Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Leadership style and organizational climate : a longitudinal study 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

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

Full Text

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY by DAVID ROBERT YOUNG B . A . S c , Un iver s i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION i n the Department of Commerce and Business Adminis trat ion We accept t h i s thes i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1973 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree th a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree th a t permission f o r extensive acknowledged copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood th a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department o f Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date / f 7 ? i ABSTRACT Leadership S ty le and Organizat ional Climate* A Longi tudina l Study 'Supervisor : D r . Richard T . Barth The e s sent i a l problem considered i n the thes i s i s the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between leadership s ty le and organiza t iona l c l imate . Though there have been c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies among leadership and climate va r i ab le s , there has been l i t t l e i f any sa t i s f ac tory work to v e r i f y the presumption that leadership s ty le i s causa l ly l inked to organiza t iona l c l imate . The inve s t i ga t ion made use of a questionnaire inc lud ing both leadership s ty le (LBDQ, I n i t i a t i o n of Structure (IS) and Considerat ion (C)) items and organizat iona l cl imate items (derived from The human organiza t ion . L i k e r t , 1967) which was d i s t r i b u t e d 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 re su l t s of the general survey were to be d i s - t r ibu ted to a l l pa r t i c ipant s and the study was also to evaluate changes i n climate that may have resul ted from such feedback. The study was conducted i n three departments of a large engineering consul t ing f i rm which has a task-force s t ruc ture . One department was not given the general survey or feedback i n order to act as a contro l group with respect to the check on induced change through feedback. i i The f i r s t survey was used to check upon the s t a t i c re l a t ionsh ip s between s t y l e and cl imate (both a p r i o r i and f ac tor ana ly t i c ) dimensions. M u l t i p l e regress ion analyses were used. The major t o o l to examine the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p was cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels along with dynamic cor- r e l a t i o n s . Also used were mul t ip le regress ion techniques with Time 1 c l imate dimensions independent and Time 2 leader- ship dimensions dependent f o r paired data on ly . The cl imate item re su l t s were also fac tor analysed fo r comparison with a p r i o r i dimensions as w e l l as comparison with a f ac tor analys i s of data from another source ( L i k e r t , 1 9 6 7 ) . The re su l t s provided only weak support of a change i n cl imate r e s u l t i n g from feedback of survey r e s u l t s . There were severa l instances where s i g n i f i c a n t re l a t ionsh ips between cl imate and leadership were found. For the f ac tor cl imate d i - mensions the most s i g n i f i c a n t re l a t ionsh ips were as fo l lows : pro ject leader IS - interaction-warmth goal congruence pro ject leader G - interaction-warmth performance and c o n t r o l communications department head IS - performance and c o n t r o l communications goal congruence department head G - interaction-warmth conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion goal congruence Both the cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panel c r i t e r i a and regress ion re su l t s pointed to the most s i g n i f i c a n t re l a t ionsh ips i i i between Time 1 c l i m a t e and Time 2 l e a d e r s h i p as f o l l o w s t . department head IS - c o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n - locus o f d e c i s i o n making - presence of i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n - performance and c o n t r o l communications department head C - upward communications - c o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n These r e s u l t s completely c o n t r a d i c t e d the r e s u l t s expected from the hypotheses on causal l i n k a g e s and, there was no i n d i c a t i o n of support f o r the hypothesis f o r any combination of s t y l e and c l i m a t e dimensions. The comparison of f a c t o r analyses on study data and L i k e r t data l e d to conclusions concerning the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n o r i e n t a t i o n or mental set o f employees i n one type of o r g a n i - z a t i o n and managers i n another type when cl i m a t e v a r i a b l e s are considered. The r e s u l t s o f the study pointed towards the question of "good" l e a d e r s h i p being a f u n c t i o n of f l e x i b i l i t y and the a b i l i t y to respond to cues presented by o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e v a r i a b l e s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I . I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Leadership S t y l e 1 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate 11 Causal R e l a t i o n s h i p s between Leadership S t y l e and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate 23 P l a n o f the Thesis 26 I I . Design o f the Study 29 D e s c r i p t i o n of the Subject Company 29 Circumstances of I n i t i a t i o n of the Study 34 Survey Questionnaire Design, a de- s c r i p t i o n Procedure f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n and Return o f the Questionnaire 41 Hypotheses to be t e s t e d 43 I I I . R e s u l t s . . . . . . 48 I n t r o d u c t i o n 48 F i r s t Survey 50 Second Survey - p r e l i m i n a r y 88 Factor Analyses 107 Second Survey r e s u l t s - f i n a l 134 IV. Conclusions and D i s c u s s i o n . . . . . . . . 170 Hypothesis 1 171 Hypothesis IA 173 Hypothesis 2 174 Hypothesis 3 175 Supplementary Findings 179 Future Study - t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s 185 D i s c u s s i o n 186 V. Summary 196 Design of the Study 196 Res u l t s 200 Conclusions and D i s c u s s i o n 204 V Page REFERENCES 210 APPENDICES A Schedule of events . . . . . . 217 B Modified in t roduct ion to F i r s t Survey for contro l group Introduct ion to Second Survey . . . . . . 219 C Computational procedures . . . . . . . . . 221 D Coding information and MVTAB re su l t s for open-end questions of Sect ion III . . . . 231 E Coding information and MVTAB re su l t s for open-end questions of Sect ion 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 f i r s t survey (for cor- r e l a t i o n matrix see Table VI) 289 H Table XXXIX - Matrix of number of paired observations, both surveys ( for cor- r e l a t i o n matrix see Table X I I ) . . . . . . 294 J Factor analys i s information for data from t h i s study 297 K Factor analys i s information for data from L i k e r t study . . . . . . 307 L Number of paired observations of cl imate dimensions (using factor dimensions) Names and standard deviat ions of fac tor climate dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 M Survey Questionnaire as d i s t r i b u t e d with closed-end question responses indicated . 318 v i Page LIST OF TABLES TABLE I F i r s t survey response rates . . . . . . . 50 II Climate item t - t e s t s , Dept. A . . . . . 55 III Climate item t - t e s t s , Dept. B . . . . . 60 IV Climate item t - t e s t s , Dept. C 65 V Climate item t - t e s t s , Combined r e s u l t s . 70 VI C o r r e l a t i o n matrix - Climate items, leader- ship scores, & a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions 76 VII Means and standard deviat ions - Climate items, leadership scores, & a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions • 80 VIII Regression r e s u l t s - cl imate dimensions dependent, leadership scores (Dept. heads only) independent • 82 IX Regression r e s u l t s - cl imate dimensions dependent, leadership scores independent 84 X Employee turnover between surveys . . . . 89 XI Second survey response rates . 90 XII C o r r e l a t i o n matrix - leadership scores and a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions with d i f f e r - ences - both surveys 92 XIII Mean leadership scores - both surveys . . 95 XIV Mean a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions - both surveys 98 XV Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - a p r i o r i dimensions, dept. heads 101 XVI Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - a p r i o r i dimensions, pro ject leaders • • . 103 v i i Tables (continued) Page XVII C o r r e l a t i o n s o f each v a r i a b l e w i t h f a c t o r s - Survey data . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9 XVIII Factor 1—INTWM - Interaction-warmth . . 114 XIX Factor 2—PRCON - Performance and c o n t r o l communications 116 XX Factor 3—GLCGR - Goal congruence . . . . 118 XXI Factor 4—CONPR - C o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n 120 XXII F a c t o r 5—UPCOM - Upward communications . 122 XXIII Factor 6—PROCM - P r o j e c t communications 124 XXIV Factor 7—INFOR - Presence o f i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 XXV Factor 8—DECMK - Locus of d e c i s i o n - making 128 XXVI C o r r e l a t i o n s of each v a r i a b l e w i t h f a c t o r s - L i k e r t data • 131 XXVII C o r r e l a t i o n matrix - l e a d e r s h i p scores and f a c t o r dimensions w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s both surveys 135 XXVIII Means of f a c t o r dimensions - both surveys 137 XXIX Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - f a c t o r dimensions, dept. heads . . . 139 XXX Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - f a c t o r dimensions, p r o j e c t l e a d e r s . . . . . . . 141 XXXI Regression r e s u l t s - l e a d e r s h i p scores dependent, a l l c l i m a t e dimension independent 145 XXXII Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n — IS dependent, cli m a t e dimensions independent, p r o j e c t leaders 148 XXXIII Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n — C o n s i d e r a t i o n de- pendent, c l i m a t e dimensions independent, p r o j e c t leaders 151 v i i i Tables (continued) Page XXXIV Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n — I S dependent, c l i m a t e dimensions independent, Dept. heads . . . 153 XXXV Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n — C o n s i d e r a t i o n dependent, climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads 156 XXXVI Regression r e s u l t s — T i m e 2 l e a d e r s h i p scores dependent, Time 1 c l i m a t e d i - mensions independent, Dept. heads • • . 165 XXXVII Stepwise r e g r e s s i o n — T i m e 2 IS dependent, Time 1 c l i m a t e dimensions independent, Dept. heads 166 XXXVIII M a t r i x o f number of p a i r e d observations, f i r s t survey • 290 XXXIX M a t r i x of number of p a i r e d o b s e r v a t i o n s , both surveys 295 XL Eigenvalues, cumulative p r o p o r t i o n of va r i a n c e , per cent of t o t a l variance . . 298 XLI Communality f i g u r e s . . . . . . 299 XLII F a c t o r - l o a d i n g matrix before r o t a t i o n . . 300 X L I I I Ordered f a c t o r - l o a d i n g matrix a f t e r r o t a t i o n . . . . . 301 XLIV Reordered c o r r e l a t i o n matrix 302 XLV O r i g i n a l L i k e r t matrix used 308 XLVI Eigenvalues, cumulative p r o p o r t i o n of va r i a n c e , per cent o f t o t a l variance . • 311 XLVII Communality f i g u r e s 312 XLVIII F a c t o r - l o a d i n g matrix before r o t a t i o n . . 313 XLIX Number o f p a i r e d observations o f c l i m a t e dimensions • • . • 315 L Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s o f f a c t o r c l i m a t e dimensions 317 i x Page LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Average c l i m a t e item values - Dept. A . . . 53 2 Average d i f f e r e n c e s i n climate values Dept. A 54 3 Average climate item values - Dept. B . . 58 4 Average d i f f e r e n c e s i n cli m a t e values Dept. B 59 5 Average climate item values - Dept. C . . 63 6 Average d i f f e r e n c e s i n cli m a t e values Dept. C 64 7 Average cl i m a t e item values - A l l Depts. . 68 8 Average d i f f e r e n c e s i n cli m a t e values A l l Depts 69 9 Eigenvalues vs no. of f a c t o r s I l l 10 I n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e vs I n t e r a c t i o n - warmth - P r o j e c t leaders 149 11 I n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e vs Goal congruence - P r o j e c t l e a d e r s 15° 12 Co n s i d e r a t i o n vs Interaction-warmth - P r o j e c t l e a d e r s . 152 13 IS vs Performance and c o n t r o l communications Dept. heads 155 14 Co n s i d e r a t i o n vs Interaction-warmth - Dept. heads 159 15 Con s i d e r a t i o n vs Goal congruence - Dept. heads 160 16 C o n s i d e r a t i o n vs C o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n . l 6 l X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to f i r s t thank the company and i t s executive o f f i c e r f o r a l l o w i n g me to conduct the surveys and f o r d e f r a y i n g the costs of p r i n t i n g and m a i l i n g o f the qu e s t i o n n a i r e s . I also thank the department heads i n v o l v e d with the surveys, p a r t i c u l a r l y the head of the personnel department, as w e l l as a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s , f o r t h e i r con- s i d e r a t i o n and patience. P r o f e s s o r s L a r r y L. Cummings, Kenneth R. MacCrimmon, Vance F. M i t c h e l l and Gordon (Skip) A. Walters, who acted as the expert panel f o r determining the l a b e l s f o r the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s derived c l i m a t e dimensions, also deserve my thanks. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my ad v i s o r , Dr. Richard T. Barth, f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h the design of the experiment. DEDICATION This work i s dedicated to both my Parents and my wi f e , Evangeline, a l l of whose l a s t i n g patience has allowed me to indulge my penchant f o r education. 1 CHAPTER I Introduct ion This thes i s examines the re l a t ionsh ip s between leader- ship s ty le s and organizat ional c l imates . In order to indicate the relevance of each category of var iab les to broader aspects of the study of organizat ions , a b r i e f review of the major developments i n the respect ive subject areas w i l l be undertaken. At the same time, hopeful ly c l a r i f y i n g statements w i l l be made on what the terms leadership s ty le and organiza t iona l climate re fe r to i n the remainder of the t h e s i s . At the end of t h i s chapter the importance of studying the re l a t ionsh ip s between these var iab le s w i l l be explained along with the general goals of the research. Leadership S ty le "Leadership appears i n s o c i a l science l i t e r a t u r e with three major m e a n i n g s » as the a t t r ibute of a p o s i t i o n , as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a person, and as a category of behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p . 301)." Few would disagree that "When people are influenced to engage i n organ iza t iona l ly relevant behavior, leadership has occurred (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 3 0 9 ) . " Influence has a d e f i n i t e power connotation, that i s to say, some form of power i s required i n order to have in f luence . F ive sources of influence as suggested by French and Raven (1959) 2 are leg i t imate power, reward power, punishment power, referent power and expert power. Legitimate power i s what would normally be thought of as the a t t r ibute of a p o s i t i o n . To the extent that a l l members of an organizat ion exercise some degree of inf luence , a l l mem- bers are leaders . Normally, i n t h i s the s i s , the focus of a t tent ion w i l l be upon the leadership s ty le of leg i t imate leaders . This w i l l preclude d i scuss ion of an ever growing l i t e r a t u r e on small group dynamics with i t s development of leadership concepts (e .g . Bales , 1970; Bowers & Seashore, 1966; Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Though there i s great var i e ty i n the degree of leg i t imate power a t t r ibutab le to a p o s i t i o n the in te re s t w i l l be i n the di f ferences amongst leadership s t y l e s , given the same degree of p o s i t i o n or leg i t imate power. Leadership as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of persons was once a major research i n t e r e s t . The in teres t focussed upon the t r a i t s and/or persona l i ty c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of successful leaders . In a comprehensive review of the subject S t o g d i l l (1948) indicated the contradictory nature of d i f f e rent study re su l t s and con- cluded that the " f indings provide 'devastating evidence• against the concept of the operation of measurable t r a i t s i n determining s o c i a l in terac t ions (p. 65)." Though t r a i t - o r i e n t e d studies have continued with some s h i f t towards perceived as opposed to object ive measures of personal i ty a t t r ibute s (e .g . C l i f f o r d & Cohn, 1964) a major s h i f t i n the o r i e n t a t i o n of leadership studies was developing. 3 The development of the Leadership Behaviour D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire (LBDQ) during the Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y l e a d e r s h i p s t u d i e s ( S t o g d i l l & Coons, 1957) was one r e s u l t of the s h i f t i n o r i e n t a t i o n and has a f f e c t e d a l a r g e p o r t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p r e - search up to the present time. S p e c i f i c a l l y they concentrated on "(1) What does an i n d i v i d u a l do while he operates as a l e a d e r , and (2) How does he go about what he does? (Hemphill & Coons, 1957)." Most w i l l recognize the terms I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e (IS) and C o n s i d e r a t i o n (C), which were the two major dimensions of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e t h a t flowed from t h i s extensive and w e l l conducted research. One should not f o r g e t , however, the f o l - lowing a d d i t i o n a l dimensions which r e s u l t e d from the c o n t i n u i n g s t u d i e s of leader behaviour: r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , demand recon- c i l i a t i o n , t o l erance of u n c e r t a i n t y , persuasiveness, t o l e r a n c e of freedom, r o l e assumption, production emphasis, p r e d i c t i v e accuracy, i n t e g r a t i o n , and s u p e r i o r o r i e n t a t i o n . As there i s some v a r i a t i o n , the d e f i n i t i o n of IS and C as used i n t h i s study i s shown below: Co n s i d e r a t i o n "includes behavior i n d i c a t i n g mutual t r u s t , r e s p e c t , and a c e r t a i n warmth and rapport between the s u p e r v i s o r and h i s group. This does not mean that t h i s dimension r e f l e c t s a s u p e r f i c i a l •pat-on-the-back,' ' f i r s t name c a l l i n g * k i n d of human r e l a t i o n s behavior. This dimension appears to emphasize a deeper concern f o r group members' needs and i n c l u d e s such behavior as a l l o w i n g sub- or d i n a t e s more p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making and encouraging more two-way communication." I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e " i n c l u d e s behavior i n which the s u p e r v i s o r organizes and d e f i n e s group a c t i v i t i e s and h i s r e l a t i o n to the group. Thus he d e f i n e s the 4 r o l e he expects each member to assume, assigns t a s k s , plans ahead, e s t a b l i s h e s ways of g e t t i n g t h i n g s done, and pushes f o r production. This dimension seems to emphasize overt attempts to achieve o r g a n i z a t i o n goals (Fleishman and H a r r i s , 1 9 6 2 , pp. 4 3 - 4 4 ) . " These two dimensions have been used i n a very l a r g e number of s t u d i e s i n r e l a t i o n to a multitude of v a r i a b l e s , though most o f t e n w i t h group s a t i s f a c t i o n and/or performance v a r i a b l e s . The landmark review by Korman (1966) pointed out "that very l i t t l e i s known of how these v a r i a b l e s may p r e d i c t work group performance and the c o n d i t i o n s which a f f e c t such p r e d i c t i o n s . At the current time we cannot even say that they have any p r e d i c t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e at a l l (p. 3 6 0 ) . " Before con- c l u d i n g the d i s c u s s i o n of IS and C i n subsequent s t u d i e s , a research program along somewhat d i f f e r e n t l i n e s but wi t h important i m p l i c a t i o n s and i n f l u e n c e i n l a t e r IS and C s t u d i e s w i l l be considered. The esteem f o r the l e a s t p r e f e r r e d co-worker (LPC) scores o f l e a d e r s appears to be very u s e f u l i n p r e d i c t