Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Leadership style and organizational climate : a longitudinal study Young, David Robert 1973-03-16

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A4_5 Y69.pdf [ 25.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101219.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101219-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101219-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101219-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101219-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101219-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101219-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101219-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101219.ris

Full Text

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY by DAVID ROBERT YOUNG B.A.Sc, University of British Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in the Department of Commerce and Business Administration We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1973 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive acknowledged copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Commerce and Business Administration The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date /f7? i ABSTRACT Leadership Style and Organizational Climate*  A Longitudinal Study 'Supervisor: Dr. Richard T. Barth The essential problem considered in the thesis is the causal relationship between leadership style and organizational climate. Though there have been correlational studies among leadership and climate variables, there has been little if any satisfactory work to verify the presumption that leadership style is causally linked to organizational climate. The investigation made use of a questionnaire including both leadership style (LBDQ, Initiation of Structure (IS) and Consideration (C)) items and organizational climate items (derived from The human organization. Likert, 1967) which was distributed at two times approximately 120 days apart. The survey also included a suggestion-box questionnaire which was ta be used by the company to evaluate many aspects of employee concern. The results of the general survey were to be dis tributed to all participants and the study was also to evaluate changes in climate that may have resulted from such feedback. The study was conducted in three departments of a large engineering consulting firm which has a task-force structure. One department was not given the general survey or feedback in order to act as a control group with respect to the check on induced change through feedback. ii The first survey was used to check upon the static relationships between style and climate (both a priori and factor analytic) dimensions. Multiple regression analyses were used. The major tool to examine the causal relationship was cross-lagged correlational panels along with dynamic cor relations. Also used were multiple regression techniques with Time 1 climate dimensions independent and Time 2 leader ship dimensions dependent for paired data only. The climate item results were also factor analysed for comparison with a priori dimensions as well as comparison with a factor analysis of data from another source (Likert, 1967). The results provided only weak support of a change in climate resulting from feedback of survey results. There were several instances where significant relationships between climate and leadership were found. For the factor climate di mensions the most significant relationships were as follows: project leader IS - interaction-warmth goal congruence project leader G - interaction-warmth performance and control communications department head IS - performance and control communications goal congruence department head G - interaction-warmth confidence-participation goal congruence Both the cross-lagged correlational panel criteria and regression results pointed to the most significant relationships iii between Time 1 climate and Time 2 leadership as followst. department head IS - confidence-participation - locus of decision making - presence of informal organization - performance and control communications department head C - upward communications - confidence-participation These results completely contradicted the results expected from the hypotheses on causal linkages and, there was no indication of support for the hypothesis for any combination of style and climate dimensions. The comparison of factor analyses on study data and Likert data led to conclusions concerning the possible difference in orientation or mental set of employees in one type of organi zation and managers in another type when climate variables are considered. The results of the study pointed towards the question of "good" leadership being a function of flexibility and the ability to respond to cues presented by organizational climate variables. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. Introduction 1 Leadership StyleOrganizational Climate 11 Causal Relationships between Leadership Style and Organizational Climate 23 Plan of the Thesis 26 II. Design of the Study 9 Description of the Subject Company 29 Circumstances of Initiation of the Study 34 Survey Questionnaire Design, a de scription Procedure for Distribution and Return of the Questionnaire 41 Hypotheses to be tested 43 III. Results ...... 48 Introduction 4First Survey 50 Second Survey - preliminary 88 Factor Analyses 107 Second Survey results - final 134 IV. Conclusions and Discussion ........ 170 Hypothesis 1 171 Hypothesis IA 3 Hypothesis 2 4 Hypothesis 3 175 Supplementary Findings 179 Future Study - technical considerations 185 Discussion 186 V. Summary 19Design of the Study 196 Results 200 Conclusions and Discussion 204 V Page REFERENCES 210 APPENDICES A Schedule of events ...... 217 B Modified introduction to First Survey for control group Introduction to Second Survey ...... 219 C Computational procedures ......... 221 D Coding information and MVTAB results for open-end questions of Section III .... 231 E Coding information and MVTAB results for open-end questions of Section IV .... 266 F Results Summary for Sections III and IV as given to the company Sample of responses 280 G Table XXXVIII - Matrix of number of paired observations for first survey (for cor relation matrix see Table VI) 289 H Table XXXIX - Matrix of number of paired observations, both surveys ( for cor relation matrix see Table XII)...... 294 J Factor analysis information for data from this study 297 K Factor analysis information for data from Likert study ...... 307 L Number of paired observations of climate dimensions (using factor dimensions) Names and standard deviations of factor climate dimensions ............ 314 M Survey Questionnaire as distributed with closed-end question responses indicated . 318 vi Page LIST OF TABLES TABLE I First survey response rates ....... 50 II Climate item t-tests, Dept. A ..... 55 III Climate item t-tests, Dept. B ..... 60 IV Climate item t-tests, Dept. C 65 V Climate item t-tests, Combined results . 70 VI Correlation matrix - Climate items, leader ship scores, & a priori climate dimensions 76 VII Means and standard deviations - Climate items, leadership scores, & a priori climate dimensions • 80 VIII Regression results - climate dimensions dependent, leadership scores (Dept. heads only) independent • 82 IX Regression results - climate dimensions dependent, leadership scores independent 84 X Employee turnover between surveys .... 89 XI Second survey response rates . 90 XII Correlation matrix - leadership scores and a priori climate dimensions with differ ences - both surveys 92 XIII Mean leadership scores - both surveys . . 95 XIV Mean a priori climate dimensions - both surveys 98 XV Cross-lagged correlational panels - a priori dimensions, dept. heads 101 XVI Cross-lagged correlational panels - a priori dimensions, project leaders • • . 103 vii Tables (continued) Page XVII Correlations of each variable with factors - Survey data .......... 109 XVIII Factor 1—INTWM - Interaction-warmth . . 114 XIX Factor 2—PRCON - Performance and control communications 116 XX Factor 3—GLCGR - Goal congruence .... 118 XXI Factor 4—CONPR - Confidence-participation 120 XXII Factor 5—UPCOM - Upward communications . 122 XXIII Factor 6—PROCM - Project communications 124 XXIV Factor 7—INFOR - Presence of informal organization .............. 126 XXV Factor 8—DECMK - Locus of decision making 128 XXVI Correlations of each variable with factors - Likert data • 131 XXVII Correlation matrix - leadership scores and factor dimensions with differences both surveys 135 XXVIII Means of factor dimensions - both surveys 137 XXIX Cross-lagged correlational panels - factor dimensions, dept. heads ... 139 XXX Cross-lagged correlational panels - factor dimensions, project leaders ....... 141 XXXI Regression results - leadership scores dependent, all climate dimension independent 145 XXXII Stepwise regression — IS dependent, climate dimensions independent, project leaders 148 XXXIII Stepwise regression—Consideration de pendent, climate dimensions independent, project leaders 151 viii Tables (continued) Page XXXIV Stepwise regression—IS dependent, climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads . . . 153 XXXV Stepwise regression—Consideration dependent, climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads 156 XXXVI Regression results—Time 2 leadership scores dependent, Time 1 climate di mensions independent, Dept. heads • • . 165 XXXVII Stepwise regression—Time 2 IS dependent, Time 1 climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads 166 XXXVIII Matrix of number of paired observations, first survey • 290 XXXIX Matrix of number of paired observations, both surveys 295 XL Eigenvalues, cumulative proportion of variance, per cent of total variance . . 298 XLI Communality figures ...... 299 XLII Factor-loading matrix before rotation . . 300 XLIII Ordered factor-loading matrix after rotation ..... 301 XLIV Reordered correlation matrix 302 XLV Original Likert matrix used 308 XLVI Eigenvalues, cumulative proportion of variance, per cent of total variance . • 311 XLVII Communality figures 312 XLVIII Factor-loading matrix before rotation . . 313 XLIX Number of paired observations of climate dimensions • • . • 315 L Means and standard deviations of factor climate dimensions 317 ix Page LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Average climate item values - Dept. A . . . 53 2 Average differences in climate values Dept. A 54 3 Average climate item values - Dept. B . . 58 4 Average differences in climate values Dept. B 59 5 Average climate item values - Dept. C . . 63 6 Average differences in climate values Dept. C 64 7 Average climate item values - All Depts. . 68 8 Average differences in climate values All Depts 69 9 Eigenvalues vs no. of factors Ill 10 Initiation of structure vs Interaction-warmth - Project leaders 149 11 Initiation of structure vs Goal congruence -Project leaders 15° 12 Consideration vs Interaction-warmth -Project leaders . 152 13 IS vs Performance and control communications Dept. heads 155 14 Consideration vs Interaction-warmth -Dept. heads 159 15 Consideration vs Goal congruence - Dept. heads 160 16 Consideration vs Confidence-participation . l6l X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank the company and its executive officer for allowing me to conduct the surveys and for defraying the costs of printing and mailing of the questionnaires. I also thank the department heads involved with the surveys, particularly the head of the personnel department, as well as all participants, for their con sideration and patience. Professors Larry L. Cummings, Kenneth R. MacCrimmon, Vance F. Mitchell and Gordon (Skip) A. Walters, who acted as the expert panel for determining the labels for the factor analysis derived climate dimensions, also deserve my thanks. Finally, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Richard T. Barth, for his assistance, particularly with the design of the experiment. DEDICATION This work is dedicated to both my Parents and my wife, Evangeline, all of whose lasting patience has allowed me to indulge my penchant for education. 1 CHAPTER I Introduction This thesis examines the relationships between leader ship styles and organizational climates. In order to indicate the relevance of each category of variables to broader aspects of the study of organizations, a brief review of the major developments in the respective subject areas will be undertaken. At the same time, hopefully clarifying statements will be made on what the terms leadership style and organizational climate refer to in the remainder of the thesis. At the end of this chapter the importance of studying the relationships between these variables will be explained along with the general goals of the research. Leadership Style "Leadership appears in social science literature with three major meanings» as the attribute of a position, as the characteristic of a person, and as a category of behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 301)." Few would disagree that "When people are influenced to engage in organizationally relevant behavior, leadership has occurred (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 309)." Influence has a definite power connotation, that is to say, some form of power is required in order to have influence. Five sources of influence as suggested by French and Raven (1959) 2 are legitimate power, reward power, punishment power, referent power and expert power. Legitimate power is what would normally be thought of as the attribute of a position. To the extent that all members of an organization exercise some degree of influence, all mem bers are leaders. Normally, in this thesis, the focus of attention will be upon the leadership style of legitimate leaders. This will preclude discussion of an ever growing literature on small group dynamics with its development of leadership concepts (e.g. Bales, 1970; Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Though there is great variety in the degree of legitimate power attributable to a position the interest will be in the differences amongst leadership styles, given the same degree of position or legitimate power. Leadership as a characteristic of persons was once a major research interest. The interest focussed upon the traits and/or personality characteristics of successful leaders. In a comprehensive review of the subject Stogdill (1948) indicated the contradictory nature of different study results and con cluded that the "findings provide 'devastating evidence• against the concept of the operation of measurable traits in determining social interactions (p. 65)." Though trait-oriented studies have continued with some shift towards perceived as opposed to objective measures of personality attributes (e.g. Clifford & Cohn, 1964) a major shift in the orientation of leadership studies was developing. 3 The development of the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) during the Ohio State University leadership studies (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) was one result of the shift in orientation and has affected a large portion of leadership re search up to the present time. Specifically they concentrated on "(1) What does an individual do while he operates as a leader, and (2) How does he go about what he does? (Hemphill & Coons, 1957)." Most will recognize the terms Initiation of Structure (IS) and Consideration (C), which were the two major dimensions of leadership style that flowed from this extensive and well conducted research. One should not forget, however, the fol lowing additional dimensions which resulted from the continuing studies of leader behaviour: representation, demand recon ciliation, tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, tolerance of freedom, role assumption, production emphasis, predictive accuracy, integration, and superior orientation. As there is some variation, the definition of IS and C as used in this study is shown below: Consideration "includes behavior indicating mutual trust, respect, and a certain warmth and rapport between the supervisor and his group. This does not mean that this dimension reflects a superficial •pat-on-the-back,' 'first name calling* kind of human relations behavior. This dimension appears to emphasize a deeper concern for group members' needs and includes such behavior as allowing sub ordinates more participation in decision making and encouraging more two-way communication." Initiation of Structure "includes behavior in which the supervisor organizes and defines group activities and his relation to the group. Thus he defines the 4 role he expects each member to assume, assigns tasks, plans ahead, establishes ways of getting things done, and pushes for production. This dimension seems to emphasize overt attempts to achieve organization goals (Fleishman and Harris, 1962, pp. 43-44)." These two dimensions have been used in a very large number of studies in relation to a multitude of variables, though most often with group satisfaction and/or performance variables. The landmark review by Korman (1966) pointed out "that very little is known of how these variables may predict work group performance and the conditions which affect such predictions. At the current time we cannot even say that they have any predictive significance at all (p. 360)." Before con cluding the discussion of IS and C in subsequent studies, a research program along somewhat different lines but with important implications and influence in later IS and C studies will be considered. The esteem for the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scores of leaders appears to be very useful in predicting productivity of groups. Fiedler (196?) has claimed that this score reflects the degree of task or people orientation on a single scale, though these orientations would be considered (by many) as orthogonal or unrelated (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972) when measured with the LBDQ. More recently Fiedler has been quoted as indicating that "the LPC score reflects a hierarchy of goals (Hunt, 1971t P» 477)." At a recent seminar (October, 1971) at the University of British Columbia, Fiedler was inclined to 5 back off from a rigid or well specified interpretation of the score because it has never correlated very highly with any other psychological measures. If one assumed that most people had been exposed to similar degrees of inappropriate behaviour by least preferred co-workers the LPC score could reflect a tolerance for inappropriate behaviour which would carry with it consequences for different behaviours in different situations as discussed below. At the seminar mentioned above, Fiedler noted that in certain situations high LPC score persons could be expected to respond in a "consideration" manner while low LPC score persons could be expected to act in an "initiation of structure" manner. With suitable changes in situation, reverse responses from high and low LPC score persons could be anticipated. If definite evidence of this phenomenon can be presented it could establish a useful linkage between a personal characteristic (LPC) and social action. In a recent study Sashkin (1972) indicates a relationship between LPC and the extent of information sharing behaviour by leaders. The more important published work of Fiedler (196?) is the development of a contingency model whereby one would be able to predict group performance from knowledge of a leader's LPC score. The predictions vary with three important aspects of the situation which are used to define "favorable" and "unfavorable" situations and the consequent group performance with high or low LPC score leaders. In order of importance the variables 6 are "leader-member relations," "task structure", and "position power". While the latter two variables are more or less objectively measurable situational variables the first can be considered as a subjective summary dimension of organizational climate. The model would appear to be useful, though the studies by Graen, Orris, and Alvares (1971a) and the subsequent discussions (Fiedler, 1971a; Graen, Orris, & Alvares, 1971b) leave some questions as to its general value. For more current discussion and study of the contingency model Shiflett and Nealy (1972), Fiedler (1971b, 1972a, 1972b), Sashkin (1972), and Csoka and Fiedler (1972) should also be consulted. It should be noted that much of the research of Fiedler and others testing the contingency model has confined itself to specific short range group tasks rather than more general long range or multi ple task situations found in working environments where abilities in planning, organizing, and controlling may well be as important to group performance as "leading". Several aspects of the LPC score research raise im portant points in the study of organizations. The use of personal characteristics in determining behaviour should not be overlooked. One might ask if tolerance for freedom, or toler ance for ambiguity might provide similar relationship such as LPC scores do with behaviour and with group performance out comes. More important is the evidence that situational vari ables such as task structure will have an impact on what relationships will exist between leadership style and outcome 7 variables such as group performance. Returning to the development of the use of LBDQ di mensions we can examine the shift in emphasis after the 1966 reviews of leadership studies (e.g. Korman, 1966; Anderson, 1966). Since that time there has been more detailed study of relationships between Initiation of Structure and Consideration (e.g. Lowin et al, 1969? House et al, 1971) as well as more careful study of the chain of influence from leadership style to organizational outcomes such as performance, high morale, or satisfaction. There has also been a recent interest in the orthogonality of the two dimensions (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972; Kavanagh, 1972). The study by Evans (1970) on the effects of style upon path-goal relationships is an example of the trend in the study of causal linkages. In this paper Evans indicates that degrees of leader Initiation of Structure and/or Consider ation will have effects upon perceived path-goal instrumental ities. Yukl (1971) points out a dimension called "decision-centralization" as being an important leadership style (or characteristic). This dimension, which refers to the degree of decision power given to subordinates, may well correspond to tolerance of freedom or role assumption from the LBDQ question naire. Yukl indicates that decision-centralization will be orthogonal to Initiation of Structure but may be somewhat cor related to Consideration. The development of "managerial behavior dimensions" by Wofford (1970) has possibly expanded the number of important 8 dimensions to five by the addition of "managerial behaviors involving the functions of planning, organizing and controlling, as well as leading (p. 12)." The five factors—group achieve ment and order, personal enhancement, personal interaction, dynamic achievement, and security and maintenance—seem to pro vide some division of Initiation of Structure and Consideration dimensions rather than just being an addition to them. According to Wofford, the relevance of these dimensions with respect to morale and productivity seems to vary with various organization al climates, but there is likely to be a requirement for more extensive testing before these dimensions can enjoy the wide acceptance accorded the LBDQ ones. The required precision in defining the Wofford dimensions may possibly make them less useful in consulting or management training as they exclude the shorthand prescription. The intervening climate factors may, to a greater extent, have to be accounted for when prescribing ideal leadership action when using these dimensions. Perhaps the most important recent development in leader ship theory has been the work of Robert J. House (1971) in developing a comprehensive path goal theory of leader effective ness. From a broad class of previous expectancy theory of motivation and his formulation of motivation related to expect ancy theory, House derives four general propositions as followss 1. The motivation functions of a leader are to increase the net positive valences associated with work-goal attainment, increase the net positive valences associated with the path— behavior—to work-goal attainment, and 9 increase the subordinate's path instrument ality with respect to work-goal attainment for personal outcomes and the behavior required for work-goal attainment. . . . 2. In increasing path instrumentality by clarifying path-goal relationships, the leaders behavior will have positive motivational effects to the extent that it reduces role ambiguity or makes possible the exercise of externally imposed controls. . . • 3» When leader attempts to clarify path-goal relationships are redundant with existing conditions, that is, where path-goal relationships are apparent because of the routine of the tasks or objective system-fixed controls, attempts by the leader to clarify path-goal relationships will result in increased externally imposed control and will be seen by subordinates as redundant. ... 4. Leader behavior directed at need satis faction of subordinates will result in increased performance to the extent that such satisfaction increases the net positive valence associated with goal directed effort (p. 323). House indicates that "specific hypotheses concerning leader consideration, initiating structure, closeness of super vision, hierarchical influence, and authoritarianism can be derived (p. JZk)H from these general propositions. He gives eight specific hypotheses as examples, where the effects of Consideration and Initiation of Structure are predicted. These predictions take into account task demands (routine-nonroutine), position power, intrinsic job satisfaction, task-role demands (ambiguous or clear), the state of teamwork norms, and task and/or environment induced frustration or stress. The outcome 10 expectations concern ego protection and security as well as satisfaction and performance. With the aid of the general propositions and hypotheses the reasons for previously un explained findings are clarified. In a series of three studies general support for the hypotheses was found by House (1971). Though the framework and vocabulary are different in the House theory noted above and the Fiedler (1967) contingency model discussed previously, some rather striking parallels or similarities should be noted. The "leader-member relations" dimension of Fiedler which emphasises trust and confidence is certainly comparable to House's dimensions concerning the state of teamwork norms though in the House studies this dimension is not considered most important. Fiedler's "task structure" appears to have been divided into more dimensions by House when he considers task demands, task-role demands, intrinsic job satisfaction, and task induced frustration or stress. The use of a position power factor is common to both their approaches. With a more elaborate consideration of "task-structure" and a more comprehensive and more comprehendable statement of relationships in terms of basic motivation and expectancy theory the House formulations would appear to be eminently superior in explanatory power as well as providing more easily testable hypotheses in further research in the relationships between leadership style and group satisfaction and performance. The findings of Fiedler with respect to relationships between personal attitudes or characteristics and leadership behavior 11 would also deserve further attention. In more recent reports House and Rizzo (1972) indicate that role ambiguity and role conflicts are significant inter vening or moderating variables between leadership style and group performance or satisfaction. They particularly note the more important nature of-.role ambiguity in this regard. This evidence would, in a bread sense, provide support for the House theories. Though this brief review of leadership style has been confined primarily to the development of leadership style as exemplified by the LBDQ dimensions, the importance of this aspect of leadership study has certainly been indicated. Though the emphasis has been upon leadership as a category of behaviour, leadership as an attribute of position or characteristic of a person can not be completely neglected. For more information on broader aspects, the organizational leadership issue of Administrative Science Quarterly (March, 1971), which also con tains abstracts of recent ASQ articles relevant to leadership behaviour, or the presentations at the Southern Illinois Uni versity Symposium on Development in the Study of Leadership held in April 1971 should be consulted. Organizational Climate Before returning to a discussion of the relationship of leadership style to organizational climate a separate review of developments in the study of organizational climate appears in order. The term organizational climate (or environment) has 12 "been used loosely in the literature, without detailed defi nition, for a very long time. This has been particularly true in case studies or where explanations of changing experimental results were made by attributing the changes to different situ ational factors associated with similar experiments or studies conducted in different circumstances. ' The classic experiment of Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) on the effects of democratic, laissez-faire, and autocratic social climates is one of the early attempts to manipulate cli mate as an independent variable. From that time onward a slow growth of various conceptual notions of the term climate were growing. Argyris (195?) pointed out one major source of disagree ment among those considering climate definitions which, to a major extent, still exists. He indicated that the level of analysis of organizational theory would affect one's viewpoint on what were relevant dimensions. He speaks of "formal organiz ational variables such as policies, practices, and job de scriptions . • .", personality variables such as needs, abilities, values, self-concept and defenses . . .", and "informal variables that have arisen out of the participants' continuing struggle to adapt to the formal organization . . . (pp. 501-502)." Sells (1963) developed an "outline of Basic aspects of the Total Stimulus Situation" but emphasized the requirement for objective measures as opposed to perceived measures in apparent disregard for the viewpoint that many determinants of individual behaviour 13 are related to individual perceptions rather than to actual circumstances. Interest in climate dimensions grew more quickly after 1964 when Forehand and Gilmer (1964) brought various conceptual notions together in a comprehensive review indicating the nature of dimensions that would be useful and how they could be de veloped. Their definition of organizational climate was suf ficiently broad to include most meanings attributed to it by various writers. They referred "to the set of characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish the organization from other organizations, (b) are relatively en during over time, and (c) influence the behavior of people in the organization (p. j6j),H Forehand and Gilmer (1964) also discussed three mechanisms by which organizational climate could be expected to affect behaviour. The discussion has been rather nicely encapsulated by Campbell et al (1970)in the following quotation: 1. Definition of stimuli. Environmental character istics such as the structure of an organization, the implicit theories held by its management, or the economic condition of the industry have considerable influence on the relevant stimuli which impinge on an individual in his work role. For example, a shrinking market may elicit managerial skills associated with holding cost down, preventing waste, and increasing market share rather than those concerned with increasing production and developing new products. 2. Constraints upon freedom. Certain attributes of the situation may actually prevent certain behaviors from occurring. The structure of the organization may place a number of restraints on management communication or the degree of Ik autonomy. Such structurally imposed constraints may be either deleterious or facilitative relative to performance effectiveness. 3« Reward and punishment. Besides influencing what sorts of stimuli will be perceived and what types of responses are permitted, the environment can also specify the reinforcement contingencies for various managerial behaviors. It seems intuitively obvious that the situation should help determine the behavior-reward contingencies in an organization. For example, a manager in a very autonomous organization would make much broader decisions without consulting his superior than a comparable manager in a very nonautonomous organization. The situation is one in which a great deal of independent action is rewarded. Supposedly, a lack of independent action would be punished in some fashion (p. 387). By the time of the Harvard conference on organizational climate (Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968) the preference for more pre cise and narrower definitions was evident. As Tagiuri (1968) pointed out, there are still common and stubborn difficulties standing in the way of a general consensus of opinionJ "a. distinguishing between the objective and subjective environ ment j" has been the most serious problem and affects most other issues, "b. distinguishing between the person and the situ ation;" causes much disagreement. For example, n Achievement and similar "personal" characteristics are difficult to sepa rate from continuing environmental factors which affect these characteristics, "c. determining which aspects of the environ ment need to be specified;" brings forward problems of relevancy to general situations and the practical problems of having to limit the number of variables one is to consider, "d. identify ing the structures and dynamics of the environment (p. 13)" is 15 the last of the problems elicited by Taguiri (1968). As with many interactive dimension fields, "chicken and egg" disputes are likely to arise. Taguiri (1968) starts from an initial definition of organizational climate as follows: "Climate is the relatively enduring quality of the total environment that (a) is experi enced by the occupants, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the environment (p. 25)." He then develops the following definition for organizational climate which places more emphasis on aspects that will affect attitudes and motivation. Organizational climate is a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of the values of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization (p. 27). Needless to say, others find requirements to go beyond the bounds of this definition. Sells (1968), on the other hand, proposes a compre hensive listing of social system components illustrating that many could be determinates of, as well as being climate di mensions. These components are considered as objectively measurable items though one might have difficulty in some cases separating out various judgemental biases on some dimensions listed. Surprisingly, in this listing and others like it, no concern is given to dimensions that would be considered 16 important by marketing or finance observers. Marketing ob servers might well consider such aspects as the marketing segment dealt with or the marketing channels used to be determi nants of organizational climate.'1' Finance observers might take note of various financial ratios, earnings (cash flow), cost of capital, or degree of price competition (or various non-price forms of competition) in the industry as determinants of organizational climate. As may have been seen, a diverse multitude of variables fall into the "situation" category. In order to discuss them it may be useful to categorize them under the following four headings as used by Campbell et al (1970): "(1) structural properties, (2) environmental characteristics, (3) .organization al climate, and (4) formal role characteristics (p. 412)." Under structural properties variables we could find size, flat or tall, organizational shape (Forhand & Gilmer, 1964), centralized versus decentralized organization, span of control, and line versus staff (Porter & Lawler, 1965). Sample items listed by Sells (1968) under the heading organization are differentiation, autonomy, modes of control, and role structure. Under most of the above items a variety of sub-classifications would be possible (Sells, 1968). There would be a value in determining a widely acceptable set of structural variables and corresponding dimensional units. The attractive feature of most of these variables is the ease with which an outside observer can objectively assess or measure them. The 17 unattractive feature is the causal remoteness from interesting outcome variables. Few studies demonstrate simple or direct relationships between structural variables such as size and productivity or morale. For examples of environmental characteristics we have items listed by Sells (1968) under the heading physical environ ment such as equipment employed, natural resources, remoteness of site, mobility permitted, and et cetera. Under this cate gory one might also wish to include variables concerning degree of price or other forms of competition in an industry, marketing methods or constraints, and financial strategy or constraints. Once again these items are relatively easy to evaluate object ively though more problems may arise in providing useful dimensional units as well as in determining relative importance and relevance of these variables. In cross-cultural studies the items listed by Sells (1968) under the social-cultural environment heading such as language, territorial organization, justice, religion, and sex may well be important variables to consider. Under formal role characteristics or demands we can again refer to Sells (1968) and find dimensions such as in corporation of formal authority, remoteness of goals, success uncertainty, ethical values, functions involved, types of equip ment, use of technology, and products and services involved. The usefulness of these dimensions has been demonstrated by Woodward (19&5) and also by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) where 18 the strong implication is made that optimum structural charac teristics (and management behaviour) in manufacturing is highly-dependent upon the production system employed (i.e. unit pro duction, mass production, or continuous process production). A recent study by Mohr (1971) attempted to find relationships between organizational technology and organizational structure. The dimensions that will be discussed under organiz ational climate as we will use the term henceforth will gener ally meet the definitional requirements as indicated by Tagiuri (1968) (see above). As opposed to other situational variables discussed, the focus of these variables is on the nature of perceptions of individuals within an organization. Litwin and Stringer (1966) developed a questionnaire which was intended to measure member's perceptions. Though the questionnaire as developed does not provide clean ortho gonal dimensions, the dimensions and definitions as condensed by Campbell et al (1970) are indicated below* 1. Structure. Perceptions of the extent of organizational constraints, rules, regulations and 'red tape* 2. Individual responsibility. Feelings of autonomy, of 'being one's own boss' 3. Rewards. Feelings related to being confident of adequate and appropriate rewards—pay, praise, special dispensations—for doing the job well 4. Risk and risk taking. Perceptions of the degree of challenge and risk in the work situation 5» Warmth and support. Feelings of general good fellowship and helpfulness prevailing in the work settings 6. Tolerance and conflict* Degree of confidence that the climate can tolerate differing opinions (p. 390 In follow up work on the questionnaire above, Litwin and Stringer (1968) report 9 dimensions as indicated below« 1. Structure—the feeling that employees have about the constraints in the group, how many rules, regulations, procedures there are; is there an emphasis on "red tape" and going through channels, or is there a loose and informal atmosphere. 2. Responsibility—the feeling of being your own boss; not having to double-check all your decisions; when you have a job to do, knowing that it is your .job. 3. Reward—the feeling of being rewarded for a job well done; emphasizing positive rewards rather than punishments; the perceived fair ness of the pay and promotion policies. 4. Risk—the sense of riskiness and challenge in the job and in the organization; is there an emphasis on taking calculated risks, or is playing it safe the best way to operate. 5. Warmth—the feeling of general good fellowship that prevails in the work group atmosphere; the emphasis on being well-liked; the prevalence of friendly and informal social groups. 6» Support—the perceived helpfulness of the managers and other employees in the group; emphasis on mutual support from above and below. 7. Standards—the perceived importance of implicit and explicit goals and performance standards; the emphasis on doing a good job; the challenge represented in personal and group goals. 8« Conflict—the feeling that managers and other workers want to hear different opinions; the emphasis placed on getting problems out in the open, rather than smoothing them over or ignoring them. 20 9. Identity—the feeling that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member of a working team; the importance placed on this kind of spirit (pp. 81-82). In contrast, a factor analytic development of dimensions by Schneider and Bartlett. (1968) produced the following dimensions* 1. Managerial support. Similar to the factor of consideration found in the Ohio State studies. It refers to managers taking an active .interest in the progress of their agents, backing them up with the home office, and maintaining a spirit of friendly cooper ation. 2. Managerial structure. Refers to the manager requiring agents to adhere to budgets, be knowledgeable regarding sales material, and produce new customers. It tends to be a "sales-or-else" factor. 3* Concern for new employees. Most of the items are typified by a concern for the selection orientation, and training of a new agent. 4. Intra-agency conflict. Refers to the presence of ingroups or outgroups within an agency and the undercutting of managerial authority by the agents. 5. Agent independence. These items describe agents who tend to run their own business and do not pay much attention to management. 6. General satisfaction. Refers to the degree to which the agency sponsors periodic social get-togethers and the agents express satis faction with various management and agency activities (Campbell et al, 1970, p. 391). One difficulty in deriving climate dimensions is making a choice between searching for broad dimensions which are com mon to all organizations or including dimensions which have relevance to only limited numbers of organizations of the type being studied. Campbell et al (1970) felt that all studies to 21 that time had only given five or six common factors and were only able to agree upon four general factors which recurred regularly. Their synthesis of these factors is given below: 1. Individual autonomy. This is perhaps the clearest composite and includes the individual  responsibility. agent independence, and rules  orientation factors found by Litwin and Stringer, Schneider and Bartlett, and Kahn et al., res pectively, and Taguiri*s factor dealing with opportunities for exercising individual initia tive. The keystone of this dimension is the freedom of the individual to be his own boss and reserve considerable decision-making power for himself. He does not have to be constantly accountable to higher management. 2. The degree of structure imposed upon the position. Litwin and Stringer's structure; Schneider and Bartlett's managerial structure; Taguiri's first factor dealing with direction, objectives, etc.; and Kahn et al.'s closeness of supervision seem similar enough to be lumped under this label. The principal element is the degree to which the objectives of, and methods for, the job are established and communicated to the individual by superiors. 3. Reward orientation. Another meaningful grouping includes Litwin and Stringer's reward factor; Schneider and Bartlett's general satisfaction factor, which seems to convey reward overtones; Kahn et al.*s promotion-achievement orientation; and Taguiri's being with a profit-minded and sales-oriented company. These factors do not hang together quite as well as the previous two groups and seem to vary a great deal in breadth. However, the reward element appears to be present in all. 4. Consideration warmth and support. This dimension lacks the clarity of the previous three. Managerial support from the Schneider and Bartlett study and nurturance of subordinates from Kahn et al. seem quite similar. Litwin and Stringer's warmth and support also seems to belong here since apparently this is a characteristic attributable to supervisory practices. Taguiri's mention of 22 working with a superior who is highly com petitive and competent does not fit quite so easily, but nevertheless seems to refer to the support and stimulation received from one's superior. However, the human relations referent is not as clear as in the factors derived from the other studies (p. 393)• The importance of future agreement on what aspects of organizational climate will be of most value both theoretically and practically can hardly be understated. As is indicated by Campbell et al (1970, p. 385), other types of variables have only been able (at best) to account for one-half of the vari ability in managerial effectiveness. They also point out that what empirical evidence we have suggests significant environ mental effects and that there appears to be a consensus on the importance of situational variables. The revised theoretical personal action model of Porter and Lawler (1968, p. 165) does not allow explicitly for changes in organizational climate dimensions but it is not difficult to imagine relationships between some climate dimensions and such factors as role perceptions, perceived effort-reward proba bility, or intrinsic rewards. Vroom (1964, p. 26) with a dif ferent model for personal action includes an item for "situational variables: past" but this is not connected in a relational manner to other parts of the model. Suitably chosen organizational climate dimensions might well be able to sum marize "situational variables: past" and be used to explain changes in results from one study to another. The advisability of using agreed upon climate dimensions and measuring techniques 23 on all other studies of personal action or interaction models would possibly lead to satisfactory resolution of difficulties caused by apparent variations in study results and lead to more complete models which would take explicit account of climate (and other situational) dimensions. Thus far the discussion of leadership style and organizational climate has treated each of these dimension fields as quite separate and distinct. What of the relation ships and interactions? There has certainly been recognition of organizational climate dimensions as important moderating variables between leadership style and group performance or satisfaction. The theory building of Lawler and Porter (1968) and Vroom (1964) has implicitly recognized the need to consider situational vari ables in personal interaction models. The studies of Fiedler (196?), Wofford (1971)t and House (1971). give evidence of the importance of combining the knowledge of climate with that of leadership style. There would appear to be a general consensus on the importance of the interrelationships of climate and style when considering either set of variables in conjunction with many other variables. Causal Relationships between Leadership style and Organizational  Climate But, what of the causal relationships between leadership style and organizational climate? The general presumption is 2k made by many people that leadership style is a major deter minant of organizational climate. For example, Litwin and Stringer (1968) state, early on in their monograph, and without references, that "research findings indicate the manager is one of the major determinants of climate (p. 6)." There have been a number of studies which demonstrated correlations between leadership style and dimensions which could be considered as climate dimensions (e.g. Anderson, 1966), but the direction of causality has been presumed with little substantive evidence. One of the very few studies which attempted to verify a deterministic relationship from leadership style to organiz ational climate is that conducted by Litwin and Stringer (1968, Ch. 6). As will be indicated below the results could be dis counted because of the procedures used. Briefly, three simulated organizations were created where the only experimental differences were the leadership styles of the presidents. The presidents were instructed to maintain a rigid pattern of behaviour throughout the working periods of the simulated companies. One might ask, by analogy, the effect upon an experiment to measure social ease or tension in a formal dinner party situation where the host appeared wearing a propeller-topped beanie. The outcomes could vary substantially from one situation where the host was unaware upon entering that he was wearing a beanie and another where the host was advised that the beanie was not to be removed under any circumstances of social or other pressures. There were 25 repeated complaints by one experimental group (p. 140), that the job task was biased to a great extent both in the demands for innovation (p. 144) and the rule against the creation of inventories (p. 143), that may well have been justified. The studies of Fiedler (196?) or House and Rizzo (1972) would indi cate that appropriate leadership style may well depend on the nature of the task. In view of studies which note the im portance of expectations upon responses to leadership style (Scontrino, 1972; Kavanagh, 1972) one might also question the ability of the presidents to act consistently with this forced role at all times or if much of the results reflect responses to violations of expectations rather than to leadership be haviour per se. The most important ingredient missing in the study was any possibility for natural interaction. There was no possi bility in the experimental design that any situational, climate or other variable could have an impact upon leadership style. The artificial nature of the simulation is magnified when one realizes that each president was a member of the research staff and was possibly more concerned with creating the expected out comes and maintaining a specified style, rather than generating the best performance from their groups. If the above evidence of a causal relationship can be discounted and there is little if any other scientific evidence of a causal linkage it becomes apparent that the presumed re lationships should be demonstrated. In the words of Litwin 26 (!1968) the "analysis of behavioral accomplishment cannot be pursued within the confines of experiments which are based on the control and isolation of variables. At the sacrifice of experimental control, organismic adaptation must be.studied in situations representative of the natural habitat (p. 46)." The goal of this thesis, therefore, is to study the causal re lationships between leadership style and organizational climate in a representative habitat. More specifically, the research concentrates upon leadership style of legitimate leaders as described by the LBDQ dimensions of Consideration and Initiation of Structure and their causal relationships to organizational climate as perceived by group members in a natural environment. Plan of the Thesis The following chapter will cover the design of the study including a description of the setting, circumstances for initiating the study, questionnaire design, study procedures, and hypotheses to be tested. The third chapter gives numerical, graphical and verbal presentation of the results of the study in serial order, that is, roughly in order of analysis rather than being categorized in topic or hypothesis segments. The fourth chapter gives the conclusions derived from the results. In this chapter summaries of results as they relate to each hypothesis are given along with conclusions derived. Supple mentary findings and conclusions not directly related to the test of hypotheses are also presented, followed by a discussion 2? of the more important results of the study. The fifth chapter does not include any new material, but is a summary of the study, results, and conclusions, exclusive of the first chapter review of the literature on leadership style and organizational climate. 28 footnotes - chapter I As an example, the use of the door-to-door marketing channel by Avon cosmetics is likely to have pervasive effects on climate dimensions throughout the organization which will distinguish it from other cosmetic firms. 