e  exerted  o v e r them,  s e e n as  l a c k i n g i n commitment t o  and  assumed t o p r o v i d e  Top  the  a l l the  self-motivated  and  are  given  In t h e p r e s e n t  position  (viz.,  represent  the  r o l e of  the m i d d l e of  in  the  differences  In a t r u l y  more on  levels  of  uniformity  'organic'  various  the  job  other  hand,  was  task  oriented go  managerial hoped  to  somewhere  organization, not  However, the  differ  m a n a g e r i a l l e v e l s as  organization  'mechanistic'  p r o c e d u r e s and  lower  organizational hierarchy.  a totally  across  of  things  simulated  a manager who  "the  e m p h a s i s i n s u c h an power and  a f r e e hand u n t i l study the  assumption  achievement  i n m a n a g e r i a l s t y l e s may  significantly  the  Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) was  in  case of  and  This  actions  l e v e l m a n a g e r s , on  assumed t o be  wrong.  organization  system.  are  generally  the  are  o n l y minimum p e r f o r m a n c e  l e a d to c l o s e r c o n t r o l of  l e v e l members.  control  T y p i c a l l y , lower l e v e l workers  necessary to remain w i t h i n may  degree of  i s l e s s on  the  position  r e l a t e d competence o f members. organization  descriptions w i l l  organization  and  the  rules,  e x i s t at a l l  some amount  i n c o n t r o l p r a c t i c e s may  to occur at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of  c l e a r cut  t h u s be  of expected  organization,  The  158  i m p o r t a n c e o f mana.ger.ial h e i r a r c h y felt  i n an  organization  these extremes  (and  bureaucracy l i e s ) , the  also  The  members o f remember asked to an  the the  control  instructions, participants  group, the  e f f e c t on  the  makers i s t h e  itself.  As  was  pointed  to  significant  that  past  organizational  variables.  complexity  the  any  further  about  heirarchy.  There  i n the  i t did  control  by  organization i n Chapter  r e s e a r c h has  general,  need f o r c o n t r o l ,  may  strategies  between s i z e and In  study,  happen.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that  remember,  simply  Division  assumptions  the  of  different  assume t h a t  size of  relationship  and  that  may  may  g r o u p were  t h i s happened  choice of  r e a d e r may out  reader  absence of  organizational  show t h a t  decision  it  the  have made v a r y i n g  Another o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  the  the  control  likely  i n the  two  in.responses  r o l e o f Manager, C a r g o  i t seems r e a s o n a b l e  have an  As  i t i s quite  e v i d e n c e to  above  variance  In  may  indicate  i n managerial hierarchy  i n Canada.  their position  but  r e s e a r c h , can  between t h e  the  members o f  airline  i s no  some o f  assume t h e  be  i s - somewhere i n b e t w e e n  Only f u t u r e  differences  account f o r  to  t h i s i s where a t y p i c a l modern  specific relationship  variables.  in  tbat  is likely  II  indicated other  size  increases  I n many  cases  159  this  i s a c c o m p l i s h e d hy  differentiation, job  duties.  to  show t h a t  control  vertical  standardisation  and  T h e r e i s c u r r e n t l y no  system to a c c o m p l i s h b e t t e r  ' i r o n law  l a r g e and  a t h e o r e t i c a l model  of oligarchy')  T h e r e i s no  w h i c h c o n c l u s i v e l y shows t h a t  strategies less often  a small  'organic' to  organization motivating of  out  begins  the  point  believed enquiry.  that  this  motivating  laboratory s i z e on  examined.  be an  intrinsically  reduces the  i s a very  happens.  at which s i z e of  present  be  in  evidence  I t would a l s o  framework o f  managers c o u l d n o t  that  than those working i i n  control behaviors).  of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  called  w o u l d e x p e c t members  c a l l y motivating  effects  ( w h i c h he  c o n t r o l systems.,  s i z e in. f a c t  the  Michels  in fact  to reduce the  nature of  course that  the  single  control.  intrinsically  organization,  find  evidence  a d o p t any  empirical  this  f i r m to use  control  interesting  s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of  c o n t r o l must i n e v i t a b l y  However, i f t h i s m o d e l i s t r u e , we of a large organic  horizontal  which suggested  complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s '  become o l i g a r c h i c .  and  conclusive  a l l large organizations  (1962) p r o v i d e d the  higher  (assuming  use  Within  of  intrinsi-  the  experiment,  the  control behaviors  of  However, i t i s  fruitful  area  for  further  160  The low  present  f i n d i n g s I n d i c a t e t h a t .members  t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity  organizations motivating  are l i k e l y  i n ^organic *  t o u s e more  c o n t r o l behaviors  t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity. that  working  than  intrinsically  t h o s e .who.have  I t was a l s o m e n t i o n e d  c u r r e n t l y no sound e x p l a n a t i o n  phenomenon.  Conceptually,  exists  a higher  intrinsic  score than  t o l e r a n c e o f ambiguity. find is  and  are l i k e l y  to support  The  However, t h e r e  task  It  tolerance 'organic'  interdependency  i s no p r e s e n t  evidence  this.  i n d i c a t e s t h a t when t h e  t h e c o n t r o l l e r s h a v e t o make a r e v e r y  important,  they  motivating  control strategies.  of this  low  d i d n o t happen.  to f i t b e t t e r into  current evidence  decisions  with  have h i g h  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i g h  complexity.  that  are l i k e l y to  those  this  a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t p e r s o n s who  organizations  for this  I t w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g t o  o u t i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s why  of ambiguity  high  earlier  i t w o u l d be e x p e c t e d  persons w i t h h i g h tolerance o f ambiguity get  with  are less  likely  to use  Some o f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s  f i n d i n g have been p o i n t e d  chapter.  This  with past  research evidence  experiences,  finding  intrinsically  out e a r l i e r  i n this  seems t o be q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t a n d o u r day t o day  161  Are control  intrinsically  manager  are not,  at the  (±,&  %  same t i m e g i v e t h e  first  strategy  glance,  t h a t maximises both  rewards o f the optimal. issue  subordinates  t h a t the  motivation  i n the  some l a t e r  context  level  intrinsic  and  may  in fact  1976).  However, t h e r e a r e  intrinsic  the  and  some  controllers  simultaneously subordinates  can  1975;  in fact  result  a few  extrinsic  in a  this  Results  hypothesis  1975; other  studies  namely,  rewards are a d d i t i v e  Ross,  use  this  intrinsic  opposite p o s i t i o n :  extrinsic  be  (1971)  Deci  offers  on  of i n t r i n s i c motivation.  ( e . g . , Hamner & F o s t e r , the  extrinsic  (or c o n t r o l l e e s ) would  s t u d i e s have c o r r o b o r a t e d  w h i c h have supported the  factors).  appear t h a t a c o n t r o l  ( e . g . , P r i t c h a r d , C a m p b e l l 6c C a m p b e l l ,  that  factors)  more  a p p l i c a t i o n of contingent  to the person  a  the  content  subordinates  rewards to a t a s k which a l r e a d y  Pinder,  why  However, a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e  suggested  of  job  i s somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  decrease  reason  autonomy t o  improve j o b  i t might  motivating I t would  T h e r e i s no  , Improve t h e i r  material benefits (i.e., the  exclusive?  c a n n o t p r o v i d e more j o b  subordinates  At  extrinsically  strategies mutually  appear t h a t they  and  and  both  1976). types  Thus of  f o r the purpose of m o t i v a t i n g  w h e t h e r such, a s t r a t e g y i s  while  rewards their  appropriate  162  is  somewhat  Are  intrinsically  preferable w o u l d be of  the  debatable.  motivating  to e x t r i n s i c a l l y motivating  tempting  t o answer i n t h e  f o r m e r ' s e m p h a s i s on  values  control  strategies?  by  our  and  whole  egalitarian society.  I n t r i n s i c a l l y motivating  c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s might  be  adherents of  very  appealing  to the  o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t who as  the  there  e s s e n c e o f any  motivating  Tannenbaum, 1963;  Tannenbaum in  itself  members. that  the  the  highest  (Morris,  1968;  control  the  be  the  f o r most  i s replete with  advantages of  MacKenzie,  s a f e l y s a i d that  systems a r e  by  sharing Indeed  that in  exercise  general  of  Smith  1978). control  organizational (1975)  i n the  worker, a l t h o u g h i n v a r y i n g  out  power  Hrebiniak,  power m o t i v e i s i n h e r e n t  pointing  not  that  a p o s i t i v e value  management l i t e r a t u r e  schools  (Tannenbaum, 1962;  In a s i m i l a r v e i n , M c C l e l l a n d  out  it  show  c o n t r o l systems  Bowers, 1964;  (1968) n o t e d has  also  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l development.  i n c r e a s e member s a t i s f a c t i o n &  several  consider  i s some e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e t o  intrinsically  It  a f f i r m a t i v e because  democratic  - something c h e r i s h e d  strategies  pointed  lowest  degrees.  to  The  discussions  decentralization  1978).  Given a l l these,  intrinsically  far preferable  can  motivating  i n any  organiza-  163  tional  setting?  The answer i s i n t h e n e g a t i v e . intrinsically  motivating  Firstly,  control styles are l i k e l y  effective  o n l y when t h e c o n t r o l l e e s v a l u e  rewards.  T h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o assume  does v a l u e empirical  intrinsic  rewards.  e v i d e n c e shows  the i n t r i n s i c  that  e v e r y one  I n .'fact t h e a v a i l a b l e  the opposite  Secondly, use o f i n t r i n s i c a l l y  t o be t r u e .  motivating  control  w h i l e t h e y i n c r e a s e member autonomy and p o s s i b l y s a t i s f a c t i o n do so o n l y overall uncertainty  Typically,  a good c o n t r o l s y s t e m s h o u l d  levels  of the organization.  perceived  actions  i n the best  organization,  are also  or i n other  congruence w i t h i n 1975).  ensure that the  t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members t a k e i n  accordance with t h e i r that  member  f o r t h e t o p managers a b o u t t h e  at various  actions  styles,  a t a c o s t : namely, i n c r e a s e i n  operations  various  t o be  self  Unfortunately,  i n t e r e s t s of the  words t h e r e  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  interest are  i s high  (Anthony &  goal Herzlinger,  i t c a n n o t b e assumed t h a t  congruence e x i s t s i n a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  goal  So, i n t h e  absence o f a mechanism t o i n t e g r a t e t h e a c t i o n s o f various entropic  d e c i s i o n makers  in  the organization,  t e n d e n c i e s may emerge w i t h i n  Thirdly,  c h a o s and  t h e system.  t h e p a r t i c i p a t i v e - o r g a n i c system i s l i k e l y t o  164  be  much, more complex t o u n d e r s t a n d  Tannenbaum  Q.9J)2I p o i n t e d  and manage,• A s  out t h e organic  organization  compromises trie p r i n c i p l e . o f s i m p l i f i c a t i o n the  t r a d i t i o n a l mechanistic  Members o f t h e o r g a n i c require  a very  high  i n t e r p e r s o n a l management organization a  systems a r e p r e m i s e d .  organization  level  upon w h i c h  would  therefore  o f t a s l o r e l a t e d and skills,  Unless the  can a t t r a c t such h i g h  c a l i b r e people,  t r u l y p a r t i c i p a t i v e c o n t r o l s y s t e m may in.:.,fact  generate s e v e r a l  dysfunctional  noted  I I the appropriateness  i n chapter  outcomes,  Finally,  as  o f any s i n g l e  control  s y s t e m i s d e p e n d e n t on t h e s t r u c t u r a l , t e c h n o -  logical,  p e r s o n a l i t y and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of  the organization.  Unless  there  i s a perfect f i t  between t h e c o n t r o l r e q u i r e m e n t s n e c e s s i t a t e d variables  and t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s  by t h e s e  o f the p r e v a i l i n g c o n t r o l  system o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y would s u f f e r .  The  reader  appropriateness  should  objective  on  understanding  of the present  study.  the f a c t o r s that  emergence o f s p e c i f i c t h a n an e v a l u a t i o n that  the evaluation of  o f any s i n g l e c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y was n o t  an  believed  note that  controls  The f o c u s  h e r e was  i n f l u e n c e the  i n organizations  o f these c o n t r o l s p e r se.  an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e  rather  Iti s  appropriate-  165  ness of v a r i o u s c o n t r o l  strategies w i l l  be a' very-  u s e f u l one,  LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT  STUDY:  Many o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s from the experimental systematically vary  of the present  design used here.  d e s i g n was u s e d .  along with  i t questions  findings.  I t must be e m p h a s i z e d  of external v a l i d i t y  indeed  division  adopted  o f an a i r l i n e  y e t no b a s i s t o i n f e r i n real  life  during  o u t , may  the study,  s i t u a t i o n s where s h o r t  the past  there i s  term  might  i n an e n t i r e l y  pose a t h r e a t t o both of a study.  o f f e r e d i n defense  participants  o f a manager,  different  H y p o t h e t i c a l r o l e p l a y i n g as S p e n c e r (1978)  external v a l i d i t y be  that  t h a t t h e y w o u l d a c t i n t h e same  o r sway t h e c o n t r o l l e r  direction.  to ensure  the r o l e  c o n t i n g e n c i e s and s i t u a t i o n a l p r e s s u r e s  pointed  of the  o f t h e f i n d i n g s i s y e t t o be e s t a b l i s h e d .  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  bias  a  that the external  p r e c a u t i o n s were taken  fashion  In order to  However, t h i s h a s b r o u g h t  While reasonable  cargo  emerge  the three independent v a r i a b l e s ,  laboratory  validity  study  and o f t h e s e ,  Two p o i n t s may  of the present  i n the study  internal  study:  and  however 987  Q  of the  h a d some work e x p e r i e n c e i n  4 7 % h a d some s u p e r v i s o r y o r  166  managerial helped  experience,  t o make t h e i r  I t i s hoped t h a t  responses  this  factor  during the study  A s e c o n d p o i n t i s t h a t o f t h e 172 p a r t i c i p a n t s study,  134 p e r s o n s  (or approximately  Also,  (a s c o r e o f a t l e a s t  3 on a 5 - p o i n t  as t h e r e a d e r may remember, o n l y t h o s e  c o r r e c t l y were i n c l u d e d i n t h e f i n a l  (of the t o t a l  o f 180 p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  for  into  As  inclusion such  the f i n a l  173 were  a l r e a d y mentioned  independent v a r i a b l e s environmental  characteristics,  of these v a r i a b l e s person's  personality  criterion).  size, traits of  i n the present  determinants  choice of control behaviors,  i n m i n d t h e above  qualified  study  I t w o u l d however seem t h a t  are important  emerging from t h e study  analysis  possible  (e.g., o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  reasons.  data  take p l a c e ,  several other  c o n t r o l l e e s ) were n o t m a n i p u l a t e d for practical  characteri-  t o show t h a t t h e  experimental manipulation d i d i n fact  As  scale).  participants  group u s i n g t h i s  t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e  that  at least  who h a d p e r c e i v e d t h e v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l stics  i n the  78%) r e p o r t e d  they c o u l d i d e n t i f y w i t h the assigned r o l e 'moderately'  realistic,  some  of a  The f i n d i n g s  s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d  bearing  fact,  I n t h e a b s e n c e o f any s t a n d a r d i n s t r u m e n t s f o r  167  measuring decision this in  t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s , an i n v e n t o r y o f s i t u a t i o n s h a d t o be d e s i g n e d  study.  The v a r i o u s  decision situations  the inventory are b e l i e v e d to possess  validity. judges  pilot  them f o r t h e i r  studies using  have a l s o c o n f i r m e d the scores  alternatives  experience)  this belief.  However, t h e v a l i d i t y  to the various  the psychometric  b e e n made.  (subsequent  In a study  13 members  students  behavioral  i s b y no means c o n c l u s i v e . into  The  groups o f  this.  Only f u r t h e r  properties of the  Already  a b e g i n n i n g has,  t o the experiment)  (2 f a c u l t y members, 3 g r a d u a t e  students  8 u n d e r g r a d u a t e s ) o f t h e F a c u l t y o f Commerce,  Mary's U n i v e r s i t y , H a l i f a x , t h e t e s t - r e t e s t of  face  r e a l i s m and r e l e v a n c e .  measures can e s t a b l i s h  and  high  two d i f f e r e n t  assigned  investigations  using  included  As t h e r e a d e r may remember, t h r e e i m p a r t i a l  (with considerable managerial  evaluated  of  specifically for  the i n t r i n s i c  alternatives 0.73.  over  r a t i n g s of the various  behavioral  ratings the equivalent  was 0 . 