i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y of groups. F i e d l e r ( 1 9 6 ? ) has claimed that t h i s score r e f l e c t s the degree of task or people o r i e n t a t i o n on a s i n g l e s c a l e , though these o r i e n t a t i o n s would be considered (by many) as orthogonal or un r e l a t e d (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972) when measured with the LBDQ. More r e c e n t l y F i e d l e r has been quoted as i n d i c a t i n g t h a t "the LPC score r e f l e c t s a h i e r a r c h y o f goals (Hunt, 1 9 7 1 t P» 4 7 7 ) . " At a recent seminar (October, 1971) at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, F i e d l e r was i n c l i n e d to 5 back o f f from a r i g i d or well sp e c i f i e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the score because i t has never correlated very highly with any other psychological measures. I f one assumed that most people had been exposed to s i m i l a r degrees of inappropriate behaviour by l e a s t preferred co-workers the LPC score could r e f l e c t a tolerance f o r inappropriate behaviour which would carry with i t consequences for d i f f e r e n t behaviours i n d i f f e r e n t situations as discussed below. At the seminar mentioned above, F i e d l e r noted that i n c e r t a i n situations high LPC score persons could be expected to respond i n a "consideration" manner while low LPC score persons could be expected to act i n an " i n i t i a t i o n of structure" manner. With suitable changes i n s i t u a t i o n , reverse responses from high and low LPC score persons could be anticipated. I f d e f i n i t e evidence of t h i s phenomenon can be presented i t could e s t a b l i s h a useful linkage between a personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c (LPC) and s o c i a l action. In a recent study Sashkin (1972) indicates a r e l a t i o n s h i p between LPC and the extent of information sharing behaviour by leaders. The more important published work of F i e d l e r (196?) i s 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 s i t u a t i o n 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 r e l a t i o n s , " "task s t r u c t u r e " , and " p o s i t i o n power". While the l a t t e r two v a r i a b l e s are more or l e s s o b j e c t i v e l y measurable s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s the f i r s t can be considered as a s u b j e c t i v e summary dimension of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e . The model would appear to be u s e f u l , though the st u d i e s by Graen, O r r i s , and Alvar e s (1971a) and the subsequent d i s c u s s i o n s ( F i e d l e r , 1971a; Graen, O r r i s , & A l v a r e s , 1971b) leave some questions as to i t s general value. For more current d i s c u s s i o n and study o f the contingency model S h i f l e t t and Nealy (1972), F i e d l e r (1971b, 1972a, 1972b), Sashkin (1972), and Csoka and F i e d l e r (1972) should a l s o be consulted. I t should be noted t h a t much of the research of F i e d l e r and others t e s t i n g the contingency model has confined i t s e l f to s p e c i f i c short range group tasks r a t h e r than more general long range or m u l t i - pl e task s i t u a t i o n s found i n working environments where a b i l i t i e s i n planning, o r g a n i z i n g , and c o n t r o l l i n g may w e l l be as important to group performance as " l e a d i n g " . S e v e r a l aspects of the LPC score research r a i s e im- portant p o i n t s i n the study of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The use of personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n determining behaviour should not be overlooked. One might ask i f t o l e r a n c e f o r freedom, or t o l e r - ance f o r ambiguity might provide s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p such as LPC scores do wi t h behaviour and with group performance out- comes. More important i s the evidence t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i - ables such as task s t r u c t u r e w i l l have an impact on what r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l e x i s t between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and outcome 7 variables such as group performance. Returning to the development of the use of LBDQ d i - mensions we can examine the s h i f t i n emphasis a f t e r the 1966 reviews of leadership studies (e.g. Korman, 1966; Anderson, 1966). Since that time there has been more detailed study of relationships between I n i t i a t i o n of Structure and Consideration (e.g. Lowin et a l , 1969? House et a l , 1971) as well as more careful study of the chain of influence from leadership s t y l e to organizational outcomes such as performance, high morale, or s a t i s f a c t i o n . There has also been a recent i n t e r e s t i n the orthogonality of the two dimensions (Weissenberg & Kavanagh, 1972; Kavanagh, 1972). The study by Evans (1970) on the e f f e c t s of s t y l e upon path-goal relationships i s an example of the trend i n the study of causal linkages. In t h i s paper Evans indicates that degrees of leader I n i t i a t i o n of Structure and/or Consider- ation w i l l have e f f e c t s upon perceived path-goal instrumental- i t i e s . Yukl (1971) points out a dimension c a l l e d "decision- c e n t r a l i z a t i o n " as being an important leadership style (or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) . This dimension, which ref e r s to the degree of decision power given to subordinates, may well correspond to tolerance of freedom or r o l e assumption from the LBDQ question- naire. Yukl indicates that d e c i s i o n - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l be orthogonal to I n i t i a t i o n 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 f i v e by the a d d i t i o n of "managerial behaviors i n v o l v i n g the f u n c t i o n s of planning, o r g a n i z i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g , as w e l l as l e a d i n g (p. 12)." The f i v e f a c t o r s — g r o u p achieve- ment and order, personal enhancement, personal i n t e r a c t i o n , dynamic achievement, and s e c u r i t y and maintenance—seem to pro- vide some d i v i s i o n of I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e and C o n s i d e r a t i o n dimensions r a t h e r than j u s t being an a d d i t i o n to them. According to Wofford, the relevance of these dimensions w i t h respect to morale and p r o d u c t i v i t y seems to vary w i t h v a r i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n - a l c l i m a t e s , but there i s l i k e l y to be a requirement f o r more extensive t e s t i n g before these dimensions can enjoy the wide acceptance accorded the LBDQ ones. The r e q u i r e d p r e c i s i o n i n d e f i n i n g the Wofford dimensions may p o s s i b l y make them l e s s u s e f u l i n c o n s u l t i n g or management t r a i n i n g as they exclude the shorthand p r e s c r i p t i o n . The i n t e r v e n i n g c l i m a t e f a c t o r s may, to a g r e a t e r extent, have to be accounted f o r when p r e s c r i b i n g i d e a l l e a d e r s h i p a c t i o n when u s i n g these dimensions. Perhaps the most important recent development i n l e a d e r - s h i p theory has been the work of Robert J . House (1971) i n developing a comprehensive path goal theory of leader e f f e c t i v e - ness. From a broad c l a s s of previous expectancy theory of m o t i v a t i o n and h i s f o r m u l a t i o n of m o t i v a t i o n r e l a t e d to expect- ancy theory, House d e r i v e s f o u r general p r o p o s i t i o n s as followss 1. The m o t i v a t i o n f u n c t i o n s of a leader are to increase the net p o s i t i v e valences a s s o c i a t e d w i t h work-goal attainment, increase the net p o s i t i v e valences a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the p a t h — b e h a v i o r — t o work-goal attainment, and 9 increase the subordinate 's path instrument- a l i t y with respect to work-goal attainment for personal outcomes and the behavior required for work-goal attainment. . . . 2. In increas ing path ins trumenta l i ty by c l a r i f y i n g path-goal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the leaders behavior w i l l have pos i t i ve motivat ional ef fects to the extent that i t reduces r o l e ambiguity or makes poss ible the exercise of ex terna l ly imposed c o n t r o l s . . . • 3» When leader attempts to c l a r i f y path-goal r e l a t ionsh ip s are redundant with e x i s t i n g condi t ions , that i s , where path-goal r e l a t ionsh ip s are apparent because of the rout ine of the tasks or object ive system- f ixed cont ro l s , attempts by the leader to c l a r i f y path-goal r e l a t ionsh ip s w i l l r e s u l t i n increased externa l ly imposed contro l and w i l l be seen by subordinates as redundant. . . . 4. Leader behavior d i rec ted at need s a t i s - f ac t ion of subordinates w i l l r e s u l t i n increased performance to the extent that such s a t i s f a c t i o n increases the net pos i t ive valence associated with goal d i rec ted e f for t (p. 323). House indicates that " s p e c i f i c hypotheses concerning leader cons iderat ion , i n i t i a t i n g s t ructure , closeness of super- v i s i o n , h i e r a r c h i c a l in f luence , and authori tar ianism can be derived (p. JZk)H from these general propos i t ions . He gives eight s p e c i f i c hypotheses as examples, where the ef fects of Considerat ion and I n i t i a t i o n of Structure are pred ic ted . These pred ic t ions take into account task demands (rout ine-nonroutine) , p o s i t i o n power, i n t r i n s i c job s a t i s f a c t i o n , task-role demands (ambiguous or c l e a r ) , the state of teamwork norms, and task and/or environment induced f r u s t r a t i o n or s t re s s . The outcome 10 expectations concern ego protec t ion and secur i ty as wel l as s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance. With the a id of the general proposi t ions and hypotheses the reasons for previous ly un- explained f indings are c l a r i f i e d . In a ser ie s of three studies general support for the hypotheses was found by House (1971). Though the framework and vocabulary are d i f f e rent i n the House theory noted above and the F i e d l e r (1967) contingency model discussed prev ious ly , some rather s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l s or s i m i l a r i t i e s should be noted. The "leader-member r e l a t i o n s " dimension of F i e d l e r which emphasises t rus t and confidence i s c e r t a i n l y comparable to House's dimensions concerning the state of teamwork norms though i n the House studies t h i s dimension i s not considered most important. F i e d l e r ' s "task s t ruc ture " appears to have been div ided into more dimensions by House when he considers task demands, task-role demands, i n t r i n s i c job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and task induced f r u s t r a t i o n or s t res s . The use of a p o s i t i o n power factor i s common to both t h e i r approaches. With a more elaborate considerat ion of " t a sk- s t ructure" and a more comprehensive and more comprehendable statement of r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n terms of basic motivat ion and expectancy theory the House formulations would appear to be eminently superior i n explanatory power as wel l as provid ing more e a s i l y testable hypotheses i n further research i n the re l a t ionsh ip s between leadership s ty le and group s a t i s f a c t i o n and performance. The f indings of F i e d l e r with respect to re l a t ionsh ip s between personal a t t i tudes or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and leadership behavior 1 1 would a l so deserve fur ther a t t e n t i o n . In more recent reports House and Rizzo ( 1 9 7 2 ) ind ica te that r o l e ambiguity and ro le c o n f l i c t s are s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - vening or moderating var iables between leadership s t y l e and group performance or s a t i s f a c t i o n . They p a r t i c u l a r l y note the more important nature of-.role ambiguity i n t h i s regard. This evidence would, i n a bread sense, provide support fo r the House theor ie s . Though t h i s b r i e f review of leadership s t y l e has been confined p r i m a r i l y to the development of leadership s ty l e as exemplified by the LBDQ dimensions, the importance of th i s aspect of leadership study has c e r t a i n l y been ind ica ted . Though the emphasis has been upon leadership as a category of behaviour, leadership as an a t t r ibu te of p o s i t i o n or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a person can not be completely neglected. For more information on broader aspects, the organizat iona l leadership issue of Adminis trat ive Science Quarterly (March, 1 9 7 1 ) , which also con- ta ins abstracts of recent ASQ a r t i c l e s relevant to leadership behaviour, or the presentations at the Southern I l l i n o i s Uni- v e r s i t y Symposium on Development i n the Study of Leadership held i n A p r i l 1 9 7 1 should be consul ted . Organizat ional Climate Before re turning to a d i scuss ion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of leadership s ty l e to organiza t iona l cl imate a separate review of developments i n the study of organizat iona l cl imate appears i n order . The term organiza t iona l cl imate (or environment) has 12 "been used l o o s e l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e , without d e t a i l e d d e f i - n i t i o n , f o r a very l o n g time. This has been p a r t i c u l a r l y true i n case s t u d i e s or where explanations of changing experimental r e s u l t s were made by a t t r i b u t i n g the changes to d i f f e r e n t s i t u - a t i o n a l f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i m i l a r experiments or s t u d i e s conducted i n d i f f e r e n t circumstances. ' The c l a s s i c experiment of Lewin, L i p p i t t and White (1939) on the e f f e c t s of democratic, l a i s s e z - f a i r e , and a u t o c r a t i c s o c i a l c l i m a t e s i s one of the e a r l y attempts to manipulate c l i - mate as an independent v a r i a b l e . From th a t time onward a slow growth of va r i o u s conceptual n o t i o n s of the term c l i m a t e were growing. A r g y r i s (195?) pointed out one major source of disa g r e e - ment among those c o n s i d e r i n g c l i m a t e d e f i n i t i o n s which, to a major extent, s t i l l e x i s t s . He i n d i c a t e d t h a t the l e v e l of a n a l y s i s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory would a f f e c t one's viewpoint on what were r e l e v a n t dimensions. He speaks of "formal o r g a n i z - a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s such as p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s , and job de- s c r i p t i o n s . • .", p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s such as needs, a b i l i t i e s , v a l u e s , s e l f - c o n c e p t and defenses . . .", and "inf o r m a l v a r i a b l e s t h a t have a r i s e n out of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' c o n t i n u i n g s t r u g g l e to adapt to the formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . (pp. 501-502)." S e l l s (1963) developed an " o u t l i n e of Basic aspects of the T o t a l Stimulus S i t u a t i o n " but emphasized the requirement f o r o b j e c t i v e measures as opposed to perceived measures i n apparent d i s r e g a r d f o r the viewpoint t h a t many determinants o f i n d i v i d u a l behaviour 13 are re la ted to i n d i v i d u a l perceptions rather than to actual circumstances. Interest i n cl imate dimensions grew more qu ick ly a f ter 1 9 6 4 when Forehand and Gilmer ( 1 9 6 4 ) brought various conceptual notions together i n a comprehensive review i n d i c a t i n g the nature of dimensions that would be useful and how they could be de- veloped. Their d e f i n i t i o n of organiza t iona l cl imate was suf- f i c i e n t l y broad to include most meanings a t t r ibuted to i t by various w r i t e r s . They re ferred "to the set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that describe an organizat ion and that (a) d i s t i n g u i s h the organizat ion from other organizat ions , (b) are r e l a t i v e l y en- during over time, and (c) inf luence the behavior of people i n the organizat ion (p. j6j),H Forehand and Gilmer ( 1 9 6 4 ) also discussed three mechanisms by which organiza t iona l climate could be expected to af fect behaviour. The d i scuss ion has been rather n i c e l y encapsulated by Campbell et a l ( 1 9 7 0 ) i n the fo l lowing quotat ion: 1 . D e f i n i t i o n of s t i m u l i . Environmental character- i s t i c s such as the s tructure of an organizat ion , the i m p l i c i t theories held by i t s management, or the economic condi t ion of the industry have considerable inf luence on the relevant s t i m u l i which impinge on an i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s work r o l e . For example, a shr inking market may e l i c i t managerial s k i l l s associated with holding cost down, preventing waste, and increas ing market share rather than those concerned with increas ing production and developing new products . 2. Constra ints upon freedom. Cer ta in a t t r ibute s of the s i t u a t i o n may ac tua l ly prevent c e r t a i n behaviors from occurr ing . The structure of the organizat ion may place a number of r e s t r a i n t s on management communication or the degree of Ik autonomy. Such s t r u c t u r a l l y imposed c o n s t r a i n t s may be e i t h e r d e l e t e r i o u s or f a c i l i t a t i v e r e l a t i v e to performance e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 3« Reward and punishment. Besides i n f l u e n c i n g what s o r t s o f s t i m u l i w i l l be perceived and what types of responses are permitted, the environment can a l s o s p e c i f y the reinforcement contingencies f o r v a r i o u s managerial behaviors. I t seems i n t u i t i v e l y obvious t h a t the s i t u a t i o n should help determine the behavior-reward contingencies i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n . For example, a manager i n a very autonomous o r g a n i z a t i o n would make much broader d e c i s i o n s without c o n s u l t i n g h i s s u p e r i o r than a comparable manager i n a very nonautonomous o r g a n i z a t i o n . The s i t u a t i o n i s one i n which a great d e a l o f independent a c t i o n i s rewarded. Supposedly, a l a c k o f independent a c t i o n would be punished i n some f a s h i o n (p. 3 8 7 ) . By the time o f the Harvard conference on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate ( T a g i u r i & L i t w i n , 1968) the preference f o r more pre- c i s e and narrower d e f i n i t i o n s was evident. As T a g i u r i ( 1968) pointed out, there are s t i l l common and stubborn d i f f i c u l t i e s standing i n the way of a general consensus of o p i n i o n J "a. d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e e n v i r o n - ment j " has been the most s e r i o u s problem and a f f e c t s most other i s s u e s , "b. d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the person and the s i t u - a t i o n ; " causes much disagreement. For example, n Achievement and s i m i l a r "personal" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are d i f f i c u l t to sepa- r a t e from c o n t i n u i n g environmental f a c t o r s which a f f e c t these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , "c. determining which aspects of the e n v i r o n - ment need to be s p e c i f i e d ; " b r i n g s forward problems of relevancy to general s i t u a t i o n s and the p r a c t i c a l problems of having to l i m i t the number of v a r i a b l e s one i s to consider, "d. i d e n t i f y - i n g the s t r u c t u r e s and dynamics of the environment (p. 1 3 ) " i s 1 5 the l a s t of the problems e l i c i t e d by Tagu i r i ( 1 9 6 8 ) . As with many i n t e r a c t i v e dimension f i e l d s , "chicken and egg" disputes are l i k e l y to a r i s e . Tagu i r i ( 1 9 6 8 ) s t a r t s from an i n i t i a l d e f i n i t i o n of organizat iona l cl imate as fo l lows : "Climate i s the r e l a t i v e l y enduring q u a l i t y of the t o t a l environment that (a) i s exper i - enced by the occupants, (b) inf luences t h e i r behavior, and (c) can be described i n terms of the values o f a p a r t i c u l a r set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (or a t t r ibutes ) of the environment (p. 2 5 ) . " He then develops the fo l lowing d e f i n i t i o n for organizat iona l climate which places more emphasis on aspects that w i l l a f fect a t t i tudes and mot ivat ion. Organizat ional climate i s a r e l a t i v e l y enduring q u a l i t y of the i n t e r n a l environment of an organizat ion that (a) i s experienced by i t s members, (b) inf luences t h e i r behavior, and (c) can be described i n terms of the values of a p a r t i c u l a r set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (or a t t r ibutes ) o f the organizat ion (p. 2 7 ) . Needless to say, others f i n d requirements to go beyond the bounds of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . S e l l s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , on the other hand, proposes a compre- hensive l i s t i n g of s o c i a l system components i l l u s t r a t i n g that many could be determinates of , as we l l as being climate d i - mensions. These components are considered as ob j ec t ive ly measurable items though one might have d i f f i c u l t y i n some cases separating out various judgemental biases on some dimensions l i s t e d . S u r p r i s i n g l y , i n t h i s l i s t i n g and others l i k e i t , no concern i s given to dimensions that would be considered 16 important by marketing or finance observers. Marketing ob- servers might wel l consider such aspects as the marketing segment deal t with or the marketing channels used to be determi- nants of organizat iona l climate.' 