29 CHAPTER II Design of the Study This chapter will cover the design of the study with consideration of reasons for various procedures and the hypothe ses that were to be investigated. Before going into details,of the hypotheses, a general description of the subject company, the circumstances of the initiation of the study, questionnaire design, and distribution procedure will be given. Description of the Subject Company The subject company is, relatively speaking, a very large^" engineering consulting firm which provides a compre hensive range of engineering services from feasibility studies and estimates through to design, purchasing, contracting, con struction supervision, and start-up assistance. Historically the firm has specialized in one area of technology and has gained an international reputation for mill design and con struction in this field with projects having been handled on all continents. The organization of the departmental structure is 2 geared to handling major projects which utilize most depart ments though, at any one time, there are numerous small projects which may involve relatively few departments. There are five mechanical departments which correspond roughly to functional or technological divisions within the finished projects. An 30 example would be the steam department which handles all design requirements for steam generation, turbine installation, etc., as well as assuming responsibility for piping stress analysis throughout any project on all steam or other lines requiring such analysis. There are, as well, several other engineering departments which are responsible for their respective tech nologies irrespective of the mechanical or other area divisions in which they fall. Examples of these would be instrumentation, electrical, or structural departments. Another group of departments can be characterized as essentially non-engineering departments even though in many instances they are staffed and/or supervised by engineers. These would include the contracts, scheduling, estimating, accounting and purchasing departments, amongst others. There are also a few service departments such as personnel, engi neering records, and payroll which are not usually associated directly with project affairs. The overall structure of the organization could be characterized by J. D. Thompson's (1967, p. 80) definition of a task-force organization. For each major project there is a project engineer who assumes administrative control and respon sibility for an entire project. Above him there would normally be a project manager from the senior executive level of the firm who would monitor the project and act as the senior level liaison agent with the client. The project engineer would normally have a very small support staff (six or less, including 31 secretarial help) with functional leadership being provided by-project leaders (or their equivalent) from the departments. Each department has its own department head and its own geographical operating space. Specifically each department is separated physically from the others by being on separate floors, reserved and partitioned portions of floors, or even separate buildings. With few exceptions the functional aspeets of departmental work are carried out within the physical confines of the particular department. One exception recently has been a project in a new technology (for this firm) where numerous project leaders with subordinates from various functional de partments have been brought together in one location for the duration of a project. In the past this had been done on oc casion with normal projects when the project engineer wished to have more direct control of functional areas (particularly mechanical ones) without interference from department heads, but this had been seen as a limitation upon flexibility and has been discouraged on recent normal projects. Each project leader is thus faced with having to satisfy project require ments as well as those of the department head. As the situation is now the department heads have a great deal of autonomy. Within budget constraints, they have full control over hiring and firing, staffing for each project, physical arrangements and layout within their department. The department heads, if forced to conform to project requirements by a project engineer against departmental advice, can and do 32 opt out of responsibility for disregard of their advice. As might be imagined, department heads use a variety of procedures for maintaining control. In a few, all written communication into or out of the department is routed through the department head. At the other extreme one finds department heads using few formal controls, but depending on information from subordinates as to any exceptional circumstances while maintaining a role as general advisor and technical consultant. There are few formal rules concerning how and what is to be communicated to which department, but a very complex matrix of accepted norms of communication and priorities have evolved which normally preclude requirements for extensive po licing by the project engineers and their relatively small staffs. Though somewhat variable in their roles, the project leaders from the respective mechanical areas generally have a strong co-ordinating and communications function for all aspects of work which fall within their domain. The chief function of the project engineer and his staff Is that of defining and com municating client and project requirements, general multi-technology co-ordination, resolution of technical or other problems with the client, or resolving conflicting priorities amongst two or more functional departments when they arise. Although not common to all departments the following description of the organization of departments does hold for the three subject departments in this study and is character istic for most engineering departments in the firm. Each 33 department head has at least one assistant manager. As the department heads do a moderate amount of travelling, a recog nized temporary replacement is required in order to maintain smooth operation within the department. Other than this func tion the roles vary substantially from one extreme where virtually all directives and line communications pass through the assistants to the other where his function is primarily that of staff assistant with little line authority. Below them are project leaders who direct the functional aspeets of specific projects. Each project leader will have a group of engineers and draughtsmen who report directly to him or for larger groups there is division into sections, each of which is under a sec tion leader. These groupings are relatively stable and can last upwards of two years which could be the duration of work on a specific major project. At the end of a project, personnel are divided and placed into other current or just starting projects or, if timing is suitable, they may continue into a new project as a unit. These groupings are not rigid as personnel, par ticularly lower level ones, are shifted to meet changing labour demands through arrangements with the department head or are "borrowed" for short periods (one to three days) on an informal basis between project leaders to meet peak load requirements. The cheeking of drawings, calculations, etc. is usually per formed by senior personnel outside of a particular project group, who are often directing work on another project. The department head is usually the ultimate arbiter in any dispute 34 with respect to design or otherwise between project leaders and checkers, but it is not unknown that the authority of the de partment head be circumvented entirely by direct appeal, with out beat of drum, to the project engineer or client. There are also a few specialized groups in some departments who do not become attached to specific projects but are available on a pooled basis to all projects, and may be available directly to other departments without formal communication links through project leaders or administration within the department. An example of such a group is the stress analysis group of the steam department which is available directly to other mechanical departments for analysis, of all steam piping. The clerical and secretarial functions are also generally available to all parts of the department on a pooled basis. As might be expected there are a large number of people with specialized talents and/or experience throughout the company, who are available on an informal consultative basis for all projects (or feasibility studies) irrespective of their current formal role. Circumstances of Initiation of the Study Through contact with the personnel manager of the sub ject firm, the investigator had become aware of a desire to conduct a suggestion-box type questionnaire survey throughout the company. The idea of conducting such a survey had been generated from suggestions in Scott Meyer's (1970) Every  Employee a Manager where the utility of such a survey is pointed 35 out. The use of a similar survey by Truell (1979) also been a source of ideas. The proposal, in effect, was to have someone independent from the firm assist in preparation of a suitable questionnaire which would answer questions of value about needs or opinions of employees. It was also felt that independent tabulation was required in order to ensure anonymi ty, honesty, and credibility. As with the questionnaires previously cited, it was intended to provide direct feedback of all results to all par ticipants in the survey as well as to management. The research possibilities in such a survey were limited to a search for new variables or to a case study. What did arise as a matter of research interest, how ever, was the possibility of adding on a research instrument to the initial survey, which could be repeated at a later date to register any changes in organizational climate as a result of the other survey and the feedback of results. Further con sideration developed the requirement for feedback of results of the climate questionnaire as well as what we shall call the general questionnaire. Lastly, and most important from a re search point of view, was the addition of leadership style items to determine if any climate dimensions were related to leadership style and if the changes in climate that followed were indeed related to changes in leadership style. Once the general nature of what type of survey to be conducted was known, a proposal was made to the senior executive 36 of the firm. Approval was granted with the provision that de partment head approval would be required in all cases before conducting the survey. As this was somewhat of an experiment, the personnel manager also decided to restrict the size of the sample. Arrangements were then made with two department heads to conduct the surveys in their departments. As discussions continued with the department heads on development of the general survey, selection and modification of research instru ments continued. After some time it was also considered advisable in light of Becker's (1970) The Parable of the Pill to have a separate control group if a valid evaluation of change in our experimental groups was to be made. Becker's parable emphasised the inconclusiveness of studies conducted without control groups. For this purpose, arrangements were made to have a third engineering department take only the research por tion of the surveys with no feedback to be given to that depart ment until after the second survey had been completed. It should also be mentioned that the investigator was a former employee of the firm and that, in many respects, the investigator was unable to assume an expert referent position for interpretation of results such as would be the case if the investigator had been an experienced consultant or a recognized academic. Partial compensation was made, of course, by being more aware than an independent observer would be of problems, organization, and constraints facing the subject departments while making interpretations. With these factors in mind a 37 detailed discussion of the survey design can begin. Survey Questionnaire Design, a Description The general survey portion was developed over a period of three to four months by the joint efforts of the heads of the two experimental groups, the head of the personnel depart ment and the investigator. In the questionnaire booklet (see Appendix M) the final result may be seen as Parts III and IV of the survey. Part IV was separated to emphasize the interests of the personnel department in matters considered in these ques tions i that is to say, the department heads did not wish to have to deal with opinion in areas where they had no control. As can be seen, a wide range of topics was considered from detailed items about design standards, problems with other departments, or reference material to broad base open-end items concerning work evaluation, good aspects of the department or company, and requirements for improvement in the department or company. The personnel portion (Part IV) covered a range of topics from the istaff news and orientation course through to items concerning the fringe benefits offered by the company. As may be seen, Part I—Background. provides demographic information on respondents so that a comparison could be made with the sample population as well as providing a means of split ting data into groups of say "high" and "low" age, education, or service in the company. The research instruments with organizational climate 38 and leadership style formed Parts 11(A) and 11(B) of the questionnaire. The choice of organizational climate dimensions forces a commitment to a definition. The definition of Evan (1968, p. Ill) that "Organizational climate is a multidimension al perception of the essential attributes or character of an organizational system.", comes closest to what the investigator considered as most suitable for this study. The importance of individual perception as opposed to "objective" measures is highlighted in the following quotation from Evan (1968)» 3. Perception of organizational climate, whether real or unreal, have behavioural consequences for the focal organization as well as for elements of the organizational set. 4. Organizational members performing different roles tend to have different perceptions of the climate, if only because of (a) a lack of role consensus, (b) a lack of uniformity in role socializations, and (c) a diversity in patterns of role-set interactions. 5. Members of different organizational sub-units tend to have different perceptions of climate because of different role-set configurations, different sub goals, and a differential commit ment to the goals of sub-units compared to the goals of the organization as a whole (p. 113). The climate dimension items used are taken from amongst those developed by Rensis Likert (1967) and enunciated in his The Human Organization? Its Management and Value. They were developed chiefly as a means of providing feedback to management personnel about the state of affairs within their own organiz ation. For this reason they became useful in providing more feedback to the department heads along with information pro vided by the general portion of the survey. The items can also 39 be used as dimensions of organizational climate as has been demonstrated previously (e.g. Golembiewski & Carrigan, 1970a, 1970b). Not all items or scales from Likert's questionnaire were 3 used. The main criteria for elimination of scales was to eliminate questions which were not meaningful to engineers and/or were not appropriate to the level of employees who would partici pate in the study. The Likert questionnaire items were designed for and intended to be completed by management personnel. Most of the respondents in this study, however, were expected to be non-supervisory, and, in any event, to be unfamiliar with psy chological jargon. For these reasons, as well as in an attempt to shorten the survey, certain items were eliminated or modified. The inclusion of the performance-characteristics items was done for two reasons. It was believed that the feedback to managers on these items would be useful and relevant, but, per haps more important, it was believed that almost any study of organizational behaviour should include some information on relative performance of the groups studied, even if, as in this case, it was only on a self-rating basis rather than some more objective basis. The usefulness of the data to future re searchers looking for relationships between performance and other variables requires some measurement of performance that can be made only at the time of a study. The intent was to use the groups of questions in each category on an aggregate basis to arrive at eight dimensions of 40 organizational climate as followst 1. Character of leadership processes; 2. Character of motivational forces; 3« Character of communication processes; 4, Character of decision making processes; 6. Character of goal setting; 7. Character of con trol processes; and 8. Perceived performance characteristics. The instructions were also modified to provide responses on department, company, and the "ideal" climate (see Part 11(A) in Appendix M for particulars). The leadership style questions in Part 11(B) were taken from the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ)** developed in the well documented studies at Ohio State University (Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Only the items for Initiation of Structure (IS) and Consideration (C) scales were selected for use in this study. Initiation of Structure and Consideration were selected on the basis that both have previously been indi cated as dimensions having the most significant correlations with other organizational criteria (Korman, 1968; Evans, 1970). As shown in Part 11(B) of Appendix M, items from the two scales were arranged alternately with Initiation of Structure items being the odd-numbered questions while Consideration items were even-numbered questions. Instructions for using the LBDQ (Stogdill, 1963) indi cate that the name of the person being described be written down by the respondent to assure there is no mix-up in results. One of the department heads took exception to using this pro cedure with respect to project leaders, as he felt that there 41 would be sensitivity by these persons to being "evaluated." The investigator was confident that there would be little chance of error with regard to results on the department heads, but the usefulness of project leader results was substantially reduced by being unable to use the advised procedure. Before discussing the results, a description of the pro cedures for distribution and return of questionnaires will be given as well as a brief discussion of the hypotheses that were to be tested in the study. Procedure for Distribution and Return of the Questionnaire The questionnaires as shown in Appendix M were dis tributed to the experimental group, departments A and B, in the following manner. In each department the employees were brought together in a relatively open floor area. In turn, the head of the department, the head of the personnel department, and the investigator introduced the survey to the employees, giving some explanation of the survey and its value to the company and the employees. The head of the department emphasized his own desire to get the opinions of the employeesi the head of the personnel department emphasized the value to the company and employees, and indicated that the results of the survey would be coming back to them, as well as to the department head? and finally, the investigator emphasized the need for a high response rate and gave full assurance of anonymity with respect to individual responses. 42 The procedure was modified, of course, for our control group (department C). In this case the questionnaire distributed was as shown in Appendix M with the following exceptions. The introduction for the control questionnaire was different (see Appendix B) and pages 10, 11, 12 and 13 which included the gener al survey were deleted. The introduction of the survey to employees was also modified as they were not going to be seeing the results of the survey. The value of the survey for research purposes was therefore emphasized when it was introduced to the control group. In all departments the employees were able to pick up a copy of the questionnaire and an addressed and stamped envelope with which the survey could be mailed directly to the investi gator at the university without passing through company hands. In each case the employees were asked to do the survey on their own and away from work.-* The follow-up surveys were distributed 112 to 130 days later and were the same for all departments. As shown in Appendix B there was a new introduction, and a short set of questions asking about any perceived differences since the last survey, but the research portions (IIA and IIB) were left es sentially as they had been on the original survey. The pro cedure for distributing the follow-up survey was similar to that used before, with addressed and stamped envelopes again being provided. A schedule showing the relative timing of survey dis tribution, results release, and et cetera is given in Appendix A. 43 Hypotheses to be tested As design considerations of the study have not been stated explicitly up to now, it would be useful to consider them briefly before discussing the hypotheses that were to be tested. There were three subject departments within the firm being used, two as experimental groups and a third as a control. This could be described as a pretest-posttest control group de sign, but to be more precise it must be conceded that we have what Campbell and Stanley (1963) would refer to as a "nonequiva-lent control group design." As they indicate, control over internal sources of invalidity such as history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, selection, mortality should be con trolled by this type of design. As will be seen, however, selective mortality may cause problems in interpreting results from this study. Some question might also be raised on the instrumentation question as the circumstances for writing pretest and posttest for the control group were somewhat different. As the division into groups was predetermined by the real-world arrangement of departments, difficulties with statistical re gression would not be anticipated. The sources of external invalidity would be much as indicated by Campbell and Stanley (1963). There are possi bilities in the design for interaction of testing and the experiment, and effects due to reactive arrangements, though little difficulty was anticipated with interaction of selection of experimental and control groups as selection was made before 44 any testing associated with the study. With these factors in mind, detailed discussion of the hypotheses to be tested can be made. The central hypotheses to be tested concern the relation ships between organizational climate and leadership style. To be specific, it was expected that, H 1. There are high positive relationships between organizational climate dimensions for department heads and leadership styles of department heads. In terms of the two leadership style dimensions con sidered, it was expected that both Considerations and Initia tion of Structure are positively related to each of the eight a priori climate dimensions. Further to the above hypothesis it was also expected that, H IA. There are high positive relationships between organizational climate dimensions and the leadership styles of "project leaders". However, these relationships will not be as great as the relationships of hypothesis 1. The foregoing hypotheses would concur with ideas related to combined "task" and "people" orientation implied by such con cepts as the managerial grid (Mouton & Blake, 1969) where both task (Initiation of Structure) and people (Consideration) leadership orientations are expected to have pervasive effects on the climate and productivity of groups. 45 Similar hypotheses concerning the effect of project engineer leadership style on company organizational climate had also been considered. These would revolve around the assumption that many of the impressions of company climate resulted from contracts made along project lines. With the limitation to only three departments, however, valid leadership style scores of project engineers by project leaders within departments would not be possible. With respect to the experimental design, which was much like a pretest-posttest control as discussed earlier (p. 43), it was expected that, H 2. There will be a positive change in organizational climate resulting from the feedback to a group of the results from a suggestion-box type questionnaire. By the same token, changes in leadership style were expected. With relationship to H 1 and H IA, it was further expected that, H 3» There is a high positive relationship between the leadership style of department heads in one time period and the organization al climate of departments in a following time period. In essence the directionality of influence was to be tested in the event that a high correlation between the two variables existed. 46 The foregoing are the important hypotheses that were to be tested though, of course, relationships and findings bearing on other propositions were expected to become apparent once the data had been examined and appraised. In the following chapter will be found a presentation of results followed by a chapter presenting conclusions and discussion. 47 footnotes - chapter II Though not large by comparison with other classes of industrial firms, an engineering firm with more than six or seven hundred employees could be considered very large. 2 40 to 100 million dollar budgets. 3 For those who wish to make a detailed comparison, the following items were deleted from those listed in Appendix II of Likert (1967, p. 197)« lc, 2d, 3d(5), 3f(l), 3f(2), 5e(2), 5g, 7a, 8a, 8b, and 8c. The performance characteristics were taken from table 3-1(Likert, 1967, p. 24). Minor modifications to a very few other items were also made to suit the expected respondents. ^ The particular version referred to is Leadership Behavior  description questionnaire - form XII which is the fourth major revision of the questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963). 5 The company was not prepared to accept the cost of having the survey completed on company time. 48 CHAPTER III Results Introduction This chapter will present the results of the two sur veys as they have been described in the preceding chapter. The presentation of results will focus upon the theoretical impli cations as they relate to the hypotheses to be tested, but, will also include more general aspects particularly with respect to the first survey. The large amount of data and analysis materi al necessitates some divisions. After study of the cross-lag analysis results, it was decided to carry out a factor analysis of the climate questionnaire and re-analyse the data using factor analysis dimensions for climate rather than the a priori dimensions as would be indicated in the source of the climate questionnaire (Likert, 1967). The results using the a priori divisions will be used in presentation of the first survey re sults, but the use of factor analysis dimensions for both the first and second survey will follow the discussion of the factor analysis results. Please note that the following pre sentation of results is one which follows the sequence of development of the analysis rather than being categorical in terms of specific hypotheses. In the conclusions and discus sion chapter to follow, reference to supporting or nonsupporting results will be made prior to drawing conclusions. Numerical k9 results will also be divided between Appendices and the body of the text. In general, results which are required in order to follow the discussion will be found in the text; while material that would be of interest to more serious readers, who may wish to analyse the results from other perspectives, will be included in the Appendices. In the results and discussion to follow, extensive use is made of statistical tests. Virtually all computations and statistical tests were carried out using computer programs. A brief description of the computer facility and the programs used in this study are included in Appendix C. Though the weakness in some tests is recognized, an extensive discourse on the validity of relying exclusively upon these tests will not be undertaken as the topic is well covered by others (e.g. Morrison & Henkel, 1970). Suffice it to say that the investigator recog nizes the possibility of demonstrating that a "statistically significant" result or difference exists when no practical dif ference may exist (particularly with large samples) and, by the same token, "proof" of sampling from a common population may cause one to reject evidence of a practical difference (particu larly with small samples). The final judgement as to the rele vance of statistical tests must therefore fall to the investi gator taking into consideration the basic presumptions that must be made when any significance tests are performed. Fortu nately the TRIP program output gives statistical probability values (e.g. t-prob, F-prob) as well as the t or F statistics 50 so that the reader will not need to rely exclusively upon the investigator's judgement as to what is "significant" or "non significant". The use of the asterisk to hide information will thus he avoided, but will be used occasionally to flag more sig nificant figures. In general, in the discussion that follows, "significant" will normally refer to statistical significance at the 0.05 level. First Survey The results for all closed-end questions from sections I, III and IV will be found in Appendix M. The results of the open-end questions will be found in Appendix D and E. The res ponse rate for the entire sample on the first survey was 35% • This was divided almost equally in terms of numbers of respond ents from each department, but rather unequally in terms of percentage of response from each department. dept. A dept. B dept. C total population 98 49 72 219 responses 27 25 25 77 % response 27.6% 51% 3^.7% 35.2# TABLE I First survey responses Though accurate information on the total population was not available, it was generally agreed by the department heads 51 concerned that the sample was fairly representative. There was a bias in the sample towards having respondents who had higher education levels, higher age levels, and/or longer experience in the company than that of the population sampled from. It was also believed that the sample collected could represent employ ees with somewhat higher "loyalty" to the organization than that of the population sampled from. This possible bias will be discussed in more detail when conclusions are being made. For a general report on parts I, III, and IV of the survey, Appendix F should be referred to. This report was given to the department heads a short time (7 days) after the meeting held with the chief executive officer (day 43). The last page of Appendix F shows a sample of some of the more emotional or "in depth" responses to open-ended questions. This sample of responses was given to those who attended the meeting indicated above, in order to convey, in some manner short of distributing actual questionnaires (where handwriting might be recognized), the idea that many of the responses or numbers indicated through the relatively simplistic categorization carried out by the investigator, did not convey the depth of emotion being felt or being communicated by the respondent as he filled in his answers. In other words, it should be noted that substantially more emotional content should be attributed to the open-ended question results than might be attributed by looking quickly at the MVTAB program numerical output and the coding information. Along with the open and closed-end question results for 52 their own departments, the department heads were also given the profile and difference graphs shown in Figures 1 to 8 derived from average responses on the climate questionnaire (part 11(A)) both for their own departments and for the combined results. The department heads were also given the leadership style scores for their own departments along with the average results for all three departments. The scores on the profile line for any par ticular question from part 11(A) lines up with the bottom of the question number indicated on the left side of the graph. It should be noted that all scores indicated on the graphs or numerically elsewhere, are scores after inverting certain scales or scores so that a higher score was one which would be towards the Likert (196?) concept of type IV organization. The di rection of the scales is fairly easy to determine but, for convenience, the scales going from right(1) to left (20) (i.e. the scales inverted for scoring) are marked with an aster isk. The t-test tables following each pair of graphs (Tables II to V) are recognized as being somewhat of an abuse of the use of t-tests but the t-prob values do provide a basis for comparing differences within one department and for comparing one depart ment against the other. In no sense should the t-prob values be taken as -significance values. The confidence intervals derived from the HOTEL (Hottelling T2) routine of TRIP would be needed for this purpose. When looking at the difference graph or t-test tables, it should be noted that the profiles for ideal(I) for all three h -- — --- --- -— -— -•A-f i • i 1 r 1 1 D _> f ft D b h r f JL 'r "» i f • 1 J T L 1 :H 1 IT 1 ..rr V 1 U T cr i i t i T i c 1 r r 1 V in + • JH T 1 D I - 1 D t 1 r t >i T • • i •b Til • 1 N Ml > r •b > / > r _ _ K i 1 3 fi r 1 ri > > f < d 1 r + Y i IN f 1 r 1 1 1 * / • c 1 1 1 N r 1 t 1 Q • & T 1 & n / i H i 1 t 1 1 - t t .. i f 1 1 -C h i t T T 1Q- i r 1 Hi 1 V / i 1 I 1 rr y U-m i i U T 1 1 r I I L r T 1 i \ f 1 r 1 tit a. i or 1 r 1 P \ D -HI- > L/t i r_ r 1 Y Ideal minus Dept. — U 5- i • 1 r f 1 ( 1 / i -f- Dept. minus Co LP r 1 \ \J f i LL 1 1 J 1 Ideal minus Co n 1 i V f 9 U i i i. vl_ j-i i or 1 If 1 1 n J J P r i 1 i ' t r 1 r h .i L J 1 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0. DIFFERENCE 6.0 a.o io.o FIG. 2 Average differences in climate values, Dept. A 55 r ABL E IDEAL MINIS COM PAY **l'.if:PT. A ** NAME NAME T-VALUE D . F . TPR03. FPRDB. FORMULA 1 AC STB VS . lACf.T B 5 . C 9 P. 21 0.000' lBCf.TP VS. IOCS TP 6 .56 7 20 0.000 ICDl SC VS. ICDl SC 6. 4 34 21 0.00 0 IDG EI L) VS . IDGEIC 6 . 6 5 9 21 0. 000 2AMOTJ VS. 2 A MOT I 5 .8 36 1 7 0.000 2BUSFD ' VS. 2BUSED 7.197 18 0. 00 0 2CATIT VS . 2CAT IT 9 . 37 2 19 COCO 2DRE SP VS. 2DRFSP 7.470 20 0 .000 2EATM F VS . 2EATME 9. 057 20 C.000 2 F S A T F VS . 2 FS ATF 9 .360 20 0. 000 3AC IJMU VS. 3ACGMU 6. 3 86 21 0.000 3BDRTN VS . 3BDRTM 6.178 l<=> 0.000 3C 101N VS. 3 CIDIN 4 . 320 17 0 .00 1 3C2DSH vs. 3C 20 SH 6. 280 2 0 0.000 3C3CAC vs. 3C3CAC 5.23 0 20 0. coo 3D1UAD vs. 301UAC 6.31 9 20 0.000 3D 2 UKE vs. 3D2URE 6.26 8 19 n 'ino o • >.J \J 3D3UDS vs. 3D3UDS • 6 .220 16 0. 000 3D 4 UAC vs. 3D4UAC 4. 802 19 0 .000 3ESADF vs. 3ESADE 6. 106 21 C. GOO 3FS&0N vs. 3f SAD?.' 6 .7 10 21 0.000 3GFRIE vs. 3GFRIE 4. 6 38 20 0.000 4 A A I NT vs. 4A.AINT 5.407 20 O.COO 4BTE AM vs. 4BTEAM 4.958 20 0 .000 4C1INF vs. 4C 11 N F 5. 259 14 0.000 4C2INB vs. 4C2 INB 5.725 19 0.000 401 ACT vs. 4DIACT 4 .701 15 0.000 4EEFST vs. 4FEFST 5.378 15 0.00 0 5 ADF. CI vs. 5ADECL 3 . 6 3 8 18 0. 00 2 5BD I NF vs. 5B0INF 6. 52 2 17 0 .000 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 6.611 21 0. coo 5DTEPR vs. 5DTEPR 4.47 2 20 0. 000 5EBLE V vs. 5EBLEV 3.051 1 3 0.007 5FJNVO vs. 5F INVO 6. 6 44 21 0. 000 6AGCLS vs. 6AGOLS 6 .550 20 0.000 6BGLE V vs. 6BGLE V 7. 899 17 O.COO 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 5. 134 15 0.000 7ACCNA vs. 7 ACONA 6 .078 18 O.COO 7BC0NC vs. 7BC0NC 4.121 16 0.001 7 C 1 N F 0 vs. 7C INFO 3. 746 11 0.00 3 7DPUM I vs. 7DPUNI 4 .473 17 0.000 8 APR (j D vs. SAPRUD 9. 365 20 0. 000 8BABSC vs. 8BABSC 7.95 0 16 0.000 8C wA ST vs. 8CWAST 5. 363 13 0.000 3DIMSP vs. 80 IMSP 4. 430 15 0.001 TABLE II Climate item t-tests, Dept. A TABLE. DEPARTMENT MINUS IDEAL NAME: NAME T-VALUE D.F. **OEPT. A ** T PROP. . EPROB. FORMULA 1AC&TB VS. 1ACCT B 4.C29 22 0. 001 1BC&TP VS . 1BCSTP 5 .245 22 . 0.000 1CDISC vs. 1CDI SC 3. 364 22 0 . C 0 3 IDG E I 0 vs. 1DGF I D 4.52^ 2 2 0. 000 2AMOTI vs. 2 A MOT I 6 .239 17 e.ooo 2BUSED VS . 2BUSED 5. 991 18 0 .000 2CAT IT vs. 2CAT IT 6 .5 76 20 0. 000 2DRE SP vs. 2DRESP 7.333 22 0 .000 2EATMF vs. 2EATME 7. 729 22 0.000 2 F S A T F vs. 2 FS AT F 7 .89 5 22 0.000 3ACOMU vs. 3ACQMU 6. 589 22 0 .000 3 B DR T N vs. 3B0RTM 5. 272 20 o. ooo 3 C1 D I N vs. 3 CI DI N 1 .889 13 0 .072 3C2DSH vs. 3C 2D SH 4. 988 21 0 .000 3C3CAC vs. 3C3DAC 3.533 2 2 0.002 3D1UAD vs. 3D1UAD 4 .74 9 22 0 .000 3D2UR E vs. 3D2URE 5.2 74 2 1 0.000 3D3UDS vs. JD3UDS 5 .49 7 13 0. 000 3D4UAC vs. 3D4UAC 3.818 20 0 .001 3ESADE vs. 3ESADE 6.410 2 2 0. 000 3 FSADN vs. 3FSADN 6.3 28 22 0.000 3GFP I F vs. 3GFRIE 2. 182 21 0.039 4 A A I N T vs. 4AA INT 5. 243 21 0.000 4BTEAM vs. 4 BTCAM 5 . 183 21 0 .000 4C11NF vs. 4C1TNF 3. 971 15 0 .001 4C2IN0 vs. 4C2INB 4.520 20 0. ooo 40I AC T vs. 41.) I ACT 4.172"" 15 0.001 ' 4EEFST vs. 4EEFST 5. C54 15 0.000 5 ADECL vs. 5ADECL 3.549 19 0. 002 5B0INF vs. 5BDINF 6 . 152 18 0 .000 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 6. 904 22 0. 000 5DTEPK vs. 5DT EPR 4 .38 3 20 0.000 5EBLEV vs. 5EBLEV 2.79 5 19 0.011 5FINVC vs. 5F INVO 4. 59 7 22 0.000 6 AG 01. S vs. 6AG0LS 5. 763 21 0.000 6BGLEV vs. 6BGLEV 4. 512 18 0.000 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 3 . 801 16 0. 002 7AC ONA vs. 7ACQNA 6 .068 18 0.000 ' 7BOONC vs. 78C0NC 2.187 16 0.042 7 C I N F 0 vs. 7 C INFO 3.458 11 0.005 7DPUNI vs. 7DPUNI 4 .627 18 0 .000 SAPKG 0 vs. 8A PROD 7. 172 21 0. 000 8BABSC vs. 8BABSC 6.329 13 0.000 8C WAST vs. 8C WAST 4. 8 59 20 0.000 8D1NSP vs. 3D INSP 4.719 17 C. 000 TABLE II - (continued) TABLE DEP T. MINIS C CM F ANY 57 **OEPT. A ** N A M E NAME T-VAL UE D . F . TPROB. FPROR. FORMULA 1AC f.TB VS. 1AC&TB 2. 91 3 22 0.008 1BC?.T P VS . 1QCSTP 3.54 1 • 21 0. 00 2 ICO I SC vs. 1 GDISC 4 .390 22 0.000 1 DC E I D vs. 1DGEID 5. 183 22 0.000 2 A M GT I vs. 2 AMOT I 1 .39 2 18 0. 178 2BOSED vs. 2BUSE0 3.45 5 20 0 .003 2CAT I T vs. 2CAT I T 3. C 3 2 20 0 . C C 6 2DPESP vs. 2ORES P 2.776 21 0.011 2EA TME vs. 2EATME 4. 22 8 21 0.000 2FS AT F vs. 2FSAT F 2. 796 21 0. CIO 3 A C. C M U vs. 3AC0MU 2 .974 22 0 .C07 3BDRTN vs. 33 DR T N 8. 3 96 21 0 .00 3 3C1DIN vs. 3C1DIN 3.117 18 0.C06 3C20SH vs. 3C2CSh 5.732 21 0.000 3C3DAC vs. 3C3DAC 5. 53 0 21 0.000 3D1UAC vs. 3 01U A D 6.219 21 0. 000 3D PURE vs. 30 2URE 4.59 7 20 0.000 3D3UDS vs. 3D3UD S 1.932 1 7 C. C67 3 04 UAC. vs. 304UAC 3.29 8 20 0.004 3ESA0E vs. 3E SADE 2. 961 22 C .007 3 FS A DN vs. 3FSADN 2. 45 9 22 0. 021 3GFRI E vs. 3GFRIE 3 .778 2 2 0 .001 4A A I N T vs. 4AA1 NT 2.919 21 0 .00 8 4BTEAM vs. 48TEAM 3.835 21 0.001. AC 1 INF vs. 4 CI INF 4 .6 20 16 0.000 4C 2 I N B vs. 4C 2 INB 5. 101 20 0.000 4 DI ACT vs. 4DI ACT 1.358 18 0.C77 4EEF ST vs. 4EEFST 1. 553 16 0. 137 5ADFCL vs. 5A DEC L 1.431 20 0. 165 5BDINF vs. 5 BDINE 2. 595 19 0 . C 1 7 5CA WAR vs. 5C AWAR 3. 701 22 0.001 5DT EPR vs. 5DTEPR 2.994 21. 0.CC7 5 E B L E V vs. 5EBLEV 2.222 19 0.037 5FINVO vs. 5FINVO 5. CO8 22 0.000 6AGCLS vs. 6 A GO LS 4.162 21 0. 000 6BGLEV vs. 6BGLEV 2 .669 18 0.015 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 3. 546 16 0.00 3 7ACCNA vs. 7 AGON A 3.40 7 19 0.00 3 7BC0NC vs. 7BC0NC 4.69 3 16 C.000 7CINF0 vs. 7C INFO 1. 040 11 0. 322 7 0 PUN I vs. 7 0PUN I 2.216 17 0.039 8APR0D vs. 8A PROD 4. 1 76 21 0 .000 8BABSC vs. 8BABSC 2. 109 17 0. 048 8CWAST vs. 8CWAST 3.418 19 0.003 8DINSP vs. 8DINSP 1. 588 1.6 0.129 TABLE II - (continued) pf--r m ~4-TO Si H- Y H- ~H-4_ 59 4- -+-Y* IY r-i-i -TET -h Y IY 3ft Y= 5t B; a :r2 Y •+--ff 3 Y EE Y 4fl TB #12 Y Y rY tY t Y l4f Y Y 6$ Y Y •te rn ft r. Y Ideal minus Dept; Dept. minus Co. ; j Ideal minus Co. m B £ 0: Y iY -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 DIFFERENCE 6.0 8.0 10.0 FIG. 4 Average differences in climate values, Dept. B TABL F. NAME 1 DEAL NAME MINIS CCMPAY T-VALUE D.F. * * D E P T. B ** TPROB. FPROB. FORMULA 1 AC STB VS. 1ACCTB 5 . C 4 0 2 2 C. COO 1BCSTP VS . 1BGSTP 7.145 • 22 O.COO 1CDISC VS. 1CDI SC 6. 6CO 2 2 0.000 lDCElO VS . IDG EID 6. 89 5 2 1 O.COO 2 A MOT 1 VS . 2 A MOT I 4.158 17 0 .00 1 2BUSED VS. 2BUSED 3. 649 .1.4 0.003 2C AT IT VS . 20AT IT 10.331 19 O.CO 0 2D RE SP VS. 2DRESP 10.788 21 O.COO 2E ATME VS. 2EATME 8. 859 21 0.00 0 2FSAT F VS . 2 FS AT F 9.021 20 o. ooo 3ACGMU VS. 3AC0MU 8.412 2 2 0.000 3B0R TN VS. 3BDRTN 4 . C 4 1 22 0. C01 3 CI DIN vs. 3 C 1 DI N 4 . 26 1 20 0.000 3C2DSH vs. 3C 2DSH 8. 866 22 0.000 3C3CAC vs. 3C3DAC 7.402 20 0.000 3 01UAO vs. 3DIUAD 4 .30 8 20 0.000 3D 2LIRE vs. 3D2UR E 6.214 21 0.000 3D3UDS vs. 3U3UDS 5 .429 1 9 0.000 3D4UAC vs. 3D4UAC 7 . 139 16 0.000 3ESADE vs. 3ESADE 8.3 12 19 C.000 3FSADN vs. 3FSADN 6 . 561 19 0.000 3GFRIE vs. 3GFRIE 6.315 20 0.000 4AAINT vs. 4A A IN T 11.520 20 0. 000 4BTEAM vs. 4BTEAM 9 . 109 19 0.00 0 4C 1 INF vs. 4C1INF 3. 862 15 0.002 4C2INB vs. 4C2IN B 7. 249 20 0. 000 4DIACT vs. 4DIACT 5.433 16 0.0 00 4EEF ST vs. 4EEFST 7. 509 17 0. 000 5A0ECL vs. 5ADECL 3 .080 19 0. 006 5BDINF vs. 5B0INF 8 .562 18 0 .C 00 5CAWAR vs. 5C AWAR 9. 163 21 0.000 5DTFPR vs. 5DTEPR 9.111 13 O.COO 5EBLEV vs. 5EBLE V 5 . 107 16 0 .000 5F INVO vs. 5F INVO 8. 127 21 0.000 6AG0LS vs. 6AG0LS 7.960 21 0.000 6BGLEV vs. 6BGLEV 4.714 17 0.000 . 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 3. 578 17 0. C02 7 ACONA vs. 7ACQNA 7 .827 13 0.000 7BC0NC vs. 7BC0NC 3.678 1.9 0.00 2 7CINF0 vs. 7C INFO 1.997 15 0. 062 70 P UN I vs. 7DPUNI 4 .79 6 17 C .000 8 APKO D vs. 8APR0D 9. 185 20 0.000 8BABSC vs. 3 BARSC 7.358 19 0. 000 8CWAST vs. 8C WA S T 8.723 22 0.000 8DIN SP vs. 80 INSP 4. C61 16 0.001 TABLE III Climate item t-tests, Dept. B 1 " A 13 I E IDEAL MINUS OEP ARTMENT **DF.PT. 8 ** 61 NAM E NAME T-VA CUE D.F. TPROB. FPROR. FORMULA lACf. TR VS. 1ACSTB 4 .98 2 2 3 0.000 13CUP VS . IDC £TP 6. 474 2 3 • 0. ( 00 1 CP I SC vs. icois C 5 .Aft 2 2 3 0. 000 1DGE10 vs. 10GEID 5.77 5 2 3 0 .000 2 AMOT I vs. 2A MOT I 4.995 19 0. 000 2 BUSED vs. 2 BUS EG 4.017 15 0.001 2CATI T vs. 2C A T IT 11.625 20 o.roo 2 OR ESP vs. 2 0 R ESP 10.89 5 23 o. coo 2 EATME vs. 2 E AT M E 9 .651 21 0.000 2FSATF vs. 2F SA TF 1 1.C85 21 0. 000 3ACCMU vs. 3A COMU 7.305 22 o.coo 3BDRTN vs. 3 h ORTN 2 .946 22 0 .007 3C1DIN vs. 3C ID IN 2. 861 21 0.0 09 3C2 0SH vs. 3C2DS.H 7. 127 23 0. 000 3C 3DAC vs. 3C3DAC 6.928' 21 o.coo 3D1UAD vs. 3D ILIAD 6. G57 21 0. 0 00 3 02 LIRE vs. 302URE 4.97 7 21 o.coo 3D3UD S vs. 3D3U0S 4. 84 2 19 0 .000 3D4UAC vs. 3D4UAC 5. 485 20 0. 000 3 E S A 0 F vs. 3ESADE 10 .047 20 0 .000 3FSADN vs. 3F SAON 7. 246 18 o.coo 3GFRIE vs. 3GFRIE 4.568 2 3 0.000 4AAINT vs. 4AAINT 9 .330 20 0 .000 4BTEAM vs. 4B TEAM 5. 63 8 20 0.000 4C1INF vs. 4C1 INF 2.615 15 0. 019 AC2IN8 vs. 4C2 1MB 5.67 4 21 0.000 401 ACT vs. 4D IAC T 7.24 2" 17 "o.coo ' 4EEFST vs. 4EEFST 6 . 10 7 17 o.coo 5ADECL vs. 5A DECL 1.032 20 0.315 5BDINF vs. 56 0 INF 8. 35 4 20 0.000 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 7 .894 22 0.000 50 TE PR vs. 50 TE P R 5. 409 1 9 0.000 5EBLEV vs. 5FBLEV 3.433 18 0.00 3 5FINVO vs. 5F I NVO 7 .250 22 0 .000 6AG0L S vs. 6AG0LS 5. 352 21 0.000 6BGLEV vs. 6BGL EV 3 .699 18 0.002 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 2 .886 17 0.0 10 7 AGON A vs. 7AC0NA 7. C99 18 0.000 7BCCNC vs. 7BCONG 1 .20 8 18 0.24 2 7CINF0 vs. 7C I NF 0 2. 121 16 0.048 7DPUM I vs. 70PUN I 3. 522 18 0.0 02 8APRGL) vs. 8 APROD 8 .20 3 22 o.coo 8DABSC ' vs. 8BABSC 5. 620 21 0 .000 8CWAST vs. 8CWAST 7. 076 22 0. 000 80 INSP vs. 801NSP 3.410 19 0.003 TABLE III - (continued) TABL E DEPT . MINUS COMPANY ••DEPT. B ** 62 NAM E NAME T- VALUF D. F . TPROB. F PROB. FORMULA 1AC&TU VS. 1AC&Tfi -0.47 2 23 0.646 lBCf.TP VS. 1BC&TP ] . 24 5 2 3 0.224 1 C D IS C vs. 1CDISC 2.656 23 0.014 1DGE I 0 VS. 1DGEID 1.. 5 2 3 22 0.138 ' 2AMGT I vs. 2AMOT I - 0 . 6 c 3 18 0. 522 2 BUSED VS . 2 BUS ED -0. 158 15 C . £ 5 0 2C A T I T VS. 2CATI T -0.157 2 0 0.850 2 DH ESP VS . 2D RE S P 1. 1 99 22 0. 2 42 2EATMP VS . 2 E AT M E 0 .896 23 0.38 3 ?FSA TF v-s. 2F SA TF 2. C2A 21 0.05 3 3 AC C MU vs. 3ACOMU 1 .480 23 0.149 3BDRTN vs. 3B OP TN 2 .06 5 2 3 0 .04 8 3CI.D1 N vs. 3C 1D I N 2. 83 4 21 0.01 0 3C2DS H vs. 3C2DS h 1.925 2 3 0. 064 3C3DAC vs. 3C3DAC 2.870 2 2 0.02 6 3D1UAD vs. 3D1UAD 0. 547 22 0. 596 3C2URF vs. 3D2URE 2 .739 2 3 0.011 3D3UD S vs. 3D 3UD S 1.579 2 0 0.127 3D4UAC vs. 3DAUAC 0.55 9 1.7 0. 59 0 3 E S A 0 E vs. 3ESADE 0 .6 14 22 0.552 3FSADN vs. 3F SADN 2.13 2 20 0.045 3GFP.I E vs. 3GFR I E 3.579 21 0. 00 2 4AA1NT vs. AAA I NT 1 .799 21 0.08 3 4BT E AM vs. AB TEAM 3 . 302 2 3 0.00 3. 4C1INF vs. AC1 INF 2.332 16 0.032 AC 2INB vs. AC 2 INB 2.299 22 • 0 .03 0 AD I ACT vs. AD I ACT -0.735 17 0.4 79 AEFFST vs. AEEFST 2. 19 1 13 C.040 5ADECL vs. 5ADFC L 2. 678 21 0.014 5BDT NF vs. 5B D IN F 2. 020 20 0. 054 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 1 .670 22 0. 106 5DTE PR vs. 5DTEPR 2. 705 21 0.013 5EBLEV vs. 5FBLEV 3.275 17 0.0C4 5F I NVO vs. 5FINVO 2.87 1 2 2 0 .009 6.AGOL S vs. 6AG0LS 1 . 370 22 0.181 6BGLEV vs. 6BCLEV 2.157 13 C. 04 3 6CGACR vs. 6CGAC P. 1.12 1 19 0 .2 76 7ACOMA vs. 7ACONA 2.358 19 0. 02 8 7BCCNC vs. 7BCONC 3.089 19 0.006 7C INFU vs. 7C I NF 0 -C.550 1 5 0 .596 7 DP UN I vs. 7DPUN I 4. 167 13 . 0.001 8 APRUD vs. 8APKOD 2 .9 29 22 0 .00 8 8BABSC vs. 8BA3SC 5. 200 20 0. 000 8CWAST vs. SOWAST 2.393 24 0. 02 4 8DINSP vs. 3D INSP 1.062 19 0 .30 2 TABLE III - (continued) tez B £: :2ft: J3._ rt: ::&: ±: F: 3ft: 'St m 1 ±6 z± TF~ ifl ft -2.0 :1: 5: HP a 3i afc: ft t6 it Y Y: Yt _Y 1 LY Y fee id 55 :Y Yi LY 3£ Y S he 5$ Y Ideal minus Depti + Dept. minus Co. | Ideal minus Co. Y 0.0 2.0 4.0 DIFFERENCE 6.0 8.0 10.0 FIG. 6 Average differences in climate values, Dept. C 1 A B 1 1. E IDEAL M 1 NLS COf-' P AY **DEPT. C ** ^ N A V 1- N AM E T - V A L U E 0 . F . TPROH. FPPUB. FORMULA lACf.TR VS. lACf.TR 5 . 6 c n 18 0.00 0 lRf£TP VS . iRC.r.ru 6. CA? 17 0.000 LCD I SC VS. 1COIsc 6 . A 0 8 17 0.000 1DG E I •) vs. 1DGEID 7.217 17 0. 000 2 A KPT ! vs. 2 AMOT I 6 . 20 1 1 A C.000 2RUSt- D vs. 2PUSE D A . A 9 A 16 0.000 2CATIT vs. 2CATIT 6.8A1 17 C. 000 2DRESP vs. 2DRES P 6 .78 8 18 0.000 2E A T'-iE vs. 2EATME 5. 303 1 7 C .000 2 F S AT E vs. 2ESAT F 5. 4 6 7 13 0.000 3ACC^U vs. 3 AGO Ml) 7.73 1 18 0.000 33OR TN vs. 3BDRTN 5. 8 84 1 1 0.000 3C1D IN vs. 3C1DIN 1. 30 9 17 0.08 5 3C2DSH vs. 3 C 2 0 S F 7 .08 7 17 C .000 3C 3D AC vs. 3C3DAC 1 1. 45 7 17 C.000 3D1UAD vs. 3DIUAD 5.79 5 1 7 0.000 3D2URE vs. 3D 2 LIRE 6.175 16 0.000 3D3U0S vs. 3D3UDS 7.060 17 C. 00 0 3DA UAC vs. 3OAUAC 8 .5 56 13 0.000 3ESADE vs. 3ESADE 5.112 1 3 o.coo 3FSADN vs. 3FSADN 6. 233 17 0.000 3GFRIE vs. 3GFRIE A. 20 3 19 . c.ooi 4A A I T vs. AAA I NT 7 . 61 A I 7 0.000 AST EAM vs. ABTEAM 6.76 6 1 7 0.000 4C1INF vs. 4 C1 INF 5.514 18 0.000 4C 2 I N e vs. AC 21 N B 6. 2A0 16 0.000 4 CI ACT vs. AD I ACT 3. 27 5 16 0.0C5 4EEEST vs. AEEFST 6 .601 15 0.000 5ADECL vs. 5A DEC. L 2. 897 17 c. 01 0 5BDINF vs. 5BDINF 7 .9 26 16 0. 000 5CA WAR vs. 5CAWAR 7.8A1 17 0.000 5DTEPR vs. 50TEPR A. 736 17 c. 000 5EBLEV vs. 5EBLEV 7 .829 16 0 .000 5F .1 N VO vs. 5EINVO 7. A59 17 0.000 6AG0LS vs. 6AG0L S 7. 701 17 C. 000 6BGLE V vs. 68GLEV A .W29 17 o.coo 6C GACR vs. 6CGACR 3. 03 6 15 0.C08 7ACCNA vs. 7 ACON A 6.88° 18 0.000 7BCCNX vs. 7BCONC 1.86 3'"' 16 ' 0.078 7CIMFO vs. 7C INFO 6. 150 15 C. 00 0 7 DP UNI vs. 7DPUN I 3.557 17 0 . 0 0 2 8APROD vs. 3APR00 7.97 8 17 0 .000 8BABSC vs. 8PABSC 6 . 6 fl 1 1 7 C. 00 0 8CWAST vs. 8 C W AS T 5.017 17 0.000 8DI N SP vs. 8DINSP 1. A95 1 1 0.150 TABLE IV Climate item t-tests, Dept. C TABLE. IDEAL MINUS D EP A.R TMEN'T t- *0E P T . C * * N A M E N AM E T-VALUE o. P . TPROB. FPROB. FORMULA I AC f. T B VS. 1ACKTB A. 2 82 19 0.000 1 R C K T P VS . lBCf.TP A . 6 8 8 13 0. 000 ico r sc. VS. ICO I sc. A .575 19 0 .000 1 UC EI D VS. 1DGE ID 5. 6A7 18 0 .00 0 2 A " l?T I VS . 2 AMOT I 6 . AhO 13 C. 000 2BUStD vs. 20 USED 3 . 8 8 6 17 0 .001 2CAT ! T vs. 2CAT I T 6.882 18 C. 000 2 CR ESP vs. 2ORESP 5.2 74 19 C.000 2EAT.ME vs. 2EATME 6. 536 17 0.000 2FSAT F vs. 2ESATF 6. 292 18 C. C 0 0 3ACO-M) vs. 3ACOMU 6 . 106 18 0.00 0 3BORTN vs. 3BDR TN A. 66 5 17 0.000 3 C1 0 t N vs. 3C1DIN 2.7C7 17 0. 0 1A 3C2DSH vs. 3C2DSF A .985 17 0 .000 3C3CAC vs. 3C 3D AC 6. A62 L6 O.COO 3 01U A D vs. 3 Dill AC A.650 17 0. 000 3D 2ORE vs. 3D2URE A . A 13 L6 o.coo 3 0 HUDS vs. 3D3UD S 7.901 17 0.000 3 DAUAC vs. 3DAUAC 6.8 36 18 0.000 3ESAUE vs. 3ESADE A. 82 5 18 o.coo 3FSADN vs. 3FSADN 5 . 569 17 0. 000 3GERIE vs. 3GFRI E 3.212 18 0.00 5 AAA I NT vs. AAA INT 5. 762 17 0.000 A BT E A i-1 vs. ABT F.AM 5.375 17 0.000 AC]INF vs. ACL INF 3.810 18 0.001 AC2INB vs. AC2INB A. A13 16 0.00 0 A 0 I ACT vs. AD I ACT 3.67A 16 ,0.00 2 AEEFST vs. AE Ec S T 5.77A 15 o.coo 5A0ECI. vs. 5A D EC L 2. 796 17 0.012 5 B 0 INF vs. 5 BD I NF 9 . 286 16 CO 00 SCALAR vs. 5C AWAR 7. 770 17 0.00 0 5 DTEPR vs. 5DTEPR A. 781 17 0. coo 5 E E LEV vs. 5EBLEV 5 . A A 1 16 0.000 5FINVO vs. 5FINV0 6. 279 17 0.000 6AGOLS vs. 6AGCL S 5.151 17 C.000 6BGLEV vs. 6 0GLEV A .6 30 17 o.coo 6CO ACR vs. 6CGAC.R 2.66A 15 0.017 7ACCNA vs. 7 ACON A 5.382 18 0.000 7BC0NC vs. 7BCGNC 1. 5 1A 16 0.1A6 7CINFO vs. 7C INFO 6. 901 15 c. 000 7 C PUN I vs. 7 0PUN I 3.303 17 O.OOA 8APE00 vs. 8APR.0D 5. A71 17 0.000 8EABSC vs. 8EABSC 7. 067 17 c.coo 8CWAST vs. 8CV;AST 3.506 17 0.C03 80 I MSP vs. 8D I N S P 0. 67A 17 0.516 TABLE IV - (continued) T A i BLE DE pr. M i N u s c n ?• p \NY **DFPT. C ** 67 KAf'i.- Iv AV E . T-\'/ ! ! !!• T»KOP.. FPUMR. FORMULA 1 At N! ' VS. I AC U l"R ]. p- 9 1 •' 0. 077 l r.C'-.T i-1 VS . 1B0CTP -0.6'-;l. 0 . 5 C 5 ICO] sc VS. L C 0 ISC 3 . * •'• 'S 13 0 .00 2 113'" F I 0 vs. 1 •*'••;! IP 0. 4 A 0 19 0. 06 8 2 A w: rr i vs. 2AMUT I -0 . <'.? ! 19 C. 6 1 0 26-0 36 0 VS. /' USE n 0.0 6 1 t. 7 0 . 5 2 4 2 C A T I 1 VS. 2CATIT -0.5 24 1. 8 0.612 2 OK s P VS . 2DKES P -0.4 24 1 9 0 .673 2EAT'-;F VS. 2E A. TM i -0.75^ 19 0.46 6 2FSATF vs. 2F SA TF - 1. 12 1 1 9 0.2 76 3 AC C K-U vs. 3 ACf'MU L . / 0 19 0 . 2 2 2 3R0R TN vs. 3PDRTN 1 . 4 H 19 9.156 3 C 1. 0 I N vs. 3 C. 3 0 I N -0.554 19 0.592 3C2DSI-! vs. 3 C 2 D S !' -0.040. L9 0.O2 0 3C 3!' AC vs. 3C3UAC CIS 8 1 7 0.825 3D1UAO vs. 3 D1U A C 1 . 64 0 19 0.U4 3D2UR E vs. 30 2UR E -3 19 0.001 3D -AtDS vs. 3D3UO S 1 . 320 19 C. 2 0 0 3D4UAC vs. 3DAUAC 0.21 5 19 0 .815 3ESA[ L vs. 3E SAOE 1 • 1 6 R- 1 3 0.259 3 FS A DM vs. 3FSADN 0.422 • 13 C • 6 8 0 3 G F K 1 F vs. 3GFR. 1 E 2 .288 18 0.033 AAA INT vs. AAA I NT 1. 0 5 6 1 8 0 .306 4BTEAO vs. '•PTE AM 1.53 0 1° 0. 139 4C1 I NF vs. 4C1 T NF 0 .266 19 0 .78 8 4C 2 I iv .3 vs. 4C 2 IN B 3.240 1 3 0.00 5 4 CI ACT vs. 4131 ACT -0 .0 79 17 0. 897 4EEF ST vs. 4CE!- ST 0. 8 39 17 0 .418 5 A OFT L vs. 5A DEC I. - 1 . C 7 6 19 0.2 96 5 30 1 NT vs. 5 3 D [ N F -0.000 14 0.95 1 5CAV;AR vs. 5C AWAR 1. 578 19 0.12 8 5D1 FPh vs. 5DTEPR 0. 9 B P 1.9 0.338 5EE I i V vs. 5E BLEV -0 .0 57 19 0.910 5F Ir-iVO vs. 5F I N V 0 0. 8hO 19 0.405 6 AGCIS vs. 0AGOES 0 . 9 8 3 19 0. 3 3 8 6 6 G L t V vs. 6 R.', LEV 1 .4 Y-i 19 0.1b 3 6C.C.AC vs. 60. GAG ft - 0.C93 1 7 0.888 7 ACCN -\ vs. 7 A CON A 0 .60 6 19 0.55 3 7Pr.i3.NC vs. 7BCUNC 1 .4-; 7 3.3 0.151 7CINFP vs. 7C INFO -0.4 H: 1 7 C. 644 70PUN ] vs. ,'i.PUN 1 -0.159 18 C . 8 49 8APKI D vs. 8APR0n 1 . R(- 9 19 0 .12 3 3 F A f S C vs. 8E A 3 SC. 1 . 3.? 2 1* C. 2 0 9 8 OAST vs. «COAST 2.2 ^ 6 19 9 .034 8D I N' SIJ vs. MO INSP 2. 100 I 9 0 .04 7 TABLE IV - (continued) rft: ±: itj: •2ft: iE: lift I ±1: 4 3C 4# 2 1 X :5t bt ir. ft 3d It IlHl •ft •Hit Y Ideal minus Dept7 4. Dept. minus Go. -I Ideal minus Go. TO it it -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 DIFFERENCE 6.0 8.0 10.0 FIG. 8 Average differences in climate values - All Depts, T A.BL E NA'T IDEAL MINUS CO^PAY NAME T-VALUE D.F. **PEPT. A + B + C ** 1 TPROB. ERROR. FORMULA I A C £ T P VS . 1ACCT B 9 .056 6 3 C.COO IBCC T" VS. lBCv'I TP 1 1. 4 A 4 61 O.COO 1 C 0 I s c VS . ICO I sc 1 I .04 1 6 2 C. oco IDG EID VS . 1DGE I 0 12.033 61 0 . 000 2AMCTr vs. 2A MOT I 9. 00 7 5'+ 0.000 ? BUS ED VS . 2BUSED 8 .733 50 C. 00 0 2C A T I T VS . 2CATI T 15.126 5 7 0.0 20R E SP vs. ?DR ESP 14.175 61 0.000 2EA] ME vs. 2EATME 13.217 60 C. 000 2FSATE vs. 2FSATF 13.321 60 o.coo 3ACO>'U vs. 3AC0MU 1 2. 9/,6 6 3 c.coo 3B0HTN vs. 3RDRTN 8.54 9 60 0. ooo 3C ID J N vs. 3C1DIN 5 . 750 5 6 0.000 3C2DS H vs. 3C 2DSH 12.685 61 c. 00 0 3C3DAC vs. 3 C 3 G A C 12 .40 6 59 0.000 3D1UAD vs. 3D 1UAD 9.130 5 9 0.000 3D2UR E vs. 3D2UE.E 10.871 58 0.000 30 3UUS vs. 3 03UDS 10 .7 29 54 0.000 3D 4UAC vs. 3D 4 UAC 11.2 79 5 5 o.coo 3 ES AGE vs. 3 ES AD E 10.9 20 60 0. 000 3F SADM vs. 3E SADN 11.204 59 0.000 3GFR I E vs. 3GFR. I E 8. 6 20 6 1 c. 000 4 A A [ N T vs. 4 A A TNT 12.944 59 0.00 0 4B TEAM vs. 4BTEAM 1 1. 43 3 5 8 0.000 4C1 INE vs. 4C 1 IN E 8.22 3 49 0. 000 4C2INB vs. 4C2I MB 11.0 28 57 0 .000 4DI AC T vs. 401 ACT 7.487 49 0.000 AFEF.ST vs. 4EEEST 11.355 4 9 C. 00 0 5 ADEC L vs. 5 A DECL 5 .621 5 6 0.000 5BDINF vs. 5 BDINE 13.277 53 0. 000 5 C AW A " vs. 5C AW AR 13.44 3 61 ' 0.000 5DTE PR vs. 5 D T E P P. 9.518 57 0 .000 5ERL EV vs. 5E8LE V 8.273 52 o .ooo 5FINVO vs. 5E I NVO 12.708 61 0.000 6AG0L S vs. 6AG0LS 12.547 60 0 .000 6BGL EV vs. 6BGLE V c>. 3 5 8 5 3 c.coo 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 6.663 49 0.000 7AC0NA vs. 7AC0NA 11.867 56 0.000 7 BOONC vs. 7BC0MC 5.4 78 53 C. 000 7CIMEN vs. 70 INFO 5 . 9 ^ 5 4 3 0 .000 70PUN I vs. 70 PUN I 7. 4^6 5 3 0.0 00 8 A P E 0 0 vs. 8 AP RO0 15.4 6 2 5 ) 0. 0 83 A P SC vs. 8BARSC 12.6 0 7 54 0.000 8CWAST vs. 3CWA ST 10.942 5 9 0.00 0 801NS P vs. 8DINSP 4.878 50 0.0 00 TABLE V Climate item t-tests, Combined results 71 TABLF IDEAL MINUS DEPARTMENT **DEPT. A+B+C ** NA" F NAME T-VALUE TPP03. PPROB. FORMULA 1ACE. i VS. 1 ACS re 7 .686 6 6 0.000 1 RCf. !••• VS . 1BCCTP 0.2 34 6 5 C. 00 0 ICDlSC vs. 1 C 0 I s c. 7 . 5 1 3 66 CO 00 1DGE 1 D vs. 1DGEID 8. 790 65 0.00 0 2AM0T I vs. 2A MOT I 10.054 5 6 3. 0 0 0 2 BUSH 0 vs. 2 BUS ED 7.8 80 8 2 0.000 2CAT1 r vs. 2C ATI T 13.314 60 0 .000 2 ORES P vs. 2DRESP 1 2.517 66 0. 000 2E A T •" E vs. 2 EAT ME 12 .083 6 2 0 .000 2FSA fF vs. 2F SA TF 1 3 . 4 0 8 63 0.000 3ACCVU vs. 3 A COMU 11.50 4 64 0. 000 3D0k TN vs. 3 6 DRTN 6 . 77 5 61 0.000 3Cl.niN vs. 3C 10 IN 4. 3 82 5 3 0.0 00 3C2 !)SH vs. 3C2DS H 0 .780 6 3 O.f 00 3C 3!)AC vs. 3C3DAC 8.8 83 61 0.000 3CIUAC vs. 3D 1UAD 8. 6 50 6 2 c.coo 3 02 UKE vs. 302UP. F 3.428 6 0 0.000 3D 3 Ui; S vs. 30 3UOS 10.157 56 0.000 3D4UAC vs. 3D4UAC 8.0 84 60 0. ooo 3ESADE vs. 3ESADE 11 .633 62 O.COO 3FSACN vs. 3F SA D N 10. c''t5 5 9 0.000 3GFP.IE vs. 3GFR I E 5.713 64 c. 000 4AAIN T vs. 4 A A I N T 10.755 60 0.000 4BT E AM vs. 4BTEAM 9. C36 60 c.coo 4C1INF vs. 4 C1 I N F 5.7 36 50 o.coo 4X21 N3 vs. 4C2I MB 8 . 455 5 9 0 .000 40 I ACT vs. 4DI ACT 7. 7 56 50 0.000 4EEFST vs. 4EEFST 9.955 49 0.000 5ADC-C L vs. 5ADECL 3. 841 5 3 0.000 5BDINF vs. 5 B D IN F 13.201 56 0. 000 5CAW.AR vs. 5CAWAR 12 .221 63 0 .(" 00 50TEPR vs. 5DTEPR 8. 468 5 3 0.000 5 EBLEV vs. 5 E BL EV 6 .44 1 55 0.000 5F INVO vs. f>F I NVO 10 . 163 6 3 0 .000 6AGPLS vs. 6AG0L S 9. 326 61 c.coo 6BGLEV vs. 6BGLEV 7.50 0 5 5 0.000 6CGACP vs. 6CGAGR 5 . 331 50 0.000 7 ACON A vs. 7AC0NA 10.813 56 O.COO 7BCCNC vs. 7BC0NC 2.634 52 0.011 7CINF 0 vs. 7C I NF 0 5. 872 44 0.000 7DPUN I vs. 7 0PUN I 6.245 55 0. 000 SAPROD vs. 8 A PROD 12.141 6 2 0.000 8BAB SC vs. 8BA3SC 1C.760 5 8 0.000 SCVi AST vs. 3CWAST 8.715 61 C.COO 8DINSP vs. 6DINSP 4 .066 55 0 .000 TABLE V - (continued) 72 TABLE DEPT. MINES GUMP ANY * * D F P T . A+B + C NA-'M; N A M E T-VALUE D.F. TPROB. FPROB. FORMULA 1 A C £ T B VS . 1ACCT R 2.438 6 6 0.017 iru.s T? VS. IBCCTP . 2 .586 6 5 0.0 12 ICO I sc VS. LCD I SC 6. C74 65 0.000 LDGE I 0 VS . 1DCEID 3.112 6 5 O.CO 3 ?. A f •* r n VS. 2AMOTI 0 .2 27 5 7 0.806 2 R i i S E 0 VS. 2BUSE0 2. 004 54 0. C4 3 2CAT IT vs. 2CATIT 1 . 290 60 0.199 2DRE SP VS. 2DRESP 1 . 948 64 0.053 2EAT!-' E VS . 2EATME 2. 26 2 6 5 0.02 6 2 F S A T F vs. 2FSAT F 1 .640 63 C. 102 3ACO>;'J vs. 3AC0MU 3.260 6 6 0.002 3 ROOT N vs. 3B0RTM 3.974 65 C. GOO 3C 1D I M vs. 3 C1 D I N 2 .859 60 0.006 3C20SH vs. 3C2DSH 3.185 65 0.00 2 3C3 CAC vs. 3C3DAC 3.953 62 C.000 3D1UAO vs. 3 01 UAD 4.011 64 0.000. 3D2UR c vs. 3D 2URE 6. 431 64 0.000 3 030 OS vs. 3P3UDS 2 . 830 5 8 0. 006 3D4UAC vs. 804UAC 2 .110 5 8 0 .0 36 3ESAGE vs. 3ESADE 2. 7 64 6 4 C. CC7 3 F S A C N vs. 3 F S ADN 2 .99 1 62 0. 0 0 4 3GFR I E vs. 3GFRIE 5. 57 8 63 0 .000 4 A A IN T vs. 4 A.A INT 3. 3 34 62 0.0 0? 4 B T E A M vs. 4BTEAM 4.877 6 5 C.COO 4C. 1INE vs. 4C1INF 3. 283 5 3 0.002 4C2I MB vs. 4C 2 IN B 5.754 62 0. 000 40)ACT vs. 4D I ACT 0.551 54 0.590 4EEF ST vs. 4EEFST 2. 686 53 0.009 5ADECL vs. 5ADECL 1 . 8C8 62 0.C72 5B0INr vs. 5BDINF 2 .5 57 59 0.013 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 4 . 01. 2 6 5 0.00 0 5 DT E PR vs. 5DTEPR 3.916 63 C. 000 5EBLEV vs. 5EBLE V 2.7 50 5 7 0 .00 8 5 F IN VO vs. 5FINVO 4.173 65 C. 000 6AG0LS vs. 6 AGO LS 3.527 64 0.001 6BGLE V vs. 6BGLE V 3.622 5 7 0.001 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 2 .463 54 C .016 7AC0NA vs. 7AC0NA 3.681 59 0.00 1 7BCCNC vs. 7BOON C 5.033 55 C.COO 7 C I N F 0 vs. 7CINFO -0 .COO 4 5 0.951 7DP0.V I vs. 7DP UN I 2. 797 55 0. 007 SAPROi) vs. 3A°ROO 4.332 6 4 0. 00 0 8B A^SC vs. 8BABSC 4.731 57 0.000 8 C W AST vs. 8C WA S T 4. 5 58 64 C. 00 0 8DINSP vs. 80 INSP 2.6 39 56 C. 010 TABLE V - (continued) 73 are almost identical over the entire range of questions. The only exceptions are as follows: ^(1), 3D(2)&(3), 7C, 8A-D. The first four items would incidate some moderate divergence as to what would constitute ideal quality or quantity of up ward communication as well as superior's awareness of his influence or the extent to which there should be an informal organization. These differences were not large especially when compared to others between department(D) and company(C) pro files. The above results thus indicated rather consistent views among the departments as to what would be considered an ideal climate. The differences between ideal and company clin mate are consistently significant in all departments across the full range of questions. The anomoly for 8D in department C would not appear to be out of order when one considers the large number of t-tests being conducted. The differences between I and D scores are consistently large over the range of climate items for all three departments. The higher t-probs in department B would indicate a greater de gree of satisfaction with regard to the level of decision-making (Q5A) or degree of concentration of authority (Q7B). The low t-value for 8D in department C could express a degree of satis faction with checking and/or policing policies. From observation of the profiles it is apparent that there are substantial differences between the departments on a variety of climate items. By direct comparison of profiles on a light-table further observations were made. The C profile 7k for department C would appear to be generally higher than that of either department A or B. The C profile for department B was roughly on the same average level as that of department A but was substantially higher or lower on many items. The D profile for department A, on the other hand, was consistently higher than for departments B or C, while both the D and C pro files for department C tended to fall within boundaries set by the D and C profiles of department A. Observation of the D minus C t-values and t-probs high lights these differences between departments. For department A there are only seven t-probs above 0.05 (out of k5) while for department B only 21 are below O.05 and, for department C, seven are below. For department C there are nine t-probs above 0,75 while in department B there are only two. The combined-results graph (Fig. 7) and t-prob table (Table V) indicate that only two or three items would be found which were the same for both D and C. These were the presence or extent of an informal organization(Q7C), underlying moti vations tapped(Q2A), and influence of department heads(Q4D). For the leadership style scores on the first survey the reader will need to look forward to the second survey results (Table XIII) where they are presented in tabular form for com parison with the second survey results. It should be noted that asterisked items in part 11(B) had the scores adjusted to reverse the scales. The principal theoretical interest, of course, was the 75 relationship between leadership style and department organic zational climate. The correlation matrix for data from the first survey is presented in Table VI. The matrix includes all climate items, the leadership style scores for project leaders (INSTRP and CONSIP) and department heads (INSTUD and CONSID) as well as the organizational climate dimension scores calcu lated on the a priori scheme. These scores are simple averages, in each case, of all questions numbered one, two, . • • , eight. Following the correlation matrix will be found the means and standard deviations (Table VII) for all of these variables. A matrix of number of paired observations will be found in Appen dix G. The variable name for all climate items begins with the item no. from the survey (i.e. IB, 4C2, 7C). COP I! CUT I CN' VAP I All 1. F LACCT3 1 EC c T P MATRIX 1 A C f. T a 1.COOO 0.7264 1 i' f. £ T P 1 .0000 n. 4990 ' ICOI SC lOGtID ** DEPT. A + B + C ** 2 A MOT I 2BUSE0 2CAT IT 2DKL SP 2FATKF 2F SA T F 3ACCU inr.FID 2 A MOT I 2CAT IT 2OP.ESP 0.2503 0.3500 0.382 1 0.29 39 0.32 21 2L2lHl. 0. 3022 0 .4 300 0. 3084 0.4I2Q 0.4633 C.5146 0.1356 0. 3760 0.42)6 0 .49 16 JhUll. 1.oooo 0.0 577 0. IS 59. 0.2626 0.40 2 6 0.4 5 62 I.OOOO 0.4995 0.5079 0.43 94 0.1165 i .oooo 0.4372 0.44 20 i .oooo 0. 5 71o 0•4000 1.0 000 0.3970 1.oooo 2FSATF 3AC0'-'U 330HTI, 3C10! 3C20SH _3C?_0AC_ 0.37 13 0.4 5 93 0.1925 0.17 79 0.4310 mi. 0 . 4 409 0.4447 0.3569 0 . 1 38 6 0.4H91 0.'-7C3 0.5463 0.4 72 2 0.3520 0.4319 0.54 95 0-3670 4466 300? 1 775 336 1 4 3 86 2Z"3 0.4199 0 .3920 0.2 518 -0.112 7 0 .14 73 0.389 1 0.5776 -0.0007 0.0764 0.1453 l-?''7 tm—i 0.6 80 9 0. 4 409 0.2 71! 5 0. 2242 C.4535 . 3 " 7 7 T4l 0.6110 0.3 64 9 0 .2971 0.2523 0.4 BO7 0-3127 0 .'.8? 8 0.36^1 0 .2 378 o . 2 6 •) 5 0. 4.399 9.4^66 1 .9003 0.4098 0 .39 6 6 0. 5676 0.45 83 I.0000 0. 31 (• 8 0.2624 0.3 55 9 301IJAD 3G2'J'<e 3 0? MilS 3 CM.: AC 3 E S A 0 I: ILLL'LL 0.4535 0.4070 0.17 10 0.34 31 0.3048 0.144* 0 .3630 0.49SO G.40 14 0.3054 0.3719 i .266 3 0.4810 0.2689 0. '-*626 0.2 776 0.3 3 76 0-206 3 0.32 50 0.224S 0.3253 0.3348 0.2343 0.1276 0.2811 0.3172 0. I 001 0.1364 0.3417 o.i5i4 0. 166 0.1416 -0. 0132 -0.0210 0.2632 HJ.H21 25 0.0551 0.2 155 0. 2396 0 .3753 0.0802 0. 4 734 0.3 34 6 0.3665 0. 3G67 0.4271 0.3 00 7 0.4260 0.3650 0.3154 0. 1S25 .0. 3833 0.4169 0. 31.' 3 0.4634 0.34 16 0 .50? 6 0.34? 6 0. C. 0 .42 74 0.3699 0.4303 0.223 3 3423 'if ? 6 2513 1542 3 5 84 2211. -y.A-'i IE 4AA f 4P.TEAM 4C1 H:F 4C? :.\s 40 1 ACT 5 A3 EC I. 5801'iF 5C/.:-.A0 5DTE OR 5E81 FV 0 . 6 2 36 0.4{;C7 0.4116 0.5393 0.3710 Ihdhhl. 0.4 8 30 0 .452'»' 0.4467 0.4659 0.3834 mi 0.6571 0.6446 0 .46 19 0.3 8 82 0.3139 •3977 \—kmi 0.4564 0. 50F.1 0.4820 0. 1640 0.2034 0.400 6 0.15 80 0.133 9 ' 0.2 394 0.2 296 0. 1600 0.320? 2609 3164 2 6 7 2 4 6 1 0 2 809 1 731 0. 3 68 9 0.3807 0. 3 0.43 0.1592 0.2439 0.2996 6 0.8 5 37 C..444 5 0.259 7 0.39?3 Q.3009 0.41?? 0.62 24 0.5"--l4 0. 43.47 0.42 94 "••*-!21 0.423O 0. 4227 0 .4757 0.32 70 0.27 89 o.4_539_ 0 . 34 6 3 0.15 86 0.37C7 C.43 38 0.45 86 0. 2131 0.4 64 0.2948 0.4 46 1 0.4575 0 .4647 111211 549C 0.2974 0.2604 0.4 306 0.3144 0^4396_ 0.4266 0.2630 0.2799 0.4154 0.2804 0._4!_13 0.3002 0.1370 0.26 32 0. 1 330 0.1584 0.0850 0.1347 0. 2120 0.1318 COO 08 0.2619 0.2430 0.3183 0.2491 0.2535 0.4 27 1 0.2601 0.3975 0.4 3oC 0.2436 0.2 3 50 0.3163 0.2638 0.4 396 0.36S1 0.1275 0.4276 0.2498 0.4 714 0.50 04 0.2657 r'. 4 126 0.49 86 0.3914 i" . •'. 4 36 0. 3239 0.?987 OA 0.2°0B 0 .45?3 '111. 5r-! M-,- o 6ACOL S 6SGL EV 6C0ACS 7ACr:;iA 21LPUL 34 03 0. '>6°1 0.128 3 0 .37 1.4 0.45 7 7 0.49 3 2 0.4 34 3 0.2333 0.4 79 1 0.4B20 0. If 59 0.3352 0.3038 0.C930 0.2031 0.4179 Jiil070_ 0. 3437 0.3535 0.24 11 -0.0434 0.2826 0. 0664 0.2656 0.3567 0.004 1 0.2280 0.1 233 O.P3R6 0.2 896 0.4 926 -0.0790 0.1698 0. 1.0 56 0-320? ,3183 0.4 139 0 .1024 0.3961 0.0963 O.ll50 0 .28 8 8 0.3795 0.0919 0.2132 0.2701 •J2..2 356 f . 3 7 4 0 0.2267 0.39C9 0.4!19 0.449? 0- l'«79 f- .46 "4 0.4?7i 0.2?8o 0.34 2 7 0.3645 0. l''7H 2 9?. ?o ! 8 1 220 3973 2 2 67 1^1 7C. I.';FO 70?UW! SAP.s no 8 8 A BSC 3C4 VJT _8 0!2!i.P INili'P cansiP INSTUD COM SI U 11. r A n P _2*0TF_R_ 3C"u"Ull 4PJT6P. 5DFCMK 60UL ST 7C0KTR 3PFPFD 16 91 0.2316 0 . 26 86 0.33 14 0.2187 38 91 C.3 1': 0.4 282 .34 79 .i530 0.4139 0 . 36 fl 1 0.4515 0.2928 0.66 5 0 0.80 8 1 11221. 0.1663 0.5 05 6 0.134 1 0 .2397 0. 17 4 7 0.2236 m-3737 . 1953 . 6 5 0 i . 809 3 40JL -0. 138 1 0 .30 10 0. 0999 0.139 5 -0. 01 90 0- 2"6 1 "0 ,4 0 6 6 0.5590 0 . 17?3 0 .4777 0.693 9 0.4187_ . 50 f -0.0140 0.0 501 (!. 3956 0.1750 0.3 009 0.2 34?_ 15 88 0.1263 0.099 8 0.3525 0.2327 0.33 15 0.2J!4_ 0. 1976 0 .0564 0.2671 0.4175 0.3 998 "•ft 776 0. 2 24 1 0.1612 0.4585 0.2237 0.3978 2111 0.2523 0.42 54 0.4v25 0.2341 0.4055 _0^ili_ 0.1254 0. 40 13 0 .2708 0.24 54. 0.3188 o.307S O . 1 4 6 1 0.3^93 0.4M.0 0.3954 0.3?'2 '•^243 ! 153 ! 46? 4518 17 IB 38o? ?9f 6 0.2933 0. 2 333 0.2631 0.4t. 69 0.5 430 0 .6Q5-. 0.354; 0.43 12 0.21 78 0.4812 0 .7498 2^22^1. 0.66 01 0.606 5 0.5084 0.2266 0.5 35 2 -0.00,45 (1 .2863 0.3017 ^i^m. 0. 