7 9 . ( u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t  panel  f a c u l t y members, 3 g r a d u a t e  students  that  reliability  a t h r e e week p e r i o d was f o u n d  For the e x t r i n s i c  Saint  t o be figure  o f 13 members, w i t h  and 8 u n d e r g r a d u a t e  T h e r e i s a l s o some e v i d e n c e  currently to i n d i c a t e  the t e s t - r e t e s t  o f the 18-item  reliability  2  168  decision using  inventory  i s moderately high.  12 s t u d e n t s o f t h e F a c u l t y  University, intrinsic  Halifax,  scores of p a r t i c i p a n t s  In  corresponding  Mary's  of  i n the 'mechanistic'  was f o u n d t o be 0.72.  f i g u r e f o r e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s was 0.68.  the case o f the 'organic'  reliability  o f Commerce, S a i n t  the test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y  g r o u p o v e r a s e v e n week p e r i o d The  I n a. s t u d y  figures  group,  for intrinsic  the t e s t - r e t e s t  and e x t r i n s i c s c o r e s  ( o v e r a s e v e n week p e r i o d ) w e r e f o u n d t o be 0.81 and 0.74 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  Figures  w e r e 0.54 f o r i n t r i n s i c scores.  ^  The s t u d y  f o r the c o n t r o l  scores  indicates  and 0.49 f o r e x t r i n s i c  that  except i n t h e case  of  t h e c o n t r o l group t h e r e l i a b i l i t y  or  less acceptable.  the  participants  an^introductory  One p o i n t  group  figures  a r e more  i s worth mentioning: a l l  i n t h e above s t u d y were s t u d e n t s i n  organizational  behavior  class.  Since  t h i s was a c o u r s e i n w h i c h many o f them h a d t h e i r first it  exposure t o m o t i v a t i o n a l  i s very  likely  organizational control  figures  their learning  behavior  strategies  was c o l l e c t e d .  that  and l e a d e r s h i p of  various  c o n c e p t s made them change t h e i r  on t h e s e c o n d o c c a s i o n when  T h e r e a d e r may n o t e t h a t  a r e lowest f o r t h e c o n t r o l group.  a b s e n c e o f any a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n organizational  structure  theories,  and p r a c t i c e s  data  the r e l i a b i l i t y In the  about p r e v a i l i n g the p a r t i c i p a n t s  169  in  t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p may h a v e f o u n d  their  control  strategies  v i e w o f t h e above f a c t ,  on t h e s e c o n d  instrument. of  t o change  occasion.  In  i t w o u l d seem t h a t t h e  evidence r e c e i v e d i n the present i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e lower  i t easier  study  i s perhaps  bounds o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y  However more d a t a p e r t a i n i n g  of the  to the v a l i d i t y  t h e m e a s u r e s a r e n e c e s s a r y b e f o r e any f i r m c o n c l u s i o n s  can be a r r i v e d a t .  SUMMARY:  Control Control  i s an i n e v i t a b l e  implies a l l structure,  by w h i c h one o r more p e r s o n s c o n s t r a i n and/or i n f l u e n c e individuals or  processes  direct,  Various definitions  classifications  of control  b e e n p r o v i d e d by v a r i o u s w r i t e r s essence  of a l l control  a c t u a l performance taking  corrective  and b e h a v i o r  motivate,  t h e b e h a v i o r o f one o r more  to achieve predetermined  otherwise.  several  aspect of organization.  objectives  of control  - economic  exist;  systems have  also  i n the past, but the  s y s t e m s seems t o be c o m p a r i n g  with predetermined  s t a n d a r d s and  a c t i o n s wherever n e c e s s a r y t o  influence future behavior.  170  In  the present  understand  §tudy an a t t e m p t was made t o  the extent  t o w h i c h a manager's c h o i c e o f  c o n t r o l B e h a v i o r s was<i i n f l u e n c e d characteristics,  own p e r s o n a l i t y  characteristics. to  A laBoratory  systematically vary  The  results indicate  stics  and d e c i s i o n  a person's  The  trait  (viz., the Also  tolerance  choice  independent  choice  characteri-  a significant of control  the actual  study weakly to makers.  r e s u l t s w e r e somewhat  t o what was h y p o t h e s i z e d .  The  various  were d i s c u s s e d . hypotheses  implications While  i n the study  replications  r e s u l t s would  are  often  complex.  f o c u s e s oh  of the present  firm conclusions c a n Be made o n l y  on t h e s e v e r a l a f t e r more  suggest  that  control related  control  decisions  A model o f c o n t r o l B e h a v i o r  the organizational,  personality,  e n v i r o n m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s may h e n c e Be a more useful  findings  a n d e v i d e n c e B a s e d on f i e l d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,  the  and  role  Behaviors.  chosen f o r the p r e s e n t  o f amBiguity) r e l a t e d only  case  conducted variaBles.  the organizational  o f c o n t r o l B e h a v i o r s By d e c i s i o n  i n this  opposite  and d e c i s i o n  e x p e r i m e n t was  importance p l a y  in>: d e t e r m i n i n g personality  traits  the three  that  By o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  one t h a n a m o d e l w h i c h t r i e s  i n terms o f m e r e l y  that  t a s k and realistic  to explain  one o r two v a r i a B l e s  only.  171  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A b e l s o n , R.P. S i m u l a t i o n o f s o c i a l behavior. In G. L i n d z e y and E . A r o n s o n (eds) ' Handbook c-f S o c i a l Psychology, Vol 2 (2nd e d ) , R e a d i n g , M a s s ; . A d d i s o n - W e s l e y , 1968, 274-356 Adams, J.S., a n d J a c o b s e n , P.R, E f f e c t s o f wage i n e q u i t i e s on work q u a l i t y , J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, _69, 19-25. A n d e r s o n , T., and Warkov, S. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s i z e and f u n c t i o n complexity: A study of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n hospitals. A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1961, 26, 23-28. A n t h o n y , R.N. P l a n n i n g and C o n t r o l S y s t e m s : A Framework for Analysis. B o s t o n , Mass: G r a d u a t e S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s Admn., H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. A n t h o n y , R.N., and H e r z l i n g e r , R. Management C o n t r o l i n Non-profit Organizations. Homewood" I l l i n o i s : R i c h a r d D. I r w i n , 1975. A r g y r i s , C. I n t e g r a t i n g t h e I n d i v i d u a l and tion. New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1964.  the  Organiza-  A r g y r i s , C. Some u n i n t e n d e d c o n s e q u e n c e s o f r i g o r o u s research. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 70, 3, 185-197. A r g y r i s , C. Management and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t : t h e P a t h f r o m YA t o YB. New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1971. A s h b y , W.R. Chapman and  An I n t r o d u c t i o n Hall, 1956.  to Cybernetics.  London:  Babchuk, N., and Goode, W.J. Work i n c e n t i v e s i n a s e l f - d e t e r m i n e d group. A m e r i c a n S o c i a l Review, 1951, 16, 679-687. B a k e r , F. I n t r o d u c t i o n : O r g a n i z a t i o n s as open s y s t e m s . I n F. B a k e r (ed) O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S y s t e m s : G e n e r a l A p p r o a c h e s t o Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Homewood, I l l i n o i s : R i c h a r d D. I r w i n I n c . , 1973. Barnard, C.I. The F u n c t i o n s o f t h e E x e c u t i v e . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1938. B a r t l e t t , M.S. B r i t i s h Journal 77-85.  Cambridge:  Tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . o f P s y c h o l o g y , S t a t i s t i c a l section'.;.'1950} 3,  172  Beer,  S.  Decision  and  Control.  London; W i l e y ,  B e l l , G.D. P r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f work demands and p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f w o r k e r s Academy o f Management J o u r n a l , 1 9 6 6 , 9 , 20^28. x  1966. discretion.  v  Bern, D.J. The e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l s i m u l a t i o n s : A r e p l y t o J o n e s , L i n d e r , K i e s l e r , Zarama, and Brehm. J o u r n a l o f Exp e r itrien t a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 4, 270-274. B e n n i s , W\:G. L e a d e r s h i p t h e o r y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b e h a v i o r : the problem o f a u t h o r i t y . Admin i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y 1959, 4, 259-301. B e n n i s , W.G. Beyond B u r e a u c r a c y : E s s a y s on t h e D e v e l o p m e n t and E v o l u t i o n o f Human O r g a n i z a t i o n . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , _ _  T  B l a k e , R.R., and Mouton, J.S. H o u s t o n : G u l f P u b l i s h i n g Co.,  The M a n a g e r i a l 1964.'  B l a u , P.M. The Dynamics o f B u r e a u c r a c y . s i t y of Chicago Press, 1955.  Grid.  Chicago:  Univer-  B l a u , P.M., F a l b e , C . , . M c K i n l e y , W., and T r a c y , P.K. T e c h n o l o g y and o r g a n i z a t i o n i n m a n u f a c t u r i n g . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 21, 20-40. B l a u , P.M., and Organizations.  S c h o e n h e r r , R.H. The S t r u c t u r e New Y o r k : B a s i c Books, 1971.  B l a u , P.M., and San F r a n s i s c o :  S c o t t , W.R. Formal Organizations. C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1962.  Bock, R.D. Behavioral  of  M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n R e s e a r c h . N e w l Y o r k ? McGraw H i l l , 1975.  Bowers, D.G. O r g a n i z a t i o n c o n t r o l i n an company. S o c i o m e t r y , 1964, 27_, 230-244.  insurance  Box, G.E.P. A g e n e r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y f o r a c l a s s o f likelihood ratio criteria. B i o m e t r i k a , 1949, 36^, 317-346. Box, G.E.P. wear c u r v e s .  Problems i n the a n a l y s i s o f growth B i o m e t r i c s , 1950, 6_, 362-389.  Budner, S. An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f I n t o l e r a n c e o f Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. Budner, S. variable.  and  Ambiguity.  I n t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y as a p e r s o n a l i t y J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1962, 30, 29-50.  173  B u r n s , T. The c o m m u n i c a t i o n e x e r c i s e . Paper presented at 3 r d Seminar i n S o c i a l S c i e n c e o f Organizations, U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , 1964, B u r n s , T., and S t a l k e r , G.M. London: T a v i s t o c k , 1961.  The  Management o f  Innovation.  C a m p b e l l , D.T., and S t a n l e y , J . C . E x p e r i m e n t a l and q u a s i e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n s f o r r e s e a r c h on t e a c h i n g . I n N.L. Gage (ed) Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 19 63. Caplow, T. Quarterly,  Organizational size. 1957, 1, 484-505.  C h a n d l e r , A. S t r a t e g y and The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1962.  Administrative  Structure.  Science  C a m b r i d g e , Mass:  C h a r n e s , A., and S t e d r y , A.C. The a t t a i n m e n t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l golas through the a p p r o p r i a t e s e l e c t i o n of subunit goals. Unpublished Paper, Graduate School of I n d u s t r i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Carnegie I n s t i t u t e of Technology, 1964. Child, J. O r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e and s t r a t e g i e s o f c o n t r o l . A r e p l i c a t i o n of the A s t o n study. Administrative Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1972, 17, 163-177. Child, J. S t r a t e g i e s o f c o n t r o l and o r g a n i z a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1973, 1_8, 1-17.  behavior.  C h u r c h i l l , N.E., and T e i t e l b a u m , L.N. A u d i t i n g and management c o n t r o l - a h y p o t h e s i s . I n M. A l e x i s and C.Z. W i l s o n C e d s ) , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l D e c i s i o n M a k i n g . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1967. Cyert, Firm.  R.M., and M a r c h , J.G. A B e h a v i o r a l Theory of E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1963.  D a h l , R.A. The c o n c e p t o f power. 1957, 2, 201-218.  Behavioral  the  Science,  D a v i d s , A. I n f l u e n c e o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t on t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and i n t o l e r a n c e o f a m b i g u i t y . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1956, 20, 179-184. D e c i , E.L. The e f f e c t s o f e x t e r n a l l y m e d i a t e d r e w a r d s on i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 18, 105-115.  174  Deci, 1975,  E.L,  I n t r i n s i c Motivation, " ~  New Y o r k ; P l e n u m  Press,  Dornbusch., S., a n d S c o t t , W.R. ( w i t h B u s c h i n g , B.C., Lang; J.D.) E v a l u a t i o n and t h e e x e r c i s e o f a u t h o r i t y . San F r a n c i s c o ; J o s s e y B a s s , 1 9 7 5 . Dunbar, R.L.M. Designs f o r s e l f organizing o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l systems. Working Paper, I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Management, B e r l i n , 1979. Dunbar, R.L.M. Control i n organizations. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g h e l d i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Management - W i s s e n s c h a f t s z e n t r u m B e r l i n - g r i e g s t r a s e 5-7, D-1000, B e r l i n 33, J a n u a r y , 1977 ( D i s c u s s i o n Paper S e r i e s Number d p / 7 7 - 8 ) . Duncan, R.B M u l t i p l e d e c i s i o n making s t r u c t u r e s i n adapting to environmental uncertainty. The i m p a c t on organization effectiveness. Human R e l a t i o n s , 1973, 26, 273-292. Farr, J.L. T a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , r e w a r d c o n t i n g e n c y , and i n t r i n s i c motivation. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1976, 16, 294-307. F a y o l , H. G e n e r a l a n d I n d u s t r i a l Management. P i t m a n , 1949. F i e d l e r , F.E. A Theory o f L e a d e r s h i p New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1967.  London:  Effectiveness.  F r a n k , A.G. G o a l a m b i g u i t y a n d c o n f l i c t i n g s t a n d a r d s : An approach to the study o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . Human O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1959, 17, 8-13. F r e n c h , E.G. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among some m e a s u r e s o f r i g i d i t y under s t r e s s and n o n s t r e s s c o n d i t i o n s . Journal o f A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1955^1 51, 114-118. F r e n c h , J.R.P. J r . , a n d S n y d e r , R. L e a d e r s h i p and i n t e r p e r s o n a l power. I n D. C a r t w r i g h t (ed) S t u d i e s i n S o c i a l Power A n n A r b o r : U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n P r e s s , 1959. F r e n c h , J.R.P. J r . , I s r a e l , J . , and A s , D. An e x p e r i m e n t i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a,. N o r w e g i a n f a c t o r y . ' Human R e l a t i o n s , 1960, 13, 3-19. F r a n k i n , H.L.,.and S t r e u f e r t , S. L a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . I n M.D. D u n n e t t e (ed) Handbook o f I n d u s t r i a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1976, 415-457.  175  F u l l a n , M. I n d u s t r i a l t e c h n o l o g y and w o r k e r i n t e g r a t i o n i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1970, 35, 1028-1039. G e l l e r m a n , S.W. M o t i v a t i o n and" P r o d u c t i v i t y , A m e r i c a n Management A s s o c i a t i o n , 1963, G o u l d n e r , A..W. G l e n c o e , 111:  P a t t e r n s o f Indus t r i a l Free Press, 1954.  New  York:  Bureaucracy.  G r a i c u n a s , V.A. I n L. G u l i c k and L. U r w i c k (eds) P a p e r s on t h e S c i e n c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e of P u b l i c Administration, 1937. Hackman, J.R., and L a w l e r , E.E. Employee r e a c t i o n s t o job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph,, 1971,55, 259-286. Hage, J . An a x i o m a t i c Administrative Science  theory of organizations. Q u a r t e r l y , 1965, 10, 289-320.  Hage, J . C o m m u n i c a t i o n and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n t r o l : C y b e r n e t i c s i n H e a l t h and W e l f a r e S e t t i n g s . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y , 1974. Hage, J . , and A i k e n , M. Relationship of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n to other s t r u c t u r a l p r o p e r t i e s . Administrative Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1967, 12, 72-92. H a i r e , M. B i o l o g i c a l m o d e l s and e m p i r i c a l h i s t o r i e s o f g r o w t h o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I n M. H a i r e (ed) Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n T h e o r y , New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1959, 272-306T H a l l , R.H., Haas, J . E . , and J o h n s o n , N.J. Organizational s i z e , c o m p l e x i t y and f o r m u l a t i o n . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1967, 32, 902-912. Hamrier, W.C., and F o s t e r , L.W. A r e i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c rewards a d d i t i v e : A t e s t o f D e c i ' s c o g n i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n theory of task motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1975, 14, 398-415. H a r a r i , 0., and Z e d e c k , S. Development o f b e h a v i o r a l l y anchored s c a l e s f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of f a c u l t y t e a c h i n g . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1973, 58, 261-265. H a r r i s , R.J. A Primer of M u l t i v a r i a t e Statistics.KNew Academic P r e s s , 1975.  