1 ' Finance observers might take note of various f i n a n c i a l r a t i o s , earnings (cash f low) , cost of c a p i t a l , or degree of p r i c e competition (or various non-price forms of competition) i n the industry as determinants of organiza t iona l c l imate . As may have been seen, a diverse multitude of var iab les f a l l into the " s i t u a t i o n " category. In order to discuss them i t may be useful to categorize them under the fo l lowing four headings as used by Campbell et a l (1970): "(1) s t r u c t u r a l proper t ie s , (2) environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (3) .organization- a l c l imate , and (4) formal ro le c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (p. 412) . " Under s t r u c t u r a l propert ies var iab les we could f i n d s i z e , f l a t or t a l l , o rganiza t iona l shape (Forhand & Gilmer, 1964), c en t ra l i zed versus decentra l ized organizat ion , span of c o n t r o l , and l i n e versus s t a f f (Porter & Lawler, 1965). Sample items l i s t e d by S e l l s (1968) under the heading organizat ion are d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , autonomy, modes of c o n t r o l , and ro le s t ructure . Under most of the above items a v a r i e t y of s u b - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s would be poss ib le ( S e l l s , 1968). There would be a value i n determining a widely acceptable set o f s t r u c t u r a l var iab le s and corresponding dimensional u n i t s . The a t t r a c t i v e feature of most of these var iab les i s the ease with which an outside observer can o b j e c t i v e l y assess or measure them. The 17 u n a t t r a c t i v e f e a t u r e i s the causal remoteness from i n t e r e s t i n g outcome v a r i a b l e s . Few s t u d i e s demonstrate simple or d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s such as s i z e and p r o d u c t i v i t y or morale. For examples of environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s we have items l i s t e d by S e l l s ( 1 9 6 8 ) under the heading p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n - ment such as equipment employed, n a t u r a l resources, remoteness of s i t e , m o b i l i t y permitted, and et c e t e r a . Under t h i s c a t e - gory one might a l s o wish to i n c l u d e v a r i a b l e s concerning degree of p r i c e or other forms of competition i n an i n d u s t r y , marketing methods or c o n s t r a i n t s , and f i n a n c i a l s t r a t e g y or c o n s t r a i n t s . Once again these items are r e l a t i v e l y easy to evaluate o b j e c t - i v e l y though more problems may a r i s e i n p r o v i d i n g u s e f u l dimensional u n i t s as w e l l as i n determining r e l a t i v e importance and relevance of these v a r i a b l e s . In c r o s s - c u l t u r a l s t u d i e s the items l i s t e d by S e l l s ( 1 9 6 8 ) under the s o c i a l - c u l t u r a l environment heading such as language, t e r r i t o r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , j u s t i c e , r e l i g i o n , and sex may w e l l be important v a r i a b l e s to consider. Under formal r o l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or demands we can again r e f e r to S e l l s (1968) and f i n d dimensions such as i n - c o r p o r a t i o n of formal a u t h o r i t y , remoteness of g o a l s , success u n c e r t a i n t y , e t h i c a l v a l u e s , f u n c t i o n s i n v o l v e d , types of equip- ment, use of technology, and products and s e r v i c e s i n v o l v e d . The usefulness of these dimensions has been demonstrated by Woodward (19&5) and a l s o by Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1 9 6 7 ) where 18 the strong impl i ca t ion i s made that optimum s t r u c t u r a l charac- t e r i s t i c s (and management behaviour) i n manufacturing i s highly- dependent upon the production system employed ( i . e . u n i t pro- duct ion , mass production, or continuous process product ion) . A recent study by Mohr (1971) attempted to f ind re l a t ionsh ip s between organiza t iona l technology and organizat iona l s t ruc ture . The dimensions that w i l l be discussed under organiz- a t iona l climate as we w i l l use the term henceforth w i l l gener- a l l y meet the d e f i n i t i o n a l requirements as indicated by T a g i u r i (1968) (see above). As opposed to other s i t u a t i o n a l var iab les discussed, the focus of these var iab le s i s on the nature of perceptions of i n d i v i d u a l s wi thin an organizat ion . L i t w i n and Str inger (1966) developed a questionnaire which was intended to measure member's percept ions . Though the questionnaire as developed does not provide clean ortho- gonal dimensions, the dimensions and d e f i n i t i o n s as condensed by Campbell et a l (1970) are indicated below* 1. S t ructure . Perceptions of the extent of organizat ional cons t ra int s , r u l e s , regulat ions and 'red tape* 2. Ind iv idua l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Feel ings of autonomy, of 'being one's own boss ' 3. Rewards. Feel ings re la ted to being confident of adequate and appropriate rewards—pay, pra i se , spec ia l dispensat ions—for doing the job wel l 4. Risk and r i s k t ak ing . Perceptions of the degree of challenge and r i s k i n the work s i t u a t i o n 5» Warmth and support. Feel ings of general good fe l lowship and helpfulness p r e v a i l i n g i n the work set t ings 6. Tolerance and c o n f l i c t * Degree of confidence t h a t the c l i m a t e can t o l e r a t e d i f f e r i n g opinions (p. 390 In f o l l o w up work on the qu e s t i o n n a i r e above, L i t w i n and S t r i n g e r (1968) r e p o r t 9 dimensions as i n d i c a t e d below« 1. S t r u c t u r e — t h e f e e l i n g t h a t employees have about the c o n s t r a i n t s i n the group, how many r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , procedures there are; i s there an emphasis on "red tape" and going through channels, or i s there a loose and inf o r m a l atmosphere. 2. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y — t h e f e e l i n g of being your own boss; not having to double-check a l l your d e c i s i o n s ; when you have a job to do, knowing tha t i t i s your .job. 3 . Reward—the f e e l i n g o f being rewarded f o r a job w e l l done; emphasizing p o s i t i v e rewards r a t h e r than punishments; the perceived f a i r - ness of the pay and promotion p o l i c i e s . 4. R i s k — t h e sense o f r i s k i n e s s and challenge i n the job and i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n ; i s there an emphasis on t a k i n g c a l c u l a t e d r i s k s , or i s p l a y i n g i t safe the best way to operate. 5. Warmth—the f e e l i n g of general good f e l l o w s h i p t h a t p r e v a i l s i n the work group atmosphere; the emphasis on being w e l l - l i k e d ; the prevalence o f f r i e n d l y and i n f o r m a l s o c i a l groups. 6» S u p p o r t — t h e perceived h e l p f u l n e s s of the managers and other employees i n the group; emphasis on mutual support from above and below. 7. S t a n d a r d s — t h e perceived importance of i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t goals and performance standards; the emphasis on doing a good job; the challenge represented i n personal and group goals. 8« C o n f l i c t — t h e f e e l i n g t h a t managers and other workers want to hear d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s ; the emphasis placed on g e t t i n g problems out i n the open, r a t h e r than smoothing them over or i g n o r i n g them. 20 9. Identi ty—the f e e l i n g that you belong to a company and you are a valuable member o f a working team; the importance placed on t h i s kind of s p i r i t (pp. 81-82). In contras t , a factor ana ly t i c development of dimensions by Schneider and Bart le t t . (1968) produced the fo l lowing dimensions* 1. Managerial support. S imi l a r to the factor of considerat ion found i n the Ohio State s tudies . I t re fer s to managers taking an act ive . interest i n the progress of t h e i r agents, backing them up with the home o f f i c e , and maintaining a s p i r i t of f r i e n d l y cooper- a t i o n . 2. Managerial s t ruc ture . Refers to the manager r e q u i r i n g agents to adhere to budgets, be knowledgeable regarding sales mater i a l , and produce new customers. I t tends to be a " s a l e s -or -e l se " f ac to r . 3* Concern for new employees. Most of the items are t y p i f i e d by a concern for the s e l ec t ion o r i e n t a t i o n , and t r a i n i n g of a new agent. 4. Intra-agency c o n f l i c t . Refers to the presence of ingroups or outgroups within an agency and the undercutt ing of managerial author i ty by the agents. 5. Agent independence. These items describe agents who tend to run t h e i r own business and do not pay much a t tent ion to management. 6. General s a t i s f a c t i o n . Refers to the degree to which the agency sponsors per iod ic s o c i a l get-togethers and the agents express s a t i s - f ac t ion with various management and agency a c t i v i t i e s (Campbell et a l , 1970, p . 391). One d i f f i c u l t y i n d e r i v i n g climate dimensions i s making a choice between searching for broad dimensions which are com- mon to a l l organizat ions or i n c l u d i n g dimensions which have relevance to only l i m i t e d numbers of organizat ions of the type being s tudied . Campbell et a l (1970) f e l t that a l l studies to 21 that time had o n l y given f i v e or s i x common f a c t o r s and were only able to agree upon four general f a c t o r s which recurred r e g u l a r l y . T h e i r s y n t h e s i s of these f a c t o r s i s given below: 1. I n d i v i d u a l autonomy. This i s perhaps the c l e a r e s t composite and i n c l u d e s the i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . agent independence, and r u l e s o r i e n t a t i o n f a c t o r s found by L i t w i n and S t r i n g e r , Schneider and B a r t l e t t , and Kahn et a l . , r e s - p e c t i v e l y , and T a g u i r i * s f a c t o r d e a l i n g with o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e x e r c i s i n g i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a - t i v e . The keystone of t h i s dimension i s the freedom of the i n d i v i d u a l to be h i s own boss and reserve considerable decision-making power f o r h i m s e l f . He does not have to be c o n s t a n t l y accountable to higher management. 2. The degree of s t r u c t u r e imposed upon the p o s i t i o n . L i t w i n and S t r i n g e r ' s s t r u c t u r e ; Schneider and B a r t l e t t ' s managerial s t r u c t u r e ; T a g u i r i ' s f i r s t f a c t o r d e a l i n g w i t h d i r e c t i o n , o b j e c t i v e s , e t c . ; and Kahn et a l . ' s closeness of s u p e r v i s i o n seem s i m i l a r enough to be lumped under t h i s l a b e l . The p r i n c i p a l element i s the degree to which the o b j e c t i v e s of, and methods f o r , the job are e s t a b l i s h e d and communicated to the i n d i v i d u a l by s u p e r i o r s . 3. Reward o r i e n t a t i o n . Another meaningful grouping i n c l u d e s L i t w i n and S t r i n g e r ' s reward f a c t o r ; Schneider and B a r t l e t t ' s general s a t i s f a c t i o n f a c t o r , which seems to convey reward overtones; Kahn et a l . * s promotion-achievement o r i e n t a t i o n ; and T a g u i r i ' s being w i t h a profit-minded and s a l e s - o r i e n t e d company. These f a c t o r s do not hang together q u i t e as w e l l as the previous two groups and seem to vary a great deal i n breadth. However, the reward element appears to be present i n a l l . 4. C o n s i d e r a t i o n warmth and support. This dimension l a c k s the c l a r i t y of the previous three. Managerial support from the Schneider and B a r t l e t t study and nurturance of subordinates from Kahn et a l . seem q u i t e s i m i l a r . L i t w i n and S t r i n g e r ' s warmth and support a l s o seems to belong here since apparently t h i s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a t t r i b u t a b l e to supervisory p r a c t i c e s . T a g u i r i ' s mention of 22 working with a superior who i s h ighly com- p e t i t i v e and competent does not f i t quite so e a s i l y , but nevertheless seems to re fe r to the support and s t imulat ion received from one's super ior . However, the human r e l a t i o n s referent i s not as c l ea r as i n the factors derived from the other studies (p. 393)• The importance of future agreement on what aspects of organizat iona l climate w i l l be o f most value both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and p r a c t i c a l l y can hardly be understated. As i s indicated by Campbell et a l (1970, p . 385), other types of var iab les have only been able (at best) to account for one-half of the v a r i - a b i l i t y i n managerial e f fect iveness . They also point out that what empir ica l evidence we have suggests s i g n i f i c a n t environ- mental e f fects and that there appears to be a consensus on the importance of s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The revi sed t h e o r e t i c a l personal act ion model of Porter and Lawler (1968, p. 165) does not allow e x p l i c i t l y for changes i n organizat iona l cl imate dimensions but i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to imagine re l a t ionsh ip s between some climate dimensions and such factors as ro le perceptions, perceived effort-reward proba- b i l i t y , or i n t r i n s i c rewards. Vroom (1964, p. 26) with a d i f - ferent model for personal ac t ion includes an item for " s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s : past" but t h i s i s not connected i n a r e l a t i o n a l manner to other parts of the model. Su i tab ly chosen organizat iona l climate dimensions might wel l be able to sum- marize " s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s : pas t " and be used to expla in changes i n r e su l t s from one study to another. The a d v i s a b i l i t y of us ing agreed upon climate dimensions and measuring techniques 23 on a l l other studies of personal ac t ion or i n t e r a c t i o n models would poss ib ly lead to sa t i s f ac tory re so lu t ion of d i f f i c u l t i e s caused by apparent va r i a t ions i n study re su l t s and lead to more complete models which would take e x p l i c i t account of cl imate (and other s i tua t iona l ) dimensions. Thus far the d i scuss ion of leadership s ty le and organizat iona l cl imate has treated each of these dimension f i e l d s as quite separate and d i s t i n c t . What of the r e l a t i o n - ships and in terac t ions? There has c e r t a i n l y been recogni t ion of organiza t iona l climate dimensions as important moderating var iab les between leadership s ty le and group performance or s a t i s f a c t i o n . The theory b u i l d i n g of Lawler and Porter (1968) and Vroom (1964) has i m p l i c i t l y recognized the need to consider s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i - ables i n personal i n t e r a c t i o n models. The studies of F i e d l e r ( 1 9 6 ? ) , Wofford (1971)t and House ( 1 9 7 1 ) . give evidence of the importance of combining the knowledge of climate with that of leadership s t y l e . There would appear to be a general consensus on the importance of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of climate and s ty le when consider ing e i ther set of var iab les i n conjunction with many other v a r i a b l e s . Causal Relat ionships between Leadership s ty le and Organizat ional Climate But, what of the causal r e l a t ionsh ip s between leadership s ty le and organizat iona l cl imate? The general presumption i s 2k made by many people that leadership s ty le i s a major deter- minant of organizat iona l c l imate . For example, L i twin and S t r inger (1968) s ta te , ear ly on i n t h e i r monograph, and without references , that "research f indings indicate the manager i s one of the major determinants o f climate (p. 6 ) . " There have been a number of studies which demonstrated cor re l a t ions between leadership s ty le and dimensions which could be considered as climate dimensions (e .g . Anderson, 1966), but the d i r e c t i o n of causa l i ty has been presumed with l i t t l e substantive evidence. One of the very few studies which attempted to v e r i f y a de termini s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p from leadership s ty le to organiz- a t i o n a l climate i s that conducted by L i twin and S t r inger (1968, Ch. 6) . As w i l l be indicated below the r e s u l t s could be d i s - counted because of the procedures used. B r i e f l y , three simulated organizat ions were created where the only experimental di f ferences were the leadership s ty le s o f the pres idents . The presidents were ins t ructed to maintain a r i g i d pattern of behaviour throughout the working periods of the simulated companies. One might ask, by analogy, the ef fect upon an experiment to measure s o c i a l ease or tension i n a formal dinner party s i t u a t i o n where the host appeared wearing a propel ler-topped beanie. The outcomes could vary subs t an t i a l ly from one s i t u a t i o n 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 s o c i a l 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 i n the demands for innovation (p. 144) and the ru le against the c rea t ion of inventor ies (p. 143), that may we l l have been j u s t i f i e d . The studies of F i e d l e r (196?) or House and Rizzo (1972) would i n d i - cate that appropriate leadership s ty le may wel l depend on the nature of the task. In view of studies which note the im- portance of expectations upon responses to leadership s ty le (Scontrino, 1972; Kavanagh, 1972) one might also question the a b i l i t y of the presidents to act cons i s tent ly with t h i s forced ro le at a l l times or i f much of the r e su l t s r e f l e c t responses to v i o l a t i o n s o f expectations rather than to leadership be- haviour per se. The most important ingredient missing i n the study was any p o s s i b i l i t y for na tura l i n t e r a c t i o n . There was no pos s i - b i l i t y i n the experimental design that any s i t u a t i o n a l , climate or other var iab le could have an impact upon leadership s t y l e . The a r t i f i c i a l nature of the s imulat ion i s magnified when one r e a l i z e s that each president was a member of the research s t a f f and was poss ib ly more concerned with creat ing the expected out- comes and maintaining a spec i f i ed s t y l e , rather than generating the best performance from t h e i r groups. I f the above evidence of a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p can be discounted and there i s l i t t l e i f any other s c i e n t i f i c evidence of a causal l inkage i t becomes apparent that the presumed re - l a t ionsh ips should be demonstrated. In the words of L i t w i n 26 (!1968) the " a n a l y s i s of b e h a v i o r a l accomplishment cannot be pursued w i t h i n the confines o f experiments which are based on the c o n t r o l and i s o l a t i o n of v a r i a b l e s . At the s a c r i f i c e of experimental c o n t r o l , organismic adaptation must be.studied i n s i t u a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the n a t u r a l h a b i t a t (p. 46)." The goal of t h i s t h e s i s , t h e r e f o r e , i s to study the causal r e - l a t i o n s h i p s between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e h a b i t a t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the research concentrates upon l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e of l e g i t i m a t e l e a d e r s as described by the LBDQ dimensions of Con s i d e r a t i o n and I n i t i a t i o n o f S t r u c t u r e and t h e i r causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e as perceived by group members i n a n a t u r a l environment. P l a n of the Thesis The f o l l o w i n g chapter w i l l cover the design of the study i n c l u d i n g a d e s c r i p t i o n of the s e t t i n g , circumstances f o r i n i t i a t i n g the study, q u e s t i o n n a i r e design, study procedures, and hypotheses to be t e s t e d . The t h i r d chapter g i v e s numerical, g r a p h i c a l and v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of the study i n s e r i a l order, that i s , roughly i n order of a n a l y s i s r a t h e r than being c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o p i c or hypothesis segments. The f o u r t h chapter gives the conclusions derived from the r e s u l t s . I n t h i s chapter summaries of r e s u l t s as they r e l a t e to each hypothesis are given along w i t h conclusions d e r i v e d . Supple- mentary f i n d i n g s and conclusions not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the t e s t of hypotheses are a l s o presented, followed by a d i s c u s s i o n 2? of the more important r e su l t s of the study. The f i f t h chapter does not include any new mater i a l , but i s a summary of the study, r e s u l t s , and conclus ions , exclusive of the f i r s t chapter review of the l i t e r a t u r e on leadership s ty le and organiza t iona l c l imate . 