46 1.5 0 .2 400 0. 1075 0 . 5 04 7 0 .4445 0.8147 0 . 4 VO 1 0.3809 0.3205 0.5479 0.5547 1^1<1A2. 0. 3 H25 0.34 7 7 0 . ! o 2 6 0. 56S2 0.5929 212222.. 0.3=2 1 0. 3 p, 8 P, 0.^809 0. c 9 ? 7 0 . r* ;3 3 3 " .E 1 60 0. 66 59 0 .49 80 0 . 53 94 0.3 79 2 0.3463 0.39 07 O.0664 0.60 6.3 0.6 3 30 0 . 4 •) 7 2 0 .4979 0. 4380, 0.50 01 0. 4752 0 .4909 0.2035 0.1455 .0.1027 0.3295 <•'. 3164 0 .2540 0.2621 0. 1114 •i'-^7? 0 .279 0 0.3882 0.293 7 0.26 36 0. 2 1 7 7 0-3722 0 . 4 >1 5 4 0.4162 0. 4879 0 .4595 0.2 306 o.5Q?s 0.6 00 3 0 .4 6 2 7 0.4454• 0.287 1 0.4 42 2 0.4595 0. 6 4 2 0 0.51 1 0. 54 7 6 0.4327 0 .3996 17 0.7 04? 0.6774 0.6221 0.4 700 0.3349 0. 61 4 s 0 . 4 ,8 1 8 0 . 50 9.4 0.3632 0.26 64 0. 4<v4 3 -v3 ON c. ..f r^ CC c* rv o; r- ci'. vC o c \S T. r~ 'J rt U'. rr c -j rv. O C c- IP x> cr r— c r- rj cr <• lA cr tx~. <^ A- c Lf p- a> <r A. r*^ ™ rv •4 o. <i U' f". rv n" rv rv -4 ir r. A.' r"i -J rv rt rt f C" u. o ^ O o o o O O O O c O o O O O O O CJ C o O <_ ro r-- O A' fvl •J- Cr -r o *'J* r c r- X r-or r: K-cr r- rv c rA X rt r*t cr 0 ' Q- if*. cr Ci Q r o- •s .u rr fv c- rj < Ci. A. m rv —• A- o A. c r.i r> t n"i r*" Al rv C -r c. rv; c A; Ai c A, rt U. C' c C C O O C O c C". o o c o o o o o o o C 1 1 r IT IT rv r<", •4- r- o X rv iA. cr a-: r- AJ r-LU c tr ^- r-- LA rv tr* LA r.: C rt •o •J rt LA r-j f*. vC -4- r-CI a X c cr %7 o st •4" r- rt IA P~ 'j ^ r- s? X X o — A"i A*. <r r: r- ri r*1 sT Ai ro —< rA —- r j Al .-A rri A • -T rt vT iy. u_ C c C o C c O O o O o CJ o o O O o O O O c O a O m O {' 1 o • A r-j -J" rv rvj X rA o rt a* AJ r- -A O -r LJ o r— V) 'X) O m :V r- ••C O <A .A •0 X A-CA X r— rt (7* cr* rj. •< o in 7— r~ AJ o-, LA - r~ i A LA -"V •cr X -4* :c :v o :o Al IA "3 O o ,-r» rn rj :\J JA CM LA A rA m rA rr. IA — o T4 -T rt o rt o o o O o O O O o o O o O C o CD O O O o o o o O O fA 1 1 c o •4- rt m rvj sT ••n •A r- -J- fA rv PA CO o cr <• X iA •c X O >£.' ^* rv <t rt 1— LA iA rv Al vf) c_ c To >r — >—* O LA, •c r~--c rt LT' rj r- LA LA <? i A O O p"* 1*". — C- f v.* rv rv c CN.1 rt AJ rv) rt LA rv vT rt rv i\ A". (T, c I—1 o o o O O o O o o o o O O o O O o O C) O O o C C ro o _ c „ C LA rv <f c lA rr c c- •JO CN! cr cr L_ o lA rA rt rvj C* S\ CO CC 0" vA IP. (A r- rv A- rv CC r- o-- LT. 'S< rM *J- LA c •x- e' cr r<-- rt -c r- r- X 0" rt •4- ^> AJ IT- O fA AJ rj <i LA m rc; r<~, rt er, rA m rv fA AJ -.r ?A IP rt O UT- ro rv CN) o —. o o c o C> o o o o C c C' c o o O o o o C> c o o O O o O m c V" c f\i c rv *D CO r- X ^ o -4" rv rA r— LA rA rv -4-G o •4" —-. r— r- rvj -3" O rt cr CA (V rA cr- A1 ^- cr rv IT. •4- O p- cr <t o o ro •o r\i *0 LA O rt LA «o r- (A c rr. LA rt rv fA m rt p-,T5 o LA. OJ •J- m m r\; -T u~. -4- rt CA •4- rA ro (NI m LA rt rt rA o n, O O c. o o O o O O o O o O o O O O r~; C o o O C"! C. o o O rO o Cr- CD 0 C.' O CO r^ o o < A- c X rv rv LA r~ in L*l rv L.' c* rv r- r- p- C" f\ c- O rt f*. rA (M n"i o rt O C AJ vG L'*i IPi r- •i: X o O PA cr rc C' CC —' o r-j cv cr LA rt AJ m Ul r— o -A X rt A* cc rg rv AJ in —i O r<*. rv rA rn r; rA -J- rv <r -r rA rt rv At fA iA Pi fA fA O o c- a C o C o C o O o C O o c> o o O O o o c> O O O o LA. a*-CC rv c CC cr* a* CC O CC' r- LA. < o o- r~ X r_" c -a X rt x. 'X: CC •C' •j- \T\ LA •4- o rv. rv U^ rt lA rt cr x>. -J- eo X- >ij LA c IT' AJ m CT —• rt <• {•1 —' <• C lA rt rt ~< <: cr A- cr iA X O C rt -J -XJ X C . ~ m PJ 'A r-i :A LP '.A IT. •T IA lA vT LA LA. rv rA ro O AJ V rv CJ iv; rv IA o O O c c; r;- c O O C " c C C O O O o o C ~" o o o O o O o C" -0 p- <f- vf lA ^J' •0 cr- •a vT CO r- X O V cr- Cr r-o a> :_> O r*-o cr J e r". rA o LT\ rt •c vt •O rt r— c> •L ^~ rt vA O' _ IP rt o cr. LP. O rA o iA o r— LA •t rt o O —( o ° p.- P J — rv rx A; m c- rt o O f> " PI <Xi rt 0 rg rt rt O £ ° O o a O O o o O O c cr c O o c o o O a C O o o C- o ° C ° o i O •Tv LP. m rvj m X a; IV A*. o CA •o CC rv LA •0 p-o to rt A- •c o —i —i w 'A <^ X rv ^— •c r- (A fA CA r- A> rt vC -H c cr fA m o -J- rA .— ^-t iO f o rt -c r-j A- o vT -4- rv AJ "4 rA 0s p~ CT-rt o INI o LA rv —J t\! rv rv IA ro o rvi rvj AJ rt •—* rt rv rv rv Aj Al C\J o iNl O c T o a O O C O O O o O c O O c- O o O o O o CJ O o o LU z: O L.* LL UJ LL t- -J LL Zf > o > cv: <r L: c o < y~ --' L?J c < 11 A. _J LL; o T* IL *=* c \n -.r C vA rr, o rv. -j v.", o C- o-u". u* c tr >- •'N A) If» f -J1 (**' a t:j a tr- o c> rt c <t r- r-~ r- * < rt o < r- o*. Ai C AJ 7 ^ IA -0 vT <[ LT. X vT AJ rr i cc Ai o rvj r-* a <: ^ x vr CP x ^- cr •' • < <f. LP rv o:. : c o o o o c rA IP' c N ^ -o 4 O o-j p-. or. p.. O ro rt pj 'C r: rA P.. rt — PA O O O s 1 o • -' -*' v» CV —i AI a o o o o cr cr LA & r rA p- r^> x ve ' c<j o c* PJ r* P- ' IA >C ~J vT Al s* O O O O O C ' i A i A •jy rv -J" , o A- rc r— —' , uA 0 rt >H 'O ,-A —• <r m rv o o o O o O • i rvi AJ <+• so <JA r— r • 0- -O (A PA f • rt LA rr : • ."A LA -4- LA JA : o o o o o cr x m vo *A x rrj rv rv -j- o rt r^J f- A- A-INi rt rt rt O O O O O C; CP NT P- iA LA O vr rA c, m x rv AJ m rt «i rA rA O rA LA r— a; O cc T- rA i A o P- rv1 A- r.j f O O C O O < -H cr- c- cr r- rvj r iNj ;f, C- u;\ C C* IT. O >A p- X P- i c o o c o o •4- AJ -3" O -A/ CT —' x A- r-t cr- P" cr cr- LA a >c a rg OJ P*> PJ st LC o o o O C O i rt r- rv x -^ X- Al A1 • ,C —• <r rA x r~ •4- p- UA LP, PI <f , o c:- o s0 O X rt x> A\ rt. LA cn r- vt rt a- x LT, ^- f-•j- iA -4" fA -J- -4" CC LA LA- p-. r- • sT 00 'X- «c fM A 1 LA -J- rv <f cr rA • -t IA LP LA <J o o o o o c p~ O cr c- A- x vr rvi <r ir- PJ so INI LA *0 <- O rs; nl -4- A; -A o o o o o o < LA r- rn r-co X r--. p- tNJ »" rv —i ir. c -0 m r- «o e- -4" t o o c cr o o 1 • ooo o.o < o o r- o x C rA IP, O o p~- LA Aj rt •—' X rt .— <-• PJ AJ P. p- o rA o CV O ^A V cr rt o cr m vr ri rvj o i CJ o c o o C. rvj AJ NC«X AJ c -o -c w- r*--C C_ ^f- {A O LP rt 0 rt rA X X O 'NI ;\, i PC O O — i -C r— O cv rv I PI IA (A fvj C1 X [_> L.J o > m vj!,A —' PJ i"A t^|L^ Ll_ j c c: u,i|LL CJ; <I -1 o A 'A rA fA iA P1"! rA sf -J" -sV rt x o a < O LU < a- u C-. LU ij. < N; ^ X. LA .fi *A '.A in -CL C} c a : ..7 ftj < r- i/) I- LT . c, a- < u> L^ x O •< x L.; o :^ LJ O —) • A> x a* iX*! co o LJ . vO A- ' TABLE VI - (continued) Ll pi a PJ c •r ri c: •c Ai ra c- C tr X > O n> (V rv r— X tr • r\i V? X A r— X- u* 0 o < Pv' C PJ CJ -c r- «J rn c . PJ cr C' •6 iA A c- -1" P, rn r'i p X. rt m rt rt o A- Aj A. O rt C.J C- o c C» o c C CJ O C' O o Ci c. tr o :\ (Pi ^-P1 X •r p- N- p"1 <r O C' a c o s.* X P- •c c <»• c r>j —i cr A- Pvl X t> c c 9 p. X f r- C" rv (X C r- P- p.< rt rt rt u- c -J rt PJ Pv' r; (V c, X A. X rt PJ rt P". H-LA c o c c c O a C. C* a o o c ^ o c cr ir- LP <— r c- Pvl •c <r AJ X X •LC c p. PJ X. rv X p-. vT p*l rt vO c c •4- c lA X rv 0-c -r sr rt X u" P- o C <; c -r X •4" C: X. p~' X X. (A X PJ c< rA X. PJ X in X vT LJ LA -* o ^ o c c o '-"^ r c. o CD ° ° ° o o C C: o m PO Xl Al •4" •-n cr O r~ X u_ o Ul c PJ o -c p-p- O 7' X rt "A X -c X A) r- 0 -o •p »* rv rv CP X. X, X AJ r- LA • o X rP ;n -n -p rj ro r\ o '•A -4- AJ rt •:A AJ X Q X rt O o o o o O C C5 o o O O o O o o O o o LO c 0" 4" PJ m X o „, X PJ ,„ o O o rn iA X. vC- -0 -J c o •4 c rt LP c Cr IP, •c •~- Cr LP- vr AJ A- LA PJ C7 c cr u"> X r- <r X cr ••0 X cr r- •X rj rt r- JO LU c PJ PJ PJ rv. XI P"r p. X rv rv X <i rt c o C' o c c O O o o O o Ci o O C O o c LP. O X c o c ra LA 03 p- —j -4" CP h- o X c m X rt LP r- PJ rr m' r~ X. LA <- r- C P- LA Cr o r- X. r- iP LT X C7' o: LP rv a fvl rt rvj p-rt LA rv •4" CA rt u_ rn LP >T rn Ci -4" X rv LP o o in X AJ X X rt X rt •4-UJ LU rt O o O O o G O C C o o c. O o o O C o O o •4" 1 c Ci", rv Ci r- o -t a> o cr Cr in cr X o X LA X rv rv t— rt X X LP X X r~ c P- X X rt X Cr r~ A.' r» C-LJ o *c •A cr •*- m X r~ to rt X O m m r~ IA o X rvt < o m CO r\ -.Vi P*i CN. rv; PJ rt rv rv c o m m O <j-^* rt pi rt <r C rt c- o O o o O a O o C O c c c o ^; o c c. o o o c o CV o fA o cr X CM (V X r- 0- Pv) X CP CD C- a: c r- PJ p-rt rt p. X, cr PJ r- cr c X r-. c- O >4' PJ p~ vC o •4" rn ip r- <r P~-X r-~ o vT Lf1 X P.1 o X Pi rt o c C4 o- x. A.' !_ o X O Ps) cv c\i m X rt rv •JT o o o Pvl rv m •X Al rv rj LP PJ o rt O o o C c O o c Q O O O c o o o O o o O O O o C o r- rsj X X n, PI vC- o \p CJ rv r- cr LL. o c* r— rt LP •o- rt X X' X rt P.' a- CJ 1—' P; LA rt X p" -0 r- X c c* cr X X X c-* <*• rt X. X p'i X' c- o <r cr p"1. X — c. vO PJ -r —1 x — rv rt C- rv o o rv Pvl ri AJ PI X. CM o rt c c- o c o O c c c. C r> o O O o o cr. a e O o 4" O „ O- X 4" m cr •c PJ -c p> P- IA. A: o CJ + •n o c- p- pi X c Cr -c X o rt rt rv PNJ cr c- -0 cc 0- iA X < o LP r- o rt -r •4- r- X LP X rt X -o «C X X CT' fA <r c-o X rP Pvl X. PJ pj Pi -t -4" <n X. Pj -J- rt rt PJ PJ fv; rt A"l r' vf PJ vT V— X; rt c o o o o c C O o O O o o o c Q o O o o Ci O o o o o- *r «c sT X -P •4" •C CO 4 .*n „ r- rv LA „ >; c p- m m P~ -o -r ;n A; o X. -4- m >— o c? p"; rn p- <- •-P c* r-- <- • V O pi cr <; rv rt o PJ r*— -4" X. X c LP •4- 4" pi ip -J" rv X X pi rv X X —' m X X pj W X, -c < rt e O o O o O o O O c CJ o e C' e Ci a C- o O O O c — C OJ ' < _J V- 5' LL _) u or > X. > o C' c. c_'. CL CL o Li; <. VT. <: Z. LO <• a. > -J CJ L_' u. a L/" LT Or- —-~J1 cc rt o> rt u. IL LU G _J <-. u w ;•• O-rc (— L-- t— it a: V- rt CSJ — U; k- X rt o e rt ix a. -; L/7 c. O *J vj Ci U.' X CJ Uf LL' 'C X L_.' n. L.' X L_J o ~z CJ t_> > «4T •J- -4 •J? in IP LP X in -0 o p- r- A- r- X o> X tc u u LP. TO rsi rt rt y p- CA i> A- n r%< ti f\ rj) w A-NT LP. r,' r— -41 .-> o c c> o c: rv o o «J- rt A- Q- -4" rt ( rt rf! c- A; x r~ x o in .xj x • O a O O r.. (A X. O CJ rt O X. LA. PJ o- ; vf. Aj vfj rn vO <-J".—- CO Lf O c ' LA if. 4 -0 ^ ' O C^ c o c c < A- LA Xi -o o o o O O ' rn m c> LA o • i <J X ' V X X IA x c*- r- x cc- rt rA sC- LA. v0 c> X r— r- rt LA -4 LA .j- r~- r -o LA o o c o c o r- rv vC r~ o o O rn x cr (A <" x- rt x. x r~ x vt >r iii so vi AJ O V_J V_/ o 1 o o CA o rv vO rt cn CA O X X vf, LA AJ -—* XI X. o oc. ' cr X cr —• C' x. x. r-~ x> AJ . o o o o o o . (Vj X 'A LfV. X O vO O C-4 fv.' x. .3-•j- vt -j  s n r-j rt vC r- r- r- rt o t- --1 o ^ -4-Cr O vj- a-j •* rt x x*, <: lA. v o o o o o c </ PJ IA A- A- fA *.C LA vj- c~, ,r- 1 x A- ' X. X l>J XI O CJ a m LU «-0 i vt «— 5. (•— CJ ~! L- c; o ^: LL. ,j ri. v.i — a 1 -J p.) ,A <J- xi *r 1 TABLE VI - (continued) #* DEPT. A+B-K: ** \ CORRFLAT I CN MATRIX VAR I A3LE 5F I NVO 6AG0LS 6BGLEV 6CGACR 7 ACONA 7BC0NC 7C INFO 7DPUNI 8APR0D 83ABSC SCWAST 5FINVO 1 .OCOO 6AG0LS 0.5732 1 .0000 Y 68CLFV 0.0381 0.1743 1.0000 / 6CGACP. 0.4695 0 .2362 0. 372 1 1.0000 7 AC ONA 0.3873 0.3122 0.40 56 0 .396 5 ':. .COOO .7eCONC 0.2230 0.0528 0. 1 748 0.332 3 0.1121 1 .0000 7CIMFO 0.3580 0.1387 0.021? 0.5677 0.2644 0.5769 1.OOOO 7DPUN 1 0.3 365 0.32 5 7 0.3 744 0.3213 0.5 75 5 0.1892 0.3026 1.OOuO 3APB,-n 0.20 3 3 0.2447 0. 162 0 0. 3 73 0 0.2 64 0 0.033° 0.107? 0.21 67 I .noon 88AESC 0.34 93 0 .3944 0.25 10 0.4297 0.3876 0. 1408 0. 0673 0.3005 0.2 743 1 . 0)0 0 BC WA S T 0. 16 24 0.20 70 0.1791 0.4715 •0.4020 0 .0690 0.3475 0.3067 0.6936 0.2154 1.0903 801 f,S P 0.38 41 0.26 24 0.3793 0.4740 0.6290 0.1355 0.2602 0.3646 0.4n«4 0 .2861, 0 . 4 0 54 I r.'ST'UP 0.0937 0.1124 0.1597 0 . 1060 0 . 1838 0.0540 0.0 4 90 0.05 75 . 0.4 04 4 0.1 7 '^9 0.38?l cons I? 0.4124 0.44 94 0.2248 0. I 989 0.3 904 -0 .0 71-8 -0 .0685 0.3537 0.21O7 0.2 4 94 0. 1785 I US TUO 0.1955 0.2933 0.1633 0.1244 0.2330 0.0356 0.132 5 0.1340 0.444 8 0.3366 0.4283 CONS!.'} 0.4 3 85 0 .4 5 0 8 0.0873 0.2732 0 . 3911 0.0387 0. 1674 0. 3 6.6 8 0.4112 O.^r.?o 0.4??? 1LFAD? 0.5502 0.4 82 0 0.2290 0.3?4R' 0.5296 0.2286 0 .1497 0.47b5 0 .2706 0 . 3 6 0 7 0. 2543 2P0TFP. 0.4753 0 .5226 0.1692 0.3950 0.3183 0.2097 0.1907 0.3278 0.5736 0 . 3 6 4 0.4954 3COM UN 0. 54 86 0.4339 0.4752 0 .5071 0.6 421 0.2776 0.2310 0.5757 0.5042 0.3639 0.4"} 4 I .'ITER 0.55r>6 0.4689 0.2 679 0. 3703 0.5653 0.1450 0.1151 0.3746 0.4523 0 . 3 2 3 0.4150 5DECMK 0.70 86 0 .537.3 0 .3252 0.4976 0. 5203 0.2576 0.2323 0.5507 0.4?69 0 .4 737 0 .3 5 84 6001. ST 0.4 346 0.63! 1 0.7392 0.804 6 0.5029 0 .2654 0.3344 0.4390 0.3763 0. 50 2 4 0. 3 = 20 7 CO NT R 0.3356 0.2505 0.3236 0.5466 0.66 3 5 0.6593 0.7 68 9 0.7996 0 .2461 0.3"17 0.3S43 8PE RFC 0. 35 74 0.3729 0.3223 0.5952 0.5245 0.1061 0. 2 82 7 0. 3 870 0 . R 1 4 9 0.6 3 09 0,8015 COP P. EL AT I CM MATRIX 7AR[ABLE 80 IKS 2 IMS!RP CONS IP INST110 CONS 10 1LEADP 2<V,0TFR 3CUMUN 41NTEP 5 DECK 6 0.01 ST 3D 1 rt SP 1.0000 INSTRP 0 .35 60 1 .0000 C C.r. SI P 0.4 2 1 '•) 0.6144 1 .cooo INST'JO 0.26 21 0.4 3 30 0. 2053 1.0000 1 CONS 1D 0 .5010 0 .6248 0 . 64 4 1 0.3389 :.oooo [ H.EAOP 0.4217 0.5017 0.5925 0.2859 0.633? 1.0000 f 2MHTFR 0.4 240 0.5546 0. 403 9 0. 348.8 0.66 8 8 0.6585 1 .000 0 i 3CC"LKi 0.49 36 0.4412 0.5165 • 0 .3931 0.5943 0.7828 0. 6979 1.0000 j 4 INT F R 0.43CE 0.46 6 0 0.482° C .3540 0.6905 0.716 3 0.6378 0.8053 1.0000 50ECW 0.38 33 0.2374 0.5 302 0. 3630 0.5594 0.691 8 0.5 970 0.7649 0.6112 ) .0000 6G0LST 0.5137 0.1685 0 .3492 0.300 6 0.3264 0.4153 0.4806 0.6122 0.4 64 0 0.6 3 09 i .0031 7C0I-:TR 0.4501 0.1760 0.3 05 1 0.1998 0.3883 0.4971 0.3 849 0.6206 0.3979 0.^510 0.504? 8PER.F0 0 .7098 0.4269 0.3242 0. 4926 0.5372 0.3992 0.6183 0.5911 0.5298 0.5553 0.6046 CORRELATION MA TRI X V AR I ABLE 7 COAT R 8PERFD 7CGNTR 1 .OCOO 8PEP.F0 0.4554 1.0000 c f* cn <\. 2: f- r*~ f liJ O w — £ 2 u. Z' < "J ? 3 2 o — a a r- r- , t- m o • < c «r ( S_ m .*M . UJ U.1 2 L.' £~ C. —- — <t < < ^ ^ l/-, 00 U-LU OS C "~. ^-i <i r-(-T v+ yj r- ir s.: r r— <r c. C rx — LT — x f-r\j <«- r- ^ • r- -r c f\j ir. r— ~- Q~. n. < •> — <s> . <i co o o •: fO O 'X D ( O x- P-\ — co <r rvj o L1*! r\; H ^ X fA O K <r c-' r~ -r o IA o> —< o .-« IT. — r- m c a- co n*» AJ rv o c « t- a:. u_ cc r~ \— < 2: ;L* o v. U.' H 1- < H <r t— r-- f\i — a_ <r ul U C Q m vj- ^- <r v.- -* At r~ c o r- <f :\J CT" -- ."^ IT. CT1 N N C'l IP C1 m tr- -c ;A u" -j-o r» o vf O (\ O C ^ K rxi ^ — 3 —' o r- o v- LA .-A {A CNj t : — O « CL i-l.'. 1 CJ LT U; r~ \J O]'^ y. 3 < < • <Nj (Nj (NJ rj ,-\J - r- < v c c <r et 'Ni c o r-7- —« LA IA o r- <rr -T CC -r c\, -j f ^ cr •A *c c <r -+ —* n~ *J" rn CN! 1 rv —< r\j A: a o n a: s a _) — a. D '.U >— i>o >z 1— •yi r- Lij c ™. -T o ~J :•: o ~ ™ O fM vt X '-O <: co O o ^ in " m M T. O1' fM r-t CO vj" O O X rc N' (J1 IA (? IN,' rj co m cr r- ro if> r- c\; cvj r~- i^'1 o o ^N; p~ LA N3" u 2 < a. II. > u ? LU _j z • a < H c " (£ LJ c UJ LT LA LA LT LA CM »0 AJ iO *•*** (\ ^ N o r-i <• -T LP. •D \T C (\ U" CM iA I— LA "A C LA —< J" —1 .jt 'A ^ LT. rvj O Lj"\ Pvj M O O u'i LA ir. t> —' -1 O • D .r r; J- o >_ I- — Li < C a LM c o C- ™ CM f"1 CJ d L.J LJ fNl oi rri. m ^ i~ cc ; h- i o -J z . CT' LA CO CM vO 0s O ^ rM CT' L'*. N » CO LT 4- N n c fA fA -J" (A CM r-- o OJ >o l o X < r vj- *t r-> a <r -UL- a z c -J < u < c: <J < •O -C N •O LA. X r- !V *C (Nj -O N a,W cc r- 0-. u.' ^-1 r- u^, —• H0> 0> --1 fvj ^ -A CI IJJ (A «-J ex c. <r ^ 3 CM CA vT o (-j a o iA C*l 80 TABLE VII Means and standard deviations - Climate items* scores, & a priori climate dimensions leadership 81 Points of interest concerning the matrix in Table VI should be noted. Though this is a small sample to judge by, the orthogonality of initiation of structure (IS) and consider ation (C) dimensions is of interest. The correlation for the three department heads is O.34 while that for the project leaders it is 0,6l. In general, across many of the climate items, there are higher correlations with C than with IS. In general, there are also higher correlations with department head style dimension than with project leader style dimensions. The correlations between climate dimensions also appear to be uniformly higher than those between the climate items in gen eral. By checking the paired observations table one can also assess the difficulty of completing some of the climate scales. Question 7C only had 49 responses out of 77 while 7B, 6c and 4E had only 57 or 58 responses. Anyone intending to use these items in future should certainly look to simplifying these or possibly all of the scales. There were many comments about the length and difficulty of the climate questionnaire and reports that many persons gave up and did not send in their questionnaires. It should be noted that several of the question naires were well completed for the climate items with absolutely no entries for leadership style and vice versa. The results of regression analysis with climate dimension as dependent vari ables will be found in Tables VIII and IX following. 82 • CO c cr. w c O no cc UP o n. • • LL CO LT O p~i o tpi o rt o c o *o o o c rn O O C O O O LP-PJ f~-LA C X o cc -r o: c O r-n: — r-j C\J u_< cr cr <; < fi m o . . • 1- ~ o o ; co rvj rt fp, . rt r-sj- m ro • • • . rt o o rt O cc o c 1 N C C >r c x o o LL LP. CC .J-l! CJ O rP. ~. LP. C O n~ PJ ip, MO h <r o m 0 0 r--.r o x 1 •£ rvj -c m '~p r- r-a. LP i C cv; *. 1,1 o. 0. u. to <; L,} j— vT > ;_• LP i: . J_ L/l 1 — O Ccx O wan i — o TABLE VIII Regression results - climate dimensions dependent, leadership scores, vDep$.'i; heads only) independent cr- o CT -O o in <A o —' O O CM a Q I/! CL K •C Li. LA f\l O r- c vC o o c-o o CO O CO <^J r- <-< a o ro a: a: -0 LU —« a** rn LA a LA O CM : c a-' in c < IA > <z w o o o -j- -4" fi o to. o £ in O in X r-* rv <-« O ^ LA c . . t— AJ O O LA Li. C U- LA -3" i LL .—i <r 4) C h a cn rA O CM COI\ O -u iA a -< <X UL LA > :r oi C *- u 83 TABLE VIII - (continued) t-3 > w t—I X PEGP.FSSICN RESULTS **DEPT. A + B+C ** APPRO* I'-'ATF CEGPFtS OF FPFEOriM IN SELECTED ARRAY I S 63 / DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS 1LFAOP R SO 0.5108 ' FPPon. 0.0000 STD ERR Y = 1 .90?'] VAP C OF F F STO ERR F-RATI (1 F PROB• CONST. 2 • 26 I 5 1.7666 I K S T !>. P 0. 04 74 0.64 73 0 .5368D-02 0.3997 CONS IP 0.91 82 0.4575 4.0 27° 0. 046 8 I \STUO 0.2656 0.4 200 0.3704 0. 5 524 CO'iSID 1.8608 0.4917 14.1595 0.0005 DEPcNCEf:T VARIABLE IS 2W.5TFR ft SO 0.4931 FPFOF. . 0.000 0 • STO ERR Y = 1.9128 VAR CCEFF STD ERR F-RAT10 FPPOB. cr..\ST. 0.753 8 1.7757 I NST PP 1 . !7?3 0.6 5 06 3.2461 0. 0732 C CMS1P -0.4661 0.4599 1 .022'. 0.317? I MSiUO 0.2985 0.4222 0.499 8 0.4892 f.ONSIC 2.15 56 0.4943 19.0 20 4 0.0001 DEPENDENT VARIAKLfc IS 3C(1HUN j PSO 0.4283 FPP.03. O.OCOO STO ERR Y - 1.8215 VAP. CCEFF STO ERR F-RA Tl0 F PROB. CONST. 3. 4747 1.6909 ir,STRP -0.2681 0. 6 196 0.1872 0.6 699 CCNSIP 0.806 2 0.4380 3.388 5 0. 0673 IN5.TU0 0. 854 0 0.4 021 4.5 116 0.0359 CCHSID 1.299 7 0.4707 7.6255 0.0075 OE PENDENT VARIAPLE IS 4 INTER R SQ 0.4960 r PROB. 0.0000 STO ERR Y = 1.9700 VAR CCT PR STD ERR F-RATI0 F PR OB. CONST. 2. 1242 1. 82.S5 I:vSTKR -0.1130 0.6701 0 .0264 0.8423 00 CC.'.S i P 0.2775 0.4737 0.343 3 C.5673 I f.STIJD 0.5938 0.4349 1.8 645 0. 1738 CON SID 2.341b 0.5091 21.15F6 0 .0000 J O P-<xj OJ cc c o o o o o c o o o OJ t> <NJ O LP sT VO <0 o cr ro a-i —i a; cu <r • C7> cC -J- rvj ; o vf <r un -j- o o C O CNJ O Z> .L- CJ iyi ft. t_ uC u. i/1 ' CM p- ro CN; 1 PJ o cc > cc <r o-•ir. tNJ o . a. a. c o : 1— ^/i i— i_n <s\ c\< •—• cc iO -o 0*> CC CO CNJ O O O rvj IO r— cu cc •0 cr o m C LP, — (\J : •£ <r rO i> CNI : ir, c m <r -i , r— o- —1 -o o • OJ o c o o . o (Ni r-, co « a a. c. cr; : f— a. — ^ — O O o. ^ ^ a. f-n: a. <ii CO CM •-> rr, r- ^ o a X ,_J i—i r\t ro i— r- rO LO O <t O K » • * * 1 i—t Li_ -2: -t >-* ro co —• ix r- LT, ro uj r-t ^- cr a-u"' LT. so a . * . • • r~ OJ a o o o r- ^ o o —* ' z 1/? 7' 1^ z U 2 c 2 C CC O LO to. O O O CNJ a d c ui C w o o- 00 o o 0 -1 f- ir t- oo O O O u. o -0 OJ u. iNi c n-, c u.- c c N -r 0 OJ LT. > a. cv c C2 t— 1— ^ — v~. > L/i 7^ L/- it O CJ 'Jl i.J *— O *-* O TABLE IX (continued ) 86 When department head leadership style dimensions are used as independent variables for determining climate dimensions (Table XIII), some very significant results become apparent. For all eight climate dimensions the F-prob for the C coefficient is lower than for the IS one. The fact that the F-probs are less than 0.000 for the first 5 dimensions, and are 0.0002, 0.004-0, and 0.0390 for the remainder is very good evidence of a positive relationship in all cases. With a lower coefficient in all cases the IS F-probs are only significant for character of performance (0.0012) and of communications (O.O366). In clusion of sizeable IS coefficients with relatively low F-probs for prediction of decision making (O.0672) and goal-setting (0.0789) dimensions might also be warranted. For the degree of predictability or, more properly, the proportion of variance of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent vari-ables we should also note the R (RSQ) values. For the first 5 climate dimensions the RSQ values are quite substantial, all being greater than 0.4-6. Character of performance has an 0.4-0 RSQ while the character of goal-setting and of control process would appear to be affected to a large extent by variables other than leadership styles When the same dependent variable regressions where leadership style dimensions of project leaders are examined (Table IX) a few surprising relationships are found. The C coefficient for department heads remains significant for all equations except character of goal-setting where the IS 87 coefficient becomes the most significant (though not largest) while the C for project leaders coefficient is significant and the IS coefficient is the largest and also negative. The last fact would imply that reduced IS by project leaders would shift the character of goal-setting towards a more ideal situation. The low value of RSQ (.22 compared to .15 previously) and the increase in the standard error of the predicted value would lead one to consider other more effective ways of affecting goal-setting. The IS (project leaders) is also negative in three other equations but in only one (character of decision making) is it significant. The coefficient for C (project leaders) is significant in three equations (character of leadership pro cesses, of decision making, and of goal setting). The general ly low relative increase in RSQ with the addition of "signifi cant" coefficients and the general increase in standard errors should generate some suspicion of the value of all of the Table IX equations. If we look back to the correlation matrix we find high correlations between C (department heads) and both C and IS (project leaders, 0.64 and O.63 respectively) as well as with IS of project leaders (0.61) and, the potential problem of multicollinearity arises. That is to say, the large shifts in values of coefficients may be due to multicollinearity effects rather than underlying importance of the project leader dimension. As will be seen later, this discussion may appear to be 88 rather academic in light of results to be seen in the forth coming sections. Second Survey - preliminary Before giving the results from the second survey, an accounting of the situation developing in the firm should be given. At the meeting referred to earlier (Appendix A), there was not too much enthusiasm on the part of the department heads (A and B) with regard to the MVTAB results. In particular there was considerable concern over the response rate and the possible implications as to the validity of the survey. The attempt by the investigator to convey the impact of statements made by respondents on the questionnaire was not considered very suc cessful. Two factors of this impact were the intensity of many statements and the general impression that a great many employees had high expectations with regard to potential improvement and success of the company, and a desire to participate in a much more active manner with the creation of goals, the implement ation of policies, and the sharing of success. The chief executive was moderately impressed with the results and expres sed an interest in getting a sampling of opinion from all parts of the company. A "go ahead" to carry out the second survey was also given at the meeting. After this meeting the written report was given to the department heads as well as an appreciation for the regression results noted earlier (Tables VIII & IX). Unfortunately the 89 investigator found it rather difficult to transmit the impli cations of F-probs and RSQ to individuals unfamiliar with these terms. The main emphasis was therefore placed on a more sim plistic statement that Consideration appeared to be an important variable insofar as its relationship to all of the climate items. As it turned out later, when these results were given to him a couple of weeks after the second survey, department head C was fairly conversant with statistical terminology and was able to appreciate the results in a more meaningful manner. During the time between the surveys a possibly relevant situation was developing. The consulting industry can be rather cyclic in nature with consequent booms with rapidly growing work forces or depressions with rapidly declining work forces. The company was going into a period of imminent decline. Though there had been no layoffs before the second survey there had been substantial employee turnover (see Table X), though, his torically, the consulting business would have appreciable turn over even during periods of growth. dept. A dept. B dept. C left dept.* 18 7 11 entered dept. 3 1 9 *note that this would be divided among voluntary dismissal, involuntary dismissal, and loans to other departments or companies. TABLE X Employee turnover between surveys 90 The timing of the second surveys was such, however, that layoffs in a department occurred approximately two weeks later. Thus the job security points brought up in the first survey and any fears that might affect organizational climate were based upon legitimate foundations. In the months following the second sur vey there were substantive layoffs throughout the entire organ ization. The imminent layoffs combined with the length and dif ficulty of the climate questions acted to diminish the response rate on the second survey to a disastrously low level (see Table XI). dept. A dept. B dept. C total population 83 ^3 70 196 responses 10 7 10 27 % response \2% ±6.7% 13.8% TABLE XI Second survey response rates This low response rate, as will be discussed later, seriously handicapped the implementation of valid statistical tests and the derivation of readily acceptable or more valid conclusions. In the presentation of results to follow the con cern with this aspect of validity will generally be left until the conclusions are drawn in the next chapter. 91 The correlation matrix for the results from both surveys will be found in Table XII. In each case the "1" suffix on a variable name indicates a first survey variable, a "2" suffix indicates a second survey variable, while a "D" suffix indicates a difference which is the mean of paired differences between results of survey 1 and survey 2. The number of paired obser vations will be found in Appendix H. O o •1 n CD f—1 p. c+ H* 3 O 3 01 3 H* O <+ 0) H* H* 1 c+ ST" H r» p. P> p. H) CD H) * re Ui 3* r» h" *d o ro CQ cn O O i *i a C Ui o c+ ES 3* 5 CO c <S CD << H* CO O *1 H* O t—' H* B P> <+ CD SO USING PRIORI DIMENSIONS CORREL a" ION MATR IX TSP1 TSPT" "TSPD~ co« PI CO MP 2 CONPD ISDE 1 "TSTJET" ISDED CON0E1 ISPl i .CCOO I5P? 0 . 79 ; 7 1 . OC C 0 ! S -0 .J.:'499 C .7833 1 .'"0C0 CO'-!!1 L 0 . 6 \ 4 4 C . 525: 0.114 1 I oooo CONF 2 0 .<•'• '-0 C . 5265 0.3024 C 8023 1.0000 CONPD 0. 2'-'0 2 0 .4039 0 .3600 ' 0 ?69C 0.790 7 1.0000 ;snc i C.43C0 c .4711 0.2 5 7C 0 2058 0.1844 -0.1674 1.0000 1 S0E2 0 .4527 ."1 .2586 0 .2 50 1 0 4247 0.3727 0.5318 0.2 61 5 1.0000 I S0E0 -0.12 42 -o .0777 0 .000 1 -0 0563 0.3117 0.56C7 -0.6537 0.5595 1.0000 CONDf.) 0.6248 o .36U -0.C685 0 6441 0.2 893 -0.1243 0.3389 0.2511 -0.1443 1.00 00 C0N0E2 0 .2 7-54 0 , 13 24 -•, .04 84 0 2170 0.C871 -0.2773 0.18 4 6 C.2419 -0.167? 0 .6841 1 .0 000 CO-iDEO -0.5762 - ^ . 3C3^ 0 .051 7 _r 5 349 -0.4360 -0.1989 -0.3453 -0. 3056 -0.0203 -C. 51 63 0.2.'14 LO"-CI 0.5017 0 .912 3 0.6435 0 59 2 5 0. 5 794 0.2399 0.2859 0.30 71 -0.1656 0 .6832 0.7454 LO PR 02 C .5600 0 .67 14 0 .6330 r. 49 18 0.5039 0.3304 0. 3804 0.4563 -0.0215 0.5964 0.7696 LDPR no o.i.055 0 . 16 43 0.3001 -0 0168 0.143 0 0.2741 0.049 9 0.4133 0.1815 -0.0016 0. 3665 ."OT r 1 0.5546 r .36 10 0.5279 C 4 039 0.5 35? 0.2650 0.348.8 0.4373 -0.1561 0 .6683 0.7070 ROTF 2 0.6C92 0 .5193 0 .7 140 0 46 5 9 0.5937 0.4675 0.3373 C. 25C3 -0.0 493 0.5252 0.6286 (••OTP!) 0.1618 L- . 85 4 3 0. 6255 c 12 94 0.2377 0.5 287 -0.1672 -0.0202 0.1349 -0.0331 0. 2626 CCffU 0 .4412 0 .8526 0.7 156 0 516 5 0.3538 0.IOCS 0.3 931 0.2315 -0.32 50 0 .5943 0.7983 CC:-«2 0.35<6 r .5461 0.7230 0 2C80 0.4 404 0.2217 0.2169 0.2420 -O.O302 0.3992 0-7 977 CC'-'RO -0.4^99 -0 ,3C 8 9 -0.0243 -c 24 5 2 -0.0341 0.20 74 -0 .605 1 -0.0 111 0.5289 -0.4363 -0.C954 I l-.TER • 0 .4660 0 .8 30 4 o.4 333 C 4S29 0.3184 -0.0073 0. 3 54 0 C.45E3 -0.2 05 3 0.6905 0 .7972 INTER 2 0.62H c . 56 4 8 0.5C2 3 c 34 9 3 0 .4563 0.362 7 0.2939 0.4744 0.132 0 C.5039 0.6973 1NTER0 -0.516o .40 9 I -0.:763 - '.; 39 26 0. Cl47 0.4425 -0 .6454 -0.10 56 0 .4 767 -0.7262 -0.2883 Dr: C. 1 0.2 874 0 .5656 0 .6 06 7 0 5 31! 2 0 . 554 8 0.3573 0.363C C. 2637 -0.0935 0.5594 0.6210 f,EC2 0.3565 c . 58 =5 0.6766 0 4 6 03 0 .5282 0.38 2 5 0.1373 0.4747 0.1780 0.52 94 0. 7 567 CECO C.32 5 3 c . 2 27 1 0.16 73 0 0t35 0. 14 3 4 0.1464 -0.2591 0.4780 0.4595 0.2861 0.3 833 GOAL 1 C. 1665 c .54 34 0 .4082 0 34 9 2 0.5826 0.35 30 0.3006 C. G868 -0.3406 0.32 64 0.3428 CCA1. 2 • 0.28;4 c .4496 0.642 C 0 38 8 3 0.4 4 84 0.2536 0.2613 0.40 29 -0.0768 0.5418 0.4739 GCALD -0.03 60 .08«5 -C.0257 -(! 2915 -0.3337 -0. 2200 -0.2 972 0. 22 27 0.3938 0.1237 C.1421 CONTRI 0.17 <: C c .o4 33 0.6 353 0 30 51 0 .2680 0 .0265 0 . 1 99 S -C. 17CS -0. 3 55 8 0.3 8 83 0.5 736 CONT P 2 0 .43 7? 0 .6109 0.5568 . r 3 900 0.5035 0.4358 -0.0192 0. I486 -0.1279 0.3212 0.5567 C 0 N 7 P D -0 .0683 0 .0700 0.1663 -c 156 5 0.2 2 50 0.5235 -0.3564 C.416B 0.5935 0 .1562 0.3761 PERF 1 0.4269 c . 8 3 24 0.5092 0 324? 0.3132 0.0152 0.4 92 6 0.4818 -0.3960 0.5372 0. 6622 PERF2 0- .4 444 c .7 54 3 0.6146 0 2 2 9 4 0. 23 5 0 -0.0 963 0.7687 0.3310 -0.5845 0.40 5 8 0.5063 PERFD -0. 7636 .6350 -0 .2036 -0 39 10 -0.3681 -0.1680 -0. 5267 -C.6257 -0.0016 -0.7741 -0.5492 ro CORRELATION HA TRI x VARIAELE CL'NOED LDPRO 1 LUPRO? LDPRDD M0TF1 MOT F2 MOT F D COMM 2 COMMD IN TE R1 ^ CfCOEi) l .oor-a J ( LOPROI -0.2569 l.COCC LD PP 02 0 .0236 0.8)90 1 .0000 LOPRGQ 0. "62 7 0.0841 0.6406 1.0000 X0TF1 -0.1371 0 . ft i E 5 0.7128 C.1547' 1.0000 PCTF2 0 .13 o 8 0 .3 368 0.590 8 0.2754 0 . 7693 1.CCOC MCTFD 0.4587 0.3002 0.3683 0.2379 -0 .0427 0.6055 1.0 00 0 CCM1 0.0187 0.7828 0. /488 0.1646 C. 6979 0.8600 0.3S53 1.0000 C0V.W2 0.2900 0 .6792 0.7432 0.4169 0.6C72 0.7 706 0.5243 C.£427 1 .0000 COMMO 0.4723 -0.26 12 -0.0333 0.4256 -0.3442 -0. 1389 0.2115 -0.3519 0.2074 1.0000 INTER! -0.30 6 2 C .71£3 0.7620 0.2177 0.6 378 0. 7251 0.1914 0 .80 56 0.6049 -0.39 3 7 1.0000 INTFR2 C. 1719 C.6 94 4 0 .6391 0.248 2 0.6545 0.7858 0.4 92 6 C.7757 0.7988 -C.03 65 0 .7640 IMTERO 0 .6629 -C 46 21 -C. 3 31 9 -0.0449 . 401 0 -0.1379 0 .2840 -0.3 185 -0.0067 0.5672 -0.6493 CECl 0.14Z& 0 . 69 1 8 0 .6300 0.1318 0.5970 0. 8137 0.442 4 0.7649 0..813M -0.1212 0 .6 112 DEC 2 0.2222 C.79 5I 0.805 9 0.3744 0.6711 0.6733 0.5030 0.7998 0.8402 o.ioio- 0.6549 CECO -O.ft-Ca 0.2342 0.389i C.3823 0.0954 0.1590 0.130 8 0.0103 0.1719 0 .30 58 0.3C89 G0AL1 -0.1820 0.4158 0 .4290 -C.C823 0.4 806 0.5535 0.2336 C.6122 0.4957 -0 .41 10 0 .4 540 GOAL 2 0 . C06 9 C. 7 5 3 4 0.6515 0.1971 0 .4 868 0.5710 0.5847 C.S213 0.6 701 • -0.0439 0. 6e54 GOAL 0 f> .0882 -0 .02 SO 0. 110 5 0.2326 -0. 1275 0.0798 0.2 74 5 -0.0791 0 . 1 56 9 0.4501 0.1864 CONTRI 0.2233 0 .49 71 0-.5427 0.1279 0.3849 0.7131 0.723 7 C.62C5 0.6075 -0.17 76 0 .3.979 CON TR ? 0.2621 0.6 3(19 0. 5656 0.2252 0.543 1 0.7118 0.6651 0.8161 0.6412 -0.0713 0. 5162 CCNTRD 0 .19 30 0.1190 0.3556 0.4797 0. 3666 0.2806 -0.0054 0.1599 0.4147 0.4836 0.2206. PFRF1 -0. 3169 C.3992 0.7133 0.2713 0.6183 0.5826 -0.0263 C.5911 0.5906 -0.43 2 7 . 0.5298 PERF2 -0.0717 C . 56 24 0. 713 1 0.2768 0.6221 0.3081 -C.0601 0.7 3 58 0.5505 -0.2577 0. 62 94 FERFO 0 .488b -0.5634 -0.5 10 2 -0.1253 -0.5437 -0.4540 -0.0327 -0.4836 -0.2482 0 .447 3 -0.6 855 CORRELATION MA TRI X VARI ABLE INTER2 INTER C CECl DEC 2 DEC D G0AL1 C0AL2 GOALC C0NTR1 CQNTR2 COHTP.D INTER 2 1. C 0 r. C IMTcRC -C.C05 4 1.000 0 CECl Co':: 6 -C .0 20.3 1 .0000 r EEC 2 0 . 72 fc £ 0.00 17 0.8521 1 .0000 CECO C.3806 - 0 . C 19 2 -0.I726 0.36 85 1.0000 Cf.ALl 0 .49 30 -0.16 1c 0 .6309 C.5661 -0.2526 1 .0000 GOAL 2 c.seei -0.1798 0. 8116 C.7408 0.054 8 0.7500 1 .0000 GOAL C C .194 3 -0.C5C6 -0.180 6 C. C663 0.4454 -0.6419 0.0257 1.0000 C 0 N T R1 0.4303 -0.1361 0.5510 0.6269 0.1243 • 0. 5042 0. 6746 C.2239 1.0000 CON TR2 0.5700 0.0068 0.8750 0.6077 -0.0986 0.6577 0.5929 -0.0633 0.8520 1.0000 cnriTRo 0 .4 191 r,.! 6 2 0 0.3245 0.3 789 0.2C8i 0.152 5 0.232 5 0.1144 -0.2414 0.3024 1.OCOO PEP.F 1 0.6L 59 -0.58C2 0 .5558 0 . 59 80 0 -1562 0.6046 0.557C -C. 0585 0.4554 0.4682 0.1771 PERF2 0. 4686 -C.3385 C.55?7 0.6042 0.0216 " 0.6410 0.619 1 -0.2675 0. 184 7 0.4348 0.1222 P i P. F D -0.3S45 0 .60 9 2 -0.2529 -0.3291 -0. 2545' -0.1204 -0.2061 -0.2832 -0.3003 -0.3118 -0 .1664 COP.KELAT IUN MATRIX V A R I A E L t PERF1 PERF2 P ER FD PERF 1 i. re co P ER r 2 0.E4 6C I.OOCO " PfcRFC -C .6964 -0.20 6 5 1.0000 •-3 > W tr" M X o o 3 c+ H* 3 C CD 9i+ A great deal of information may be garnered from the matrix in Table XII. Before commenting on the data from the matrix, however, it may be appropriate to examine the changes which took place in the two experimental groups and the control group. For this purpose Tables XIII & XIV were prepared showing the results for each department as well as combined results of all departments and combined results of departments A and B. With the large drop in response on the second sampling there are two possible differences between Time 1 and Time 2 results. For this reason DIFF indicates the difference between the means shown directly above, while P DIFF indicates the mean of the paired (only) differences between Time 1 and Time 2 for that variable. For each difference the t-prob for the relevant t-statistic is shown directly following the differences indi cated. For the paired differences formula 2 was used while, for the others, formula 3 was used except where a 1 is shown directly following the t-prob. The use of formula 1 was based on the decision rule indicated in Appendix C. The more sta tistically significant differences are flagged with * for .1 and ** for .05 significance level. If the leadership style dimensions are considered first, one finds that most of the differences are consistent in terms of sign except for two anomalies. While the paired difference for department head IS is positive (rising), the means differ ence is negative (falling). The reverse situation is indicated in the Consideration differences for department head C. These /V ro -o -0 O D> iA in n A •A O o o AJ Al -i AJ n A- AJ -t* srs O O .'A —' -A •n rxi A r\) rA o r— o o O- -si o -o Al -t t\i o r-o r— -f '13 t TABLE XIII Mean leadership scores - both surveys 96 anomalies along with a substantial variation between difference levels and/or t-prob values would indicate that there were some underlying differences between the respondent samples for Time 1 and Time 2. The entire variation can not be attached to the drop-out of first survey respondents as there were respondents to the second survey who had not responded on the first survey. The most consistent change across all three departments is a drop in Consideration^) for project leaders though that in department C is somewhat lower. On Initiation of Structure (IS) for project leaders, department B had a rise, department A virtually had no change, and department C indicates a fall. The most notable changes in style appear to be in the department head IS scores. The drop in department A and the anomalous change in B are substantially greater than that for department head C. The positive change in both departments A and B con trasts with the anomalous change in department C. The results for department head A would indicate some degree of acceptance of the results and information generated from survey 1. The results for department head B also indicate similar shifts particularly when one has more information on how the depart ment has been managed. As indicated by the survey 1 scores his IS score was the highest while his C score was lowest. The department head concerned was aware of a recent decline in com munications and other C-related factors and saw the survey as a means of improving matters in this area. One of the actions taken after the first survey was to order, via a written memo, 97 new procedures for review and discussion of recently completed projects. This was seen as a means of improving communication and would involve a certain amount of confrontation amongst personnel as to what was wrong or right with previous projects. This Initiation of Structure activity which might he considered in various manners by different individuals, along with an ap parent increase in Consideration, may well explain the anoma lous results for Initiation of Structure. The changes in department C are all generally low, but declining. This would probably reflect the types of change that would be expected if there had been no intervention. When the combined results of departments A and B were compared with those of department C, t-prob values of 0.21 and 0.17 were found for C (department heads) and IS (project lead ers) respectively. The above t-tests were for paired differ ences only and they were not indicative of even a near signifi cant change in IS (department heads). When one looks to changes in the a priori climate dimensions (Table XIV) one finds a different picture. Across most climate dimensions there would appear to be more stability in the climate dimensions than in the leadership ones. Through this stability one can still discern a general tendency for department A (particularly) and B to have larger positive changes or smaller negative changes than department C. This is more evident for character of leadership processes, of moti vational forces tapped, of communications, of goal-setting, and •7* 3 -0 O •A rO rvj co 7» cr >A -~j fM O 3 O .'A O X '.L -1. iL "1 O D cr o —* A 0 ,f CM > .A 3 rsj —< AJ -*n r- 'M ,0 ro rA OA lA •O N -> 0 vt- -0 • H r-• vj ~g •J" '.A O O i-4 + + TO rA co -n rA *-* UL tU, •J- -L. 98 A ^ A Nl f7> r\j -vl O TABLE XIV Mean a priori climate dimensions - both surveys 99 of control processes used. The t-prob values for comparison of departments A and B (combined) with department C are 0.11, 0.48, 0.26, 0.45, and 0.27 respectively. Though the evidence is, statistically, very weak there is an inference of a posi tive result developing in both departments A and B as a result of the feedback of information when compared to the control department. The major question of research interest, however, was the causal relationship between leadership style and organi zational climate. For this purpose the cross-lagged corre lational model as described by Lawler (1968) and Lawler and Suttle (1972) was used in an attempt to determine if there were causal linkages between leadership style and organizational climate dimensions. The model uses the correlational relation ships as illustrated on Tables XV and XVI. For this analysis the (1) and (2) figures are the correlations between a leader ship style dimension and a climate dimension at Time 1 and 2 respectively. The (5) figure is the correlation between a leadership style dimension at Time 1 and a climate dimension at Time 2. The (6) figure is at the correlation for the opposite relationship while correlations (3) and (4) indicate the sta bility of the dimension concerned. The logic underlying this kind of analysis rests upon the time lag that typically exists when one variable causes another. The argument is that if A causes B then the present state of A should be more strongly related to B's future state than to B's past or present state. Thus, where A—»»B, then 100 &a where B is measured after A should be greater than f^g where B is measured either before or at the same time as A. Thus, by comparing the relative sizes of fyst , /"ABZ » and ^3 where B is measured before, after, and at the same time as A, it is possible to determine whether the hypothesis A—»B or B—** A is more tenable (Lawler, 1968, p. 463). As well as the above, the dynamic correlation (7) for each combination of dimensions is also indicated. This is the correlation between the change in the leadership style dimension and the change in the climate dimension under consideration. "When a significant dynamic correlation is found between two variables one can put more faith in the fact that one caused the other than one can when a significant static correlation appears between two variables (Lawler, 1968, p. 464)." The cross-lagged correlational results shown on the following pages are all extracted from the correlation matrix shown earlier (Table XII). .3 _^ =f .u —1 •u X IU •u x -+ 1— :c *: • r -f .JJ -~> — a -.1 7^ _J •.j J •—> i— "* —i V C -V 1 j •u .1 .u _) -<? a ^ D 1 a ^ J ~1 i ;JJ > < •X U -J •0 'JTi r :u Si ~J -U u <— t A A s% >- <f < .J —• TJ 1— jJ —. < •A <t _J •A U LU X) LU a .j :/l < St ~£ i-« i— 1JJ o —• 3 X —4 ;3 rv^ UL 'A UJ a i.L (X ID —« UJ A < A -j _5 '.j —• —• O LU —a —* JJ x V— ~y •JJ _J O X f-< ,-4 •N| m „ T. ZD h— — _J I—* _l -j u •"\l h-13 1— # fl- -t -•') •> _l JJ — * •it '.U o — I 01 TABLE XV Cross-lagged correlational panels - a priori dimensions, dept. heads TABLE XV - (continued) —* .JJ — A <f •r ••A — # rvj fl. » O A JJ (A .n r\ o AJ r-rn n u • • • J. n V ~p —» — a rr) •ft ~< a. •4- •JJ n V— '0 r-t n —• 4-c >~ o J- •0 rn A o iA • u, * • • III 73 t o * r\l J— 'VI P~ rvj Al JJ a 7TJ -—• _j X) T. r- o tn J r— 0 0 —« r- -1 4- 75 AJ f> rv .-4 r> .VI •0 -vi rvi nj :0 O -t I o rt i -0 •J3 1 7» •A iA * Of V m •o m rj> -.0 "O f-- m -o ro ^~ 0 n ^~ t— rt _) m -t ~) 1A o + 7) n A J3 rA A •a h- O i— AJ <— O \n - 4 -r A n O o n •O -j_ ;A LU A LL LL TO a • _ • — h— rt —* !- >-* — rt iA .xl <XJ o !_> -1-VI •A VI 4-• * • IU • -J !.U rv —» — >U ** 7» X —* > —• A 'U 'A t— o O yS o -A .T; A ' £ 1 A •1- I-— 4" JJ • • — • • < ( JJ tV) • VI "^T VI • rvi -J A -j •J" 3 n CA AJ '7J T •A A *n 4- •7 rt "TV -r •v m A -r- O AJ •o A vj rt ni -,n •4" 1 rj .7* H 1 "A •) r> A O •1* —t 0 ."•3 A o 1 0 T A 1 A n -n 1 o A A --. , _ —s 73 — n —, _ — — —. —. • n .A 4- rt •r, 0 rt A A "* n 4--.t •t IA t 7* jt VJ £ n /; O •?_ VJ ;) :u "O 7J -A 71 •J- ,A 71 4" A •/I 0 n fi -* 3 •H J 103 TABLE XVI Cross-lagged correlational panels - a priori dimensions, project leaders TJ 1 t 1 ' J •JJ 1 -I 1 r • t A >z A | -J i —* u -£ 1 CL <f -J 1 •JJ r— .Tf LA ! _J • U ^ : -J 'S A > —« : LA ! <r 1 7 | .U 1 a • —• r o LL LO •V —1 1 ;j 'A — 'U '€ 1 UJ —J n. ! i— -t —i O LO A —I •* A •JI. # 11J —« LA -i> J — A * & -J '1? V • —1 A J -J X J •1) A —« •-» <f <t ••r —• i 5-'U _J "r U ,—< A ^ . J ' J lU -i "3 A •"J LL UJ —4 0 < 1 JJ O CUT « 0. t— A 5 'JJ r "J X X> A — — -J — U — TABLE XVI - (continued ) 105 When the cross-lagged data are examined some distinctive characteristics are found. If a presumption is made that a high correlation between results for a variable between two time periods (i.e. (3) and (4)) is an indication of stability of that variable, then some interesting inferences can be made. The stability of the climate dimensions in all cases is greater than that of the leadership style dimensions of the department heads. The IS dimension for department heads with a correlation of 0.26 would indicate a great deal of volatility. The style dimensions for project leaders, on the other hand, would indicate much less flexibility in style than department heads. When a check is made to see if any combination of var iables meets the cross-lagged criterion, several good examples come forth. The best of these, for department heads, is the Consideration—interaction-influence panel where the high dy namic correlation (0.66) combined with an excellent fit to the cross-lagged model would strongly indicate that the character of interaction-influence processes is a causal variable affect ing Consideration. Other climate dimensions which also would appear to have causal relationships with Consideration are character of performance, of communications, and of motivational forces being tapped. Even when the model criteria are not wholly met, the (6) value is consistently higher than the (5) value except for the goal-setting dimension, but in that case the dynamic correlation (7) is quite small. 106 When relations between initiation of structure (for department heads) and climate are considered, fewer clear-cut conclusions result. With several dimensions where the dynamic correlations is greater than 0.4-5 there are no cross-lagged panels which truly fit the criteria required; though more often than not the (6) value is larger than the (5) value. Worthy of note are a few cases where (1) and (2) values are higher than either (5) or (6) values while the (7) value is significant. It is possible in these cases that the lag time is very much shorter than the time period used between the two surveys on this study. Examples of this situation are character of control processes, of goal-setting, and of decision-making. When the leadership style of project leaders is con sidered somewhat different results are found. Though there is a consistent pattern of the (6) value being larger than the (5) value there are few panels that satisfy both the panel criterion and the requirements for a substantive dynamic correlation. Most notable of these is the initiation of structure interaction with character of motivational forces tapped where the panel criterion is met, and with character of leadership processes where the very high (6) value (0.91) indicates a relationship between character of leadership processes and later initiation of structure behaviour on the part of project leaders. The evidence given provides a clear indication that rather than leadership style being a causal variable interacting with organizational climate as suggested by the earlier 10? hypothesis (H3)» the direct opposite appears to be the case. If one were to try to develop a regression model for predicting leadership style from climate dimensions there would be some difficulty. Of the 28 correlation values between climate di mensions, four are above 0.7, another nine are above 0.60, and only three are below 0.4 (Table XII). There would, doubtless, be problems with multicc&linearity if any attempt at regression was made. The requirement would then be to have orthogonal climate dimensions which would be more satisfactory in terms of a theo retical desire for "clean" dimensions as well as meeting the idealized requirements for satisfactory regression analysis (i.e. orthogonal independent variables). To this end, it was decided to carry out a factor-analysis of the climate variables as described in the following section. Factor Analyses The following analyses were carried out after the re sults from the cross-lag analysis had been studied. If a state ment was to be made, that changes in leadership style followed changes in organizational climate dimensions, it was important to be able to distinguish which dimensions were most relevant, and to ascertain the extent to which the a priori categori zation of dimensions was valid. Another important matter to be considered was the independence of the dimensions from each other. If there was high correlation between climate dimensions 108 the possible problem of multicollinearity would make selection of appropriate or relevant dimensions hazardous, and the shift ing values of coefficients with different selections would cloud any conclusions drawn. Analysis using data from this study. The initial cor relation matrix used for the first factor analysis would, of course, be the same as that seen earlier in Table VI. With the objective of finding independent dimensions, only orthogonal rotations were considered. The choice of the principal com-2 ponents method and the use of multiple R values on the diago nal was not based on any untheoretical reasoning, but, as sug gested by Rummel (1970, p. 319), was guided by the choice made in other studies and the need to use similar techniques for purposes of comparison. Varimax rotation was used because "The varimax rotation criterion for orthogonal rotation comes closest to the graphical simple structure solution . . . [andj is now generally accepted as the best analytic orthogonal rotation technique (Rummel, 1970, p. 392)." If these procedures had not developed results that were meaningful or useful other pro cedures may well have proven worthwhile. Table XVII on the following page indicates the results when a maximum of eight factors is allowed. The associated eigenvalues, proportion of variance, communality figures, factor-loading matrix before ro tation, an ordered factor-loading matrix after rotation, and a complete correlation matrix with variables reordered will be found in Appendix J. NAT.-.IX OF CORP E LA n CtlS hlTK VARIABLES R6CRCCRKC ACCORDING TO HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH A FACTOR. * INDICATES A VALUE GREATER THAN TIP, EQUAL TO 0.60 VAP. I ABLE 9 2EATME 3C70SH 2 4 4!.'. TEA" 1INTV/M -1.4 451 -0 .5 1 3 3 -r.4! cF -0 .5 2 90 -0 . = 068 -0.6,7 I ? -0.6866 -0 .696! -0.7121" 3GLC0R C. 164 6 o. 184 7 0.1426 C. 167 1 <">.0231 0.1479 •0.0415 .0621 GPROCM 0.?110 -u.0 220 2PRC0H 0.3467 0. 32 76 7 INFOR -0 .115 2 -0.04°0 itCONPR 0.2137 0. 3417 5UPC0M 0.1 14 1 0 .255 7 8DECMK -0.0051 -0.1597 O O •1 <D \-> P c+ H« O 3 0) o <D Ui P c O 3* < <! << P Q, H-P P c+ C P H CD £ c+ =r Hj P O cr O Ui 1 ?4 33 22 23 1 3 4 4!.'. " 5nl3L EV 3GFP I E '<••••'• I fl I 3C 10 IN 0. 154 1 s*** *** * * 0.7009 •' 0.6905 > 0.67f'h * 0.614 9 0.159 3 -0. 1046 -0.0344 0.3331 0. C784 .0955 0.26 12 0. 2 7 83 0.2421 0.2514 0.0141 0. 1 5 32 —•j -0 -0 -0 -0, 0 .0279 3208 1725 . 1 38 3 081 8 26 31 0.330 7 0 .0221 C. 4111 0 .2 89 2 0.0008 0.0474 0.0729 0 8 4 C 078 7 0 582 12 31 ! C57 -0.0873 -0.3 206 -0.2410 - 0. 0 5 o 3 0.08 IP -0.2565 7 20. AT I T 4? 8tp»nr, 6 2AI--01 I 4 23!; SEP 44 3 C >. A S T I 0 2 F SA TF 3 202ESP II 3ACCMJ -0.4"62 0.112 3 •„'.'•• 721 -0. I 5 7C 0.2 If 1 -0.5 44 9 -0.4 I 70 -0.32 5 2 0. 5762" 0. 550 5 0.5 39 3 .".51 8 5 C. 10 8,9 0.2/64 0. (.'4 56 0.0715 -0. 10 34 C.26 3 7 ~ -".0475 0. 1790 0.2CC7 -0. 0436 0.2105 o. 13 24 0.C949 -0 .0 364 .!. 3 14 1 'i .0234 0.0754 0.0753" O.1444 9. 312:'. -0.0180 -0.183! -".1 155 0.2 60 8 0.00 9 7 0 .0213 0. 2 711 0.4216 C.22T4-O.04 10 O . 2342 0. 18 10 -0. 186 3 -<-..Lii r 0. 0255 -0.1261 -0.1135 -0.2576 1-3 > trJ rH W X < M t—1 21 2FSADf.| "2^~3FSTlTr 18 3n2!J0S 15 3C4UAC 36 6BGLEV 15 3C3EAC 7ACCNA 33 \ESC 5 2"INF 70 P! JN I 8 0 Aw A?, 4 r- F c S T -0.0363 -0 .2 24y--0.3457 -0 .24 ;7 -0.1704 -0 .24 30 0. 3783 0.1684 0.0 999 0.1894 * * * * * •: * t 0. 8599 0.313-F 0.294 3 0.12 83 -3.000 I -0.2197 -0.C2O0 -0.11.26 -0.10 54 * 0.7135 0.5446 ******** -0 .1377 0.361 3 -O. 0230 0.1770 O.C549 0 .10 74 0 .0679 -0.1739 0.242 3 0.04 71 0. 0010 0.40 03 ** *** a** * 0.7994 » 0.6723 * 0. 6510 0 .0615 -O.1947 -0.0 716 0.124 2 -0 .0390 -o. 2447 -0.1538 -0.0920 0.0638 -0.177 8 0.2514 .1807 0.1018 0.20 18 O.0606 0. 2 759 0.1224 0.31.56 0.1C54 0.2354 0.1568 0.1239 ".05 36 0.0271 -0 . I I4r' -O.1566 -0.1735 43 3 0 -': 1 3 i 2 3 -0.1319 0 9 2 -0 .0060 -0.2653 -•''.4 00 P. -0 .3695 0.5988 0.5419 0. 5243 0.5121 C. 5064 •0. 44 30 0.1859 0.0749 0.1675 0.062e -0.1436 -0 , 0 , 0 . 0 . 0. "^0.1478 0. 24 25 -0.1152 C.0304 -0.0 305 0.0549 -0.2825 -0.2747 -C.2862 -0.1363 -0.1899 3 7 6-COf.CR 39 7C.CONC 43 7C rt.FC "^oTTTo'r 0.0137 -0.2217 -':. ; 554 0.26 5V 0.2788 -0.0461 0. eg 49 o.l 300 0.0291 0.31.36 -0.0477 -3.2640 ******** * -0.6390 * -0.7198 * -0.9C18 ******* * — -0.1172 0 .C761 -0.2343 -o. 1817 0 .0703 0.292.T 2 744 2435 2922 4231 2038 3 2 79 0.0275 0.C64S -0.0106 0.1425 C. 04 59 0.424'. ******** 0.50 44 -0.1324 0. 064/, IT 1 2 6 3-2 3 5 XcTlTTr iACf.TS 4C 21 NB 5F INVO iflCSTP 6AOQLS -0.1 125 -•< .1966 -0. 1 82 8 -0.3043 -'''.192 4 -9.2 5'.4 T5T~ 1778 132 5 0.1922 -0.0111 O.2943 -0. 0 50 4 0.C865 -0.22!9 "oTT5T;:~ 0. 1799 0.1336 0. 2080 0.239f 0.26 97 0. 15 20 0. 18 50 0.0 700 0.3676 0 . 06Rf~ ~~oToTvr -0.1517 0. 2195 -0 .3767 -0.1381 -0.3633 0.I 300 28 10 359 I '******** 0.0676 0.264 7 0. 0156 0.327 3 ******** * 0.7304 '•• 0 . 6 9 7 2 * 0.6245 0.6058 ******** 12 J'3 0PTM 16 5D1'JAC 2 7 4 0 I A C T 17 3D20PE -0.2269 -0.2 7? 6 -0.1 87 2 •0.1184 0.1661 0. 178;. 0.3349 0. 05 68 0. 1420 o.Olll 0.260 2 0.2061 C.1161 -0.023? -C.252?' -0 . 10 27 ****S*** ~32 5HTEpr 29 5ACFCL -oTiliTyr -0.155 7 0.3 63 3 0.1611 0.09 59 0. 1761 -0.04 9 9 -0.1 506 0.2204 0.CO55 0.2 399 0 .0 254 -0.5729 ******** 0 .0 6 52 .1580 . 13C7 %Xif- OF SQUARED FACTOP-LOADI NO S DIVIDED BY SUM CF CCCMUNAL!TIES 3.1307 0. 1.435 10 15 0.1746 0. 