York:  Harvey- E. T e c h n o l o g y and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 1968, 33, 247-259.  176  Hays, W,L, S t a t i s t i c s f o r t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s . 2nd New Y o r k ; H o l t , JRinehart,. and W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1973,  edition.  Hermann, C.F. Some c o n s e q u e n c e s o f c r i s i s which, l i m i t v i a b i l i t y of organizations. Administrative" Science Q u a r t e r l y , 1963, 8, 61-82.  the  H i c k s o n , D.J. Administrative  A convergence i n o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 11, 2, 224-237. '  H i c k s o n , D.J., t e c h n o l o g y and re-appraisal. 4, 378-397.  Pugh, D.S., and P h e y s e y , D.C. Operations o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e : an e m p i r i c a l Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969,  Holdaway, E.A., Newberry, J . F . , H i c k s o n , D.J., and H e r o n , R.P. D i m e n s i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n complex:s o c i e t i e s : the e d u c a t i o n a l s e c t o r . Administrative S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 20; 37-58.  •  H r e b i n i a k , L . G. Job t e c h n o l o g y , s u p e r v i s i o n and work g r o u p s t r u c t u r e . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 395-410. H r e b i n i a k , L.G. Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s ' . M i n n e s o t a : West P u b l i s h i n g Cov> 21978. Hunt, R.G. An e s s a y on t h e p r o f i t m o t i v e . Management J o u r n a l , 1969, 5_, 6-11.  St.  Paul,  Defense  J e n s e n , B.T. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the ' R a i l r o a d game'. T e c h n i c a l memorandum No.608, S a n t a M o n i c a , C a l i f : Systems D e v e l o p m e n t C o r p . , 1961. J o h n s o n , G.J,, A n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e I I : w i t h i n s u b j e c t d e s i g n , U n p u b l i s h e d M a n u s c r i p t , P s y c h o l o g y Department, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1977. J o h n s o n , R.T., and O u c h i , W.G. Made i n A m e r i c a J a p a n e s e management). H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s Review, 61=69.  (under 1974, 52,  J o n e s , R.A. , L i n d e r , D.E., K i e s l e r , C A . , Zanna, M. , and Brehm, J . I n t e r n a l s t a t e s or e x t e r n a l s t i m u l i : observers' a t t i t u d e j u d g e m e n t s and t h e d i s s o n a n c e t h e o r y s e l f persuasion controversy. Journal of Experimental Social P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 4, 247-26TT Kahn,.- R.L, W o l f e , D.M. , Q u i n n , R.P., Snoek, J.D., and R o s e n t h a l , R.A. Organizational Stress: Studies i n Role C o n f l i c t and A m b i g u i t y . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y , 1964.  177  K a t z , D, a n d Kahn, R.L. The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s . New Y o r k ; J o h n W i l e y , 1966.• Kennedy, J . L . The s y s t e m a p p r o a c h : o r g a n i s a t i o n a l development. Human F a c t o r s , F e b r u a r y , 1962, 25-52. K h a n d w a l l a , P. E n v i r o n m e n t and i t s i m p a c t on t h e organization.. I n t e r n a t i o n a l , S t u d i e s o f Management O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1972, 2, 297-313.  and  K i r k , R. Experimental Design: Procedures f o r the Behavioral Sciences. B e l m o n t , C a l i f . ; B r o o k s , 1968. L a w l e r , E.E. C o n t r o l systems i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In M.D. D u n n e t t e ( e d ) , Handbook o f I n d u s t r i a l a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1976, 1247-1291. L a w l e r , E . E . , and Rhode, J.G. I n f o r m a t i o n and C o n t r o l i n Organizations. C a l i f o r n i a : G o o d y e a r P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1976. L a w r e n c e , P., and L o r s c h , J.W. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and i n t e g r a t i o n i n complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Administrative S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1967, 12, 1-47. L e a v i t t , H.J. T a s k o r d e r i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e v e l o p ment i n t h e common t a r g e t game. Behavioral Science, 1960, 5, 233-239. L e a v i t t , . H.J. Unhuman o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Review, 1962, 40, 90-98. Likert, Value.  R. New  Harvard  Business  The Human O r g a n i z a t i o n : i t s Management Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1967.  and  Lowe, E.A., and M c l n n e s , J.M. C o n t r o l i n socio-economic o r g a n i z a t i o n s : a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e d e s i g n o f management c o n t r o l systems. The J o u r n a l o f Management S t u d i e s , 1971, 8, 213-227. MacCrimmon, K.R., and T a y l o r , R.N. D e c i s i o n m a k i n g and problem s o l v i n g . I n M.D. D u n n e t t e (ed) Handbook o f I n d u s t r i a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1976, 1247-1291. M a c K e n z i e , K.D. Organizational Structures. H e i g h t s , 111: AHM P u b l i s h i n g C o r p . , 1978.  Arlington  Mahoney, T.A., and F r o s t , P . J . The r o l e o f t e c h n o l o g y i n models o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Organizationa1 B e h a v i o r and Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1974, I I , 122-138.  178  M a n s f i e l d , R. B u r e a u c r a c y and c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ; an examination of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Administrative S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1973, 18, 477-488. M a r c h , J.G., and O l s e n , J.P. A m b i g u i t y and C h o i c e i n Organizations. B e r g e n : U n i v e r s i t e t s f o r l a g e t , 1976. M a r c h , J.G., and Wiley, 1958.  Simon, H.A.  Maslow, A.H. Motivation Harper, 1954.  and  Organizations. Personality.  New  New  York:  York:  M c C a n d l e s , B.R., and H o l l o w a y , H.D. Race p r e j u d i c e i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity i n c h i l d r e n . Journal of A b n o r m a l and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1955, 51, 692-693. M c C l e l l a n d , D.C. Power: t h e I n n e r E x p e r i e n c e . I r v i n g t o n P u b l i s h e r s Inc., 1975. M c G r e g o r , D. McGraw H i l l ,  The Human S i d e 1960.  of E n t e r p r i s e .  New  New  and  York:  York:  McMahon, J . T . , and I v a n c e v i c h , J.M. A study of c o n t r o l i n a m a n u f a c t u r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n : M a n a g e r s and non-managers. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 21, 1, 66-83. M e r t o n , R.K. B u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e and S o c i a l F o r c e s , 1940, 18, 560-568. M I c h e l s , R.  Political  Parties.  New  personality.  York: Crowell,  1962.  M o r r i s , W.T. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n Management S y s t e m s : An Introduction to Design. Columbus: O h i o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968. M o r r i s o n , D.F. M u l t i v a r i a t e S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1976.  2nd  ed.,  N e l s o n , E.G., and M a c h i n , J . L . J . Management c o n t r o l : systems t h i n k i n g a p p l i e d to the development o f a framework f o r e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s . J o u r n a l o f Management S t u d i e s , 1976, 13, 294-307. N e m i r o f f , P.M., and F o r d , D.L. T a s k e f f e c t i v e n e s s and human f u l f i l l m e n t i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s : a r e v i e w and development of a c o n c e p t u a l c o n t i n g e n c y model. The Academy o f Management R e v i e w, 1976, 1, 69-82. N i e , N.H., H u l l , C.H., J e n k i n s , J.G., Steinbrenner, and B e n t , D.H. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l  K., Sciences,  179  2nd  e d . , New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l ,  1975.  Oldham, G,R, I n t r i n s i c motivation: Relationship to job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and performance. Paper presented at the Eastern P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Convention, P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . , 1974. Orne, M.T. Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d q u a s i c o n t r o l s . I n R. R o s e n t h a l and R.L. Rosnow ( e d s ) A r t i f a c t s i n B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h , New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 19 69. O u c h i , W.G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l . Administrative S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1977, 22, 1, 95-113. O u c h i , W?G;, and D o w l i n g , J . B . D e f i n i n g t h e s p a n o f control. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1974, 19, 357-365. O u c h i , W.G., and J o h n s o n , Jt'B; Types o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o e m o t i o n a l w e l l b e i n g . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1978, 23, 293-317. O u c h i , W.G., and M a g u i r e , M.A. two f u n c t i o n s . Administrative 20, 559-569.  Organizational control: S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1975,  Payne, R.L.,-and Pugh, D.S. O r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e and climate. I n M.D. D u n n e t t e ( e d ) Handbook o f I n d u s t r i a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1976. 1125-1173. P e a r s o n , E.S., a n d H a r t l e y , H.O. Biometrika Tables f o r Statisticians. 2nd e d . , C a m b r i d g e : Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958. P e n n e r , D.D. and P a t t e n , R.L. Comments on t h e epistemological status of interpersonal simulations. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e R e s e a r c h i n S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 1, 62-66. P e r r o w , C. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l View. L o n d o n : T a v i s t o c k P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1970. P i n d e r , C.C. A d d i t i v i t y v e r s u s n o n a d d i t i v i t y o f i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c i n c e n t i v e s : i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r work m o t i v a t i o n , p e r f o r m a n c e and a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1976, 61, 6, 693-700. P o r t e r , L.W., Performance.  and L a w l e r , E . E . M a n a g e r i a l A t t i t u d e s and Homewood, 111: I r w i n - D o r s e y , 1968.  180  Press, S.J. Applied M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s . H o l t , R i n e h a r t , a n d W i n s t o n , I n c . , 1972,  New'York:  P r i t c h a r d , R.D. , C a m p b e l l , K.M. , and C a m p b e l l , D.J', The e f f e c t s o f e x t r i n s i c f i n a n c i a l r e w a r d s on i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a tion. Working Paper, Department o f P s y c h o l o g i c a l S c i e n c e s , P u r d u e U n i v e r s i t y , I n d i a n a , 1975. Pugh, D.S. The measurement o f o r g a n i z a t i o n O r g a n i z a t i o n a l D y n a m i c s , 1973, 1, 19-34.  structure.  Pugh, D.S., H i c k s o n , D . J . , H i n i n g s , C.R., M c D o n a l d , K.M. and T u r n e r , C. D i m e n s i o n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1968, 13, 65-105. Pugh, D.S., H i c k s o n , D . J . , H i n i n g s , C.R., M c D o n a l d , K.M. and T u r n e r , C. The c o n t e x t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1969, 14, 91-114 R a t h e , A.W. Management c o n t r o l s i n b u s i n e s s . D.G. M a l c o l m a n d A . J . Rowe.. ( e d s ) , Management Systems, New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1960  In . Control  R e e v e s , T.M. a n d Woodward, J . The s t u d y o f m a n a g e r i a l control. I n J . Woodward ( e d ) , I n d u s t r i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n : B e h a v i o r and C o n t r o l . London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970, 37-56. R o b i n s o n , J . P . , a n d S h a v e r , P.R. Measures o f S o c i a l Psychological Attitudes. Ann A r b o r ; M i c h i g a n : Survey R e s e a r c h Center, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n , 1972. Rosenthal, Research.  R., a n d Rosnow, R.L. A r t i f a c t s i n B e h a v i o r a l New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1969.  R o s s , M. The s e l f p e r c e p t i o n o f i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n . I n J.H. H a r v e y , W . J . I c k e s , a n d R.F. K i d d ( e d s ) : New D i r e c t i o n s i n A t t r i b u t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . H i l l s d a l e , N.J..,. L a w r e n c e E r l b a u m A s s o c i a t e s , 1976. S a u n d e r s , D.R. Some p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r p r e t i v e m a t e r i a l f o r t h e P R I . R e s e a r c h Memorandum No. 55-15. Princeton, N.J., E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , O c t o b e r , 1955. S c h e i n , E.H. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l N.J..: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1965  Psychology.  Englewood  Cliffs,  S c h r o e d e r , H.M., D r i v e r , M.J., and S t r e u f e r t , S. I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g Systems i n I n d i v i d u a l s a n d G r o u p s .  181  New Y o r k : H o l t ,  Rinehart,  and W i n s t o n , 1965.  S e l z n i c k . P, TVA a n d t h e G r a s s R o o t s . s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1949.,  Berkeley;  Univer-  S i e g e l , S. C e r t a i n d e t e r m i n a n t s and c o r r e l a t e s o f authoritarianism. G e n e t i c P s y c h o - l o g i c a l M o n o g r a p h s, 1954, 49, 187-229. S i s k , H.L. Management a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n . w e s t e r n P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977.  C i n c i n n a t i : South-  S i t e s , P. C o n t r o l : the Basis o f S o c i a l Order. D u n e l i e n P u b l i s h i n g . C o . , 1973.  New Y o r k :  Smart, C., a n d V e r t i n s k y , I . D e s i g n s f o r c r i s i s d e c i s i o n units. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1977, 22^ 640-57. S m i t h , P . C , a n d K e n d a l l , L.M. R e t r a n s l a t i o n o f expectat i o n s : an a p p r o a c h t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f unambiguous anchors f o r r a t i n g s c a l e s . Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1963, 47, 149-155. ~~ S m i t h , C.G., and Tannenbaum, A.S. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t r o l s t r u c t u r e : a comparative a n a l y s i s . Human R e l a t i o n s , 1963, 16, 299-316. Spencer, C D . Two t y p e s o f r o l e p l a y i n g : t h r e a t s t o i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l v a l i d i t y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1978, 33, 3, 265-268. S t a r b u c k , W.H. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l growth and development. I n J.C M a r c h (ed) Handbook o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1965. S t e e r s , R.M. Organizational Effectiveness: A Behavioral View. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1977 S t o g d i l l , R.M., Goode, O.S., and D a y , D.R. The l e a d e r behavior o f u n i v e r s i t y presidents. Columbus: O h i o U n i v e r s i t y Bureau o f Business Research, Unpublished Report, 1965. S t r e u f e r t , S. C o n c e p t u a l s t r u c t u r e , c o m m u n i c a t o r i m p o r t a n c e and i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d c o n f o r m i n g and d e v i a n t g r o u p members. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 100-103. S t r e u f e r t , S., C l a r d y , M.A., D r i v e r , M.J., K a r l i n s , M., S c h r o d e r , H.M., a n d S u e d f e l d , P. A t a c t i c a l game f o r t h e  182  a n a l y s i s o f complex d e c i s i o n m a k i n g i n i n d i v i d u a l s groups. P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s ,;• 1965, 17, 723-729.  and  Tannenbaum, A.S. Control in organizations: Individual; a d j u s t m e n t and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p e r f o r m a n c e . ' A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1962, 7, 236-257 Tannenbaum, A.S. Control McGraw H i l l , 1968.  i n Organizations.  T a t s u o k a , M.M. Multivariate Analysis. W i l e y , and Sons, I n c . , 1971  New  New  York:  York:  John  T a y l o r , F.W. P r i n c i p l e s o f S c i e n t i f i c Management. York: H a r p e r and Row, 1911  New  '  T e d e s c h i , J.T., S c h l e n k e r , B.R., and Bonoma, T.V. C o n f l i c t , Power and Games. Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1973. Thompson, J.D. Organizations McGraw H i l l , 1967 T o c h e r , K. Control. 21, 159-180.  i n Action.  New  York:  Operations Research Quarterly,  1970,  Tuckman, B.W. I n t e g r a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y : i t s measurement and r e l a t i o n t o c r e a t i v i t y . E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1966, 26, 369-382. Van'de Geer, J.P. I n t r o d u c t i o n to M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s f_o r _ t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s , San F r a n c i s c o : W.H. Freeman, T  T  Van Maanen, J . Police socialization: a longititudinal e x a m i n a t i o n o f j o b a t t i t u d e s i n an u r b a n p o l i c e d e p a r t ment. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Q u a r t e r l y , 1975, 20, 207-228. V i c k e r s , G. Chapman and  Towards a S o c i o l o g y H a l l , 1967 .  o f Management.  London:  Vroom, V. Some P e r s o n a l i t y D e t e r m i n a n t s o f t h e E f f e c t s o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1960. Vroom, V.H.  