28 footnotes - chapter I As an example, the use of the door-to-door marketing channel by Avon cosmetics i s l i k e l y to have pervasive e f f e c t s on climate dimensions throughout the organization which w i l l d i s t i n g u i s h i t from other cosmetic firms. 2 9 CHAPTER I I Design of the Study This chapter w i l l cover the design of the study w i t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n of reasons f o r v a r i o u s procedures and the hypothe- ses t h a t were to be i n v e s t i g a t e d . Before going i n t o d e t a i l s , o f the hypotheses, a general d e s c r i p t i o n of the subject company, the circumstances o f the i n i t i a t i o n of the study, q u e s t i o n n a i r e design, and d i s t r i b u t i o n procedure w i l l be given. D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Subject Company The subject company i s , r e l a t i v e l y speaking, a very large^" engineering c o n s u l t i n g f i r m which provides a compre- hensive range of engineering s e r v i c e s from f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s and estimates through to design, purchasing, c o n t r a c t i n g , con- s t r u c t i o n s u p e r v i s i o n , and s t a r t - u p a s s i s t a n c e . H i s t o r i c a l l y the f i r m has s p e c i a l i z e d i n one area of technology and has gained an i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n f o r m i l l design and con- s t r u c t i o n i n t h i s f i e l d w i t h p r o j e c t s having been handled on a l l c o n t i n e n t s . The o r g a n i z a t i o n of the departmental s t r u c t u r e i s 2 geared to hand l i n g major p r o j e c t s which u t i l i z e most depart- ments though, at any one time, there are numerous small p r o j e c t s which may i n v o l v e r e l a t i v e l y few departments. There are f i v e mechanical departments which correspond roughly to f u n c t i o n a l or t e c h n o l o g i c a l d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n the f i n i s h e d p r o j e c t s . An 30 example would be the steam department which handles a l l design requirements for steam generation, turbine i n s t a l l a t i o n , e t c . , as we l l as assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for p i p i n g stress ana lys i s throughout any project on a l l steam or other l i n e s r e q u i r i n g such ana ly s i s . There are , as w e l l , several other engineering departments which are responsible for t h e i r respect ive tech- nologies i r r e spec t ive of the mechanical or other area d i v i s i o n s i n which they f a l l . Examples o f these would be instrumentation, e l e c t r i c a l , or s t r u c t u r a l departments. Another group of departments can be character ized as e s s e n t i a l l y non-engineering departments even though i n many instances they are staffed and/or supervised by engineers. These would include the contracts , scheduling, est imating, accounting and purchasing departments, amongst others . There are also a few service departments such as personnel , engi- neering records , and p a y r o l l which are not usua l ly associated d i r e c t l y with pro ject a f f a i r s . The o v e r a l l s tructure of the organizat ion could be character ized by J . D. Thompson's (1967, p . 80) d e f i n i t i o n of a task-force organizat ion . For each major project there i s a project engineer who assumes administrat ive contro l and respon- s i b i l i t y for an ent i re p ro j ec t . Above him there would normally be a project manager from the senior executive l e v e l of the f i rm who would monitor the pro ject and act as the senior l e v e l l i a i s o n agent with the c l i e n t . The pro ject engineer would normally have a very small support s t a f f ( s ix or l e s s , inc lud ing 31 s e c r e t a r i a l help) with f u n c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p being provided by- p r o j e c t leaders (or t h e i r e q u i v a l e n t ) from the departments. Each department has i t s own department head and i t s own geographical o p e r a t i n g space. S p e c i f i c a l l y each department i s separated p h y s i c a l l y from the others by being on separate f l o o r s , reserved and p a r t i t i o n e d p o r t i o n s o f f l o o r s , or even separate b u i l d i n g s . With few exceptions the f u n c t i o n a l aspeets of departmental work are c a r r i e d out w i t h i n the p h y s i c a l c o n f i n e s of the p a r t i c u l a r department. One exception r e c e n t l y has been a p r o j e c t i n a new technology ( f o r t h i s f i r m ) where numerous p r o j e c t l e a d e r s w i t h subordinates from v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n a l de- partments have been brought together i n one l o c a t i o n f o r the d u r a t i o n of a p r o j e c t . I n the past t h i s had been done on oc- c a s i o n with normal p r o j e c t s when the p r o j e c t engineer wished to have more d i r e c t c o n t r o l of f u n c t i o n a l areas ( p a r t i c u l a r l y mechanical ones) without i n t e r f e r e n c e from department heads, but t h i s had been seen as a l i m i t a t i o n upon f l e x i b i l i t y and has been discouraged on recent normal p r o j e c t s . Each p r o j e c t l e a d e r i s thus faced w i t h having to s a t i s f y p r o j e c t r e q u i r e - ments as w e l l as those of the department head. As the s i t u a t i o n i s now the department heads have a great d e a l of autonomy. Within budget c o n s t r a i n t s , they have f u l l c o n t r o l over h i r i n g and f i r i n g , s t a f f i n g f o r each p r o j e c t , p h y s i c a l arrangements and layout w i t h i n t h e i r department. The department heads, i f fo r c e d to conform to p r o j e c t requirements by a p r o j e c t engineer against departmental advice, can and do 32 opt out o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for disregard of t h e i r advice . As might be imagined, department heads use a v a r i e t y of procedures for maintaining c o n t r o l . In a few, a l l wr i t ten communication into or out of the department i s routed through the department head. At the other extreme one f inds department heads us ing few formal cont ro l s , but depending on information from subordinates as to any exceptional circumstances while maintaining a r o l e as general advisor and t echn ica l consultant . There are few formal ru le s concerning how and what i s to be communicated to which department, but a very complex matrix of accepted norms of communication and p r i o r i t i e s have evolved which normally preclude requirements for extensive po- l i c i n g by the project engineers and t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y small s t a f f s . Though somewhat var iab le i n t h e i r r o l e s , the project leaders from the respect ive mechanical areas genera l ly have a strong co-ordinat ing and communications funct ion for a l l aspects of work which f a l l wi th in t h e i r domain. The ch ie f funct ion of the pro ject engineer and h i s s t a f f Is that of de f in ing and com- municating c l i e n t and pro ject requirements, general m u l t i - technology co-ord ina t ion , r e s o l u t i o n of t e c h n i c a l or other problems with the c l i e n t , or r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t i n g p r i o r i t i e s amongst two or more funct iona l departments when they a r i s e . Although not common to a l l departments the fo l lowing de sc r ip t ion of the organizat ion of departments does hold for the three subject departments i n t h i s study and i s character- i s t i c for most engineering departments i n the f i r m . Each 33 department head has at l e a s t one a s s i s t a n t manager. As the department heads do a moderate amount of t r a v e l l i n g , a recog- n i z e d temporary replacement i s r e q u i r e d i n order to maintain smooth oper a t i o n w i t h i n the department. Other than t h i s func- t i o n the r o l e s vary s u b s t a n t i a l l y from one extreme where v i r t u a l l y a l l d i r e c t i v e s and l i n e communications pass through the a s s i s t a n t s to the other where h i s f u n c t i o n i s p r i m a r i l y t h a t of s t a f f a s s i s t a n t w i t h l i t t l e l i n e a u t h o r i t y . Below them are p r o j e c t l e a d e r s who d i r e c t the f u n c t i o n a l aspeets of s p e c i f i c p r o j e c t s . Each p r o j e c t leader w i l l have a group of engineers and draughtsmen who r e p o r t d i r e c t l y to him or f o r l a r g e r groups there i s d i v i s i o n i n t o s e c t i o n s , each of which i s under a sec- t i o n l e a d e r . These groupings are r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e and can l a s t upwards of two years which could be the d u r a t i o n of work on a s p e c i f i c major p r o j e c t . At the end o f a p r o j e c t , personnel are d i v i d e d and placed i n t o other current or j u s t s t a r t i n g p r o j e c t s o r , i f t i m i n g i s s u i t a b l e , they may continue i n t o a new p r o j e c t as a u n i t . These groupings are not r i g i d as personnel, par- t i c u l a r l y lower l e v e l ones, are s h i f t e d to meet changing labour demands through arrangements wi t h the department head or are "borrowed" f o r short periods (one to three days) on an i n f o r m a l b a s i s between p r o j e c t l e a d e r s to meet peak load requirements. The cheeking of drawings, c a l c u l a t i o n s , e t c . i s u s u a l l y per- formed by s e n i o r personnel outside of a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t group, who are o f t e n d i r e c t i n g work on another p r o j e c t . The department head i s u s u a l l y the u l t i m a t e a r b i t e r i n any dispute 34 with respect to design or otherwise between project leaders and checkers, but i t i s not unknown that the author i ty of the de- partment head be circumvented e n t i r e l y by d i r e c t appeal, with- out beat of drum, to the pro ject engineer or c l i e n t . There are also a few spec ia l i zed groups i n some departments who do not become attached to spec i f i c projects but are ava i lab le on a pooled basis to a l l p ro jec t s , and may be ava i l ab le d i r e c t l y to other departments without formal communication l i n k s through project leaders or administrat ion wi th in the department. An example of such a group i s the s tress analys i s group of the steam department which i s ava i lab le d i r e c t l y to other mechanical departments for analysis, of a l l steam p i p i n g . The c l e r i c a l and s e c r e t a r i a l functions are also general ly ava i lab le to a l l parts of the department on a pooled bas i s . As might be expected there are a large number of people with spec i a l i zed ta lents and/or experience throughout the company, who are ava i lab le on an informal consul tat ive bas is for a l l pro jects (or f e a s i b i l i t y studies) i r r e spec t ive of t h e i r current formal r o l e . Circumstances of I n i t i a t i o n of the Study Through contact with the personnel manager of the sub- ject f i rm, the inves t iga tor had become aware of a des ire to conduct a suggestion-box type questionnaire survey throughout the company. The idea of conducting such a survey had been generated from suggestions i n Scott Meyer's (1970) Every Employee a Manager where the u t i l i t y of such a survey i s pointed 35 out. The use of a s i m i l a r survey by T r u e l l (1979) a l s o been a source o f ideas. The pr o p o s a l , i n e f f e c t , was to have someone independent from the f i r m a s s i s t i n pr e p a r a t i o n of a s u i t a b l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e which would answer questions of value about needs or opinions of employees. I t was al s o f e l t t h a t independent t a b u l a t i o n was r e q u i r e d i n order to ensure anonymi- t y , honesty, and c r e d i b i l i t y . As w i t h the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p r e v i o u s l y c i t e d , i t was intended to provide d i r e c t feedback of a l l r e s u l t s to a l l par- t i c i p a n t s i n the survey as w e l l as to management. The research p o s s i b i l i t i e s i n such a survey were l i m i t e d to a search f o r new v a r i a b l e s o r to a case study. What d i d a r i s e as a matter of research i n t e r e s t , how- ever, was the p o s s i b i l i t y of adding on a research instrument to the i n i t i a l survey, which could be repeated at a l a t e r date to r e g i s t e r any changes i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e as a r e s u l t of the other survey and the feedback of r e s u l t s . Further con- s i d e r a t i o n developed the requirement f o r feedback o f r e s u l t s of the c l i m a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e as w e l l as what we s h a l l c a l l the general q u e s t i o n n a i r e . L a s t l y , and most important from a r e - search p o i n t of view, was the a d d i t i o n of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e items to determine i f any c l i m a t e dimensions were r e l a t e d to le a d e r s h i p s t y l e and i f the changes i n cli m a t e t h a t followed were indeed r e l a t e d to changes i n l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e . Once the general nature of what type of survey to be conducted was known, a proposal was made to the s e n i o r executive 36 of the firm. Approval was granted with the provision that de- partment head approval would be required i n a l l cases before conducting the survey. As t h i s was somewhat of an experiment, the personnel manager also decided to r e s t r i c t the size of the sample. Arrangements were then made with two department heads to conduct the surveys i n t h e i r departments. As discussions continued with the department heads on development of the general survey, s e l e c t i o n and modification of research i n s t r u - ments continued. After some time i t was also considered advisable i n l i g h t of Becker's (1970) The Parable of the P i l l to have a separate control group i f a v a l i d evaluation of change i n our experimental groups was to be made. Becker's parable emphasised the inconclusiveness of studies conducted without control groups. For t h i s purpose, arrangements were made to have a t h i r d engineering department take only the research por- t i o n of the surveys with no feedback to be given to that depart- ment u n t i l a f t e r the second survey had been completed. I t should also be mentioned that the investigator was a former employee of the firm and that, i n many respects, the investigator was unable to assume an expert referent position f o r interpretation of r e s u l t s such as would be the case i f the investigator had been an experienced consultant or a recognized academic. P a r t i a l 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 i n mind a 37 d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the survey design can begin. Survey Questionnaire Design, a D e s c r i p t i o n The general survey p o r t i o n was developed over a p e r i o d of three to four months by the j o i n t e f f o r t s of the heads of the two experimental groups, the head of the personnel depart- ment and the i n v e s t i g a t o r . In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e booklet (see Appendix M) the f i n a l r e s u l t may be seen as P a r t s I I I and IV of the survey. P a r t IV was separated to emphasize the i n t e r e s t s of the personnel department i n matters considered i n these ques- t i o n s i that i s to say, the department heads d i d not wish to have to deal w i t h o p i n i o n i n areas where they had no c o n t r o l . As can be seen, a wide range of t o p i c s was considered from d e t a i l e d items about design standards, problems with other departments, or reference m a t e r i a l to broad base open-end items concerning work e v a l u a t i o n , good aspects o f the department or company, and requirements f o r improvement i n the department or company. The personnel p o r t i o n (Part IV) covered a range of t o p i c s from the is t a f f news and o r i e n t a t i o n course through to items concerning the f r i n g e b e n e f i t s o f f e r e d by the company. As may be seen, P a r t I—Background. provides demographic in f o r m a t i o n on respondents so that a comparison could be made with the sample population as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g a means of s p l i t - t i n g data i n t o groups of say "high" and "low" age, education, or s e r v i c e i n the company. The research instruments w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e 38 and l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e formed P a r t s 11(A) and 11(B) of the qu e s t i o n n a i r e . The choice of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e dimensions f o r c e s a commitment to a d e f i n i t i o n . The d e f i n i t i o n of Evan (1968, p. I l l ) that " O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e i s a multidimension- a l p e r c e p t i o n of the e s s e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e s or character of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l system.", comes c l o s e s t to what the i n v e s t i g a t o r considered as most s u i t a b l e f o r t h i s study. The importance of i n d i v i d u a l perception as opposed to " o b j e c t i v e " measures i s h i g h l i g h t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n from Evan (1968)» 3. Per c e p t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e , whether r e a l or u n r e a l , have behavioural consequences f o r the f o c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n as w e l l as f o r elements of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t . 4. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l members performing d i f f e r e n t r o l e s tend to have d i f f e r e n t perceptions o f the cl i m a t e , i f only because of (a) a l a c k of r o l e consensus, (b) a l a c k of u n i f o r m i t y i n r o l e s o c i a l i z a t i o n s , and (c) a d i v e r s i t y i n patterns of r o l e - s e t i n t e r a c t i o n s . 