0339 110 One of the most difficult choices to be made during the analysis was the number of factors to be extracted'. The initial selection of eight, in this case, was based on the number of a priori dimensions, but five and ten factor attempts were made. The plot of eigenvalues in Fig. 9 reveals more than one dis continuity though the one between five and six is the largest. The scree test (Rummel, 1970, p. 3&1) would suggest going fur ther than five factors to a point where the proportion of variance being added by each factor was beginning to level off (13 or 16 factors). When the dimensions were compared to those derived (later in the chapter) from the Likert data matrix the eighth factor in the results given was thought to be similar to one of the Likert data factors concerning level of decision making. Though going to eight might be considered overfactor-ing, it was felt that for a preliminary study it would be advisable to hold on to as many factors as possible and allow future studies to determine if any should be cast aside. There would appear to be a general belief that overfactoring was less likely to result in undue distortions than underfactoring (Rummel, 1970, p. 365)• The final consideration was the extent to which the dimensions found were definable or sensible. With the intimate knowledge of the operating circumstances of the firm being studied, the investigator was able to "make sense" of the pattern that came from the eight factor result. The foregoing statement might well draw the criticism that there was biased opinion as far as interpretation and —r— try «\1 LU 5: < \-LU id o EJ T" to <3 Q <3 G» <3 <! i <1 i 1/ «3 O B <3 <3 a o / i • • a ill • CO <3 Q -in <3 Q *± L3 . £^ UJ —- O UJ Z >< -J D Ui FIG. 9 Eigenvalues vs no, of factors O 10> CO 112 definition of the dimensions. For this reason the variable items were listed according to factors and presented to an expert panel. The panel was given instructions (see last page of Appendix J) and asked to provide a name or label for each factor and if necessary for clarification and/or, if time allowed, to give a definition and/or any exceptions or unsuit able connotations to the name or label chosen if it was con sidered inexact (i.e. if the given label and the "true" definition did not have the same connotations). In Tables XVIII to XXV on the following pages will be found the variable items which comprise the factors found in the analysis. On the page following each Table will be found the definition arrived at after consultation with the panel. Also on this page will be found the label provided by the panel members and the investi gator before consultation, a listing of the items as given to the panel for that factor, and a listing of the items used in generating dimensions scores for use in further analysis. The items listed for the panel included all items which had a loading as high on that factor as the lowest loading item which fell into that factor by virtue of having its highest loading on that factor. This was done because it was felt that any item which loaded highly on a factor would be useful in ascer taining its "true" nature. The items used later for dimensions include only those items for that dimension which did not load any greater than O.35 (considered roughly as a significant level) on any other factor. This criterion was not used to 113 eliminate items from factors or dimensions which had three or less items included with that factor. These exceptions affected only the last three factors (6, 7, 8t) which accounted for com paratively low percentages of total variance. The exercise of getting the opinions of a panel on the interpretation of the factor dimensions proved very valuable. Several important aspects of various dimensions were pointed out by the panel and incorporated into the final labels and definitions that follow. It should be noted that the definitions provided by the panel were more consistent than the short label names would indicate. In each case the number 5 label was that conceived by the investigator before consideration of panel responses. Extent to which superiors behave so that subordi nates feel free to discuss import ant things about their jobs with their immediate supe rior Extent to which immediate superior in solv ing job problems generally tries to get subordinates' ideas and opinions and make con structive use of them. Downward com munication: Subordinates feel completely free to discuss things about the job with their supe rior (1) Where -initiated Characte r of interaction-influence process Amount and character of inte raction Subordinates feel rather free to discuss things about the job with their superior J I L Subordinates do not feel very free to discuss things about the job with their superior J I L Subordinates do not feel at all free to dis cuss things about the job with their supe rior 1C Always get ideas and opinions and always tries to make constructive use of them Usually gets ideas and opinions and usually tries to make construc tive use of them Sometimes gets ideas Seldom gets .ideas and and opinions of sub- opinions of subordi-ordinates in solving nates in solving job job problems problems J I L J I I L Initiated at all levels Patterned on com- Primarily at top or munication from top but patterned on com-with some initiative at munication from lower levels top At top of organization or to implement top directive 3Ci Extensive, friendly interaction with high degree of confidence and trust Moderate interaction, often with fair amount of confidence and trust Little interaction and Little interaction and always usually with some with fear and distrust condescension by superiors; fear and Ji i caution by subordi-nates Friendliness between superiors and subordinates Usually very close Fairly close Can be moderately close if proper roles are kept Far apart 3G Are decisions made at the best level in the organization as far as: availability of the most ade quate and accur ate information bearing on the decision Amount of co operative team work present Overlapping groups and group decision processes tend'to push decisions to a point where infor mation is most adequate or to pass the relevant infor mation to the decision-making point Very substantial amount (2) Extent to which super iors willingly share infor mation with subordinates Attitudes toward other members of the organization Some tendency for decisions to be made at higher levels than where most adequate and accurate information exists A moderate amount Decisions often made Decisions usually made at at levels appreciably levels appreciably higher higher than levels than levels where most where most adequate adequate and accurate and accurate information exists information exists 5E Relatively little None 4B Provide minimum of information Gives subordinates only Gives information information superior needed and answers feels they need most questions _L J L J L Seeks to give subordinates all relevant information and all information they want 3C2 _J L_JL I I Favorable, co operative attitudes throughout the organization with mutual trust and confidence Co-operative, reason ably favorable attitudes toward others in organization; may be some competition between peers with resulting hostility and some condescension toward subordinates Subservient attitudes toward superiors; competition for status resulting in hostility toward peers; condescen sion toward subordinates Subservient attitudes toward superiors coupled with hos tility; hostility toward peers and contempt for subordi nates; distrust is wide spread 2E TABLE XVIII Factor 1—INTWM - Interaction-warmth 115 1. INTWM—Interaction-warmth. This dimension is concerned with the extent and warmth of individual interaction par ticularly between immediate subordinates and superiors. Labels from panel members: 1. Openness for vertical communication 2. Openness, sharing 3. Humane social relations 4. Problem-solving style 5. Discussion - cooperation - friendliness Items included in the dimension fors 1. panel 2, factor 3. dimension score 1 C 1 D 1 C 1 D 1 C 1 D 3 C 1 3 C 1 3 C 1 4 A 4 A 3 G 2 F 5 E 4 B 5 E k B 3 C 2 2 E k A 3 G 5 E k B 3 C 2 2 E 3 C 2 2 E 116 (4) Accuracy of upward com munication within de partments) To what extent do the different hier archical levels tend to strive for high performance goals? (3) Extent to . which com munications are accepted by subordi nates Character of con trol processes How accurate are the measurements and information used to guide and perform the con trol function, and to what extent do forces exist in the organization to distort and falsify this information ? Accurate Information that boss wants to hear flows; other information may be limited or cautious ly given High goals sought by High goals sought by all levels, with lower higher levels but with levels sometimes occasional resistance pressing for higher by lower levels goals than top le vels Generally accepted, Often accepted but, if but if not, openly and not, may or may not be candidly questioned openly questioned Information that boss Tends to be inaccurate wants to hear flows; other information is restricted and f ilte red 3D4 High goals sought by top and often resisted moderately by subordinates Some accepted and some viewed with suspicion High goals pressed by top, generally resisted by subordinates 6B Viewed with great suspicion 3G3 J I L J I L J I L Strong pressures to obtain complete and accurate information to guide own behav ior and behavior of own and related work groups; hence infor mation and measure ments tend to be complete and accurate Some pressure to pro tect self and colleagues and hence some pres sures to distort; information is only moderately complete and contains some inaccuracies Fairly strong forces exist to distort and falsify; hence measurements and information are often incomplete and inaccurate Very strong forces exist to distort and falsify; as a con sequence, measurements and information are usually in complete and often inaccurate 7A Excessive Low absence and turnover How adequate and accurate is the information avail able for decision making at the place where the decisions are made ? Extent to which control data (e.g., accounting, pro ductivity, cost, scheduling, etc. ) are used for self-guidance or group problem solving by managers and non - supervisory employees, or used by super iors in a punitive, policing manner To what extent are decision makers aware of problems, par ticularly those at lower levels in the organization Extent to which an effective structure exists enabling one part of organization to exert influence upon other parts ; Checking and inspection Information is gen erally inadequate and inaccurate J L Moderate Information is often somewhat inadequate and inaccurate Moderately high when people are free to move Reasonably adequate and accurate information available J L J L J I L _|_ Tends to be high when people are free to move 8B Relatively complete and accurate information avail able based both on measure ments and efficient flow of information in organization J L Used for policing and in punitive manner Used for policing coupled with reward and punishment, some times punitively; used somewhat for guidance but in accord with orders Used for policing with Used for self-guidance and emphasis usually on for co-ordinated problem reward but with some solving and guidance; not punishment; used for used punitively guidance in accord with orders; some use also for self- _ guidance (D J L Generally quite well aware of problems J L Moderately aware of problems _L Aware of some, un aware of others Often are unaware or only partially aware 50 Highly effective structure exists enabling exercise of influence in all directions Useful to help people guide own efforts Moderately effective structure exists; influence exerted largely through vertical lines Useful as a check TABLE XIX Limited capacity exists; influence exerted largely via vertical lines and primarily downward Effective structure virtually not present 4E Useful for policing Necessary for policing 8D Factor 2—PRCON - Performance and control communications 117 2. PRCON—Performance and control communications. This dimension concerns the type, extent and implications of communications related to the reporting of performance and the control of performance. Labels from the panel members: 1. Lateral compatibility 2. Organizational integration 3. Leadership processes and products (not style) 4. Communication for control 5. Performance and control communications Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 3 D ^ 6 B 3 C 3 3 D 4 6 B 3 C 3 3 D 4 6 B 3 C 3 7 A 8 B 5 B 7 D 5 C 6 C k E 8 D 4 E 8 D 7 A 8 B 5 B 7 D 5 C 8 B 5 B 8 D 118 Kinds of attitudes developed toward organization as a whole and its goals Pe rfo rmance characteristics Productivity Attitudes are strong ly favorable and provide powerful stimulation to behavior imple menting organi zation's goals Mediocre produc tivity Attitudes usually are favorable and support behavior implementing organization's goals Fair to good productivitity Attitudes are some times hostile and counter to organi zation's goals and are sometimes favorable to the organization's goals and support the behavior neces sary to achieve them Good productivity Attitudes usually are hostile and counter to organization's goals 2G Excellent productivity 8A Character of motivational forces Unde rlying motives tapped Manner in which motives are used Lost or wasted time and effort Satisfaction derived Physical security, Economic needs and economic needs, and moderate use of ego motives, e.g. desire some use of the desire for status Fear, threats, punishment, and occasional rewards Relatively high unless policed carefully Relatively high satisfaction through out the organization with regard to mem bership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achievements for status and achievement Rewards and some actual or potential punishment Moderately high unless policed Some dissatisfaction to moderately high satis faction with regard to membership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achie vements Economic needs and considerable use of status and other major motives, e.g. , desire for new experiences Rewards, occasional punishment, and some involvement Moderate Dissatisfaction to moderate satisfac tion with regard to membership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achievements Full use of economic, status and other major motives , as, for example, motivational forces arising from group goals 2A Economic rewards based on compensation system devel oped through participation; group participation and in volvement in setting goals, improving methods, apprais ing progress toward goals, etc. 2B Members themselves will use measurements and other steps in effort to keep losses to a minimum QQ Usually dissatisfaction with membership in the organi zation, with supervision, and with one's own achievements 2F Amount of re sponsibility felt by each member of organization for achieving organization's goals Personnel at all levels feel real re sponsibility for organization's goals and behave in ways to implement them Character of com munication process Amount of inter- Very little action and com munication aimed at achieving organization's objectives | | | Substantial proportion of personnel, especi ally at higher levels, feel responsibility and generally behave in ways to achieve the organization's goals Little Managerial person nel usually feel re sponsibility; rank and file usually feel relatively little responsibility for achieving organi zation's goals Quite a bit High levels of management feel responsibility; lower levels feel less; rank and file feel little and often welcome opportunity to behave in ways to defeat organization's goals 2D Much with both individuals and groups I I I I I 3A I I I TABLE XX Factor 3—GLCGR - Goal congruence 119 3. GLCGR—Goal congruence* This dimension concerns the extent of congruence, identification, and satisfaction with organizational goals. It also includes some aspects of the mechanics (e.g. motivational aspects) of inducing goal congruence. Labels from panel members* 1. Corporate/self interest 2. Organizational goal commitment 3. Motivational climate 4. Goal centredness 5. Congruence, identification, satisfaction with organizational goals. Items included in the dimension for* 1. panel 2. factor 3* dimension score 2 C 8 A 2 A 2 B 8 C 2 F 2 D 3 A 2 C 8 A 2 A 2 B 8 C 2 F 2 D 3 A 2 C 8 A 2 A 3 A 120 Extent to which subordinates can influence the goals, methods and activ ity of their units and departments (1) As seen by None superiors Virtually none Moderate amount A great deal 4C1 Leadership pro cesses used Extent to which superiors have confidence in subordinates Have no confidence and trust in subordinates Have condescending confidence and trust, such as master has in servant Substantial but not complete confidence and trust; still wishes to keep con trol of decisions Complete confidence and trust in all matte rs IA (2) As seen by subordinates None except through "informal organization" Little except through "informal organization" Moderate amount directly Substantial amount direc 4C2 To what extent are Not at all subordinates in volved in decisions related to their work? Never involved in decisions; occasionally consulted Usually are consul ted but ordinarily not involved in the decision making Are involved fully in all decisions related to the work 5F Extent to which subordinates, in turn, have con fidence and trust in superiors Character of goal setting or ordering Manner in which usually done Have no confidence and trust in superiors Except in emergen cies, goals are usually established by means of group participation Have subservient con fidence and trust, such as servant has to master Goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates of problems and planned action Substantial but not Complete confidence complete confidence and trust and trust IB Orders issued, opportunity to com ment may or may not exist Orders issued 6A TABLE XXI Factor 4—CONPR - Confidence-participation 121 4. CONPR—Confidence-participation. This dimension is con cerned with the participation and influence of subordinates and the extent to which they are relied upon (or trusted) by superiors. Labels from panel members: 1. Participation 2. Mutual trust and participation 3. Vertical mutuality and intimacy 4. Subordinate involvement 5. Confidence-influence Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 4 C 1 1 A 4 C 2 4 C 1 1 A 4 C 2 4 C 1 1 A 4 C 2 5 F 5 F 1 B 2 B 7 A 5 F 1 B 3 G 6 A 6 A 122 Direction of information flow Downward Mostly downward Down and up Down, up, and with peers 3B Upward com munication: (1) Adequacy of Very little Limited Some A great deal 3D1 i i I l l I I __L_ I I I I I i i l I I I upward com munication Amount of actual influence which superiors can exercise over the goals, activity and methods of their units and -departments Believed to be sub stantial but actually moderate unless capacity to exercise severe punishment is present Moderate to somewhat more than moderate; especially for higher levels in organization Moderate to sub stantial, especially for higher levels in organization Substantial but often done indirectly, as, for example, by superior building effective interaction-influence system 4D (2) Subordinates1 feeling of re sponsibility for initiating accurate up ward com munication along project lines None at all _L_J L_L Relatively little, usually communicates "filtered" information and only when requested, may "yes" the boss 1 Some to moderate degree of responsi bility to initiate accurate upward communication Considerable responsibility felt and much initiative; group communicates all relevant information 3D2 J I L TABLE XXII Factor 5—UPCOM - Upward communications 123 UPCOM—Upward communications. This dimension is concerned with the directionality of communications and influence or more particularly with the extent of upward communications and influence. Labels from panel members* 1. Vertical communication 2. Directionality of influence 3. Subordinate liberation 4. Communication openness 5. Upward communication Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3» dimension score 3 B 3 D 1 4 D 3 D 2 3 B 3 D 1 4 D 3 D 2 3 B 3 D 1 4 D 124 Sideward com- Usually poor because Fairly poor because of Fair to good Good to excellent munication, its of competition, competition adequacy and corresponding accuracy with hostility other non-enginee ring depa rtments 3F Sideward com- Usually poor because Fairly poor because of Fair to good Good to excellent munication, its of competition, competition adequacy and corresponding accuracy with hostility -3g other engineering departments Forces leading Virtually no forces Occasional forces to Many forces to dis- Powerful forces to distort to accurate or to distort and power- distort along with many tort; also forces for information and deceive distorted up- ful forces to com- forces to communicate honest communica- superiors ward informa- municate accurately accurately tion 3D3 tion on projects I I I I I I I I L L I I I I TABLE XXIII Factor 6—PROCM - Project communications 125 6. PROCM—Project communications. This dimension is concerned with the extent and quality of communication outside of the department on project matters. Labels from panel members: 1. Lateral communication 2. Communication quality 3. Communication 4. Lack of communication bias (or lateral com munication) 5» Project communications Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 3 F 3 E 3 F 3 E 3 D 3 3 F 3 E 3 D 3 3 D 3 126 Extent to which there is an infor mal organization present and sup porting or oppos ing goals of formal organi zation Informal organiza tion present and opposing goals of formal organization Informal organization usually present and partially resisting goals Informal organiza tion may be present and may either support or partially resist goals of for mal organization Informal and formal organi zation are one and the same; hence all social forces support efforts to achieve organization's goals 70 J L I I Extent to which the review and control functions are concentrated Highly concentrated in top management Relatively highly con centrated, with some delegated control to middle and lower levels Moderate downward Review and control done at delegation of review all levels with lower units at and control proces- times imposing more vigor-ses; lower as well as ous reviews and tighter higher levels pe rform controls than top management these tasks Are there forces to accept, resist, or reject goals ? Goals are overtly accepted but are covertly resisted strongly Goals are overtly accepted but often covertly resisted to at least a moderate degree Goals are overtly Goals are fully accepted both accepted but at times overtly and covertly with some covert resistance 60 TABLE XXIV Factor 7—INFOR - Presence of informal organization 12? 7. INFOR—Presence of informal organization. This dimension is concerned with the degree or extent to which there is an informal organization operating independently of the formal organization. Labels from panel memberss 1. Informal support 2. Hierarchical formalization 3« "Alter" organization vis formal organization 4. Organizational unity 5« Presence of informal organization Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 7 C 7 B 6 C 7 C 7 B 6 C 7 C 7 B 6 C 128 Character of decision-making process At what level in Bulk of decisions at Policy at top, many Broad policy decis- Decision making widely done organization are top of organization decisions within pre- ions at top, more throughout organization, decisions form- scribed framework specific decisions although well integrated ally made? made at lower levels at lower levels through linking process pro-but usually checked vided by overlapping groups with top before action Extent to which Used only if pos- Much of what is avail- Much of what is Most of what is available technical and sessed at higher able in higher and available in higher, anywhere within the organi-professional levels middle levels is used middle and lower zation is used knowledge is used levels is used ' in decision making | I I 1 I | 1 I I I I I I I 1 ) I 1 L 5D TABLE XXV Factor 8—DECMK - Locus of decision-making 129 8. DECMK—Locus of decision-making. This dimension is con cerned with the level of decision-making particularly with respect to technical decisions related to the work in progress. Labels from panel members: 1. ? 2. Decision-making locus 3« Decision-making participation 4. Decision diffusion 5. Level of decision-making Items included in the dimension for: 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 5 A 5 D 5 A 5 D 5 A 5 D 130 Analysis using Likert data. As mentioned briefly be fore, a factor analysis was also carried out using the corre lation matrix from Likert (1967, pp. 193-5)• As the FAN program is able to accept a correlation matrix as data it was a simple matter to carry out an analysis. For this purpose, only the variables which corresponded to the questions that were used in this study were used (37 out of 43) so that the results of the two analyses could be compared. Table XXVI indicates a five factor result. The other numerical output of interest along with the original matrix used is included in Appendix K. As the raw data were not available, RSQ values could not be used on the diagonal and the original values (ones) were used. In this respect the procedure was not exactly parellel to that used on the data from this study. The problem of determining the number of factors again had to be faced. A study of the two correlation matrices or to the Fig. 9 graph of eigenvalues will indicate that the two sets of data had some distinctive differences. For example, when an attempt was made to rotate with eight factors no items loaded most heavily on the last factor. The combination of having a much faster drop-off in proportion of total variance accounted for, and a discontinuity in eigenvalues between five and six, led to a choice of five factor solution. The five factor so lution also provided "sensible" dimensions while going to more factors at the same time maintaining this sensibility would likely require more knowledge about the population where the ^ A 7 R I X CF CORPELAT VARIABLES £K E REOR * INDICATES A VAGN ICNS CF FACTCRS In IT hi VARIABLES. CEKEn ACCORDING TO HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH A FACTOR. ITUOF GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO C. 70000  o o a> M P c+ p. O 3 CQ O to PH {0 P" O > a> W 4 < tr1 ct- P W P> X P P X c+ a1 <! P P» M FL) P-cr 3* H, P O e+ O CO VARIABLE 2 5 5CAKAR 24 5RCINF FAC TOP. 1 .7 744 .7 046 jJiliiJL -0.2447 -C. 29 24 -Q. 224 2_ -0.1480 -0. 2645 -0-3635 0.2113 0. 2 75 8 0.2960 -0.3351 -0.1909 -0-3650 23 2 7. 1 8 22 4 5A0,rCL 5 E EL EV 43 IE A» 6AGULS 2 0 P. E S P I:iQ0NC_ 5 64 0 .4960 .4 95 3 .488 1 .48 15 .-^20 -0.303 6 -0. 1727 -0. 30 19 -C.3325 -C-2317 -0.4469 -0.4 242 -0.4511 -0. 3 799 -0.4383 -0.4632 0.4075 0. 2 5 77 0.38 51 0.4190 0.1703 0.4115 .2581 -0.3741 -0.3890 -0.2760 -0.4831 -0.2624 -0.3.781 -0.4279 -0.3314 -0. 2532 -0.1522 9 3CI0IN 3 5 80AS6C 34 6 A PR 00 37 SOINSP 36 ECVAST .4417 s* *** .4 304 . 14a0 .1941 -C.3740 ******** -0.6188 -C.(225 f- -C. 7482 * -0.8118 -0.3519 -0 .160 4 -0.3467 -0.2274 ^2607_ 0.2.507 0.1602 0.3932 C. 2700 0.1307, 7 17 6 1 3ACffU 4 A A[NT 2FSSTF 2ARCT1 4CT*CT I .3683 -.3616 i.2392 1 .4 364 :.4448 * * ***** •--0 . 3359 -0.3120 -0. 3567 -0.2270 -0^74 ******** -0.4 156 -0.4638 -3. 502 1 -0.5 54 4 -0. 601 9 C.2304" 0.4663 0.2387 ******** > 0.74 94 : 0. 71 1» 2 2 8USf0 5 2 c A T E 3 2CAT1T 15 3ESACE .3 257 .2430 . 1586 16 3CrP!fc 3 3 7C INFO 29 6SGLEV 30 6CGACR 7 A C C N A .2240 .40 30 .3 506 .4721 .3547 IZIUL. -C. 213 1 -0.234! -0. 2037 -C. 1466 ~ 0 . 2884 -C.430 1 -C.4028 -C.3S61 -0.1826 -C. 6573 -0.664 5 * -0.7181 ******** -0.3507 :0±J92 3_ -0.2659 -0.2702 -0.1328 -0.2953 -0 .2499 ' 0.6116 0.5874 0. 5014 ******** 0.3155 °-36 5 -0 .2192 -0.4066 -0.3U8 -0 .1675 -0.3614 ******** -0.5105 -0-5185 10 22 14 3 12 .1 ?C ;DAC 4EEFST 3CALAC 33OR TN 3C2URF 4C2INo 'll 20IUA0 19 4 C11N F 1 386 .4 326 .2 4J4 . 3467 .28 20 .3 0 1 3 1756 .4088 -0.3615 -0. 2516 -0.4625 -C.39 5 2 -0. 23.39 .2706 -cl-2274 -0.1S11 -0 .4758 -0. 2381 -0. 2011 -0. 1820 -0. 2C90 -0.3723 -0.4 002 -0.3058 0.353 0. 31 45 0.4641 0.404? 0. 2 5 80 0.2908 0.1475 556 1 -0.5568 -0.5616 -0.5760 -0.6479 -0.6509 -0.6515 -0.6732 ******** SUM CF SQUARES FACTOR-LOADINGS OIVIOcD BY SUM CF CCMMUNALITIES 0.2 1 40 0. 176 1 0.1949 0. 1883 0.2266 132 data were collected. Also, the start from 3? items as compared to 45 items in the previous analysis might well lead one to expect fewer factors to emerge. The brief definitions arrived at for these factors are as follows: 1. This dimension relates to the character and level of decision-making and to some extent the goal-setting process. 2. This dimension relates to the character of production. 3. This dimension relates to the identification with organizational goals and the character of processes involved in affecting this identification and/or satisfaction with goals. 4. This dimension relates to the character and friendliness of horizontal communi cations. 5» This dimension relates to the character of interaction-influence or more par ticularly with directionality and extent of vertical communications. Note that less time and effort went into the above definitions as compared to that for the previous ones in this study. The productivity factor (2) is the only one to fall out precisely as would be indicated on the a priori categorization. The first factor is dominated by decision-making variables but the additional items bring in linkages, for that sample, be tween decision-making and goal-setting. The third factor is dominated by motivational force items but has a different tone from that suggested by the a priori categorization. The fourth and fifth factors are dominated by communication items but 133 there would appear to be sharp distinctions in the implications between friendly horizontal or friendly vertical communications. Comparison of the two analyses results. When consider ing the results from both analyses some interesting similarities and contrasts can be noted. All of the factors from the Likert data can be matched up roughly, in terms of definition, with a factor from this study except for the productivity factor which has no parallel. This is true even though the individual items which constitute each of the parallel factors are often quite different. This would indicate that for the two samples there were different "rules" for categorizing the items. Even when the same general topic or dimension was being considered, a dif ferent perspective upon implications of the dimension was present. The above finding is not surprising when one considers the two sources of data. The Likert data were gathered from managers only and was likely from manufacturing organizations. The data for this study was gathered from non-managers in an organization with many characteristics which would distinguish it from a manufacturing organization. If the factor analyses are considered as a means of deriving the mental "set" of dif ferent groups, the differences noted earlier are not too unexpected. The lack of a productivity orientation by non-managers in an organization where productivity is very difficult to measure accurately might be expected along with the possibly 134 subtle distinctions in types of communications in an organi zation, which has a very complex pattern of communication linkages. Second Survey results - final The analysis that follows is parallel to that done be fore factor analysis, but makes use of climate dimensions de rived from the factor analysis. As indicated earlier a number of variables that loaded significantly on more than one dimension were eliminated from the factor dimensions for the results that follow in order to have climate dimensions that were as "clean" as possible. The following correlation matrix in Table XXVII would indicate that the new dimensions are more towards being orthogonal than the a priori dimensions and therefore more suit able for use as independent variables in a regression analysis. Of the 28 correlations between climate dimensions only three are above 0.50 as compared to twenty previously, while eight are below 0.40 as compared to three previously. The dynamic correlations amongst dimensions, when compared as a group with those for the a priori dimensions, are also found to have much lower values. The number of paired observations and means using factor dimensions will be found in Appendix L. When the changes in dimensions between the two surveys are examined in Table XXVIII, one finds that there are again some small differences between the groups given feedback and the control group. The difference now becomes localized chiefly r* r- u-, i P- ex. V- o |-•S: L> rn AJ fi r-g ITi vT ^ j c • N ^ cr; i p-- --j <-<-. | • r- O' O -*Q vf > . VJ c. 135 ;A m LA m <j -J-CO cn rA f-' a* r— C O C" r-• AI LC <x O f-('i -j- '-c 'A C 'J** o rv rv c- ^0 'v; r* r- f> c: O —< rvj A- r-rv, «, —• v. ~i 0- no o <r vc A- cr rn .A -r c- r> vr -c \-~ \A ^ <s cr I A 0" cn •-' CM r-< n\ m vr ir» ... .0 rt o xj co r~ r-. ,T (M M H rj r- i o c o c «:. iA rt ~r- r--• lJ» ,-, _ L"l rvj *i o -A ir. <r AJ v iA OJ rv rt) n*. m u cv j -j- rn r» -r rt AJ ,-n Al «£: co tr ;o -JJ o — — c-v Vj rt ..<;. r1 CA CJ iv A. c- cr o O cv rv, i iv r- cv AJ cc. • -T cn NO --'J '-^ c o cv O i o o C' o o c i r- -jj • LA JA. c:-m r>. rvi rt vc -4 r. m in j- .g l"A CA A. A iA V CV -4 AJ o.i o rv «J .c At rv ,-4 cr CA O '.A cr, LA JJ cW «I M rv,' O O C O O c: •J- .C LA iA A-^ -A ^ O -0 .•'"i cr r- P-A/ AJ C V rt P- O LA cr A CC U"' 4 vT CJ I CA AJ LA. . ST CA A- iA CC O vC AJ r~ C — 'J*' S\ rt A." O LA P~ r~ A-•x- o cc j> ij\ r-cr- <r rt rt m rt AJ fA „ rv <-< 1 c o -r- ^j- rt o rt rvi m o r— CP LT. j- n"i A %j CVI -> O Al c o o «:'• c U". O AJ O rA '• O -t" A- vC ' s o o c o ^- A- A . <r f J cr A-C0 A- rt •» CC tn rA AJ a A- -J- rv o"t r> A <"-J C' A,' (T. (A LA LA p- CO rt *f -T -s-x c vr vi Ai P— rA I LT. -C fA LA rv. • cr m cc A: r-i i'vi o o z. o c-X' vO AJ AJ i ^, rvj r~ <T . <' LA C (A CT , . CO -r <T -T A- vO f— iVj '.A LA Aj rn C" c CC cv m r- cc rvi >i X r-CT o  v-i rv ;'j »i'J |V1 rt co xj C_ IA o ° f- o o , ! i rt vr "A AJ , . CO cr AJ m AJ ( LA ^» ^ in r-j c"- • •n o j-. rt r- , •;J -j- f/- AJ m • o <j u-\ ^ I 1 r*~ *v1" fA LTi . >L' rv -JJ -J" < -L, v.? r- m u-. i— r~ r- un i <r rv r~ • IM c r~ <\ ! A; vr -•A ;A AJ ( vC; rO ^ IA rv rA C" A-' A a Q, c\ c- ;-• iTi u" O i-" > — _ o .^j i • o i_-' n; :> ' O- CL c'.-' LJ c_ ir —• -J .-J o c o •-> o v. TABLE XXVII Correlation matrix - leadership scores and factor dimensions with differences - both surveys V. O vf v* c <\' r>-zfi LA -o cn cv f> O rt AJ fJQ c • A. •rt c cr « r--x a •—• 0 O C <;J 0 •£) I'll c >"•- .xj •c u"\ ixj r> cr rt ^- vj- r- cr -o ..^ a: C' A" tA, < CL t-; v/ •J" >A (A -J" L„ fr, <f rt m C t.j O  O O —1 if LL * 1 * • C2 rt 0 — O O O r. O O 0 O 0 0 i^; O O O O 1 1 I 1 1 -v-. c >~> <sy r-i ,-n. 0 H^NN.a O r-J r- 0 to o .• rt P-- vJ- CO c vf; r- C" CA 33 vO cr AJ cj vt r* 4; p* c O.J c ri ^- 0' XJ rv rv O .A sj- CL •..> v.' A" vO o r. <r —• L". O '*"> in i'i >TJ .n vJ- cn rt O c. C- fT* cn 0 o LL GL ? C: C O O L'J V_ - yt 0 O cj. 0 1 o -1 0 CXJ r- CO LT. L"~- rt rt cv ir. O A: co 0 rv AJ ^ m aj rxi T\l in •vi' r- ^•,« 0 t vt id -r "-• c rv C c-'i C-co n <! vt or. r*j P- cc -j m AJ G) to a- A cc 0 — .0 -r c cn o rt ,-j n if .;n xr -c ,x. •O .A •': r- t'u C CCJ :J\ ^ LA rt LL _J rt O • CJ c c c- C C c c c 0 c r* rt LJ C* C ' VJ o 1 1 " 1 1 X O cn r- cv cr r-vo r- rt rt rv cr O — fv, ff, cC' P-J tr rt rX vC .--1 — c-V r~ -4 C LT- rxj A) rt lA If sC 0 c-A-ee- '-< 'V r-l -O (X e' '•V a; <-r <J m <"v O — J fA vT. Ai AJ ^. J vr vT A; A- vu o er X" •vT f*i <r NT (A >T Aj X vC LJ 0 rt <r — m cn LJ _J rt C. C- 0 t_" c O t. L-> O O a; rt O. 0 0 c 0 0 o t I 1 1 a. v- p- m tr ex: cv c:- r- cc rt tr. 0 r- A< c^ L m AJ .A 0 m a 0 C*"r r— •x> r* •O r- ro vO nj u~-cr r%j <x m 0 LT CV .**, CA .— cr. co .A >xi in 0 r- vO 0-1 —t <T LO. C-CM in H c aj (A 5! b 1^- •O A- c- r~ rj- vr cr p. m m C1 rt rt rn m ^ ..T —* m •-•« rv 0 0 0 ^ LA, X1- O vt vf r-i u D nJ rt C r r-, O 0 0 0 0 C CJ O O O O rt. C" c 0 c. 0 a 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 II o. 0 33 , -t cc cc rv 0:1 lA r— lA CT CC' iA 0 o> 0 „ cr xt LA -r cc CM 0 0 ^1 AJ r- -D X- exf cr 0 vt <r c N rjx rr tA. A- a: r- c cr LA. rt m A- rt ^ cr r- — r~-CM r- C-vj- cr LO. r- in cv rc 'A rv A- Aj rt 0 -J- r- r- rt LA rt a X- -J' CM 0 m iV r<~. x. c sD vT LA O PI 0 0 LA m A. rA rt pg t-i Q; rt O O c 0 O O O c 0 0 0 0 e 0 a c 0 0 0 Q: rt 0 O C- O O O O O o. 1 1 cx 1 1 I O Cxi cr f\i cn cn ( r- AJ •m O '-C -vt x!- CV rn C At AJ rc O in CO «~i cr r-- cr cv cn fx; r- c- Cvj • c rv r- -—< r~ A- ~* O rt O 0 LC m [."' vO A- Lf. AJ ;c c> xr r- <• rt -j- cr CA u~. C-.' un cc 0 cr- cn O C' A- L/^ cv ^ C cc- Ll C' A- <r r- <• •X C\J CM -J- CM c JJ1 »-* XT L.A C-i L. r- >}• —1 x. <- 'v rv ~* •— CJ cc rt c r* C c \0 0 c; 0 c- c O O c c- C CL <—•) 0 O O C-0 c c 0 c c 1 V 1 r> t 1 1 1 1 rv-O m ^. cv f cr vO LX 0 cr occ""-H C- iA O 0 O 'A O CA c cr vt •A c -J r-- CO r- •-• •c VJ O O "vT iA. 0 o- O vr -t; AJ •—. CO AJ vtJ CO Pvl cr y, rt in vr rv CO sC" cc. LTi -u m ^ rt CO O vO Lfi OC' <r cr u\ LA C" IA tA MJ AJ LT. CC -,A CA N _X c m <V rt 1 rt c c •_-> -J. O C, rt C> tn 0 r-j rvj O 0 cA CJ m <r CV f-4 tA -O .'P. r-c 0 O 1 r ° ^ ° " c 0 O C"> 0 c It 11 a 7 L,1 0 '"J C' —' c- 0 xt •XV vC r. CM cv cr A* c° in r~ —1 r- AJ O rt cn ^1 -x CO .H cr to cr i-n .r. AJ rt r-j O AJ rt rt rt r- r". n: rxj rv; r.-. fvj -M .0 *A xr rn c 0 a- rt CCJ LA ,— PJ A' cr. - rj- rt 27 c CS; rt PJ ;r. r- r- CM rt C" if-CJ -c r- cr cc rn .-1 rv <£, -J- in 5" r- LA G*- Al vj- AJ rr _pt rt ^ > O "_< .J ~J r— cx Cv, r-- rv •x-si' tr. sD r-r-. 0 rt A- < ... a L IA rA r~ A: A- '.1 vt A- rt c;> LJ U - '~ ~' ~ ^ CJ 0 0 -j> 'U t T *** a C >' c. ° T - — CI ir ^ xt J" L7 '"V r- a" <• vr a^ , ~ " p- rx -v. 1 - L„ rt C"' CC v.-; C 1 ir rt 'A *r <" c- f. r- cv p- PJ rn cv. rn a- AI r~- A" U'. .~ rt cr ,TI " r- c Al 'A vf. 7% c r- r- A> h- X' •O x •v —' C', m <r rjx •;- AJ ,p c C- .A :^ A> rt x*~ V" LA 1,- ~* C) CJ-> A; - -r u. f-1 ~. r- r. .A. -n ir. <r c ,,- r- < ^ AJ a. rt '-- iv .-v rA ^- f-> -J -t I c C ' ^ '•- 1 •:_ 0 c x: 0 CJ LJ O 0 v_ I. . C" O V • 1 O rt :A ."V rn px u- vO Al VO CV O O ni 0: LA r- L" r- -C r~ ^ U m -•i CA O O PJ X c- rt L.- 'j'' -X to fi cn ^j •n < xT xj r-v >: AJ ' •j' •-'* A in r— ^~ rt L"* n- x- -c rt PJ CV — aj — 0 P. fXJ x; -J-\I\ 1' V —' 0 0 —1 C —1 — —' —* LA rA 0 ,-1 XJ j t ,A C- CO 0 — > r- !A -v- 0 AJ Ai C\i PI rt <J •A 0. r- iA rt —1 l— VJ • * *J cr. c ^ c ..J ^. 0 0 <I u — O CJ U.1 1 1 1 :'- LJ 1 1 0 L) LJ *— LJ LI _J C"i - CM P C - •x. rj C.1 rt O C- —< (M f,"l rt csi 0 — c-.' A; I (A r«j LJ — rt nj O rt c~ A ;•[ X Ci' •' i' :• :- >. > x- ct. ;i_ > > --L! ;Y cr* T\ > > :t a > > > LU <x > > J' 0 . -.7 IT c • r\ 1-C ' O t- '_• 0 '~ C C' CA 1 —J C r«_ C t~ LJ C.J O IJ 0 C1 '"1 _i —J -J rt —J _J —1 ^. -4. K- c^ 0 0 ;* LJ O L.1 LJ I.J L, LL LL LJ LJ L_J C.V \z -•' L_' LJ C LJ LL LL t,- 0 („; 0 CJ CV <• 7* it 0 „ _ u 0 C O. a U Ci *.r-:; >r uu L-J U CJ < ~i i-J C CI a Q' Lu C JT 1;- UJ iL- r " L1J it' LU 0 a. a a C LJ LJ •J 1) C a. a f_ rt LJ LJ CJ •_J J» 0 t_J _ _J a. a. LL — ~ 'o u: a O > LJ O v TABLE XXVII - (continued) 137 £ > -M 0 in a --» t 7* m 0 O n 0 n t- •J> 3 0 -> .+• n Tr-n -NJ J" •f '.n 0 n -0 o -n ro —* 'O .7* "5 -n o o • n 3 r> m w o —4 '"A •r rn —* .n t-- rj o a. 1J .n o o 1 * —t 1 1 2 i 1 1 1 + + ? 1 1 1 —i i t a -t "J n -< -^J in o t in -f m >. ;A A i> m >- --o o 35 -o LT» O "1 O "A in rn rn -n .-n :\j n o o O O • LTV 'f> o -o •0 O ro o o o -o ^ o • n o -o in -jo o o "0 m o o a. ro —4 —* + 1 ^ + + ^ 3 + 1 +• + + + 2' + i 1 1 1 f :rj -n Jn a> O -n •A ro O f> in *t O .n b -n .-. t -o O ;0 f J n r- 4- o ro n • t- -n -n H O •o n f~- o n o n o • o •t o ? ° t\j ° o .n a o -o n -J -7* a. < 3 + + I 1 + + + + 1 f + + + f 1 1 a: M '.rt O J a 1^1 —1 •r* -* >n n -O 1 in -o 71 o «-i g- :o •4- ,n "0 n •a -J •~Q n -o r- O .1 n -O m co •t <n -.n o — TO o •n o •M 'j- •H O •o -~- T >- rn o n in —i "o J" r2 n •}-!J ^ n n + +• :n -* + O + + + + -1 —4 •*• 1 -n n + l ~< > i i i .7" f- n T o* o «o o n r— ;n m o 3 "> n r\ .1- O M -n •> g J- D ••J " n rt n o %i 0 J" o n -A o ^ > O n .) n o 0 O n n n -< n n n O r n rj -* \j n -i +• i 1 | ~* -^J -H -J •L 'U -* u. a. LU LL -» \( !U LL. g LL <J_ > ;.J . b TABLE XXVIII Means of factor dimensions - both surveys 138 to only two dimensions: goal congruence and confidence-partici pation. The t-prob values when the two groups comparison is made are O.23 and 0.19 respectively. The drop in project com munications for department C is understandable if one is familiar with the time context that this department was enter ing. On large projects the most critical areas information-wise and schedule-wise shifts gradually as time progresses from departments concerned with outside underground service to depart ments concerned with inside details such as instrumentation. For several projects, department C was entering a phase where poor information or co-operation from other departments was becoming increasingly critical. The change in climate dimemsions does not help a great deal in providing more information on the possible differences between the experimental and control groups with respect to H 2. The evidence in support of H 2 is, sta tistically, very weak. When the cross-lagged panels for department heads style (Table XXIX) are extracted from the correlation matrix (Table XXVII) some new general features become evident. In the previous panels (Tables XV and XVI) there were some general shifts to wards higher correlations between climate and style dimension between survey I and survey II but the factor-dimension panels show a more consistent pattern in this regard (i.e. (2)> (1) ) (For explanation of numbers in parentheses see p. 9 9 )• This trend could possibly give more indication that there were some qualitative differences between the "populations" being sampled on the two surveys. *•» • u — 139 rt S. iJ-— — rrr TABLE XXIX Cross-lagged correlational panels - factor dimensions, dept. heads — UJ ~ -* (NI -ft * LJ o -t TABLE XXIX - (continued) fl. rv fl. # 141 v. A J > 1 1 — TABLE XXX Cross-lagged correlational panels - factor dimensions, project leaders •/•- 1 1 i l^ LP C | _j • P ' L' 1 .* X _ -o —t JJ "1 t n. x V X V .% 1— •c •t 1 •4 t 'JJ 1 T <* X' X — T 1 LJ t X _J 1 t-j I z* >-~ >- X » r- LJ r-a I I— X — •y :u — — ~-, / 1 •~Z 1 — ,^ ~? -t •£ -n ;i '•X 1 <t a x — fM -t 'S X <t r<» X t -i •X V* f_ •n o ,n ~* tn a. 1 i.u r~ T "V ^? f— n T. •c i Tt 1 ~c -u I ) # '.4 • • • * 1 1 0 ;v LP X X1 <t 1 -j X 11 r L* V— rt • _J ~« — 1 .J A ~1 A ^* 'IJ X rv X 'A | -I <f -'3 1 !_ —» LU —. < z u zz "5 i fM _! —« *T '.r. r- a a >• IP r> •\' r- X LJ rs; LP -t _ | X LU fN o •0 •c -t fM X TJ 0 f\ r0 rv rr; A t II X )1 i/; 1 T" »t •c r— l •> •o —J 1 0s ry —' i •?* C >-y | u: •—. r- if LL1 u Is- X* X r- r- & '0 r»» iP '.L. 1 X n; 1? \ x •/; L.U -— ™. a. X !— h- i— ty; :.J U i .1 0 I -"jj A A -ft c •t 'A 0 'p 0 •t P C 1 it •€. —» :£. —. -< — — -— ~» — .v 1 <x .p •JJ —. V— -0 >— ir% i— P n i 'ti -J X c/1 rfl •v. f*- tv) •1 t— i _^ lj «i X •t r— o ij i X X IL X t * • • a « • • • X 1 •t <\.! y— Si T. T: ZZ t— _J _l ft N ft ft l_j h-a* <S1 li _j f2 •4- •X X- —• -li ft- •u r • SI CT" —* OC ft ft V- CZ- rH -ft ;r « • • _J -ft b 1 UJ 'JJ ft «-.f — * —» — —• •ft OC ~7 -1 1 r— li. 3. J- — <— C :C -J ij- ft — t -.J O c. -t X <f ft ft •ft fM n tp a. p •ft U in • J -o I X> -:(• ft ft c :rt Lf •p • 'P — •ft .p ft ft • i • • f i fl ft — ft ft II u X —* <r it -;v ft •I _i •ft — ft — nj IXI 'M T? rs; rv LU ii. ft ft _J —. .1 w — ZJ — —J -•1 o • o •X (V LT rx -X n; X (N rP •0 f\ X rP u •M 1 X -~ 1 :C X _l I 1Z * 1^ \ J f\ -J 1- X J- • t X t X .7- c 'G T °->- ••I c; l~ X 1 '0 _J —• •n — o 0 • rt n 0 t •— P •rs JJ t '" a. -t -. •o I ,y •T 1 P -J T -v C :t 1 si X XI *n •< 'ft -J f o '— -t 142 TABLE XXX - (continued) 143 The trend is so dominant that fewer panels can meet the criterion (6)>(li2)>(5) that would indicate a lagged relation ship because (2) is greater than (1) and in several instances greater than (6). Several of the new climate dimensions are more dynamic than any of the a priori ones as five of them have (4) values lower than 0.75 which is the lowest (4) value for any of the a priori dimensions. As with the a priori dimensions there is a consistent pattern of (6) being higher than (5) ex cept for initiation of structure with presence of an informal organization, performance and control communications, and interaction-warmth. The panels which most closely meet the cross-lagged criteria and have substantive dynamic correlations are as followst Consideration—goal congruence, Consideration—upward communications, and Initiation of Structure—upward communi cation. If one were able to reconcile the lowering of corre lation (2) several other panels would also indicate definite rather than vague lagged relationships. As before, there are a few panels where both (1) and (2) are greater than (5) or (6) while having a relatively high dynamic correlation(7). These are* initiation of structure with locus of decision making, and with performance and control communications. Again this may indicate that these particular changes in style or climate are more directly associated timewise rather than having a lagged relationship. 144 The cross-lagged panels for project leaders (Table XXX) indicate even more pronounced distortions from the cross-lagged panel requirements that may be due to a change in the population and the decrease in sample size. There is also the increased possibility that there were changes in project leaders between surveys which resulted in more short-run impressions of'leader ship style. As indicated earlier, the decline in work and in the size of the company would also mean more short term shift ing of personnel as major projects were completed. Though some interesting conclusions can be inferred from some of these results they depend heavily upon an intimate knowledge of the particular departments and firm being studied as well as un substantiated assumptions and are therefore not included. Though the trend of (5) and (6) values would indicate causal linkages from climate to leadership style there are some in dications that the direction of causality may be in the opposite direction for first-level supervision with respect to some climate dimensions. With the accumulated evidence that leadership style is dependent upon climate dimensions, it was decided to carry out regressions with the first data set using style dimensions as dependent variables. The regression results are shown in Table XXXI on the following two pages. These are the results when all climate dimensions are retained as independent vari ables irrespective of their significance. H3 > W tri W X X X r REGRESSION RESULTS ALL OEPTS. ** DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS ISP1 RSO C. 2467 r r RC E- O.CClc SIC ERR Y = C. 264 7 V " R COEFF STD ERR F-RATIG FPRGB. CCNST. 2.30S3 0.3591 1INT1.M C.C310 0.0323 6.4236 0.0136 2PRCCN 0.85I4O-02 C.C278 0.1C29 0.7449 3C LGGP 0.068 3 0 .0260 7.0113 0.0102 4CCNPK C.219i D-02 0.02 74 0.6388C-02 0.8957 5'JPCCM -0.0205 0.0S16 0. 8569 0.3504 6PRCC" -0.0130 0.0245 0.2827 0.6C34 71NFGR -0.0219 C.C2C9 1.2030 0.2988 3 DEC IV C.7104C-02 0.C248 O.C 81 9 0. 7677 OEPESOEM VARIABLE IS CCNP1 R SO C. 454 3 FFPCe. 0.0000 STC ERR Y = C.3200 ViR COEFF STO ERR F-R AT I 0 FPRCB. CCNST. 1 .133 7 0.4341 IT N T U ('•* C.1415 0.0391 12.1037 C.C0C8 2PRCON 0 . C 6 01 0. 0 3 36 3. 1 567 0.0757 3GLCGR C .0 153 0.02 14 0. 236 1 0.6342 'CCNPR 0.0555 0 .033.1 2.P.C79 0 .0956 SUPCCM -0.0334 0.0262 1.6285 0.2046 6 P 2 C C M -0.049? O.C2S6 2.S241 C.C941 7 IMF OR - C. C 4 S 6 0.0253 .3.7120 0.0562 SCECLV C .0302 0.03CQ 1. 015 1 0.3195 H» J f > w X X X o o 3 c+ g a. REGRESSION RESULTS ** ALL UEPTS. ** CEP ENCFNT V AR IA8L E IS ISOE1 RSC 0.2151 FPRDB. 0.C80E STC ERR Y = 0 .34 6 = VA P CCEFF STD ERR F-RAT 10 F PROB. CONST. 2.CC3C 0.47C7 i r wv 0.0194 0.04 24 C.2106 0.6523 JPRCCN C.C73 7 0.0364 4.0949 0.0454 2CLCOP C.0235 0. C341 0 . 7 1 69 0 .4055 iCCNFR 0.958RC-02 O.C259 0.0712 0. 7802 eurCCM C. 41250-02 0.C284 0.0212 0.8565 fcPROcy -C.44170-02 0.C3 2 1 C.CI 90 0.8612 7!NF C R -0 .0176 0.0274 O.'i 122 C.5303 SOECLV C. 0109 0.C3.25 0.1115 C.7362 OE P EN CENT VARIABLE 15 COM3 EI RSC 0.5773 FPR03. C.COOC STC ERR Y = 0.2752 VCR CCEFF STD ERR F-RAT10 FPROB. CONST. C .8026 C. 3733 1! NT V. M 0 .1026 0 .0 2 36 9.3218 0.0036 2PR.CCN -C.41660-02 0.0289 0.0 208 0.8573 3GLCCR 0.C592 0.C270 4.7584 0.0310 4CC.FR 0.C79 7 0.02E5 7.3168 0.0070 fliPCCM -0. 195 3C-02 " 0.C225 0.7772C-02 0.8908 6PRO CM -0.0302 0.0254 1.4C63 0.2391 71 NF C R -0.0162 0.0217 0.5 538 0.4642 ECECLV 0. 022 5 0.0258 0.7600 0.3913 ON 147 If the results for department head style and project leader style are compared, there are marked contrasts and simi larities. For both there is a higher predictive power (i.e. RSQ values) for Consideration style than there would be for Initi ation of Structure style, but IS for project leaders would be more predictable than for department heads. (RSQ values of O.35 and 0.49). For department head IS there is only one significant coefficient, performance and control communications, while for project leader IS, performance and control is relatively un important while interaction-warmth and goal congruence are significatnt with one or two others climate dimensions tending towards significance. While interaction-warmth is the most significant vari able for both project leader and department head consideration, the remaining significant variables are different. For depart ment heads, confidence-participation and goal congruence are most important, while for project leaders, performance and con trol communications and presence of an informal organization are most significant with participation-confidence and project communications also tending to be significant. The following Tables and Figures show the results of stepwise regression when only variables with concluding F-prob values of less than 0.05 are retained in the regression equations. Ul <rt p. CD 3 Ss CO H* 3 co CQ CO H" O V 3 CO co crtj H« CD 3 co Q. 01 CD H- > *d O W CD 3 3 M a i CD 1 X 3 X c+ M X - CO M M ^ CD o *d e_i. CD CD 3 o p. c+ CD 3 1—1 cr CD i» O P. H» CO H* 4 3 oi ta ct CD STEPWISE REGRESSION RESULTS ** ALL DEPTS. FPROR LEVEL ACCEPT C.C5000 REJECT 0 .0 600 1 DEPENDENT VARIABLE IS ISP1 STEP NC. I RSO FFRCiE. STD ERR VAR 0.2343 0 .000 1 0.2699 COEFF STD ERR F-RATIO F PROB. CCNST. 1 INTWM 2.3718 0.C981 0.2R73 0. C225 18.9736 0.0001 POTENT UL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: PARTIAL CCPR. TOLERANCE FPRCR 2PRCON 0.1166 0. 7160 0. 270? 30LCGR 0 .3203 0.7719 Q.01C 1 4C0NPR C.C537 0.6333 0 .6784 5UFCCM C.C 246 0.7407 C.6279 6FSCC" 0 .0118 0 .8129 C.8686 7INFCR C.C9C0 0.£375 0.4899 8CECLV 0.C665 0.7517 0.6CE6 STEP NC. RSO FPROR. .3129 0.000 0 STD ERR Y = C.257c VAR COEFF STO ERR F-RATIO FPROR. ... CCNST. 2 .1.66 2 0.2852 11 NT 0. C6 7 2 0.C245 7.5335 0.0073 3GLCGR 0.0 581 0.0220 6.9 810 C. 0101 POTENTIAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: PARTIAL CORP. TOLERANCE FPRCB 2FP.CCN 0.0241 0 .6546 C.e214 4C0NPR . C.C235 0.5983 0.8340 5UPC0M 0.1492 0.6559 C.245E 6FRCCH 7 I NFCR fcOECLV 0.1076 0.1518 0. C2 6 5 0 .7537 0.8156 0 .6906 0 .405 7 0.2372 0.3174 t—1 00 VARIABLE CA TEE VERTICAL AXIS IS ISPi \ A P I ABLE CN THE HCRIZCNTAL AXIS IS 1 INTWM THE "." AND "*" ARE PREDICTED FGINTS; THE "*• 5.CCC IS LSED WHERE PREDICT EC PCINTS COVER DATA POINTS 5 .000 4. <3 5C 3 H* c+ H' P c+ H' O 3 o •dra 4 c+ O rj c.rj CO o O c+ M c+C Q a M CD CD w P < 0- 01 CD o 4 M co 3 c+ CD P o c+ H' O 3 l P 3 c+ 3* 4.900 4.350 4. 800 4.750 4 .700 4. 650 4. 5C0 4 .600 4.550 4.5C0 4.45C 4.4 00 4. 350 1 1 1 1 4.300 4.250 4. 2CO 4. 150 4.100 4.0 50 4 .CCC 11 1 1 1 2 . 1 1 4.000 3.950 3.9G0 3.850 3. 8C0 3. 750 •CO 1 1 . 1.1*.. 1 3.700 3. 6 50 3.600 3 .550 3. 500 3.450 1 -1 3 .400 3.350 3.300 3. 250 3. 200 3.150 i.CCC .11 .1 1 2 3. 1 CO 3. 050 3.0C0 2. 950 2. 900 2.850 1 1 1 2. 800 2.750 2 .700 2. 6 50 2.600 2 .550 2.5 00 2. 5C0 //I I! 111 /1111 4. 4C0 DISTANCE eETWE ii 11 ii 111 \ 11111 n 11 \ 111 n 11111111 II i it 11 II 1111 ni\ 11 II 11 II / I n ii II II I\I i ii 11 II i\ 111111111\ 7 .000 9.600 12.20 14. 80 1 7.40 EN SLASHES ON THE X-AXIS IS 0.13CC I-l 3 H-ct H* P c+ H* O 3 o -dw 4 c+ O ^ e_i. C CO O *l O ri M ch C a M CD CD w P <! ex ca CD ^ Q CQ O p H o o 3 cm CO 3 o CD VARIABLE C N THE VERTICAL AXIS IS ISP1 *\ VARIABLE CN THE HORIZONTAL AXIS. IS 3GLCGR THE "." «NC ARE PRECICTEC POINTS; TEE "*" IS LSED WH6SE PREDICTED POINTS COVER DATA FCINTS 5.CCC _ 1 5.0C0 / A.950 / ? / 4.900 N / 4.350 / 4.800 / 4.750 / 1 4. 700 / 4 .650 / 4 , 6 CO / 4. 550 4.5CC - 1 1 4.500 / 4. 4 50 / 1 1 4. 400 / 4.3 50 / 1 4. 300 / • 4.2 50 / 1.1 4.200 / 4. 150 / l 1 4.100 / 4. 050 4.CC0 - 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.0C0 / • • • • 3.9 50 / 1 1 1 • 3 .9 00 / 3. 850 / 2 1 3 .800 / 3. 750 / 1 * 1 3. 700 / • • 3.650 / 1 1 • *. 1 1 1 • . • 1 1 3. 600 / 3.5 50 3. f CC - 3 .500 / 3.450 / 1 * 3.400 / m 3. 350 / . 1 . i 3. 300 / 3.250 / 1 i 3. 200 / • 3.150 /• 2 3 .1 00 / 3. 050 3 .COG - 1 1 3.000 / 2.9 50 / 1 1 1 2. 900 / • 2.3 50 / I ! 1 1 2. 800 / 2.7 50 / 1 2. 7CO / 2.650 / 2 . 600 / 2. 5 50 2 .500 - 2. 500 I l\l1II11III Ml IIIIIII i/////////I IIII III 111/////////I /////////11111111/l\ II nil illI/////////1II11/1/111 I—' 3. 700 6.3C0 F.900 11 .50 14.10 16. 70 V/» CISTANCE BETWEEN SLASHES ON TEE X-AXIS IS 0.13C0 O 57 CCFIETE OP.fEPVAT irNS HERE RECOVERED PGR PLOTS, PESTCUALS OR PREDICTED VALUES w c+ CD V H" cn Q. CD H* 3 4 CD CD 3 0*} co ^ HR CD O CO 3 cn 03 H* O H* 3 Q- l CD 1 > CD O 3 o t-< P. 3 W CD CO 3 H' X or CX X - CD X M M 4 c+ M O H* c_i. O CD 3 o rt-CD Hti CD CD SO 3 P. CD CD 4 3 CO c+ STEPWISE REGRESS ICIS RESULTS ** ALL 0EPTS. ** - - - -DEPENDENT VAR I ABLE IS C0W1 STEP NC. 1 RSQ FFEOE. SfO ERR V = 0.3 56 8 0 .0000 0.342"/ VAP. CONST. CD EPF 1 .1375 STD ERR 0.3792 F-RATI 0 F PROB. ! INTWM 3GLCCR 0.157 5 0.015'. 0.C326 O.C292 23.4023 0. 2784 0.0000 0.6060 POTENTIAL INCH PENDENT VARIABLES: PARTIAL C0P.R. TOLERANCE fPRQR 2 o R C C N 0 .2 350 0.6546 0.075? 4C0 W 5UPCQM 6FRCC« 7TNFOk eneciv 0 . 1 7 7 5 0. 173 2 0 .2267 C.1923 0 .0231 0.5983 0.6559 0 .753 7 0 . E! 56 C.6906 0 .16 39 0.1748 0.0730 0.1302 0.7616 STEP NC. RSC FPROG. STD ERR Y = 0.3538 0 .0C0C C.34C7 VAS CCNST. 1 INTWM COtf F 1.19?] C. 1 6 5 7 ST0 ERR 0.36 27 C.C284 F-RATIO 33.9518 FPP.OB. 0.0000 POTENT IAI INCE F ENOENT VtPjARLES: 2PRC0N 30LCC-R 4C0NPP 5UPCCM 6 PRC CM PARTIAL C.CRR. 0.2244 0 .0674 C.1880 0.1393 0 .19 9 6 TOLERANCE 0. 716G 0 .7719 0.6333 0.7407 0.8129 FPRCB 0.0612 0.6C60 0.1362 0.2741 0.1129 7 INF OR SCECLV C. 1785 0.0=57 0.6375 0.7517 0.1579 0.6681 M Vn VARIABLE GN VARIABLE CK THE "." AND A . 9C0 THE VERTICAL AXIS IS CCN'Pl THE HCPIZCNTAL AXIS IS 1 INTWM "*" ARE PRECICTEC FCINTS; THE IS USED WHERE PREDICTED POINTS COVER DATA POINTS A .900 A.830 o o 3 CO H-P. CD ^ P c+ ••d O CD" CQ O cr M H* 3 ft c+ ^ 2 p- *i h J». (D O rj c+ o 3 I P 3 c+ 1 A. 3 AO 1 1 A. 2 70 A. 2CC - A. 2 00 1 1 1 1 1 A. 1 30 1 • A .060 1 11 3.990 1 1 1 1 3.920 1 3.850 1 1 1 3. 730 1 1 3.710 1 ... 3.6A0 1 1 3.570 A.760 A .690 A.620 A. 550 A.A80 A.A10 300 1 1 1 3. 500 3 .A30 3. 360 3.290 3.2 20 3.150 / 1 1 3.030 / 1 1 1 1 3.010 / 2. 9AO / . . 1 1 2.870 2. 6CC - 1 2.8 00 / 1 1 • 1 2. 730 / 2 .6 60 / 1 1 2. 590 / 1 .. 1 2. 520 / 2.A50 / 1 1 2. 380 /. 1 l 1 1 2.310 / 2 .2A0 / 2. 170 2.100 - 2. 100 1 2.030 1 I. 960 1 1 1.890 1 .820 1. 750 1 .680 1 .610 1. 5 AO i.A70 l.ACC - 1.A0//I / ////////I ii mi u 11 II i II i II i\ in i II II 11 II i in 111\ mt mn\i 1111111 t\i 1111111 IU iti ini HiII/111v/l A.AOO 7.000 9.60C 12.20 1A.80 17.AO CI STANCE BETWEEN SLASHES CN TEE X-AXIS IS 0.1300 56 COMPLETE OBSERVATIONS WERE RECOVERED FOR PLOTS, RESIDUALS OP PREDICTED VALUES  ro LL V- (V L c-ec H M ff, O ro. cc r-a H ,x -r Q_ o O n". UJ O 0- m u -o -< ^ .—. r- m <t r- r- vC fC • • • LU O O G o »~ C£ UP —« o K K 0> v." r-t LJ O — CO (\J *-* -4 o ro vr >f Lfl CC m h- OJ m tj> LT. o r\j r- —« J-nrrun r-- cc cu o- n co LT. a- r-t ry PJ r*- vT t—* 4*—A O CJ C rH o o O CJ >. 5" cc > U U J cj a u_ o U- ty, UJ' XJ a -« o LP O- LL,' O O O ' u. >-<.[ L/1 r~ > ^: [C h h H O C O (V rn vO -j- r-<J rv < r: a. i\ o a >u o a o o o tLJ Ct) LO ^ LP CO O u"- i\) r— r~ LT ' Z u C (fl O !C <; r~ 0 f> cc r-(_) <— CJ O v-' C -J O O O C' o o u c 11--J LJ LY. O u D a -n <i 111 'G N TABLE XXXIV Stepwise regression — IS dependent, climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads 15k cr. <t • m cc -a r-LU Ll"\ fM rn O CC' rn ur\ cr cr cn CM cc o CL; a-Q. cv —« n't LL • • • O C. O J IO vT in r-N P- fvj vO r- m rt rn (V, O CO vt O o O UJ O H c; ^ f- cc i ;j ^ r- f <i r- r- ; UJ o c o ' LL tn LL o cr LU ' C- eg o-, -o cr :I CM Cvi -"I L Cl VJ rt CJ HI r- o vT -H fv. rt ^ 1' f\J C ~* o o • O O ill o U.J LJ r-2- or: LLI -vt a. a. LU S cr. .% u a r- U 2 J U cj U >: 3i cn > L' L/ U J U O LL O CL CX -C LU _j a — a ui ^ ai TABLE XXXIV - (continued) VARIASLE CN VARIABLE CN THE "." ANC 4. ECC THE VERTICAL AXIS IS ISDE1 THE HCRIZCNTAL AXIS IS 2PRC0N ••*" ARE PREDICTED FCINTS; THE "*" IS USED WHERE PREDICTEC POINTS COVER DATA POINTS 4.800 4. 740 M < CO •d CD o 4 3 p 3 o O CD CD >d p •x) c+ 3 M • P- O 3* o CD O w P 3 P c+ r-1 co *i V_J o I-1 o o 3 3 C 3 H* O P CT W O 3 03 4.680 4 .620 4. 560 4.500 4 .440 4. 380 4 .2 C C 11 11 4.3 20 4.260 4. 2 00 4.140 4. 0 80 4. 020 1 1 .960 ,900 . 340 .7 80 . 720 3. 660 3 .6 CC - 1 1 1 *. 1 1 3. 600 / .. . 3. 540 / 1 . . . 1 1 3. 480 / ** 1 1 3. 420 / 3. 360 / 1 1 3. 300 3. CC0 3 .240 3. 180 3. 120 3.0 60 3. 000 2.940 2.see 2.820 2. 760 2.700 2.640 2. 580 2.520 2.460 2.400 2.340 2.2 80 2. 220 i .800 2 .1 60 2.100 2. 040 1.980 1. 920 1. 860 I l\l111 3.700 CISTANCE i.eoo //// / III11III i l\ 1111111111 11/ I III 11 \ IIIIII i 1l\ II11III III 111/11111\ 111111111 \l IIII l/l l\ II111II/I I r-» 6 .300 E.900 11 .50 14.10 16.70 CETWEEN SLASHES CN THE X-AX.IS IS C.13C0 v/\ 56 COMPLETE 0". SFP'/ATIfiNS WERE RECOVERED FOR "LOTS, FESICUALS CP PREDICTED VALUES 156 UJ LD I O O a: o CL o o I <r co cr LO, € CC f* O o tri ^ o o H rfl o o o o o o < O LO CM CT-CO o vt -J" vj r- o —* f " • L/' CT" on co o o o o o ^- "vT r-X o c CO O IT, ^ U if. -T i • cr ay c i r.->, r- • ' O CJ a U CI. LJ v, a. i—• cr. u. L/i X • o o u -J a. o ^ UJ vj- LO O f*- a: TABLE XXXV Stepwise regression — Consideration dependent, climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads. ^ c H3 > X X < a o c+ H* 3 p. STE? NC. 2 RSQ C.4451 EFROfi. 0 .oor 0 STD ERR Y = 0. 299 A VA P COEFF STD ERR F-RATIO FPROR. ... . . CCNST. 0.3474 0.3636 1 IN 7 UK C.1569 0. C295 28.2105 0.0000 ? P R C C N 0.0294 O.C2E0 1.C412 0.3127 POTENTIAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: PARTIAL CORR. TOLERANCE F PROB 2GLCCR 0.3222 0 .7058 0.01C3 AC ON PR. C.3654 0.6 02 5 C .00 32 5M pre:-' 0.134S 0.7379 0.256E 6PFCCM 0 .0 184 0 .8075 C .85E5 7INFOR 0. 0324 0.7858 0.7904 8CECLV 0.1A80 0.7240 . 0. 2.497 - - - - • -STEP NO. 3 RSO = C.4256 FPRoa. C.f oon STD ERR Y = C. 299 5 VAP COEFF STO ERR F~RATIO F PROB. CCNST. 1.02.6 1 0.3188 1JNTWM C.1725 C. C250 47.8511 0.0000 POTENTIAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: . P AR T I AL CCRR. TOLERANCE FPRCB RPPCGN 0.1295 0.7160 0.2127 3GLCCR 4C.0NPP. 5UPCCM 6RRCCM 7INFCR RCECLV 0. 34 3 4 0.3E5E 0.14 14 0.0076 C.COll 0.1 *P" .7719 .6333 .7407 .8129 , 63 75 •?517 0.0058 0.0019 0.2685 0.9077 0.9409 vA > f< W X X X < o o 3 ct H* 3 CD STFPV.I SE REGRESSIC N RESULTS ** ALL CEPTS. ** STEP HC. 4 RSC C.5156 FPRC'5. C . C C 0 C STC ERR Y ^ 0.2785 VAR CCEFF STD ERR F-RATIO FFROB. CCNST. C .7293 0. 21C1 1 I NT '/M 0.1151 0.0292 15.5271 0.0003 40CNPR C . C £ 8 7 C. C271 10.6702 . 0.0019 POTENTIAL INCEPENOENT VARIABLES: PARTIAL CCRR. TOLERANCE fPP.C8 2 P RC CN CCS? 0. 681 2 0. 7G23 3GLCGR 0.28 13 0 .7292 0.0251 i PC CM C. Col 3 0.7041 0.6: 0.0596 0.1299 0.552! 0.64 9 6 0.3156 6 PROC", 7INFCR 60ECLV C.79C9 0.8 202 0.7390 STEP NO. RSO FPRO B. STC ERR Y = _y_AR_ TONSTT" 1 ! NTfcM 2 GLC OR 4CCNPR C.5578 C .OCOC C .2695 0.09 59 0.C538 C .C742 0.0295 0.C236 0.C270 F-RATIO F PROB . 10.5758 5.1 772 7.5454 0.0020 0.0251 C.CC78 POTENTIAL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: TOLERANCE 0 .6372 0.6 399 C.745C 0 .8057 0.6875 FPRCB 0.8332 0.3258 0.2254 0 .4392 "•^C9 2PPCCN 5UPCC.° 6PFCCN 71 NFCR «nr-r.Lv AL 0.0239 C. 0254 0.1566 0.1C21 C-CPr-5 00 VARIABLE CN THE VERTICAL AXIS IS CCNCE1 VARIABLE CM THE HCRIZCNTAL A XIS \S 1INTWR THE "." ANC ARE PRFDICTEC POINTS: THE "*" IS USED WHERE PREDICTED FOINTS COVER DATA FC INTS A. 700 A. 7C0 4.630 4.560 4. 490 4.420 4. 350 4. 2BO 4.210 4.CC0 11 *1 140 .070 .000 .930 .3 60 .7 90 I-l Q w m 11111 . . i. i i ..i* i 3. 720 3.650 3.5 80 3. 510 3.440 3.370 I.3C0 *1 .* 1 * 11 300 2 30 160 090 020 950 bCC .* 1 1 111 1 B80 8 10 740 670 600 5 30 460 ,390 3 20 .2 50 .180 110 1.9C0 040 9 70 900 330 760 6 90 620 5 50 480 4 10 3 40 270 1 .200 1.200 //I IIIIII111 I/////////I/////////I II111II11 \ III 1111/l\l11!I/1111I III!IIIII II11IIIII\/IIIIIIII \ I illlllllI 4. 400 7. 000 O.fcOO 12 .20 14. 80 17. 40 DISTANCE EETWEEN SLASHES ON THE X-AXIS IS 0.13CC VARIABLE CN THE VERTICAL AXIS IS CCNDE1 VARIABLE CN THE HORIZONTAL AXIS IS 3GLCGR THE ".» AND "*" ARE FPECICTEC FCINTS; THE 4.7CC '*" IS USEO WHERE PREDICTED POINTS COVER DATA PC1NTS 4. 700 4. 6 30 o o 3 CO r" P. CO p C+ H* O 3 <; 01 Q O H P Q y-> o M o 3 H" TO CD 3 o CD a CD T5 c+ • CD P P-OJ 1 4. 560 A. 4 90 4.4 20 4. 3 50 4. 230 4.210 4.CCC 1 1 1 1 * 4. ] 40 4. 0 70 4.000 3. 930 3. 860 3.790 1 1 3. 720 3.650 3.580 3.510 3.440 3 .370 3.3C 1 . 1 1 . .1 1 1 I 1 * 3. 300 3.230 3. 160 3.090 3.020 2.9 50 2 .6C 1 1 2.880 2.8 10 2. 740 2. 670 2 .600 2. 530 2.460 2.390 2. 320 2.2 50 2 .180 2. 1 10 1 .9C0 2.040 1 .970 1. 900 1 .830 1 .760 1.690 1.6 20 1. 5 50 1.4 80 1 .410 1. 340 1.270 1.2CC - 1.20//111ii1111/ \n11iiir/ \ tiiiiiiii\iiiii///i\ii/inf//u////i///\t/i//t//i\iiii/iiii\iiiiiiiii\iiiiiiin\ 3.700 6 .300 .3.900 11 . 50 .14.10 16. 70 CI STANCE BETWEEN SLASHES CN THE X-AXIS IS O.13C0 ON o VAPimF C1K THE VERTICAL AXIS IS C CM DEI VARIABLE CN THE HCRI2CNTAL AXIS IS 4C0NPR THE "." AND ARE PREDICTED FCINTS: THE "*" IS LSED WHERE PREDICTED POINTS COVER DATA POINTS 4.7CC 1 4.700 4. 630 o o 3 01 o. CD P3 CT H* O 3 ca o o M 3 O H> a H* w a w CD 3 i—• o ON CD 1 •o e+ h" O H> PJ <+ o 3 4.5 60 4 .490 4. 420 4.350 4.230 4.210 / 1 •A. 1 40 / 4.070 4. OCC / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . 1 1 . 1 1 * • 4. OCC 3.9 30 3 .860 3. 790 / j 1 1 1 1 3.7 20 / 3 .650 / 1. 1 1 . ... 3.580 / 1 .' 2* 3 .510 / . 3.440 / 1 1 3. 3 70 3.3CC - .1 1 11 3 . 300 / . 1 • * . 1 • 3. 230 / • 3. 160 / 1 ' 1 1 3 .090 / # 1 1 1 1 3.020 / 2.9 50 / 1 • 2.880 /' • i. 1 2.S10 / 2.740 / 1 2.670 2 .f.CO / 1 1 1 1 1 1 2. 600 2.530 / 2. 460 / I 2. 390 / 1 * • 1 2.3 20 / 2. 250 / 1 2. 1 60 / * 1 1 2. 1 10 1 2. 040 1 1 1.970 1.90O 1 1 1 1 . .. 1 .900 1. 830 1.760 1 .690 t 1 1. 62C 1 1.5 50 1 1 .480 1 1.410 1 1.340 1 1 .270 1 .200 1. 2G0 I l\l I It II11 i \ ll 11II111 \ II1111111 \ 111111111\ 4. ECO 7.600 I DISTANCE BETWEEN SLASHES CN THE >-AXIJ IS i IIIIIi iIt)It 111 It It 1111111111\llII It 111 \l11111111\ll1111111\ 0.40 13.20 16.00 IS.80 • 14C0 ON 68 COMPLETE CPSEPVAT IONS WERE RECOVERED FDR PLOTS. f.ESIOUALS OP PREDICTED VALUES 162 The stepwise regression for project leader IS leaves only interaction-warmth and goal congruence as significant variables with no other climate variables coming close to sta tistical significance. Though the RSQ value is marginally-lower than for the complete regression (O.313 compared to 0*3^7) the lower standard error and higher F-prob combined with the convenience of fewer variables would make the stepwise result more useful. The subsequent printer plots of the dependent variable against each of the independent variables help to provide a "feel" for the relevance of the coefficients, F-ratios, and F-probs. The stepwise regression for project leader G leaves interaction-warmth as the only significant variable though the reduction of the RSQ value from 0.-4-9 to 0.35 along with three or four variables tending toward significance (F-prob below 0.16 or 0.1^-) it may be appropriate to include at least per formance and control communications as a predictive variable. The stepwise results for department head IS provide a sharp contrast to that of project leaders. In this case per formance and control communication is the only significant variable retained in the equation though goal congruence would tend to significance (e.g. step 1 F-prob of 0.08) as is the case for project leaders. This contrasts with the result for project leaders where interaction-warmth is the most important variable. 