Work and  Motivation.  New  York: Wiley,  1964.  Vroom, V.H., and Y e t t o n , P.W. L e a d e r s h i p and d e c i s i o n making. P i t t s b u r g h : U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h P r e s s , T973.  183  '  Weber, M. The t h e o r y o f S o c i a l and .Economic New York.: Free P r e s s , 1947,  Organization,  Weick, K.E, Laboratory experiments with organizations. I n J.C. M a r c h (ed) Handbook o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s . Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y , 1965, 194-260. Weick, K.E. O r g a n i z a t i o n s i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y . I n V.H. Vroom (ed) Methods o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967. Weick, K.E. The S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y o f Reading: A d d i s o n Wesley, 1969.  Organizations.  W i l k s , S.S. C e r t a i n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i n the variance. B i o m e t r i k a , 1932, 24, 471-474.  analysis  Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental 2nd e d i t i o n , New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1971. Woodward, J . Management and T e c h n o l o g y . M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1958.  London:  Woodward, J . I n d u s t r i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n : T h e o r y and London: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965.  of Design.  Her Practice.  Y a t e s , J . F . , and K u l i c k , R.M. E f f o r t c o n t r o l arid judgements. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r and Human P e r f o r m a n c e , 1977, 20, 54-65. Z e l d i t c h , M. J r . Can y o u r e a l l y s t u d y an army i n t h e laboratory? I n A. E t z i o n i (ed) A S o c i o l o g i c a l R e a d e r on Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and Winston, 1969. Z i g l e r , E. M e t a t h e o r e t i c a l issues i n developmental psychology. In. M. Marx (ed) T h e o r i e s i n C o n t e m p o r a r y Psychology. New Y o r k : M a c M i l l a n ^ 1963. -  APPENDIX Instructions for on  rating  to the  the  1-A  panel  of  behavioral  intrinsic motivation  judges  (n =  alternatives dimension  185  Dear  Colleague,  I am c u r r e n t l y c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h i m t h e a r e a o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n t r o l Systems. B r i e f l y , I propose to i d e n t i f y t h e e f f e c t s o f some p e r s o n a l i t y , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , and t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on t h e c h o i c e o f managerial c o n t r o l behaviors. For t h i s purpose, c o n t r o l b e h a v i o r i s d e f i n e d as any b e h a v i o r w h i c h i s aimed a t d i r e c t i n g , c o n s t r a i n i n g , m o t i v a t i n g , and/or i n f l u e n c i n g the b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l member(s). One m a j o r method o f c o n t r o l l i n g the b e h a v i o r o f a person i s to manipulate h i s / h e r i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n to do t h e t a s k . I n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s a r e t h o s e where p e r f o r m i n g i t s e l f i s a r e w a r d i n g experience t o the i n d i v i d u a l e v e n t h o u g h no m a t e r i a l r e w a r d s ( e . g . , pay r a i s e , p r o m o t i o n , e t c . , i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context) o r punishments (e.g., demotion, d i s m i s s a l , warning, etc.) are i n v o l v e d . L i k e a good g o l f s h o t o r a g r a c e f u l s k i run, good j o b p e r f o r m a n c e l e a d s to f e e l i n g s o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , f u n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n . . ., I n g e n e r a l , work s i t u a t i o n s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e t h e emergence o f i n t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i g h v a r i e t y , autonomy, t a s k i d e n t i t y , and f e e d b a c k . These are d e f i n e d as: Variety:  the d e g r e e t o w h i c h a j o b r e q u i r e s employees t o p e r f o r m a w i d e r a n g e o f o p e r a t i o n s i n t h e i r work o r t o use a v a r i e t y o f e q u i p m e n t and procedures on t h e j ob. 1  Autonomy:  the degree t o w h i c h employees have a m a j o r 'say' i n s c h e d u l i n g t h e i r work, i n s e l e c t i n g the equipment they w i l l use, and i n d e c i d i n g on p r o c e d u r e s t o be followed.  Task identity:  t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h employees do an e n t i r e o r 'whole' p i e c e o f work and can c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y t h e r e s u l t s o f their efforts.  Feedback:  t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h e m p l o y e e s as t h e y are working r e c e i v e i n f o r m a t i o n which r e v e a l s how w e l l t h e y a r e p e r f o r m i n g .  To summarize, an i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g work s i t u a t i o n i s h i g h on t h e above f o u r d i m e n s i o n s .  186  I n t h e n e x t few p a g e s , I h a v e l i s t e d 25 d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s f a c e d b y t h e Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n o f an airline. Immediately f o l l o w i n g each d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n a r e some a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n open t o t h e manager. We w i l l c a l l t h e s e t h e " b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s " . 1. P l e a s e r e a d e a c h d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n - and behavioral alternatives carefully.  i t s associated  2. N e x t , r a t e e a c h b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e on a 7 - p o i n t s c a l e to i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t to which the p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e i s l i k e l y to a f f e c t the i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g c h a r a c t e r o f t h e work s i t u a t i o n o f t h e subordinate. The f o c a l p e r s o n mentioned i n each d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n i s t h e s u b o r d i n a t e whose work s i t u a t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d w h i l e r a t i n g e a c h b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e . 3. Complete the r a t i n g situations. The  scale  t o be  -3  u s e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e i s shown b e l o w :  -2  decreases to a very great extent the intrinsically motivating n a t u r e o f the work s i t u a t i o n of subordinate Please not  i n t h i s manner f o r a l l d e c i s i o n  0  +1  has no effect or i s irrelevant  +2  +3 increases to a very great extent the intrinsically motivating nature of the work s i t u a t i o n of subordinate  that:  1. You may r a t e e a c h b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e any where on t h e above scale. 2. F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r a t i n g , a b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e w h i c h c h a n g e s one o r more o f t h e f o u r t a s k d i m e n s i o n s ( i . e . , v a r i e t y , autonomy, t a s k i d e n t i t y , f e e d b a c k ) may be ao c o n s i d e r e d t o a f f e c t t h e i n t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g n a t ... .ure o f t h e work s i t u a t i o n o f s u b o r d i n a t e ( s ) .  THANK YOU  FOR  YOUR COOPERATION  APPENDIX Instructions for rating on  1*J3  to the panel of judges the b e h a v i o r a l  extrinsic  motivation  (n =  alternatives dimension  188  Dear  Colleague,  I am c u r r e n t l y c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h i n t h e a r e a o f organizational controlsystems. B r i e f l y , I propose to i d e n t i f y t h e e f f e c t s o f some p e r s o n a l i t y , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and t a s k c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on c h o i c e o f m a n a g e r i a l control behaviors. For t h i s purpose, control: b e h a v i o r i s d e f i n e d as any b e h a v i o r w h i c h i s a i m e d a t d i r e c t i n g , c o n s t r a i n i n g , m o t i v a t i n g , and/or i n f l u e n c i n g the b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l member(s). :  One m a j o r method o f c o n t r o l l i n g t h e b e h a v i o r o f a person i s to manipulate h i s / h e r e x t r i n s i c m o t i v a t i o n to do t h e t a s k . E x t r i n s i c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s are t h o s e where p e r f o r m i n g w e l l l e a d s t o s u c h r e w a r d s as pay r a i s e , p r o m o t i o n , p r a i s e f r o m s u p e r v i s o r , b o n u s e s and s t a t u s symbols. Some o t h e r t y p i c a l e x t r i n s i c r e w a r d s a r e good w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , p e n s i o n p l a n s , m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s , etc. P u n i s h m e n t s l i k e d e m o t i o n s , f i n e s , w a r n i n g s and r e p r i m a n d s a r e o c c a s s i o n a l l y u s e d by o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o e x t i n g u i s h u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o r s b u t t h e s e a r e by no means m o t i v a t o r s . N o t e t h a t t h e e m p h a s i s h e r e i s on m a n i p u l a t i n g r e w a r d s and p u n i s h m e n t s e x t e r n a l t o t h e t a s k i t s e l f . Thus i n c r e a s i n g v a r i e t y , c h a l l e n g e , autonomy, f e e d b a c k , e t c . , a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the j o b can not s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g be c o n s i d e r e d as e x t r i n s i c r e w a r d s . I n t h e n e x t few p a g e s , I have l i s t e d 25 d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s f a c e d by t h e Manager, C a r g o D i v i s i o n o f an airline. Immediately f o l l o w i n g each d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n are- some a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n open t o t h e manager. We w i l l c a l l t h e s e t h e " b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e s " . 1. P l e a s e read each d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n ted behavioral a l t e r n a t i v e s c a r e f u l l y .  and  i t s associa-  2. N e x t , r a t e e a c h b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e on a 7 - p o i n t s c a l e to i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t to which the p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e i s l i k e l y t o a f f e c t t h e e x t r i n s i - '. c a l l y m o t i v a t i n g c h a r a c t e r o f t h e work s i t u a t i o n o f t h e subordinate. The f o c a l p e r s o n m e n t i o n e d i n e a c h d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n i s t h e s u b o r d i n a t e whose work s i t u a t i o n i s t o be c o n s i d e r e d w h i l e r a t i n g e a c h b e h a v i o r a l a l t e r n a t i v e . 3. Complete the situations.  rating  i n t h i s manner f o r a l l d e c i s i o n  189  The s c a l e  -3  t o be u s e d f o r t h i s p u r p o s e  -2  decreases to a very great extent the extrinsically motivating nature of the work s i t u a t i o n of subordinate  -1  0  h a s no effect or i s irrelevant  +1  +2  is  shown b e l o w :  +3  i n c r e a s e s to a very great extent the e x t r i n s i c a l l y motivating nature of the work s i t u a t i o n of subordinate  P l e a s e n o t e t h a t y o u may r a t e e a c h b e h a v i o r a l any w h e r e on t h e above s c a l e .  THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION  alternative  APPENDIX List  of  18  decision  to p a r t i c i p a n t s  2 problems  during  the  given  simulation  191  You have r e c e i v e d a n o t e f r o m Nancy B e c h k e r , one o f t h e s a l e s c l e r k s t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t she i s f e d up w i t h h e r work and t h a t h e r t a l k s w i t h h e r supervisor d i d n o t l e a d t o any r e s u l t s . Nancy has b e e n d o i n g a v e r y good j o b i n t h e p a s t b u t f e e l s t h a t h e r a b i l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s a r e s t i f l e d i n too n a r r o w an a r e a . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w o u l d you t a k e ?  of  the  1.  Make Nancy's j o b more i n t e r e s t i n g by e i t h e r g i v i n g her a v a r i e t y of tasks or temporarily t r a n s f e r i n g her to another job.  2.  T e l l Nancy t h a t i t i s n o t o r g a n i z a t i o n to g i v e each h e / s h e l i k e s and t h a t she s t a r t l i k i n g her present  3.  F i n d o u t f r o m Nancy what t y p e o f j o b s she w o u l d l i k e t o do and t e l l h e r you w i l l t r y y o u r b e s t t o f i n d h e r a j o b t h a t she l i k e s .  p o s s i b l e f o r the employee t h e j o b s h o u l d take e f f o r t s to responsibilities.  4.. T e l l Nancy t h a t a t p r e s e n t you a r e n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o o f f e r h e r a d i f f e r e n t o r more challenging job. O f f e r Nancy a pay r a i s e i n an e f f o r t t o i m p r o v e h e r m o r a l e . 5.  T a l k t o Nancy's s u p e r v i s o r a b o u t t h e m a t t e r and i n f o r m Nancy t h a t you h a v e i n s t r u c t e d her s u p e r v i s o r to look i n t o the m a t t e r and t h a t she w i l l be h e a r i n g f o r m h e r supervisor shortly.  Incident  #  1  192  J i m B r o c k e t , one o f t h e s t a f f i n O v e r s e a s C a r g o s e c t i o n h a s come t o y o u w i t h an i d e a a b o u t a new c a r g o h a n d l i n g p r o c e d u r e . The p r o c e d u r e w i l l i n v o l v e an i n i t i a l c a p i t a l o u t l a y o f $2,300. J i m has done a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s o f t h e p r o c e d u r e and f e e l s t h a t t h i s may p r o v e t o be a v e r y p r o f i t a b l e p r o p o s i t i o n f o r the a i r l i n e . On a f i r s t e x a m i n a t i o n , y o u c o u l d f i n d some e r r o r s i n t h e c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s done b y J i m . -  As t h e Manger ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s a r e you l i k e l y to take? 1.  T e l l J i m that you cannot accept h i s i d e a s i n c e t h e r e a r e many e r r o r s i n h i s a n a l y s i s .  2.  Discuss the matter w i t h Jim, p o i n t out the e r r o r s t o h i m , make some s u g g e s t i o n s and ask h i m t o r e - d o t h e a n a l y s i s a n d come b a c k to you.  3.  A s k J i m t o r e - d o t h e a n l a y s i s a n d come t o a d e c i s i o n on t h e m a t t e r h i m s e l f , b u t s e t c l e a r c o n s t r a i n t s on c o s t , u t i l i z a t i o n o f l a b o r hours e t c .  4. P r a i s e J i m f o r h i s e f f o r t i n f r o n t o f o t h e r employees; a s k J i m to c o r r e c t t h e e r r o r s and come b a c k t o y o u . 5.  T e l l J i m t h a t he s h o u l d h a v e f i r s t t a l k e d to h i s s e c t i o n s u p e r v i s o r and g o t h i s a p p r o v a l b e f o r e coming t o y o u .  Incident  # 2  193  You h a v e r e c i e v e d a l e t t e r f r o m Manager ( F i n a n c e ) s a y i n g t h a t G e r r y S m i t h , one o f t h e s t a f f f r o m c a r g o s a l e s d i v i s i o n who had b e e n t e m p o r a r i l y ! l o a n e d t o t h e f i n a n c e d i v i s i o n h a s done an e x c e l l e n t j o b t h e r e . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w o u l d you t a k e ? 1.  of  the  Send t h e l e t t e r t o G e r r y a l o n g w i t h a s m a l l n o t e o f y o u r own c o n g r a t u l a t i n g h i m f o r t h e good work and e x p r e s s i n g y o u r p l e a s u r e over the m a t t e r .  2. C a l l G e r r y t o y o u r o f f i c e , show h i m t h e l e t t e r y o u r e c e i v e d f r o m Manager ( F i n a n c e ) and c o n g r a t u l a t e G e r r y f o r h i s g o o d work i n p e r s o n . 3. M e r e l y p a s s to Gerry. 4.  the l e t t e r  (Finance)  C o n g r a t u l a t e G e r r y on h i s good work, show h i m t h e l e t t e r you r e c e i v e d f r o m Manager ( F i n a n c e ) and a s k G e r r y w h e t h e r he w o u l d l i k e some responsibility i n that area i n future.  5. P a s s t h e l e t t e r monetary reward good work. 6.  f r o m Manager  t o G e r r y and g i v e h i m a s m a l l i n recognition of h i s  P a s s t h e l e t t e r t o G e r r y and p r a i s e work ( i n f i n a n c e d i v i s i o n ) i n f r o n t Gerry's colleagues.  Incident  # 3  Gerry's of  194  A t 35, Edward J o n e s was a v e r y e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s o r o f 20 w o r k e r s . i n t h e c a r g o d i v i s i o n . He was c o n s i d e r e d to h a v e g r e a t p o t e n t i a l b y e v e r y o n e i n t h e d i v i s i o n . However, a b o u t two y e a r s ago h i s m a r r i a g e s t a r t e d t o f a l l a p a r t ; e v e n t u a l l y he was d i v o r c e d . For the p a s t s i x months h i s p e r f o r m a n c e has b e e n v e r y p o o r . He does not c o m p l e t e h i s a s s i g n m e n t s on t i m e , f r e q u e n t l y a r r i v e s l a t e f o r work, and e v e n m i s s e s some i m p o r t a n t m e e t i n g s . He i s a l s o known t o be d r i n k i n g h e a v i l y . You f e e l t h a t some c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y a t t h i s p o i n t o f time. As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w i l l you take?  o f the  1. Have a f r i e n d l y t a l k w i t h E d , show c o n c e r n for h i s problems, o f f e r a l l p o s s i b l e help and e n c o u r a g e h i m t o once a g a i n s t a r t using h i s f u l l potential. 2. T r a n s f e r E d t e m p o r a r i l y new s u r r o u n d i n g s .  