5. Members of d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l sub-units tend to have d i f f e r e n t perceptions of cl i m a t e because o f d i f f e r e n t r o l e - s e t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , d i f f e r e n t sub goals, and a d i f f e r e n t i a l commit- ment to the goals o f sub-units compared to the goals of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole (p. 113). The c l i m a t e dimension items used are taken from amongst those developed by Rensis L i k e r t (1967) and enunciated i n h i s The Human Organization? I t s Management and Value. They were developed c h i e f l y as a means of p r o v i d i n g feedback to management personnel about the s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w i t h i n t h e i r own or g a n i z - a t i o n . For t h i s reason they became u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g more feedback to the department heads along with i n f o r m a t i o n pro- vided by the general p o r t i o n of the survey. The items can also 39 be used as dimensions of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate as has been demonstrated p r e v i o u s l y (e.g. Golembiewski & Ca r r i g a n , 1970a, 1970b). Not a l l items or s c a l e s from L i k e r t ' s q u e s t i o n n a i r e were 3 used. The main c r i t e r i a f o r e l i m i n a t i o n of s c a l e s was to el i m i n a t e questions which were not meaningful to engineers and/or were not appropriate to the l e v e l of employees who would p a r t i c i - pate i n the study. The L i k e r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e items were designed f o r and intended to be completed by management personnel. Most of the respondents i n t h i s study, however, were expected to be non-supervisory, and, i n any event, to be u n f a m i l i a r w i t h psy- c h o l o g i c a l jargon. For these reasons, as w e l l as i n an attempt to shorten the survey, c e r t a i n items were e l i m i n a t e d or modified. The i n c l u s i o n of the p e r f o r m a n c e - c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s items was done f o r two reasons. I t was b e l i e v e d that the feedback to managers on these items would be u s e f u l and r e l e v a n t , but, per- haps more important, i t was b e l i e v e d that almost any study of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour should i n c l u d e some in f o r m a t i o n on r e l a t i v e performance of the groups s t u d i e d , even i f , as i n t h i s case, i t was only on a s e l f - r a t i n g b a s i s r a t h e r than some more o b j e c t i v e b a s i s . The usefulness of the data to f u t u r e r e - searchers l o o k i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between performance and other v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e s some measurement of performance th a t can be made only at the time of a study. The i n t e n t was to use the groups of questions i n each category on an aggregate b a s i s to a r r i v e at eigh t dimensions o f 40 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e as f o l l o w s t 1. Character of l e a d e r s h i p processes; 2. Character of m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s ; 3« Character of communication processes; 4, Character of d e c i s i o n making processes; 6. Character of goal s e t t i n g ; 7. Character of con- t r o l processes; and 8. Perceived performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were a l s o modified to provide responses on department, company, and the " i d e a l " c l i m a t e (see P a r t 11(A) i n Appendix M f o r p a r t i c u l a r s ) . The l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e questions i n Part 11(B) were taken from the Leadership Behaviour D e s c r i p t i o n Questionnaire (LBDQ)** developed i n the w e l l documented s t u d i e s at Ohio State U n i v e r s i t y ( S t o g d i l l & Coons, 1957). Only the items f o r I n i t i a t i o n o f St r u c t u r e (IS) and Co n s i d e r a t i o n (C) s c a l e s were s e l e c t e d f o r use i n t h i s study. I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e and Co n s i d e r a t i o n were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s t h a t both have p r e v i o u s l y been i n d i - cated as dimensions having the most s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a (Korman, 1968; Evans, 1970). As shown i n P a r t 11(B) of Appendix M, items from the two s c a l e s were arranged a l t e r n a t e l y w i t h I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e items being the odd-numbered questions while C o n s i d e r a t i o n items were even-numbered questions. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r u s i n g the LBDQ ( S t o g d i l l , 1963) i n d i - cate t h a t the name of the person being described be w r i t t e n down by the respondent to assure there i s no mix-up i n r e s u l t s . One of the department heads took exception to u s i n g t h i s pro- cedure w i t h respect to p r o j e c t l e a d e r s , as he f e l t t h a t there 41 would be s e n s i t i v i t y by these persons to being "evaluated." The i n v e s t i g a t o r was confident t h a t there would be l i t t l e chance of e r r o r w i t h regard to r e s u l t s on the department heads, but the usefulness of p r o j e c t l e ader r e s u l t s was s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced by being unable to use the advised procedure. Before d i s c u s s i n g the r e s u l t s , a d e s c r i p t i o n of the pro- cedures f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n and r e t u r n of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l be given as w e l l as a b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of the hypotheses th a t were to be t e s t e d i n the study. Procedure f o r D i s t r i b u t i o n and Return of the Questionnaire The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s as shown i n Appendix M were d i s - t r i b u t e d to the experimental group, departments A and B, i n the f o l l o w i n g manner. In each department the employees were brought together i n a r e l a t i v e l y open f l o o r area. I n t u r n , the head of the department, the head of the personnel department, and the i n v e s t i g a t o r introduced the survey to the employees, g i v i n g some explanation o f the survey and i t s value to the company and the employees. The head of the department emphasized h i s own d e s i r e to get the opinions o f the employeesi the head of the personnel department emphasized the value to the company and employees, and i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r e s u l t s o f the survey would be coming back to them, as w e l l as to the department head? and f i n a l l y , the i n v e s t i g a t o r emphasized the need f o r a high response r a t e and gave f u l l assurance of anonymity w i t h respect to i n d i v i d u a l responses. 42 The procedure was m o d i f i e d , of course, f o r our c o n t r o l group (department C). In t h i s case the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i s t r i b u t e d was as shown i n Appendix M w i t h the f o l l o w i n g exceptions. The i n t r o d u c t i o n f o r the c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i f f e r e n t (see Appendix B) and pages 10, 11, 12 and 13 which i n c l u d e d the gener- a l survey were d e l e t e d . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the survey to employees was a l s o modified as they were not going to be seeing the r e s u l t s of the survey. The value of the survey f o r research purposes was t h e r e f o r e emphasized when i t was introduced to the c o n t r o l group. In a l l departments the employees were able to p i c k up a copy of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and an addressed and stamped envelope w i t h which the survey could be mailed d i r e c t l y to the i n v e s t i - gator at the u n i v e r s i t y without passing through company hands. In each case the employees were asked to do the survey on t h e i r own and away from work.-* The follow-up surveys were d i s t r i b u t e d 112 to 130 days l a t e r and were the same f o r a l l departments. As shown i n Appendix B there was a new i n t r o d u c t i o n , and a short set of questions asking about any perceived d i f f e r e n c e s since the l a s t survey, but the research p o r t i o n s (IIA and IIB) were l e f t es- s e n t i a l l y as they had been on the o r i g i n a l survey. The pro- cedure f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g the follow-up survey was s i m i l a r to t h a t used before, w i t h addressed and stamped envelopes again being provided. A schedule showing the r e l a t i v e t i m i n g of survey d i s - t r i b u t i o n , r e s u l t s r e l e a s e , and et c e t e r a i s given i n Appendix A. 43 Hypotheses to be tes ted As design considerat ions of the study have not been stated e x p l i c i t l y up to now, i t would be useful to consider them b r i e f l y before d i scuss ing the hypotheses that were to be tes ted . There were three subject departments within the f irm being used, two as experimental groups and a t h i r d as a c o n t r o l . This could be described as a pretest-post tes t cont ro l group de- s ign , but to be more precise i t must be conceded that we have what Campbell and Stanley (1963) would re fer to as a "nonequiva- l en t cont ro l group d e s i g n . " As they i n d i c a t e , contro l over i n t e r n a l sources of i n v a l i d i t y such as h i s t o r y , maturation, t e s t i n g , instrumentation, s e l e c t i o n , mor ta l i ty should be con- t r o l l e d by t h i s type of des ign. As w i l l be seen, however, s e l ec t ive morta l i ty may cause problems i n i n t e r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s from t h i s study. Some question might also be ra i sed on the instrumentation question as the circumstances for w r i t i n g pretest and posttest for the cont ro l group were somewhat d i f f e r e n t . As the d i v i s i o n into groups was predetermined by the rea l-world arrangement of departments, d i f f i c u l t i e s with s t a t i s t i c a l r e - gress ion would not be an t i c ipa ted . The sources of external i n v a l i d i t y would be much as indicated by Campbell and Stanley (1963). There are pos s i - b i l i t i e s i n the design for i n t e r a c t i o n of t e s t ing and the experiment, and ef fects due to react ive arrangements, though l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y was ant ic ipated with i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l ec t ion of experimental and cont ro l groups as s e l ec t ion was made before 44 any t e s t ing associated with the study. With these factors i n mind, de ta i l ed d i scuss ion of the hypotheses to be tested can be made. The cent ra l hypotheses to be tested concern the r e l a t i o n ships between organiza t iona l cl imate and leadership s t y l e . To be s p e c i f i c , i t was expected that , H 1. There are high pos i t ive r e l a t ionsh ip s between organizat iona l climate dimensions for department heads and leadership s ty le s of department heads. In terms of the two leadership s ty le dimensions con- s idered, i t was expected that both Considerations and I n i t i a - t i o n of Structure are p o s i t i v e l y re la ted to each of the eight a p r i o r i climate dimensions. Further to the above hypothesis i t was also expected that , H IA. There are high pos i t ive re l a t ionsh ips between organizat iona l climate dimensions and the leadership s ty le s of "project l eaders " . However, these re l a t ionsh ip s w i l l not be as great as the re l a t ionsh ip s of hypothesis 1. The foregoing hypotheses would concur with ideas re la ted to combined "task" and "people" o r i en ta t ion implied by such con- cepts as the managerial g r i d (Mouton & Blake, 1969) where both task ( I n i t i a t i o n of Structure) and people (Consideration) leadership or ienta t ions are expected to have pervasive ef fects on the climate and produc t iv i ty of groups. 45 S imi l a r hypotheses concerning the ef fect of pro ject engineer leadership s ty le on company organiza t iona l cl imate had also been considered. These would revolve around the assumption that many of the impressions of company climate resu l ted from contracts made along pro ject l i n e s . With the l i m i t a t i o n to only three departments, however, v a l i d leadership s ty l e scores o f project engineers by pro ject leaders wi th in departments would not be pos s ib le . With respect to the experimental des ign, which was much l i k e a pretest-post tes t cont ro l as discussed e a r l i e r (p. 43), i t was expected that , H 2. There w i l l be a pos i t ive change i n organiza t iona l climate r e s u l t i n g from the feedback to a group of the r e s u l t s from a suggestion-box type quest ionnaire . By the same token, changes i n leadership s ty le were expected. With r e l a t i o n s h i p to H 1 and H IA, i t was further expected that , H 3» There i s a high pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leadership s ty le o f department heads i n one time period and the organizat ion- a l cl imate of departments i n a fo l lowing time per iod . In essence the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of inf luence was to be tested i n the event that a high c o r r e l a t i o n between the two var iab les ex i s ted . 46 The foregoing are the important hypotheses that were to be tested though, of course, r e l a t ionsh ip s and f indings bearing on other propos i t ions were expected to become apparent once the data had been examined and appraised. In the fo l lowing chapter w i l l be found a presentat ion of r e s u l t s followed by a chapter presenting conclusions and d i scus s ion . 47 footnotes - chapter II Though not large by comparison with other classes o f i n d u s t r i a l f i rms, an engineering f irm with more than s ix or seven hundred employees could be considered very l a r g e . 2 40 to 100 m i l l i o n d o l l a r budgets. 3 For those who wish to make a de ta i l ed comparison, the fo l lowing items were deleted from those l i s t e d i n Appendix II of L i k e r t (1967, p . 1 9 7 ) « l c , 2d, 3d(5), 3 f ( l ) , 3f(2), 5e(2), 5g, 7a, 8a, 8b, and 8c. The performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were taken from table 3-1 (L ikert , 1967, p . 24). Minor modif icat ions to a very few other items were also made to s u i t the expected respondents. ^ The p a r t i c u l a r vers ion re ferred to i s Leadership Behavior d e s c r i p t i o n questionnaire - form XII which i s the fourth major r e v i s i o n of the questionnaire ( S t o g d i l l , 1963). 5 The company was not prepared to accept the cost of having the survey completed on company time. 48 CHAPTER III Results Introduct ion This chapter w i l l present the r e s u l t s o f the two sur- veys as they have been described i n the preceding chapter. The presentat ion of r e su l t s w i l l focus upon the t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i - cations as they re l a te to the hypotheses to be tes ted , but , w i l l also include more general aspects p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to the f i r s t survey. The large amount of data and analys i s mater i- a l necess i tates some d i v i s i o n s . After study of the cross- lag analys i s r e s u l t s , i t was decided to carry out a factor analys i s of the cl imate questionnaire and re-analyse the data using factor analys i s dimensions for climate rather than the a p r i o r i dimensions as would be indicated i n the source of the climate questionnaire ( L i k e r t , 1967). The re su l t s us ing the a p r i o r i d i v i s i o n s w i l l be used i n presentat ion of the f i r s t survey r e - s u l t s , but the use of factor analys i s dimensions for both the f i r s t and second survey w i l l fol low the d i scuss ion of the factor analys i s r e s u l t s . Please note that the fo l lowing pre- sentat ion of r e su l t s i s one which fol lows the sequence of development of the analys i s rather than being ca tegor ica l i n terms of s p e c i f i c hypotheses. In the conclusions and d i scus- s ion chapter to fo l low, reference to supporting or nonsupporting re su l t s w i l l be made p r i o r to drawing conclus ions . Numerical k9 r e s u l t s w i l l also be d iv ided between Appendices and the body of the text. In general , r e su l t s which are required i n order to fol low the d i scuss ion w i l l be found i n the text ; while mater ia l that would be of in te re s t to more serious readers, who may wish to analyse the r e su l t s from other perspect ives , w i l l be included i n the Appendices. In the r e su l t s and di scuss ion to fo l low, extensive use i s made of s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . V i r t u a l l y a l l computations and s t a t i s t i c a l tests were ca r r i ed out using computer programs. A b r i e f de sc r ip t ion of the computer f a c i l i t y and the programs used i n t h i s study are included i n Appendix C. Though the weakness i n some tests i s recognized, an extensive discourse on the v a l i d i t y o f r e l y i n g exc lus ive ly upon these tests w i l l not be undertaken as the topic i s we l l covered by others (e .g . Morrison & Henkel, 1970). Suf f ice i t to say that the inves t iga tor recog- nizes the p o s s i b i l i t y of demonstrating that a " s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t " r e su l t or di f ference ex i s t s when no p r a c t i c a l d i f - ference may ex i s t ( p a r t i c u l a r l y with large samples) and, by the same token, "proof" of sampling from a common population may cause one to re j ec t evidence of a p r a c t i c a l d i f ference (par t i cu- l a r l y with small samples). The f i n a l judgement as to the r e l e - vance of s t a t i s t i c a l tests must therefore f a l l to the i n v e s t i - gator taking into considerat ion the basic presumptions that must be made when any s ign i f i cance tes t s are performed. For tu- nately the TRIP program output gives s t a t i s t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y values (e .g . t -prob, F-prob) as wel l as the t or F s t a t i s t i c s 50 so that the reader w i l l not need to r e l y exc lus ive ly upon the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s judgement as to what i s " s i g n i f i c a n t " or "non- s i g n i f i c a n t " . The use of the a s ter i sk to hide information w i l l thus he avoided, but w i l l be used occas iona l ly to f l a g more sig- n i f i c a n t f i gures . In general , i n the d i scuss ion that fo l lows , " s i g n i f i c a n t " w i l l normally re fer to s t a t i s t i c a l s ign i f i cance at the 0.05 l e v e l . F i r s t Survey The r e su l t s for a l l closed-end questions from sections I , III and IV w i l l be found i n Appendix M. The re su l t s of the open-end questions w i l l be found i n Appendix D and E . The res- ponse rate for the ent i re sample on the f i r s t survey was 35% • This was d iv ided almost equal ly i n terms of numbers of respond- ents from each department, but rather unequally i n terms of percentage of response from each department. dept. A dept. B dept. C t o t a l population 98 49 72 219 responses 27 25 25 77 % response 27.6% 51% 3^.7% 35.2# TABLE I F i r s t survey responses Though accurate information on the t o t a l population was not ava i l ab l e , i t was general ly agreed by the department heads 51 concerned that the sample was f a i r l y representat ive . There was a bias i n the sample towards having respondents who had higher education l e v e l s , higher age l e v e l s , and/or longer experience i n the company than that of the population sampled from. I t was also bel ieved that the sample co l l ec ted could represent employ- ees with somewhat higher " l o y a l t y " to the organizat ion than that of the population sampled from. This poss ible bias w i l l be discussed i n more d e t a i l when conclusions are being made. For a general report on parts I , I I I , and IV of the survey, Appendix F should be referred t o . This report was given to the department heads a short time (7 days) a f ter the meeting held with the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r (day 43). The l a s t page of Appendix F shows a sample of some of the more emotional or " i n depth" responses to open-ended quest ions . This sample of responses was given to those who attended the meeting indicated above, i n order to convey, i n some manner short of d i s t r i b u t i n g actual questionnaires (where handwriting might be recognized) , the idea that many of the responses or numbers indicated through the r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c ca tegor iza t ion car r i ed out by the inves t i ga tor , d id not convey the depth of emotion being f e l t or being communicated by the respondent as he f i l l e d i n h i s answers. In other words, i t should be noted that subs t an t i a l ly more emotional content should be a t t r ibuted to the open-ended question r e su l t s than might be a t t r ibuted by looking qu ick ly at the MVTAB program numerical output and the coding information. Along with the open and closed-end question r e s u l t s for 52 t h e i r own departments, the department heads were also given the p r o f i l e and dif ference graphs shown i n Figures 1 to 8 derived from average responses on the climate questionnaire (part 11(A)) both for t h e i r own departments and for the combined r e s u l t s . The department heads were also given the leadership s ty le scores for t h e i r own departments along with the average re su l t s for a l l three departments. The scores on the p r o f i l e l i n e for any par- t i c u l a r question from part 11(A) l i n e s up with the bottom of the question number indicated on the l e f t side of the graph. I t should be noted that a l l scores indicated on the graphs or numerical ly elsewhere, are scores a f ter i n v e r t i n g c e r t a i n scales or scores so that a higher score was one which would be towards the L i k e r t (196?) concept of type IV organizat ion . The d i - r e c t i o n of the scales i s f a i r l y easy to determine but, for convenience, the scales going from r i g h t(1) to l e f t (20) ( i . e . the scales inverted for scoring) are marked with an aster- i s k . The t - t e s t tables fo l lowing each pa i r of graphs (Tables II to V) are recognized as being somewhat of an abuse of the use of t - te s t s but the t-prob values do provide a basis for comparing di f ferences within one department and for comparing one depart- ment against the other. In no sense should the t-prob values be taken as - s ign i f i cance values . The confidence i n t e r v a l s derived from the HOTEL ( H o t t e l l i n g T 2 ) routine of TRIP would be needed for t h i s purpose. When looking at the di f ference graph or t - te s t tables , i t should be noted that the p r o f i l e s for idea l ( I ) for a l l 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 . . r r V 1 U T c r 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 T i l • 1 N M l > 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 1 Q - 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 - H I - > 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. v l _ 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 d i f ferences i n cl imate va lues , Dept. A 55 r ABL E IDEAL M I N I S COM PAY * * l'.if :PT . A * * NAME NAME T - V A L U E D . F . T P R 0 3 . F P R D B . FORMULA 1 AC STB VS . lACf.T B 5 . C 9 P. 21 0 . 