163 The stepwise regression results for department head Con sideration provide three significant variables as opposed to only one for project leaders. These variables, in order of im portance are interaction-warmth, confidence-participation, and goal congruence. This combination of variables provides the very high RSQ value of O.56 which is only marginally less than O.58 for the regression with all eight climate variables re tained. For all these results the exceptionally low coefficient F-probs, and overall equation F-probs along with observation of the printer plots leave little doubt of the statistical sig nificance of these results. With previously mentioned indications (p. Ikj) that there is a time lag in the response of leadership style to organizational climate variables, an attempt was made to de velop regression equations with Time 2 leadership style dimensions as dependent variables and Time 1 climate dimensions as independent ones. When this was attempted using the origin al correlation matrix developed from all results from both surveys, some improbable results were generated. With the com bination of large portions of missing data (survey 2 with roughly one-third the response rate of survey 1) and very high correlation values it is possible to generate theoretically im possible results (i.e. standard error equal 0.0 or RSQ values equal to or greater than 1.0). In order to circumvent this problem, regressions were run using a correlation matrix 164 developed using only the data from the second survey and match ing or paired data from survey one. The following Tables show the results of regressions carried out on this basis. vC t-n -D rj <• O O O O c x o <J- r~- o in rv r-* o 1 (M <U fl — J: *;i L; a. c: t~ (.j o -T t_j 7J ^ -f JL'O. :': — -» C Lv r (N,' pi s-f i."1 ^ r\j -t -t CC C' <-* O PO ro o 0l -i vf lA . •.r >—i r\j r~- i cn f~ O M , '••i IP CO ; cc r-j f ! ,-\J f-.; , o c c- c, ' _ 165 TABLE XXXVI Regression results — Time 2 leadership scores dependent, Time 1 climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads 166 . c CO «rr f*- x LA V* ^ o f — ;l; m r*- 10. vj- (\j rv {jl -V. Og H r-.f' C. OJ < i; >u r- o'"i c c; > vT _,i-yj .j-7 ^ J C 21 X tl' 1 J"1 M; r- co TABLE XXXVII Stepwise regression — Time 2 IS dependent, Time 1 climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads rO LA 05 rn r*i *-* in -J- fA TJ fA r— Al O VCI *" < •—1 cA aj m o (7» ! iJ 'JJ co U' LJ LJ CL O r-'l fN~ U"% L; O -C <' ^ vf LA -H < <I* O -vt • m -cr :£1 cr. > vJ O _J ' LL LJ 16? TABLE XXXVII - (continued) 168 UJ m -o 2: ir m <-r i.n -0 -J >- r~ m CM r- ro r-> -M ZZ fx. 6. CX — JS u Q. ( K O O *C < _J ^ Ci J J ! TABLE XXXVII - (continued) 169 The results from these regressions are nothing short of startling. Even with the reduced degrees of freedom, the sig nificance levels for the equations and coefficients can leave little doubt that there is a strong though lagged causal linkage from climate variables to leadership style thus providing sup port for the opposite of hypothesis H 3» For example, the RSQ value for the stepwise regression for department head IS is 0.53 along with an F-prob of .0013 while for department head C the RSQ value is 0.82 with an F-prob of less than O.OOOo! Of interest are the shifts as to which climate dimensions are more important when a time lag is taken into consideration. For Initiation of Structure style by department heads the shift is from performance and control communications to confidence-participation though level of decision making, presence of an informal organization, and performance and control communi cations had significance levels less than O.075. For Consider ation style by department heads the important variables would appear to be upward communication rather than interaction-warmth or goal congruence, though confidence-participation may also be important. The circumstances of the study may well have placed undue emphasis upon the importance of upward communications. 170 CHAPTER IV Conclusions and Discussion Though a large volume of results has been presented in the previous chapter, few conclusions have been drawn. In this chapter there will be a review of the results with the presen tation of conclusions. In particular there will be an attempt to relate the findings of various portions of the data analysis to the hypotheses presented earlier as well as relating con clusions to broader implications in the study and organizations and their management. In drawing these conclusions reference will be made to the validity of the findings from experimental, statistical, and practical viewpoints. The problems of interpretation are such, however, that a number of different conclusions may be drawn from the same information. Though an effort has been made to present a con sistent viewpoint in interpreting the results, there has been enough information and background provided so that others may make their own analysis and interpretation. The foregoing should by no means be considered an exhaustive analysis of all the data gathered. A more extensive integration of part I, III and IV results with those of parts II (A) and (B) would certainly be possible as well as more study of the company and ideal climate scores in relation to other portions of the sur veys. Results and conclusions concerning each hypothesis will 171 be considered in turn, followed by review of other results and supplemental conclusions which flowed from the analysis before discussing possible broad implications of the results of the study and the needs for further research in this area. Hypothesis 1 H 1. There are high positive relation ships between organizational climate dimensions for departments and the leadership styles of department heads. Strong support for this hypothesis is seen in the re gression results of Table XIII. All of the a priori climate dimensions were found to have a statistically significant (0.05 level) relationship with Consideration. With Initiation of Structure there are generally less significant relationships as compared to those above, but for character of performance, and of communications with F-probs less than 0.05 and character of decision making and of goal-setting (less than 0.1) support for the hypothesis is still clear. Support is also found in Tables XXXI, XXXIV, and XXXV when factor climate dimensions are used in regression equations rather than a priori ones. Again the relationships with Con sideration are more common and generally more significant than with Initiation of Structure. With the factor dimensions "orthogonal" it becomes clear that there is almost no support for the hypothesis when certain dimensions are considered. 172 With Consideration there is little relationship with performance and control communications, upward communications, locus of decision-making, and presence of informal organization, while only performance and control communications clearly related to Initiation of Structure. Figures 13» 1^» 15 and 16 are also helpful in illustrating the relationships. Though the evidence will not support a conclusion that all climate dimensions are strongly related to both aspects of leadership style considered, it definitely can support the con clusion that there are very significant positive relationships between Consideration or Initiation of Structure and several organizational climate dimensions. More specifically, it can be concluded that there are positive relationships between Consideration leadership style and interaction-warmth, confi dence-participation, and goal congruence. It can also be concluded that there is a positive relationship between Initi ation of Structure leadership style and performance and control communication. Though the foregoing conclusions are based upon a strong test of predictability it should be noted that almost all of the correlations between leadership style and climate dimensions are positive and significant. It would also appear that, generally, expectations of relationships with Consideration would be higher than those with Initiation of Structure. 173 Hypothesis IA H IA. There are high positive relation ships between organizational climate dimensions and the leadership style di mensions of "project leaders". However, these relationships will not be as great as the relationships of Hypothesis 1. General support for this hypothesis is found in the regression results of Table IX. Because of the potential multicollinearity problems indicated, this evidence is not very useful. The regression results of Tables XXXI, XXXII, and XXXIII where factor climate dimensions are used, rather than a priori ones, are much more useful. The relationship between Consider ation and interaction-warmth is clearly supported, though a less significant relationship with performance and control communi cations, project communications, confidence-participation, and presence of informal organization is also indicated. For project leaders, the relationships with Initiation of Structure are again less common though the resultant RSQ (or predictive) values are higher than they were for department heads. The important climate dimensions in this case are interaction-warmth and goal congruence. As with the previous hypothesis the evidence provides only for support of the hypothesis in certain instances. It can be concluded that there are high positive relationships 174 between Consideration and interaction-warmth, performance and control communications, and project communications. It can also be concluded that there are high positive relationships between Initiation of Structure and interaction-warmth, and goal congruence. With respect to the latter statement in the hypothesis (H IA) a simple statement can not be made. As well as quanti tative differences between the relationships for project leaders and project leaders the evidence indicates qualitative differences. That is to say, the climate dimensions most strongly associated with Consideration or Initiation of Structure are dependent upon the relative position of the leader. With the evidence shown it would be hazardous to make comparative generalizations about relationships of leadership style to organizational climate dimensions without first con sidering in detail the relative position of a leader and pos sibly serious consideration of structural and other components of the organization under consideration. Hypothesis 2 H 2. There will be a positive change in organizational climate resulting from the feedback to a group of the results from a suggestion-box type questionnaire. Rather weak support for the hypothesis is found in the comparison of Time 1 and Time 2 results for a priori dimensions 175 in Table XIV and the results discussion related to it. As indi cated, support comes only when character of leadership processes is considered and only vaguely when character of communications and of control processes used are considered. When the same comparison is made with factor dimensions (Table XXVIII) the evidence is still statistically weak. Con fidence-participation and goal congruence are the only di mensions where any difference between the experimental and control group changes can be noted. On a less scientific basis, the comparison of differ ences between the control and experimental group changes is generally consistent through all a priori or factor dimensions even though, as indicated above, the statistical tests of these differences leaves many doubts as to their significance. If one considers that not all of any change in climate would occur within the time period used (110-130 days) a slight ly more optimistic position may be taken. The investigator is of the opinion that definite changes in climate resulted di rectly from the distribution of results, and that they continued for some time after the second measure of climate dimensions was taken. Hypothesis 3 H 3« There is a high positive relationship between the leadership style of department heads in one time period and the organizational cli mate of departments in a following time period. 176 In making any conclusions with the use of the second survey it would be necessary to discuss the loss of a large portion of the original sample. The evidence indicated earlier (Table XI) could easily lead to a conclusion that the second survey respondents were not representative of the first survey population. This conclusion, of course, colours all further conclusions to be made from the results. For the time being, this major point will be ignored. The preliminary results from the two surveys would indicate that this hypothesis was entirely refuted. The cross-lagged correllational panel results with a priori climate di mensions (Table XV and XVI) lead to the conclusion that some organizational climate dimensions were causal variables affect ing leadership style, particularly that of department heads. The most important climate dimension for both leadership styles is character of interaction-influence. Other climate dimensions that affected Consideration are character of performance, of communications, and of motivational forces being tapped. Even when the cross-lagged panel criteria are not fully met, there is no hint that leadership style is a causal variable affecting organizational climate over the time period considered. As found with hypothesis H IA the results with project leaders are considerably less clear cut though most of these results indi cate support for the following conclusions. When the cross-lagged correlational panels with factor climate dimensions (Tables XXIX and XXX) are examined, similar 17? results are found. The best fits to the panel criteria for department heads are Consideration with goal congruence and upward communications, and Initiation of Structure with up ward communications. The results for project leaders are much less clear with a few marginal indications of support for the hypothesis. The usefulness of the hypothesized relationship, of course, arises when predictions concerning cause and effect can be made. When the regression equation results using Time 1 climate dimensions as independent variables and Time 2 leadership style dimensions as dependent variables (Tables XXVI and XXXVII) the most dramatic evidence in support of the opposite conclusion from that of the hypothesis is found. The high RSQ values and low F-probs for both the full and stepwise regressions provide excellent statistical support of the fol lowing conclusions. Again, the evidence will not provide definite support for the conclusion with respect to all climate dimensions. The evidence does provide very strong support for a conclusion that certain organizational climate dimensions in one time period are related in a positive way with leadership style in a fol lowing time period. In particular, it can be concluded that current upward communications and confidence-participation are predictive variables for future Consideration leadership. Similarly it can be concluded that current confidence-partici pation (and probably level of decision making, presence of 178 informal organization, and performance and control communi cations) are predictive variables for future Initiation of Structure leadership. The shift, when a time lag is considered, from interaction-warmth as the most significant variable for Consideration and from performance and control communications for Initiation of Structure should also be noted. It can be concluded that there can and will be qualitative as well as quantitative shifts as to what are the most important or sig nificant predictive variables for leadership style when a time lapse in measurement is taken into consideration. Ignored up to now, the drop in sample size should be discussed and taken into account. The low F-probs would indicate that the regressions from paired results were signifi cant. The question would remain as to whether the response of department head style was to the climate as felt by the entire population of the department or to the climate as felt by the "loyal* employee. It is probable that the latter is the case. The high loyalty employee is likely to have more contact with and influence upon the department heads (perhaps one source of loyalty). The attrition of the sample may well have been fortunate. If the entire population had responded on both surveys these interesting results might not have come to light. There interest would demand that they be verified in further study to determine whether or not the climate as perceived by a special group of employees, as opposed to the entire popu lation of employees, was important. Further study would also 179 be required to determine if these findings could be generalized to other types of organizations and other levels of supervision. Supplementary Findings The following review of results will concentrate on those topics and findings not specifically related to the tests of original hypotheses. For more complete discussion of results in any particular portion the section in the results chapter with the same title should be referred to. First survey. The main research value of the general questionnaire (parts III and IV) was bringing to light possible dimensions of climate that should be considered in future study. There were several topics brought up on a regular basis in res ponse to open-end questions (Appendices D & E) which are not included in any manner in the climate dimension used in the study. Of particular interest in this regard are the open-end questions asking what respondents considered good or needed improvement in their department or company. The most pertinent of these is the topic of job security. As indicated earlier, the firm under study was in a contracting phase and the open-end questions revealed some degree of person al concern with job security which likely affected even those quite secure about their own continued employment as well as those who saw a declining situation as a direct threat. If there is comparison with other studies along parallel lines it would be well to account for differences amongst expanding, 180 stable or contracting firms and the effects upon general climates of personal employment security, organizational stability, or various interaction and communications dimensions. Another topic that might be worth exploring is general feelings about physical facilities and working environment. Though these may only be important where there are extremes beyond current norms, it may well be worth exploring the climate aspects of super-luxurious facilities or dingy quarters. Pos sibly related to this would be concerns for equity. In a world becoming ever more conscious of inequities and disparities there may well need to be concern for levels of climate di mensions which relate to senses of equity in salary, fringe benefits, security, physical working facilities, and et cetera, as well as psychological payments of status, influence, freedom of expression, and et cetera. A general sense of equity with respect to the employment and/or psychological contract may well have pervasive effects upon performance levels and superior-subordinate interaction as well as satisfaction levels. The last of possible climate dimensions to be discussed is difficult to define. In the open-end question responses as well as some closed-end items there was a general eagerness for more education and personal growth. Associated with this was an eagerness for more participation in goal-setting and goal-implementation as well as partaking in the rewards of suc cess. The level of participation and interaction-influence is probably reflected in the climate dimension indicated above 181 but, this has not usually included a component concerned with willingness to work at self-improvement. The high reliance by most employees in the firm upon technical expertise and the high average education level may well have accentuated the receptive-ness found in this firm, but it may well prove fruitful to develop a climate dimension which measures this receptiveness in less extreme circumstances. Though most of the climate and leadership style aspects derived from survey one are discussed elsewhere in relation to survey two results, some points are worth noting now. One of the possible hazards in a non-equivalent control group design is the interaction of selection and maturation, et cetera. The results from the ideal (I) climate profiles (Figures 1, 3» 5 & 7) of the departments studied would allow a conclusion that the control group was essentially equivalent to the experimental group insofar as the underlying characteristics of the indi viduals. The small differences could certainly be attributed to the context of the department concerned. Ideal climate scores would need to reflect ideal in the context of what the actual duties of the department concerned were and the re straints and actual leadership personnel of the departments concerned. A comparison of demographic items for the three departments also leads to a conclusion that the control group was very close to equivalent in terms of personnel. There were similar ranges and distribution in education, age, position, length of service, and experience. 182 The response rate of 35% on the first survey would lead one to question the possibility of a bias in the sample. As indicated earlier, the opinion was that the respondents were indeed somewhat older, more experienced, and more highly edu cated than the overall population of the departments. There is also the inference that more "loyal" employees would be more likely to respond. As already discussed, this bias, rather than being detrimental to the study, may have been an asset. Prom the cross-lagged correlation panel results (Tables XV & XVI) several interesting findings should be noted. From the figures which indicate the stability of various dimensions it can be concluded, at least for this sample, that the style of leadership of department heads was more dynamic than the climate dimensions measured, particularly Initiation of Structure. On the other hand, it can be concluded that the leadership style of project leaders collectively was much less dynamic than that of department heads. From the panel results it also becomes apparent that some climate dimensions may be more directly associated with leadership style rather than having lagged relationships. Of note in this regard is the positive relationship between Initiation of Structure and character of control processes, of goal setting and of decision making. Factor analyses. The decision to accept the factor dimensions as being meaningful has, of course, already been 183 made. One interesting aspect of the two factor analyses is the differences between the a priori categorization, the factor result from the Likert (196?) data (Table XXVI), and the factor result from the current study data (Table XVII). Only one of the a priori dimensions came out precisely in a factor analysis and that was character of performance with the manager data. Though all of the other manager factors had rough parallels in the employee factors, there was definitely no parallel for character of performance. The comparison of parallel factors with apparently similar labels bring out rather interesting points. Though there are some items common to parallel dimensions, there are sufficient noncommon items which indicate that there was a different orientation or viewpoint by which these items would be categorized. Even though similar labels may be applied to parellel dimension it would appear that there are various "rules" or mental sets amongst different groups or amongst different firms. In other words, we may conclude that there was a different mental set for ordinary employees in one type of organization as opposed to that of managers in another organization. A better test, perhaps, would be to have a tar get factor-analysis performed on both matrices where an attempt to influence the rotation of each matrix is made. In this way a more definitive statement on differences between groups or firms could be made. 184 Also of interest is a comparison of the factor di mensions derived in this study with dimensions cited in the introduction. There would appear to be little commonality with, for example, the synthesis dimensions as set out by Campbell et al (1970). The difference in orientation may well account for lack of commonality. The attempt at synthesis was to find common dimensions across varied groups and with a variety of instruments while an attempt was made in this study to find climate dimensions which were of particular interest and rele vance in the study of a specialized group. The presence of three communication dimensions rather than the expected two (horizontal arid vertical) is certainly a function of the task-force structure and the extreme complexity of communications patterns in the firm studied. There is also the important fact that many of the dimensions developed on previous studies would not be measurable with the items used on this study. The re verse, of course, is also true. The final point that should be noted, however, is that most previous studies generally re flect management orientation to climate rather than general employee orientation. Despite the lack of commonality, one similarity occurs. The definition of interaction-warmth di mension from this study compares well with the consideration, warmth, and support dimension from the synthesis (p.21). The synthesis dimensions though interesting, certainly would leave much to be desired in studying relationships be tween organizational climate and other organizational factors 185 of interest. If meaningful relationships are to be derived, the climate dimensions used must reflect the predominant aspects of the organization under study, not the generalized aspects derived from a composite of other types of organi zations. This would be particularly true where interpretation for consulting purposes is involved. The cross-lagged correlational panel results using factor dimensions (Tables XXIX & XXX) generally support the findings found using a priori dimension though it is also found that the factor dimensions are somewhat more volatile than the a priori dimensions. Although the source of volatility could be open to debate, the investigator is of the opinion that this increased volatility indicates the tapping of more sensitive and important dimensions than was the case with a priori di mensions. Future Study - technical considerations This brief portion will discuss technical improvements that could be made in studies using the LBDQ or Likert question naires. The use of more of the LBDQ dimensions may be appropri ate to a study. With hindsight it was seen that at least one other dimension could have been useful in this study as it was believed to be an important variable in the firm being studied. This would be particularly true if one was trying to find out if any of the dimensions were causal variables affecting organi zational climate dimensions either in the long or short run. 186 If at all possible, the name of the person being described should be included as indicated in the instructions (Stogdill, 1963)« The omission of this information for project leaders made these responses from the second survey of little value in the analysis. If the Likert questionnaire items are to be used for measurement, several points should be taken into consideration. If the respondents are general employees rather than managers, considerable effort should be made to simplify the wording of the items. There were many complaints about the difficulty and length of the climate portion of the questionnaire. The effect upon the response rate was probably quite substantial. In simplifying the items consideration might also be given to changing the emphasis of some items so that they would have less tendency to load on more than one factor. In the fore going consideration, one should also decide if the dimensions to be used are those from this study, those from other studies, or new a priori dimensions. In simplifying, particular care should be taken with those items which received a lower response rate in this study. Discussion There are two items from the previous conclusions that warrant further discussion as to their implication in terms of organizational theory and as to the direction of future re search. The first of these items to be discussed will be the 18? results and conclusions from the factor-analyses followed by a discussion of the causal linkage results. The comparison of the factor result for two sets of data was not truly satisfactory. Though both analyses were done with essentially parallel techniques it may have been pos sible to find greater similarity in the factor dimensions if a suitable target rotation technique had been used. There is more than one such technique, but there is little study to indi cate which one is most suitable. The selection of a target matrix also poses very real problems in terms of others accept ing results which could be substantially biased by the form of a target matrix. These problems should be reduced, however, when pairs of results are subjected to target rotation with the same technique and the same target matrix in order to make com parisons in results. Despite any misgivings about not carrying out such a comparison procedure, some conclusions were drawn. Essentially the comparison yielded the conclusion that there were some marked differences between climate orientations for two levels of employees (or two different types of organi zation). The character of performance dimension was persistent with the manager data for fewer or greater than five factors while nothing resembling a character of performance dimension was evident from the employee data for five, eight, or ten-factor solutions. The implication for future research is very clear. There must be careful checks made in any further development of climate dimensions as to the validity of dimensions for 188 different levels of employee as well as possible checks on suitability of particular dimensions for use in organizations with various structures, technologies, and et cetera. The development of a project communication dimension on this study is an example. It could only be used in organizations with a task-force structure. The difference in outlook on similar topics between employees and managers in the same organization should come as no surprise. For this reason, great care should be taken in future studies that checks be made on the suit ability of a dimension (or individual items associated with a dimension) for the category of respondent where climate di mensions are being measured. The value of a factor analysis for determining di mensions should also be noted. In a recent study (Golembiewski & Munsenrider et al, 1971) 18 Likert items were used to measure a change in openness or a shift towards or away from Likert System IV. The implicit presumption of the study and of Likert is that all items are related to a single factor. There might have been a great deal more information derived from the study if the 18 items had been categorized into dimension. Being able to publish more numerical results and possibly find out which particular dimensions were sensitive in various circum stances would have been more useful than vague comments on individual item score changes that were not able to be published because of space limitations. 189 The complete lack of support for H 3 concerning the causal linkage from leadership style to organizational climate was somewhat of a surprise to the investigator. The develop ment of the hypothesis depended upon a presumption that leader ship style was independent of climate and that the style of leadership would influence climate. This presumption is im plicit in most leadership or management training courses. The assumption is made as well that "better" style will result in better performance, satisfaction, morale, or what have you. These assumptions are certainly implicit in the reasoning used to develop and use the LBDQ, Wofford and other leadership style dimensions. When it is discovered "what" good leaders did and "how" they do them the implicit assumption was that others could be taught the "what" and the "how" with expectations of similar outcomes. The results from this study would indicate that these assumptions may have been presumptuous. If change in leader ship style is, generally, a response to organizational climate the contradictory and weak results from a host of studies attempting to tie leadership style to work group performance or other variables (Korman, 1966) would be expected. The variance in performance could be related to style, but not in a simple manner as previously assumed. The results of this study would certainly provide sup port for the argument against unidirectional views on the role of leadership behaviour as expressed by Campbell et al (1970, Ch. 17). 190 The basic factor that is missing from these unilateral views is that persons who interact undoubtedly behave as if relationships were reciprocal rather than unilateral. . . . The argument here is that descriptions of managerial initiation have unidirectional overtones, and this has diverted attention from the basic fact that expectancies concerning exchange affect the relationship between a manager and a subordinate (pp. 422-423). In a small way, this study has pointed towards the mechanisms of exchange that surround leader behaviour which certainly should be explored in a more detailed study. The state of certain organizational climate dimensions may well provide the cues that leaders depend upon to guide their behaviour with subordinates. An attempt was made to find other studies which would help to explain or verify the findings of this study. Zdep's (1969) study of reinforcement effects upon leadership behaviour provides complementary and explanatory findings. As the title would indicate Zdep found that the type of reinforcement re ceived by a leader had marked effects upon his behaviour. The relationship to this study is quite clear. If the climate as felt by employees had reinforcement effects (directly or in directly) upon the leader a response could be expected. The previous assumptions with regard to the influence of "loyal" employees would also be strengthened. The group of employees with which the leader had most contact and inter-action would provide the most effective reinforcements to his style of leadership. The less clear cut results for project leaders 191 could also be predicted. The project leaders of this study-were exposed to a much wider variety of reinforcement stimuli than the department heads. They have more every-day contact with individuals in other departments (including other project leaders and employees), peers and others in their own depart ment, and project staff, as well as with their own subordinates. Lowin and Craig's (1968) study of influences upon managerial style also relates to this study. It indicates that performance levels of subordinates could have a marked effect upon the managerial style. The study gives little comfort to those who wish to maintain the presumption that style affects performance or other outcomes. In one sense the results from this study provide answers to the old classical arguments concerning the source of authority. The responsiveness of leadership style to the desires of subordinates would weaken the argument that any leader would act freely without concern for his subordinates because of legitimized authority. The concept of the inducements-contributions contract (March & Simon, 1958, Ch. IV) is given new meaning as a result of this study. Now leadership style by a manager can be seen as an inducement by the employee and a contribution by the manager. The current state of organization climate dimensions can then be seen as indicators of future inducements or contributions by leaders and subordinates. As reflections of past and current (or trends in states of balance) contribution-192 -inducement relationships the future state of inducements of contributions would thus be predictable. If performance is seen (consciously or unconsciously) by employees as an induce ment (to managers) and by managers as a contribution similar predictions from suitable climate dimensions should be possible. Thus far, the assumption has been made that the results of this study are totally generalizable and that similar relationships between climate dimensions and other outcome variables can be derived. Such is not the case. The impli cations are interesting enough, however, to demand further study in a wider variety of circumstances. To this end, development of climate questionnaire items which are simpler and easier to use than the Likert items is required. There also needs to be some study of which dimensions will be apparent in different technologies (i.e. unit, mass production, process) or in organizations with different structural characteristics (i.e. task-force, centralized, bureaucratic). The usefulness of several important dimensions may be restricted to particular types of organizations. The time-lag aspects of the relationships studied as well as a great number of other relationships need to be more thoroughly investigated. The lag effect of some relationships could be much longer or shorter than the three to four month period used in this study. When appropriate lags are used for several climate dimensions the proportion of variance in leader ship style (or other variables) accounted for could be much 193 higher than shown in this study. Of particular interest as well would be the determination of causal variables affecting climate dimensions. Again the time lag aspects would heed to be con sidered. Fiedler's studies (1967. 1970) could provide some help in analysing leadership style results for larger samples of managers. The 1970 study indicated that previous leadership experience had little or no bearing upon group performance while the earlier book (1967) indicated that high or low LPC leaders could be successful or unsuccessful depending upon the task and role situation. His latest studies also indicate that high LPC leaders might be expected to respond with high IS style in a situation where a low LPC leader might respond with high C style. If the same type of situation was true in relationships between style and organizational climate we may find that dif ferent climate dimensions are important for high or low LPC leaders or that opposite relationships may be true for high and low LPC leaders. In larger studies it may therefore be prudent to split the data between that for low and for high LPC leaders to avoid canceling out of opposite but possibly large effects. In this study no split was made but it is possible that all three department heads had similar LPC scores. Another aspect of "good" leadership should also be investigated. The results indicated that the leadership style of the department heads was more dynamic than that of the pro ject leaders. The observation could also be made that the three department heads who participated in the study are generally 194 recognized by peers, superiors, and subordinates as being com paratively (within the firm) superior managers. Though they have widely differing approaches to managing their departments, consistency and a knowledge by subordinates of the type of relationship with the department head which will be most suc cessful is a common feature for all three. It should also be noted that the relationship of style to organizational climate for department heads was more clearly defined to fewer climate dimensions than was the case with project leaders. It would be interesting to test the hypothesis that superior leaders or managers were thosewho were most sensitive to, and responded most readily to, specific organizational climate shifts. If such sensitivity was associated with superior leadership, it could certainly give credence to ideas concerned with T-group or sensitivity training though major alterations in objectives and/or procedures may be required before "effective" leadership training becomes an outcome of such training. If we returned to the inducements-contributions concept and reinforcement theory it would not be difficult to explain that the most effective "leader" was in effect the most responsive follower of group pressures reflected by organizational climate di mensions. Biological studies would indicate that the most successful species or individuals are those who are most flex ible and adaptable. In other words, is the most effective leader one who clarifies or recognizes the psychological and other contract arrangements with his subordinates and interacts 195 and adapts in a suitable manner to pressures generated by his subordinates? This study while providing a few clues in the tracking down of organizational relationships, though by no means proving them, has possibly opened up more areas of relevant study. Hopefully these areas will receive their justified attention and provide more definite information on that elusive character istic known as "good leadership". 196 CHAPTER V Summary For those who have read all of the previous chapters there is no new information being presented in this chapter. The following will be a summary of the more important aspects of the study for the benefit of those who are not disposed to read the entire thesis. The headings will parallel those in the previous chapters so that any requirements for further information or numerical data can be met by referring to the same heading in the main text. As the introduction is es sentially an informational rather than an analytic review of the literature on leadership style and organizational climate it will not be summarized. Design of the Study Description of the sub.iect company. The firm in which the study was conducted is a large engineering firm providing a comprehensive range of engineering services. The structure of the company is well characterized by Thompson's (1967, p. 80) definition of a task-force organization. That is to say, there are a large number of functional departments with their own geographical space while groups in many departments will work on common projects under the direction of relatively small project staffs. 197 The department heads have a great deal of autonomy and, within budget constraints, have full control of hiring and firing, staffing for each project, physical arrangements and layout within their department, and control over the product that leaves their department. Though there are few formal rules concerning communication channels, a very complex matrix of accepted norms of communication and priorities have evolved which preclude extensive policing of organizational effort. Circumstances of initiation of the study. Through con tact with the personnel manager, the investigator became aware of a desire to conduct a suggestion-box questionnaire survey throughout the company. The intention was to provide feedback of results to all participants rather than to just the manage ment. In order to test for change generated by the survey and distribution of results, an organizational climate questionnaire was to be added to the survey. In order to check on a causal relationship from leadership style to organizational climate a leadership style questionnaire was also added. Once approval from the chief executive officer was gained, the development of the suggestion-box questionnaire with two department heads and the personnel manager was begun. Arrangements were also made to have the organizational climate and leadership style portion completed in a third department which would act as a control group. 198 Survey questionnaire design, a description. As may be seen in Appendix M, the survey was divided into four major portions. Part I—Background was used to provide demographic information on respondents so that the opportunity of splitting the data set would be available as well as providing a basis of comparison between the respondents and the total population. Part II consisted of the two research questionnaires. Part 11(A) consisted of 45 items derived from Likert's (1967) The Human Organization; Its Management and Value. Though the items had been developed as a means of evaluating a firm or department in terms of Likert's four categories of organi zation, the intention was to use these items to measure eight organizational climate dimensions within each department. Part 11(B) consisted of 20 items derived from the Initiation of Structure and Consideration dimensions of the Leadership Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The respondents were asked to provide the style of their project leader as well as their department head. Parts III and IV consisted of the suggestion-box items as developed with the department heads. Part III was oriented towards items under the jurisdiction or control of department heads while Part IV was directed at more general items as well as several of direct interest to the personnel manager. Procedure for distribution and return of the question  naire. The initial survey was issued to all three departments 199 on the same day while the second survey with only the research portions was issued 110 to 130 days later. The initial survey to the control group did not contain the suggestion-box questions and the instructions to the control group were modi fied. In all cases a stamped, addressed envelope was provided with the survey so that it could be returned to the investigator at the university without passing through company hands. Hypotheses to be tested. There were three major hypotheses to be tested in the study, the first of which was divided into two statements. H 1. There are high positive relationships between organizational climate dimensions for departments and the leadership styles of department heads. H IA. There are high positive relationships between organizational climate dimensions and the leadership style of "project leaders". However, these relationships will not be as great as the relationships of hypothesis 1. H 2. There will be a positive change in organizational climate resulting from the feedback to a group of the results from a suggestion-box type questionnaire. 200 H 3. There is a high positive relationship between the leadership style of department heads in one time period and the organi zational climate of departments in a following time period. A brief discussion of experimental validity was oriented around arguments presented by Campbell and Stanley (19&3) con cerning "nonequivalent control group design". Results First survey. The response rate was just over 35$ and was felt to be biased away from representing the total popu lation by having respondents with higher age, education, and service length as well as "loyalty". Appendix F gives a sum mary of the results of the general portion of the questionnaire. It was noted that while Initiation of Structure (IS) and Consideration (C) were relatively independent (r = 0.34) for department heads, that there were high correlations (r>0.6) between IS and C for project leaders and between project leader styles and department head C. The regression results using department head styles as independent variables demonstrated the positive relationship between style and climate particularly for Consideration. The interpretation of results where project leader styles were included was hampered by possible multicollinearity problems though there were indications that positive relationships existed. 201 Second survey - preliminary. The combination of a lengthy questionnaire, turnover in the department, and the im minent decline of the firm contributed to the disastrously low response rate on the second survey of only 14$. The low res ponse rate prompted a comparison of differences between Time 1 and 2 on all dimensions. There was one difference between mean scores at Time 1 and 2 and an average of paired differences between Time 1 and 2. This comparison indicated that there could be some underlying differences in the sample of respond ents on the two surveys. Though statistically weak, there was a consistent pattern of larger changes in the experimental group and department heads when compared with the control group. In order to test hypothesis H 3 on direction of causali ty, cross-lagged correlational panels (Lawler, 1968) were used. As well as indicating that the organizational climate dimensions were relatively stable as compared to leadership style di mensions there were several instances of very good fits to the cross-lagged panel criteria. Even for those panels where the criteria were not met, there was no evidence to indicate that the direction of causality was from leadership style to organizational climate. The panels indicated that character of inter-action influence, of performance, of communications, and of motivational forces being tapped will have effects upon leadership Consideration in the near future. The above findings indicated that our earlier regressions should have been performed with climate dimensions as independent 202 variables. As there were many high correlations amongst the a priori climate dimensions it was decided to factor analyse the data in order to develop orthogonal climate dimensions. Factor analyses. A varimax orthogonal rotation from a principal components solution was performed in each case. 2 For the data from this study multiple R values were used on the diagonal while for the correlation matrix data taken from Likert's (196?) book the matrix was unaltered. Eight factors were extracted from the study data while five factors were extracted from Likert's data which was gathered from managerial staff and most likely in manufacturing organizations. In order to derive appropriate labels for the factors the items in each factor were presented to an expert panel for evaluation. The resulting labels and definitions will be found on pages 114 through 129. A panel was not used for the Likert data results but definitions for the five factors is on page 132. Character of performance was the only factor to fall out precisely in the form of an a priori dimension. This was true for the Likert data only and there was no parallel di mension in the factors from this study. For all other factors in the Likert data there was a dimension from this study which was roughly parallel, though there would appear to be different orientations or areas of concern even when both dimensions were concerned with the same broad topic. 203 Of interest was a dimension concerned with project communications which would only be found in a task-force structured organization. Second survey result - final. The attempt to derive orthogonal climate dimension was fairly successful with inter--dimension correlation being much lower than with the a priori dimensions. The change in climate between Time 1 and 2 becomes localized to only two dimensions: goal congruence and confidence-participation. The factor dimensions are more dy namic than the a priori ones, but fewer cross-lagged panels are able to meet the causal criteria because of a more persistent trend for Time 2 correlations between style and climate to higher than for Time 1. Again there is little indication that there are causal links from leadership style to organization climate. The relationship for department head results were much clearer than those for project leaders. The panels meeting both the cross-lagged and dynamic correlation criteria ares Consideration — goal congruence, Consideration -- upward communications, and Initiation of Structure —upward communi cations. Standard and stepwise regressions were performed using climate dimensions as independent variables. The most sig nificant climate dimensions were as follows: project leader IS - Interaction-warmth goal congruence project leader C - interaction-warmth - performance and control communications 204 department head IS - performance and control communications goal congruence department head C - interaction-warmth confidence-participation goal congruence As a lagged relationship had been indicated, regres sions with Time 1 climate dimensions as independent variables and Time 2 leadership style dimensions as dependent variables were performed. With the combined action of high correlation and large segments of missing data (second survey response only 1/3 that of first survey) severe distortions in regression results were possible. Further regressions were performed using all data from the second survey and all matching results from the first survey. The results in this case showed a shift in the important variables as follows« department head IS - confidence-participation level of decision making presence of informal organization performance and control communications department head C - upward communications confidence-participation The R (RSQ) values for these regressions were sub stantially higher than those for the previous regressions. Conclusions and Discussion The following sections are fairly difficult to summarize as the main text presents the discussion of corroborating results in condensed form. Only the major conclusions will be stated. 205 for development and discussion of many of these conclusions the main text should be referred to. Hypothesis 1. Strong selective support for the hypothe sis is provided in regression analyses with both a priori and factor climate dimensions. That is to say, a conclusion that certain climate dimensions have a positive relationship with leadership style dimensions is made. It was also noted that generally the relationships would be stronger and more common with Consideration. Hypothesis IA. Support for the hypothesis allowed a conclusion that it was true, though it was noted that the qualitative as well as quantitative differences as to signifi cant climate dimensions would make generalization about relationships between leadership style and climate, without first taking account of the position power of the leader, difficult. Hypothesis 2. The results concerning this hypothesis were statistically very weak, though the investigator was of the opinion that a positive change in organizational climate had been brought about as a result of the feedback of first survey results. Hypothesis 3. Evidence from the cross-lagged cor relational panels using both a priori and factor climate di mensions provides absolutely no support for the hypothesis. In fact, the evidence supported a reverse conclusion that 206 certain organizational climate dimensions were causal variables with respect to leadership style. The regression results with Time 1 climate dimensions independent and Time 2 leadership style dimensions with high RSQ values and low F-probs provided excellent statistical support for the conclusion. It was con cluded that upward communications and confidence-participation, and probably level of decision making, presence of informal organization, and performance and control communications are predictive variables for future Initiation of Structure leader ship. In view of the large drop in survey results there was a discussion as to whether the results were indicative of relationships between "loyal" employee impressions of climate and leadership style. Supplementary findings. From the first survey general questionnaire results it was possible to derive dimensions that may be of value in further studies of climate. Dimensions con cerning job security, physical facilities, and a desire for self-improvement of employees as related to participation in goal-setting, goal-implementation, and sharing of rewards were described. From the cross-lagged correlational panels in second survey—preliminary results, conclusions on the stability of various dimensions were derived. The leadership style di mensions of department heads were more dynamic than climate dimension measured. On the other hand, the leadership style of project leaders was found to be much less dynamic than that of department heads. 207 With the causal relationship turning out as it did it was considered essential to develop orthogonal climate dimensions with the use of factor analysis so that the regression model could be reversed. For comparison purposes a similar factor analysis was conducted using Likert's (1967) correlation matrix developed from another data set. In both these analyses only one factor came out as the a priori categorization would suggest. This was character of performance for the Likert data which was gathered from management personnel. There was no parallel for character of performance in the study factors though for the remainder of the five management data factors there was a rough similarity to one factor of the eight extracted from study data though there appeared to be different orientations to similarly labelled factors. This led to a conclusion that there could be different mental sets for ordinary employees as compared to that of managerial personnel. There was an argument put for ward that organizational climate dimensions should be developed for particular types of organization or classes of employee rather than wide synthesis dimensions. The factor climate dimensions were found to be more volatile than the a priori dimensions. Although open to debate, the investigator concluded that the increased volatility indi cated the tapping of more sensitive and important dimensions. Future study - technical considerations. The discussion oriented around the need to simplify the climate dimension items 208 and the care needed in selecting leadership dimension as well as organizational climate dimensions in future studies. Discussion. The discussion was oriented around impli cations of the factor analyses results and the causal linkage results. The factor analyses discussion indicated a need for a generally accepted target-rotation technique for comparing data from different studies. There was also a statement of the need for careful checks of applicability of climate dimensions for various types of organization or levels of employee. The complete lack of support for hypothesis H 3 was discussed in terms of the presumptions implicit in the develop ment of the hypothesis and much of the effort in the study and research of leadership, as well as the "training" of managers. The presumption is that once a "pattern" of "good" management is discovered others could be taught the pattern. The discovery that, at least for two style dimensions considered, style is more of a response to a situation rather than an initiating factor gives little support for the presumptions. The results support the arguments of Campbell et al (1970, Ch. 1?) against the unidirectional views on the role of leadership. A brief review in search of supporting evidence indicates that such factors as intra-group reinforcement or subordinate performance could have marked effects upon leader style. The conclusions with respect to "loyal" employee influence are also 209 strengthened by this evidence. When the inducement-contributions contract is considered the results of this study become more credible. The organizational climate dimensions can be inter preted as indications of the state of these contracts which will reflect future states. A discussion of Fiedler LPC studies in relation to this study would lead to a need to split high and low LPC data sets when checking for many relationships between leadership style and other variables as otherwise meaningful results may be obscured. The final discussion oriented around the possibility of checking for a new criteria for "good" management. This would involve comparing the flexibility and responsiveness of leadership style to various climate dimensions. Admittedly, this study lacks the requirements for making wide generalizations, but the important implications of the conclusions of the study point to questions that should be resolved in future research. 210 REFERENCES Anderson, L. R. Leader behavior, member attitudes, and task performance of intercultural discussion groups. Journal of Social Psychology. 1966, 69. 305-319. Argyris, C. Some problems in conceptualizing organizational climate: A case study of bank administration. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1957. 2, 501-520. Bales, R. F. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Becker, S. W. The parable of the pill. Administrative  Science Quarterly. March 1970, 15(1). 94-96. Bjerring, J., Boyer, S., Campbell, J., & Starkey, G. Multivariate contingency tabulations. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Computing Centre, Oct. 1970. Bjerring, J. H., & Seagreaves, P. Triangular regression package. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Computing Centre, Feb. 1972. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf publishing, 1964. Bowers, D. G., & Seashore, S. E. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly. Sept. I966, 11(2), 238-263. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill, 1970. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. Group dynamics research and  theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Clifford, C, & Conn, T. S. The relationship between leadership and personality attributes perceived by followers. Journal of Social Psychology. Oct. 1964, 64, 57-64. 