t o a new  job  and  3. G i v e Ed a new p r o j e c t w h i c h i s l i k e l y t o be of i n t e r e s t to him w h i l e k e e p i n g him i n the present p o s i t i o n . 4. Have a s e r i o u s t a l k w i t h Ed, t e l l h i m t h a t he h a s b e e n s l a c k e n i n g i n h i s p e r f o r m a n c e , and t h a t he h a s t o i m p r o v e h i s p e r f o r m a n c e i f he w a n t s t o c o n t i n u e i n h i s p r e s e n t j o b . 5. Demote E d .  Incident  #  4  195  The E x e c u t i v e V i c e - P r e s i d e n t h a s a s k e d y o u t o s e t s a l e s t a r g e t s f o r t h e coming q u a r t e r . Currently, s a l e s s t a f f a r e p a i d a f i x e d s a l a r y and a commission o f 3% o n s a l e s e x c e e d i n g $15,000 p e r q u a r t e r (their minimum i n d i v i d u a l s a l e s q u o t a ) . You f e e l t h a t i n c r e a s i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l s a l e s q u o t a t o $20,000 p e r quarter i s v i t a l f o r m a i n t a i n i n g t h e c u r r e n t growth o f t h e company. As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s a r e y o u l i k e l y t o take?  1.  I n c r e a s e i n d i v i d u a l s a l e s q u o t a s t o $20,000 per quarter without c o n s u l t i n g your s t a f f . However, c o n t i n u e t o p a y 37o c o m m i s s i o n o n . .'.. a l l s a l e s e x c e e d i n g $15,000.  2. I n c r e a s e i n d i v i d u a l s a l e s q u o t a s t o $20,000 'per quatef-;-' .. w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g y o u r s t a f f . C o m m i s s i o n w i l l h e n c e f o r t h be p a i d a t t h e r a t e o f 370 o n s a l e s above $15,000 p e r q u a r t e r  and 47o above $17,500.  3.  C o n s u l t your s u b o r d i n a t e s and a b i d e by t h e i r d e c i s i o n (That i s , i f t h e s t a f f suggest i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l s a l e s quota t o $16,000 p e r q u a r t e r , a c c e p t t h i s s u g g e s t i o n ) . 37o c o m m i s s i o n w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e p a i d o n a l l s a l e s above $15,000 p e r q u a r t e r .  4.  Consult your subordinates and abide by t h e i r d e c i s i o n (that i s , i f the s t a f f suggest i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l q u o t a t o $16,000 per q u a r t e r , a c c e p t t h i s s u g g e s t i o n ) . However, i n f o r m them t h a t 37 c o m m i s s i o n w i l l b e p a i d o n l y i f s a l e s exceed t h e newly e s t a b l i s h e d q u o t a ( f o r example, $16,000). D  5.  C o n s u l t your s u b o r d i n a t e s and a f t e r d i s c u s s i o n s i d e n t i f y a compromise s o l u t i o n ( f o r example, i f t h e s t a f f s u g g e s t e d a q u o t a o f $16,000 p e r q u a r t e r when y o u h a d w a n t e d t o a s s i g n them  a q u o t a o f $20,000,  a c c e p t now $18,000).  Tell  y o u r s t a f f t h a t 27 c o m m i s s i o n w i l l b e p a i d o n a l l s a l e s up t o t h e new q u o t a ( f o r example, $18,000 p e r q u a r t e r ) a n d 37o b e y o n d t h a t . c  Incident  # 5  196  You o b s e r v e t h a t a number o f e m p l o y e e s i n t h e S p e c i a l F r e i g h t S e c t i o n have been coming l a t e t o the o f f i c e i n t h e p a s t few weeks. S i n c e you are d i r e c t l y i n c h a r g e o f t h i s s e c t i o n , y o u f e e l t h a t some c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s h o u l d be t a k e n by y o u a t t h i s p o i n t of time. A s Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s would you take?  one  of  the  1. Keep an a t t e n d a n c e r e g i s t e r t o n o t e t h e a r r i v a l t i m e o f e a c h employee; t e l l t h e l a t e comers n o t t o r e p e a t s u c h b e h a v i o r i n future. 2. Warn t h e l a t e comers t h a t a l l e m p l o y e e s come l a t e on more t h a n a c o u p l e o f days month w i l l h a v e t o p a y a s m a l l f i n e . 3. Reward t h e l a t e comers v e r b a l l y days t h e y a r r i v e on t i m e .  who each  on a l l t h o s e  4. Meet t h e l a t e comers i n d i v i d u a l l y , f i n d o u t why t h e y come l a t e , and o f f e r f l e x i b l e working hours to s u i t t h e i r convenience. 5. P a s s a c i r c u l a r i n t h e s e c t i o n t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a l l e m p l o y e e s s h o u l d h e n c e f o r t h come on t i m e t o t h e o f f i c e . 6. T a l k t o t h e l a t e comers, i m p r e s s on them t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i r j o b s and how t h e i r p r a c t i c e o f coming l a t e t o t h e o f f i c e a f f e c t s the e f f i c i e n c y and image o f t h e a i r l i n e (adversely).. 7.  I n s t i t u t e a ' p u n c t u a l employee award' ($100 c a s h p r i z e ) w h i c h w i l l be g i v e n t o t h e employee who i s m o s t p u n c t u a l i n e a c h q u a r t e r i n the s e c t i o n .  Incident  # 6  197  You f i n d t h a t y o u r s e c r e t a r y h a s p o s t e d two r e l i g i o u s m e s s a g e s on t h e w a l l n e a r h e r f i l i n g c a b i n e t . Although i t i s n o t uncommon p r a c t i c e i n t h e o f f i c e t o p o s t t h i n g s a r o u n d , a l l o f t h e s e t e n d t o be humorous. You f e e l that these r e l i g i o u s posters a r e u n b u s i n e s s l i k e . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w i l l you take? 1.  T e l l the secretary immediately.  t o remove t h e p o s t e r s  2.  T a l k t o the s e c r e t a r y and persuade h e r t o remove t h e p o s t e r s , b u t do n o t f o r c e a d e c i s i o n on h e r .  3.  W h i l e t a l k i n g t o t h e s e c r e t a r y m e n t i o n how i m p o r t a n t h e r j o b i s a n d how h e r o f f i c e s h o u l d be a m o d e l f o r a l l o t h e r e m p l o y e e s . Casually m e n t i o n how much b e t t e r i t w i l l l o o k i f she hangs some good p a i n t i n g o r s c e n i c p i c t u r e s i n the p l a c e o f t h e r e l i g i o u s messages.  4. Buy two s i m i l a r p a i n t i n g s , hang one i n y o u r own o f f i c e a n d t h e o t h e r i n y o u r s e c r e t a r y ' s o f f i c e where s h e h a d hung t h e r e l i g i o u s p o s t e r s previously. T e l l her that i t i s a s u r p r i s e g i f t f o r her.  Incident  # 7  ft  198  B i l l G o n z l e y , t h e s t a f f . m e m b e r a s s i g n e d t o do m a r k e t and c u s t o m e r s u r v e y , has come t o y o u a s k i n g f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n s on a number o f s t a t i s t i c a l i s s u e s . A s Manager ( C a r g o following actions w i l l  D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one you take?  1. T e l l B i l l t o u s e h i s j u d g e m e n t and of the problems h i m s e l f .  take  of  the  care  2. Make some s u g g e s t i o n s ( e . g . , r e f e r e n c e t o a book) b u t do n o t p r o v i d e s o l u t i o n s t o B i l l ' s problems. 3. T e l l B i l l t h e d e g r e e o f a c c u r a c y i n estimates t h a t i s r e q u i r e d , but l e t B i l l make a l l o t h e r d e c i s i o n s . 4.  T e l l B i l l t h a t s i n c e the r e s e a r c h needs to be done by a p e r s o n who knows s t a t i s t i c a l methods t h o r o u g h l y he s h o u l d n o t a f t e r a l l be w o r k i n g on i t . A s s i g n a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o t h e j o b and a s k B i l l t o work on a d i f f e r e n t project.  Incident  #  8  199  F i v e MBA s t u d e n t s o f M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y d i d a management p o l i c y p r o j e c t i n t h e a i r l i n e l a s t y e a r . Now t h e y h a v e s u b m i t t e d a r e p o r t o f t h e i r f i n d i n g s i n w h i c h t h e y s u g g e s t i n s t a l l i n g a new c a r g o b o o k i n g procedure. You went t h r o u g h t h e i r r e p o r t and f e e l t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s h a v e done a t h o r o u g h j o b i n a n a l y z i n g t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d method. I t l o o k s as i f t h e a i r l i n e c a n s a v e a t l e a s t 127 o f i t s p r e s e n t c o s t s ( r e l a t e d t o c a r g o b o o k i n g ) i f i t i m p l e m e n t s t h e new p r o c e d u r e s u g g e s t e d by t h e students. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e c a r g o b o o k i n g s t a f f a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be v e r y e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t t h e new s y s t e m s i n c e i t i n v o l v e s c h a n g e s i n p r o d e c u r e s and r e a s s i g n m e n t o f s t a f f t o o t h e r o f f i c e s and a r e a s . 0  As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) , w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s a r e you l i k e l y to take?  of  the  1.  Implement t h e new p r o c e d u r e on a p i l o t b a s i s a f t e r t e l l i n g t h e s t a f f how t h e new p r o c e d u r e w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e a i r l i n e .  2.  Implement t h e new p r o c e d u r e on a p i l o t b a s i s a f t e r t e l l i n g t h e s t a f f how t h e new p r o c e d u r e w i l l be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e a i r l i n e . Promise to share a p o r t i o n o f the c o s t s a v i n g s (say, 17o) w i t h t h e s t a f f by g i v i n g them an a d d i t i o n a l bonus.  3.  T e l l t h e s t a f f t h e summary o f s t u d e n t s ' f i n d i n g s and i n v i t e s u g g e s t i o n s and comments f r o m them. D e c i d e t o go a h e a d w i t h t h e p i l o t p r o j e c t i r r e s p e c t i v e of the s t a f f ' s r e a c t i o n s t o t h e new p r o c e d u r e . Promise to share a p o r t i o n o f the c o s t s a v i n g s (say, 1%) w i t h t h e s t a f f by g i v i n g them an a d d i t i o n a l bonus.  4.  B r i e f the s t a f f about the s t u d e n t s ' f i n d i n g s and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s and i n v i t e s u g g e s t i o n s and comments f r o m them. D e c i d e n o t t o go ahead w i t h t h e p i l o t p r o j e c t i f m a j o r i t y o f the s t a f f i s n o t e n t h u s i a s t i c about the i d e a .  Incident  # 9  200  You come t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e m o r a l e o f f o r k l i f t o p e r a t o r s i n downtown a n d a i r p o r t c a r g o o f f i c e s has b e e n r a t h e r p o o r i n t h e l a s t few weeks. Their p e r f o r m a n c e h a s a l s o b e e n showing a d e c l i n i n g t r e n d . Bob W a r r e n , S u p e r v i s o r ( F o r k L i f t O p e r a t i o n s ) met ou r e c e n t l y and a s k e d f o r y o u r a d v i c e on t h e p r o b l e m , oth y o u and Bob a g r e e t h a t some a c t i o n i s . n e c e s s a r y at t h i s p o i n t o f time t o p r e v e n t the s i t u a t i o n from g e t t i n g worse. The f o r k l i f t o p e r a t o r s i n t h e a i r l i n e are not unionized. Bob W a r r e n h a s a g r e e d t o implement y o u r s u g g e s t i o n s on t h e m a t t e r .  ?  As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) , w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s u g g e s t i o n s w o u l d y o u make t o Bob W a r r e n t o i m p r o v e t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y and m o r a l e o f t h e f o r k l i f t operators? 1. G i v e a p a y r a i s e operators.  to a l l fork  lift  2. Make a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e eneral working c o n d i t i o n s o f f o r k i f t operators.  f  3.  C a l l a meeting o f a l l fork l i f t operators, f i n d o u t f r o m them t h e i r p r o b l e m s a n d r e a s o n s f o r p o o r m o r a l e , a n d implement their suggestions f o r improving the s i t u a t i o n .  4. G i v e a m i l d w a r n i n g t o t h e f o r k l i f t o p e r a t o r s t h a t u n l e s s t h e y improve t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e now, t h e management w o u l d be . c o m p e l l e d t o t a k e some c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n . 5. Make t h e j o b s o f f o r k l i f t o p e r a t o r s more i n t e r e s t i n g ( f o r exmaple, i n t r o d u c e j o b r o t a t i o n , team d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , e t c ) .  Incident  # 10  201  R e c e n t l y , M i l d r e d , one o f t h e s a l e s c l e r k s i n downtown c a r g o b o o k i n g o f f i c e drew y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o a new d e v i c e t h a t w o u l d e n a b l e t h e s a l e s c l e r k s t o v e r i f y t h e i r bookings against a v a i l a b l e c a p a c i t y instantaneously. M i l d r e d had d i s c u s s e d the i d e a w i t h h e r c o l l e a g u e s i n t h e downtown and a i r p o r t o f f i c e s and a l l were v e r y e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t t h e new device. M i l d r e d has now come t o y o u r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e w i s h e s o f a l l c l e r k s on the m a t t e r . The i n s t r u m e n t i s m o d e r a t e l y e x p e n s i v e and n o t l i k e l y t o add v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y o f the a i r l i n e , b u t w o u l d be o f immense h e l p t o t h e s a l e s c l e r k s t o m o n i t o r t h e i r own p e r f o r m a n c e . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s would you take? to p u r c h a s e  the  of  the  1.  Decide  device.  2.  Decide against purchasing  3.  Decide a g a i n s t p u r c h a s i n g the d e v i c e , b u t t e l l t h e c l e r k s t h a t y o u w i l l make o t h e r a r r a n g e m e n t s t o g i v e them f e e d b a c k a b o u t t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e on a w e e k l y b a s i s .  4.  T e l l M i l d r e d t h a t she and h e r c o l l e a g u e s s h o u l d have a p p r o a c h e d t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r on t h e m a t t e r f i r s t . Make i t c l e a r t o M i l d r e d t h a t i t was i r r e g u l a r on h e r and colleagues p a r t to r e f e r the matter to your a t t e n t i o n without g e t t i n g t h e i r supervisor's approval first.  the  1  Incident  #  11  device.  her  202  An i n d e p e n d e n t c o n s u l t i n g a g e n c y a f t e r a s i x month s t u d y o f p a s s e n g e r and c a r g o h a n d l i n g t e c h n iques i n the a i r l i n e concluded that the c u r r e n t p e r f o r m a n c e l e v e l s o f c a r g o s o r t e r s c a n be improved s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Many o f t h e c a r g o s o r t e r s , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n s u l t a n t s , were w o r k i n g b e l o w t h e i r c a p a c i t y and had low morale. The c o n s u l t a n t s a l s o conducted a survey o f the a t t i t u d e s o f v a r i o u s g r o u p s o f employees a s p a r t o f t h e i r study. One f i n d i n g a r i s i n g f r o m t h e s t u d y was t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35% o f cargo s o r t e r s f e l t t h a t t h e i r p a y was n o t k e e p i n g up w i t h t h e i n c r e a s e s i n c o s t o f l i v i n g and a n o t h e r 35% f e l t t h a t t h e i r j o b s were h i g h l y r o u t i n i z e d a n d u n i n t e r e s t i n g . The G e n e r a l Manager ( S a l e s ) t o whom t h e r e p o r t was s u b m i t t e d h a s now a s k e d y o u t o t a k e s u i t a b l e action. C l e a r l y , a l l t h e problems cannot be s o l v e d i m m e d i a t e l y , b u t y o u a r e c o n v i n c e d t h a t some action i s necessary. You h a d a t a l k w i t h t h e Work S u p e r v i s o r ( C a r g o S o r t i n g ) y e s t e r d a y and he h a s a g r e e d t o c a r r y o u t y o u r d e c i s i o n on t h e m a t t e r . A s Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s u g g e s t i o n s w o u l d y o u make t o t h e Work S u p e r v i s o r (Cargo S o r t i n g ) t o improve t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y of cargo s o r t e r s .  1.  A flat raise sorters.  i n the s a l a r i e s  o f cargo  2.  A r a i s e i n the s a l a r i e s / o t h e r monetary rewards o f cargo s o r t e r s which i s c o n t i n g e n t on b e t t e r work p e r f o r m a n c e by them.  3.  Improve t h e w o r k i n g cargo s o r t e r s .  4.  P r o v i d e more i n t e r e s t i n g j o b s t o t h e c a r g o s o r t e r s ( f o r example, i n t r o d u c e j o b r o t a t i o n , team d e c i s i o n m a k i n g , e t c ) .  5.  Introduce s t r i c t e r supervision cargo s o r t i n g department.  conditions of  Incident  i n the  # 12  203  As p a r t o f y o u r j o b , e v e r y month y o u h a v e t o make s a l e s f o r e c a s t s f o r t h e month, a n d b u d g e t s f o r u t i l i z a t i o n o f e q u i p m e n t and p e r s o n n e l a n d r o u t e - w i s e l o a d f a c t o r s . Information necessary f o r p r e p a r i n g these f o r e c a s t s come f r o m s e v e r a l s o u r c e s w i t h i n and o u t s i d e t h e c a r g o division. F o r t h e l a s t t h r e e months, J i m S c h n o e c k who i s i n c h a r g e o f Heavy F r e i g h t S e c t i o n h a s n o t b e e n p r o v i d i n g some i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n on t i m e . The t i m e d e l a y h a s n o t so f a r b e e n v e r y much ( t y p i c a l l y , t h e d e l a y i s o n l y 1-2 d a y s ) , b u t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t J i m p r o v i d e s i s v i t a l f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g o v e r a l l plans f o r the cargo division. Considering the present c o n d i t i o n s , J i m c a n n o t be g i v e n a n y a d d i t i o n a l p e r s o n n e l o r e q u i p m e n t w i t h o u t d i s r u p t i n g t h e work o f o t h e r s e c t i o n s i n t h e d i v i s i o n ; however, y o u f e e l t h a t w i t h a l i t t l e e x t r a e f f o r t on t h e p a r t o f J i m he w i l l be a b l e t o g i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on t i m e . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w i l l you take? 1.  Of f e r same a d d i t i o n a l m o n e t a r y c o m p e n s a t i o n to J i m ( f o r example, o v e r t i m e p a y ) f o r h i s e x t r a e f f o r t t o f i n i s h t h e j o b on t i m e .  2.  T e l l J i m p o l i t e l y t h a t y o u may be f o r c e d t o a s s i g n t h e t a s k t o some one e l s e u n l e s s J i m p r o v i d e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on t i m e i n future.  3.  Impress J i m a b o u t t h e v i t a l n a t u r e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n he p r o v i d e s ; t e l l h i m how t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t he p r o v i d e s i s b e i n g u s e d and f i t s i n t o t h e o v e r a l l s a l e s f o r e c a s t s .  Incident  # 13  204  The p e r f o r m a n c e o f c a r g o l o a d e r s a t the a i r p o r t has n o t b e e n v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r y s i n c e t h e new m e c h a n i z e d c o n v e y o r b e l t s y s t e m was i n s t a l l e d . The j o b o f t h e '.. l o a d e r s i s r e a l l y a s i m p l e one. The c a r g o f r o m e a c h f l i g h t i s p l a c e d on a c o n v e y o r b e l t . The l o a d e r s have t o t a k e e a c h p i e c e o f c a r g o f r o m t h e m o v i n g c o n v e y o r b e l t , i n s p e c t i t as t o i t s d e s t i n a t i o n , and p u t i t i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t r o l l e y w a i t i n g n e a r by. I n s p i t e o f t h e s i m p l e n a t u r e o f t h e i r j o b , t h e number ^ o f c a s e s o f d e l a y s and e r r o r s i n s h i p m e n t h a v e i n c r e a s e d i n t h e p a s t few weeks. When i n q u i r e d , t h e h a n d l e r s s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n v e y o r b e l t moved too f a s t t h u s n o t g i v i n g them enough t i m e t o i n s p e c t t h e l a b e l s properly. B e f o r e i n s t a l l i n g the system, e x t e n s i v e time and m o t i o n s t u d i e s had b e e n c a r r i e d o u t t o d e t e r m i n e what the o p t i m a l b e l t s p e e d s h o u l d be. The s u p e r v i s o r o f c a r g o l o a d e r s has now come t o y o u f o r y o u r i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e m a t t e r . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) , f o l l o w i n g s t e p s would you take?  w h i c h one  of  1.  I n s t r u c t the s u p e r v i s o r to c o n v i n c e the l o a d e r s t h a t the conveyor b e l t s p e e d was d e t e r m i n e d a f t e r e x t e n s i v e s t u d i e s and h e n c e t h e l o a d e r s s h o u l d r e a c h up t o i t . A l s o , a s k t h e s u p e r v i s o r t o i n f o r m the l o a d e r s t h a t t h e management may h a v e t o r e d u c e t h e i r pay i f t h e l o a d e r s do n o t i m p r o v e t h e i r performance.  2:  I n s t r u c t the s u p e r v i s o r to a l l o w the .. l o a d e r s t o a d j u s t the s p e e d o f t h e c o n v e y o r b e l t t o s u i t t h e i r own n e e d s .  3.  I n s t r u c t the s u p e r v i s o r to o f f e r i n c r e a s e d monetary rewards to l o a d e r s which are c o n t i n g e n t on t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e .  4.  I n s t r u c t the s u p e r v i s o r to improve the working conditions of loaders (for example, i n t r o d u c e more c o f f e e b r e a k s ) .  5.  I n s t r u c t the s u p e r v i s o r to o f f e r a f l a t i n c r e a s e i n t h e i r pay. Incident  #  14  the  loaders  the  205  is  One o f t h e t r o u b l e s p o t s w i t h i n t h e c a r g o t h e computer d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g o f  division  a p p r o x i m a t e l y a dozen key punch o p e r a t o r s , t h r e e coders and a few s u p p o r t i n g s t a f f . There have been s e v e r a l c a s e s o f e r r o r s i n p u n c h i n g , wrong a l l o c a t i o n o f c o s t f i g u r e s , wrong c o d i n g , e t c . , i n t h e p a s t few months. I n t h e l a s t few weeks, t h i n g s h a v e become e v e n w o r s e w i t h some d e l a y s and e r r o r s . . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y bad now s i n c e t h e volume o f c a r g o h a n d l e d b y t h e a i r l i n e has b e e n s t e a d i l y i n c r e a s i n g and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f v. c o r r e c t and t i m e l y i n f o r m a t i o n on v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f operations i s increasing. You f e e l t h a t some a c t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y now b e f o r e t h e m a t t e r s g e t w o r s e . As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g s t e p s would you take? 1.  of  the  I n c r e a s e t h e h o u r l y wages o f a l l s t a f f i n the d a t a p r e p a r a t i o n s e c t i o n .  2. T a l k t o t h e e m p l o y e e s i n . t h e s e c t i o n i n d i v i d u a l l y o r as a g r o u p and t e l l them about the c r u c i a l n a t u r e o f the d a t a t h e y prepare. R e q u e s t them t o t a k e more c a r e w h i l e p r e p a r i n g the data. 3.  Improve t h e w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e s t a f f ( f o r example, b e t t e r s i t t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , more r e s t p e r i o d s , more c o f f e e b r e a k s , e t c . ) .  4. A t t e m p t t o make t h e j o b s o f t h e s t a f f more i n t e r e s t i n g b y g i v i n g them more v a r i e t y and r o t a t i n g t h e i r j o b s o r a d d i n g t o t h e i r p r e s e n t d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers. 5'.. I n t r o d u c e  closer  s u p e r v i s i o n i n the  Incident  #•15  section.  206  I n t h e p a s t few months, t h e l a b o r c o s t s p e r u n i t c a r g o h a n d l e d i n t h e Heavy F r e i g h t S e c t i o n has b e e n s i g n i f i c a n t l y e x c e e d i n g the budgeted c o s t s a l t h o u g h t h e wage r a t e s have r e m a i n e d more o r l e s s t h e same. You f e e l t h a t some r e m e d i a l a c t i o n : i s n e e d e d now. As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) w h i c h one f o l l o w i n g s t e p s w i l l you take?  of  the  1. I n t r o d u c e s t r i c t e r s u p e r v i s i o n t o r e d u c e t h e -,. h o u r s l o s t , b e t w e e n s h i f t s , i n c o f f e e b r e a k s , and i n g e n e r a l t o i n c r e a s e w i t h i n the s e c t i o n .  the  productivity  manetc., level  2.  F i n d out from the workers i n the d i v i s i o n , what t h e i r p r o b l e m s a r e and i f n e c e s s a r y r a i s e the budget f i g u r e s .  3.  F i n d out from the workers w h a t . t h e i r problems a r e and t r y to s o l v e them, b u t make i t v e r y c l e a r t o t h e w o r k e r s t h a t t h e y have t o meet the budget l e v e l s i n a l l i n s t a n c e s .  4.  I n t r o d u c e bonus payments h o p i n g t h a t : " t h i s w i l l i m p r o v e the work p e r f o r m a n c e o f e m p l o y e e s i n the s e c t i o n .  5.  Improve t h e w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e s e c t i o n ( f o r example, more r e s t p e r i o d s ) .  Incident  #  16  of  207  Cargo b o o k i n g c l e r k s a t t h e r e g i o n a l cargo s a l e s o f f i c e s p e r f o r m t h r e e o p e r a t i o n s ; r e c e i v i n g and i n i t i a l s c r e e n i n g o f cargo f r e i g h t r e q u e s t s , checking f o r f l i g h t and s p a c e a v a i l a b i l i t y , and f i n a l h o o k i n g o f e a c h f r e i g h t on s p e c i f i c f l i g h t s , The c a r g o B o o k i n g s i n t h e p a s t h a v e b e e n g r o w i n g s t e a d i l y i n most a r e a s . • R e c e n t l y , y o u r e c e i v e d a s u g g e s t i o n from o f the cargo s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s t h a t s p l i t t i n g of the d u t i e s o f cargo c l e r k s i n t o t h r e e d i s t i n c t a c t i v i t i e s p e r f o r m e d by t h r e e p e r s o n s c a n i m p r o v e o v e r a l l e f f i c i e n c y and s p e e d o f c a r g o b o o k i n g s i n c e e a c h p e r s o n w i l l be d o i n g a h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d activity. As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) , f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s w i l l you take?  which  one  1.  Implement t h e s u p e r v i s o r ' s s u g g e s t i o n - .  2.  T a l k the i d e a over w i t h the cargo booking c l e r k s , g e t t h e i r o p i n i o n s , and implement t h e p r o p o s a l o n l y i f most o f t h e c l e r k s a g r e e t o t h e i d e a ; p l a n t o drop t h e i d e a i f necessary.  3. T r y t o s e l l t h e i d e a t o t h e c l e r k s by p o i n t i n g o u t t o them how t h e new system would l e a d to p o s s i b l e i n c r e a s e i n m o n e t a r y r e w a r d s ( i n t h e f o r m o f bonus) and g r e a t e r r e s t p e r i o d s i n between bookings. P l a n t o implement t h e i d e a i n any c a s e .  Incident  #  17  of  the  c.-=»l«  208  You were away i n P a r i s f o r t h e l a s t t h r e e weeks. I n y o u r a b s e n c e , . t h e C a r g o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t made a v e r b a l commitment t o b u y and i n s t a l l some c a r g o h a n d l i n g equipment w o r t h a b o u t $2,700, The C a r g o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t f e e l s t h a t the investment would prove worthwhile f o r the a i r l i n e i n the l o n g run, S i n c e ,any s u c h m a j o r e x p e n d i t u r e h a s i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e , t o be a p p r o v e d by y o u ahead o f t i m e , t h e t r a n s a c t i o n was a l i t t l e b i t irregular. I f y o u do n o t a p p r o v e t h e T r a n s a c t i o n , t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t w i l l h a v e t o go b a c k on M s commitment w h i c h w i l l be e m b a r a s s i n g f o r him, The C a r g o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t e l l s y o u t h a t t h e o f f e r was a v e r y a t t r a c t i v e one and had he w a i t e d f o r y o u r r e t u r n f r o m P a r i s , he w o u l d have m i s s e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y , As Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) , w h i c h f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s would you take?  1. A p p r o v e  the  one  transaction,  2. A p p r o v e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t warn t h e Cargo S u p e r i n t e n d e n t t h a t in.i.future a l l s u c h t r a n s a c t i o n s have t o be a p p r o v e d by y o u a h e a d o f t i m e . 3. Do n o t a p p r o v e  the  transaction.  4. Do n o t a p p r o v e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and warn t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t t h a t i n f u t u r e he s h o u l d n o t make any s u c h commitment i n your absence. 5. A p p r o v e t h e t r a n s a c t i o n and p r a i s e t h e Superintendent f o r h i s timely a c t i o n i n front of other s t a f f .  Incident  #18  of the  209  INTRINSIC SCORES OF VARIOUS BEHAVIORAL  Behavioral  Decision situacion number  ALTERNATIVES  Alternatives  1  2  3  4  5  1  6 .19  1 .81  5.69  3 ,50  3,88  2  3 .31  6 .38  5. 94  4 .94  2.81  3  5 .56  5 .63  4.44  6 .56  4.06  4  5 .31  4 .94  6.06  1 .69  1.50  5  1 .25  1 .50  6.25  6 .31  5,19  6  2 .19  3 .13  4.06  6 .38  3,00  7  1 .44  4 .94  5.94  2 .75  8  4 .69  6 .38  5.44  1 .12  9  3 .81  3 .44  2.44  6 ,19  10  4 .06  4 .13  6.00  3 ,06  11  6 .56  2 .06  3.94  1 .81  12  4 .13  4 .38  4.44  6 .50  2.63  13  3 .88  2 .31  5.56  14  2 .75  6 .31  4.38  4 .19  3.96  15  3 .88  5,.50  4.06  6 .38  2.06  16  2,. 75  5,.31  4.81  3 .94  4.06  17  1,.44  6,.50  2.81  18  5,. 81  4,.06  2.50  1..44  6.69  '6..50  4,81  5,93  4,06  21Q.  EXTRINSIC SCORES OF VARIOUS BEHAVIORAL ALTERNATIVES  Decision situation number  Behavioral Alternatives 1  2  3  4  5  1  4,.06  2 .81  4 .19  6 .25  4 .19  2  4,.13  4 .63  4 .94  6 .06  2 ,06  3  5..06  6..13  4 .12  5 .50  6 .69  4  5..75  4 .25  4 .31  3 .88  2 .81  5  4..25  6 .13  4 .13  2 .94  3 .06  6  3..50  1..94  6 .06  4 .50  3 .69  7  2..56  3,.56  4 .25  5 .50  8  4..06  4,,31  3 .94  2 .63  9  3. 06  5..94  4 .56  4 ,12  10  6. 69  6.,31  4 .94  1 .31  11  5. 06  3.,50  3,.62  2 .38  12  6. 44  5..94  5,.13  4 .13  2 .00  13  6. 00  2..88  4,.63  14  2. 44  4. 69  5,.94  5 .56  6 .31  15  5. 88  4. 81  5,.75  4,.13  2..81  16  2. 25  4. 25  3.,25  5..94  5 .69  17  3. 50  4. 25  5..94  18  4. 19  2. 88  3.,75  2,.56  5,.69  4 .13  6  6,25  4.25  NATURE OF THE 18 DECISION SITUATIONS AS RATED BY 32 JUDGES  :ident #  Importance  Complexity  <C e r t a i n t y  1  Unimportant  Simple  Certain  2  Unimportant  Complex  Uncertain  3  Unimportant  Simple  Certain  4  Unimportant  Simple  Certain  5  Important  Complex  Uncertain  6  Unimportant  Simple  Certain  7  Unimportant  Complex  Certain  8  Unimportant  Complex  Certain  9  Important  Complex  Uncertain  10  Important  Complex  Uncertain  11  Unimportant  Simple  Uncertain  12  Important  Complex  Uncertain  13  Important  Simple  Uncertain  14  Important  Complex  Uncertain  15  Important  Complex  Uncertain  16  Important  Complex  Uncertain  17  Important  Complex  Uncertain  18  Unimportant  Complex  Uncertain  APPENDIX  3  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e u s e d f o r measurin; participants'  perceptions  about the o r g a n i z a t i o n  213  E a r l i e r t o d a y y o u r e a d some b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t N o r t h S t a r A i r l i n e s , Canada. Please i n d i c a t e y o u r p e r c e p t i o n s a b o u t t h e a i r l i n e b y p l a c i n g a mark i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e s on t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e s .  1. T h e number o f h i e r a r c h i c a l 5  4  levels  a t North Star i s :  3  2  1  Many  Few  2. The d e g r e e  of d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n a t North Star i s :  1  2  3  4  5  Low  High  3. Number o f f o r m a l 1  r u l e s a t North Star i s : 2  3  4  5  Few 4. T a s k  Many s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and c l e a r - c u t r o l e 1  2  3  d e f i n i t i o n s are:  4  5  Low  High  5. A u t h o r i t y b a s e d o n f o r m a l  p o s i t i o n power i s :  5 4_ 3 2 High 6. D i r e c t i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s (check one)  1 Low  Mainly v e r t i c a l V e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l 7. C o n t e n t o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s Mainly Mainly  i n general  i s : ( c h e c k one)  a d v i c e and i n f o r m a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s I.D.#  214  APPENDIX  4-A  'Mechanistic! d e s c r i p t i o n of the organization  215  NORTH  STAR  AIRLINES,  CANADA  You are R u s s e l l Hale, the Manager (Cargo D i v i s i o n ) of North Star A i r l i n e s , Canada.  The company was formed i n the mid-50*s by merger of eight small regional and  feeder  a i r l i n e s under the leadership of an extremely dynamic pioneer of the Canadian a i r transport industry. North Star has i t s head o f f i c e s and major operating b a 3 e i n Montreal, with smaller operating bases i n Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and H a l i f a x .  At the present time, the a i r l i n e services eastern Canada quite intensively and also operates transcontinental routes between Halifax and Vancouver with enroute services to each of the major intervening c i t i e s . Ey far, the greater part of the company's operation however, i s overseas extending from north Africa through western Europe on the one hand, throughout the orient and into Australia and New Zealand on the other. Over the years, North Star has developed an outstanding reputation for safety, r e l i a b i l i t y , and customer service. The a i r l i n e industry i s both highly competitive and very much hemmed i n by Accordingly, i t takes l o t 3 of i n i t i a t i v e and hardwork to stay i n the game. Considering this fact, your company has been doing quite well: the r a t e of return on total investment for North Star had increased from 5 $ i n the 60»s t o an average of Tl> in the f i r s t five years of the 70's and i n 1977. Until r e c e n t l y , the long distance mainstay of the fleet has been DC-8 and 727 a i r c r a f t s with 737 a i r c r a f t servicing the shorter regional runs. Within the last eight years, s i x 747 aircrafts have been acquired by your company to cater to increasing passenger government regulations.  and cargo t r a f f i c .  Tour job i s a key one in t h i s organization. On you and your staff rests the responsibility for projecting the market share for cargo t r a f f i c that can be captured by North Star, planning the necessary advertising and other promotional a c t i v i t i e s t o attain the sales targets, and then following through on sales of cargo space. This essentially involves creating and maintaining an image for North Star as a f a s t , economic, and safe carrier of cargo. Accurate estimates of future airfreight must be developed and cargo movements have to be planned ahead to be i n l i n e with the customers' needs and North Star's existing flight schedules. You perceive your role as central i n determining the success or f a i l u r e of North Star. You have to work within the constraints provided by operations, finance, maintenance, and/or corporate affairs divisions either in terms of their stated capabilities to meet demands you would l i k e to lay upon them with short notice or i n terras of a v a i l a b i l i t y of aircrafts, capital resources, .manpower and government regulations. •- . Your job as the Manager (Cargo Division) i s a d i f f i c u l t one due to several reasons. F i r s t l y , Cargo division was established as a separate unit not long ago and hence i t i s s t i l l experiencing some 'teething problems'. Secondly, cargo sales have increased rapidly in the past few years and this has necessitatedrcareful planning and optimal scheduling of available freight space and manpower. Finally, the cargo freight market is becoming increasingly competitive. Hence North Star has to maintain its good service and carefully plan i t s promotional activities to protect i t s share of the market. Your own position within the company is shown i n the organization chart given i n the next page.  