0 0 0 ' l B C f . T P V S . IOCS TP 6 . 5 6 7 20 0 . 0 0 0 ICD l SC V S . I C D l SC 6 . 4 34 21 0 . 0 0 0 IDG EI L) VS . I D G E I C 6 . 6 5 9 21 0 . 000 2AMOTJ V S . 2 A MOT I 5 .8 36 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 2BUSFD ' V S . 2BUSED 7 . 1 9 7 18 0 . 00 0 2 C A T I T VS . 2CAT IT 9 . 37 2 19 C O C O 2DRE SP V S . 2DRFSP 7 . 4 7 0 20 0 . 0 0 0 2EATM F VS . 2EATME 9 . 057 20 C . 0 0 0 2 F S A T F VS . 2 FS ATF 9 . 3 6 0 20 0 . 000 3AC I J M U V S . 3ACGMU 6 . 3 86 21 0 . 0 0 0 3BDRTN VS . 3BDRTM 6 . 1 7 8 l<=> 0 . 0 0 0 3C 1 0 1 N V S . 3 C I D I N 4 . 320 17 0 . 0 0 1 3C2DSH vs. 3C 20 SH 6 . 280 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3C3CAC vs. 3C3CAC 5 . 2 3 0 20 0 . coo 3D1UAD vs. 301UAC 6 . 3 1 9 20 0 . 0 0 0 3D 2 U K E vs. 3D2URE 6 . 2 6 8 19 n ' i n o o • >.J \J 3D3UDS vs. 3D3UDS • 6 . 2 2 0 16 0 . 000 3D 4 UAC vs. 3D4UAC 4 . 802 19 0 . 0 0 0 3ESADF vs. 3ESADE 6 . 106 21 C . GOO 3 F S & 0 N vs. 3f SAD?.' 6 . 7 10 21 0 . 0 0 0 3 G F R I E vs. 3GFRIE 4 . 6 38 20 0 . 0 0 0 4 A A I NT vs. 4A.AINT 5 . 4 0 7 20 O.COO 4BTE AM vs. 4BTEAM 4 . 9 5 8 20 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 1 I N F vs. 4C 11 N F 5 . 259 14 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 2 I N B v s . 4C2 INB 5 . 7 2 5 19 0 . 0 0 0 401 ACT vs. 4 D I A C T 4 .701 15 0 . 0 0 0 4 E E F S T vs. 4 F E F S T 5 . 3 7 8 15 0 . 0 0 0 5 ADF. C I v s . 5ADECL 3 . 6 3 8 18 0 . 00 2 5BD I NF vs. 5 B 0 I N F 6 . 52 2 17 0 . 0 0 0 5CAWAR v s . 5CAWAR 6 . 6 1 1 21 0 . coo 5DTEPR vs. 5DTEPR 4 . 4 7 2 20 0 . 000 5EBLE V vs. 5 E B L E V 3 . 0 5 1 1 3 0 . 0 0 7 5 F J N V O vs. 5F INVO 6 . 6 44 21 0 . 000 6 A G C L S vs. 6AGOLS 6 . 5 5 0 20 0 . 0 0 0 6BGLE V vs. 6BGLE V 7 . 899 17 O.COO 6CGACR v s . 6CGACR 5 . 134 15 0 . 0 0 0 7ACCNA vs. 7 ACONA 6 . 078 18 O.COO 7BC0NC vs. 7BC0NC 4 . 1 2 1 16 0 . 0 0 1 7 C 1 N F 0 v s . 7C INFO 3 . 746 11 0 . 0 0 3 7DPUM I vs. 7DPUNI 4 . 4 7 3 17 0 . 0 0 0 8 APR (j D vs. SAPRUD 9 . 365 20 0 . 000 8BABSC vs. 8BABSC 7 . 9 5 0 16 0 . 0 0 0 8C wA ST vs. 8CWAST 5 . 363 13 0 . 0 0 0 3DIMSP vs. 80 IMSP 4 . 430 15 0 . 0 0 1 TABLE II Climate item t - t e s t s , 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 v s . 1CDI SC 3. 364 22 0 . C 0 3 IDG E I 0 v s . 1DGF I D 4.52^ 2 2 0. 000 2AMOTI v s . 2 A MOT I 6 .239 17 e.ooo 2BUSED VS . 2BUSED 5. 991 18 0 .000 2CAT IT v s . 2CAT IT 6 .5 76 20 0. 000 2DRE SP v s . 2DRESP 7.333 22 0 .000 2EATMF v s . 2EATME 7. 729 22 0.000 2 F S A T F v s . 2 FS AT F 7 .89 5 22 0.000 3ACOMU v s . 3ACQMU 6. 589 22 0 .000 3 B DR T N v s . 3B0RTM 5. 272 20 o. ooo 3 C1 D I N v s . 3 CI DI N 1 .889 13 0 .072 3C2DSH v s . 3C 2D SH 4. 988 21 0 .000 3C3CAC v s . 3C3DAC 3.533 2 2 0.002 3D1UAD v s . 3D1UAD 4 .74 9 22 0 .000 3D2UR E v s . 3D2URE 5.2 74 2 1 0.000 3D3UDS v s . JD3UDS 5 .49 7 13 0. 000 3D4UAC v s . 3D4UAC 3.818 20 0 .001 3ESADE v s . 3ESADE 6.410 2 2 0. 000 3 FSADN v s . 3FSADN 6.3 28 22 0.000 3GFP I F v s . 3GFRIE 2. 182 21 0.039 4 A A I N T v s . 4AA INT 5. 243 21 0.000 4BTEAM v s . 4 BTCAM 5 . 183 21 0 .000 4C11NF v s . 4C1TNF 3. 971 15 0 .001 4C2IN0 v s . 4C2INB 4.520 20 0. ooo 40I AC T v s . 41.) I ACT 4.172"" 15 0.001 ' 4EEFST v s . 4EEFST 5. C54 15 0.000 5 ADECL v s . 5ADECL 3.549 19 0. 002 5B0INF v s . 5BDINF 6 . 152 18 0 .000 5CAWAR v s . 5CAWAR 6. 904 22 0. 000 5DTEPK v s . 5DT EPR 4 .38 3 20 0.000 5EBLEV v s . 5EBLEV 2.79 5 19 0.011 5FINVC v s . 5F INVO 4. 59 7 22 0.000 6 AG 01. S v s . 6AG0LS 5. 763 21 0.000 6BGLEV v s . 6BGLEV 4. 512 18 0.000 6CGACR v s . 6CGACR 3 . 801 16 0. 002 7AC ONA v s . 7ACQNA 6 .068 18 0.000 ' 7BOONC v s . 78C0NC 2.187 16 0.042 7 C I N F 0 v s . 7 C INFO 3.458 11 0.005 7DPUNI v s . 7DPUNI 4 .627 18 0 .000 SAPKG 0 v s . 8A PROD 7. 172 21 0. 000 8BABSC v s . 8BABSC 6.329 13 0.000 8C WAST vs. 8C WAST 4. 8 59 20 0.000 8D1NSP v s . 3D INSP 4.719 17 C. 000 TABLE II - (continued) T A B L E DEP T. MINIS C CM F ANY 57 * * O E P T . A * * N A M E NAME T - V A L UE D . F . T P R O B . F P R O R . FORMULA 1AC f.TB V S . 1AC&TB 2 . 91 3 22 0 . 0 0 8 1BC?.T P VS . 1QCSTP 3 . 5 4 1 • 21 0 . 00 2 ICO I SC v s . 1 GDISC 4 . 3 9 0 22 0 . 0 0 0 1 DC E I D v s . 1DGEID 5 . 183 22 0 . 0 0 0 2 A M GT I v s . 2 AMOT I 1 . 3 9 2 18 0 . 178 2BOSED v s . 2 B U S E 0 3 . 4 5 5 20 0 . 0 0 3 2CAT I T v s . 2CAT I T 3 . C 3 2 20 0 . C C 6 2 D P E S P v s . 2ORES P 2 . 7 7 6 21 0 . 0 1 1 2EA TME v s . 2EATME 4 . 22 8 21 0 . 0 0 0 2FS AT F v s . 2FSAT F 2 . 796 21 0 . CIO 3 A C. C M U v s . 3AC0MU 2 . 9 7 4 22 0 . C 0 7 3BDRTN v s . 33 DR T N 8 . 3 96 21 0 . 0 0 3 3 C 1 D I N v s . 3C1DIN 3 . 1 1 7 18 0 . C 0 6 3C20SH v s . 3 C 2 C S h 5 . 7 3 2 21 0 . 0 0 0 3C3DAC v s . 3C3DAC 5 . 53 0 21 0 . 0 0 0 3D1UAC v s . 3 01U A D 6 . 2 1 9 21 0 . 000 3D PURE v s . 30 2URE 4 . 5 9 7 20 0 . 0 0 0 3D3UDS v s . 3D3UD S 1 . 9 3 2 1 7 C . C67 3 04 UAC. v s . 304UAC 3 . 2 9 8 20 0 . 0 0 4 3ESA0E v s . 3E SADE 2 . 961 22 C . 0 0 7 3 FS A DN v s . 3FSADN 2 . 45 9 22 0 . 021 3GFRI E v s . 3 G F R I E 3 . 7 7 8 2 2 0 . 0 0 1 4A A I N T v s . 4AA1 NT 2 . 9 1 9 21 0 . 0 0 8 4BTEAM v s . 48TEAM 3 . 8 3 5 21 0 . 0 0 1 . AC 1 INF v s . 4 CI INF 4 .6 20 16 0 . 0 0 0 4C 2 I N B v s . 4C 2 INB 5 . 101 20 0 . 0 0 0 4 DI ACT v s . 4DI ACT 1 . 3 5 8 18 0 . C 7 7 4EEF ST v s . 4 E E F S T 1. 553 16 0 . 137 5ADFCL v s . 5A DEC L 1 .431 20 0 . 165 5BDINF v s . 5 BDINE 2 . 595 19 0 . C 1 7 5CA WAR v s . 5C AWAR 3 . 701 22 0 . 0 0 1 5DT EPR v s . 5DTEPR 2 . 9 9 4 21. 0 . C C 7 5 E B L E V v s . 5 E B L E V 2 . 2 2 2 19 0 . 0 3 7 5F INVO v s . 5F INVO 5 . CO8 22 0 . 0 0 0 6AGCLS v s . 6 A GO L S 4 . 1 6 2 21 0 . 000 6BGLEV v s . 6BGLEV 2 . 6 6 9 18 0 . 0 1 5 6CGACR v s . 6CGACR 3 . 546 16 0 . 0 0 3 7ACCNA v s . 7 AGON A 3 . 4 0 7 19 0 . 0 0 3 7BC0NC v s . 7BC0NC 4 . 6 9 3 16 C . 0 0 0 7 C I N F 0 v s . 7C INFO 1. 040 11 0 . 322 7 0 PUN I v s . 7 0PUN I 2 . 2 1 6 17 0 . 0 3 9 8APR0D v s . 8A PROD 4 . 1 76 21 0 . 0 0 0 8BABSC v s . 8BABSC 2 . 109 17 0 . 048 8CWAST v s . 8CWAST 3 . 4 1 8 19 0 . 0 0 3 8D INSP v s . 8DINSP 1. 588 1.6 0 . 1 2 9 TABLE II - (continued)  pf--r m ~4- TO S i H- Y H- ~H- 4 _ 59 4- -+- Y* IY r- i- i -TET -h Y IY 3ft Y= 5 t B; a :r2 Y •+-- f f 3 Y E E Y 4fl TB #12 Y Y rY tY t Y l 4 f 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 d i f ferences i n cl imate values , Dept. B T A B L F. N A M E 1 D E A L N A M E M I N I S C C M P A Y T - V A L U E D . F . * * D E P T . B * * T P R O B . F P R O B . F O R M U L A 1 A C S T B V S . 1 A C C T B 5 . C 4 0 2 2 C . C O O 1 B C S T P V S . 1 B G S T P 7 . 1 4 5 • 2 2 O . C O O 1 C D I S C V S . 1 C D I S C 6 . 6 C O 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 l D C E l O V S . I D G E I D 6 . 8 9 5 2 1 O . C O O 2 A MOT 1 V S . 2 A MOT I 4 . 1 5 8 1 7 0 . 0 0 1 2 B U S E D V S . 2 B U S E D 3 . 6 4 9 .1.4 0 . 0 0 3 2 C AT I T V S . 2 0 A T I T 1 0 . 3 3 1 1 9 O . C O 0 2 D RE S P V S . 2 D R E S P 1 0 . 7 8 8 2 1 O . C O O 2 E A T M E V S . 2 E A T M E 8 . 8 5 9 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 2 F S A T F V S . 2 F S AT F 9 . 0 2 1 2 0 o. ooo 3 A C G M U V S . 3 A C 0 M U 8 . 4 1 2 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 3 B 0 R T N V S . 3 B D R T N 4 . C 4 1 2 2 0 . C 0 1 3 C I D I N vs. 3 C 1 D I N 4 . 2 6 1 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 2 D S H vs. 3C 2 D S H 8 . 8 6 6 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 3 C A C vs. 3 C 3 D A C 7 . 4 0 2 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 0 1 U A O vs. 3 D I U A D 4 . 3 0 8 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 2 L I R E vs. 3 D 2 U R E 6 . 2 1 4 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 3 U D S vs. 3 U 3 U D S 5 . 4 2 9 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 4 U A C vs. 3 D 4 U A C 7 . 1 3 9 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 E S A D E vs. 3 E S A D E 8 . 3 1 2 1 9 C . 0 0 0 3 F S A D N vs. 3 F S A D N 6 . 5 6 1 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 G F R I E vs. 3 G F R I E 6 . 3 1 5 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 A A I N T vs. 4 A A I N T 1 1 . 5 2 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 B T E A M vs. 4 B T E A M 9 . 1 0 9 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 1 I N F vs. 4 C 1 I N F 3 . 8 6 2 1 5 0 . 0 0 2 4 C 2 I N B vs. 4 C 2 I N B 7 . 2 4 9 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 D I A C T vs. 4 D I A C T 5 . 4 3 3 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 4 E E F S T vs. 4 E E F S T 7 . 5 0 9 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 5 A 0 E C L vs. 5 A D E C L 3 . 0 8 0 1 9 0 . 0 0 6 5 B D I N F vs. 5 B 0 I N F 8 . 5 6 2 1 8 0 . C 0 0 5 C A W A R vs. 5C A W A R 9 . 1 6 3 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 5 D T F P R vs. 5 D T E P R 9 . 1 1 1 1 3 O . C O O 5 E B L E V vs. 5 E B L E V 5 . 1 0 7 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 F I N V O vs. 5 F I N V O 8 . 1 2 7 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G 0 L S vs. 6 A G 0 L S 7 . 9 6 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 6 B G L E V vs. 6 B G L E V 4 . 7 1 4 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 C G A C R vs. 6 C G A C R 3 . 5 7 8 1 7 0 . C 0 2 7 A C O N A vs. 7 A C Q N A 7 . 8 2 7 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 7 B C 0 N C vs. 7 B C 0 N C 3 . 6 7 8 1.9 0 . 0 0 2 7 C I N F 0 vs. 7 C I N F O 1 . 9 9 7 1 5 0 . 0 6 2 7 0 P U N I vs. 7 D P U N I 4 . 7 9 6 1 7 C . 0 0 0 8 AP KO D vs. 8 A P R 0 D 9 . 1 8 5 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 8 B A B S C vs. 3 B A R S C 7 . 3 5 8 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 8 C W A S T vs. 8 C WA S T 8 . 7 2 3 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 8 D I N S P vs. 8 0 I N S P 4 . C 6 1 1 6 0 . 0 0 1 TABLE III Climate item t - t e s t s , Dept. B 1 " A 13 I E I D E A L M I N U S O E P A R T M E N T * * D F . P T . 8 * * 61 N A M E N A M E T - V A C U E D . F . T P R O B . F P R O R . F O R M U L A l A C f . TR V S . 1 A C S T B 4 . 9 8 2 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 3 C U P V S . I D C £ T P 6 . 4 7 4 2 3 • 0 . ( 0 0 1 C P I S C v s . i c o i s C 5 . A f t 2 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 D G E 1 0 v s . 1 0 G E I D 5 . 7 7 5 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 2 A M O T I v s . 2 A M O T I 4 . 9 9 5 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 2 B U S E D v s . 2 B U S E G 4 . 0 1 7 1 5 0 . 0 0 1 2 C A T I T v s . 2 C A T I T 1 1 . 6 2 5 2 0 o . r o o 2 OR E S P v s . 2 0 R E S P 1 0 . 8 9 5 2 3 o . c o o 2 E A T M E v s . 2 E AT M E 9 . 6 5 1 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 2 F S A T F v s . 2F S A T F 1 1 . C 8 5 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 A C C M U v s . 3 A C O M U 7 . 3 0 5 2 2 o . c o o 3 B D R T N v s . 3 h O R T N 2 . 9 4 6 2 2 0 . 0 0 7 3 C 1 D I N v s . 3C I D I N 2 . 8 6 1 2 1 0 . 0 0 9 3 C 2 0 S H v s . 3 C 2 D S . H 7 . 1 2 7 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 3 D A C v s . 3 C 3 D A C 6 . 9 2 8 ' 2 1 o . c o o 3 D 1 U A D v s . 3 D I L I A D 6 . G 5 7 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 0 2 LIRE v s . 3 0 2 U R E 4 . 9 7 7 2 1 o . c o o 3 D 3 U D S v s . 3 D 3 U 0 S 4 . 8 4 2 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 4 U A C v s . 3 D 4 U A C 5 . 4 8 5 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 E S A 0 F v s . 3 E S A D E 1 0 . 0 4 7 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 F S A D N v s . 3 F S A O N 7 . 2 4 6 1 8 o . c o o 3 G F R I E v s . 3 G F R I E 4 . 5 6 8 2 3 0 . 0 0 0 4 A A I N T v s . 4 A A I N T 9 . 3 3 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 B T E A M v s . 4 B T E A M 5 . 6 3 8 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 1 I N F v s . 4 C 1 I N F 2 . 6 1 5 1 5 0 . 0 1 9 A C 2 I N 8 v s . 4 C 2 1 M B 5 . 6 7 4 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 4 0 1 A C T v s . 4 D I A C T 7 . 2 4 2" 1 7 " o . c o o ' 4 E E F S T v s . 4 E E F S T 6 . 1 0 7 1 7 o.coo 5 A D E C L v s . 5 A D E C L 1 . 0 3 2 2 0 0 . 3 1 5 5 B D I N F v s . 5 6 0 I N F 8 . 3 5 4 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 5 C A W A R v s . 5 C A W A R 7 . 8 9 4 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 5 0 T E P R v s . 5 0 T E P R 5 . 4 0 9 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 5 E B L E V v s . 5 F B L E V 3 . 4 3 3 1 8 0 . 0 0 3 5 F I N V O v s . 5 F I N V O 7 . 2 5 0 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G 0 L S v s . 6 A G 0 L S 5 . 3 5 2 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 6 B G L E V v s . 6 B G L E V 3 . 6 9 9 1 8 0 . 0 0 2 6 C G A C R v s . 6 C G A C R 2 . 8 8 6 1 7 0 . 0 1 0 7 A G O N A v s . 7 A C 0 N A 7 . C 9 9 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 7 B C C N C v s . 7 B C O N G 1 . 2 0 8 1 8 0 . 2 4 2 7 C I N F 0 v s . 7 C I N F 0 2 . 1 2 1 1 6 0 . 0 4 8 7 D P U M I v s . 7 0 P U N I 3 . 5 2 2 1 8 0 . 0 0 2 8 A P R G L ) v s . 8 A P R O D 8 . 2 0 3 2 2 o . c o o 8 D A B S C ' v s . 8 B A B S C 5 . 6 2 0 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 8 C W A S T v s . 8 C W A S T 7 . 0 7 6 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 8 0 I N S P v s . 8 0 1 N S P 3 . 4 1 0 1 9 0 . 0 0 3 TABLE III - (continued) T A B L E D E P T . M I N U S C O M P A N Y • • D E P T . B * * 62 N A M E N A M E T - V A L U F D . F . T P R O B . F P R O B . F O R M U L A 1 A C & T U V S . 1 A C & T f i - 0 . 4 7 2 2 3 0 . 6 4 6 lBCf .TP V S . 1 B C & T P ] . 2 4 5 2 3 0 . 2 2 4 1 C D I S C v s . 1 C D I S C 2 . 6 5 6 2 3 0 . 0 1 4 1 D G E I 0 V S . 1 D G E I D 1 . . 5 2 3 2 2 0 . 1 3 8 ' 2 A M G T I vs . 2 A M O T I - 0 . 6 c 3 1 8 0 . 5 2 2 2 B U S E D V S . 2 B U S E D - 0 . 1 5 8 1 5 C . £ 5 0 2 C A T I T V S . 2 C A T I T - 0 . 1 5 7 2 0 0 . 8 5 0 2 DH E S P V S . 2 D R E S P 1 . 1 9 9 2 2 0 . 2 4 2 2 E A T M P V S . 2 E AT M E 0 . 8 9 6 2 3 0 . 3 8 3 ? F S A T F v-s. 2 F S A T F 2 . C 2 A 2 1 0 . 0 5 3 3 A C C MU v s . 3 A C O M U 1 . 4 8 0 2 3 0 . 1 4 9 3 B D R T N vs. 3 B OP T N 2 . 0 6 5 2 3 0 . 0 4 8 3 C I . D 1 N v s . 3C 1D I N 2 . 8 3 4 2 1 0 . 0 1 0 3 C 2 D S H v s . 3 C 2 D S h 1 . 9 2 5 2 3 0 . 0 6 4 3 C 3 D A C vs. 3 C 3 D A C 2 . 8 7 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 6 3 D 1 U A D vs . 3 D 1 U A D 0 . 5 4 7 2 2 0 . 5 9 6 3 C 2 U R F v s . 3 D 2 U R E 2 . 7 3 9 2 3 0 . 0 1 1 3 D 3 U D S vs. 3 D 3 U D S 1 . 5 7 9 2 0 0 . 1 2 7 3 D 4 U A C v s . 3 D A U A C 0 . 5 5 9 1.7 0 . 5 9 0 3 E S A 0 E vs. 3 E S A D E 0 . 6 1 4 2 2 0 . 5 5 2 3 F S A D N vs. 3 F S A D N 2 . 1 3 2 2 0 0 . 0 4 5 3 G F P . I E v s . 3 G F R I E 3 . 5 7 9 2 1 0 . 0 0 2 4 A A 1 N T vs. A A A I N T 1 . 7 9 9 2 1 0 . 0 8 3 4 B T E AM v s . A B T E A M 3 . 3 0 2 2 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 4 C 1 I N F v s . A C 1 I N F 2 . 3 3 2 1 6 0 . 0 3 2 A C 2 I N B vs. A C 2 I N B 2 . 2 9 9 2 2 • 0 . 0 3 0 A D I A C T v s . A D I A C T - 0 . 7 3 5 1 7 0 . 4 7 9 A E F F S T v s . A E E F S T 2 . 1 9 1 1 3 C . 0 4 0 5 A D E C L vs. 5 A D F C L 2 . 6 7 8 2 1 0 . 0 1 4 5 B D T N F v s . 5 B D I N F 2 . 0 2 0 2 0 0 . 0 5 4 5 C A W A R vs . 5 C A W A R 1 . 6 7 0 2 2 0 . 1 0 6 5 D T E P R vs. 5DTEPR 2 . 7 0 5 2 1 0 . 0 1 3 5 E B L E V v s . 5FBLEV 3 . 2 7 5 1 7 0 . 0 C 4 5 F I N V O vs. 5 F I N V O 2 . 8 7 1 2 2 0 . 0 0 9 6 . A G O L S vs . 6 A G 0 L S 1 . 3 7 0 2 2 0 . 1 8 1 6 B G L E V v s . 6 B C L E V 2 . 1 5 7 1 3 C . 0 4 3 6 C G A C R vs. 6 C G A C P. 1 . 1 2 1 1 9 0 . 2 7 6 7 A C O M A v s . 7 A C O N A 2 . 3 5 8 1 9 0 . 0 2 8 7 B C C N C vs . 7 B C O N C 3 . 0 8 9 1 9 0 . 0 0 6 7C I N F U vs. 7C I N F 0 - C . 5 5 0 1 5 0 . 5 9 6 7 DP U N I v s . 7 D P U N I 4 . 1 6 7 1 3 . 0 . 0 0 1 8 A P R U D vs . 8 A P K O D 2 . 9 2 9 2 2 0 . 0 0 8 8 B A B S C vs. 8 B A 3 S C 5 . 2 0 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 8 C W A S T v s . S O W A S T 2 . 3 9 3 2 4 0 . 0 2 4 8 D I N S P vs. 3 D I N S P 1 . 0 6 2 1 9 0 . 3 0 2 TABLE III - (continued)  tez B £ : :2ft: J3._ r t : : :&: ± : F : 3ft : ' S t m 1 ±6 z± TF~ i f l f t - 2 . 0 :1 : 5: HP a 3i afc: ft t6 it Y Y : Yt _Y 1 LY Y fee id 55 :Y Yi L Y 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 d i f ferences i n cl imate va lues , Dept. C 1 A B 1 . E I D E A L M 1 N L S COf-' P AY * * D E P T . C * * ^ N A V 1- N AM E T - V A L U E 0 . F . T P R O H . F P P U B . F O R M U L A l A C f . T R V S . l A C f . T R 5 . 6 c n 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 l R f £ T P V S . i R C . r . r u 6 . C A ? 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 L C D I S C V S . 1 C O I s c 6 . A 0 8 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 1 D G E I •) vs. 1 D G E I D 7 . 2 1 7 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 2 A K P T ! vs. 2 A M O T I 6 . 2 0 1 1 A C . 0 0 0 2 R U S t - D vs. 2 P U S E D A . A 9 A 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 2 C A T I T vs. 2 C A T I T 6 . 8 A 1 1 7 C . 0 0 0 2 D R E S P vs. 2 D R E S P 6 . 7 8 8 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 2 E A T'-iE vs. 2 E A T M E 5 . 3 0 3 1 7 C . 0 0 0 2 F S AT E vs. 2 E S A T F 5 . 4 6 7 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 3 A C C ^ U vs. 3 A G O Ml) 7 . 7 3 1 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 3 O R T N vs. 3 B D R T N 5 . 8 8 4 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 1 D I N vs. 3 C 1 D I N 1 . 3 0 9 1 7 0 . 0 8 5 3 C 2 D S H vs. 3 C 2 0 S F 7 . 0 8 7 1 7 C . 0 0 0 3 C 3D A C vs. 3 C 3 D A C 1 1 . 4 5 7 1 7 C . 0 0 0 3 D 1 U A D vs. 3 D I U A D 5 . 7 9 5 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 2 U R E vs. 3 D 2 LIRE 6 . 1 7 5 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 3 U 0 S vs. 3 D 3 U D S 7 . 0 6 0 1 7 C . 0 0 0 3 D A U A C vs. 3 O A U A C 8 . 5 5 6 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 3 E S A D E vs. 3 E S A D E 5 . 1 1 2 1 3 o.coo 3 F S A D N vs. 3 F S A D N 6 . 2 3 3 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 G F R I E vs. 3 G F R I E A . 2 0 3 1 9 . c . o o i 4 A A I T vs. A A A I N T 7 . 6 1 A I 7 0 . 0 0 0 A S T E A M vs. A B T E A M 6 . 7 6 6 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 1 I N F vs. 4 C 1 I N F 5 . 5 1 4 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 2 I N e vs. AC 2 1 N B 6 . 2 A 0 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 4 C I A C T vs. A D I A C T 3 . 2 7 5 1 6 0 . 0 C 5 4 E E E S T vs. A E E F S T 6 . 6 0 1 1 5 0 . 0 0 0 5 A D E C L vs. 5 A DEC. L 2 . 8 9 7 1 7 c . 0 1 0 5 B D I N F vs. 5 B D I N F 7 . 9 2 6 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 C A WAR vs. 5 C A W A R 7 . 8 A 1 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 5 D T E P R vs. 5 0 T E P R A . 7 3 6 1 7 c . 0 0 0 5 E B L E V vs. 5 E B L E V 7 . 8 2 9 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 F .1 N VO vs. 5 E I N V O 7 . A 5 9 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G 0 L S vs. 6 A G 0 L S 7 . 7 0 1 1 7 C . 0 0 0 6 B G L E V vs. 6 8 G L E V A . W 2 9 1 7 o.coo 6 C G A C R vs. 6 C G A C R 3 . 0 3 6 1 5 0 . C 0 8 7 A C C N A vs. 7 A C O N A 6 . 8 8 ° 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 7 B C C N X vs. 7 B C O N C 1 . 8 6 3 ' " ' 1 6 ' 0 . 0 7 8 7 C I M F O vs. 7 C I N F O 6 . 1 5 0 1 5 C . 0 0 0 7 D P U N I vs. 7 D P U N I 3 . 5 5 7 1 7 0 . 0 0 2 8 A P R O D vs. 3 A P R 0 0 7 . 9 7 8 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 8 B A B S C vs. 8 P A B S C 6 . 6 fl 1 1 7 C . 0 0 0 8 C W A S T vs. 8 C W A S T 5 . 0 1 7 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 8 D I N S P vs. 8 D I N S P 1 . A 9 5 1 1 0 . 1 5 0 TABLE IV Climate item t - t e s t s , Dept. C T A B L E . I D E A L M I N U S D E P A.R T M E N ' T t- * 0 E P T . C * * N A M E N AM E T - V A L U E o . P . T P R O B . F P R O B . F O R M U L A I A C f. T B V S . 1 A C K T B A. 2 8 2 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 1 R C K T P VS . l B C f . T P A . 6 8 8 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 ico r sc. V S . I C O I sc. A . 5 7 5 1 9 0 . 0 0 0 1 UC EI D V S . 1 D G E I D 5 . 6 A 7 18 0 . 0 0 0 2 A " l?T I V S . 2 A M O T I 6 . A h O 1 3 C . 0 0 0 2 B U S t D vs. 2 0 U S E D 3 . 8 8 6 1 7 0 . 0 0 1 2 C A T ! T vs. 2 C A T I T 6 . 8 8 2 1 8 C . 0 0 0 2 C R E S P vs. 2 O R E S P 5 . 2 7 4 1 9 C . 0 0 0 2 E A T . M E vs. 2 E A T M E 6 . 5 3 6 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 2 F S A T F vs. 2 E S A T F 6 . 2 9 2 1 8 C . C 0 0 3 A C O - M ) vs. 3 A C O M U 6 . 1 0 6 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 B O R T N vs. 3 B D R T N A . 6 6 5 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 C1 0 t N vs. 3 C 1 D I N 2 . 7 C 7 1 7 0 . 0 1 A 3 C 2 D S H vs. 3 C 2 D S F A . 9 8 5 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 3 C A C vs. 3 C 3D A C 6 . A 6 2 L6 O . C O O 3 0 1 U A D vs. 3 D i l l A C A . 6 5 0 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 2 O R E vs. 3 D 2 U R E A . A 13 L 6 o.coo 3 0 H U D S vs. 3 D 3 U D S 7 . 9 0 1 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 D A U A C vs. 3 D A U A C 6 . 