211 Coulthard, W. J., Stevens, J.» Cockle, R., & Gardiner, D. J. The UBC plot subroutines and programs. Vancouver* University of British Columbia Computing Centre, Dec. 1972. Csoka, L. S., & Fiedler, F. E. The effect of military leadership training! A test of the contingency model. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance. Dec. 1972, 8(3), 395-407. Evan, W. M. A model of organizational climate. In Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) Organizational climate. Boston1 Harvard University, 1968. Evans, M. G. The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and  Human Performance. May 1970, 5(3)» 277-298. Fiedler, F. E. Leader attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 308-318. Fiedler, F.E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 196?. Fiedler, F. E. Leadership experience and leader performance— another hypothesis shot to hell. Organizational  Behavior and Human Performance. Jan. 1970, 5(1)» 1-14. Fiedler, F. E. Note on the methodology of the Graen, Orris, and Alvares studies testing the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology. June 1971, 55(3). 202-204*1 (a) Fiedler, F. E. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin. August 1971, 76(2), 128-148. (bl Fiedler, F. E. The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly. Dec. 1972, 17(4), 453-470. Ta] Fiedler, F. E. Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model. Journal of Applied Psychology. April 1972, 56(2), 114-1197(b). Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology. Spring 1962, 15(l), 43-56. 212 Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological  Bulletin. Dec. 1964, 62(6), 361-382. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. The bases of social power. In Group dynamics. (3rd ed.) Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. New Yorki Harper & Row, 1968. Golembiewski, R. T. Organizational properties and managerial learnings Testing alternative models of attitudinal change. Academy of Management Journal. March 1970, 13(1), 13*31. Golembiewski, R. T., & Carrigan, S. B. Planned change in organizational style based on the laboratory approach. Administrative Science Quarterly. March 1970, 15(1), 79-93. nn Golembiewski, R. T., & Carrigan, S. B. The persistence of laboratory-induced changes in organization styles. Administrative Science Quarterly. Sept. 1970, 15(3), 330-340.(bl Golembiewski, R. T., & Munzenrider, R., Blumberg, A., Carrigan, S. B., & Mead, W. R. Changing climate in a complex organization* Interactions between a learning design and an environment. Academy of Management Journal.' Dee. 1971, 14(4), 465-481. Graen, G., Dansereau, F., & Minami, T. Dysfunctional leadership styles. Organizational Behavior and Human  Performance. April 1972, 7(2), 216. Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Alvares, K. M. Contingency model of leadership effectivenesst Some experimental results. Journal of Applied Psychology. June 1971, 55(3), 196-201. (a) Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Alvares, K. M. Contingency model of leadership effectiveness* Some methodological issues. Journal of Applied Psychology. June 1971, 55(3), 205-210. (b) Graham, W. K. Description of leader behavior and evaluation of leaders as a function of LPC. Personnel Psychology. Winter 1968, 21(4), 457-^64. Halm, J. Factor analysis. Vancouver* University of British Columbia Computing Centre, Oct. 1971. 213 Hemphill, J. K.» & Coons, A. E. Development of the leader behavior description questionnaire. In Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.) Leadership behavior: Its  description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Monograph No. 88, 1957. House, R. J. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly. Sept. 1971* 16(3), 321-338. House, R. J. Pilley, A. C, & Kerr, S. Relation of leader consideration and initiating structure to R and D subordinates' satisfaction. Administrative Science  Quarterly. March 1971, 16(1), 19-30. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human  Performance. June 1972. 7(3). 467-505. Hunt, J. G. Leadership style effects at two managerial levels in a simulated organization. Administrative Science Quarterly. Dec. 1971, 16(4), 476-485. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Kavanagh, M. J. Leadership behavior as a function of sub ordinate competence and task complexity. Administrative  Science Quarterly. Dec. 1972, 17(*0, 591-599. Korman, A. K. "Consideration", "initiating structure" and organizational criteria—A review. Personnel  Psychology. 1966, 19, 349-361. Lawler, E. E. A correlational-causal analysis of the relationship between expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Dec. 1968, 52(6), 462-468. Lawler, E. E., <& Suttle, J. L. A causal correlational test of the need hierarchy concept. Organizational Behavior  and Human Performance. April 1972, 7(2), 265-287. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1967. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. Patterns of aggressive behaviour in experimentally created 'social climates.' Journal of Social Psychology. 1939, 10, 271-299. 214 Likert, R. The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Litwin, G. H. Climate and motivation: an experimental study. In Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) Organi zational  climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. The influence of organizational climate on human motivation. Paper presented at a conference on organizational climate, Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Ann Arbor, Mich., March 1966. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. Motivation and organizational  climate. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968. Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An experimental object lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1968, 3, 440-458. Lowin, A., Hrapchak, W. J., & Kavanagh, M. J. Consideration and initiating structure: An experimental investigation of leadership traits. Administrative Science Quarterly. June 1969t 14(2), 238-253. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Meyer, H. H. Achievement motivation and industrial climates. In Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) Organi zational  climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Mohr, L. B. Organizational technology and organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly. Dec. 1971, 16(4), 444-459. Morrison, D. E., & Kenkel, R. E. (Eds.) The significance  test controversy—a reader. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1970. Myers, M. S. Every employee a manager. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey-Irwin, 1968. 215 Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. Properties of organization structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 23-51. Rummel, R. J. Applied factor analysis. Evanston: North western University Press, 1970. Sashkin, M. Leadership style and group decision effectiveness* Correlational and behavioral tests of Fiedler's contingency model. Organizational Behavior and Human  Performance. Dec. 1972, 8(3). 347-362. Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. J. Individual differences and organizational climate. I: The research plan and questionnaire development. Personnel Psychology. 1968, 21, 323-33^. Schneider, B., & Bartlett, C. Individual differences and organizational climate. II* Measurement of organizational climate by the multi-trait-multi-rater matrix. Personnel Psychology. 1969, 23, 493-513. Scontrino, M. P. The effects of fulfilling and violating group members' expectations about leadership style. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Aug. 1972, 8(1), 118-136. Sells, S. B. (Ed.) Stimulus determinants of behaviour. New Yorkt Ronald Press, 1963. Shifflett, S. C, & Nealey, S. M. The effects of changing leader power: A test of "Situational Engineering". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. June 1972, 7(3), 371-382. Simon, H. A. Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press, 1957. Stogdill, R. M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71. Stogdill, R. M. Manual for the Leadership Behavior Description  Questionnaire - form XII. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963. Stogdill, R. M. Validity of leader behavior descriptions. Personnal Psychology. 1969, 22, 153-158. Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Ed.) Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Business Research Monograph No. 88, 1957. 216 Tagiuri, R. The concept of organizational climate. In Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) Organizational  climate. Bostoni Harvard University, 1968. Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) Organizational climate. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hi11, 1967. Truell, G. F. Using mini-surveys to start problem-solving processes. Personnel Journal. July 1970, 49(7), 552-558, 562. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Weissenberg, P., & Kavanagh, M. J. The independence of initiating structure and consideration: A review of the evidence. Personnel Psychology. Spring 1972, 25(1), 119-130. Wofford, J. C. Managerial behavior, situational factors, and productivity and morale. Administrative Science  Quarterly. March 1971, 16(1), 10-17. Woodward, J. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London"! Oxford University Press, 1965. Yukl, G. Toward a behavioral theory of leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. July 1971, 6(4), 414-440. Zdep, S. M. Intra group reinforcement and its effects on leadership behaviour. Organizational Behavior and  Human Performance. Aug. 1969, 4(3), 84-98. APPENDIX A Schedule of events 218 Schedule of Events Day 0 - Survey issued to three departments 7 - Follow-up memo issued to encourage response 27 - Part IV open-end and part III & 4 closed-end question results given to dept. head A + company management 28 - Results as above given to dept. head B 34 - Part III open-end question results returned to dept. heads A & B: dept. head B had begun distribution of results to his department 49 - Meeting with two chief executive officers, personnel dept. head, and dept. heads A & B 56 - Written report given to firm (see Appendix F) 75 - Part 11(A) (Likert climate items) results in graph form given to dept. heads A & B (see Figures 1, 3» 5. and 7) 82 - Part 11(A) difference graphs given to dept. heads A & B (see Figures 2, 4, 6, and 8) - Discussion with dept. head A concerning survey results and leadership style scores 89 - Corrected combined results graphs given to firm 90 - Discussion with dept. head B concerning survey results and leadership style scores 112 - Second survey issued to departments A & C 124 - Follow-up memo to encourage response (?) 128 - Presentation of first survey results to dept. head C 130 - Second survey issued to dept. B 146 - Follow-up memo to all departments to encourage response APPENDIX B Modified introduction to First Survey for control group Introduction to Second Survey 220 Modified introduction to First Survey for control group SURVEY INTRODUCTION The following questionnaire has been prepared for several reasons. The first portion is background information. Its value is in interpreting the results for the following sections. If for example in Part II we ask a question and exactly 50% said "no" and 50% "yes", reasonable inferences could not be drawn, but if on further checking, it is found that 95% of male clerical under 25 and 80% of engineers over 40 said "yes" while only 15% in other groups said "yes", some logical inference as to reasons for saying "yes" or "no" might be drawn. Part II consists essentially of measurement tools which have been used by other researchers to find, among , other things, profiles of leadership styles, decision-making processes, etc. It is intended to repeat the questionnaire some time later to see if there have been any changes in these characteristics. The main benefit of the two surveys will be of research benefit in connection with the survey being carried out in the Structural and Woodroom Departments. The results will also be used as part of Dave Young's Masters level thesis in Business Administration. For best results, as large a response as possible from throughout the Department is required. Your participation is, however, purely voluntary. No one will know if you answer or not. The question naires themselves will never be made available to the company. The only results to be given to the company will be of a general nature indicating what responses were made and percentage or other statistical information covering the whole, department or results combining the responses from all departments. Besides Dave's personal word for this, you may feel better to know that rather severe sanctions by the University could be imposed on him and possibly on his advisor at U.B.C. for any inappropriate disclosure of confidential information. If you feel strongly that you do not wish to participate, you are free to dispose of the survey. The com pleted questionnaire should be placed in the stamped envelope supplied and mailed. SURVEY II INTRO D U C T I ON As with the previous survey, we would hope that as many people as possible would complete all parts of the survey. We expect that those who had difficulty with the wording of the' research portion previously, will have much less difficulty doing it the second time. We would like to emphasize, however, that if you do have difficulty on any one question or set of questions, skip on to others and complete as many as you are able to. If you sent in the previous survey, be sure to use the same nom de plume. If you did the first survey, it is not necessary to complete the background information on Page 1 except for your Department. APPENDIX C Computational procedures 222 APPENDIX C Computational Procedures Introduction As similar techinques and programs will be referred to more than once in the results chapter, it was deemed appropriate to consolidate all information on computational procedures and programs into this Appendix. Virtually all calculations were performed with the use of the U.B.C. computer facility. A brief description of this facility will be followed by descriptions of major programs and the particular options used in this study. As detailed computation formulae and techniques are either given or referenced in the user manuals referred to and available through the U.B.C. Computing Centre, formulae will only be used in the following descriptions to clarify distinctions or options. The U.B.C. Computing Centre The major component of hardware in the centre is a full duplex (2 CPU) IBM 360, model 67 computer. The 67 designation indicates adaptations for university use, the principal ones being the addition of substantial memory (virtual memory>10^ bytes) or storage units and the provision for a large number of terminals including remote terminals in various campus locations and 16 visual display terminals. There is also an array of peripheral equipment including high-speed card readers and line 223 printers, magnetic tape units, disk storage and drives, a data cell, magnetic drums, Calcomp plotters, and et cetera. The major or governing software component is the Michigan Terminal System (MTS) which allows fully shared oper ation of the system which can support approximately 45 conver sational terminals and from 1 to 7 batch streams. As well as the basic software system there are a variety of compilers and package programs that are available. FORTRAN IV, PLOT, TRIP, MVTAB, and FAN were used for this study though a large number of other compilers and programs are available. FORTRAN IV As FORTRAN compiler operation is well documented no description will be given here. The main use of FORTRAN was in computing and setting up data for use in statistical pro grams. The computation of IS and C scores from the 10 items or question scores on each of these dimensions provides an example. In these and all averaging procedures, account was made of missing data. If there were only 9 responses the average score computed was based only on the 9 responses given. The same procedure was used in computing scores for the climate dimensions both on the a priori dimensions and the factor analytically derived dimensions. These programs also indicated in the output if no data was available from a subject on a particular dimension so that it would be accounted for properly in later statistical programs rather than being treated as zero. 224 For initial debugging of programs, use was also made of the WATFIV fortran compiler (University of Waterloo Fortran IV compiler). This compiler, which was especially designed for student use, provides extensive syntax, logic, and operational diagnostics not available on standard compilers and aids sub stantially in reducing the time required to debug a new pro gram. All operational runs on real data, however, made use of the Fortran IV(G) compiled programs. MVTAB The MVTAB program (Bjerring et al, 1970) is designed to handle multivariate contingency tabulations. In the bivariate case responses to two questions will be counted along with mis sing responses and a bivariate frequency table can be produced. A choice of horizontal, vertical and total percentage tables can also be produced and if desired the chi-square statistic (and probability) for indicating independence of the variables can be produced. Though the above options were available no serious use was made of them, but the univariate frequency and percentage tables were used to provide information from parts I, III, and IV of the survey. This program also provides means for grouping data and checking sequencing of input data. Un fortunately much of the data prepared for use in MVTAB is not compatible for use in the TRIP program. This substantially increased the burden of directly incorporating the general survey results with the analysis of the research portion of the survey on organizational climate and was not attempted. 225 TRIP The TRIP program (Bjerring & Seagreaves, 19?2), des cribed as a triangular regression package, consists of a control routine and a set of 15 callable routines. This program was used for most of the statistical calculations. Among the routines used were those which perform t-statistic tests, multi ple and stepwise regression as well as producing probability (or significance) levels for t and F values, confidence inter vals, means, standard deviations, and correlations as well as other statistical information. The printer plots of data were also produced using this package. Other routines available include those for backward stepwise regression, or producing autocorrelation coefficients, Durbin-Watson statistics, partial correlations, orthogonal polynomials, residuals and et cetera. An important feature of this program is the ability to handle missing data. As most of the routines use a correlation matrix rather than raw data, the problem is essentially one of creating the best possible correlation matrix while accounting for any missing data. Once this matrix is formed all further results using it will be the best possible. Where results depend on the use of degrees of freedom (i.e. standard errors) the results are an approximation as an estimate of degrees of freedom has had to be made. The degrees of freedom would be correct, however, for simple regression and t-tests. The formulae used in the calculation of the t-statistic are given at the end of this Appendix. Formula (2) was, of 226 course, used on all paired comparisons. Formulae (1) and (3) can be selected by the investigator, or an option to provide automatic selection of formulae can be made. This automatic selection is performed by computing the F-probability of the variances of the samples. If this probability is less than 0.05 (or any value preset by the programmer) it is concluded that the sample variances are significantly different and that formula (3) should not be used. In general, the results in this study unless noted otherwise make use of this automatic decision rule. With missing data runs the initial calculation of means, standard deviations, and correlations was done with single--precision while all further calculations were done with double-precision. FAN The FAN program (Halm, 1971) is an extensively modified version of the UCLA BMDX72 program for doing factor analysis. This program provides a wide range of options as to procedures to be used in the analysis. The data input may be raw data with missing data values allowed, a covariance matrix, a correlation matrix, a factor-loading matrix, or regression coefficients for factor scores. The minres initial factor solution may be used instead of the principle components initial solution. Initial communality estimates may be squared multiple correlations, maximum absolute raw values, or read-in values. The rotations 227 may be orthogonal or oblique and may be carried out under a variety of rotations criteria including quartrimax, varimax, quartimin, bi-quartimin, covarimin, or direct quartimin. All calculations in this program are performed using double--precision. For this study only varimax orthogonal rotations were performed. When raw data was input, squared multiple cor relations were used for initial communality estimates while, when a correlation matrix was used for input, the original diagonal values (ones) were used. PLOT The PLOT program (Coulthard et al, 1972) is a package of routines for building plot commands for producing plots or graphs with the use of the electromechanical Calcomp plotters. As may be seen in the text, alphanumeric symbols along with 13 special symbols can be plotted in various sizes along with scale and graph lines. The neat appearance of the finished graphs is apparent. Not apparent is the ease and assured accuracy of plotting up to 135 two-dimensional points on a single graph. 228 Calculation Formulas i. Formulas (1) and (3) Let X-^ and X2 denote the two variables whose sample _ _ 2 means x^ and are being compared. Let s^ denote the sample variance of X^. Let denote the number of nonmissing values of X^. Let df denote the degrees of freedom of the t-value. Formula (1): t = xl ~ x2 51 s2 + M2 df M, M1 - 1 M2 - 1 229 Formula (3)« xl x2 t = df = Mx + M2 - 2 Note that when M-^ = M2. the t-values produced by-formulas (1) and (3) are identical. Moreover, in this case (M^ = M2) the two degrees of freedom are almost equal, so that the two tests are pretty well equivalent. In general, as M-^ approaches M2, the degrees of freedom for formula (1) approaches M-^ + M2 - 2. As M-^ and M2 become more and more disparate without limit, the degrees of freedom for formula (1) approaches the minimum of M^ and M2» Thus for M-^ quite different from M2, formula (3) provides a more sensitive test than formula (1). 230 ii. Formula (2) -- (Paired Comparison) Let x denote the mean of the differences, s the standard deviation of the differences, and df the number of degrees of freedom of the t-value. Then: t = * ^ ' s df = M-l where M is the number of nonmissing differences (Bjerring & Seagreaves, 1972, p. 82). 231 APPENDIX D Coding information and MVTAB results for open-end questions of Section III t MAKE) LTD. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CODING INFORMATION Q 4-RE PROCEEDURE FOR CHANGING DESIGN STANDARDS ON REFLECTION IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS QUESTION WILL GENERATE ANSWERS WHICH ARE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO CODE IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. THEREFORE I WILL SIMPLY GIVE MY GENERAL IMPRESSIONS FROM REVIEWING THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY 26 INDIVIDUALS. 1 A SPECIFIC PERSONIOR GROUP) SHOULD BE IN CHARGE OF CHANGES AND REGULAR REVIEWS. 2 OTHERS SHOULD BE ADISED THAT REVIEWS ARE IN PROGRESS AND IDEAS INVITED. 3 MORE SUGGESTIONS SHOULD BE SOLICITED FROM FIELP,VENDORS,CONTRACTORS,ETC. 4 CNCE REVISIONS OR NEW STANDARDS ARE MADE ALL!! PERSONS AFFECTED SHOULO BE ADVISED PROMPTLY. PLEASE NOTE :- THE FCLLOWING CODING IS AN ATTEMPT TO FIT MANY DIVERSE RESPONSES INTO SOMEWHAT C CNF I MI NG SLOTS. TAKE NOTE THAT SONE DISCRETION WAS REQUIRED , BUT I FEEL THE CODING GIVEN IS REPRESENTATIVE OF OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS THOUGH, OF COURSE, THERE MIGHT BE SOME MINOR ERRORS OP DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON DETAILS. ALSO NOTE THAT THAT SEVERAL ANSWERS WERE COOED AS Is EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT CLEAR TO ME.(I.E. YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE) DAVE YOUNG" LO a 5- WHAT DO YOU FEEL IS GOOD ABOUT WORKING IN THIS DEPARTMENT ? 1 = FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE, PLEASANT COMPANIONSHIP, ETC. 2 = GOOD MANAGEMENT,BUSINESSLIKE 3 = PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE (OR KNOWLEDGE ) 4 = NO UNDUE PRESSUR E  5 = HIGH STANDARDS HERE 6 = STEADY EMPLOYMENT 7 = CO-OPERATION AND/OR HELP (ON DESIGN PROBLEMS ,ETC ) 8 = PAY GOOD,ADEOATE,ETC 9 = REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, ALLOW ED RESPONSIBILITY A = PRCDDC Tl VE GROUP B = INTERESTING WORK,ADEQUAT E CHALLENGE C = LOTS OF FREEDOM D = FEEL LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL,SELF-DISCIPLINE POSSIBLE E = RESPECT t/OR ADMIRATION FOR OEPT. HEAD £ SOME CO-WORKERS F = GRFAT POTENTIAL G = CEPT. IS PROGRESSIVE -3-CM 9L *ZE*I 9Z*S £9"Z S6*E L*r'*i\ ZE*I 9Z' S 9Z*S 9Z*S ZE* I 9S*E 8S*9 63 *i 68*i t97Z * ***** »»»**»*** *** *»»* «*»* ******************* *********** **********, It******************* ************************ ************ OO'OOl *Z£*I 9Z*S E9*Z S6'£ iVM ZE*1 9Z*S 9Z*S 9Z*S ZEM S6*E 8S*9 68 *i 68 *i E9' Ll * ****************************************************************************************************^ *d3Q08V68i9'5,7eZl * 30VlN30y3d 1V101 (911 DJlnUO'.l: ;irt3fl 30 319V1 31V)bVAINn S3SN0dS3d TIN DNiaOlONl 13N IS 1SH13 01 dfl) S 3;s'DdS 3 d 11V WOd 3TJV1 SIHi iV *IS*8 9Z*V E1*Z ZO*iI 9Z*<7 £T*Z 9Z*1/ £ 1 * Z 8£*9 19*8 9Z*', 9Z**> I6*1E * *************************** ******************** st«*t?!)«*«*fS**(iS***if J#4*t*»*****t»****!(****S*?***»i4»***» 00*001 *IS*8 9Z*<? £TZ ZO'il 9Z*<7 £I*Z 9Z*<7 £TZ 8£ -9 15*3 9Z •<? 9Z'<7 16"t£ * ****************************************************************************^ *3 0 3 8 6 8 i 9 S * £ Z 1.* 30VlN33d3d 1V101 (911 33)0000::ld3G do 31PV1 aitflHVAINn S33NQdS3S 1 IN ONIoniONl ION S3SNndS3H A1N0 .30 ISdld «03 SI 31HV1 SIHI ES *SS*i ii*E 68*1 60*St ii'E 68*1 ii*E 68* 1 99*5 SS*i ii *£ ii*£ OE'BZ Z£*II * ****************************** ******************************** ******** ******************************************** 00*001 *SS.*i ii*£ 68*1 60*51 i/.*£ 68*1 ii*t 68*1 99*S SS*i ii*£ ii*£ 0£*8Z 2 £ * T X * *********************************************************************************** **************** *************** *3 00868i9S'?£ZT0* 30VlN33d3d 1V10J. £S*'?ZT8ZIZIE'7Z25I9* **************«**********************************************#**************************** ************************ £5 **' Z T 8 Z I Z I £ V Z Z 91 9 * ****************************************************************************************************************** *3 CJ 0 § b 8 I 9 9 V £ Z I 0 * 319V1 A0N3n03ad (911 33)0000: *id3Cl 30 31<?Vi SlVlcPMINO S3SNOdS3« AINU HD 1S«I3 H03 SI 318V1 SIHI siinssa a?Niawoo > Q 6- WHAT DO YOU FEEL IS GOOD ABOUT WORKING FDR THIS COMPANY IN GENERAL ? 1 LACK OF RED TAPE < 2 CO-OPERATIVE ATMOSPHERE 3 = NC! RACIAL DISCRIMINATION = FRINGE BENEFITS 5 = VARIED WORK,NO ROUTINE. 6 = REASONABLE STABILITY,SECURITY 7 THE PEOPLE 8 BEING IN THIS DEPT. 9 = FAIR WORK ASSESSMENT A GOOD OPPORTUNITIES B LOTS OF CHALLENGE C = FAIR WITH EMPLOYEES D = WELL E STABLI SHED ,GOOD REPUTATION E RECOGNITION OF ABILITY .... F REASONABLE MANAGEMENT G LOCATION H = HAS GIVEN NEW ARRIVALS IN COUNTRY A CHANCE I = GOOD PAY £/OR POSITION J SOCIAL £ SPORTS ACTIVITIES K = LARGE PROJECTS, P £ P PROJ ECTS,SIZE,CAP ABILITIES L = POTENTIAL M INTERESTING WORK _ . . . _ . . . ...... |\J CA J COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS Fflk FIRST CR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF CCMP:GOOD(CC 121) FREQUENCY TABLE  * 0 I 2 "1 4 5" S 7 S 9" A" C 13 E F FF~ tt * * *4 ** * *** ********** * ******************************* ***************************************************************** * 13 241122122244111 **************************<* ******************************************************************************************* * 13 241122122244111 FREQUENCY TABLE ( CON T [ NUEO I * I J K M* ******************************************** * 5 1 3 1* 53 ****** 4.4 ************************************ * 5 1 3 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE *0123456 7 89ACDEFH j********************************************************************************************************************** * 24.53 3.77 7.55 1 .89 1.89 3.77 3.77 1.39 3.77 3.77 3.77 7. 55 7. 55 1.89 1.89 1.89 ******************************** A******************************************************************************** ****** * 24.53 —3777 7755 173s" 1789~ 3777 3777 T7S9 3777 3T77 3T77 7755 7753 1789" 1789 1.89 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) * I J K f* ******************************************** * 9.43 1 .89 5 .6ft 1 .89* 100.00  ******************************************** * 9.43 1 .89 5.66 1.89* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CP. ONLY RESPONSES NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONCES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF COMP:GOOD(CC 121) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 123456789AC0EFHI *********************************************************************************************************************** * 5.00 1C.00 2. 50 2. 50 5.00 5.CO 2.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 2.50 2.50 2. 50 12. 50 ************ ************************************************************************#*********#************ ************ * 5.00 10.00 2.50 2.50 5.00 5.00 2.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 10.00 10. 00 2.50 2.50 2.50 12.50 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) * J K M* ************************************* * 2.50 7.50 2.50* ICO.00 ************************************* 5 2T5T3 775TJ 273TT*" zro-ro ON CCMBINEC RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 5 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF COCP:GOOD(CC 121) TOTAL PERCENTAGE . * 12 3 4 5 6 7 "8 9 A B C Li E" F" Z~ ***************************** 4*************4**************************************4*********************^ * 3.64 7.27 1. 32 3.64 7.27 7.27 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 1.82 9.09 7.27 1 .82 3.64 3.64 ****************** ************************************ *******: ************* ******* **********************44**#*44******** * 2. 64 7.27 1. 82 3.64 7.27 7.27 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 1.82 9.09 7.27 1. 82 3. 64 3.64 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) * H I J K L M* *************************#******************************** * 1.32 10.91 3.64 5.45 1.82 3.64* 100.00 ************** ***********•*****<***»*******«*** **»«*****<. *<, * 1.82 10.91 3.64 5.45 1.82 3.64* 55 EXECUI1CN TERMINATED ssic - - - ----- •• • - — ...... . .. . • - - - -• • - ... — - • - - —- -— - - • • • • VjO -v3 Q 7-WHAT CO YOU FEEL NEEDS IMPROVEMENT IN THIS DEPT ? 1 = CONTROL OF OFFICE RECORDS 2 = CLOSER CONTACT WITH MANAGEMENT 3 = ORGANIZATION 4 = TEAM SPIR IT,TEAMWORK 5 = MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS 6 = MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR FIELD EXPERIENCE 7 = WORKING CONDITIONS ( FURNITURE,OFEICES,AlR COND.,SPACE,ETC.) 8 = LEADERSHIP 9 = BETTER COMMUNICATIONS (WITH FIELD) A = RECOGNITION, ON DESIGNS C OPINIONS B = ETIQUETTE C = REQUIRE A GOAL D = STANDARDIZATION OF PROCEDURES E = MORE ESTIMAT I MAT ING, TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC INFORMATION F = LESS FAVORITISM G = MORE SOCIAL 6 SPORT ACTIVITIES H = PERSONAL PEMARK RE HEAD DRAFTSMAN I = SOMETHING TO GENERATE INITIATIVE (PREVENT NON-PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY) UPGRADING OF EDUCATION £ PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS K = ATTE NDENCE CONTROL L = NOISE LEVEL M = MAIL SYSTEM N = SECRETARY OR CLERK FOR EACH PROJECT LEADER 0 = LIBRARY FACILITIES (PROJECT HISTORIES) P = MORE MONEY Q = TRAINING £ RECOGNITION R = TYPING S = ELIMINATION OF SLACKERS T = ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYEES U = JUNI OR TRAINING ro GO ON CM _SJZ *ZZ'Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z 77'7 <r1' >? ZZ'Z S. **** ***** * ** ***** ** **** ******* * ****** *************** ****** 00*001 *ZZ*Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z W'li ZZ'Z * ********************************************************** *n 1 S d O N. * (Q3I1N'I 1N03 ) 3OViN30H3d IV 101 ZZ'Z ZZ'Z *V« ZZ'Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z OO'OZ ZZ'Z II'II 6«'B 68*6 ZZ'Z * ********************************************************************************************************* ************** ZZ'Z ZZ'Z *>*7'*i ZZ'Z ZZ'Z ZZ'Z *,<7'>? ZZ'Z OC'OZ ZZ'Z ini **'* 69'8 63'8 ZZ'Z *7<7'*7 * *********************************************************************************************************************** T>tIH030V68i9'7tZl* 39VlN33«3d TV10I (9ZI 33) 3A0ddwI :id30 dU SiVIcVAINO S33N0dS3'd TIN 9NI0m3NI ION S3SNOdS3M ATNO dO iS«I3 Mud SI 319V1 SIHI £S *68'I 68*1 68'1 68*1 LL'i 68' I 68*1 * ***** ************************************»*************',:** ',i ****** OO'OOI *68'I 68*1 68*1 68*1 LL'£ 68*1 68*1 * ***************************************************************** *n i s d o N i * (U3flNIlMQ3) 30VlN33M3a TVJ.01 68'T ir£ 68'I 68'T 68'T U'£ 68'I Hb' 91 68'I £»'6 /Z'£ 99 V 99'/ 6H'I I / "F. 60'91 *  **********************************************************!!********************************************** ************** 68'1 LL'Z 68"! 68'T 68"t LL'£ 68'I 85*91 6«'I £V'S LL'Z SS'L" S5'i 68*1 Zi'£ 60'Sl * **********************************************************:<************************************************************ XI H330V68i9<7£ZT0* 30ViN33d3d T7 101 £9 *I I I I Z I 1 * ****************************************** ^************ ********** ES *I I I I Z I I * ***************************************************************** *n i S d U N T * ( 030NII lNIOQ ) 3TSV1 A,3^3033M3 IZTTTZI6TSZ*'''IZ8* *********************************************************************************************************************** I Z I I T Z 1 5 I s z" V V I z e * *********************************************************************************************************************** M I H 2 3. fj V 6 8 I 9 *r £ Z I 0 * 3T8V1 A3vl3ri03Sd (9ZI 03! 3A0tfdWI :ld3U 30 31UV1 31V1«VAIN0 S3SNOdS3« A1H0 d3 iSXId d03 SI 3T37J. SIHI S110S3d 03HI8W03 J COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPCNSESIUP TO FIRST 5) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF DEPT: I M PRO VE (CC 126) TOTAL PERCENTAGE •  * I 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 A B C 3 E F G~~ *********************************************************#**************************#***********************^ * 2.82 1.41 11.27 11.27- 1.41 2.82 12.68 2.82 14.C8 2.82 1.41 1.41 2.82 2.82 1.41 1.41 *********************************************************************************************************^ * 2.82 1 .41 1 1. 27 11. 27 1. 41 2.82 12.68 2.82 14.08 2.82 1 .41 1 .41 2.82 2.82 1.41 1.41 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) *HI JKLMNOPORSTU* ******************************************************** ********************************************************** * 1.4 1 4. 23 1. 41 1.41 2.82 1 .4 1 1.41 2.B2 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41* 100.00 ****************************************************************************************************************** * 1.41 4.23 1.41 1.41 2.82 1.41 1.41 2.82 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41* 71 ro o Q 8-WHAT CO YOU FEEL NEEDS IMPROVEMENT IN THIS COMPANY ? 1 = MORE SIABIL1TY,AVOIDANCE OF MASS LAYOFFS 2 = RELATIONS BETWEEN PERS. DEPT. £ EMPLOYEES 3 = ORGANIZATION 4 = TEAM SPIRIT,TEAM WOF K 5 = MORE RESPONSIBILITY 6 = DIVERSIFICATION 7 = PUBL IC RELATIONS 8 = SALESMANSHIP 9 = BETTER COMMUNICATIONS A = WORKING CONDITIONS (OFFICES,FURNITURE,SPACE,AIR COND.,ETC.) B = LOCATION C = SANITATION D = ft E Cu IRE GOALS AND POLICIES,OR 1NFORMA YI ONI ON SAME E = MODERNIZATION F = BETTER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS G = KNOWLEDGE CF POLLUTION (NOISE) CONTROL H = TRAINING 1 = PROFIT SHARING PLAN (FOR BETTER EFFICIENCY)  J = PAY KEY(THAT GROUP M EM BER S RESPECT) GOOD MONEY K = fOP.E SOCIAL £ SPORT ACTIVITY L = MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN OTHER DEPTS. RE ENGINEERING TO SCHEDULES £ BUDGETS M = RET IRF SCME EXECUTIVES f. = STOP EMPIRE BUILDING 0 = tSIAflLlSh FINANCE, CONSTRUCTION, £ STAkT-UP DfcPTS". P = BONUSES FOR GOOD PROJECTS Q = FIELD CONDITIONS (HOUSING,ALLOWANCES,ETC.I _ R = MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE DEPTS. " S = INTEROFFICE MAIL T = HIGHER QUALITY WORK SALARIES ro CM CM ********4***»44*************** 00*001 *iZ*Z LZ'Z * ********************#********* *n a * (33nNllN33) 30VlN30'd3d TtflOl LZ'Z LZ'Z 60*6 £Z*Z SS*^ Z8*9 60*6 28*9 SS*<7 9E*U 99**/ 60*6 LZ'Z Z8 *9 SS'V 60*6 ,* ****** 4* ***************************************************************************************************** ********** LZ'Z LZ'Z 60*6 iZ*Z SS*-* Z8*9 60*6 Z8*9 <:,$"? 9E*1I SS** 60*6 LZ'Z Z8 *9 SS * * 60*6 * ***************** *# ********** ********************************** ************************************************* ******* dXIH3dQ8V6i9'7EZ'[* 33VlN33a3d IV101 IUT 33>3A0WdWI :dh'O0 30 31S?1 3iVI>!VAINfl S30NOdS3ii TIN ONIOIITSNI ION S3SN0dS3a AT NO dO lSdld dOd SI 3T9V1 SIHI £S *68*T 68*1 68*1 * ******* ****************************** 00*001 *6S*I 68*1 68*1 * ************************************* *n a d * < Q3I1NI i\l JO ) 33ViN33d3d TV101 68*T SS*i 68*T 11'$ 99*9 c 9 * / 99*9 /!*£ £*>*6 H.'Z 99*/ 68 *1 99 "9 IL'Z 99*; R6*9I * *************************************************************** ******************************************^****** ******* 68*1 SS*i 68*1 LL't 99*S SS*A 99*S LL' £ £«7*6 ii*£ SS*i 68 *1 99 *S LL'i SS*i 86*91 * ******************************************************************************************* **************************** xiH9daav6i9<7Ezio* 3DvlN33a3d "W101 £S * I  I * ******************************<,****** £S * I 1 T * ************************************* *n a d * (U30NI1M30) 3T0V1 A3N3003dd I*tZE*>£ZSZ,7l£Z*6* ***************************************#****************»******** **********************************************»»*»«**» l>-lZEV£ZSZ*"l£ZV6* ********** a********************************************************************** ****************************** ******** >IIH9-IOaV6i9V£ZIO* / 3TCV1 A3N3003«d \ (l£l 33)3A0'ddWI :dw03 30 3THV1 31ViyVAINfl S3SNOdS3« ATNO dO ISdld aOd.SI 3T8V1 SIHI snns3a 03Niawo3 -CCK01NEC RESULTS THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPONSES!UP TO FIRST 5) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UN IV A«IA T E TABLE OF COMP:IMPROVE(CC 131) TOTAL PERCENTAGE  ft I 2 3 A 5 6 7 ii 9 5 B C 5 E F <T~ ****** ************** *************** 4***********44444*******44" 44*44**********************4***********444*44*44*^ « 8.97 3.35 3.85 3.85 1.28 7.69 2.56 1.23 7.69 8.97 6.4 1 1. 28 5. 13 3. 85 5.1 3 2.56 ****** 4*4* *************** 444X4************************** ************************** 4*4********************************** * 6.97 3 .85 3.85 3.85 1.28 7.69 2.56 1. 23 7. 69 8. 97 6.41 1.28 5.13 3.85 5.13 2.56 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) *HI JKLMNOPORS TU* *****************************4****44****44****4****************4*******4*4***4*****4*******4*************4******** * 2.56 6.41 1 .28 1. 28 1.28 1.28 1 .28 1 .23 1 .28 2.56 1 .28 1 .28 1.28 1 .2S* 100.00 ****** **********************4****4**4*4444**4*4* 44**4**4 4***4 4***4*44*****4*4**********4**4*****4***************** * 2. 56 6.41 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1 .28 1.23 1.28 2.56 1 .28 1.28 1.28 1.28* 78 Q 9-WHAT ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES DO YOU SEE IN WORKING FOR A CONSULTING FIRM OF THIS SIZE ? > < ADVANTAGES 1 = CIFFERENT CHALLENGES 2 = WIDE SCOPE OF PROJECTS £ PROBLEMS 3 = MORE CHANCE FOR ADVANCEMENT 4 = LARGE PROJECTS 5 = RELATIVE SECURITY , STABILITY 6 = ASSOCIATION WITH OTHERS IN PROFESSION 7 = FIELD TRIPS 8 = FLFXIBI LI TY 9 = CHANCE TO WORK IN DIFFERENT DEPTS. 0 = POTENTIAL ABILITY TO TACKLE ANY LARGE ENGINEERING PROJECT P = EASIER TO FORM SOCIAL RELATIONS 0 = 8EAUTIFUL CITY DISADVANTAGE S A = ROUTINE WORK TASK, REDUCED CHALLENGE B = IMPERSONAL,LOSS OF INDIVIDUALITY 0 = EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED TO ONE AREA E = LACK OF SECURITY F = LITTLE PARTICIPATION IN CONSTRUCTION OR SEEING RESULTS G = LACK OF COMPANY SPIRIT H = REC TAPE (EFFICIENCY LOSS) I = LESS CHANCE FOR ADVANCEMENT J = LACK OF INCENTIVE K = DEPARTMENTALIZATION (LITTLE APPRECIATION OF PROBLEMS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS) re -3-bL *LZ'l LZ'l 08*£ LZ'l £S'Z 6£" 11 LZ'l * *********** 4************44*«********************4***4***44*4***** OO'OOI ric'l ZZ*I 08*F LZ'l £;*Z M'll IZ'l £ 1 *##*#****frt.):******#4**##***4*#**S4******4#***4*4*#*****##**S4*4*# *0 d ox r I H * (03nNIlM00) 30VlN30d3d 3V101 LZ'l LZ'l 6S*A LZ'l 6S*A £1*01 LZ'l £g*Z LZ'l £S*Z Oe*£ £1*01 ZZ*I AZ*1 66*81 90*S * ********»4«****4****»***4**4»**»**4*44444444444444*4*4*****4***4444***4*4*44*444******4444*4*444**4*4*»»****4*^ LZ'l LZ'l 6S*A iZM 6SV £ I "01 LZ'l £ S * Z LZ'l ES'Z 08*E £I*OT LZ'l LZ'l 66*61 90*5 * 44*****************4****** ************************4*******44*44 ****************4****** 4*4**44*** ****** 4*4 44 44**** ****** 9d3a0aV6«i9S',7£Zl* 33VlN30d3d IV101 (Z£l TDSIM3nv:m:q7IS 30 31t-'Vl • 3) VI WVA I NO S3SNOdS3d TIN 3NI0010NI ION (ISMd 01 dn)SJSM3dS3d 33V bOd 31371 S IH1 6£ *9S*Z 95*2 £1*5 9S*Z £T*S ET*S 9S*Z 69V £T*S 99*2 9S *Z £T£ «£*S1 79*SZ 9Z*01 * *******************4*4*4**********************4****************** 4******4*4***444***********4******4********44**4******** 00*001 *9S*Z 9S*Z £TS 99*2 £TS £I'S 95*2 69*A £1*S 99*2 95*2 £ I *S 8E*S1 *>9*S2 92*01 * 4444»44*4»»*4***************4*****444444*444444*4444***4*************************** ******** 44444 ******************* ****** *0 d 0 X 1 30868i942l* 39VlN30Mdd 3V101 (A£l DO)S1N3KW03:37IS d3 33SV1 31VI«VAINf1 S30N3dS3« TIN 3NIG030NI ION S3SNUdS3H A IN'.') dO ISaid H03 SI 333V1 S!H1 ES *68 *I 68 'I LL'i. 68*1 LL't LL'i 68*1 99*5 IT7! 68* T 68* I AA*£ 2E*I1 Ag 'PI sT*~7_ Z>7*9Z * **44**4*4******»**#4********4*44*4*4444*4***4********4 444*****444* 4* 4* 4* 4****44444*4**444444*4 4*44* 44*4 444444*4 4*4444444*4 444*44 00*001 *68*1 68*1 LL *£ 68*1 1A*£ AA'E 68* 1 99*5 LL'i 68*1 6H-1 AA*£ ZE'TI A3*91 S5*i ZV9Z * ##*******4************4*444****44#************4**4**4444********44*********444**4444444*********4**4*^***4*4444444*4****44**4*4* *0d0XI30a68I9SZ10* 3DVlN3083d 3V101 £S *T 1 Z 1 2 2 I £2 I 1 Z 9 01 */ *I * ****4*4**********4**4*4*****4*****4********4***444**4****44***44**44**4**44*4444444**4444**4*4444444*4********4*4***4**44***44*4 £S *1 1 Z I Z Z 1 £ 2 1 1 2 9 01 V M * »* ****** *** ******* 4***4*4** ******* ******** 44* ************** 44 *********** ** *4 44 4 * 44* * *** * 4 4 4 * ** 4 4 44 4 * * ** *** ** *** * ** * * ** 44 4 4 * 4 *4 4 * *J! si Q 51 1 3. 2 a t- S L 9 S i I 0 * 318V1 AJN300383 (A£l 00)S1N3WW03:3ZIS 30 33CV1 31Vl27AINn S3SN0dS3H A3NQ dO ISdld dOd SI 313V1 SIH1 S130S3d Q3NIQW0D Q 11-WHAT SHOULD EMPLOYEE COURSE INCLUDE ? > ( 1 = WORK EFFICIENCY z COMPANY POLICIES,ORGANIZATION, PROCEDURE s" 3 COMPANY GOALS AND PLANS 4 SCOPE OF DEPTS. 5 DESIGN STANDARCS AND USE OF SAME 6 SUPERVI SORY TRAI NI NG 7 GENERAL REVIEW OF MAJOR PROJECTS,WHAT THINGS WERE GOOD OR BAOIWITH NO BLAME BEING ATTACHEO) 8 NEW MACHINERY £ TECHNIQUES 9 = SOCIAL BENEFITS A = CPM SCHEDULING B = RETRAINING C TRAINING PEOPLE HOW TO SEARCH FOR INFORMATION - - -• - --- • - -— - - • - - - -- -- - - • • ro o ) 0 15-WHAT FURTHER I NF OR MAT I CN ABOUT THIS DEPARTMENT WOULD YOU FIND HELPFUL ? 1 = HOW IT HAS EXISTED THIS WAY SO LONG 2 = GOALS £ PLANSIWCRK LOAD) . .„ . .. _ 3 = ORGANIZATION £ COMMUNICATION OF LETTERS,WIRES,ETC. 4 = PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT, PERSONNEL EVALUATION SYSTEM 5 = POWER WITHIN COMPANY 6 = ORGANIZATION, OFFICE PROCEDURES 7 = ESTIMATING HANDBOOK 8 = CLIENT NEGOTIATIONS 9 = RESUME OF SERVICE, APTITUDES, EXPERIENCE OF OTHER PERSONNEL TO HELP IN CONSULTATIONS ETC. COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF COURS E: COMMEN T S( CC 142) FREQUENCY TABLE  *01234567ABC* ********************************************************************************************* * 31 113 1 1 1 1 1 11 1* 53 ********************************************************************************************* * 31 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE *0123 4 567ABC* ****************** ****** ********************************************************************* * 56.49 1 .89 24.53 l.ii<5 1.89 1 .89 1.89 1.K9 1.89 1.89 1. 89* lOO.OO ********************************************************************************************* * 58.49 1.89 24.53 1.89 1 .89 1 .89 1.89 1.SI9 1.89 1. 89 1. 89* 53 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPONSES'UP TO FIRST 4) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF COU R S E: COMM EN T S ( CC 142) TOTAL PERCCNTAGF * I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9i A B C«  **************************************************************************************************** * 2.33 5C. CC 6. 67 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 3.33 3.33 3 .33 3.33 3.33* 100.00 **************************************************************************************************** * 3.33 50.00 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33* 30 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RE SPON SE S (UP TO FIRST 4) NOT INCLUDING Nil. RESPONSES  UNIVARIATE TABLE OF DEPT: I NEC: 8EQUIRED(CC 149 I TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9* ************************************************************::****************** * 14.29 2B.57 7. 14 7. 14 7. 14 14.29 7.14 7.1.4 7.14* 100.00 ******************************************************************************* * 14.29 28. 57 7.14 7.14 7.14 14.29 7.14 7.1.4 7.14* 14 IV) oo Q 16-WHICH DE PT S.NEE D MORE INFO. ABOUT YOUR DEPT. FUNCTION AND REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS AND CO-OPERATION ? > < Q 17-WHICH DEPTS. DO YOU NF ED TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS AND CO-OPERATION ? 1 = ELECTRICAL D MANAGEMENT 2 MACHINE RCCM E = PROJECT CONTROL 3 PULPING GROUP F = ESTIMATING 4 = MATERIALS HANDLING G = EXPEDITING 5 = PURCHASING H ACCOUNTING 6 = STPUCTURAL I = Fl ELD 7 - INSTRUMENTATION J = MECHANICAL 8 SCHEDULING K COMPUTING .. . -9 SITE DEVELOPMENT A = CONTRACTS M - ALL 0 STEAM . C HEATING 6 VENTILATION - - - •- - - - •• --CV) VO J COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF NEEC: I NFC: ABOUT: YOUR: DEP T ( CC 153) FREQUENCY TABLE * 013456ABCDJKM* *********************************************************************************************************** * 29 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 5* 53 *********************************************************************************************************** * 29 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 5* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 3 4 5 6 A B CD J K M * *******************************************************************************************************^ * 54.72 5.66 1.E9 3.77 3. 77 5. 66 1 .89 1.89 1 .89 1 .39 5.66 1.89 9.43* 100.00 *********************************************************************************************************** * 54. 72 5. 66 1. 89 3.77 3.77 5.66 1 .89 1.89 1 .89 1 .89 5.66 1.89 9.43* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONCES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF NEED:INFC:ABCUT:YOUR:OEPT(CC 153) TOTAL PERCENTAGE *13456ABCDJKM* **************************************************************************************************** * 12 .50 4.17 8. 33 E. 33 12. 50 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 12.50 4.17 20.83* 100.00 **************************************************************************************************** * 12.50 4. 17 8. 33 8. 33 12. 50 4. 17 4.17 4.1 7 4. 17 12.50 4. 17 20.83* 24 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPCNSESIUP TO FIRST 5) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UMvAklAIt TABLE OH NLt0:INF0:ABOUT:YOUR:OEPT<CC 163) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 3 4 5 6 A B C " " 0 E G J K M* ****************************************************************************************************************** * 21.05 2.63 5.26 7.89 15.79 2.63 7.89 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 10.53 2.63 13.16* 100.00 ****************************************************************************************************************** * 21.05 2.63 5.26 7.89 15.79 2.63 7. 89 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 10.53 2.63 13.16* 38 - — - - -  - --c © ) COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR CMLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF YOU:NF ED:INFQ(CC 158) FREQUENCY TABLE  *_ 0 1 5 6-7 8 9 A H J M* ***44«4ft*****444****4*4*4******************44**4***44*44*44444******************4444*4 * 24 A 3 A 1 1 1 1 16 7* 53 * ** * 4 4 * * **** ****** #4*4* 4** #4 4*4* #4 44***#4*»****t******«****#«****#***t4**<.-*#***#«*#**** + #*4*4 4 24 4341111 16 7* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 56789AHJM* ****#4*4444 ft-ft44**4*4444444444444444**44******4444*4 *********4*444*ft 44*4*4**444*************** * 45.28 7.55 5.66 7.55 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 11.32 13.21* 100.00 444*4*ft 44444*44444444*44444444444 44444*444444444*4444*44 44444 444*44*4***4444444*4*44444*4***4 * 45.28 7.55 5.66 7.55 1. 89 1. 89 1 . 89 1 .89 1 .89 11.32 13.21* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR ONLY RESPONSES NOT INCLUDING MIL RESPONCES UNIVARIATE TABLE CF YCU:NEED:INFO!CC 158) TOTAL PERCENTAGE ft 1 5 _6 7 3 9 A H_ J M*  44*44 4 4X'***ft 4 4444ft44444*4* ft ft** ** 4 44ft ft *4444**4**ft****4 ft 4ft ****>.: ***********44***44******* * 13 .79 10 .34 13. 79 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 20. 69 24. 14* 100.00 ************4444******¥*444444444***4*********4*4444*****4444*44***4444*************** * 13.79 10.34 13. 79 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 20.69 24.14* 29 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPCNSESIUP TO FIRST 5) MOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF YOU:NEED:INFU(CC 158) TOTAL PERCENTAGE *156789AEFGHIJKM* ****** J******************************* ** 44*4***4**4** ft ****** * 4*****44 4***********4** **************** **************** ***** * 21.1 5 7.69 11.54 5.77 3.35 5.77 7.69 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1. 92 11. 54 1.92 13.46* 100.00 **4*44ft*4****44 4ft ************* 4 *****4*4*******»*****»t******>i***************4****44*** **************** ******************* * 21 .15 7.69 1 1.54 5.77 3.85 5.77 7.69 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 11.54 1.92 13.46* 52 i—1 0 24-WHAT ITEMS WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT THE CLIENT BE INFORMED ABOUT ? > : : < 1 = PROGRESS DELAYS THAT RESULT FROM LACK OF INFORMATION K/OR DECISIONS 2 = PRIORITY OF ITEMS OR DECISIONS 3 = AS MANY AS POSSIBLE  4 = COMPANY PROCEDURES 5 = NEW DEVELOPMENTS (THAT COULD SAVE MONEY OR NEW PROBLEMS) 6 = HAS - CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES  7 = COSTS £ ENGINEERING COSTS 8 = ENCUGH TO KEEP HIM HAPPY '" ' " . IV) VA to CONBINEC RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CP CNLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF C L I : B E : I NF CP MED : OF ( CC 169) FREQUENCY TABLE  * 0 I 2 3 A 5" 7 8* ************ **** 444*44******4*** 4*** 4********4444***************44****** * 31 6 2 A A 3 2 1* 53 *************444444**********44 * ** ** ** ** 44 * 444*** ***** ******** 4444***44* * 31 6 2 A A 3 2 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 2 3 A 5,7 8* ********444*44************************4*4*4;*4= *********** 44*******4444444 *. 58.49 11.32 3.77 7.55 7.55 5.66 3.77 1.894 100.00 ****** 4 ********4**44*****44*** ****** **************4**4********44******** * 58.49 11 .32 3. 77 7. 55 7. 55 5.66 3.77 1 .R9* 53 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RES PCNSES(UP TO FIRST 5) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF C L I : B E : I NF CR ME D: OF ! CC 169) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* ****** 4***4*****4******4*****4*4*4**************4*********************** * 25.93 7.41 18.52 14.81 18.52 3.70 7.41 3.70* 100.00 4***444**4*****************4*********4**4**4*4444*444*4444*4 444*4******* * 25.93 7.41 13. 52 14. 81 18. 52 3. 70 7.41 3.70* 27 ro LJJ 0 25-WHAT ITEMS ABOUT CLIENT OR PROJECT REQUIREMENTS DO YOU EE EL SHOULD BE MORE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED TO YOU ? > < 1 = GENERAL AND DE TAILED REQUIREMENTS 2 = REQUIRED SCHEDULING - —. . 3 = EXPLANATION, REASONS, BACKGROUND OF CLIENT REQUESTS OR DECISIONS (WHICH  DECISIONS ARE CLIENTS £ WHICH HAS MGT. , ACTI ON TAKEN BY OTHERS INTERFERING WITH MY AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY) 4 = EQUIPMENT PREFERENCES £ EXPERIENCE 5 = MATERIALS AVAILABLE  6 = CONTRACTS 7 = COMMERCIAL C./OR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES . 8 = CLIENT DECISIONS (UP TO DATE )  CCVBINEC RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR CNLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF B E : E X PLA I NED : TO.: YO U (CC 174) FREQUENCY TABLE , * 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* ** *************** ************************************************************** * 27 14 3 3 1 2 1 1 1* 53 ************************* *** ****** ********************************************* * 27 14 3 3 1 2 1 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE *01234567 8* ***«4******************* ******************************************************* * 5C.<54 26.42 5. 66 5.66 1 .89 3.77 1 .89 1 .89 1 .89* 100.00 ******************** *********************************************************** * 50.94 26.42 5.66 5.66 1.39 3.77 1.89 1.89 1.89* 53 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RE SPONSE S( UP TO FIRST 5) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE CF BE: EXPLAIN EC:TO:YOU(CC 174) TOTAL PERCENTAGE ' * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8* ************************************************************************ * 53.33 16.67 10.00 3. 33 6. 67 3-33 3.33 3.33* 100.00 ********* I-**************************************************** ********** * 53.33 16.67 10.00 3.33 6.67 3.33 3.33 3.33* 30 ro VA VA 0 33-WHAT DO YOU FEEL CONTRIBUTES MOST TO POOR WORK EVALUATION ? 1 = LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF INDIVIDUALS BY EVALUATORS 2 = POOR WORK, THE MAN HIMSELF 3 = SHIFTING FROM JOB TO JOB, TEAM TO TEAM 4 = LACK OF INTEREST (IN DULL WORK, REVISIONS) 5 = LACK OF COMMUNICATION (TO INFORM POOR WORKER WHERE HE IS GOING WRONG) 6 = LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN 1ST LINE SUPERISOR £ DEPT. HEAD 7 = PRIDE IN WORK NOT ENCOURAGED  8 = MORE THAN 1 PERSON WORKING ON A DWG. 9 = COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS, LARGE SIZE OF DEPT. A = LACK' OF RATING SYSTEM, EVALUATION PROCEDURE B = PREJUDICE C = RIVALRY, POOR JUDGEMENT D = WORK POORLY DISTRIBUTED E = LITTLE TIME ALLOWED FOR EVALUATION v. ro ON COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF REASONS:FOF:POOR:EVAL(CC 221) FREQUENCY TABLE * D" I 2 3" ? 5 5 8~ 9 5 B C D E* ********* 4*******444**4444*4*4**********4**4*******************4***444********************************** ********** * 13 A 3 1 3 2 2 1 12 3 1 1 1 1* 53 ****444*«******#***444*4**44****4*************************444****4444444********44******44****#******4************ * 13 A 3 1 3 2 2 1 12 3 1 1 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE *012345689ABCDE* 4 ******* 44 44 444**4*4 44*44444 ****** ******** 4444444 4444 4 44 4444*444 44* 4* ************* ********************** ********** * 33.96 7.55 5.66 1.39 5.66 3.77 3.77 1 .89 22.64 5.66 1. 89 1. 89 1. 89 1. 89* 100.00 *******4***********44*44*44*4**444**4***************** ************************************************************ * 33.96 7.55 5.66 1.89 5.66 3.77 3.77 1 .39 22.64 5.66 1. 89 1. 89 1.89 1.89* 53 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPCNSESIUP TO FIRST 4) NCT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF REASONS: FCF: POOR : E V AL I CC 221) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 _9 A B C D E*  4***4*****444*444444*4*******************4************** **4*44*****44***************************4 ********** * 13. 16 7. 39 2. 63 7. 89 5.26 5.26 2.63 31.58 10.53 2.63 5.26 2.63 2.63* 100. 00 «4**444**4********44****44*4****4*************44*****44**4444**************44**4***4*********************** * 13.16 7.89 2.63 7.89 5.26 5.26 2.63 31.58 10.53 2.63 5.26 2.63 2.63* 38 38-WHAT SPECIFIC TYPES OF REFERENCE MATERIAL DO YOU FEEL NEEOS IMPROVEMENT ? 1 = EVALUATION CF PRCDuCTS 2 = DESIGN DATA,-STANDARD CRITEREA 3 = PROJECTS OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA 4 = TECHNICAL LIBRARY 5 = CONSTRUCTION COST IN FfJ 6 = CATALOGUES, TECHNICAL HANDBOOKS 7 = ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS £ DESIGN OUTSIDE P £ P INDUSTRY 8 = FORFIGN CODES OF PRACTICE 9 = REF. MATERIAL FOR UNUSUAL PROBLEMS A = SET OF CLASSICAL BOOKS B = JOURNALS, PROCEEDINGS, ETC. C = STICKFILES £ VENDORS REF. D = NEW EQUIPMENT,FOREIGN EOUIPMENT E = SPECIFIC PROBLEMS CN PREVIOUS JOBS F = ESTIMATING, OPERATING COST DATA, ENG. COST DATA G = MANUFACTURERS DWGS. H = CROSS-REFERENCE SYSTEMS ro ~v7T oo ON CM S Z *00"*/ * ***4444444444***4444**« "'~~" ~ "" oo-ool *eo*v * 444******************** *H * (OSnNUNOD ) 39VlN33'a3d 1V101 00** 00*21 00'8 00*9T 00 ** 00'*? 00'*7 00'*7 00*8 00*<7 00*8 00"? 00** 00 * V 00'* OO'V * ************ ************************* ****44*44***4****4 ********************** 4**4444*4 444*44*44444* 44 444 4 44 4* 44*444444* 00**7 00*21 00*8 00*91 00**> 00**/ 00* */ OO'V 00*8 00*<? 00*8 00*<7 00*<? 00 *t> 00 "t OO*1? * 444****************44*44444*4*44***4444** ******** 44444444**4****4444****444***44*4**4*4** 4**************444 44*4* 444444* 0d3a08V68A9S*>£Zl4 33VlN33d3d TV101 (6ZZ 30)0303 JN:1VW:J3M 30 3T8V1 31?rdVAIN0 S3SN0dS3d TIN 0NIQOT3NI ION <S lSdld 01 dO)S3SN3dS3d 1TV bO 3 3TAV1 SIH1 CS *68*I 99*S 68*1 99*S 68 *1 68*1 68 *1 LL'Z 68*1 68*1 68*1 68* 1 68*1 68* 1 5I"79 4 ****4*****************444444**4************4*4444444*4444********4**44***4#4*4*#4**4****4*#4**44**4*4******444444*44444*4 00*001 *68*1 99*S 68*1 99-S 68*1 68*1 68*1 LL'l 68*1 68*1 6e*I 68* 1 68*1 68* 1 STt>9 * ********************* 4* 4*4*4444***********44***44*444444444** * ******** 4*4***4***4444 4 4*44444 4 44* 44444 4 444 4 4444***** 4*4**4 *3d303868A9S4?E TO* 3DVlN33d3d 1V101 ES *T £ 1 C I 1 1 Z 1 T I 1 I 1 •/£ 4 *44**4**4444*******************************444444****44444***4**4444*444444444444444444444444444444*444*444***4*444 ****** es *i e 1 e i 1 1 z 1 i 1 i i 1 v£ * 4**4****4***4*4****4********4**************44444**44444*44********4*44**4****4****44*4***4**4******4****444444444*4444*** *9 d 3 0 3 8 6 8 L 9 S <7 £ I 0 *  3T8V1 A3N30D3Hd (bZZ 33)33033N:iVW:33y 30 3TSV1 31VIMVAIN0 S3SNOdS3« AT NO dO ISdld HOd SI 3T3V1 SIH1 snnssa 03Niew03 41-IF YOU HAD BEEN ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE ONE QUESTION TO THIS SURVEY,WHAT WOULD IT BE ? 