Mgr. Passenger D i v i s i o n Mgr. Cargo D i v i s i o n  •  Mgr. Market Planning  §  <D  pr o  1  CD  o  •1 HK'O <D CD  •1  1  u  Mgr. Properties & Leases  co  Mgr. F l i g h t Scheduling  Mgr. I n d u s t r i a l Relations Mgr. S t a f f Recruiting &, training  o  1  o  o H,  H) H* O  Mgr. Budgets D i v i s i o n  CO  w co  Mgr. Accounting D i v i s i o n Mgr. Purchase & Stores Mgr. P a y r o l l , Receipts, & Expenditures  CO  1  p? o CO 1  o  HO  0> 1  CO  Mgr. Maintenance & Overhaul Mgr. Engineering & Management Systems  91Z  J_  GENERAL MANAGER (Corporate & Customer affair)  Mgr. Customer Relations  217 As may be seen i n the chart, the airlines has five major functional divisions! Sales, Operations, Corporate and Customer Affairs, Finance, and Technical Services. In each of these divisions there are several hierarchical levels. Indeed, the entire organization can be thought of as a t a l l pyramid. As one descends through the hierarchy, one finds more limited information, less control over resources, and lower discretionary authority at each level. At the lower levels, each person's tasks are also more and more clearly defined by his or her superior. Everyone i n the organization knows the limits of his or her authority, information, and ability. Once a person approaches this limit, his duty is to report to his superior. There is a procedural manual (called the "Airline Bible" by the staff) which delineates the specific powers, duties, and responsibilities of each member, from the canteen boy to the Executive Vice-President. The President issues directives and policy decisions to his subordinates periodically, who i n turn pass on the relevant information to their subordinates. These directives are carefully followed by everyone i n the organization. The s t r i c t use of chain of command is considered by management as one of i t s strong points since this provides a l l organizational members the knowledge of exactly what is expected of him/her. Methods of communication used by top management to inform subordinates about various•decisions include letters, memos, and directives. As far as possible, written communications are encouraged since this ensures the transmission of accurate information. Considerable emphasis is also given on receiving accurate upward communication from lower levels to enable top management to establish overall objectives and strategies. The five general managers (in charge.of the five functional areas) and their immediate subordinates exist as the fountain heads of a l l relevant information i n their respective areas. Consequently, the senior managers issue commands and instructions frequently to their subordinates. This does not i n the least interfere with sociable friendliness on an equal footing on the many occasions in which members of the staff and the managers meet each other outside the office. The members of the organization seem to accept instructions and commands as appropriate to work relationships but isolate these relationships from outside activities. Yet another strong point of North Star's organizational structure, according to i t s management, is the s t r i c t practice of the unity of command principle! that i s , each subordinate reports formally to only one superior. The number of subordinates reporting to each superior i s small (ranging from 2 - ^ ) , thus enabling the superior to closely monitor his unit's performance. Such a structure also facilitates high task specialization leading to high overall efficiency. The jobs of operating employees have limited range and deptht for example, each employee in the stores supply division issues only a limited category of supplies, sometimes as few as six to eight items. Management feels that this is one of the major reasons for the high efficiency of North Star i n a l l i t s internal and external dealings. As one of the supervisors put its " At North Star everyone knows exactly what is to be done, how i t i s to be done, and by what time i t is to be done. Many organizations become sluggish because i t s people do not know what to do or who i s to make a particular decision. Here, we try our best to avoid any such occurences " North Star is decentralized to a very limited degree. A typical indicator of a company's decentralization is where the decisions concerning investment and manpower utilization are made. At North Star a l l crucial decisions are made by.the top management. The top management committee (consisting of the Executive V.P., five general managers, and two other senior managers) virtually controls the entire flow of decisions that involve major expenditures, investments, and securing and developing of manpower. This practice enables top management to react to crisis situations quickly. For instance, the efficiency and speed with which North Star was able to react to the 'fuel c r i s i s ' in 1 9 7 2 was mainly attributed to the centralized decision making within the a i r l i n e . Indeed, North Star actively attempts to maintain i t s distinct identity in several areas which have been commonly neglected by other airlines. To give an example, considerable research was done before the airline chose the present uniform for a l l i t s employees coming i n contact with the travelling public (including baggage movers). A l l such employees also wore a fairly expensive ( $ 2 3 ) golden star on their right hand side pocket with the sign "the five star service of North Star". The company has received several acclamatory letters from the public about the good appearance and manners of i t s employees. North Star intends to keep this good image and is insistent that none of i t s employees damages i t . The salary and benefits that North Star offers i t s employees are competitive and moving up in the organization is possible for an employee who is knowledgeable and loyal to the organization. The employees of North Star are. not unionized; The airline als"o sponsors hockey and football teams. North Star's hockey team won a consolation prize i n 1 9 7 5 winter sports i n Yugoslavia.  218  APPENDIX  'Organic' d e s c r i p t i o n of organization  the  219  NORTH STAR AIRLINES, CANADA  Tou are R u s s e l l Hale, the Manager (Cargo D i v i s i o n ) of North Star A i r l i n e s , Canada.  The company was formed i n the mid-50*s by merger of eight small regional and feeder a i r l i n e s under the leadership o f an extremely dynamic pioneer of the Canadian a i r transport industry. North Star has i t s head offices and major operating ba3e i n Montreal, with smaller operating bases i n Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, and H a l i f a x .  At the present time, the a i r l i n e services eastern Canada quite intensively and also operates transcontinental routes between Halifax and Vancouver with enroute services t o each of the major intervening c i t i e s . By far, the greater part o f the company's operation however, i s overseas extending from north Africa through western Europe on the one hand, throughout the orient and into Australia and New Zealand on the other. Over the years, North Star has developed an outstanding reputation for safety, r e l i a b i l i t y , and customer service. The a i r l i n e industry i s both highly competitive and very much hemmed i n by government regulations. Accordingly, i t takes lots of i n i t i a t i v e and hardwork to stay i n the game. Considering this fact, your company has been doing quite well: the r a t e of return on total investment for North Star had increased from 5% i n the 60's to an average of 7f> in the f i r s t five years of the 70's and 6*i# i n 1977. Until recently, the long distance mainstay of the fleet has been DC-8 and 727 aircrafts with 737 aircraft servicing the shorter regional runs. Within the last eight years, s i x 747 aircrafts have been acquired by your company to cater to increasing passenger and cargo t r a f f i c . Your job i s a key one in this organization. On you and your staff rests the responsibility for projecting the market share for cargo t r a f f i c that can be captured by North Star, planning the necessary advertising and other promotional a c t i v i t i e s to attain the sales targets, and then following through on sales of cargo space. This essentially involves creating and maintaining an image for North Star as a f a s t , economic, and safe carrier of cargo. Accurate estimates of future airfreight must be developed and cargo movements have to be planned ahead to be i n l i n e with the customers needs and North Star's existing flight schedules. 1  You perceive your role as central i n determining the success or f a i l u r e of North Star. You have to work within the constraints provided by operations, finance, maintenance, and/or corporate affairs divisions either in terms of their stated capabilities to meet demands you would like to lay upon thera with short notice or i n terras of availability of aircrafts, capital resources, .manpower and government regulations.' •— . • ' Your job as the Manager (Cargo Division) is a d i f f i c u l t one due to several reasons. F i r s t l y , Cargo division was established as a separate unit not long ago and hence i t i s s t i l l experiencing some 'teething problems'. Secondly, cargo sales have increased rapidly i n the past few years and this has necessitatedrcareful planning and optimal scheduling of*available freight space and manpower. Finally, the cargo freight market is becoming increasingly competitive. Hence North Star has to maintain its good service and carefully plan i t s promotional activities to protect i t s share of the market. given^^^he^xt'page." ^ 1  1  1  ^  i S  S h  °  W n  i n  t h e  organization chart  Mgr. Passenger D i v i s i o n Mgr. Cargo D i v i s i o n  Mgr. Market Planning  a § 7?  O  co n o Mgr. Properties & Leases  i •* CD CD CO CO  Mgr. Flight Scheduling  Mgr. Industrial Relations  c  CD S3 M* O CO 1  PC  Mgr. Staff Recruiting & training  o  o 1  H»  Hi H* CO O •1 CD CO CO  ?c  Mgr. Budgets Division Mgr. Accounting Division Mgr. Purchase & Stores Mgr. Payroll, Receipts, & Expenditures  o M CD  pr o CO  ac o •1 ?r a> •i co  •1  o O »  CO  Mgr. Maintenance & Overhaul Mgr. Engineering & Management Systems  OZZ  J.  GENERAL MANAGER (Corporate & Customer affair)  Mgr. Customer Relations  221  While the major functional areas have been identified and responsibilities allocated within the airlines, specific Job duties have been continuously changing i n the past few years. In North Star, there i s a deliberate attempt to avoid specifying individual tasks (especially at middle and lower management levels) and to discourage any dependence on the management hierarchy as the primary means of defining functions and authority. The general managerial philosophy at North Star i s that the company should make the fullest use of the capabilities of i t s members; any i n d i v i d u a l s job should be as l i t t l e defined as possible so that i t w i l l 'shape i t s e l f to his/her special a b i l i t i e s and i n i t i a t i v e . At North Star, insistence on the least possible specification of managerial positions i s much more i n evidence than any devices for ensuring adequate interaction among organizational members. Interaction among the members did occur, but as a consequence of internal conditions rather than prescription by top management. Some of these conditions are physical; a two storeyed building houses the entire head office, one thousand strong, from maintenance units to the cafeteria. Access to anyone i s therefore, physically simple and direct; i t i s easier to meet some one i n his /her office or the plant and talk to him or her personally than even to telephone. Written communications inside the office i s never emphasized. Most of the messages are passed from one level to another and from one employee to another through personal interaction. Most important of a l l , however, i s the need for each individual manager for interaction with others in order to get his own tasks and functions defined i n the absence of specification from above. Whsn the position of Manager (Engineering & Management Systems) was created for example, the f i r s t incumbents had, according to them, find out what their job duties were, and what authority and resources were available to them. In fact, this process of 'finding out* about one's job seems to be unending. Managers' and staff's roles are continuously defined and refined i n connection with specific tasks and as members of specific cooperative groups. This happens through a perpetual sequence of encounters with maintenance chiefs, who are in charge of routine maintenance and periodic overhaul of the planes; with accountants who provide the cost-benefit information on a l l activities; with personnel and public relations managers who identify the impact of alternative strategies cr, the staff and the public; with operations personnel who provide detailed information on availability of flights and f l i g h t crew; and the sales people who constantly monitor market developments. In every case, the manager whose responsibility i t i s 'to see the job through' has to determine his or her responsibilities and those of others i n the company through complex, though often brief negotiations i n which the relevant information and technical knowledge possessed by them would have to be declared. As one of the managers put i t : "When I was made a manager I was told to get on with the job - was just told 'you'll start in on Monday', so I came i n started. The rest was for me to find out. That was really a l l that was said..." An even more important characteristic of North Star i s the communality of beliefs and a sense of common purpose held by a l l i t s members. While a hierarchy of management does exist, positions are defined almost entirely in terms of technical expertise and not on the basis of formal power. There i s a very high degree of decentralization at North Star: many of the important decisions are made at the middle and lower levels of the management hierarchy. Thus i t i s not uncommon to see a supervisor in the maintenance plant deciding on the annual overhaul schedules for the aricraft, of course after consulting sales, finance, operations, and other staff on a personal basis. His own boss i s more likely to provide advice and support than firm instructions. The underlying assumption i s that the person who does a job knows more than any one else about i t . The emphasis i s on 'doing the job well' and once the job i s taken care of nobody raises any questions. North Star has been a progressive employer from the point of view of i t s staff. The salaries that i t pays are competitive and moving up the organization i s possible for the competent employee. The employees of North Star are not unionized. The company also organizes frequent training programs which i t s managers and staff alike attend. North Star also encourages i t s staff to join professional bodies and pays a percentage of a l l annual dues to such institutions. The company also sponsors i t s own hockey and football teams. North Star*s hockey team won a consolation prize i n the 1 9 7 5 Winter sports i n Yugoslavia.  222  APPENDIX Items i n Budner S c a l e intolerance of  - 5" f o r measuring ambiguity  223  1.  An e x p e r t who d o e s n ' t come up w i t h a d e f i n i t e answer p r o b a b l y d o e s n ' t know too much.  2.  T h e r e i s r e a l l y no c a n ' t be s o l v e d .  3.  A good j o b i s one where what i s t o be done how i t i s t o be done a r e a l w a y s c l e a r .  4.  I n t h e l o n g r u n i t i s p o s s i b l e t o g e t more done by t a c k l i n g s m a l l , s i m p l e p r o b l e m s r a t h e r t h a n l a r g e and c o m p l i c a t e d o n e s .  5.  What we a r e u s e d t o i s a l w a y s p r e f e r a b l e t o what i s u n f a m i l i a r .  6.  A p e r s o n who l e a d s an e v e n , r e g u l a r l i f e i n w h i c h few s u r p r i s e s o r u n e x p e c t e d h a p p e n i n g s a r i s e , r e a l l y has a l o t t o be g r a t e f u l f o r .  7.  I l i k e p a r t i e s where I know most o f t h e more t h a n ones where a l l o r most o f t h e are complete s t r a n g e r s .  8.  The s o o n e r we a l l a c q u i r e s i m i l a r v a l u e s i d e a l s the b e t t e r .  9.  I would l i k e to l i v e for a while.  10.  P e o p l e who f i t t h e i r l i v e s t o a s c h e d u l e p r o b a b l y m i s s most o f t h e j o y o f l i v i n g .  11.  I t i s more f u n t o t a c k l e a c o m p l i c a t e d t h a n t o s o l v e a s i m p l e one.  12.  O f t e n t h e most i n t e r e s t i n g and s t i m u l a t i n g p e o p l e a r e t h o s e who d o n ' t m i n d b e i n g d i f f e r e n t and o r i g i n a l .  13.  P e o p l e who: i n s i s t upon a y e s o r no answer j u s t d o n ' t know how c o m p l i c a t e d t h i n g s r e a l l y a r e .  14.  Many o f o u r most i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s a r e on s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . Please  see  such  t h i n g as a p r o b l e m  i n a foreign  f o l l o w i n g page  that and  people people and  country  problem  based  224  15. T e a c h e r s o r s u p e r v i s o r s who hand o u t v a g u e a s s i g n m e n t s g i v e a c h a n c e f o r one t o show i n i t i a t i v e and o r i g i n a l i t y . 16. A good t e a c h e r i s one who makes y o u wonder a b o u t y o u r way o f l o o k i n g a t t h i n g s .  APPENDIX  6  Measure of Role i d e n t i t y dur simulation  226  I.D. #•  To what e x t e n d c o u l d y o u i d e n t i f y y o u r s e l f w i t h t h e r o l e o f Manager ( C a r g o D i v i s i o n ) d u r i n g t h e s i m u l a t i o n ?  