8 3 6 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 E S A U E vs. 3 E S A D E A . 8 2 5 1 8 o.coo 3 F S A D N vs. 3 F S A D N 5 . 5 6 9 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 3 G E R I E vs. 3 G F R I E 3 . 2 1 2 1 8 0 . 0 0 5 AAA I N T vs. AAA I N T 5 . 7 6 2 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 A BT E A i-1 vs. A B T F.AM 5 . 3 7 5 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 A C ] I N F vs. A C L I N F 3 . 8 1 0 1 8 0 . 0 0 1 A C 2 I N B vs. A C 2 I N B A. A 1 3 16 0 . 0 0 0 A 0 I A C T vs. A D I ACT 3 . 6 7 A 1 6 , 0 . 0 0 2 A E E F S T vs. A E E c S T 5 . 7 7 A 1 5 o.coo 5 A 0 E C I . vs. 5A D EC L 2 . 7 9 6 1 7 0 . 0 1 2 5 B 0 I N F vs. 5 B D I N F 9 . 2 8 6 1 6 C O 0 0 S C A L A R vs. 5 C AWAR 7 . 7 7 0 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 5 D T E P R vs. 5 D T E P R A . 7 8 1 1 7 0 . coo 5 E E L E V vs. 5 E B L E V 5 . A A 1 1 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 F I N V O vs. 5 F I N V 0 6 . 2 7 9 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G O L S vs. 6 A G C L S 5 . 1 5 1 1 7 C . 0 0 0 6 B G L E V vs. 6 0 G L E V A . 6 3 0 1 7 o.coo 6 C O A C R vs. 6 C G A C . R 2 . 6 6 A 15 0 . 0 1 7 7 A C C N A vs. 7 ACON A 5 . 3 8 2 1 8 0 . 0 0 0 7 B C 0 N C vs. 7 B C G N C 1 . 5 1 A 1 6 0 . 1 A 6 7 C I N F O vs. 7C I N F O 6 . 9 0 1 1 5 c. 0 0 0 7 C P U N I vs. 7 0 P U N I 3 . 3 0 3 1 7 O . O O A 8 A P E 0 0 vs. 8 A P R . 0 D 5 . A 7 1 1 7 0 . 0 0 0 8 E A B S C vs. 8 E A B S C 7 . 0 6 7 1 7 c.coo 8 C W A S T vs. 8CV;AST 3 . 5 0 6 1 7 0 . C 0 3 8 0 I M S P vs. 8 D I N S P 0 . 6 7 A 1 7 0 . 5 1 6 TABLE IV - (continued) T A i BLE DE p r . 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 v s . 1 •*'••;! IP 0 . 4 A 0 19 0. 06 8 2 A w: rr i v s . 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 v s . 2F SA TF - 1. 12 1 1 9 0.2 76 3 AC C K-U v s . 3 ACf'MU L . / 0 19 0 . 2 2 2 3R0R TN v s . 3PDRTN 1 . 4 H 19 9.156 3 C 1. 0 I N v s . 3 C. 3 0 I N -0 . 5 5 4 19 0.592 3C2DSI-! v s . 3 C 2 D S !' -0 . 0 4 0 . L9 0.O2 0 3C 3!' AC v s . 3C3UAC C I S 8 1 7 0.825 3D1UAO v s . 3 D1U A C 1 . 64 0 19 0 . U 4 3D2UR E v s . 30 2UR E -3 19 0.001 3D -AtDS v s . 3D3UO S 1 . 320 19 C. 2 0 0 3D4UAC v s . 3DAUAC 0 . 2 1 5 19 0 .815 3ESA[ L v s . 3E SAOE 1 • 1 6 R- 1 3 0.259 3 FS A DM v s . 3FSADN 0 . 4 2 2 • 13 C • 6 8 0 3 G F K 1 F v s . 3GFR. 1 E 2 .288 18 0 . 0 3 3 AAA INT v s . AAA I NT 1. 0 5 6 1 8 0 .306 4BTEAO v s . '•PTE AM 1.53 0 1° 0. 139 4C1 I NF v s . 4C1 T NF 0 .266 19 0 .78 8 4C 2 I iv .3 v s . 4C 2 IN B 3.240 1 3 0.00 5 4 CI ACT v s . 4 1 3 1 ACT -0 . 0 79 17 0. 897 4EEF ST v s . 4CE!- ST 0. 8 39 17 0 .418 5 A OFT L v s . 5A DEC I. - 1 . C 7 6 19 0 . 2 96 5 30 1 NT v s . 5 3 D [ N F - 0 . 0 0 0 14 0 . 9 5 1 5CAV;AR v s . 5C AWAR 1. 578 19 0 . 1 2 8 5D1 FPh v s . 5DTEPR 0. 9 B P 1.9 0 . 3 3 8 5EE I i V v s . 5E BLEV -0 . 0 57 19 0.910 5F Ir-iVO v s . 5F I N V 0 0. 8hO 19 0.405 6 AGCIS v s . 0AGOES 0 . 9 8 3 19 0. 3 3 8 6 6 G L t V v s . 6 R.', LEV 1 .4 Y-i 19 0.1b 3 6C.C.AC v s . 60. GAG ft - 0.C93 1 7 0 . 8 8 8 7 ACCN -\ v s . 7 A CON A 0 . 6 0 6 19 0 . 5 5 3 7Pr.i3.NC v s . 7BCUNC 1 .4-; 7 3.3 0 .151 7CINFP v s . 7C INFO - 0 . 4 H: 1 7 C. 644 70PUN ] v s . ,'i.PUN 1 -0 . 1 5 9 18 C . 8 49 8APKI D v s . 8APR0n 1 . R (- 9 19 0 .12 3 3 F A f S C v s . 8E A 3 SC. 1 . 3.? 2 1* C. 2 0 9 8 O A S T v s . «COAST 2.2 ^ 6 19 9 .034 8D I N' SIJ v s . MO INSP 2. 100 I 9 0 . 0 4 7 TABLE IV - (continued)  r f t : ± : i t j : •2ft: iE: lift I ±1: 4 3C 4# 2 1 X :5t bt i r . ft 3d It IlHl • f t • H i t Y Idea l minus Dept7 4. Dept. minus Go. - I Ideal minus Go. TO i t it -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 DIFFERENCE 6.0 8.0 10.0 FIG. 8 Average d i f ferences i n cl imate values - A l l Depts, T A.BL E N A ' T I D E A L M I N U S C O ^ P A Y N A M E T - V A L U E D . F . * * P E P T . A + B + C * * 1 T P R O B . E R R O R . F O R M U L A I A C £ T P V S . 1 A C C T B 9 . 0 5 6 6 3 C . C O O I B C C T " V S . l B C v ' I T P 1 1 . 4 A 4 6 1 O . C O O 1 C 0 I s c V S . ICO I sc 1 I . 0 4 1 6 2 C . oco I D G E I D V S . 1 D G E I 0 1 2 . 0 3 3 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 2 A M C T r vs. 2A M O T I 9 . 0 0 7 5'+ 0 . 0 0 0 ? B U S E D V S . 2 B U S E D 8 . 7 3 3 5 0 C. 0 0 0 2 C A T I T V S . 2 C A T I T 1 5 . 1 2 6 5 7 0 . 0 2 0 R E S P vs. ? D R E S P 1 4 . 1 7 5 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 2 E A ] M E v s . 2 E A T M E 1 3 . 2 1 7 6 0 C . 0 0 0 2 F S A T E vs. 2 F S A T F 1 3 . 3 2 1 6 0 o.coo 3 A C O > ' U v s . 3 A C 0 M U 1 2 . 9 / , 6 6 3 c . c o o 3 B 0 H T N vs . 3 R D R T N 8 . 5 4 9 6 0 0 . ooo 3 C I D J N vs. 3 C 1 D I N 5 . 7 5 0 5 6 0 . 0 0 0 3 C 2 D S H v s . 3 C 2 D S H 1 2 . 6 8 5 6 1 c. 0 0 0 3 C 3 D A C vs. 3 C 3 G A C 1 2 . 4 0 6 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 1 U A D vs. 3 D 1 U A D 9 . 1 3 0 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 2 U R E v s . 3 D 2 U E . E 1 0 . 8 7 1 5 8 0 . 0 0 0 3 0 3 U U S vs. 3 0 3 U D S 1 0 . 7 2 9 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 3 D 4 U A C vs. 3 D 4 U A C 1 1 . 2 7 9 5 5 o .coo 3 E S A G E v s . 3 E S A D E 1 0 . 9 2 0 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 3 F S A D M vs. 3 E S A D N 1 1 . 2 0 4 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 3 G F R I E vs . 3 G F R . I E 8 . 6 2 0 6 1 c. 0 0 0 4 A A [ N T vs . 4 A A TNT 1 2 . 9 4 4 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 4 B TEAM vs. 4 B T E A M 1 1 . 4 3 3 5 8 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 1 I N E v s . 4 C 1 I N E 8 . 2 2 3 4 9 0 . 0 0 0 4 C 2 I N B vs. 4 C 2 I M B 1 1 . 0 2 8 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 4 D I A C T vs. 4 0 1 A C T 7 . 4 8 7 4 9 0 . 0 0 0 A F E F . S T v s . 4 E E E S T 1 1 . 3 5 5 4 9 C . 0 0 0 5 A D E C L vs. 5 A D E C L 5 . 6 2 1 5 6 0 . 0 0 0 5 B D I N F vs. 5 B D I N E 1 3 . 2 7 7 5 3 0 . 0 0 0 5 C AW A " v s . 5 C AW AR 1 3 . 4 4 3 6 1 ' 0 . 0 0 0 5 D T E P R vs. 5 D T E P P. 9 . 5 1 8 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 5 E R L E V vs . 5 E 8 L E V 8 . 2 7 3 5 2 o .ooo 5 F I N V O v s . 5 E I N V O 1 2 . 7 0 8 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G 0 L S vs. 6 A G 0 L S 1 2 . 5 4 7 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 6 B G L E V vs . 6 B G L E V c >. 3 5 8 5 3 c.coo 6 C G A C R vs . 6 C G A C R 6 . 6 6 3 4 9 0 . 0 0 0 7 A C 0 N A vs. 7 A C 0 N A 1 1 . 8 6 7 5 6 0 . 0 0 0 7 B O O N C v s . 7 B C 0 M C 5 . 4 7 8 5 3 C. 0 0 0 7 C I M E N vs. 7 0 I N F O 5 . 9 ^ 5 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 7 0 P U N I vs. 7 0 P U N I 7 . 4 ^ 6 5 3 0 . 0 0 0 8 A P E 0 0 v s . 8 A P R O 0 1 5 . 4 6 2 5 ) 0 . 0 8 3 A P S C vs. 8 B A R S C 1 2 . 6 0 7 5 4 0 . 0 0 0 8 C W A S T vs . 3 C W A S T 1 0 . 9 4 2 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 8 0 1 N S P v s . 8 D I N S P 4 . 8 7 8 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 TABLE V Climate item t - t e s t s , Combined r e s u l t s 71 TABLF IDEAL MINUS DEPARTMENT * * D E P T . A+B+C * * N A " F NAME T - V A L U E T P P 0 3 . P P R O B . FORMULA 1ACE. i V S . 1 ACS re 7 . 6 8 6 6 6 0 . 0 0 0 1 RCf. !••• VS . 1BCCTP 0 . 2 34 6 5 C. 00 0 I C D l S C vs . 1 C 0 I s c. 7 . 5 1 3 66 C O 00 1DGE 1 D vs. 1DGEID 8 . 790 65 0 . 0 0 0 2AM0T I v s . 2A MOT I 1 0 . 0 5 4 5 6 3 . 0 0 0 2 BUSH 0 vs. 2 BUS ED 7.8 80 8 2 0 . 0 0 0 2CAT1 r vs . 2C ATI T 1 3 . 3 1 4 60 0 . 0 0 0 2 ORES P v s . 2DRESP 1 2 . 5 1 7 66 0 . 000 2E A T •" E vs. 2 EAT ME 12 . 0 8 3 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 2FSA fF vs. 2F SA TF 1 3 . 4 0 8 63 0 . 0 0 0 3ACCVU v s . 3 A COMU 1 1 . 5 0 4 64 0 . 000 3D0k TN vs . 3 6 DRTN 6 . 77 5 61 0 . 0 0 0 3 C l . n i N v s . 3C 10 IN 4 . 3 82 5 3 0 . 0 00 3C2 !)SH v s . 3C2DS H 0 . 7 8 0 6 3 O. f 00 3C 3!)AC vs. 3C3DAC 8 . 8 83 61 0 . 0 0 0 3 C I U A C v s . 3D 1UAD 8 . 6 50 6 2 c.coo 3 02 UKE vs. 302UP. F 3 . 4 2 8 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 3D 3 Ui; S vs. 30 3UOS 1 0 . 1 5 7 56 0 . 0 0 0 3D4UAC v s . 3D4UAC 8 . 0 84 60 0 . ooo 3ESADE vs . 3ESADE 11 . 6 3 3 62 O.COO 3FSACN vs. 3F SA D N 1 0 . c''t5 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 3GFP. IE v s . 3GFR I E 5 . 7 1 3 64 c. 000 4AA IN T vs. 4 A A I N T 1 0 . 7 5 5 60 0 . 0 0 0 4BT E AM v s . 4BTEAM 9 . C36 60 c.coo 4 C 1 I N F vs . 4 C1 I N F 5 . 7 36 50 o.coo 4X21 N3 vs. 4C2 I MB 8 . 455 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 40 I ACT v s . 4DI ACT 7 . 7 56 50 0 . 0 0 0 4 E E F S T vs. 4 E E F S T 9 . 9 5 5 49 0 . 0 0 0 5ADC-C L vs. 5ADECL 3 . 841 5 3 0 . 0 0 0 5BDINF v s . 5 B D IN F 1 3 . 2 0 1 56 0 . 000 5CAW.AR vs. 5CAWAR 12 .221 63 0 .(" 00 50TEPR vs. 5DTEPR 8 . 4 6 8 5 3 0 . 0 0 0 5 EBLEV v s . 5 E BL EV 6 . 4 4 1 55 0 . 0 0 0 5F INVO vs. f>F I NVO 10 . 163 6 3 0 . 0 0 0 6 A G P L S vs . 6AG0L S 9 . 326 61 c.coo 6 B G L E V v s . 6BGLEV 7 . 5 0 0 5 5 0 . 0 0 0 6CGACP vs. 6CGAGR 5 . 331 50 0 . 0 0 0 7 ACON A v s . 7AC0NA 1 0 . 8 1 3 56 O.COO 7BCCNC vs. 7BC0NC 2 . 6 3 4 52 0 . 0 1 1 7CINF 0 vs. 7C I NF 0 5 . 872 44 0 . 0 0 0 7DPUN I v s . 7 0PUN I 6 . 2 4 5 55 0 . 000 SAPROD vs. 8 A PROD 1 2 . 1 4 1 6 2 0 . 0 0 0 8BAB SC vs. 8BA3SC 1 C . 7 6 0 5 8 0 . 0 0 0 SCVi AST v s . 3CWAST 8 . 7 1 5 61 C.COO 8D INSP vs. 6DINSP 4 . 0 6 6 55 0 . 0 0 0 TABLE V - (continued) 72 TABLE D E P T . MINES GUMP ANY * * D F P T . A+B + C NA-'M; N A M E T - V A L U E D . F . T P R O B . F P R O B . FORMULA 1 A C £ T B VS . 1ACCT R 2 . 4 3 8 6 6 0 . 0 1 7 iru.s T? V S . I B C C T P . 2 . 5 8 6 6 5 0 . 0 12 ICO I sc V S . LCD I SC 6 . C74 65 0 . 0 0 0 LDGE I 0 VS . 1DCEID 3 . 1 1 2 6 5 O.CO 3 ?. A f •* r n V S . 2AMOTI 0 .2 27 5 7 0 . 8 0 6 2 R i i S E 0 V S . 2BUSE0 2 . 004 54 0 . C4 3 2CAT IT vs. 2CATIT 1 . 290 60 0 . 1 9 9 2DRE SP V S . 2DRESP 1 . 948 64 0 . 0 5 3 2EAT!-' E VS . 2EATME 2 . 26 2 6 5 0 . 0 2 6 2 F S A T F vs. 2FSAT F 1 . 6 4 0 63 C . 102 3ACO>;'J vs. 3AC0MU 3 . 2 6 0 6 6 0 . 0 0 2 3 ROOT N vs. 3B0RTM 3 . 9 7 4 65 C. GOO 3C 1D I M vs. 3 C1 D I N 2 . 8 5 9 60 0 . 0 0 6 3C20SH vs. 3C2DSH 3 . 1 8 5 65 0 . 0 0 2 3C3 CAC vs. 3C3DAC 3 . 9 5 3 62 C . 0 0 0 3D1UAO vs. 3 01 UAD 4 . 0 1 1 64 0 . 0 0 0 . 3D2UR c vs. 3D 2URE 6 . 431 64 0 . 0 0 0 3 030 OS vs. 3P3UDS 2 . 830 5 8 0 . 006 3D4UAC vs. 804UAC 2 . 1 1 0 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 . 9 9 1 62 0 . 0 0 4 3GFR I E vs. 3 G F R I E 5 . 57 8 63 0 . 0 0 0 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 . 8 7 7 6 5 C.COO 4C. 1INE vs. 4 C 1 I N F 3 . 283 5 3 0 . 0 0 2 4C2 I MB vs. 4C 2 IN B 5 . 7 5 4 62 0 . 000 4 0 ) A C T vs. 4D I ACT 0 . 5 5 1 54 0 . 5 9 0 4EEF ST vs. 4EEFST 2 . 686 53 0 . 0 0 9 5ADECL vs. 5ADECL 1 . 8C8 62 0 . C 7 2 5 B 0 I N r vs. 5BDINF 2 . 5 57 59 0 . 0 1 3 5CAWAR vs. 5CAWAR 4 . 01. 2 6 5 0 . 0 0 0 5 DT E PR vs. 5DTEPR 3 . 9 1 6 63 C . 000 5 E B L E V vs. 5EBLE V 2 . 7 50 5 7 0 . 0 0 8 5 F IN VO vs. 5FINVO 4 . 1 7 3 65 C. 000 6 A G 0 L S vs. 6 AGO LS 3 . 5 2 7 64 0 . 0 0 1 6BGLE V vs. 6BGLE V 3 . 6 2 2 5 7 0 . 0 0 1 6CGACR vs. 6CGACR 2 . 4 6 3 54 C . 0 1 6 7AC0NA vs. 7AC0NA 3 . 6 8 1 59 0 . 0 0 1 7BCCNC vs. 7BOON C 5 . 0 3 3 55 C.COO 7 C I N F 0 vs. 7CINFO - 0 .COO 4 5 0 . 9 5 1 7DP0 .V I vs. 7DP UN I 2 . 797 55 0 . 007 SAPROi) vs. 3A°ROO 4 . 3 3 2 6 4 0 . 00 0 8B A ^ S C vs. 8BABSC 4 . 7 3 1 57 0 . 0 0 0 8 C W AST vs. 8C WA S T 4. 5 58 64 C . 00 0 8 D I N S P vs. 80 INSP 2 . 6 39 56 C . 010 TABLE V - (continued) 73 are almost i d e n t i c a l over the ent i re range of quest ions. The only exceptions are as fo l lows : ^ ( 1 ) , 3 D ( 2)&(3), 7C, 8A-D. The f i r s t four items would inc idate some moderate divergence as to what would const i tute i d e a l q u a l i t y or quantity of up- ward communication as wel l as super ior ' s awareness o f h i s inf luence or the extent to which there should be an informal organiza t ion . These di f ferences were not large e spec i a l ly when compared to others between department(D) and company(C) pro- f i l e s . The above re su l t s thus indicated rather consistent views among the departments as to what would be considered an i d e a l c l imate . The di f ferences between i d e a l and company c l i n mate are cons i s tent ly s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l departments across the f u l l range of quest ions. The anomoly for 8D i n department C would not appear to be out of order when one considers the large number of t - te s t s being conducted. The di f ferences between I and D scores are cons i s tent ly large over the range of climate items for a l l three departments. The higher t-probs i n department B would indicate a greater de- gree of s a t i s f a c t i o n with regard to the l e v e l of decision-making (Q5A) or degree of concentration of author i ty (Q7B). The low t-value for 8D i n department C could express a degree of s a t i s - f ac t ion with checking and/or p o l i c i n g p o l i c i e s . From observation of the p r o f i l e s i t i s apparent that there are subs tant ia l d i f ferences between the departments on a va r i e ty of cl imate items. By d i r e c t comparison of p r o f i l e s on a l i g h t - t a b l e further observations were made. The C p r o f i l e 7k for department C would appear to be genera l ly higher than that of e i ther department A or B. The C p r o f i l e for department B was roughly on the same average l e v e l as that of department A but was subs t an t i a l ly higher or lower on many items. The D p r o f i l e for department A, on the other hand, was cons i s tent ly higher than for departments B or C, while both the D and C pro- f i l e s for department C tended to f a l l wi th in boundaries set by the D and C p r o f i l e s of department A. Observation of the D minus C t-values and t-probs h igh- l i g h t s these di f ferences 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 i n department B there are only two. The combined-results graph ( F i g . 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 o f an informal organization(Q7C), underlying moti- vat ions tapped(Q2A), and influence of department heads(Q4D). For the leadership s ty l e scores on the f i r s t survey the reader w i l l need to look forward to the second survey re su l t s (Table XIII) where they are presented i n tabular form for com- parison with the second survey r e s u l t s . I t should be noted that aster isked items i n part 11(B) had the scores adjusted to reverse the sca les . The p r i n c i p a l t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t , of course, was the 75 r e l a t i o n s h i p between leadership s ty le and department organic za t iona l c l imate . The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix for data from the f i r s t survey i s presented i n Table V I . The matrix includes a l l climate items, the leadership s ty le scores for project leaders (INSTRP and CONSIP) and department heads (INSTUD and CONSID) as wel l as the organizat iona l climate dimension scores c a l c u - la ted on the a p r i o r i scheme. These scores are simple averages, i n each case, of a l l questions numbered one, two, . • • , e ight . Fol lowing the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix w i l l be found the means and standard deviat ions (Table VII) for a l l of these v a r i a b l e s . A matrix of number of paired observations w i l l be found i n Appen- dix G. The var iab le name for a l l cl imate items begins with the item no. from the survey ( i . e . IB, 4C2, 7C). C O P I! C U T I C N ' VAP I All 1. F LACCT3 1 E C c T P M A T R I X 1 A C f. T a 1 . C O O O 0 . 7 2 6 4 1 i ' f. £ T P 1 . 0 0 0 0 n. 4990 ' I C O I S C l O G t I D * * D E P T . A + B + C * * 2 A MOT I 2 B U S E 0 2 C A T I T 2 D K L S P 2 F A T K F 2 F S A T F 3 A C C U i n r . F I D 2 A M O T I 2CAT I T 2OP.ESP 0 . 2 5 0 3 0 . 3 5 0 0 0 . 3 8 2 1 0 . 2 9 3 9 0 . 3 2 2 1 2L2lHl. 0 . 3 0 2 2 0 . 4 3 0 0 0 . 3 0 8 4 0 . 4 I 2 Q 0 . 4 6 3 3 C . 5 1 4 6 0 . 1 3 5 6 0 . 3 7 6 0 0 . 4 2 ) 6 0 . 4 9 1 6 JhUll. 1 . o o o o 0 . 0 5 7 7 0 . I S 59. 0 . 2 6 2 6 0 . 4 0 2 6 0 . 4 5 6 2 I . O O O O 0 . 4 9 9 5 0 . 5 0 7 9 0 . 4 3 9 4 0 . 1 1 6 5 i .oooo 0 . 4 3 7 2 0 . 4 4 2 0 i .oooo 0 . 5 7 1 o 0 • 4 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 3 9 7 0 1 . o o o o 2 F S A T F 3 A C 0 ' - ' U 3 3 0 H T I , 3 C 1 0 ! 3C20SH _3C ?_0AC_ 0 . 3 7 1 3 0 . 4 5 9 3 0 . 1 9 2 5 0 . 1 7 7 9 0 . 4 3 1 0 mi. 0 . 4 4 0 9 0 . 4 4 4 7 0 . 3 5 6 9 0 . 1 3 8 6 0 . 4 H 9 1 0 . ' - 7 C 3 0 . 5 4 6 3 0 . 4 7 2 2 0 . 3 5 2 0 0 . 4 3 1 9 0 . 5 4 9 5 0 - 3 6 7 0 4 4 6 6 3 0 0 ? 1 7 7 5 3 3 6 1 4 3 8 6 2 Z " 3 0 . 4 1 9 9 0 . 3 9 2 0 0 . 2 5 1 8 - 0 . 1 1 2 7 0 . 1 4 7 3 0 . 3 8 9 1 0 . 5 7 7 6 - 0 . 0 0 0 7 0 . 0 7 6 4 0 . 1 4 5 3 l - ? ' ' 7 tm—i 0 . 6 8 0 9 0 . 4 4 0 9 0 . 2 71! 5 0 . 2 2 4 2 C . 4 5 3 5 . 3 " 7 7 T4l 0 . 6 1 1 0 0 . 3 6 4 9 0 . 2 9 7 1 0 . 2 5 2 3 0 . 4 B O 7 0 - 3 1 2 7 0 .'.8? 8 0 . 3 6 ^ 1 0 . 2 3 7 8 o . 2 6 •) 5 0 . 4 . 3 9 9 9 . 4 ^ 6 6 1 . 9 0 0 3 0 . 4 0 9 8 0 . 3 9 6 6 0 . 5 6 7 6 0 . 4 5 8 3 I . 0 0 0 0 0 . 3 1 (• 8 0 . 2 6 2 4 0 . 3 5 5 9 301IJAD 3G2'J'<e 3 0 ? M i l S 3 CM.: AC 3 E S A 0 I: ILLL'LL 0 . 4 5 3 5 0 . 4 0 7 0 0 . 1 7 1 0 0 . 3 4 3 1 0 . 3 0 4 8 0 . 1 4 4 * 0 . 3 6 3 0 0 . 4 9 S O G . 4 0 1 4 0 . 3 0 5 4 0 . 3 7 1 9 i . 2 6 6 3 0 . 4 8 1 0 0 . 2 6 8 9 0 . ' - * 6 2 6 0 . 2 7 7 6 0 . 3 3 7 6 0 - 2 0 6 3 0 . 3 2 5 0 0 . 2 2 4 S 0 . 3 2 5 3 0 . 3 3 4 8 0 . 2 3 4 3 0 . 1 2 7 6 0 . 2 8 1 1 0 . 3 1 7 2 0 . I 0 0 1 0 . 1 3 6 4 0 . 3 4 1 7 o . i 5 i 4 0 . 1 6 6 0 . 1 4 1 6 - 0 . 0 1 3 2 - 0 . 0 2 1 0 0 . 2 6 3 2 HJ.H21 2 5 0 . 0 5 5 1 0 . 2 1 5 5 0 . 2 3 9 6 0 . 3 7 5 3 0 . 0 8 0 2 0 . 4 7 3 4 0 . 3 3 4 6 0 . 3 6 6 5 0 . 3 G 6 7 0 . 4 2 7 1 0 . 3 00 7 0 . 4 2 6 0 0 . 3 6 5 0 0 . 3 1 5 4 0 . 1 S 2 5 . 0 . 3 8 3 3 0 . 4 1 6 9 0 . 3 1 . ' 3 0 . 4 6 3 4 0 . 3 4 1 6 0 . 5 0 ? 6 0 . 3 4 ? 6 0 . C. 0 . 4 2 7 4 0 . 3 6 9 9 0 . 4 3 0 3 0 . 2 2 3 3 3 4 2 3 ' i f ? 6 2 5 1 3 1 5 4 2 3 5 8 4 2211. -y.A-'i IE 4 A A f 4 P . T E A M 4C1 H : F 4C? :.\s 4 0 1 A C T 5 A 3 E C I. 5 8 0 1 ' i F 5 C / . : - . A 0 5 D T E O R 5 E 8 1 F V 0 . 6 2 3 6 0 . 4 { ; C 7 0 . 4 1 1 6 0 . 5 3 9 3 0 . 3 7 1 0 Ihdhhl. 0 . 4 8 3 0 0 . 4 5 2 ' » ' 0 . 4 4 6 7 0 . 4 6 5 9 0 . 3 8 3 4 mi 0 . 6 5 7 1 0 . 6 4 4 6 0 . 4 6 1 9 0 . 3 8 82 0 . 3 1 3 9 • 3 9 7 7 \—kmi 0 . 4 5 6 4 0 . 5 0 F . 1 0 . 4 8 2 0 0 . 1 6 4 0 0 . 2 0 3 4 0 . 4 0 0 6 0 . 1 5 8 0 0 . 1 3 3 9 ' 0 . 2 3 9 4 0 . 2 2 9 6 0 . 1 6 0 0 0 . 3 2 0 ? 2 6 0 9 3 1 6 4 2 6 7 2 4 6 1 0 2 8 0 9 1 7 3 1 0 . 3 6 8 9 0 . 3 8 0 7 0 . 3 0 . 4 3 0 . 1 5 9 2 0 . 2 4 3 9 0 . 2 9 9 6 6 0 . 8 5 3 7 C . . 4 4 4 5 0 . 2 5 9 7 0 . 3 9 ? 3 Q . 3 0 0 9 0 . 4 1 ? ? 0 . 6 2 2 4 0 . 5 " - - l 4 0 . 4 3 . 4 7 0 . 4 2 9 4 " • • * - ! 2 1 0 . 4 2 3 O 0 . 4 2 2 7 0 . 4 7 5 7 0 . 3 2 70 0 . 2 7 8 9 o . 4 _ 5 3 9 _ 0 . 3 4 6 3 0 . 1 5 8 6 0 . 3 7 C 7 C . 4 3 3 8 0 . 4 5 8 6 0 . 2 1 3 1 0 . 4 6 4 0 . 2 9 4 8 0 . 4 4 6 1 0 . 4 5 7 5 0 . 4 6 4 7 111211 5 4 9 C 0 . 2 9 7 4 0 . 2 6 0 4 0 . 4 3 0 6 0 . 3 1 4 4 0 ^ 4 3 9 6 _ 0 . 4 2 6 6 0 . 2 6 3 0 0 . 2 7 9 9 0 . 4 1 5 4 0 . 2 8 0 4 0 . _ 4 ! _ 1 3 0 . 3 0 0 2 0 . 1 3 7 0 0 . 2 6 3 2 0 . 1 3 3 0 0 . 1 5 8 4 0 . 0 8 5 0 0 . 1 3 4 7 0 . 2 1 2 0 0 . 1 3 1 8 C O O 0 8 0 . 2 6 1 9 0 . 2 4 3 0 0 . 3 1 8 3 0 . 2 4 9 1 0 . 2 5 3 5 0 . 4 2 7 1 0 . 2 6 0 1 0 . 3 9 7 5 0 . 4 3 o C 0 . 2 4 3 6 0 . 2 3 5 0 0 . 3 1 6 3 0 . 2 6 3 8 0 . 4 3 9 6 0 . 3 6 S 1 0 . 1 2 7 5 0 . 4 2 7 6 0 . 2 4 9 8 0 . 4 7 1 4 0 . 5 0 0 4 0 . 2 6 5 7 r ' . 4 1 2 6 0 . 4 9 8 6 0 . 3 9 1 4 i" . •'. 4 3 6 0 . 3 2 3 9 0 . ? 9 8 7 OA 0 . 2 ° 0 B 0 . 4 5 ? 3 '111. 5r-! M-,- o 6 A C O L S 6 S G L EV 6 C 0 A C S 7 A C r : ; i A 21LPUL 3 4 0 3 0 . ' > 6 ° 1 0 . 1 2 8 3 0 . 3 7 1.4 0 . 4 5 7 7 0 . 4 9 3 2 0 . 4 3 4 3 0 . 2 3 3 3 0 . 4 7 9 1 0 . 4 B 2 0 0 . I f 5 9 0 . 3 3 5 2 0 . 3 0 3 8 0 . C 9 3 0 0 . 2 0 3 1 0 . 4 1 7 9 J i i l 0 7 0 _ 0 . 3 4 3 7 0 . 3 5 3 5 0 . 2 4 11 - 0 . 0 4 3 4 0 . 2 8 2 6 0 . 0 6 6 4 0 . 2 6 5 6 0 . 3 5 6 7 0 . 0 0 4 1 0 . 2 2 8 0 0.1 2 3 3 O . P 3 R 6 0 . 2 8 9 6 0 . 4 9 2 6 - 0 . 0 7 9 0 0 . 1 6 9 8 0 . 1.0 5 6 0 - 3 2 0 ? , 3 1 8 3 0 . 4 1 3 9 0 . 1 0 2 4 0 . 3 9 6 1 0 . 0 9 6 3 O . l l 5 0 0 . 2 8 8 8 0 . 3 7 9 5 0 . 0 9 1 9 0 . 2 1 3 2 0 . 2 7 0 1 •J2..2 3 5 6 f . 3 7 4 0 0 . 2 2 6 7 0 . 3 9 C 9 0 . 4 ! 1 9 0 . 4 4 9 ? 0 - l ' « 7 9 f- . 4 6 " 4 0 . 4 ? 7 i 0 . 2 ? 8 o 0 . 3 4 2 7 0 . 3 6 4 5 0 . l ' ' 7 H 2 9?. ? o ! 8 1 2 2 0 3 9 7 3 2 2 6 7 1 ^ 1 7 C . I . ' ; F O 7 0 ? U W ! SAP.s no 8 8 A B S C 3 C 4 V J T _ 8 0 !2 ! i .P I N i l i ' P cansiP I N S T U D C O M S I U 11 . r A n P _ 2 * 0 T F _ R _ 3C"u"Ull 4 P J T 6 P . 5 D F C M K 6 0 U L S T 7 C 0 K T R 3 P F P F D 1 6 9 1 0 . 2 3 1 6 0 . 2 6 8 6 0 . 3 3 14 0 . 2 1 8 7 3 8 9 1 C.3 1': 0 . 4 2 8 2 . 3 4 79 . i 5 3 0 0 . 4 1 3 9 0 . 3 6 fl 1 0 . 4 5 1 5 0 . 2 9 2 8 0 . 6 6 5 0 0 . 8 0 8 1 11221. 0 . 1 6 6 3 0 . 5 0 5 6 0 . 1 3 4 1 0 . 2 3 9 7 0 . 1 7 4 7 0 . 2 2 3 6 m- 3 7 3 7 . 1 9 5 3 . 6 5 0 i . 8 0 9 3 40JL - 0 . 1 3 8 1 0 . 3 0 1 0 0 . 0 9 9 9 0 . 1 3 9 5 - 0 . 0 1 9 0 0 - 2 " 6 1 " 0 , 4 0 6 6 0 . 5 5 9 0 0 . 1 7 ? 3 0 . 4 7 7 7 0 . 6 9 3 9 0 . 4 1 8 7 _ . 5 0 f - 0 . 0 1 4 0 0 . 0 5 0 1 (!. 3 9 5 6 0 . 1 7 5 0 0 . 3 0 0 9 0 . 2 3 4 ? _ 15 8 8 0 . 1 2 6 3 0 . 0 9 9 8 0 . 3 5 2 5 0 . 2 3 2 7 0 . 3 3 1 5 0 . 2 J ! 4 _ 0 . 1 9 7 6 0 . 0 5 6 4 0 . 2 6 7 1 0 . 4 1 7 5 0 . 3 9 9 8 " • f t 7 7 6 0 . 2 2 4 1 0 . 1 6 1 2 0 . 4 5 8 5 0 . 2 2 3 7 0 . 3 9 7 8 2111 0 . 2 5 2 3 0 . 4 2 5 4 0 . 4 v 2 5 0 . 2 3 4 1 0 . 4 0 5 5 _ 0 ^ i l i _ 0 . 1 2 5 4 0 . 4 0 1 3 0 . 2 7 0 8 0 . 2 4 5 4 . 0 . 3 1 8 8 o . 3 0 7 S O . 1 4 6 1 0 . 3 ^ 9 3 0 . 4 M . 0 0 . 3 9 5 4 0 . 3 ? ' 2 ' • ^ 2 4 3 ! 