1 = IS THERE SUFFICIENT LAYOUT PLANNING f. LEAD TIME AHEAD OF STRUCT. ENG. ? 2 = QUESTIONS CONCERNING QUALITY OF PHYSICAL WORKING CONDITIONS (FURNITURE, BUILDING,AIR COND. .SPACE,ETC.) 3 = SHOULD STAFF BE EMPLOYED TO IMPROVE DESIGN STANDARDS ? A = HOW CAN CO. CONTRIBUTE TO ELEVATING THE IMAGE OF FNG. PROFESSION ? 5 = IS SUFFICIENT TIME ALLOCATED FOR SOLVING REPETITIVE PROBLEMS,IMPROVE £ CONSOL I CAT E DESIGN CONCEPTS OR APPROACHES ? 6 = DO YOU THINK IT WOULC BE A GOOD IDEA FOR (PRESI DENT)TO SPENO A COUPLE OF HOURS/YEAR IN EACH DEPT. Ttl INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND PUT RELATIONSHIP ON A MORE PERSONAL BASIS ? 7 = WHY SO MANY DRAWING REVISIONS ? B = IF OFFERED MORE MONEY OR MORE JOB SECURITY WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE .7 DO YliU HAVE A SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT (FEEL FULFI LL EO) FROM WORKING HERE ? A = DO YOU FEEL EVERYONF SHOULD HAVE A B = DO YOU FEEL A PART OF THIS CO. 7 C = ARE YUU FRUSTRATED IN YOUR JOB ? D = WHICH DEPT. NEEDS IMPROVEMENT ? E = HOW MANY HOURS SHOULD BE WORKED ? CHANCE TO GO TO THE FIELD ? F = OO YOU THINK A SUGGESTION OR QUESTION BOX WOULD Bfc USEFUL ? G = WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WOULD YOU INITIATE ? H = WOULD YOU AGREE TO A GRIEVENCE COMMITTEE TOSETTLE PERSONNEL AND WAGE PROBLEMS ? J = IS CURRENT PAYROLL METHOD OBSOLETE 7 K = OO YOU LIKE THIS LOCATION ? L = HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS CU. AS A WHOLE ? M = IS YOUR SALARY ADEQUATE ? ro ON O COMBINE" RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF NEW:OLE ST ICN(CC 236) FREQUENCY TABLE * 0" 1 2 3 ? 5 6 J S 9 A" B C B E F~" ************ *********4************************** * 28 1 3 1 1 _1 1 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 *******************************************************************************************************************#*** * 23 131111112111111 FREQUENCY TABLE (CONTINUEO) * C H J K L M* ********************************************************** * 2 1 1 1 1 1* 53 ********************************************************** * 2 1 1 1 1 1* 5 3 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0123456 7 89ABCDEF *********************************************************************************************************************** * 52.83 1.89 5.66 1.89 1.39 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 3.77 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 ****** 4************************************************************ **************************************************** * 52 .83 l7B"9 5766 l7"89 TT89 TTasi 1789 1789 1789 J7T7 l7B~<3 1789" 1789 1789 1789 1.89 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 1 CONTINUED) * G H J K L M* ********************************************************** * 3.77 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89* 100.CO *********************** ***********.*********** ************* * 3.77 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 2 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE Or NEi.': QUEST ION ( CC 236) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1234567 8 9ARCDEFG ************************************************************************************************************** ********* * 4.00 12.00 4. CO 4.0C 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 *****************************4 ******** ***************************#**#******************* **************** *************** * 4.00 12.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 4. 00 4.00 4.00 4.00 8.00 TOTAL PERCENTAGE (CONTINUED) * H J K L M* *************************************************** * 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00* 100.00 *************************************************** 5 4-7TJTJ 4TOT3 47TD 47TJ0 4.00* 2"5 Q 42-WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION ? (SEE Q Al ) 1 - YES (OR POSITIVE COMMENT)  2 = NO (OR NEGITIVE COMMENT) 3 = NEW NEW LOCATION NEEDED " 4 - INSIDE CONDITIONS GOOD  5 = RAISE SALARIES 6 = BETTER CONDI TIONS 7 = DESIRE TO GET CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY BEFORE EQUIPMENT KNOWN  8 = JOB SECURITY 9 = UNCOOED ANSWER A = 36 HOURS/WEEK + 4 DAY WEEK  B = COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING PROG. WITH LECTURES,FIELD TRIPS,ETC. (BOTH TECHNICAL £ GENERAL) C = YES - SHOULD HAVE BANK DEPOSIT SYSTEM D = BETTER ORGANIZATION OF PROJECTS E = FAIR COMBINED RESULTS 81V AP. I AT E TABLE OF ANSWER :TO(CC 238) VS NEW QUESTIONIC.C 236) FREQUENCY TABLE * ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 A B C D E F C- / ********4#**********v ******************************** **************************************************************^ s 1* 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2* 1 2 C C 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3* 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 "' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 5* 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7* 0 C n 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 '•• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9* 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 A* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 P.* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 E * 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *************** ********** **** Si.**** ******************** *4**************************4**4**4**** * 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 FREQUENCY TABLE (CONTINUED) * H J K L M* 4 * 444444**4* 4.* 4**4*4 44* 44**4 *4 44* * 44*4*4*4*444**444 1* 2* 3* 5* 7* a* 9* A* B* D* E * 0* I* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0* *********************************44*****4********** 1* 25 ro ON 0 A3-C0MMENTS ON SURVEY 1 = GOOD SURVEY. (QUITE COMPLETE)  2 = POOR SURVEY 3 = PART 11(A) TOO COMPLEX A - WE NEEOEO SURVEY  5 = DOUBT VALUE OF SURVEY 6 = OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 7 - TCP LONG  8 = QUESTIONS UNCLE AR ,CCMPLI CATE D 9 = INTERESTING A = HOPEFUL OF RESULTS  B = ANYONE WHO COMPLETES THIS SURVEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A DEDICATED EMPLOYEE C = LONG OVERDUE D = WORRIED ABOUT IDENTIFICATION THROUGH PART 1 E = PART II COULD NOT BE ANSWERED HONESTLY FOR THIS CO. SITUATION COM 8 I NEC RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TA3LF OF C OMME NT S : C N: SU RV EY ( CC 2A 1) FREQUENCY TABLE  " * 5 I 3 5 6 7 8 9 B C D"* ********************************************************************************************* * 25 5 10 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1* 53 ************ **************************************************** ***************************** * 25 5 10 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * ' 0 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 B C D* ************************************************************** ******************************* * 47.17 5.43 18.£7 1. 89 1 .89 3.77 9.43 1 .89 1 .89 1 .89 1 .89* 100.00 *************************************************#********#* *x<******* ************************ * 47. 1 7 9.43 18.37 1 .89 1 .89 3.77 9.43 1.89 1.89 1. 89 1. 89« 53 THIS TABLE FOR ALL RESPONSES(UP TO FIRST 3) NOT INCLUDING NIL RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF CC MME NT S : ON: SURV EY ( CC 24 1) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 3 5 6 7 B 9 A B C_ 0 E*  ****** *************************** V******** *************** t*******************;**;^****^**^^*^********* * 14.29 30.95 9. 52 2. 38 9. 52 19.05 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38* 100.00 **************************************************************************************************** * 14.29 30.55 9.52 2.38 9.52 19.05 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38 2.38* 42 EXECUTION TERMINATED SSIG ro ON APPENDIX E Coding information and MVTAB results for open-end questions of Section IV I NAME) LTD. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY CODING INFORMATION Q A—....WHAT UQ YOU FEEL SHOULD BE CHANGED RE STAFF NEWS 1 = TO BLAND (INOFENSIVE) 2 = MORE ON PLANS,GOALS.POLICY  3 = LIBRARY NEWS-NEWS BOOKS,ETC. A =• EDITORIAL COMMENT. SOUNDING BOARD .LETTERS TO EDITOR 5 = CHEAPER QUALITY—MORE OFTEN  6 = HOBBY,TRAVEL INTERESTS OF OTHER EMPLOYEES 7 = HOME FIXIT INFORMATION 3 - WOULDN'T BE MISSED  9 = MORE FREQUENT A = MORE PERSONAL HISTORIES 6 = MORE DETAILS C IL1 UST RAT IONS ON CO. PROJECTS  C = LESS CENSORSHIP D = LESS "SMALL-TOWN" TALK E = DEPARTMENTAL REPORTERS ' F = MORE TECHNICAL NEWS NAME) LTD IMPROVEMENT SURVEY RESULTS COMBINED COMPILED BY DAVE YOUNG THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF CH AN OFS : W ANT E C: : ST AF F: N EW S < CC 248) FREQUENCY TABLE ' * 0 2 3 5 ' 8 "5 A B C Ci E F* *4*ft****4****4**44*4*4444444444444*******4********ft***ftft**4********4**************** 4*444444*4***4*4 * 32 4 ] 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 1.2* 53 ***** 444444444**44*4***********ft»*4 ************* ft 44****4**4*********44******4***4444********4**44**4 * 32 4 1 I 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 2* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 4023689ABC0EF* 44444444444ft4*44*4444 44444444444444*4*44**444444444444444*4444444*444*44444*4444444*44*44*44******** * 60.38. 7.55 1.89 1.89 3.77 1.89 3.77 9.43 1.89 1.89 1.89 3.77* 100.00 ******t4**t*44*tt*44t**t*ft*4ft*»4ft4 4*t4«**ft********ft********444444*4*****************************4**4 * 60.38 7.55 1.89 1.89 3.77 1.89 3.77 5.43 1.89 1.89 1.89 3.77* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 5 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF C HAM G E S: Vi AN T E D: : ST AFF : NE W S ( CC 24 8) TOTAL PERCENTAGE 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B CD E F* **** 4**^*4: 4* 4 4 4*4 4*4 4 4:4 4444* 4 ft **4 ftft ************** 4**********44***4*********444*444*****4**4***4******4**44*444444* * 1 7.65 2.94 5. 88 2.94 11 .76 2 .94 5.88 2.94 5 .88 17.65 11.76 2.94 2.94 5. 83* 100.00 *****4 4444444*ft4ft ft*************44 4*4*44*4*****4*4*4444*********444******444444444*4****444***4*444*44**44********* * 17.65 2.54 5. 88 2.94 1 1 .76 2.94 5.88 2.94 5 .88 17.65 11 .76 2.94 2.94 5. 88* 34 0 6 7 8 RE FRINGE BENEFITS 1 = EXTENDEO HEALTH CARE PLAN 2 = MEDICAL PLAN (MSA) 3 = PENS ION PLAN -V = EDUCATION SUPPLEMENT 5 = SICK LEAVE 6 = HOLIDAY 7 = GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 8 = SALARY PROTECTION 9 = CANADA PENSION A = UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMBINED RESULTS y THIS TAELF IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF VALUE:MOST(CC 259) FREQUENCY TABLE  4 0 12 4 5 7 8* **************************************** ************************* * 20 4 20 1 5 1 2* 53 ************** ***************************************************" * 20 4 20 1 5 1 2* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 4 0 1 2 4 5 7 8* ***************************************************************** * 37.74 7.55 37.74 1.89 9.43 1.89 3.77* 100.00 ***************************************************************** * 37.74 7.55 37. 74 1. 89 9. 43 1 .89 3. 77* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOP ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 4 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF VALUE:MOST(CC 259) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 123456789 A* *********************************************************:,<**************************** * 18.18 38.18 5.45 3.64 10.91 1.82 9.09 9.09 1.82 1.82* 100.00 ************************************************************************************** * 18.18 38 .18 5.45 3.64 10.91 1.82 9.09 9.09 1. 82 1. 82* 55 ro o COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST OR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF NO T : V AL UE ( CC. 2631 FREQUENCY TABLE  * 0 I 3 7* * 34 2 13 4* 53 t*******************************************' * 34 2 13 4* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 3 7* 444444444444 44 4 444444444 4 44 4*44444444444 44 44 * 64.15 3.77 24. 53 7. 55* 100. 00 ****************************** 44***4 4******* * 64.15 3.77 24.53 7.55* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES IUP TO FIRST 4 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF NGT:VALUE(CC 263) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * • I 3 7* ***4******4444*4*****44************** * 16.67 66.67 16.67* 100.00 4****4*4**4*4*4***444 4**********4**** * 16.67 66.67 16.67* 24 Q 9-WHAT CHANGES IN FRINGE BENEFITS WOULD YOU SUGGEST ? 1 = LONGER HOLIDAYS (WITH SENIORITY) 2 = 1.5 TIME FOR ALL OVERTIME 3 = SICK TIME ACCUMULATION PLAN 4 = VACATION BASED CN TOTAL SERVICE (BROKEN OR NOT) 5 = EXPANDED HEALTH COVERAGES 6 = BETTER INSURANCE £/OR PENSION PLANS 7 = OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE LIFE INS. OR PENS ION COVERAGE COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR CMY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF SUGGESTSC:CHANGES ICC 267 ) FREQUENCY TABLE  * 0 1 2 3 A 5 6 7* *** 4 4444**444444 4 444 4 4 4**44***4* ft 4****ftftft 4 4: ft 4 4: 4 44*****4 4****4**4****444* * 37 8 1 2 1 2 1 1* 53 * 37 8 1 2 1 2 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 40123456 7* ******* 4 ix* *4 4 4 4ft 4 4**444 44**444 44 4 44444 44 44 4* 4*4*44****** 444*******44444 4 * 65.81 15.00 1.89 3.77 1.89 3.77 1.89 1.89* 100.00 ****** 44*ft 4 4ftft4ftftftft*ft4*4*4*444*44444*44ft4*44444ft ****** 4**********44444** * 69.81 15.09 1.89 3.77 1.89 3.77 1.89 1.89* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 4 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF SUGGEST EC:CHANCES(CC 267 ) TOTAL PERCENTAGE * ) 2 3 4 5 6 7*  44 4 44 4444 4 ft*4* ftft*ft 4* 4 4ft4* ft44ftft44 4 44ftft ftftftft4*44*4*ftft*4 ftft ft* ft* 4*44*** * 47.3 7 10.53 10. 53 5. 26 10. 53 10. 53 5.26* 100.00 ************ *4**44****4**tftft**4444****4**************t****"**444* * 47. 37 10.53 10. 53 5.26 10.53 10. 53 5.26* 19 Q 10-SUGGESTED AODITICNS TO FRINGE BENEFIT PLAN 1 = DF NT AL CARE 2 = PROFIT SHARING 3 = TAX DEFERRED TRUST ACCOUNTS 4 = GROUP CAR INSURANCE 5 = PARK ING 6 = WHOLESALE OUTLET PURCHASING 7 = OPTICAL COVERAGE 3 = DRUGS COVERAGE COMBINED RESULTS THIS TABLE IS FOR FIRST CR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF SUOGESTEC:ADD ITICNS(CC 271) FREQUENCY TABLE  * JJ j 2 5 *4**4444444444444*4 4*4*4 * 4**4*4*4 4****4**4***4***44 * 2 1 28 2 1 1* 53 *«***<****** ***************44444***44***4*****4*44* * 21 28 2 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 2 5 8* ***** 44444*4**44444***4 ************4****4*4*******4 * 39.62 52.33 3.77 1.89 1.39* 100.00 44444444* 4-444*444* 4444444444444*4 4*4 4 444 44*44***444 * 39.62 52.33 3.77 1.39 1.894 53 THIS TABLE IS FOR ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST A ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF SUC GE ST E 0: ADD I T IONS ( CC 271) TOTAL PERCENTAGE 4 _l 2 3 A 5 6 7 8* **** * 44 ** 4 4* 4 4 44 4*4*4* 4 4* 4* 4***44* 4**4*4 444** 4******44 44 4*4*4 44***4****4 * 69.77 6.58 2.33 2.33 6.98 4.65 4.65 2.33* 100.00 *9***4*444«*4*444444**4 ****** *********4 *********444**44***4*4*44444***** * 69.77 6.98 2.33 2.33 6.98 4.65 4.65 2.33* 43 Q 12-WHAT OTHER TRAINING OF INTEREST ? 1 = MANAGEMENT PROGRAM , BUSINESS COURSES 2 = DESIGN COURSE 3 = CRIENTATICN COURSE ON PULP C PAPER 4 = JOB PROMOTION (SALES) 5 = SHORT PERIODS IN OTHER DEPTS. 6 = TECHNICAL SEMINARSS, COURSES (3LUNCH TIME) . 7 = EFFICIENCY TIME STUDIES 8 = ANYTHING TO INCREASE EARNING POWER 9 = ESTI MATING,DRAFTING A = GOALS, POL ICI ES OF DEPTS & CO. B = REVIEW PAST ERRORS SS IG ro o> COMBINED RFSULTS THIS TABLE IS FO? FIRST CR ONLY RESPONSES UNIVARIATE TABLE OF OTHER:TRA INING(CC 276] FREQUENCY TABLE ; »01?35678 ~9 A ET* ********************************************************************************************* * 29 6361311 111* 53 *******************************************************************************************#* * 29 6 3 6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1* 53 TOTAL PERCENTAGE *012356789AB* ********************************************************************************************* * 54.72 11 .32 5.66 1 1.32 1 .89 5.66 1.69 1.89 1 .89 1.89 1. 89* 100. OO **************************** *************************************** ************************** * 54.72 11 .32 5.66 1 1.32 1 .89 5.66 1.89 1. 89 1. 89 1. 89 1 .89* 53 THIS TABLE IS FOP ALL RESPONSES (UP TO FIRST 3 ) UNIVARIATE TABLE OF OT H ER : TR A IH IN G ( CC 2761 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B*  ********* *********** ************************************ ************************************* * 26.92 11.54 23.C& 3.65 3.85 11.54 3.85 3.35 3.85 3.85 3.85* 100.00 ********************************************************************************************* * 26.92 11.54 23.08 3.85 3.85 11.54 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85* 26 COMBINED RESULTS AGE 1 = <20 2=20-25 3=26-30 4=2 1-35 5 = 36-40 6 = 41-45 7 = 46-50 8=51-55 9 = 5 6-60 A=61-65 B=>65 BIVARIATE TABLE OF AGEICC 16) VS VALUE:MOST( CC 259) FREOUENCY TABLE * g j 2 3 4" 5 5 7 B =5 S5 ********************************************************************************************* 0* 7 0 1 _0 0 0 0 0 0* 8 3* 22 0 4 C 0 "'" 2 0 " 0 0 0 0* 28 4* 3 8 3 5 0 1 1 0 2 4 1 1* 56 5* 28 5 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0* 40 6* 35 1 4 0 I I 0" I r 0 0* 44~~ 7* 2 7 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0* 36 ********************************************************************************************* * 15 7 10 21 3 2 6 1 5 5 1 1* 212 HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGE ~~3 0 I 2" 3 4 fl 6 7 ti 9" ~A* ********************************************************************************************* 0* 87.50 .00 12. 50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00 . 00 .00* 8 3* 78.57 .GO 14.29 .00 " . to 7.14 .00 .03 .00 .00 .00* 28 4* 67.86 5.36 8.93 .00 1.79 1.79 . 00 3. 57 7. 14 1.79 1 .79* 56 5* 7C.00' 12.50 12.50 .00 .oo 2 .50 .00 2.50 .00 .00 .00* 40 79.55 2.27 9. CO . CO 2.2? "2.2? .00 2.27 2.27 .00 .00* 44 7* 75 .00 2.78 5. 56 8.33 .00 2.7B 2.78 2. 78 .00 . 00 . 00* 36 ********************************************************************************************* * 74 .06 4.72 9. 91 1. 42 . 94 2.B3 .47 2.36 2.36 .47 .47* 212 VERTICAL PERCENTAGE  * O I 7 3 4 5" 5 7 8 9 A* ********************************************************************************************* 0* 4.46 . 00 4. 76 . OC .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00* 3.77 3* 14.0 1 • CO 19.C5 .CO '.CO 33.3 3 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00* 13.21 4* 24.20 30.00 23.31 .00 50 .00 16.67 .00 40.00 8 0.00 100.00 100.00* 26. 42 5* 17.63 50.CO 23. 61 .00 .00 16.67 .00 20. 00 .00 .00 .00* 16.37 6~ 22.20 10.00 19.05 .CO 50.CO 16.6 / .00 20.00 20. 00 . 00 .00* 20.75 7* 17.20 10.00 9. 52 ICC.00 .00 16.67 100.00 20.00 .00 .00 . 0 0* 16.98 ****** *** ***** ******* *************************** *************** ******* *********************** * 157 10 21 3 2 6 1 5 5 1 1* 212 TOTAL PERCENTAGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A* ****** *************** ****** ft******************** ******** ******* ****************************** 0* 3.30 .00 . 47 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00* 3.77 3* 10.38 . 00 1.89 .00 ' .00 .94 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00* 13. 21 4* 17.92 1.42 2. 36 . CO . 47 .47 . 00 .94 1 .89 .47 .47* 26 .42 5* 13.2 1 2.36 2. 36 .00 .CO .47 .00 .47 . 00 . 00 . 00* 18.87 6* 16.51 .4; 1. «9 .00 .4 / .4/ .00 .4 / .4 / .00 .00* 20. 75 7* 12.74 .47 .94 1.42 .00 . 47 . 47 . 4 7 . 00 .00 .00* 16.98 ***********************;**************************************:******************************** * 74.06 4.72 9.91 1.42 . 94 2. 83 .47 2.36 2.36 .47 .47* 212 oo COMBINED RESULTS AGE 1 = <20 2=20-25 3=26-30 4=31-35 5=36-40 6=41-45 7=46-50 B=51-55 9=5 6-60 A=61-65 B=>65 BIVARIATE TABLE OF AGEICC 16) VS NOT:VALUE(CC 263) FPEQUENCY TABLE f * 0 1 3 7* - \ ************************************ ******** 0* 7 0 1 0* 8 3* 27 0 1 0* 28 4* 43 3 5 0* 56 5* 33 . 0 6 1* 40 6* 3 9 0 3 2* 44 7* 34 1 0 1* 36 ****** ************ ************************** * 188 4 16 4* 212 HORIZONTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 3 7* ************** *********** *** **************** 0* 87.50 .00 12. 50 . 00* 8 3 * 96.43 .00 3.57 .00* 28 4* E5.71 5. 36 8. 93 .00* 56 5* 82.50 .00 15.00 2. 50* 40 6* 88.64 .00 6.62 A.55* AA 7* 94.44 2.78 .CO 2. 78* 36 ****** ******** ******** ********************** * 88.68 1 .89 7.55 1-89* 212 VERTICAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 i 7* * * * v = * ******** ************** ********** ****** 0* 3.72 .00 6. 25 .00* 3. 77 3* 14 .36 .00 6.25 .00* 13.21 4* 25.53 75.00 31.25 .00* 26.42 5* 17.55 .00 37.50 25.00* 13.87 6* 20. 74 .00 18.76 50.00* 20.75 7* 18.09 2 5.00 . 00 25. CO* 16. 98 ****** ******** ************** ********** ****** * 138 4 16 4* 212 TOTAL PERCENTAGE * 0 1 3 7* ****** ************************************** 0* 3.30 .00 .47 . 00* 3. 77 3* 12.74 .00 .47 " '.00* 13.21 4* 22.64 1.42 2. 36 .00* 26.42 5* 15.57 .00 2.83 .47* 18.87 6* 16.40 .00 1.42 .94* 20. 75 7* 16.04 .47 . CO .47* 16.98 ******************************************** # 88.68 1.89 7.55 1 .89* 212 ro APPENDIX F Results Summary for Sections III and IV as given the company Sample of responses 281 RESULTS SUMMARY-IMPROVEMENT SURVEY by D. R. Young The following is a brief summary, pointing out results and in places giving comments on relationships to other parts of the survey and relevant literature on the topics. Perhaps a word of advice on interpreting open-end question responses is in order. Though more common responses will be emphasized in this summary it should be remembered that many responses, though numerically low, might find higher degrees of agreement from others if presented as a choice in a closed-end question. Types of respondent: Though a broad spectrum of people res ponded it would appear that there were biases in the pattern away from being perfectly representative on the following factors: 1. more high education personnel 2, more longer service personnel 3» more genuinely concerned individuals Comment: Though a biased representation, the results come from those persons whose continued employment in the firm would be most desirable and advantageous. Question 1-4—re design standards. Though there was general recognition of the theoretical value of design standards there was some evidence of believed inadequacy of, and lack of design standards. There appeared to be interest in knowing how D.S. were to be changed but sug gestions on procedures were rather divergent. There was also 282 an interest shown in having better notification of changes once they were made. Question 5-9—good and improvable aspects of depts. and firm. The favourable comments made about the departments sub stantially outnumbered those about the firm and tended to empha size satisfaction with personal and individual relations while those about the firm emphasized pay and advantageous capabili ties (real and potential) of the firm. Requests for improvement were more numerous than the favourable comments. The department requests emphasized factors that would derive from similar shifts in philosophy of management re communications, teamwork, and organizations as well as above average comments on physical facilities. The requests for improvement in the firm in many cases were similar though the emphasis shifts more to concerns with security and physical facilities. Comment: One could consider requests for goals and policies, profit sharing, better working facilities, and diversification as requests for specific items which are related to long-term commitment of management on important concerns of employees with stability of the firm and job security, (i.e. announced policies and goals, as well as being informative and nice in themselves, would express management confidence in longer term prospects for the firm.) The advantages and disadvantages of the firm size re flected consistent considerations though there were some 283 contradictory opinions on such items as chances for advancement or routine and reduced challenge versus different challenges. The wider scope of projects was generally appreciated while the impersonality or loss of individuality were considered dis advantages. Questions 10-13. general 11, 12—re company courses. There were generally favourable responses to questions about having more courses available. One of the more enthusi astic responses (82%) was for an orientation course for new employees. The highest response (88$) indicated high interest in technical and management courses. This coincided generally with comments of subordinates and with requests for management, business, and technical seminars or courses in question 12 (general). There also appears to be interest in an orientation course on the technology of the firm. Questions 15-17. 26-28—re information required. Requests for goals and plans, information on organiz ation and office procedures within the department led others, though the response on this question (15) was low. The comments on information required of (or for) other departments is likely to be misleading on an aggregate basis from only 2 departments. Though Electrical is highest on aggregate, materials handling and structural were next highest on each other's scores which does not show on the current aggregate basis. There was a 284 general tendency to. pass credit for lack in information to project staffs and other departments (question 28). Questions 18-25—re client and project requirements. There was more satisfaction with how well the client was informed compared to how well individuals were informed of client and project requirements. The blame for both these prob lems tended to be outside the department though only the within department questions received a minority always at fault res ponse . Leading the responses for what the client should be informed of, was information on how much delay (or disruption) was caused by lack on information and/or decisions from clients. Requests for more (and more detailed) requirements and schedule or requirements from clients were also solicited. Comment: Both the requests for more information from the client and fewer delays on decisions and information from the client indicate a requirement for more careful regulation of inputs to the technical core by project staffs (backed up by management) to prevent client induced disruptions in orderly performance of work. For more on this topic see reference 1. In reflection on what are considered "good" or "bad" jobs much of the result ant difference can stem from how these inputs are controlled either by good project staffs or well organized or co-operative clients. ref. 1 Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action. New York: Mc graw-hill, 196?, pp. 18-24. 285 Questions 29-31. 36—re supervisor and management contact. There was a request for more contact with management senior to one's immediate supervisor while expressing general satisfaction with the degree of contact with immediate super visors. There was considerable emphasis on the point that initiation of such contact be by senior personnel and by supervisors. Questions 32-35—re evaluation. More than half indicated some degree of dissatisfaction with evaluation, with many giving poor communications and lack of knowledge of individuals (by evaluators) as reasons. These opinions fit fairly well with not overly strong opinions on being held down or not having an opportunity to learn. Comment t Much of the literature on compensation gives reasons for continued poor evaluation similar to answer 5 question 33)• The failure to inform poor workers where they are going wrong and how they can change for their own and the firm's benefit can only lead to performance in the future which is similar to what has been less than satisfactory in the past. Questions 37-39—re reference material and library. The low response and diversity of requests for specific types of reference material do not provide easy guides though some of the requests given might be worth evaluating on an individual basis to see if such material would indeed be worth collecting and having available. 286 Questions 41-42—re new question for survey. All of the questions and answers given could be con sidered as rather specific beefs related to the topic of the question. They could be considered as rather specific emphasis on opinions expressed elsewhere in the survey. Once again unique suggestions such as a bank deposit payroll system or a 4 day week might need to be considered on their own merits. Question 43—survey comments. There were many comments on complexity and length of the survey (especially part IIA). Questions 1-4 General—re staff news. Reading and interest in the staff news appear high though many would like to see additions in the areas of expo sition of company policies, goals and plans (editorial comment) and more information and illustrations on company projects. Comment» the staff news could well be used as a vehicle for providing much of the information requested in other parts of the survey. Questions 5-10—re fringe benefits. The medical plan and extended health care plan were most valued while there were definite negative opinions on the current pension plan despite the wording of the question (8). Several people simply commented that all items of the fringe benefit plan have some value without mentioning specific 287 complaints of items of least relative value. Longer vacations associated with longer service ("broken or not) was the most popular change requested while a dental care plan was the most popular request for addition to fringe benefits. Question 13—re diversification. There was only one negative response for this item. 288 Sample of Responses This psychological stuff is not my bag. Being a (position) I am a practical type. . . . Personally I derive satisfaction from doing a job to the best of my ability— HOWEVER the emphasis is on QUANTITY of work turned out NOT QUALITY with the result that the general standard of work issued is pathetically low. Speaking for myself - I refuse to compromise my abilities as I take pride in my work and also believe this attitude to be in the firm's interest. Q 43 JOB SECURITY IS A MAJOR FACTOR. It is difficult for an employee to become too involved in the issues raised in Part IIA - co-ordination, responsibility to department & firm etc., while he has the knowledge that no matter how hard he works or how loyal and keen he is - if the work load decreases below a certain point, the staff also has to be, but it is hardly a satisfactory situation from the employees viewpoint. Q 17 We need much better planning development by all departments concerned. Much time & unnecessary frustrations could be saved if major decisions could be held static or, develop a better lead time between planning & design. Q 4 The present system is good - groups should welcome DS additions if approved by Dept. Head. People should be trained to use DS for their job. IT SHOULD SAVE THE CLIENT MONEYJ! AND PAY US MORE. Q 43 This survey may not solve the inherent problem of the Co. or dept. although this may be the beginning of exposing it. Q 7 orginization, team spirit, co-ordination, more responsibility, etc. etc. Q 8 as above but 100$ more Q 43 I feel that the general attitude of the co. is good. Which is what this survey is driving at. To get the most out of employees they need challenges & incentives to keep them keen. APPENDIX G Table XXXVIII - Matrix of number of paired observations for first survey (for correlation matrix see Table VI) > 290 -? r\i ex o r- r- *r> r- r- r\: — o- — cr p*- r— -c ^o r- vC — f- -~ cr c c r~* ^6 r- LA r— <• r- —* cr- cv or. m r- .o r- \C %r. „ CJ vt r* n. r N -c ^ u', cr o — LC< c r--t jjr -'.J r-~ <, ve ir. >n r- P-. •r. m cr- o f*-- P-^ p. rj c r- -P- p- P- p- >o r*-rO u_ <. if. L_ p. c -i. CM c-r- r- r-~ -o P- r-c ro a* o o' r- p- -o «c r- -c —1 cr. -< c cr- c r— _T r- m ^> <; r- o r~ -— cr-, f a-1 r— r— -c ^r, c- o -x; r. x r- r~- ./j u*' <j u* C C) — U' O r-•r ^o r- sC r- -c -O u\ LTs P- r% CV xr. tr. LT\ JJ r- P-CM Cs O (-" *-P» r- p- >ii f-r-c; C < — N N -r s o c tr. o «' r*- r~ -c g; r- -c o r- o rr c- o r- <i r- L--\ ,c r- C —' r- rv m r- r- »r, o cr PI cc m r*- ~o in ,c u". o- r> o <r cr r~ .c N i -c •-T. -J -J" C — — (.-•. in if'. g> (*** P- ^. _ „j 17- f-- r-r- r~ -c r^-< CV ex .U -p • t r- r-"-J fj --(1— ,-n N N N O N N P- p- O vO r- -Q pj CO CN c-. o o r-> MO r*» t.n f— r- CO ."M -jc rfi *n r— -o ^~ -c <> --t o -f CO ro .C r- j u^ o >n cr o fM o 4- -O f- -4.1 I**" -o r- -o o 'a rn j"i u"1. ^ <j r— ••-rr*, rn CNJ O r— p.: N r N r -0 1-eg co cc r-<r -c -o =3 r- -/J r\: az <: -c o o r- —i v-r -r •c VJJ -7 -f: -c <; r- u~. r— LT u'. cc »o '-C IT LT, LT, s£> i.". r- sj trr m -c *c *o vC ii". •o o ir. o m ~o so m -cm oc r- r- r— -o <r NT LT, <• sc [\j •- f-j ft*, *r LT in m -JO j; ro rn p- vO <r ?*-•c. <? -c 0 -c c • CM UJ o r- o o -o in •£ O O LT -0 o ir vO ^ m IA o ir-. o cr c cr o cr O CC LT, Lf\ *0 J1 C x cr c c- u>. in ir. Lf • <j- in in fCi r- o r -J in u'i m so L"\ LP, 7- cr -c r- r\-in ir- u*' u"\ in m o ^ cr tn cc ^r; •j- cn m in LT in x: ir m o c c: vf -J m- vC -o 0 0 0 cr cc cr •C vo < m tr. m. P ^ -f r^. c rsj sC fj C". fvj r*CM {•«-. r\j nj s0 m m s* H cc' m cn x p-. cc in o. -o m err PJ cr cr =i: ro cr sr \- vJ- NT C~ o *o in tn in m. ^j- m o in N0 in ro c- m -t O CC ."<•' r- *c -c vC r- r- I\I N r- r- -< r- P- r- c r~ c- cr —» cr r- r- o o r- o CM a; CN; o- c o ^~ <' r- cn r- vC r- r-i ce cv co p~. ir. r- -C r- C w c ^j- co m cc r~ r- -c- m 'j-. cr o CM -c -- -x -c r~ «£> r*- -c r- < -JJ x m m •n m. m o r- P- .-n n-, Psi c Is" cvj r- p- p- r*- <j »*-e-<yi r-u m sr o cc <-n -~-> -c o < N s fj W -* N —i r- r~ p- ~c f- r-(M s* C" —' C r*- r- -c r- *o CM x P: cr o o r> r- in r-- O r- — • cr pj cc cr-. L" r o <c PJ o -t " p- IT. > N >o m >r C O f.) ^ PJ CD <r so r- O r~ -0 m yi tn. vo f— r~ •t m P-r- r- r- f>- 0 r-i— r- r-U." ro sr O a: — r— -J^ -c C\J cj ^ N v* Is- IS- r- •€ r~ r— rj r- sj- cr ^ cr-t-* r- -c -c r- -c pv -x cj cr o o r- < r~ m r~ s H 0- n: ir-. r- o r- -o o r\i O >t i r" W ^ f*~ *CJ m -r ur cr o rj v .\ * io r o r «•* x o x- m ir i_c m *c r~ r*-4 m 0 p- •"* P-- r- r- p- -c P-z. <i rrj <r -3 > •-- r- r- r-LU (.J (-i -r c a r- -C -C ^- r-rv eg « r- <r --. r- r- r- P- P- ^ r- •*> r~ r-i TO n-j tr O O r~ >o r- ,n N r~ t> r\j a"1 rn in r- -o r~ -o ~c R-J C> -J M ci ._c r- P- < IP vj in O O ^ >0 i\ !T -r <j r~- -o r~ ^> CC vL o a; ^ u~- in in ^ P r ^ PI m 0 P— r- p- r- r~ O r~ rc —< a IL-' < <*." crj a. O c < <-- i-u. ^ r ?; i u ^ S* a o r c C LL. o UJ T. LU v- u- cr; t~ :r- < ,r :z o H j IL CC C£ > i-'"* cj ~7 -"i CL * JJ C > cr. < i.,' > ,J UJ LJ i:: G w O L) K Cl ti ™ C o^ i.* to a G. c o a i a ir> — c^ u. ~->r CL *~ a: c T3 u.; ^ >- a • a: o L:> o r D < ?J < O C r\j rO —i rM ft .* i^o Q • ^ Ll_ LL < j~ ... r\! i 9 < i i — o o o o o -'^ CL a! < :s « U O "l n" v,j O S *r; ,^ li § c ;r c c- i:-z > - •M CM M i\ To CM rsj fn d ci fl r"*, ri ^ rn c*1 M* -J- -J" vn -.r «n ;n y '.n-O >v vi.1 r— r"- r- r— co a; c."1 a: m vr LO -o p- cc , TABLE XXXVIII Matrix of number of paired observations, first survey Vi ' iv' ' "U ' ZL 'ZL 'ZL -*T7 •L'i VS 'j 3 "VS • a 9 "vT" • .'-9 '69 •69 •69 •69 V9 • U •u *u • u • S9 V9 •69 •6 9 "69 •69 • 79 VS VS •4,0 •f9 • 19 •sv • 79 •79 •79 • 79 Vi "Oi • u • U •U u "vT" •99 * •SS • VS * £9 • i9 •Oi •ZL 'ZL •ZL •ZL ~Trr •19 • SS 'SS •96 • i9 *0i 'TW •89 •Oi • Ii Mi Vi *i9 •Oi Vi • £L •vi •Si • 99 V9 • 99 •£9 *i9 • LI •L9 V9 VS *76 •ss •79 •L9 •Oi •Ii •u • Ii 'ii ~T "99 "SS •ss •9S V9 OdWjd-6 «.i;;;ioi 1.5"! 009 >:w 33(3 5 S31M7 NdwOOS >:410,; Z OJ •H 4-> C O o M > X X X w pp < """V\i •79 VS vs vs • 7 9 •li • 99 • 7S VS • SS •99 • 79 "bb • 8 7 •87 • 6 7 ' 29 Mi •£9 •ss •ss •9S • 9V ' Vi •89 *9S ' 9S •ss •89 dOWH o is;;oo GiUS.'.'I d ISNOO dc'iSNi cSMiOS •;.<• •o9 •19 •19 Vi •Oi •69 •ZL • 59 •Oi I5VM:J6 j •S9 V9 *79 79 • 8S •59 •59 •79 •99 • 19 •5 •) Oiavas i • u '89 •Oi •CO • t9 •Oi •Ii •Oi • ZL •99 *0i aovdvs i V.S • c S • 65 •£S • 76 •09 •09 •8S •09 •95 • 09 iK'i'idOi i '87 Vv •67 •87 • i7 ' 67 •67 V7 •67 •?'/ •67 u3:noi "iS •is vs •95 •75 •85 •as •95 •85 •95 "SS 3vU08i VV V9 V9 • 19 •09 V9 V9 •19 V9 • 65 •£9 vi.'jovi vs *9S •is •95 •£5 • 85 •85 VS •86 VS VS S207'J09 • 2 J • 2 9 •£9 V9 •65 •79 •79 •Z9 • 79 •Z9 • 79 A 3109.9 "t>9 •£9 • 69 •i9 • £9 •Oi •Oi •89 •Oi • 99 *0i S100.9 •Oi •8 9 •Oi *89 *£9 • Oi • li ' 6 9 • Zi •99 "Oi OAtjI 35 *29 • 1 9 V9 •09 •is V9 V9 •19 •£9 • 09 • £9 AJIS^S VV V9 V9 •59 • 19 V.9 •89 •99 •89 ' £9 V9 Kd3 10 5 ! • Ii •6 9 •Ii •69 * 79 * li •Zi ' Oi Vi V9 Vi cVf.V'JS •i9 ' S9 ' i9 • f 9 V9 V9 •89 •99 •69 • £9 V9 J:-; !08s i •cu •89 • Oi •99 •79 • Ci • !i *69 ' Ii •99 *0i 3330VC •9S • 9 b •is •95 VS •£S •iS • 95 •iS •7S •Lb J.S -•3.37 •64 •69 • 09 •AS • 95 "09 •09 •8 5 •09 •iS • 09 l'JV 10 7 V9 Vv VS •fo V9 •Oi •Oi "69 •Oi •99 •Oi suizov •8S ' US •oi 'iS VS " 6S •65 •Li •65 * 95 *6 5 Jl.il 37 • IA •89 • Oi • 89 -£9 *0i • Ii •Oi Vi • 99 •Oi rl V 3 18 7 •£9 •••9 •79 •09 • 99 • L9 • 99 •89 V9 "V9 IN I VV'/ Vi * 89 •Oi •89 V9 Vi Vi Vi • Zi • 99 "Oi diddOE •69 " 6 9 • 99 • c'9 •89 •69 •A 9 •69 •7V •89 NOVSdf. ' ii •P9 • 79 "Oi • Ii •69 • li •99 "Oi d'JVSil "69 V9 "89 •69 • i9 •69 •6<< • 39 ovnvot; • 79 ' 79 • Ii ' 79 • li Vi V9 •69 •Oi •79 • li Vi •19 • i9 V9 '79 ' Ii • Ii so oca £ ;>;(izo£ 0 7 010 t 4 • Ii • Ii "6 9 •6 9 3V0£ 3£ ) Vi * i9 V9 Vi V9 Mi HSGZOE NIU13£ Ni dQfif. 31adOt NOVSdt dovsd i 3V0 70V SOIIiOt 3d02Q£ ovnioe OVQ£0£ HSOZJE M 1 010 £ N ld0 8E 3187 1 b'.'A SN0UVA>i3SSfJ 33diVd * ON J NQ. PAIR EC OBS ERV AT IONS VAP i A» i.e. AAA I NT A B T E A M AC 1 INF 4C2INB 40 I ACT 4EEFST 5A0FCL 5BDINF 5CA WAR 50TEPR 5EBLEV Af A FNr 6 8. 4BTEAM 67. 72. V AC 1 INF 5 5. 58. 59. R 4C2INP. 65. 6 9. 5B. 70. -\ AD I ACT 59. 6 9 . 50 . 59. 60. AEE EST 56. 56. 50. 57. 54 . 57 . 5 A CECL 66. 70. 58. 6 9. 60. 57. 71 . 5301NF 65. 6 7 . 55. 66 . 59. 57. 6 8. 69. 5C AWAR 67. 71. 59. 70 . 60. 57 . 71 . 63. 72. 5 DT E P R 64 . 67 . 57. 66. 58. 55. 68 . 65. 68. 6 8 . 5EBLEV 60. 62. 53. 62. 56. 54. 63. 60. 63. 62. 63. 5FINVO 66. 70. 58. 69. 59. 56 . 7'"'. 66. 71 . 6 V 6 3. 6AC0LS 6 6 . 69. 69. 69. 60. 57. 69. 06 . 70 . 67 . 63. .'»•'(,! r V 61. 63. 53 . 63 . 57. 52. 63. 60. 64. 6 1 . 5«. 6 CO A CP. 56. 67. A9. 58. 52. 50. 58. 56. 68. 5 7. 56. 7AC.0-1A 61 . 62 . 53. 62. 58. 55. 63. 61 . 63. 6 1 . 59. Vrff.ONC 57. 5 7. 50. 57. 53. 53 . 58 . 57. 53. 57. 56. 7CIMF0 A3. AS . 42. 48. 47. 44 . 48 . 46 . 49. 47. 46. 70PUN 1 60. 60 . 51 . 59. 54. 51. 59. 58. 60. 59 . 57. 8 APR 0 0 67. 71. 59. 69. 59 . 56 . 70. 67. 7 I . 67. 62. 8PABSC 63. 65. 55. 64. 57. 53. 64. 61. 65. 6! . 60. SC WA S T 66. 7 0 . 59 . 69 . 59. 56. 69. 67. 70. 66 . 62. SOINSP 6A. 6 7. 57. 66. 57. 54. 66. 64. 67. 6 3. 5A. INSTEP 52. 57. 45. 56. 46. 44. 55. 53 . 56 . 52. 49. CON SIP 51. 56. 44 . 55 . 45 . 43. 54. 51. 55. 51. 43. i MS r u D 51. 56. 44. 55. 45. 43 . 54 . 51. 55. 51 . 43. ccNsio 63. 67. 55. 66. 55. 54. 66. 6 3. 67. 63. 59. 1LFA0P 68. 72. 59. 70. 60 . 57. 71 . 69. 72. 68. 6?. 2 COTF P 6 8 . 72. 59. 70. 60. 57. 71 . r>8 . 72 . 68 . 63. 3COM UN 68. 72. 59. 70. 60. 57. 71. 6 9. 72 . 6 8 . 63 . A IN T C-R 63. 72. 59. 70. 60. 57 . 71. 68. 72. 6 8. 63. 5CCCMK 6 7. 7 1. 59. 70. 60. 57. 71. 69. 72 . 68 . 63, 6Gf)LST 6 6. 69. 59. 69 . 60. 57. 69. 66. 70. 67. 63. 7C0NTR. 65. 66. 56. 66. 59. 56 . 66 . 64. 67. 64. 6'. SPERFO 67. 7 1. 59. 69. 59. 56. 70. 63. 71. 67 . 62. - • . . • . ro vo ro ) r Mn. PAIPLC 08SERVATI CMS VAR r&HI.E 5F INVO 6A00L S 6BGLEV 6CGACR 7AC0NA 7BC0NC 7CINFO 7DPUNI 8 APR 0 0 8BARSC 8CWAST 5 F I NV 0 72. 6A(,ntr> 69. 70. • .fftOlfV 6 3. 64. 64. .. ^ 6CCAGR 58. 58. 55. 58. 7ACCNA 62. 63. 60. 55 . 6 3 . • 7BC0MC 53. 5 3. 54. 84 . 57. 58. 7C!r.'ii 49. 49. 49. 44 . 48. 46. 4 9. 70P0!-i I 60. 60. 54 . 52 . 56 . 53. 46. 60. SAffron 70. 60. 63. 57. 62. 57. 49 . 60. 72. H HA B SC 64 . 6 4 . 60 . 55 . 59. 54. 48. 59. 66. 5 6 . 80 WA ST 70. 6 9. 63. 57. 62 . 57. 49. t.0. 7 1 . 66. 72. 30 I MSP 66. 66 . 61. 66. 60. 55 . 49 . 5U. 6? . 64 . 68. IMSIPP 56. 55. 30. 47. 48 . 45. 37. 4 6. 66. M . 5 7 . C'.os IP 5A. 54. 49. 46. 47. 4 4 . 36 . 45. 55. 5 0. 5 ^. I MS r.JO 54. 54. 49. 46. 47. 44. 36. 43. 66 . 50. CONS! 11 66. 65. 59 . 55 . 58. 54. 45 . 5 6. 67. 61 . 6ft. IL FA DP 72. 7 0. 64. 58. 63 . 58 . 49 . 60 . 72. 66. 72. 2MC1TFP. 71 . 70. 64 . 58. 63. 58. '•9. 60. 72. 5 6 . 71. 3CGMUM 72. 7 0. 64 . 58. 63. 58. 49 . 60. 72. 66. 72. Ai'JTER 71. 7 0. 64. 58. 63. 58. 49 . 60. 72. 6 6 . 71. 5DrCv.< 72. 70. 64. 56. 63. 58. 49. 6 0. 71 . 6 5 . 71 . 6001 SI 69. 7 0. 6 4. 58. 63 . 58. 49 . 60. 69. 64. 6 °. 7CCMT R 66. 67 . 63. 58. 63. 53. 49 . 60. 66 . 63 . 66. 8PERF0 71 . 6 9. . 63. 57 . 62. 57. 49. 60. 72- 56 . 72. MO. PAIPEC OBS FPVAT IONS V A P. I A 31. C 30 I MSP IMSTRP CONS IP 1MSTUD CONS ID ILEA IIP 2M0TFR 3C0MUN 4INTFR 50EC"K 6 0.01 ST I 8DII.SP 6 8. JMSTRP 53. 61. CON SIP 52. 59 . 59. IMSTUO 52. 5". 59. 59. CC-XS10 63. 59. 59. 59. 71. UK." 63. 5 3. 56. 56. 6 8. 74. 2MOT FP. 63. 57. 56. 56. 68. 73 . 73 . 3C0MUM 68. 58. 56. 56. 68. 74. 73. 74. 4 INTER 68. 57. 56 . 56. 68 . 73. 73. 73. 73. 5 DEC 67. 57. 55. 55. 67. 73. 72 . 73. 72. 73. 6GCLST 66. 55 . 54 . 54. 65. 70. 70. 70. 70. 70. 70. 7CHMTP 64. 52. 51. 51. 62 . 67 . 67 . 67. 67. 67. 67. 3PEPF0 68 . 57. 55. 55. 67. 73. 72. 73. 72 . 72. 69. NO. PAIRED OBSERVATIONS VAR I ABI. E 7C0MTR fiP ERFO 7C0MTR 6 7. 8PER FO 66. 73. ro VjJ APPENDIX H Table XXXIX - Matrix of number of paired observations, both surveys (for correlation matrix see Table XII) ** USING A PRIORI DIMENSIONS ** NO. Pi IP EC OBSERVATIONS VARIABLE ISP 1 1SP2 ! SPO CON,'' 3. CCNP2 ISP1 IS P2 IS PO CONP I 61. 14 . 14. 59. 13. 2C 1 4 14 1 8 14 . 14. 13. 59. 1 3. CONP 2 18. CONPO I SDE 1 I SOE2 I SDED CONOE1 CONDE2"^ CONPO ISOE1 I S DE2 I SOEO CONOfc1 CCNDE2 13. 59. 13 . 13. 59 . 13. 1 j 14 18 1 3 i a 13 . 14. 13 . 13. 14. 13. 59. 13. 1 3. 59. 13. 13. 13 . 18. 13 . 14. 13. IT. 13. 13. 13. 13 . 13. 59 . 13 . 13. 59 . 13. 18 14 18 CONijEO Li. 14. 13. 13. 14. 13. 13- 14 . 13. 17. 17. L 0 F P 0 1 58. 13. 12. 56. 13. 12. 56 , 13. 12. 63. 16. LOPRCi l />. 19 . 13. 14. 17. 12. 14. ' 17. 12. 18 . 24. LCPROD 13. 1 2. 12. 13. 13. 12. 13 . 13. 12. 17. 16. FOTEl 57. 13. 12. 56. 13. 12. 56 . 13. 12. 63. . 16. ."CTF 2 14. i q 13. 14. 17. 12. 14. 17. 12. 18. 24 . MOT ED 13. 11. 12. 13. 13. 12 . 13 . 13. 12. 17. 16. COMM 1 58 . 13. 12. 56. 13. 12. 56. 13. 12 . 68 . 16. CC«M2 14. 19. 13. 14. 17. 12. 14. 17. 12. 18. 24. CGMMO 13 . 13. 12. 13. 13. 12 . 13 • 13. 12. 17. 16. I NTER1 57 . 1 2 . 12. 56. 13. 12. 56. 13. 12. 68. 16. INTER 2 14. 19. 13. 14 . 17. 12 . 14. 17. 12. 1 8. 24. INTERO 12.. 1 3. 12. 13. 13. 12. 13 . 13. 12. 17. 16. CEC! 57. ? 12. 55. 13. 12. 55. 13. 12 . 67. 16. CEC2 « i 18. 12 . 13. 16 . 11. 13 . 16. 11. 17. 23. CECO i ? . 12. 11. 12. 12. 11. 12 . 12. 11. "16. 15. G G A L 1 55. 1 3 . 12. 54. 13. 1.2- 54. 13. 12. 65. 16. GOAL 2 13. IE. 12. 13. 16. 11 . 13 . 16. 11. 17. 23. GO AL 0 1 2 . 12. 11. 12. 12. 11. 12 . 12. 11 . 16. 15. CONTR"l 5 2. 12 . 11 . 51. 12. 1 1. 51 . 12. 1! . 62. 15. CCNTR2 13 . 1 7. 12. 13. 15. 11. 13. 15. 11. 17. 22. CONT RC 1 1 . 11. 10 . 11. 11. 10. 11 . 11. 10. 1.5. 14. PERF 1 57. 13. 12. 55 . 13 . 12. 55. 12. 12- 67. 16. PERF2 14. 1 S. 13. 14. 16. 12. 14 . 16. 12. 18. 23. PERFO 13 . 13. 12. 13. 13. 12. 13. 13. 12 . 17. 16. 13. 13. 71. 17. 25. 3 o po «+ CO CO H* ><! < O c+ Hj H* o 3 3 C w CO 3 t-1 w cr M CO cr XI O X t+ o X 3" M X CO c P < CD << CO CO PL. ro c NO. PAIRED OBSERVATIONS VAR! ABLE CCNDED LDPROl L0PR02 LCPR-OC MOTE'l M0TF2 MOT FD C0MM1 C0MM2 COMMO INTER1 ^ f.CNTED 17. J f LDPROl 1C. 14. LDPRQ2 16 . 17. 27. LDPRCD 16. 17. 17. 17. MOTE 1 16. 7 2. 17. 17. 73 . MCTF2 16. 17. 27. 1 7. 17. 2 7. NOTED 16. 17. 17 . 17. 17. 17. 17. CCVM1 16. 7 4. 17. 1 7. 73. 17 . 17 . 74. CCRM2 16 . 17 . 27. 17. 17. 27. 17. 17. 27. cnMMD I 6 . 17. 17. 17. 17 . 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. INTER! 16 . 7 3. 17. 17. 73 . 17. 17 . 73. 17. 17. 73. 1NTER2 16 . 1 7 . 27 . 17. 17. 27. 17. 17. 27 . 17. 17. INTERS 16. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. CECl 16. 7 3. 17. 1 7. 72. It. 17. 73. 17 . 17. 72. CEC2 15 . 16. 26. 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. CECO 15. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. oo AL i 16 . 70. 17. 17. 70. 17. 17 . 70. 17. 17. 70. GOAL 2 15. 16. 26 . 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. C-OALO 15. li. 16. 16. 16. 16 . 16 . 16. 16. 16- 16. COMS: 15 . 67. 16. 16. 67. 16. 16. 67. lb. 16. 67. CO-TR2 15. 16. 25. 16. 16. 25 . 16 . 16. 25. 16. 16. CGNTRO 14 . 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15 . 15 . 15. PERE 1 16. 73. 17. 17. 72 . 17. 17. 73. 17. 1 7. 72. PERE2 16 . 17. 26. 17. 17. 26. 17. 17. 26. 17. 17. PEREO 16 . 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 1 7. 17. 17. 17. NO. PAIREC OBSERVATIONS V A R I A E L fc INTER2 INTERC CECl 0EC2 CSCU GOAL 1 G0AL2 GCALO C0NTR1 C0NTR2 CONT RO INTER 2 27. I N T E R C 17 . 17. CECl 17 . 17 . 73. 0EC2 26. 16. 16. 26 . CECD 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. GOAL] 17. 17. 70. 16. 16. 70. COAL 2 26. 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26. COALC 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16 . 16. CON' TR 1 16. 1 6 . 67 . 15. 15. 67. 15. 15. 67. C0NTR2 25. It. 16. 25. 16. 16. 25 . 16. 15. 25. CO NTRC 15 . 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. 15. i u; ^ 15. 15. PERE 1 1 7. 17. 72. 16. 16. 69. 16. 16. 66. 16. 15. PER F 2 26. " 17. 17. 25. 16. 17. 25. 16. 16. 25. 15. FERFD 17 . 17 . 17. 16. 16. 17. 16. 16. 16. 16 . 15. NC . PAIRED OBSERVATIONS VARIABLE PERF1 PERF2 PERFD PERF 1 7s. FERF2 17 . 26 . FERFD 17 . 17. 17. t-3 > W td X X X H X o o e+ H" C re CL ro vo ON J 297 APPENDIX J Factor analysis information for data from this study Table XL - Eigenvalues, cumulative proportion of variance, per cent of total variance accounted for by each factor Table XLI - Communality figures Table XLII - Factor-loading matrix before rotation Table XLIII - Ordered factor-loading matrix after rotation Table XLIV - Reordered correlation matrix - Naming Factors—Instructions (for related data see Table XVII) ~. if-— m •' C* C7 f*~ ! >—4 <M O > C r- • ir- C- r~- • O co c~ in LA. CO CO i r*- CM < e o • in vT CO < O fO (M ( U~. .-i -ir, <r «0 . LA •£ f\l < o ^ r- • rv vr -J" i LT\ CO -G vO a- ^iL' c; r- LT. <o ^ C; CT *~' •0 r- tr cr ix. r j ^ al ^ LA — r •J- C. r-j c • < LA r-> <r i •Z ir UJ < <T c m Cv fsj ^ r-</> rv: P"« fv ix- r~ r- t 'J h- rv> ' TABLE XL Eigenvalues, cumulative proportion of variance per cent of total variance c o o I 3 << Hi H* eg (t> Cfl •-3 > td W X f VAR I A 8 L £ HP. If. I MAI. EST[MATEO F ! NAL CC M MU N ALITY COMMUNAL ITY COMMUNALITY V 1 1ACCT3 0.5 7224 0.97224 0. 68450 ? ! 8 C F, T P C .932 1 5 0.55215 0.64730 3 10.01 SC C.'-'9 52 0 0.99520 0.6 8 847 4 1CGEIC 0 .9809 P. 0. 98C5H 0.67030 5 2 A MCI I 0 .99 30 B 0.59 3CS 0.58583 6 28LSEO 0. 9V7'>9 C.5 9 799 (1.73424 7 2C AT IT 0.95 60 1 0. 996 01 0.3] 893 8 2f;'«r SP 0.52480 0.8 2 480 0.57435 9.2TATME C.76 45C 0. 7645(1 0.51417 5 0 2 F5 A T F C . 0 9 0 0 1 0.99001 0. 76 31 7 11 3ACCMU 0.53808 0.93808 0.64683 12 I'.'.OKTN 0.58534 C.58534 0.67619 12 3CU-IN 0 .9 8 37 8 0.98378 0. 50756 iA 3C20SH 0.9 7407 0.97407 0.63591 •5 3C3CAC 0.88212 0. 88212 0.6,3 705 16 3C1CA0 o.93 54 5 C.93545 0.71769 17 30 2URc 0.S93C6 (.'.59306 0.59720 18 3C3.UCS 0.986 1 5 C. 5 fi 6 1 5 0.65335 19 304UAC 0 . 9 718 8 0 .9738e 0. 78 30 5 20 2FSA0E 0.99 146 C. 9914 6 0.75737 21 3FSADN 0.99383 0.95383 0. 81910 22 ;OFR'F C.9509 1 0.99091 0.6914 9 2 3 A A A|9 T 0.5.'. Of; 6 fi. 96 C8 6 ' 0. 70096 " " " 2 A •'• P. T F 1 v 0 . 74666 0.74 6 66 0.51629 2 5 AC il 'NF 0. 997H4 0.99784 0.7?3?9 26 4C2IMH O.Ff.HCS C.88 80 8 0.656 84 2 7 AC I ACT 0.98672 0.98672 0.67755 2 8 AF EE ST 0.99754 C.99794 0.6667 3 Zr> 5ACECL ".793.A 6 C.75366 0. 46664 3 0 5801NF 0 . 89 74 2 o.89742 0.54828 3 1 5f.« HAP. 0. 9505 2 C. 95 092 0.67092 32 5CTEPR '" C'.98054 0.5HC54 0. 53363 3 3 5E3LEV 0 . 89 1 3 6 0.89196 0.60 949 34 SFIMVO 1 .00 00 0 • i.COOOO 0.65 5 86 35 6AGCLS 1 .00 01 0 l. ooooo 0.6TI5 3 6 6BGLEV 1.00000 i.ooooo 0 .63263 3 7 6CCACR 1 .•"oooo 1. OC 000 6.79562 38 , 0.869H4 0.86 504 0.7002 8 39 7If.CMC- 1. 0O9OC l.OOCOO 0.80777 AC 7CI-VF0 1.0000 0 1.cccoc 0. 85 344 41. 7 OP UN! 1 .00 00 0 i .ooooo 0.63330 4 2 EAPR CO :. c; C"0 1 .OC 000 0.75049 43 SPAiiSC l .of ooc 1.00 000 0. 5664 3 4 4 SCAST 1 . OjOi.C 1.0(000 0.7784 7 45 8DINSP l.COCOO 1.ooooo 0.44737 SUM CF CCI-MU NALITIES 43. 05 67 4 4.3.0 5 674 29.74741 vO vO FACTOR-LOADINGS MATRIX BEFORE ROT AT I CN * INDICATES A VALUE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO FACTOR 1 I 3 0. 60000 VAR! 1 2 3 A 5 ABLE i ACS TC lRCCTP 1C D ISC 1DGEI 0 2AMQTI 2BUSED 20 AT I T 2CRESR 2EATME 2FSATF 3 1CCMU 0.6 33A 0.7 AO 6 C .6 3 39 0.52 05 C.4051 P.4339 0. 5E51 0 .6 338 0 .661 3 o.7 651 0 .6 16 3 -0.0158 0. C774 - C . 1 10 3 -0.3026 0.4591 0 .2 20 3 o. 0238 C.1580 0.C261 0. 13 87 0 .4793 0.3361 0.1264 -0.C9 70 0.C993 0.1644 0.0657 0. i C 2 9 -0.3748 -0.4996 0.0O73 . 1659 .('906 . 1 80 6 .( 040 .4300 -0.9O21 -0.07 93 -0. 1 649 -0.0535 -0.1595 -0. 1.723 -3 -0. 0.3 57 9 o .092 4 0. CO 16 -0.C878 -0 .0754 -0. 261 o -0 .2548 -0.04 7 3 0.1320 -0 .0307 -0.0092 0.0045 0 .0 9 10. -0.1293 0 .0064 J» o cr O ^ 1-" O P Pu H* 3 LTq 3 > P> cr *i m X X ir* c M (• M Hj O ro *i o cr PJ e+ H* O 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 TF 13 ' 1.4 15 16 17 2B0RTN" 3C ID IN! 3G2DSK 3C 3DAC 3 P. 1 U A C 3f.2URE loluoT" 3C4UAC 3ESADE 3FSADN 3GFRIE 4 A A I NT 0.4577 0. 3 751 0.7316 0.6111 0.6547 0 .6 263 0.45 80 0.26 3 5 0.20 5 2 -0.0683 C.0656 0.2 20 3 1847 1566 0297 1437 097 3 0 6 3 5 -0.2702 0.0534 O.ii-'.l 0 . 1784 -0.1735 -0.224 3 -0.4013 -0.1133 -0.260 5 -0.5 15 3 0 .2760 -0.0 097 0. 1.5 82 -0.353 8 -0. 2 66'6 0.0622 -0.1135 -0.00 90 -0.249 1 -0 .0710 -0. 0221 -0.0175 -0.1843 0.0 34 7 0.1448 0.2 384 0 .07=1 0. l 526 0 .2287 0 .043 7 -0.45C2 -0.0 600 0.2 7 83 0.0959 0.1154 0.2 390 0.026? TK 19 20 21 22 23 O'. 1991 -0.2199 -O. 20 70 -0.2211 -0.C053 -0.0883 -0.2( 64 -0.4089 -0.1207 0.3969 -0. 1 --1 0 C.C976 -0.0072 0.2679 -0 . 1478 -0.13 73 -0. 14 56 -0.20 68 0 , 0. -0. -fi. -0, 104 1 3 05 0 0 3 34 0080 06 01 11349 0 .0365 -0.0515 0.24 38 -0 .4514 -0.2730 0. 1S55 0.2143 0.0177 0. 1 24.3 0.0864 -C. 0701 ~24lT 2204 ,2731 , 1601 1524 .2247 73933" 2122 . 1553 ,2764 0.2575 0.0893 0.15£6 0 .2633 -0. 0690 0. 1467 ARTE AM 4 C 1 I N F 4C2 ! U'i AD! ACT 4FFFST 5A0FCL 55D1NF 5C AW A* 501EPR 5EBL EV 5F INVO 6AGCLS 0.5115 (.'.5811 0.5 77 0 O.4037 0 .6813 0.7413 O.o 5 86 0 .5675 0 .5 4 I 3 0. 5A6C 0.7 26 6 .4 2C0 -C. C585 -0.517 3 0.4324 C.38 72 -0.28 40 -0. C763 0 _r-0 0 0 0 0.C389 0 .0268 -C.1692 -0 .2772 -0. 24 22 0.1219 -0.1854 -0. 0188 -0.1223 0. 31 91 0.2336 . 2 39 1 -0.1501 0.0284 -0.0 7 59 -0.260 2 -0.1176 0.0232 0.2 2 77 -0. 03.34 -0.!261 -0.C258 o. 06 16 O.CO35 T. -0. -0. -n. -0. 0. 1385 0.135 2 0. 26 82 -0 .042.3 -0.078? -C.22 49 -0 .0 452 0. ! ] 1! 0.3595 C.0369 0.2659 -C. 1810 -0.1123 -C.4631 24 25 26 27 23 "if 31 32 33 34 0 .6004 0 .567 1 0. 5 75 7 0.6472 0_j5 75 9 0. 16 10 0.0 50 9 0. C641 0.2678 C. 1 c £ 1 0 .0356 0. C799 C.37E4 0. 1S37 0. 17 7 6 0.C75O 0.1039 ^44 5 24 8 9 1714 0505 1 ~ 5 9 1 28 7 0.1273 0.563 8 0.4593 -0.2884 0.0204 -0. 1120 0.094 5 -0.1184 -0.1197 -0.1575 0.0131 0.13 69 -0.0642 -0.2517 0.0553 -0.24 81 0.22 3 9 -0.0250 -0.0417 0.0010 -0.C490 0 .034 8 -0.1604 -0.0:03 -0. 2232 -0.0175 -0.3 6 54 -0.1052 -0.1981 -C.187 3 -0 0 0 "0.4373 0.5 704 0.664 6 0 .2946 0.28PS 0.6O52 0 .5402 0.4 844 0.9235 0.5671 C.3.,'0 2 0. 10 2 2 C.2571 0 . 279 3 0.2263 C.2588 0.4556 C.1601 0.50E4 0 .0144 -0.4214 0. 1491 -0.2369 0.2114 0 .2920 -0.1 771. -0.1729 0 .1672 -0. 2707 0.040 7 -0725^ C.6067 0.27 82 0. C661 0 .40 79 0.1311 .2304 3103 .0740 ,256 1 0233 3256 220 2 .0 4/, 3 7340 .5637 1670 -0.04 14 -0. C31.2 0 . 167 4 0.0597 -0. 1484 -0.2 344 3 6 3 7 3 3 3 9 4 0 41 ~4T" 43 44 45 6.IJGL EV 6 C. G A C R 7A COMA 7 BCONC 7C. I MFC 70PUN1 EAPROC f.BAR SC 3C'wAST ED I NSP 0 . 280 9 -0.0585 -0.1316 -0.0 392 -0.2756 -0.1609 "o'.2C55 0.36 79 0. 3507 0.29 14 .0984 1171 .0269 -0. 254 5' 0. 148 8 -0. 150 8 0.0695 0. 0592 0. 1391 0.2 800 0 .035 9 0.0EC3 0.0524 0.OH3 0.10 49 C.10 74 -0.2233 C. 1613 -0.20 68 -0.O424 -0. 1894 0.1093 C.1654 0 .0431 -0 0 SUM OF SQUARED FACTQP.-LCAOIMGS DIVIDfO av SUM OF CCMMUMA LITI ES 101 0.C571 .0 823 .C790 , 0769 O O FOATATEC FACTOR-FiCTDP LOAD JKG MATBIX. INDICATES A VALUE > OR = TO 0.60 1 INTWM 3GLCGR 6PR0CM 2PRC0U "/IN FOR liCONPR 5UPC0M 8DECHK ^ VAR!ABLE r i 1ACKTB -0.1966 0. 1773 -0.n3ll 0. 1759 -0.11.72 C. 7219 0. 15J.C -0.1517 2 13CSTP -0.1924 C. 2810 0. ('36 5 0 .2b9R -0 .18 17 0.50 26 0.3676 -0.1381 3 100 ISC * -0.7 121 0. 1 543 0 .0 949 0.0758 -•I. 1155 0.2 60 3 0.2214 -0.1117 4 !0GEID * -C.6001 0. 062 1 0.09 5 5 0. 1532 0.2631 0.04 74 0 . 1 C 9 7 -0.2565 5 2 AMOT I 0.0 7 7 1 * c. 6756 0. 0234 -0.O18'1 0. 064 8 C.27!1 0.1810 -0.1135 6 2 a L S ED -0 .: =170 0. 6149 0 .0 754 -0.163! -1.1161 0.4216 -0.16 6 3 -C. 2 576 7 2CATIT -M.4f.62 0. 78C9 -0.C564 0.1444 -0.1330 0 .0007 0.C41C 0.O255 f, 2CRESP -O.M70 5 39 6 0.C999 C.1283 -0.1126 n.C605 0.2354 -0 .10 40 9 2FA T«E -0 .4451 0. 164 6 0.3110 0.3'67 -0.1152 0.2137 0.1141 -O.OC 5 1 10 2F5ATF -0.5 44 9 C. 5 5C5 0. 1 6 84 3.2 948 -O."?oo 0.2018 0.1354 0.0 27! 1 1 3 ACOMU -0.3252 0 . 5185 f'. 1394 -O.COO! -0.1054 0.2759 0.156 3 -0.1566 I 2 33 0 RTN -0.2269 1661 0. 1420 -0 .0269 -0.1572 0 .0676 * 0.7 30 4 0. 1161 13 20 IT IN * -o.ifcS _ r _ C415 0. C7S4 0.014! -0.C8I 3 C .000 3 0.1231 0.0316 14 3C7 0SK -0 .5j 38 0. 1847 -"•.0 2 20 0.3276 -•1.r'490 0. 34 17 0.2557 -C.l 5 97 Ir 3C2DfiC -0.2 43 0 •">. 26 37 -0 . C2 30 * 0 . a 5 1:: -0.244 7 0.2290 -0.14 36 -0. 0305 16 sr.: DAD -0.2766 0. 1732 0. cm 0.214? -0.0822 0.264 7 * 0.6 972 -0.O2 3? 17 3D2UP.E -0.1 It? 4 0 . 0160 0 .2061 0.4'.'65 -0.C416 0.3273 0. EC 58 -C..1027 IS 30 3UOS -0.34 9 7 C. C4 5 6 5446 0.4003 -0.0716 0.0516 0.0749 0.24 25 19 3D4UAC -0.240 7 C. C715 -''.137 7 * 0. 7994 0.1242 C.!001 0.1679 -0.1152 20 3rS«0E -0.2249 r.. 2764 * (-.7135 0.0010 -0.1947 0.1645 0. 1 Fn.9 -0. ! 478 21 3FSAON -".."•JO 3 c. 1089 * C. 85 99 0. 04 71 0.C615 0.1224 0.1239 -0.1735 22 2-GERIE * -0 .6068 0. 0 23 1 -U.0344 0. 2 4 21 - . 1 7 2 5 0.411! 0.0 78 7 -0.2 4)0 2 3 4/.AINT * -0.621? 0. 14 79 0.3391 0.2614 -0 .13 8 3 0.239? 0 . C 5 8 2 -C.0 50? 24 4BTKAM .5 1 8 1 0. 14 26 1"). 1 59 4 0.2312 -0.02 7° 0. 330 7 0.0729 -0 .0373 2 b 4C1INF -0.112^ 0. 15 7.1 f. 192 2 0. 1542 0..J501 * 0.75 3 7 0.0 504 C.0144 2d 4C 2INR -0.132ft 0. 1335 0.294 8 0.13 36 0.^76 1 * 0.6424 0.18 50 0.7195 ?7 4 0 I A CT -'J .1872 3349 0.2602 0.044? (.. 0822 0.015ft * 0.624 5 --0 .2523 2 8 4EEF ST -0.3695 0. 1324 0.242 3 0.4430 0.1807 0 .2353 0.2279 -0.1899 29 5ACFCL -0.1597 c. 130 7 0. 1611 0. 1761 -0.1506 0 .0055 0 .0254 -0.5729 3C 5I;D I NF -o .'iiu-.o 0. 20 0 7 0.10 74 0.5243 0 . C 6 3 3 0.2380 0.25?? -0.2 747 " 31 5C AWAR -0.4CC8 0. 2105 -0.1739 0.5C64 "0.2514 0.1301 0.?fi3R -f.1303 3 2 5 OTP?. 0. 15 80 0. 363 3 0.09 59 -0. C-99 0. 270 4 0.7699 -0 .44 35 33 5E3LFV -0.5 290' 0 . 1671 -0 .!:.i46 0.2783 -G..3 20 3 0.0221 0.0346 -C. 32 06 34 5F INVO -0.3043 c. 1300 -0.C5C4 0.2080 -0.2 34 3 0.5467 0.0 70 0 -0.3767 35 6AGCLS -C .2 564 0. 3591 -0.2219 0.2697 O.C703 0. 3 76 7 0.0680 -0.3633 36 6BC LEV -0.1 7C4 -0 . 1C34 0.36 18 # 0.6723 -0.03 90 -0.060? 0.06 2 8 0.0 304 37 6 C GACR 0.0 137 C. ,7 7113 0. C291 C.5044 -0.62 90 0.2117 0 .0348 -0.0446 33 7 A CONA -0.131.9 -0.047 5 0.1770 C.5983 -0.!5S8 0.4142 0. 274 4 0 .0 549 3'= 7BC0MC -0.221 7 -0. 0461 0.3136 -0.1.3 24 -0.7 193 0.0120 -0.0105 -0. 3496 4 0 7C. INFO -0 ."5 54 0. C949 -0.C477 0.0646 * -0.9018 0.0 35 7 0.1425 0 .0026 41 70PUN I -0 .2653 -0. 04 36 0.C679 0.5121 -0.1778 0. 040 5 0.4231 -0.2 362 4 2 SAPROO n. 1 l 2 3 C. 69C 5 0.3C41 0.3123 -0 .0118 0.0213 0.7342 -0.125! 43 8BAHSC -0.O692 0. 1 790 0.0 549 0. 5419 -0. (.920 0.2922 -0.2435 -0 .2825 44 cCAAST' C.2101 0. 5762 0 .378 3 0.3132 -0.219 7 0. 1018 0.3156 0.0 5 36 45 SOINSP -0.1495 C . 26 59 C. 13 00 0.4244 -0.2 64 0 0 .2920 0 .0275 0.0 4 59 SUK CF S CHAP EE FACTOR-LO AGINGS DIV IOEC BY SUM OF COMMUNAL!T! ES C.l 8C7 0. 1439 0 .10 15 0.1746 0.0889 0.138 6 0.1063 0. 0652 O ....... ^ o ^ p-f» *1 f» PJ HJ $» O c+ O ^ I O PJ P. H-cm 3 $» H. Hj C+ 0» *1 H, O e+ P c+ H* O 3 1-3 > X t->. M M M fM c IT ("1 o -c -C 'O r~ • -r CM cr r- « sC ft if < "• if. t\i C f < -r -J tn CM ( i ui r< OJ o» r- -C' i "n cv in -v 'A ^ r-i C, PJ -f. r-i CO P"1 i m CM CM (\j .--« i o c c- o c c I 0' >0 ff| CO r-l i - o o c O o o o o o o o • o rv o r- CM • CN IA LT' C , rvj rn r- m o < m r— p; PJ fM < 1 fl f<l H in «J N ( O O O O c o « ^ rr, rc in an C- -< <r :o r- -T •4. r- p-. -C • v.'1. CM CV. C. CC 1 •> if -c tr- <i PI rv CM rv P- cr P- m • c_ H n o- i •x, c r-i IM o cv r-j ' CJ C o o o i -< cr rv o- p-C" IT rt O P--a m c p-t<\ c< c <' r- sj*-•j «"! m m ..-J -o o o o o C ' sU rv r, -O lA C 7" -vf X V? vt ^> r- p- rn O -a t- -o r*-in LT- c CM p". (T r- -C ^ r a- c cc -< H p o m vC *r o-cc vr vO <n CJ .3- cr; iv m . CJ o <- Oct; • rv co NC vf-O -C 'ft ; vj rs; tr-. • m rv P- P-• <J O C O O •t r- rv r-i m cr ~* L" co CJ P"> tr p H y -j (\ P- V C~ (,!•> r~ P", pi vr -T m o c O O cj o co o o- -J- in - cv o) if r-PI c m cj. - *C -47. c- C cv (Xi tn f<1 u\ <r f-c, rn x PI or rv v> in ^ o tr •c r- o <; '-r cc CJ c. co tr PI — v~ vj- <r f> . CJ O C O O CJ fi H in <; cr - lP ^ r- p", CM -Jj vT vT P: r- v p-j -o 'i". f\j cn <r m -J" O v.'- O O cj CJ .c if. O O m r~.CC rP, O vt CO r— vf p- cr ~c o o; C P- CO IT. h- C-tr. m -c PJ ir, vo ^ o ci H H nj o c- coco j p o rj in r-^ r- o ^ H r»j O p-, O co tri — .-v — cr-m vr cv o o O O O o H ci r- a- i cv cn p- cc r~ i cc r MJ ^ : n ro n C o.' -r\) vf rvi P* <• ) c o o o C O ' >fl fl rJ -T CC fd •H .* cr <r -A cc :n iA (n m H o cc vr- ^. if. • . CV <• vf P' -f i i) ,n H M ^ r> .c r- ^ -o L" .1 ifi vT Pi CC vT v ni ci rv.- cr tC\ H m -c rv tn . c\.-vt cr -0 co o • _ m vt -J vr . m c\j vt PJ cn • za r~ cvi <• • vj- fi cv v cv r^i , o o o O O CJ O C' o ) CJ C> i vt If o o r- <r o cr tr. c-O -vT f -a- ^. vt PI m tr. cv -n cr c o- P~ vt m r-i pr cr pi co vt vj- cc o CO PI m o o o o o * c- o o o c o -J- ro m- -C PI m o rv r- pr. CM vT <) Pvj O P~ vt n tn c- cn rn PJ PI rv --T c*i rn o c> c o o o o vo m CM Nt ^t LC~l r'-' <T •—i vo r\j rvj rv -t u'. a- cv rn rn P" m vt > o o o o c 2J C' CC (J. r-H j, 0, —. C, CJ^ Pvj ' m co oi -r •rj r c ^ [>-. p-, —+ Pj C- vT c o o o c c rv «-* vt c co cn cr o -j- vc? -H c\j i> p"! cc i> pj P«i o -t P~" Oj CV vJ- iNJ PI rv CM c- o O C O C. .M rv vt c <t o o p"-o P fv ? ^ O -r "1 ir- ro cr ^ cr rvj rn p-. . CP cr IM ;n -t PJ — >C rvi T-CO o c. m ^- vT r-i rvj cv cv. , O 1M f • CO • vt c m cr • —< in if cr r-'n >c P cc cc i m PI vt rvi rv O O C O C ' o ra r o cc co ::, in c LI H r~i aj cc cn cr cr c: p m cc H rc i~n PI m. PI vt P-fl ./j r-j cc -t r-^ co ri o vC tr m (.f tn ^; o £ -4 O CO if cv p.: v in o • cv oo r— vc o CP -ri v -f pvi (,->. co a--< ' o « r~ cc r. -o m .