Very  little  Moderately  V e r y much  APPENDIX  7 -A,  Questionnaire used f o r measuring perceived  d e c i s i o n importance  228  In the previous pages, you read s e v e r a l d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s . P l e a s e r a t e e a c h d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e t o i n d i c a t e how i m p o r t a n t y o u t h i n k i t i s .  Importance Decision < Not at N o t situation all important number important (  1  2  of  the d e c i s i o n  situation  > S l i g h t l y i Somewhat • Very important important important 3  4  5  APPENDIX  7-B  Questionnaire used f o r measuring perceived  decision  complexity  230  The d e c i s i o n e n v i r o n m e n t s c o n f r o n t i n g t h e managers a r e some t i m e s complex i n terms o f b o t h t h e s h e e r m u l t i p l i c i t y o f f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d and t h e interconnections among t h e s e f a c t o r s . R e c r u i t i n g a work s u p e r v i s o r , f o r example, i n v o l v e s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n o f a g r e a t many c a n d i d a t e s , b o t h w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and from o u t s i d e . E a c h c a n d i d a t e must be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e l i g h t o f a v a r i e t y o f c a p a b i l i t i t i e s , f o r example, i n t e l l i g e n c e , education, experience, s k i l l s , e t c . , which a r e i n g e n e r a l . h i g h l y i n t e r - r e l a t e d . I n o t h e r words, s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a r e i n g e n e r a l , q u i t e complex i n nature. I w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e i f y o u w i l l s p e n d t h e n e x t few minutes r a t i n g each d e c i s i o n f o r i t s complexity. The s c a l e to be.used i s g i v e n below which i s s e l f explanatory.  Degree of Decision Very situatisimple on number 1  complexity  Not complex (or simple)  Slightly complex  2  3  Somewhat complex 4  Very complex 5  APPENDIX Questionnaire perceived  7-C  used f o r measuring  decision uncertainty  232  T y p i c a l l y , managerial decision s i t u a t i o n vary widely i n t e r m s ; o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t y s u r r o u n d i n g t h e d e c i s i o n maker. The d e c i s i o n maker may o r may n o t know a b o u t t h e e x a c t n a t u r e of the problem, consequences o f a l t e r n a t i v e c o u r s e s o f a c t i o n , a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s , and t h e c o n s t r a i n t s f a c i n g him/her. Thus some o f t h e d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s are c e r t a i n w h i l e others are not. In the l a t t e r cases t h e r e i s a l a c k of a p p r o p r i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about v a r i o u s f a c t o r s on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e c i s i o n maker. I w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e i f you w i l l s p e n d t h e n e x t few m i n u t e s r a t i n g each of the d e c i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s ( d e s c r i b e d i n p r e v i o u s pages) f o r i t s c e r t a i n t y . The s c a l e t o b e u s e d i s g i v e n below:  Degree of Decision Very Certain situaticertain on number  Uncertainty  Somewhat uncertain  Moderately uncertain  Very uncertain  APPENDIX Instrument used global  8  for getting  assessment  o f the  participants organization  234  There are two major types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s : 'Mechanistic' and 'Organic'. M e c h a n i s t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of c o n t r o l and a u t h o r i t y , h i g h degree of task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , presence o f many r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and use of v e r t i c a l l i n e s of communications. Organic o r g a n i z a t i o n s on the other hand, e x h i b i t h i g h d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of d e c i s i o n making power, c o n t r o l , and a u t h o r i t y , use of both h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l l i n e s of communications w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , presence of few formal r u l e s , h i g h degree of task interdependence, and continued changes i n the r o l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l members. Based on your understanding o f North S t a r , would you it (Check Mechanistic  one) OR  Organic  I.D.  #  call  235  APPENDIX  M u l t i v a r i a t e and  9  univariate  of v a r i a n c e - a note  analysis  236  A within-subjects was u s e d  i n the present  individual study.  differences  This  study  to provide  design  control f o r  among t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s  inter-subject  of within-subjects variability  design also  f a c t o r ( s ) when  i s high.  introduces  On t h e o t h e r  means o n w h i c h t h e t e s t s o f b o t h t h e m a i n  and  i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s among t h e are based.(Harris,  more i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e the  design,  variance  the s t a t i s t i c a l  tests also  Analysis  MANOVA i s a l s o  effects  a s more and  factors  a r e brought  into  power o f t h e a n a l y s i s o f (Johnson,  1977).  Multivariate  (MANOVA) i s g e t t i n g  popular because o f i t s h i g h  power e v e n when a n a l y z i n g variables  Also,  b e h a v i o r -• r e s e a r c h  o f V a r i a n c e model  increasingly  hand,  within-subjects  1975).  decreases  In o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  such  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among  the  factors  i n the  e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n p r o v i d e s more  powerful tests this  o r r e p e a t e d measures  several  statistical  dependent  variables.  e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l when t h e d e p e n d e n t  are highly  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r .  such a case,  a simple u n i v a r i a t e  (ANOVA) w i l l  show more o r l e s s  all  dependent v a r i a b l e s .  are  two d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s  intercorrelated,  analysis  variance  identical results for  F o r example,  then those  of  In  i f X-^ and X £  which are h i g h l y independent v a r i a b l e s or  t r e a t m e n t s w h i c h h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on X-^ will  also  tend  This  i s not surprising,  more o r l e s s  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  related  t o X£•  as t h e s e c o n d r e s u l t  follows  ( d e p e n d i n g on t h e amount o f c o r r e l a t i o n )  from the f i r s t .  W i t h s e p a r a t e ANOVA f o r e a c h  dependent  237  variable  i t w o u l d n o t be known how much t h e r e s u l t s  are d u p l i c a t i n g The  each other  X-^ a n d X^,  Assume t h e r e a r e two d e p e n d e n t so t h a t a l l t h e a v a i l a b l e  c a n be r e p r e s e n t e d 'm' d i f f e r e n t  into  1971).  a p p r o a c h t a k e n b y MANOVA however i s q u i t e  different.  are  ( V a n de G e e r ,  'm' d i f f e r e n t  variables,  observations  i n the ( X p X2) plane. treatments,  I f there  the points w i l l  subgroups.  fall  Imagine t h a t p o i n t s  a r e drawn f o r 'm' s u b g r o u p a v e r a g e s .  T h e n i f t h e 'm'  s u b g r o u p s a r e s a m p l e d f r o m t h e same p o p u l a t i o n (this  i s the n u l l  subgroup averages  hypothesis),  spread  among t h e  s h o u l d be w i t h i n l i m i t s  that are  consistent with  the spread  '1'  subgroups.  I n o t h e r words, a c o n f i d e n c e  for  t h e s u b g r o u p means i s s e t up s o t h a t i f t h e means  scatter be  outside this  rejected.  chosen l e v e l is  o f p o i n t s w i t h i n each o f  region, the n u l l hypothesis  To r e j e c t  the n u l l hypothesis  that there  i satleast  such  projected  on i t r e l a t i v e  one v e c t o r o f v a r i a b l e s i n to variance within  ratio  (Van de G e e r ,  MANOVA t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c the v e c t o r f o r which t h i s  ratio  means t o v a r i a n c e w i t h i n g r o u p s largest, r a t i o  the r a t i o  to  the f i r s t  the r a t i o  will  search  i s maximum.  does n o t , r e a c h  f o r another  Instead  In  Obviously,  significance,  then u l l  be made a n d a s i m i l a r  of variances.  1971).  o f v a r i a n c e between  i s l a r g e enough t o p e r m i t  the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s ,  subgroups  t h e r e f o r e i s t o take  t h e r e w i l l ' b e no g r o u n d f o r r e j e c t i n g If  (at a  t h a t t h e v a r i a n c e b e t w e e n t h e means  exceeds t h e c r i t i c a l  even t h i s  will  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ) what n e e d s t o be shown  the p l a n e  If  region  hypothesis.  rejection of vector test  of testing  orthogonal  applied to a ratio of  238  variance estimates, may a l s o b e made. becomes i d e n t i c a l The MANOVA the  test  of ratio  In the l a t t e r  o f sums o f s q u a r e s case,  the solution  to canonical discriminant analysis.  above s h o u l d n o t be c o n s t r u e d  t o mean t h a t  i s appropriate f o r a l l occasions.  computational  complicated  procedures  Quite  often  f o r MANOVA a r e q u i t e  and the a d d i t i o n a l  statistical  g a i n e d may n o t b e w o r t h t h e e f f o r t .  power  A l s o when  'compound symmetry' o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n f r o m w h i c h the  data  i s sampled does e x i s t ,  p r o v i d e s more p o w e r f u l ments t h a n MANOVA (1949,  tests  (Harris,  w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s ANOVA  of the effects  1975).  According  of treatt o Box  1950) 'compound symmetry' e x i s t s when a l l  main d i a g o n a l elements o f t h e v a r i a n c e - c o v a r i a n c e matrix  are equal  off-diagonal common v a l u e .  t o a common v a l u e  elements a r e equal  sample s i z e , in  the estimated  the i t h c e l l ,  matrix.  The n u l l  and it  f o r homogeneity o f  i s a function of the  and t h e p o o l e d hypothesis  In the case  matrix  variance-covariance  o f homogeneity o f can be accepted o r  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e l e v e l  significant.  lower  variance-covariance  variance-covarianace matrices rejected  t o a second,  Box's M s t a t i s t i c  variance-covariance matrices  and a l l o f i t s  a t which M i s  of multivariate regression  the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and c o v a r i a n c e , i s o f t e n important  t o determine whether t h e c o v a r i a n c e  matrices  o f several populations a r e equal.  is  that the covariance matrices  found  Suppose i t  are not equal,  t h e n many o f t h e s t a n d a r d m u l t i v a r i a t e m o d e l s w i l l n o t apply  ( P r e s s , 1972; page 176-178).  In the univariate  case,  i f the v a r i a n c e s a r e unequal but n o t too d i f f e r e n t ,  239  the  t e s t procedures  The  the  test  test  assesses  identity matrix  (Bartlett,  H  covariance  i s not equal  that at least  versus  one c o r r e l a t i o n  to zero.  q ( q - l ) / 2 degrees o f freedom  Morrison, the  that  1976).  I f the n u l l  or .  :  The B a r t l e t t ' s matrix distribution  ( B a r t l e t t , 1950;  hypothesis  dependent v a r i a b l e s a r e o r t h o g o n a l  other  Q  the alternative  f o l l o w s t h e l a r g e sample c h i - s q u a r e d  with  H  The  o f 'q' measurements i s a n  a function o f the error c o r r e l a t i o n  and  1950).  (or, that the variance-covariance  hypothesis  is  i s a l s o t e s t e d by  the n u l l hypothesis  i s a diagonal matrix) a  g e n e r a l l y be a p p l i c a b l e .  o f MANOVA  of sphericity  correlation matrix  matrix  still  appropriateness  Bartlett's Bartlett  will  H  Q  i s true,  t o each  and t h e u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e  o f t h e d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s i s more a p p r o p r i a t e  on e a c h than  the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . Finally,  the r a t i o  minimum v a r i a n c e among as a n i n d i c a t i o n MANOVA  statistic  analysis  H  Q  o f homogeneity  1976).  Rejection of the  indicates that theu n i v a r i a t e  of variance  multivariate  ( c a l l e d F-max  'q' m e a s u r e m e n t s ( P e a r s o n & H a r t l e y ,  Bock, 1975; M o r r i s o n , hypothesis  of applying  by P e a r s o n and H a r t l e y i s  the n u l l hypothesis  o f v a r i a n c e among null  This  developed  computed t o t e s t 1958;  'q' measurements c a n be u s e d  o f the appropriateness  t o the data.  criterion)  b e t w e e n maximum v a r i a n c e and  i s appropriate;  analysis of variance  otherwise, the  i s t o be p r e f e r r e d .  240  Significance The  Tests:  F-test of significance  compare t h e r a t i o  o f mean t r e a t m e n t  (MST) t o mean e r r o r i s used  to test  of d i f f e r e n t the  sum-of-squares  the n u l l  sum-of-squares  called henceforth  (or, MSE  ratio means  I n MANOVA however,  i s a q X q matrix variables).  This  will  sum o f p r o d u c t s '  The m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l o g u e o f  i s a q X q matrix  of error  sum-of-squares and  (or, the E matrix).  analogue o f F i s a r a t i o E matrices  This  of identical  the 'hypothesis  the H matrix).  cross products  (MSE).  groups.  (where, q= number o f r e s p o n s e be  sum-of-squares  hypothesis  experimental  treatment  i n ANOVA i s t o  The m u l t i v a r i a t e  of the determinants  and i s u s u a l l y  expressed  o f H and  i n terms o f t h e  eigen values  (or, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  r o o t s o f HE").  The  significance  f o r MANOVA a n d  specific  ANOVA a r e b r i e f l y  outlined  t e s t s used below.  MANOVA There a r e three popular of  significance  o f treatment  Lambda, H o t e l l i n g ' s  c r i t e r i a used effects,  trace criterion,  criterion.  A l l three c r t i e r i a w i l l  probability  statements  hypothesis  Wilks  to reject  o f no t r e a t m e n t  f o r tests  namely,  Wilks  and P i l l a i ' s give  single  or accept  null  effects.  Lambda  Wilks  Lambda  (also  called  given by the f o l l o w i n g formula:  the U s t a t i s t i c ) i s  241  s  n i =i  1  +  where A  =  Wilks'  X  Eigen  Lambda values  T o t a l number o f e i g e n Lambda i s a f a m i l y o f t h r e e p a r a m e t e r c u r v e s , p a r a m e t e r s b a s e d on t h e number o f g r o u p s , of  values  with  t h e number  s u b j e c t s and t h e number o f e l e m e n t s i n t h e v e c t o r  variable.  I t may be n o t e d  here  that Wilks  d e s c r i b e d Lambda i n t h e c o n t e x t  (1932)  of a m u l t i v a r i a t e 2  generalization Wilks'  relation  of Fisher's correlation ratio  This  )  was: A  Hotelling's  ( n  trace  =  1  -  n  2  statistic:  i s b a s e d on t h e sum o f e i g e n v a l u e s and  g i v e n by:  s  E X  T  =  T  =  H o t e l l i n g ' s Trace  s  =  T o t a l number o f e i g e n  X  =  Eigen  where,  MANOVA t r a n s f o r m s approximate  values  Hotelling's criterion  F-ratio.  statistic  into  an  values  242  Pillai's  criterion:  This  i s given  by: 6 x=l  1+  A  i  where,  This and  i s again tested For  reader and  =  Pillai's  s  =  Total  number o f e i g e n  =  Eigen  values  transformed  for  into  criterion  an a p p r o x i m a t e  values  F-ratio  significance.  further  d e t a i l s on  is referred  Tatuoka  6  these  statistics,  t o Bock  (1975),  Morrison  study  a l l three  the  (1976)  (1971).  In the p r e s e n t used f o r t e s t i n g  the  significance  of  statistics  were  F.  ANOVA  There are A-posteriori test  several  contrasts.  tests  An A - p o s t e r i o r i  i s a symmetric procedure  possible  pairs  Steinbrenner  o f g r o u p means  & Bent,  appropriate for  1975).  contrast  f o r comparing a l l (Nie, H u l l , The  Jenkins,  groups are  divided  i n t o homogenous s u b s e t s , where t h e d i f f e r e n c e means o f any  two  groups  i n a subset  i s not  i n the  statistically  243  significant exist The  today only  on  Duncan's  using  is referred  the  less  level. the  Winer  the  be  tests  mentioned  here.  to Nie  et.al(1975),  a more  exhaustive  tests.  differences  The  larger  level rather of  the  equal to the  this  finding two  a  Duncan's t e s t  the  very unequal i n  The  Scheffe  significant in fact  equal,  significance  test  i t must be  borne i n mind  subset,  larger  declared  Duncan's t e s t  analysis  the can  of variance  significant  be  is  the  used  significant; groups  size.  test:  comparisons of  comparisons.  significance  specified  Scheffe t e s t uses a  combinations  than a  i s however o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e i f t h e  are  appropriate  concept  the  potential The  of  the  groups are  i n means r e q u i r e d t o be  t h i s procedure.  subsets  Duncan's t e s t u s e s  given that  When u s i n g  b e t w e e n g r o u p means  range v a l u e f o r  probability  whether or not  and  other  protection  than or  difference  The  (1971) f o r  t h e s e and  sizes.  difference  by  reader  a different  a special  that  of which w i l l  tests  different  is  Seven p o p u l a r  test:  This  level:  level.  two  ( 1 9 6 8 ) , and  discussion  of  a desired  interested  Kirk  by  at  g r o u p means.  single  range v a l u e  Hence, t h i s  test  even f o r examining a l l p o s s i b l e of  g r o u p means, n o t  This  test  just  is stricter  i s e x a c t even f o r unequal group  pair  for a l l  is  linear wise  t h a n most o t h e r sizes.  tests  

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.831.1-0094804/manifest

Comment

Related Items