—i r~ co H cn ^- r«i • o o o o c ci o c- o < o o , fT, vO (M C CO CM * r— -c co r- r-<: vr — v; cr r-. PI -.Q ^ rn w m rc -ji ; o O c o c vi <i —i rc cr. O C P- r- f c > r- P- vr •' O (\ r; ; • — ^ cr —i -,n ir if ui * p-tr m c. p- s. vt LT. >.» vt -t • c o o o c c v- -r cc o co cc .x r— cc c* " r- cj in p- m CC -t Cll Ll ^ H J 'J~ < O-l rtl ."I ' O C' C G O i N m N in r Xi IT. vf" CT cr: ' Ul -JS C ^ i cv .t pi cv T t" cr CP cn vO c- a; ;n x r r-i 'A \* o IT, if. ^ <\ LI r.; A vJ- ^t ii1 LA PI PI OWL' CJJ O C m m vr o o r-~ r-~ o >"* CJ 'A •—i —-< <r m •j o — *~n vt 01 o o o cj c> c o —•t .o r" ol C m j; v c-cr f J >* cu LI <• c*3 h a M O if. <r -J- M n <r cn c" o a- "3 . ^ r- ^. r-: f -n v ir. -C ^ r> r-! rt _J <j vT *t vT if. IA ( • r' f 1 H I ! C <• If • . r- ui -*v C <2 c C O i ( i-i a> in cr • -o r- PJ tr- cj*- *c PV .-p, vj C CO rt PC 'A tr r- P- c- cr- rv r- -c r- o .c j. i-. i rv —> o —* vt P; P.; -r pi fi p- rv a. 2: c — t r-j f" IM rvj , vr rn r- rv ir. v0 -• I rvj p^ -n vt O '..J C 'f e < • rn ni -O rn r- 1 — a: r- a cc • <i v> u- o • :~J ~z u. c. <; u.i ti c:. UJ ci o . r- m -r i r-. a? in t— i c* '.J e <; tJ LL r- r- vj- —^ <r IA O if -c -J —I h- < O CL Cj n ~ < "J U 15 O — '•' rr <' c" C. CJ. ^ ,o c1 ni -r Pv' IP P.' J" P- p-.JJ IL' L P-J vf m pi vt- r-j TABLE XLIV Reordered correlation matrix 3 1 CTJ ISC 7 2CAT IT 42 8APR0D 5-2AM0TI 6 2BUSE0 44 8CWAST 10 2 F S ATE 3 2 DP ESP 1C0ISC * i.coooo 2 0 AT IT 0.42164 * i.ooooo f 42 3APRC0 C.l 340 7 0.45 85 2 1.00000 —s 5 2AM0TI 0. 13558 'i. 50 791 0.39557 * 1.00 000 6 2BUS EC 0.2760 0 0.45725 0.35246 0.49949 * 1.00000 44 EC u A ST 0. 1 74 7 i 0.39776 * 0.69260 0 . 300 36 0 . 33149 * l.rcooo 10 2FSATF 0.54627 * C. 68690 0.46104 0.41967 0. 33,909 0 . 3.0? 20 * l.C-K>.-0 B 20<>E SP 0.4 0156 0.57 153 0 .49287 0.43942 0.44 30 4 0.40550 * 0.611.''3 * l.OCOlO 1 1 3ACnyu n.47216 0. 44 090 0.45182 0.39202 0. 5776 2 0.36987 0.5 5^1 0. 334<?? ' 21 3E SADN 0.2^629 0.OSO!9 0.37982 0.15141 0.152!6 0.47 96 7 0.22827 0.21135 20 BE SAOE 0. 3 3764 0. 3 7 57 7 0.41618 0.3^174 0.26315 0.43711 0. 43,173 0. 4 2 70 5 IB a u *!j cs 0.36263 C.21546 0.2u231 0.10010 -0.CI318 0.33632 0.42717 0.36o51 I 0 3D4UAC 0.2 776'. 0.2896 1 0.20 992 0.13644 -0.02100 0.1c466 0. 3 5Q 8 7 0.30,36 8 3 6 6 B 01. E V 0. C5P.00 0. in2-l 0.16197 0 .f 0 4 09 -0 .0790? 0.17 9C .3 0. 2r'<;i:5 0. 0919 3 15 TC3[TAC •1.3o6V5 0.38768 C. 38 748 0. 11577 0.767V4 0.33819 r .458-3 1.. 31267 3 3 7 A C C N A 0.417-44 0.0963 3 0.264 02 0.12329 0 . 10 55 5 0. 4 0703 0. 3 6465 C..27Cf 3 4 3 3 P S B-S C 0.23974 0. 22372 0.27417 0.17505 0.23275 0.21528 C.39644 0.2 3410 3 0 5 SC I :VF 0.26044 0.25350 0.42C70 0.26317 0. 15178 0.43799 0 .41761 0. 2?5r 2 41 7HP UN I 0. 5-" 560 C. 161! 7 0.21867 0.0 5012 0.0998 3 C.3r673 C.35931 0. 4 2 54 4 31 5 0 *W *R 0.4 3059 0.42710 0.30064 0.13296 0. 06035 0. 19 462 0 .49560 1.31677 2 3 45EF ST 0.54901. 0.31*31 0.32 54 7 0.30018 0. 1346 7 C.31777 0. 59--40 n.4360? 45 80 1 NSP 0. 32359 0. 3 51.0 9 0.40342 0.73421 0.21642 0.40 5 38 0.4 2413 0. 24 73 7 3 7 6 C C A C 3 0 . 2 i?06 ^.39606 0.37303 0.22796 0.16977 0.47146 0.34274 0.21320 39 7 SC.C NC 0.30703 0.1149 3 0.03391 0.C3862 0.320 16 0.065C5 0.14732 0.235-9 40 7C INFO 0. !C 6 24 0. 22412 C. 1C716 -0.01395 0.12676 0.34755 0. 1461 I 0.25725 2 5 4C1INr 0 .338 17 0.159L8 0.23223 0.22962 0. 46100 C.25133 0.43669 o.?,\54C ! ucr, TR 0.41522 0. 29 333 0.26362 0.34996 0.38205 0.21E66 0.37131 0.37210 26 4 C 2 IN E 0.3 1391 0.24392 0.22E76 0. 1 6 002 0.2S089 0 .31 953 0.42°37 0. 18754 34 5 E1NVO 0.33517 0. 31B3 0 0.7.033? 0.26 560 0.23960 0. 167 35 o:46341 0.23881 ? 1BC. 5 TP C. 49! I/O 0. 4) 294 0. 34786 0.43003 0.30 84 3 C . 41390 0.44036 0. 46 32 8 3 5 6ACCLS 0.3 2 380 0.41394 0.24673 0.35663 0.492 6 4 0.2,170 1 0 .42703 0.37=90 1 2 ?Btl<! TN 0.3 57 0! .0. 778^6 0.2915 1 0.25 IE 5 -0.00072 C. 23)74 0.4 0 933 0.2 9 7," 9 ' " 16 3D1UA0" 0.4S103 0. 34254 0.31727 0.28109 0 .15597 0.3*945 0.3o6t6 0.47337 2 7 4CI ACT C.29767 0. 29962 0.506S6 0. 32016 0. 17314 0.43891 0 .32207 0.33377 • 7 3D7URE 0. 26892 0.05506 0.34491 0.3i721 0. 14L61 0.32295 0.4P866 0.3?4o2 32 5DTEPR 0.3 1443 0. 26C14 0.38273 0.15836 0 .26190 0.37922 C.39137 0. 26378 29 5ACECL 0.29741 0.24915 0.79496 0.13701 0. 21204 C.17732 0.26566 0.24 56 3 o H9 > W X M I o o 3 c+ H-3 C CD P. 11 3 AC CD 21 3 FS ACN 20 3ESADE 18 3D3UDS 19 30 4 UAC 36 6BGLE V 1 5 3C3DAC 38 7 AC CN A 11 5AC0MU 1.CCCOO V 21 3FSADN 0.27 310 1. noofio f 2C 3F5A0E 0.35833 * 0. 7/205 # !.00000 13 3U3UCS 0.25176 0.41337 0. 44443 * 1.OOOOO 19 30 41: AC 0.15422 0.0083B 0.03066 0 .32898 * 1.00000 3 6 6 H G L E V 0. 12 200 0.24540 '0. 25739 0. 57 130 0.48791 1.OOOOO 1 3 iC 20 AC 0.2 56 94 0.0 8904 0. 13198 0.29780 0.59759 0. 35285 * 1. ooor-o 3 3 7 ACONA 0.2 266 8 0. 23143 0. 34 190 0. 4 5469 C.58 86 5 0 .40562 r, . t,f 1-, iq * i. ooc'c 43 E3AKSC 0.17681 0.16595 0.13470 0.23221 0.42940 C.250=6 0. 51652 0.387r.l 20 63 0 ! HP 0. 24H4 1 0. 2 2 731 0.24538 0.27923 0 .53094 0.24 234 0.39362 0.5264) 4i 70FUM 0.146]6 0.2187 3 0.30 3 74 0. 26 537 0. 54 95 6 0. 37439 0 . 36 66 6 0.57 54 9 3 1 50 AWAR C.RSC82 0. 09 23 7 0.14 31 6 0 .16907 0 . 5597 6 11. 34 3 29 C. 4 8 <"•<"• 6 0. 3 84f c 23 4EEFST 0 .3 2 390 0. 3 3919 0.34222 0.45608 0.56722 0.38705 0.3231] 0.62554 43 8 o i f-i s P 0.3Of 6 1 0. 18845 0.30432 0.11837 0.35054 0. 37532 0.4 1 -Jftr. 0 . 5 29-37 tCGACP" 0. 39 7 34 0. C8795 0.27350 0.25726 0 . 34 919 0.37206 * 0.6162 3 0. 3"0' • 39 7RC.INC 0. 16805 0.23362 0.38556 0. 19512 -0.12734 .0.17477 0 . 15424 0. 11211 4 0 7CI NFC 0.115 77 -0.02901 0.25275 0. 1 5653 -0. 0009 8 C. C2127 0.26545 0.2c-64 0 2? 4C t IMF 0.32 700 0. 2 3350 0.30735 0 .34862 0 .220 5 3 0.09182 C.29078 0. 44656 1 1ACCT8 0.45928 0. 14 475 0.30477 0. 1710Q 0.34311 0.12827 0.39]72 0.45772 26 4C 7: \'F. 0.27891 0.35 116 0.38713 0.2 746 3 0.23318 0. 16562 C. 31 128 0.43223 34 5F IN Vii 0.3^53! 0. 16 4 25 0.35679 0.13258 0.32821 0.0 3606 42=92 0. 38733 2 13 C f. TP 0.444 6 7 0.26629 0.37187 0.40133 0.33 539 0.23 33 5 0.47030 0.43 204 33 6A COLS 0. 3C! E5 0.0298 8 0. 17421 0.12413 0.39612 C.17427 0.3304] 0.3 1222 12 2BCRTM 0.31648 0. 21! 15 0.31332 0.2467B 0.1304 7 0. 13996 --• .0311 5 0. 22706 16 30IUA0 0.34234 0.16754 0 .33755 0.23158 0.4015 3 C.25102 0.292°2 0.52223 27 40 I ACT 4 5 890 0. 38297 0.42547 0.20511 0.25244 0.1R0O1 0. 10308 0.22492 - 17 2D2URE' 0.40353 0.25262 0.25139 0. 34 556 0. 39387 0.4 7550 0.23712 0.5o70 1 32 5DTEPR 0.4 3232 0.43915 0.47074 0.21645 0 . 1 552 S C.23621 0. 2 514 3 0.27912 29 5 ACE CL C . 2587 1 0. 2 0 832 0.30531 0.06 834 0.27 620 0. 14027 0.22197 0.05 51 6 43 "BA = SC 30 5B0INF 4 1 70PUN I 5CAWAP 28 4EEFST 45 SDIN'SP 37 6CGACR 39 7BC0NC 43 cBABSC l.CCf.OO 30 5 B C I N F 0.35537 •+ 1. ooooo 4! 7D°UNt 0.30047 0.42791 * 1.00000 3 1 5CAV»AH 0. 3f'C 3 0. 37C30 0.4 762 2 * 1.0000c 23 4E FFST 0.2746 1 0.53C36 C.51363 0.47 500 * 1.05 000 4 3 ?n I N SP C.23560 0. 23161 0.364 51 0 .2404 1 0.35969 * 1.OOOOO 37 6CC-A0T 0.429 73 0. 36648 0.22133 0. 22201 0.25197 0.4 7404 a 1.00000 39 73CCNC C.14081 0.0464 1 0 . 18919 -0.20303 0 .09298 C.13554 0. 3822 a 1.OOOOO 40 7C INFO 0.06 723 0.01752 0.30253 -0.03109 -0 .02700 C.2 6020 0.567 7 2 0.57695 26 4C 1 I NF 0.33502 ' 0.38474 0.28155 " 0.18 850 0.49105 C.3C8C8 0.24234 0.01926 1 1ACCTR 0.33 14! 0. 37074 0.23158 0.43384 0.34627 0.38913 0.37142 0. 14 989 2 6 4C7IN3 " . 2 11 7 4 0.27225 C.C8018 0. 24710 0.4302 1 0.3003 5 0 . 2 50 S 1 0.02715 34 5F INVC 0.34 526 0.3665 0 0.33653 0. 3! 346 0. 4809 6 C.3 8415 0. 4694 3 0.228' 7 2 I3CF.TP 0.3525B 0. 44 60 9 0.42816 0.45749 0 .46448 0. 36S1 6 0. 47907 0. 1 8594 3 5 6ACCLS 0 . 394 44 0.33029 0.32570 0.53261 0. 49500 0.26 24 1 0 .2361 5 0.0523 2 12 330'- Tr-I 0.C7o6 0 j.29285 0.31422 0.22724 0.34458 0.16220 0. 2 2 852 0.22763 16 3 0 11 j A C 0.0 7618 0. 365C 8 0.4 305 5 0.47965 0 .45137 0.2°I4 1 0.3!Q4 3 0.13 533 27 4 r. I A C T 0 .0 3147 O.34597 0.33553 0.29369 0.36129 0.17534 0.21338 0 .06793 17 :02I.'RE 0. 26297 0. 39466 0.51718 0.39 40 7 0.60315 0.23093 0. 3 73 36 0.164c0 VjJ 32 50TEPR 0.20169 0.36513 0.32055 0. 34250 0.35 880 0.17736 0.20599 0.294]2 29 5A0ECL 0. 324 65 0.24090 0.30906 0.19439 0.37308 C. 28247 0.28954 0.36681 O 305 o CA A. LA ro 6 rn LT -o co i i LA, IT. PJ 0 a: .-* 0 c- c? 0 c rsj ii ^ A- AJ O O 0 f~ c O i ro A- CO A-r^i r\i rv M (\j < — O ooooo LA rO c '.A -o 0 -4- cr a. 6 -T i\ st ir. >r **: O rO LA. <r -o- -JT AJ cr: O 0 c 0 c w O lA ^ -O O •— rv r.i H a- n c -1 ^ CO 0 0 > C- CT r- ^ O sT TA O cc —' AJ ro m AJ Al -J- <\i O LL LL LA ^ o o O 0 oooo < m -<r ro O -J" '7> ZT- O rsj r- AJ A- ro AJ AJ CC. *T~) ir cO O rN) rO LA AJ ^- -O ITl H I- a: 0 O \t oi n ^- rO (r, (\) 0 Ui rvj <t o zz o c: 0 0 O O 0 O — LTi C -c CM O H -O N rO ft", rvj ^j- CT AJ ro # O ^ p-cn O ^ O 0' rvj rO ^ N TO K- LU O — O CO O f. !A f- -J* ^- ~t <t -4 z? '.J ro < -* o o o o o ooooo 0 0 n 1 A-*-* & c c 'X- rA v!" ^- in co N -O r- sT r\] A-LL L. C- V cc if-- ct: AJ A- 3? LA c cr -C" »~ O CC' LA OJ u'' *J <- >^ (V oj rvj ro AJ -H C f*i cr. O O O o O c O 0 O O sC-IP r-J # A-O J rn i«o LA r\i C A--L^: c? n't ^< ,1-. A-LA a o O- t/ r~- m 17. 4- ro <\ -x> O C ^ ^J- A* r-£ c o —1 >_ ,-<*> r^i ,—1 r\J 't ^ v 5 « 3 c-. ^ ^ <r <J »-* o r-O O 0 O v.. O 'j c c 0 a -1 c- n 0 C —i -M rt rn O fi- V. c' r_i ^- UJ a -J OH- U CL £ ^ ? ^ u a 0 <i. r3 iv.' -4 3 iLr .4- *u 0 u. ™~ -r O 0 c L: < n> vr PI LA \r. f-J f O O («1 -J- if'. Lf> O 'A %T AJ L -._, < „*• n u\. r-> •O <*- Oi *A t>j rA Al »*J A- A* <V AJ r-t ro L^ TABLE XLIV - (continued) 306 Naming Factors — Instructions The following items have been taken from Likert's Human Organization. They have been used on a survey of organ izational climate of three engineering departments within a single engineering consulting firm. The structure of the company would fit well with J. D. Thompson's description (p. 80) of a task force (or project) oriented company. That is to say, there is a physical division into functional departments (where department heads have a great deal of authority) while groups within all departments will work on common projects. The results from the survey have been factor analysed and the items on any single page have been found to load most heavily on that factor. You, along with other panel members, are being asked if you perceive a rationale for such loadings and if possible to put a name or label to the factor on each page. One of the most important reasons for naming a factor is to communicate to others. The name should capsulize the substantive nature of the factor and enable others to grasp its meaning. One difficulty, however, is that a substantive label may have surplus meaning, (i.e. It may have irrelevant con notations.) The names can be theoretically suggestive or invoke hypothesis for future testing. Moreover, it can relate to the major theoretical consensus of the field, stimulate wide interest, and promote additional experimentation. A name that is suggestive and stimulating, rather than apt, but dry, will aid the communication of the study's results and help to further their utilization, testing and replication. On each of the following pages please indicate a name or label for that factor and, if you feel it would add to clari ty, a short definition of, and properties, or connotations you would not attribute to the label you have provided. Please note that the question asked of each subject was to place a D at the point along the scale which best described his department. Also note that the scales are reversed on a random basis and that the items have been ordered with the highest loading items at the top of the page. Please do not refer to a reference to see how the items have been categorized previously. Note» Parts of the above instructions are rather liberally copied from Rummell (1970). 307 APPENDIX K Factor analysis information for data from Likert study Table XLV - Original Likert matrix used Table XLVI - Eigenvalues, cumulative pro portion of variance, per cent of total variance accounted for by each factor Table XLVII - Communality figures Table XLVIII - Factor-loading matrix before rotation (for related data see Table XXVI) ORIGINAL LIKERT MATRIX ** f INDICATE; AN ASSCLLTE VALUE GREATER THAN OR. EGU<IL TC O.75000 1 2A MLT I 2 2CUSED 3 2CATIT 4 2DRFSP 5 2 EAT ME 6 2FSATF 7 3AC0MU 8 3B0RTN 1 2A!'CTI 1.00000 -> 28LSE0 * C.80OC0 1. CCCOO 3 2CAf IT 0.71000 * 0.75000 * l.OOCOO A 'O.lf SP ' C.6 7 000 C. 73COG 0.67000 * 1.00 000 5 2E AT I'E 0.70000 * 0. 76000 0.74000 0. 7 3000 * 1.OOOOO 6 2F SATE 0.65000 0.69000 0.71000 0.74000 0 .83000 » 1.COOOO 7 3Af.0MLI 0.66000 0- 73000 C.65000 0.7 3000 0. 72 00 0 * 0.76000 1 .ooooo 3 3R0R TN C.61 000 0.65COO 0.64000 * 0.750GO 0.63000 0.7CC00 0.74000 * 1.00000 •5 30.10 IN C.6 4O0C C. 65C.O0 0.62000 0.67 000 0.66000 0.64 000 0.66000 0.74000 10 J C 3 C A C * t .76000 * 0.75000 0.73000 0.65000 0.72000 * C.78CC0 * 0.75000 0. 71000 I 1 3D IUA0 C.7CC00 C. 73000 0.66000 0.62000 0.67000 C.60 CCO 0.70000 0. 73000 12 3 C 2UR E •; .71000 C.68000 C.64000 0. 710CO 0.68000 0.69000 0.5600 0 0.73C00 13 30 2L0S C.56COO 0.59000 0.56000 0.56OC0 0.67000 C.71CO0 0. 6 3000 0.720C0 IA 3D i'JAC C 6 30CC C. 6 50G0 0.6 20C0 0.68000 0 .69000 * 0.78000 0.7300 0 * 0.78000 13 3E5ACE 0 .33000 C.63000 C.56000 0.50000 0.70000 0.69000 0.61000 0.61000 16 2Gr R I E C.64000 0.68000 0.61000 0.61000 0.67000 C.69C00 * C.76000 0. 73 0CC 17 A.' J I NT 0.7100C C. 74000 C 7CCC0 0.74000 * 0.80000 * C.79000 * 0.76000 0.73000 1 E AB TE AW 0.700O0 0.74000 0.62000 * 0.75000 0.74000 * C.77C00 0.71C00 0.7000 0 15 AC 1 IMF 0. 65000 C. 68C0C 0.560C 0 0.68000 0.5900C C.62000 0.63000 0. 68000 20 <.C2IN'B 0.7 2000 C.69 COO C.67000 0.74000 0.67000 0.69000 0.73000 * C.77000 2! 40 I ACT C.64 000 0.68000 0.71000 0.64000 0 . 75000 C.65CC0 0.69000 0.58000 2 2 4EEC ST C.6 5 000 0. 66000 0.58000 0.69000 0 .66000 0.63000 * 0.7 600 0 * 0.78000 2 3 5ACFCL P.73CC0 0.71000 0.68000 C.730CC * 0. 76000 * 0.77000 * 0.77000 0.72000 2A 530i NF 0.65000 0.62000 0. 5.5CCD 0.67000 0 .5500 0 0. 62000 * C.76000 0.64 000 2 5 5C/Wtk 0.71OOO 0. 65000 0. 49000 0.70000 0 .57000 0.57000 0.64000 0.69000 26 50 TE PR 0.73000 0.69000 0.63000 0.74000 0.7C00C C. 7CC00 0.67000 0.70000 1 27 5E31.EV C.70CGC C.720O0 0.57000 0.65000 0.67000 0.64000 0.57000 C. 63000 28 6AGCLS 0.7 3000 C.77COO 0.71000 0.69000 0.70000 0.7 2000 * 0.78000 0.7000 0 29 6BCLEV C.61000 0.60000 0.59000 0.6 2000 0.63000 0.71000 0. 7300C 0.73000 30 6CGACR C . 7300C C.72C0C C.6 5000 0.64 000 0.66000 0.71000 0.73000 0. 71000 31 7ACCNA 0.67000 0.64000 0.5800C 0.6 2000 0.65000 0. 660 00 0.62000 0.66000 22 75CONC C.62 0C0 0.65000 0.5400 0 0.66 000 0.68000 0.72CCO 0- 6700 0 0. 74 000 33 7C I.'-jFO 0 .55000 0. 5500C C.61CC0 0.59000 0.72000 C.71000 0.61000 0.71000 34 SAPRCD 0.60 COO 0.66000 C.6 3000 0.60000 0.65000 C.76000 0.7G000 0.69000 ! 3 5 ERA BSC C.650C0 0. 550CC 0.59000 0.65000 0.55000 C.68C00 0.66000 0. 74000 \ 36 8CWAST 0.51000 0.51000 C.540OC 0. 53000 0.56000 0.60000 0.57000 0.53000 37 6D I NSP 0.580 CO . 0.59000 0 .53000 0.49000 0. 56000 C.63C00 0.60000 -0.64000 0 o LTq 3 H' > CT 3 c+ C CO (0 p. tr1 W X < i O O Ci O O O ' o o o o o c. • ooooo ) p_ r~( |\J CT f- CO ; s r~ ^ o ^ ^ o o o o o c o o o c: o c> o o o o o o •4- m o o -o P-N r- f~ O N ooooooo ooooo o o o o o o o o o c o o c- ooo c e c ooo N O N O) CD H sfj A ^* m in ooooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o o ooo O m -f e -o r-o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o cr m rr w H o r- r- r- ..c r-o o ^ o o oooo oooo oooo o ^ —' O r- r- p-v-- O C O O <-J o o o o o o OOOOO o o o o c o 3' Ii (fi -J1 O rr~--C •£ IT. O O O ooooo o o o o o ooooo O n X -i 4 c- s A <c • o o o o « o o o o c o c o o c o o oooo co csi <r ro r\) r-P- r- r- p- sr P-o 5 i o o o o ' O Q o o o o o o o o oooo O O P- -r o m p- O r- uo ^> o o o o o o oooo o o o o o o o o ooo ooo tf> sC -iJ fNJ rsj u"r -C vf) O r- m vT _< o c o c o , • O O i o o i O O ; • o o < O O v • o r> o o o - o o o o c ' c o o c o c ro cr LO, P- P-r- p- o -c • ooooo o O O ' ooo o o o o o <~> c o o C c o o o o c O O O C-; cc r-1 I-H LP. <r so r~ .n ,c ^ - O C« i-J o O u-' f LV ui ' -i o: o ^ c • J D 2 3 < . r\j '*•' vt i O i c c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o •4- ro fM r\j ,-4 „. «c mir< <1 -c r-o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o r- f\i ir. o -ii fc •O vO P- -C vD o o o o o o o o o o o o o c_» o o ^ o m O O rvj •—i p- r- r- r- P- p-o a o o o o o o o o o o o o oooo o o o o o o CO CO O v) -O ^> sO Ul vO LP. vU o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c t\j —i <r H N p r~ <; I*- «0 vO o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OOOO Ci -7" -T CT X P- CP i LP sQ ' o o o o O O LJ o o o O O o o o o o c oooo o o J f| M Q iM P- VP- *c r— I— p-« o O CJ o o o o o o o O O O O CJ o O C O C' o o r- cr I'I -r --J -c m -r: r- o p-_ IJ- c:. o o o O O O o O o o O c o o o o o o CC A -J" O -J" C P- o O p» p- P-o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o PJ ip, CT* r\j *0 rvj »0 '0 <5 *0 -C o o o o <-J o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o X1 IT- v}- ^ r-l o -o vO r- >c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c vO O cr iPi O r-l 'O P- <; vO o o o o o o o o o o c o o oooo o- c oooo o c o tr o m r~> -r vU >D LP. vU vO O O O (_> o o o o o o o CJ o o o o o o 0 o o o c o 1 r*— -j- co p» -c -i) p- p" in o p~ » o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o c o o o o c PI LP P- « t'" O O vJ O L. • (/-' > cr L_> o c; - ._j u-» o r: ^ LL c PI ^ m iu N a (V r\i t'j r..' P.! P* rv ^ P'I I ooo ooo ooo ro ft-i P4 sO LP, -O ooo ooo ooo ooo cr IN ro •4- *T LP. ooo o o o ooo ooo ooo ooo cr so v.*-ir\ -4" in ooo ooo o c> o o o o ^ OO O LP LP ooo ooo ^- m PJ mm "i Ji — O a- co O o o o O o O r~A O O O ( O O ( O O ( C' o • o <I ' o c o o o o c o c o o- o o O CJ O *r 3-' ro m O f— -O P- o O o o t ' t_' o o ' o o O 1 • -i- LL 03 r~ r-• < rr* o LA . LJJ _ <; .j. O O Q o ooooo o o o o o O P- in 'J" n": O p- p- r~ ^ o o o o o o o o o O oooo oo o o o o o o o o m o °2 cr O P N CO -/J p ^ o o o o o o o o o c o o o O O O o ooooo (; o -vT cr- CL' o ir-p- "U >•£> sC -JJ O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o .j- vc cr —1 c p- o m P- P-o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o cr Cf <j- -JD o ^) IT. ^ P P o o o o o o ooooo o c o o o O CJ o o o o o o PJ sr p- o o ro <l LT O P vC ^1 o o o o o o o o O C") o o o o o o c c o- o o c o o PJ p- m o •--P- •<? P- cc -o P-L_t O ' >ooo o o o c c c o o o c c c o o o o o r •(., U"- r-j c p- <; p. -L p O c_> O (3: L,' _i LL a: a: ^> LO u z « a. ui ro vj- m vO P- cn PJ Pv! rvj rvj rvi pj o O o o o o o o o o o c: o o o o o o cc CD o IN ro r-j -o ir. o vO o 309 ooo o o o ooo ro o P* sc m LA o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c. " oooo o o m cr o ro LP vo P vC P P P -tl ooo o o o o o o o o o P- —I r-* •& *Q o o o o o o o o o o o o ooooo LJ O O L-» O O vU -iJ <; r— P~ vt) -u >c o in u' OOO OOO o o O ooo cr LO m vc m m ooo ooo o o o o o o o oooo o o o o o o o cr vc rn cr -o oo m oc <j '0 m1 ooo ooo ooo ooo ro co P-•0 LP. m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o -^ *T --c C' vC P- O -C LP sC ooo o o o ooo coo -4" P-o O t o o O i o o o o o o ( o o o o ~ o o o o o LO CO — ^ O O vO <: P- o LP <j ooo rf) vo cr •o -j- sr o o c o o o o o o c o c o o o o O O ' o o o o o c ' o o c ooo c. o o o o e O C3 o O O O rO U- O O O' r~ P- P- p-O O o r; c o OJ n o* <! vO LT-V,J I O t > tiC <: o C C UJU^ n: i- o —• < U C '"«. C «-"• O — Li. cr. o «i c: o <i V.I ^ P p LL* cr o rM -r i^. ro .~o ro ro o t- o. L-1 »"> — < ^1 TABLE XLV - (continued) 25 5 c ;--uc(< 26 5DT £PR 27 5EBLEV 26 6AG0LS 29 6BGLE V 30 6CGACR 31 7ACCNA 32 7BC0NC 2 5 5CAWAR. * 1 . CCOOO Zi 50TFPR * C.3CCCC * 1. OC 000 2 7 5E?.Lev 0.63( 30 * 0.7700" * l.GOCCO 2 8 6AG0LS C. 7100C * C. 76000 0.670U0 * 1.00000 -29 68GLEV f. .7 100 0 0.71000 C.61000 * 0.79000 * 1.COOOO 30 6CGACR C.73000 0.71000 0.63000 * 0.77000 0.76000 1.OOCOO 31 7 ACON A C.71000 0. 7200 0 C.67000 0.6 3000 0.71 000 * 0.75000 * 1.00000 3 2 73CCNC C.66000 0.72000 0.66000 0.73000 0.65C00 C.64C00 0.66000 * 1.00000 3 3 7C INFO 0.640CO 0. 70000 G.580OC 0.72 000 0.74000 0.64G00 0.62000 * 0.76000 34 £ARSCC 0.55000 0.58000 C. 590C0 0.67000 0.6S00O C.7Cf00 0.63000 0.73000 3 6 c 3 A B SC C.66000 C. 68000 0.57000 0.67000 0.69000 0.73C00 C.65000 0. 66000 36 aCViAST 0.570OC . 0.59000 0.430C0 0. 61000 0. 62 000 0.590C0 0.45000 0.66000 " 37 801 ASP C . 52000 0.54000 0.5700 0 0.62000 0. 62000 0.68CC0 0.51000 0.63000 3 3 70. ! NFC 24 EAPRCO 35 3E2GSC 36 EC»,AST 3 7 80 1 MSP 33 7C1NF0 * 1 .00000 C.71000 0.61000 O .67000 0.6 3000 34 8APP0D * 1.00000 0.64 000 0.7 2000 25 8EIABSC * 1.COOOO , 70000 36 8CWAST 1.00000 37 80INSP C. 73 COO 3.72000 0.69000 1.00000 O o o e: ro 3 3 C c+ H* O c+ > < e+ (0 tr* O W (B 4 X! O t-" <i < o M po 4 4 c+ H* H-fD O 3 3 ci ro o Hi < 5 o ro EIGEM.'ALLES 0.43S6C. ?C578 V ? A 1 1 1.02173 0.36544 0.005 5 9 0.347 77 .86792 .34144 0 .71017 0.32349 0.13533 0.66524 0.29184 11652 0.56496 0.26793 0.1C449 0.53333 •3 .25836 0.09583 0.47569 0.23581 0.0 80 32 0.C/5C1 C.0681 5 0. 05 37! C.04237 0.03343 0.02421 0.00812 CUMULATIVE PRQPCSTICN UE TGTJL VARIANCE C.676C3 C.7C373 0.73634 0. 76C37 0 .78428 0.60347 0.82145 C.8 36 72 C. 35113 0.86399 0.27576 C.88729 0. 39 72 7 C.90667 C.91590 0.92464 - 0 .93253 0.93977 0.94675 0.95313 0.95920 0.96466 0 .969 25 0.97351 0.97735 0.98101 0.9S417 0.98700 0.98959 0.99176 C . 9 9 3 7 8 .95563 FER CENT CF TOTAL VAR 1AHCE 6 7.60335 3.26 96 8 1.17730 1.15215 0.6C793 C • 545 12 C .59708 ACCOUNTED 2.76 143 C. 55850 0.45521 FOR 0.99822 E3Y EACH 2.44754 0.939 93 C.425E8 0.59913 FACTOR 2.3 4 574 0.922 80 0. 3.84 81 0 .99978 1.91938 0.87430 0.36575 1.00000 1.79795 0.78375 0.31600 1.52651 0.72413 0.28240 1.44143 0.69828 0 .25900 1.23564 0.63732 0.21709 0. 72 C. I 34 1 3 0.14516 0.11451 C.05036 0.06543 0.02193 t—1 v. _J > VP <t t— lA 2: - VP —• o CO —t "M P- O r— j- o vj- a: vr (MS a •? ^ «i <— tr co <i- o PT m s p a: co r O CJ c c o c < o ^ r H —1 «x) *?* r— m v- «o -< o tr, o t" <\ u~. & ^ CO -O CO r- r- CO '00^0 no cs) •—• rvj CT ao rn cr in m cc —. v) <• ~* o o sr o a- cr cc cc =0 r- r- r- r-o o o o o o o o vt o cr cr vt -o o vr o -3-(/' (T y) CM o cc 0 rt (M o r~ p P r- K P cc o c o o o o vj' rvj co co co -c —< r- m r- o r-lA in CM vt Cvj m fi CO CT' CC O cc >o r- r- r- r*-o o o c o o rvj w a> vO o c\J vO m cvj vO rn cvj m tr -0 CM vt vo cv et' cr c vt a*, r- r- cc cc r~ o o o o o o . o o o 0 o o ^ o c- o o 1 O C fJ C VJ O vJ c c 0 c c o c o ^ e rj o c o c o c 000^ L* O O CJ O O c- c. o CJ U D O OOOC. O O O v) O 1 C O O O O i 000001 • o o o o c o 1 ~< o o c- O 1 • CJ o o o o *. > o vj; c o o 1 5 O O '-J O O CJ O vj CJ O VJ O -J O C.j ' O O w o o 000 c; o c CJ O -_ ._• O C C C O C' u c c- o c O t_ VJ O CJ vj O CJ C C ^ O C- c vj <J o o c* o o o c o o o o o o c o c o o o o o o ^ -J-o CJ o c o O O O <->'._. cr- 1 coo< 1", OCC CJ CJ o C O C O C'J o o o 312 • CJ H- 0. u u. JJ rt KT. £- »_ rt -i' rt <* u <i Ci < i/l V,1 ti? O CJ C. U. < i rvj rv- iv ixj rn 1 M rn NT w> ^ N cn VJ o o c 1 PI fl l*i cn cr cj —• rv -, CJ ii* O <: CC > r"» PI r-> <]• J— -> a. a. O 1/1 <J ' rt UJ CJ c? f vJ O UJ < Ci •J -r IT u\ a IL j a1 u -J- _J C.1 —J -.1 v.) O <-• O u-if U. U 1^ to • u 2 IL ' vj — a- .-.-[ ;< rt VJ- <S Ci.: o CJ 1*** a.** co cc aj -r.- r- co o c: ~ j <v »*v P~J .NJ in P-J ! 1 4- -n -a , m m rr> <n TABLE XLVII Communality figures FACTOR-LCADI * INDICATES NGS MATRIX BEFORE POTATICN A VALUE OK EATER THAN OR EQUAL TO FACTOR 1 2 3 • C.70OOO VAR; I 2 3 4 5_ A 'j L E 2A"l!T! 23LSEO 2 C AT IT 2 UP ESP 0 .3197 0.3366 0 .7 7 76 0.3 18 5 .0-8375 -0.2723 -C.2304 -0.C596 -0.<257 -C.C535 0.0136 -0.1637 -0. 204 5 0.0692 0.1288 0.0850 C. 1 6C) 0.0606 768 0. 1508 0.1813 0.2560 0.0935 0. 17 2 3_ 6 I 3 9 10 JUL 2F3ATF 2ACf.fi.' 3P.n'JTN 3C10IN 3C 30AC JXJJJAJL. r. .3530 C.3 644 C . 3 5 7 1 0 .0054 C. 86 76 C. 1203 -O.Cl 03 0. C621 -0 .0 138 -0. 030 1 -0-I536 -J .0544 0. C 6 7 C 0.5 594 -0.1862 -Q.1554_ 236 -0.01C5 0.0792 0.0431 0.16 70 0.2C57_ 0. 0. -0. 0. 0758 0161 2365 0c42 -0 .0602 0-1743 -0.2302 -0.3004 -0. 2443 -0.1177 -0.1091 C .0258 12 I 2 14 15 16 3C2URE 30 3LT)S 3C4U-AC 2E £ACE 3CFn If 4 t A I N T 0 .3 34 1 C.7354 0 .36 36 C.7500 C.84C5 .0.5319, -0.1233 C. 13 12 C. 1592 0.1167 0.1151 -0-0 303 -0.0333 -0.1875 -O.C258 -0.3167 -0.C523 0. 1CE7 -0.0268 -0.C543 0.1032 0.(60 7 0.1164 -0.2177 0. 1 ] 35 -0.3387 -0.239C -*. 0205_ -0.0850 0. 1758 0.1945 -0.0975 0.0293 15 19 2C 21 22 _2JL 43 TEAS! 4 C I INF 4C2INR 40 IACT 4EEFST 5^2LQL_ C8763 0.7913 0.3 337 0.5043 0.3148 CS752 >6 7 2345 16 56 C763 1C5 7 if 0.0203 -0.1592 -0.1414 0.3230 -CI. 169 3 0.1346 2 4 25 26 27 2 8 _*2. 53 0 I.'.'E 5C. Ah'AR 50 VE PR SEE!. EV cAGCLS JJCJ_EV_ .7779 0 .3033 C.363C 0.7932 0.8 714 -C.C3C9 -0. 144 7 -0. 1623 -0.20 5 5 0.014 1 0.2 94 3 0.4 281 0.1894 0. C367 C .0023 0-1367 -0.2 26 -C. 1553 -O.I 504 -0. 0 64 i -0.137:> _z£^lAOj] 0.1496 -0.0137 C- .0 7 36 0.094 0 0.1139 --'•1442 30 2 1 32 33 24 6C GACR 7SCCNA 7SC0NC 7C If; EC! gar-» oo 3ilESC_ 0.8615 C.8 060 C . 8 2.4 1 0 .3 i 39 C.8C74 0.3CC7 00 4 3 1374 1617 2170 3165 0.C74 3 0.0 750 0.C374 -0 .0446 -0.1081 nib. 0.C922 -0 .0 594 -0.0899 -0.1843 0.1721 .. 0.213 -0. 0790 -i). 167 7 0.0513 0. C 2 1 3 0 .0307 •002 3 3 6 37 ac.uiST 3D ifiSp 0 .7u66 0.736 1 0.4267 C.4235 0. 1777 0.066 0 C.260 0.2307 . 252 1 0.0863 SUM CE SCUAREO FACTOR-LOADINGS DIVIDED 3Y SUM OF COMMUNA LI TI ES C.8620 0.C417 0.0352 0.0312 0.0299 M v. 31k APPENDIX L Table XLIX - Number of paired observations of climate dimensions (using factor dimensions) Table L - Means and standard deviations of factor climate dimensions (for related data see Table XXVII) . f- .-n Si r- to tr l c r- co r- r-4, -< rt -.0 rt ,'sj cv rv CM CM r\J CM - -) t^t CM rt _ CM rsf :\t tv . x cc, <r x •j pi r- ci <n r— i o'i r- <i, c* c\j ro tn PI *M iM uJ rt fri sO cr p" pp ;r < m ^ rt u~. • I IC H Ifl H , (ri ,-n rn (r, 01 PP. fp, PJ CM CM CM pg M CM eg CM PJ . I P-I CM CM Pj .—i • I -* O Pv» • -r, Pi CO :1 V Q: • pv. fn r*- cn I P.. CV *0 . P-1 \ cr ci '•n ' n M-; sf cn vo «j-PI >r'pi so p> p^/ m -<r ci rn CM O m rt- ' i pi -4" p"i r" vt PI Pj m ro cv pr. PV pj PI rv p., 'M , ' PJ P> CV CM CV — —' fM C f-' r^ • 1 V X P ' IT CC vr r> tr pn cr ;•" cr pp, p- c* -v CM o: ^ CP cp • ^< <v c ^ u; o. c. a --. i/'i io .*? >•—<——* o o o vo : - f, ! cu. a. ix -.D o c o • C O O • v-> o t; • u a a r.- • cc a rf- > > TABLE XLIX Number of paired observations of climate dimensions f nr.. PAIPEO •C 2S EPVATTLWS V A o l A P L £ CONOEO INTWMJ IMTWM2 INTWMO P'*CON 1 PRCOM2 PKCC1ND GLCGR1 GLCGP2 GLCGRD CONPfii v. ca-'ioto 1 7. ? INT^'l 16. 74. ^ I '!Trt.->2 1 4 . 17. 27 . IN rwMD 1 6. i 7. 1 7. 17. P.-: C.1M 16 . 74 . 17 . 1 7. 74. PPCC>;2 16. 1 7. 2 7 . 17. 17. 27. PPCO.'IO j 6 . 1 7. 17. 1 7. 17. 17. 17 . 16. 7 3. 17. 17. " 73. 17. 17. 73. Gl GOP? 16. 1 7. 27. ] 7. 17. 27. 17 . 17. 27. OI.CCFO 16 . 1 7. 17. 1 7. 17. 17 . 17 . ) 7. 17. 17. CiI'lc'P ! 1 6 . 74. 17. 1 7. 74. 17. 17. 73. 17. 17. 74. • "5. • 16. 26. 16. 16 . 26 . 16 . 16. 26. 16. 16. 1C . ! 4. 16 . 1 6. 16. 1 6. 16 . 16. 16. 1 6. 16. C-\3-J--1 16 . 72. 17 . 17. 72. 17. 1 7. 72. 1 7 . 1 7. 7 ? . • K'omp 16. 17. 27. 17. 17. 27 . 17 . 17. 27. 1 7. 17. I 6 . 17. 17. 17. 17. 17. 17 . 17. 17 . 17. 17. FROCf'l 16. 7} . 17 . 17. 71. 17. 17. 71. 17. 1 7. 71 . F";rc«2 ! 5 . 1 6. 26. 16. 16. 26 . 16 . ) 6. 26. 16. 16. FKLCO 15. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. r-i=.->Ki'" " ' - 14. 65. 15. 15. 65 . 15. 15. 6 5. 15. 1 5. 65. I\'F')P.2 !5. 1 6. 26. 16. 1ft. 26. 1 6 . 16. 26. 16. 16. INr VPO 13. 14 . 14. 14. 14. 14. 14. 14, 14. 14. 14. Cfl. VI 16. 71. 1 7. 17. 71 . 17. 17. 7! . 1 7. 17. 71. CECLV2 15. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26. 16 . 16. 26 . 16. 16. CECL VJ 15. 1 6 . 16. 1 6. 16. 16. 16. ! 6. 1 6. 16. 16. •NT:. P A I 2 £ C CBS FfcVAT I CIS VA'M A3LE CONPP2 CLTiPRE UPCOM1 UPC.nv,2 •JPCfJMD PROCHI PROG M2 PROCI-'O I NFOP.l I NFOP.2 INFORO COr: PP. 2 2 6. CO-'PC 16 . 1 6. ; I.PCCMI 1 6. 16. 72 . 2 6. 16. I !. 27. IJPCC:»3 16. 16. 17. 17. 17. F P CC f 1 16. : 4. 71 . 17. 17. 71 . •? r 2 26 . 16. 16. 2 6. 16. 16 . 26 . F^CC^D 16 . 16. 16. 16. 16. 16. 16 . ] 6. INF'H 1 14. 1 4. 65 . ) 5. 15. 64. 14. 14. 65. ' IMF:V2~" " - 26. • 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26 . 16 . 14. 26. i INFOLD 14. • 14 . 14. 14 . 14. 14. 14. 14. 14 . 14. 1-4. CECL VI 16. i 6. 71 . 17. 17. 70 . 16 . 16 . 64. 16. 14. CECLV2 26. 16. 16. 26. 16. 16. 26 . 16. 14. 26. 14. O'CLVO 1 6. 16. lo . 16. 16. 16. 16. 1 6. 14. 16. 14. NO." PAII-SC OB3 HP VAT ! UHS VA-.! ARLfc OECLV! 0FCLV2 GECLVO C6C.LV! 71. r.£CLV2 16 .' 26. OtCLVO 16. 16. 16 . ON c. a'. — c v~ -,r P- co c: IX PJ 13 r-5L ;>_ v < 3 C U U -iT <_< O O C CL CL Li. c/. 7J> ZO O *X UJ CO PJ O CA c o r~ iA cr • co cr- -J" PJ a P- r-. LP. <r ^- •£ W P m PI p- •-• co Is-p- .o & P- fvj -T ^ u-. m CO CP rv ,~ vj-' o m iO cc p- C (V p. fi PJ ^ ro —* rv C cc -C o LP- rvj f T -P — < P. f\J LP- O . \| r>"» —< PJ [ ' U Q L U J i U u, il X U it ? <: Lu c cr r-i r- o cc .*- O IPi LP. CC ti; PJ -O L"\ H O M LO i P.: cc vr c- ir -j- CP -3- --t < 4.- -o 0' iJ rvj M I'VJ i p- r- • .-x) •(-> PJ ; • ,~ C' PI « -.i ^: :J a m PJ r\i PI c\i PJ vC o pj co „ ^ c o -j- H V C « M D r-l L' Z ^ K Q'. tl*. 2 O O O O O-LJ CJ O ij CJ a a: -J J J u c a. cr- o ^ u rv! ~-« <•""• ^1 CT -P< f, -J* CV O r-< r\j Lj LL C_ a !L/ ILI LLI ^ 7 P C O TABLE L Means and standard deviations of factor dlimate dimensions APPENDIX M Survey Questionnaire as distributed with closed-end question responses indicated 319 SURVEY Company name thesis page 320 Page 1 IMPROVEMENT SURVEY INTRODUC TION The following survey questionnaire has been prepared for several reasons. The most important results to you will be the answers provided by you in Parts III and IV. First a brief description of the questionnaire. The first portion is background information whose chief value is in interpreting the results for the follow ing sections. If, for example, in Part II we ask a-question and exactly 50% say "no" and 50% "yes", reasonable inferences could not be drawn but, if on further checking, it is found that 95% of male clerical under 25 and 80% of engineers over 40 said "yes" while only 15% in other groups said "yes", some logical inference as to reasons for saying "yes" or "no" might be drawn. Part III of the questionnaire has been prepared in co-operation with the heads of the departments partici pating in the original survey. Essentially, these are items about which your department head would like your opinion. What has this got to do with you? Firstly, it can give your department head information on which to base decisions about many matters which affect the performance and ease of your job. Secondly, the results of Part III will be returned to all personnel in the department as well as the department head. Part IV will be questions of interest to the personnel department and are items which fall outside of the specific needs of the department head. General results from this section will also be distributed. The second section consists essentially of measurement tools which have been used by other researchers to find amongst other things, profiles of general organizational characteristics such as leadership styles, decision making processes, etc. Results from this part are for research purposes only and will not be distributed. It is intended to repeat this portion of the questionnaire some time after the results of Parts III and IV have been distributed. The main benefit of these two successive surveys will be to evaluate the usefulness of a Part III or IV survey. The results will also be used as part of Dave Young's Masters level thesis in Business Administration. For best results, of course, as large a response as possible from throughout the department is required. Your participation is purely voluntary. No one will know if you answer or not. The questionnaires them selves will never be made available to the company. The only results to be given to the company will be of a general nature indicating what responses were made and percentage or other.'statistical information covering the whole depart ment or results combining the responses from all departments. Besides Dave Young's personal word for this, you may feel better to know that rather severe sanctions by the University could be imposed on him and possibly on his advisor at U. B. C. for any inappropriate disclosure of confidential information. If you feel strongly that you do not wish to participate, you are free to dispose of the survey. The com pleted questionnaire should be placed in the stamped envelope supplied and mailed. INSTRUCTIONS - PARTS I, III, IV 1. For many questions, a check mark in the space provided is all that is required. 2. For questions requiring a written response, descriptive but brief answers will be best. 3. If you feel that longer answers or more items need to be listed, continue on the back of the questionnaire. 4. If a question is not applicable to you because of your job category etc. , place an "X" in the margin beside the question. 5. If a question is applicable, but you do not have an answer, simply leave it blank. 5. At the top of the next page there is a space for a nom de plume or code name. Make up any word or name you wish to use and fill in the space. Please make a point of remembering what your code name is so that you may use it again on a follow-up questionnaire. It is very important for statistical reasons that a paired comparison be made for some items that will appear on both questionnaires. Page 2 thesis page 321 • Please Remember your Code Name or Nom De Plume Nom De Plume or Code Name PART I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 10. 11. 12. Department BACKGROUND Combined Results Floor No. Building. Major project number. (current or most recent) If generally not associated with a specific project check here Age: <20 20-25 26-30. M 31-35 &8# 36-40_2j0^_ 41-45 20%-46-50 l6% 51-55 56-60_ 61-65 > 65 2%  Sex: Male. qit% Female O/O  Marital Status; Married 3M_ Single. 2% What is your position (check one) clerical 2% stenographer_2^_ draftsman 32%> engineer 32%> departmental management _2^S__ other, please specify section or project leader 30# Is your position: Supervisory. ko% Non-Supervisory. 60% Circle no. normally (or an average) supervised (directly or indirectly within this department) " ' "  ' Q% 8 k% 14 15' >15 > 20 k% 4- 12 12 17 k% 12 ^ 8 r 2 3 4 5*6 78 9 10 Your Education: (check one 11 12 13 post-graduate university high school graduation _ 8% 26% graduate university some high school Supplemental education other than indicated above 2k% _ (check if any) some university, no high school 28% Please indicate your total equivalent years of formal education including school, university, supplemental vocational, etc. • 10-24- years Please indicate degrees, if other than engineering. Please indicate nature of supplemental education if other than technical or engineering Recognized Qualifications: professional engineer. E.I. T. qualified for P. Eng. but not registered JJ5&. not qualified but near P. Eng. requirements others - please specify (e. g. H. N. C. , H. T. S. , etc. ) technologist. technician I . 1256 technician II technician III Number of professional organizations of all kinds (not including P. Eng. ) in which you hold membership. circle Number: 71 21 of4 those responding Total length of service with company (including all previous employment periods with company). < 6 mo. 2% < 1 year nvpr I yr. 8% nvPr p. 6% over 3 over 4 2% over512^_ M„ ft 10% nnr7 IH ovel82&% over 12 ove r 16 . Have you returned to this company after previous employment here? (check one) above service not broken. 66% above service broken once 323S _ aboTie service broken twice. above service broken 3 times. above service broken 4 times. .above service broken 5 times. above service broken>5 times. BE SURE TO FILL IN A CODE NAME or NOM DE PLUME AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE thesis page 322 Page 3 INSTRUCTIONS - PART II (A) 1. Please note that there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Work swiftly once you have grasped the method of recording your responses. Do not spend too much time on any one item, since we are interested in your first reaction to each statement. 2. For the following sequence of questions treat each item as a continuous variable from the extreme at one end to that at the other end. 3. For each question we would like you to provide 3 responses on the line below the item, (a) Fill a D in the space which, in your opinion, best describes your department. (b) Fill in a C_ in the space which, in your opinion, best describes the company (in general) outside your department. (c) Fill in an_I_(1 or I) in the space which, in your opinion, describes the ideal point, that is the point at which you would like your department to fall. EXAMPLE: Amount of Very substantial A moderate Relatively Co-operative Amount Amount Little None teamwork present | I I L_LJ I L_CJ I I_D__| \ I I I | I I I I | 4. Please attempt complete answers for all items. 1. Leadership pro cesses used (a) Extent to which superiors have confidence in subordinates Have no confidence and trust in subordinates PART II (A) Have condescending confidence and trust, such as master has in servant D - Department C = Company (in general) I = Ideal (department) Substantial but not complete confidence and trust; still wishes to keep con trol of decisions Complete confidence and trust in all matters _l L _|_ (b) Extent to which subordinates, in turn, have con fidence and trust in superiors #(c) Extent to which superiors behave so that subordi nates feel free to discuss import ant things about their jobs with their immediate superior •8<d) Extent to which immediate superior in solv ing job problems generally tries to get subordinates' ideas and opinions and make con structive use of them. Have no confidence and trust in superiors J I L Have subservient con fidence and trust, such as servant has to master I I I 1 I Substantial but not complete confidence and trust .J L Complete confidence and trust J I L Subordinates feel completely free to discuss things about the job with their superior Subordinates feel rather free to discuss things about the job with their superior J L_L Subordinates do not feel very free to discuss things about the job with their supe rior I l l l L Subordinates do not feel at all free to dis cuss things about the job with their supe rior J L Always get ideas and opinions and always tries to make constructive use of them .J I L Usually gets ideas and opinions and usually tries to make construc tive use of them .1 I L Sometimes gets ideas Seldom gets ideas and and opinions of sub- opinions of subordi-ordinates in solving nates in solving job job problems problems 2. Characte r of motivational forces (a) Underlying motives tapped thesis page 323 Page 4 (b) Manner in which motives are used Physical security, Economic needs and economic needs, and moderate use of ego some use of the motives, e. g. desire desire for status for status and achievement Economic needs and Full use of economic, status Fear, threats, punishment, and occasional rewards considerable use of status arid other major motives, e.g. , desire for new experiences and other major motives , as, for example, motivational forces arising from group goals 1_L Rewards and some actual or potential punishment Rewards, occasional punishment, and some involvement Economic rewards based on compensation system devel oped through participation; group participation and in volvement in setting goals, improving methods, apprais ing progress toward goals, etc. .J L 1 I I L *(c) »(d) Kinds develo organi a whol goals of attitudes ped toward zation as and its Amount of re sponsibility felt by each member of organization for achieving organization's goals Attitudes are strong ly favorable and provide powerful stimulation to behavior imple menting organi zation's goals Attitudes usually are favorable and support behavior implementing organization's goals J I I L Attitudes are some times hostile and counter to organi zation's goals and are sometimes favorable to .the organization's goals and support the behavior neces sary to achieve them Personnel at all levels feel real re sponsibility for -organization's goals and behave in ways • to implement them Substantial proportion of personnel, especi ally at higher levels, feel responsibility and generally behave in ways to achieve the organization's goals .J L Attitudes usually are hostile and counter to organization's goals Managerial person nel usually feel re sponsibility; rank and file usually feel relatively little responsibility for achieving organl-• zation's goals High levels of management feel responsibility; lower levels feel less; rank and file feel little and often welcome opportunity to behave in ways to defeat organization's goals *(f) 3. (a) $fr(e) Attitudes toward Favorable, co-other members of operative attitudes the organization throughout the organization with mutual trust and confidence Co-operative, reason- Subservient attitudes Subservient attitudes toward ably favorable attitudes toward superiors; toward others in organization; may be some competition between peers with resulting hostility and some condescension toward subordinates competition for status resulting in hostility toward peers; condescen sion toward subordinates superiors coupled with hos tility; hostility toward peers and contempt for subordi nates; distrust is wide spread I I I I .J I J L Satisfaction derived Relatively high satisfaction through out the organization with regard to mem bership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achievements Some dissatisfaction to moderately high satis faction with regard to membership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achievements Dissatisfaction to moderate satisfac tion with regard to membership in the organization, super vision, and one's own achievements Usually dissatisfaction with membership in the organi zation, with supervision, and with one' s own achievements J L J I L Character of com munication process Amount of inter- Very little action and com munication aimed at achieving organization's objectives Little Quite a bit Much with both individuals and groups J I I L .1 L thesis page ,324-Page 5 "^r^ O (b) Direction of information flow Downward Mostly downward Down and up Down, up, and with peers .J L #(c) Downward com munication: (1) Where initiated Initiated at all levels _! I L Patterned on com- Primarily at top or munication from top but patterned on com-• with some initiative at munication from lower levels top J I L •At top of organization or to implement top directive .] I L (2) Extent to ,•; which super iors willingly share infor mation with subordinates Provide minimum of Gives; subordinates only Gives information' information information superior needed and answers feels they need most questions ILL. Seeks to give subordinates all relevant information and all information they want •M(3) Extent to . which com munications are accepted by subordi nates (d) Upward com munication: (1) Adequacy of upward com munication Generally accepted, Often accepted but, if Some accepted and but if not, openly and not, may or may not be some viewed with candidly questioned openly questioned suspicion J I L Very little J L Viewed with great suspicion Limited Some A great deal J L J I I L (2) None at all Subordinates1 feeling of re sponsibility for initiating accurate up ward com munication along project lines # (3) Forces leading Virtually no forces Occasional forces to to accurate or to distort and power- distort along with many Relatively little, usually communicates "filtered" information and only when requested, may "yes" the boss J I I I L Some to moderate degree of responsi bility to initiate accurate upward c ommunic ation Considerable responsibility felt and much initiative; group communicates all relevant information J I I L distorted up ward informa tion, on projects ful forces to com municate accurately |_ I L_l L_ forces to communicate accurately Many forces to dis tort; also forces for honest communica tion Powerful forces to distort information and deceive superiors (4) Accuracy of upward com munication within de-partment(s) Accurate Information that boss wants to hear flows; other information may be limited or cautious ly given _l L__J l_ Information that boss Tends to be inaccurate wants to hear flows; other information is restricted and filtered J I L _L (e) Sideward com munication, its adequacy and accuracy with other engineering departments Usually poor because Fairly poor because of of competition, competition, corresponding hostility _l I L J L Fair to good Good to excellent (f) Sideward com munication, its adequacy and accuracy with other non-engineering departments Usually poor because Fairly poor because of of competition, competition corresponding hostility Fair to good Good to excellent ^g) Friendliness Usually very close Fairly close between superiors and subordinates thesis page 325 Can be moderately close if proper roles are kept Page 6 Far apart »<a) Character of interaction-influence process Amount and character of interaction Extensive, friendly interaction with high degree of confidence and trust Moderate interaction, often with fair amount of confidence and trust Little interaction and Little interaction and always usually with some with fear and distrust condescension by superiors; fear and caution by subordi nates _|_ *(b) Amount of co operative team work present Very substantial amount I I I I L A moderate amount .J I L Relatively little -I I L None -I L (c) Extent to which subordinates can influence the goals, methods and activ ity of their units and departments (1) As seen by superiors None Virtually none I I I I I I I I J L Moderate amount A great deal J I I L J I I L (2) As seen by subordinates None except through Little except through "informal "informal organization" organization" -J I I L J L Moderate amount directly Substantial amount directly (d) Amount of actual influence which superiors can exercise over the goals, activity and methods of their units and departments Believed to be sub stantial but actually moderate unless capacity to exercise severe punishment is present Moderate to somewhat more than moderate; especially for higher levels in organization Moderate to sub stantial, especially for higher levels in organization J L Substantial but often done indirectly, as, for example, by superior building effective interaction-influence system J L *(e) Extent to which an Highly effective effective structure structure exists exists enabling one part of organization to exert influence upon other parts enabling exercise of influence in all directions -I I L Moderately effective structure exists; influence exerted largely through vertical lines -I u Limited capacity exists; influence exerted largely via vertical lines and primarily downward J L Effective structure virtually not present J L 5. Character of dec is ion-making process (a) At what level in organization are decisions form ally made ? (b) How adequate and accurate is the information avail able for decision making at the place where the decisions are made ? Bulk of decisions at top of organization _L Policy at top, many decisions within pre scribed framework made at lower levels but usually checked with top before action _L J L Broad policy decis ions at top, more specific decisions at lower levels J I L Decision making widely done throughout organization, although well integrated through linking process pro vided by overlapping groups J L Information is gen erally inadequate and inaccurate Information is often somewhat inadequate and inaccurate Reasonably adequate and accurate information available Relatively complete and accurate information avail able based both on measure ments and efficient flow of information in organization _l L page 326 thesis Page 7 h (c) To what extent are decision makers aware of problems, par ticularly those at lower levels in the organization (d) Extent to which technical and professional knowledge is used in decision making Generally quite well aware of problems Moderately aware of problems Aware of some, un aware of others J L Often are unaware or only partially aware Used only if pos sessed at'higher levels _l I L Much of what is avail able in higher and middle levels is used Much of what is available in higher, middle and lower levels is used Most of what is available anywhere within the organi zation is used (e) Are decisions made at the best level in the organization as far as: availability of Overlapping groups the most ade- and group decision quate and accur- processes tend to ate information push decisions to a bearing on the decision point where infor mation is most adequate or to pass the relevant infor mation to the decision-making point I I I I I Some tendency for decisions to be made at higher levels than where most adequate and accurate information exists Decisions often made Decisions usually made at at levels appreciably levels appreciably higher higher than levels than levels where most where most adequate adequate and accurate and accurate information exists information exists (f) To what extent are Not at all subordinates in volved in decisions related to their work? Never involved in decisions; occasionally consulted (6) Character of goal setting or ordering •8(a) Mariner in which usually done J I L Usually are consul ted but ordinarily not involved in the decision making —I I I L Are involved fully in all decisions related to their work Except in emergen cies, goals are usually established by means of group partic ipation I I I L L_ Goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates of problems and planned action Orders issued, opportunity to com ment may or may not exist Orders issued .J L H{b) To what extent do the different hier archical levels tend to strive for high performance goals ? High goals sought by High goals sought by all levels, with lower higher levels but with levels sometimes occasional resistance pressing for higher by lower levels goals than top levels High goals sought by top and often resisted moderately by subordinates High goals pressed by top, generally resisted by subordinates (c) Are there forces to accept, resist, or reject goals ? .J L -L JL Goals are overtly accepted but are covertly resisted strongly Goals are overtly accepted but often covertly resisted to at least a moderate degree Goals are overtly Goals are fully accepted both accepted but at times overtly and covertly with some covert resistance thesis page 32? "* * ° ^ Page 8 7. Character of. con trol processes ijf (a) How accurate are the measurements and information used to guide and perform the con trol function, and to what extent do forces exist in the organization to distort and falsify this information? Strong pressures to obtain complete and accurate information to -guide own behav ior and behavior of Some pressure to pro tect self and colleagues and hence some pres sures to distort; information is only own and related work moderately complete groups; hence infor- and contains some mation and measure- inaccuracies ments tend to be complete and accurate Fairly strong forces exist to distort and falsify; hence measurements and information are often incomplete and inaccurate Very strong forces exist to distort and falsify; as a con sequence, measurements and information are usually in complete and often inaccurate -I l_ (b) Extent to which the review and control functions are concentrated Highly concentrated in top management .J I L Relatively highly con centrated, with some delegated control to middle and lower levels Moderate downward Review and control done at delegation of review all levels with lower units at and control proces- times imposing more vigor-ses; lower as well as ous reviews and tighter higher levels perform controls than top management these tasks -I I I J L (c) Extent to which there is an infor mal organization present and sup porting or oppos ing goals of formal organi zation Informal organiza tion present and opposing goals of formal organization -I L Informal organization usually present and partially resisting goals Informal organiza tion may be present and may either support or partially resist goals of for mal organization J I I I 1_ Informal and formal organi zation are one and the same; hence all social forces support efforts to achieve organization's goals (d) Extent to which control data (e.g., accounting, pro ductivity, cost, scheduling, etc.) are used for self-guidance or group problem solving by managers and non - supervisory employees, or used by super iors in a punitive, policing manner Used for policing and in punitive manner Used for policing coupled with reward and punishment, some times punitively; used somewhat for guidance but in accord with orders Used for policing with Used for self-guidance and emphasis usually on for co-ordinated problem reward but with some solving and guidance; not punishment; used for used punitively guidance in accord with orders; some use also for self-guidance J L J I (a) Pe rf o rmance characteristics Productivity Mediocre produc tivity Fair to good productivitity Good productivity Excellent productivity _L L _1_ L J L »(b) Excessive absence and turnover Low Moderate Moderately high Tends to be high when people when people are free are free to move to move _l L J_ (c) Lost or wasted time and effort Relatively high unless policed carefully Moderately high unless policed Moderate Members themselves will use measurements and other steps in effort to keep losses to a minimum •Jfr(d) Checking and inspection Useful to help people guide own efforts Useful as a check Useful for policing Necessary for policing thesis page 328 Page 9 - ' -'-f. 1 8 15 10 RESEARCH CODING PART II (B)  LEADERSHIP STYLE QUESTIONNAIRE Below is a list of items that may be used to describe your present (or most recent) project leader* and department head. Each item describes a specific kind of behaviour, but does not ask you to judge whether the behavior i desirable or undesirable. Consider each item as a separate description, even though several items may appear to be similar. DIRECTIONS: For each item indicate the frequency of his behavior by selecting a number from the following scale and inserting it, in the appropriate column, on the line beside the items: 5 = Always, 4 = Often, 3 = Occasionally, 2 = Seldom, 1 = Never NOTE: The term "group", as used in the items, refers to the department, division, or other unit of organization that is supervised by the person(s) being described. * "Project Leader" has been used only for convenience. We wish to have a description of the senior person the department (other than the department head) who normally supervises your project or work. If you are ' a "Project Leader" please leave this portion blank. 5 = Always, 4 = Often, 3 = Occasionally, 2 = Seldom, 1 = Never Project Dept. Leader Head IS-16 1. He lets group members know what is expected of them. 17-18 2. He is friendly and approachable. 1 9-7.0 3. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 7.1-72 4. He does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group. 7.3-74 5. He tries out his ideas in the group. 7.5-76 6. He puts suggestions made by the group into operation. 7.7-28 7. He makes his attitudes clear to the group. 79-30 8. He treats all group members as his equals. 31-3? 9. He decides what shall be done and how it shall be done. 33-34 10. He gives advance notice of changes. 35-36 11. He assigns group members to particular tasks. 37-38 12. He keeps to himself. 39-40 13. He makes sure that his part in the group is understood bythe group membe 41 -4? 14. He looks out for the personal welfare of group members. 43-44 15. He schedules the work to be done. 45-46 16. He is willing to make changes. 47-48 17. He maintains definite standards of performance. 49-10 18. He refuses to explain his actions. SI -5? 19. He asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations. S3-54 20. He acts without consulting the group. thesis page 329 C ° Page 10 PART III DEPARTMENTAL The following questions are ones that your department head is interested in having your answers: Design standards --Do you feel they are valuable in saving: drawing time YPS 96% No cost of contract and other specifications Yes 96% No Design standards -- Are they adequate? few are suitable ^/O some are. 39f» many are 31% .most are adequate. Design standards -- Do we have enough? far too many, too many k% about right ^7% too few 38% far too few_ 9% Design standards -- What should be the procedure for making changes, deletions and additions to standards? Please comment For questions 5 through 8 consider what you would tell a friend who was thinking about coming to work in this company. What do you feel is good about working in this department? ; : What do you feel is good about working for this company in general: What do you feel needs improvement in this department?. What do you feel needs improvement in this company ? . What advantages or disadvantages do you see in working for a consulting firm of this size? 22% - advantages only, 24$ - disadvantages only, 5k% - both Would you be interested in attending or developing a course for employees on company procedures, guidelines, functions,.etc. YpR 67% No 33% If "yes" above, what should this course include? Would you be willing to participate in night courses offered by the company in technical areas or management TRAINING? Y,„88« NO 12% Does your own immediate supervisor need more training on how to manage or supervise people? yes, a great deal 8% _ definitely. 31% a little 37i% none 23% What is the position of your immediate supervisor? (e. g. section leader, etc. ) What further information about this department would you find helpful? Which departments need more information about your departments function and requirements in order to facilitate communications and co-operation? Department thesis pagerf33pif--v •<*'•• <' 1 Page 11 ' 32. Do you feel that your performance is evaluated correctly? 33. What do you feel contributes most to poor work evaluation? thesis page- 331r Yes Jy/O Partially_ 52% No 9% Page 12 34. Do you feel you are given sufficient opportunity to learn so that your value (and evaluation) to the company is enhanced? i. s „ Yes 40% No 60% 35. Do you feel you are held back below your maximum capabilities? Yrs 20% Partially. 60% No CKJ'/o 36. Contact with immediate supervisor? a. far too much, cannot develop my own ideas b. too much, not enough freedom c. about right d. too little, do not get sufficient information _ e. far too little, do not know what is expected 37. Do you think there is sufficient reference material available? Very adequate 6% Adequate k7% Fair 27% Not enough 16% Fa r too little *t vo Check Only One 2% 38. What specific types of reference material do you feel needs improvement? 39. Do you use the company library for reference material? Yes 63% No 33% .Was not aware of company library facilities 40. What importance would you attach to field visits? Very important 57% Important 33% Minor importance 8% Unimportant _ 2% 41. If you had been asked to contribute one question to this survey - what would it be? 42. What would be your answer to that question? 43. What other comments about the survey would you like to make? thesis page 332. _ The following questions relate to items outside of your department. 1. Do you read the staff news? Yes 98% No 2% 2. Does the staff news talk about those things of interest to you? Yes 82% No 15% 2% partially 3. Would you like to see changes in the staff news? Yes 50% No 50% 4. If you answered "yes" above, please indicate what you feel should be changed (i. e. , additions, deletions, etc. ) 5. Do you understand our current fringe benefit programs? Yes 85% No 15% 6. If you answered "no" above, please indicate areas where you would like