1 5 3 ! 4 6 ? 4 5 1 8 1 7 I B 3 8 o ? ? 9 f 6 0 . 2 9 3 3 0 . 2 3 3 3 0 . 2 6 3 1 0 . 4 t . 6 9 0 . 5 4 3 0 0 . 6 Q 5 - . 0 . 3 5 4 ; 0 . 4 3 1 2 0 . 2 1 7 8 0 . 4 8 1 2 0 . 7 4 9 8 2^22^1. 0 . 6 6 0 1 0 . 6 0 6 5 0 . 5 0 8 4 0 . 2 2 6 6 0 . 5 3 5 2 - 0 . 0 0 , 4 5 (1 . 2 8 6 3 0 . 3 0 1 7 ^i^m. 0 . 4 6 1.5 0 . 2 4 0 0 0 . 1 0 7 5 0 . 5 0 4 7 0 . 4 4 4 5 0 . 8 1 4 7 0 . 4 VO 1 0 . 3 8 0 9 0 . 3 2 0 5 0 . 5 4 7 9 0 . 5 5 4 7 1^1<1A2. 0 . 3 H 2 5 0 . 3 4 7 7 0 . ! o 2 6 0 . 5 6 S 2 0 . 5 9 2 9 212222.. 0 . 3 = 2 1 0 . 3 p, 8 P, 0 . ^ 8 0 9 0 . c 9 ? 7 0 . r * ; 3 3 3 " . E 1 6 0 0 . 6 6 5 9 0 . 4 9 8 0 0 . 5 3 9 4 0 . 3 7 9 2 0 . 3 4 6 3 0 . 3 9 0 7 O . 0 6 6 4 0 . 6 0 6.3 0 . 6 3 3 0 0 . 4 •) 7 2 0 . 4 9 7 9 0 . 4 3 8 0 , 0 . 5 0 0 1 0 . 4 7 5 2 0 . 4 9 0 9 0 . 2 0 3 5 0 . 1 4 5 5 . 0 . 1 0 2 7 0 . 3 2 9 5 <•'. 3 1 6 4 0 . 2 5 4 0 0 . 2 6 2 1 0 . 1 1 1 4 • i ' - ^ 7 ? 0 . 2 7 9 0 0 . 3 8 8 2 0 . 2 9 3 7 0 . 2 6 3 6 0 . 2 1 7 7 0 - 3 7 2 2 0 . 4 >1 5 4 0 . 4 1 6 2 0 . 4 8 7 9 0 . 4 5 9 5 0 . 2 3 0 6 o . 5 Q ? s 0 . 6 0 0 3 0 .4 6 2 7 0 . 4 4 5 4 • 0 . 2 8 7 1 0 . 4 4 2 2 0 . 4 5 9 5 0 . 6 4 2 0 0 . 5 1 1 0 . 5 4 7 6 0 . 4 3 2 7 0 . 3 9 9 6 1 7 0 . 7 0 4 ? 0 . 6 7 7 4 0 . 6 2 2 1 0 . 4 7 0 0 0 . 3 3 4 9 0 . 61 4 s 0 . 4 ,8 1 8 0 . 5 0 9.4 0 . 3 6 3 2 0 . 2 6 6 4 0 . 4<v4 3 -v3 ON c . ..f r̂  CC c* r v o; r- ci'. vC o c \S T. r~ 'J rt U'. rr c -j rv. O C c - I P 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 i r 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*. c r 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 ; A i 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- A J r- LU c t r ^- 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 A i ro —< rA —- r j Al .-A rr i 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* A J r- -A O - r L J o r— V) 'X) O m : V r - ••C O <A .A •0 X A-CA X r— rt (7* cr* r j . •< o i n 7— r~ A J o-, L A - r~ i A LA -"V •cr X -4* :c :v o :o Al IA " 3  O o ,-r» rn rj : \ J J A CM LA A rA m rA rr. I A —  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 f A 1 1 c o •4- rt m rvj sT ••n •A r- -J- fA rv PA CO o cr <• X i A •c X O >£.' ^* rv <t rt 1— LA iA rv A l vf) c_ c To >r — >—* O LA, • c r~- - c rt LT' rj - L A LA <? i A O O p"* 1*". — C - f v.* rv rv c CN. 1 rt A J rv) rt LA r v 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 I P . (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- >̂ A J IT- O fA A J r j <i LA m rc; r<~, rt er, rA m rv fA AJ -.r ? A I P 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 r A r— LA r A rv -4- G o •4" —-. r— r - rvj -3" O rt c r CA ( V rA cr- A1 -̂ cr rv I T . •4- O p - cr <t o o ro • o r\i *0 LA O rt L A «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- C D 0 C . ' O CO r̂  o o < A- c X rv rv LA r~ i n L * l rv L.' c* rv r - r- p - C" f\ c- O rt f*. rA (M n"i o rt O C A J vG L'*i IPi r - •i: X o O P A cr rc C' CC —' o r-j cv cr LA rt AJ m U l r— o - A X rt A* cc r g rv A J in —i O r<*. rv rA r n r; r A - J - rv <r -r rA rt rv A t fA i A 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 L A c IT' A J m CT —• rt <• {•1 —' <• C lA rt rt ~< <: cr A - cr i A X O C rt -J -XJ X C . ~ m P J ' A r-i : A L P '.A I T . •T I  lA vT LA LA. rv rA ro O A J V r v CJ i v ; rv I A 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 ' _  I P rt o cr. LP.  O rA o i A o r— LA • t rt o O —( o ° p.- P J — r v rx A ; m c- rt o O f> " P I <Xi rt 0 r g rt rt O £ ° O o a O O o o O O c c r 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 r v 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 i O f o rt -c r-j A - o vT -4- rv A J "4 rA 0 s p~ CT-rt o INI o L A rv — J t \ ! r v rv IA ro o rvi rvj A J 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 L U z: O L . * L L UJ L L t - - J L L Zf > o > cv: <r L : c o < y~ --' L?J c < 11 A . _ J L L ; o T* IL *=* c \n -.r C vA rr, o rv. -j v.", o C- o- u". u* c tr >- • 'N A) If» f -J 1 (**' a t : j a tr- o c> rt c <t r- r-~ r- * < rt o < r - o*. A i C A J 7 ^ I A - 0 vT <[ L T . X vT A J r r i cc A i o rvj r-* a <: ^ x vr C P x ^- cr •' • < <f. L P r v o:. : c o o o o c rA I P ' c N ^ - o 4 O o-j p-. or. p.. O r o rt pj 'C r : rA P . . rt — PA O O O s 1 o • -' -* ' v» CV —i A I a o o o o c r c r L A & r rA p - r̂ > x ve ' c<j o c * P J r* P - ' IA >C ~J vT A l s * O O O O O C ' i A i A •jy r v -J" , o A - rc r— —' , uA 0 rt >H 'O ,-A —• <r m rv o o o O o O • i rvi A J <+• so <JA r— r • 0- - O ( A P A f • rt L A rr : • . "A L A -4- L A J A : o o o o o c r x m vo * A x rrj r v rv -j- o rt r̂J f - A - A - INi rt rt rt O O O O O C; C P N T P- i A L A O v r rA c , m x r v A J m rt « i rA rA O rA L A r— a ; O cc T - rA i A o P - rv 1 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- L A a >c a r g O J P*> P J s t LC o o o O C O i rt r - r v x - ^ X - A l A 1 • ,C —• <r rA x r~ •4- p - U A LP, P I <f , o c:- o s0 O X rt x> A \ rt. L A cn r - vt rt a- x LT, ^- f - • j - i A -4" fA -J- -4" CC L A LA- p-. r- • sT 00 'X- «c fM A 1 L A -J- r v <f cr rA • -t I A L P L A < J o o o o o c p~ O cr c- A - x vr rvi <r ir- P J so INI L A *0 <- O rs; n l -4- A ; - A o o o o o o < L A r - rn r- co X r--. p - t N J »" r v —i i r . c - 0 m r - «o e- -4" t o o c c r o o 1 • o o o o.o < o o r - o x C r A I P , O o p~- LA A j rt •—' X rt .— <-• P J A J P . p - o r A o CV O ^A V cr rt o cr m vr r i rvj o i CJ o c o o C. rvj A J N C « X A J c -o -c w- r*- -C C_ f̂- {A O LP rt 0 rt rA X X O 'NI ; \ , i P C O O — i - C r— O cv rv I P I IA ( A fvj C 1 X [_> L.J o > m v j ! , A —' P J i"A t ^ | L ^ Ll_ j c c: u,i|LL C J ; < I -1 o A ' A rA fA i A P1"! rA s f - J " -sV rt x o a < O L U < a - u C-. L U ij. < N ; ^ X . L A .fi * A ' . A i n - C L C} c a : ..7 ftj < r- i/) I- L T . c , a - < u> L ^ x O •< x L . ; o :̂  L J O —) • A > x a* iX*! co o L J . vO A - ' TABLE VI - (continued) Ll p i a PJ c •r ri c: •c A i 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 . P J 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 ̂ -P 1 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 A J 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 . P J X in X vT L J L A -* o ^ o c c o '-"̂  r c . o CD ° ° ° o o C C: o m PO Xl Al •4" •-n c r O r~ X u_ o Ul c P J 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 -  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 L O c 0" 4" P J m X o „, X PJ , „ o O o rn iA X . vC- -0 -J c o •4 c rt L P c Cr I P , •c •~- Cr LP- vr AJ A- LA PJ C7 c cr u"> X r- <r X cr ••0 X cr r- •X r j rt r - J O L U c PJ PJ P J rv. X I 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 L T X C7' o: LP rv a fvl rt rvj p-rt LA rv •4" CA rt u_  rn L P >T rn Ci -4" X rv LP o o i n X AJ X X rt X rt •4-U J 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 c r 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; P J 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 C D 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 P i 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 P J 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, P I vC- o \p C J rv r - cr LL. o c* r— rt L P •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 P I 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 C J + •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 L P X rt X -o «C X X CT' fA <r c-o X rP Pvl X . P J pj P i -t -4" <n X . Pj - J - rt rt P J P J fv; rt A"l r ' vf P J vT V— X ; rt c o o o o c C O o O O o o o c Q o O o o C i 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 P J r*— -4" X . X c L P •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 O J ' < _ J V- 5' LL _ ) u or > X . > o C' c. c_'. CL CL o Li; < . VT. <: Z. LO <• a . > - J C J 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 C i U.' X CJ Uf LL ' 'C X L_.' n. L.' X L_J o ~z CJ t_> > «4T •J- -4 •J? i n I P LP X i n -0 o p- r- A- r- X o> X tc u u LP. TO rsi rt rt y p- C A i> A- n r%< ti f\ rj) w A - NT L P . 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 C J rt O X . LA. P J o- ; vf. Aj vfj rn vO <- J " . — - CO Lf O c ' LA if. 4 -0 ^ ' O C^ c o c c < A- L A X i - o o o o O O ' rn m c> L A o • i <J X ' V X X IA x c*- r- x cc- rt rA sC- LA. v0 c> X r— r- rt L A -4 L A .j- r~- r -o L A 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 A J O V_J V_/ o 1 o o CA o rv vO rt cn C A O X X vf, L A A J - —* XI X . o oc. ' cr X cr —• C' x . x . r-~ x> A J . 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 < / P J I A A- A- fA *.C L A vj- c~, ,r- 1 x A - ' X. X l>J XI O C J a m LU «-0 i vt «— 5. (•— C J ~ ! L- c; o ^: L L . ,j ri. v.i — a 1 - J p.) , A <J- x i *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 7 IMFO 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 . O O u O 3 A P B , - n 0.20 3 3 0.2447 0. 162 0 0. 3 7 3 0 0.2 64 0 0.033° 0.107? 0.21 6 7 I . n o o n 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 0.3 8 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 . 4 4 4 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 r t 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 l i J O w — £ 2 u . Z ' < " J ? 3 2 o — a a r- r- , t - m o • < c «r ( S_ m .*M . U J 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 f A O K <r c-' r~ - r o I A 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 u l U C Q m vj- ^- <r v.- - * At r~ c o r- <f :\J CT" -- ."̂  IT. CT1 N N C'l I P C1 m tr- -c ; A u" -j- o r» o v f 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 r j ,-\J - r- < v c c <r et 'Ni c o r-7- —« LA I A 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 v t 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~- î '1 o o ^N; p~ LA N3" u 2 < a . II. > u ? LU _j z • a < H c " ( £ L J c U J LT LA LA LT LA CM »0 A J i O *•*** ( \ ^ N o r-i <• -T LP. • D \ T C ( \ U" CM i A 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- — L i < C a LM c o C- ™ CM f"1 C J d L.J L J fNl oi rri. m ^ i~ cc ; h- i o - J z . CT' LA CO CM vO 0 s O ^ rM CT' L'*. N » CO LT 4- N n c f A fA -J" (A CM r-- o OJ >o l o X < r vj- *t r- > a <r - U L - 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- û, —• H 0 > 0 > --1 fvj ^ -A C I IJJ ( A «-J ex c. <r ^ 3 CM CA vT o (-j a o i A C*l 80 TABLE VII Means and standard deviat ions - Climate items* scores, & a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions leadership 81 Points of in tere s t concerning the matrix i n Table VI should be noted. Though t h i s i s a small sample to judge by, the orthogonal i ty of i n i t i a t i o n of structure (IS) and consider- a t ion (C) dimensions i s of i n t e r e s t . The c o r r e l a t i o n for the three department heads i s O.34 while that for the project leaders i t i s 0 ,6 l . In general , across many of the cl imate items, there are higher cor re l a t ions with C than with IS. In general , there are also higher cor re l a t ions with department head s ty l e dimension than with pro ject leader s ty le dimensions. The cor re l a t ions between climate dimensions also appear to be uniformly higher than those between the cl imate items i n gen- e r a l . By checking the paired observations table one can also assess the d i f f i c u l t y of completing some of the climate sca les . 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 i n future should c e r t a i n l y look to s impl i fy ing these or poss ib ly a l l of the sca les . There were many comments about the length and d i f f i c u l t y of the climate questionnaire and reports that many persons gave up and d id not send i n t h e i r quest ionnaires . I t should be noted that several of the quest ion- naires were wel l completed for the climate items with absolutely no entr ie s for leadership s ty le and v ice versa . The re su l t s of regress ion analys i s with climate dimension as dependent v a r i - ables w i l l be found i n Tables VIII and IX fo l lowing . 82 • CO c cr. w c O n o cc UP o n . • • LL C O 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_< c r cr <; < f i 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, M O 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 w a n i — o TABLE VIII Regression r e s u l t s - 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 L U —« a** r n L A a L A O CM : c a- ' in c < I A > <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 - L A -3" i L L .—i <r 4) C h a cn rA O C M C O I \ O -u iA a -< <X UL LA > : r o i 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 ' F P P o n . 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 O J c c c o o o o o c o o o OJ t> <NJ O L P 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 iy i ft. t_ uC u . i / 1 ' CM p- r o CN; 1 P J o cc > c c <r o - • i r . tNJ o . a . a . c o : 1— ^/i i— i_n <s\ c\< •—• cc iO -o 0*> CC CO CNJ O O O rvj I O r— cu c c •0 cr o m C LP , — ( \ J : •£ <r rO i> CNI : i r , c m <r - i , r— o - —1 - o o • O J 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 r o i— r- rO LO O <t O K » • * * 1 i—t Li_ -2: - t >-* ro co —• ix r- LT, r o u j r - t ^ - c r a - u"' LT. so a . * . • • r~ O J 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 u i C w o o- 00 o o 0 -1 f - i r t - oo O O O u . o -0 O J u . iNi c n-, c u.- c c N -r 0 O J LT. > a . cv c C2 t— 1— ̂  — v~. > L/i 7^ L/- i t O CJ 'Jl i .J *— O *-* O TABLE IX (continued ) 86 When department head leadership s ty le dimensions are used as independent var iab les for determining climate dimensions (Table XI I I ) , some very s i g n i f i c a n t r e su l t s become apparent. For a l l e ight climate dimensions the F-prob for the C c o e f f i c i e n t i s lower than for the IS one. The fact that the F-probs are l e s s than 0.000 for the f i r s t 5 dimensions, and are 0.0002, 0.004-0, and 0.0390 for the remainder i s very good evidence of a po s i t i ve r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a l l cases. With a lower c o e f f i c i e n t i n a l l cases the IS F-probs are only s i g n i f i c a n t for character of performance (0.0012) and of communications (O.O366). In- c l u s i o n of s izeable IS c o e f f i c i e n t s with r e l a t i v e l y low F-probs for p red i c t ion of dec i s ion making (O.0672) and goa l - se t t ing (0.0789) dimensions might also be warranted. For the degree of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y or , more proper ly , the proport ion of variance of the dependent var iab le accounted for by the independent v a r i - ables we should also note the R (RSQ) va lues . For the f i r s t 5 cl imate dimensions the RSQ values are quite subs tant i a l , a l l being greater than 0.4-6. Character of performance has an 0.4-0 RSQ while the character of goa l - se t t ing and of contro l process would appear to be affected to a large extent by var iab les other than leadership s ty le s When the same dependent var iab le regressions where leadership s ty l e dimensions of pro ject leaders are examined (Table IX) a few surpr i s ing re l a t ionsh ip s are found. The C c o e f f i c i e n t for department heads remains s i g n i f i c a n t for a l l equations except character of goa l - se t t ing where the IS 87 c o e f f i c i e n t becomes the most s i g n i f i c a n t (though not larges t ) while the C for project leaders c o e f f i c i e n t i s s i g n i f i c a n t and the IS c o e f f i c i e n t i s the larges t and also negative. The l a s t fact would imply that reduced IS by project leaders would s h i f t the character o f goa l - se t t ing towards a more i d e a l s i t u a t i o n . The low value of RSQ (.22 compared to .15 previous ly) and the increase i n the standard error of the predicted value would lead one to consider other more e f fec t ive ways of a f fec t ing goal- s e t t i n g . The IS (project leaders) i s also negative i n three other equations but i n only one (character of dec i s ion making) i s i t s i g n i f i c a n t . The c o e f f i c i e n t for C (project leaders) i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n three equations (character of leadership pro- cesses, of dec i s ion making, and of goal s e t t i n g ) . The general- l y low r e l a t i v e increase i n RSQ with the addi t ion of " s i g n i f i - cant" c o e f f i c i e n t s and the general increase i n standard errors should generate some suspic ion of the value of a l l of the Table IX equations. I f we look back to the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix we f i n d high cor re l a t ions between C (department heads) and both C and IS (project leaders , 0.64 and O.63 r e spect ive ly ) as wel l as with IS of project leaders (0.61) and, the p o t e n t i a l problem of m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y a r i s e s . That i s to say, the large s h i f t s i n values of c o e f f i c i e n t s may be due to mult ico l l inear i ty e f fects rather than underlying importance of the project leader dimension. As w i l l be seen l a t e r , t h i s d i scuss ion may appear to be 88 rather academic i n l i g h t of r e s u l t s to be seen i n the f o r t h - coming sec t ions . Second Survey - prel iminary Before g iv ing the r e su l t s from the second survey, an accounting of the s i t u a t i o n developing i n the f i rm should be g iven. At the meeting re ferred to e a r l i e r (Appendix A ) , there was not too much enthusiasm on the part of the department heads (A and B) with regard to the MVTAB r e s u l t s . In p a r t i c u l a r there was considerable concern over the response rate and the poss ible impl ica t ions as to the v a l i d i t y of the survey. The attempt by the inves t iga tor to convey the impact of statements made by respondents on the questionnaire was not considered very suc- ce s s fu l . Two factors of t h i s impact were the i n t e n s i t y of many statements and the general impression that a great many employees had high expectations with regard to p o t e n t i a l improvement and success of the company, and a des ire to par t i c ipa te i n a much more act ive manner with the creat ion of goals , the implement- a t ion of p o l i c i e s , and the sharing of success. The ch ie f executive was moderately impressed with the re su l t s and expres- sed an in te re s t i n ge t t ing a sampling of opinion from a l l parts of the company. A "go ahead" to carry out the second survey was also given at the meeting. After t h i s meeting the wr i t ten report was given to the department heads as wel l as an appreciat ion for the regress ion r e s u l t s noted e a r l i e r (Tables VIII & IX) . Unfortunately the 89 inves t iga tor found i t rather d i f f i c u l t to transmit the i m p l i - cat ions of F-probs and RSQ to i n d i v i d u a l s unfamil iar with these terms. The main emphasis was therefore placed on a more sim- p l i s t i c statement that Considerat ion appeared to be an important var iab le insofar as i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to a l l of the climate items. As i t turned out l a t e r , when these r e su l t s were given to him a couple of weeks af ter the second survey, department head C was f a i r l y conversant with s t a t i s t i c a l terminology and was able to appreciate the re su l t s i n a more meaningful manner. During the time between the surveys a poss ib ly relevant s i t u a t i o n was developing. The consul t ing industry can be rather c y c l i c i n nature with consequent booms with r ap id ly growing work forces or depressions with r a p i d l y d e c l i n i n g work forces . The company was going into a period of imminent d e c l i n e . Though there had been no l ayof f s before the second survey there had been subs tant ia l employee turnover (see Table X ) , though, h i s - t o r i c a l l y , the consul t ing business would have appreciable tu rn- over even during periods of growth. dept. A dept. B dept. C l e f t dept . * 18 7 11 entered dept. 3 1 9 *note that t h i s would be d iv ided among voluntary d i smi s sa l , involuntary d i smi s sa l , and loans to other departments or companies. TABLE X Employee turnover between surveys 90 The t iming of the second surveys was such, however, that l ayof f s i n a department occurred approximately two weeks l a t e r . Thus the job secur i ty points brought up i n the f i r s t survey and any fears that might af fect organiza t iona l climate were based upon legi t imate foundations. In the months fo l lowing the second sur- vey there were substantive l ayof f s throughout the ent i re organ- i z a t i o n . The imminent layof f s combined with the length and d i f - f i c u l t y of the climate questions acted to diminish the response rate on the second survey to a d i sa s t rous ly low l e v e l (see Table X I ) . dept. A dept. B dept. C t o t a l 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 ra te , as w i l l be discussed l a t e r , s e r ious ly handicapped the implementation of v a l i d s t a t i s t i c a l tes ts and the der iva t ion of r e a d i l y acceptable or more v a l i d conclus ions . In the presentat ion of r e s u l t s to fol low the con- cern with t h i s aspect of v a l i d i t y w i l l general ly be l e f t u n t i l the conclusions are drawn i n the next chapter. 91 The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix for the r e su l t s from both surveys w i l l be found i n Table XI I . In each case the "1 " su f f ix on a var iab le name indicates a f i r s t survey v a r i a b l e , a "2" suf f ix indicates a second survey v a r i a b l e , while a "D" suf f ix indicates a di f ference which i s the mean of paired di f ferences between re su l t s of survey 1 and survey 2. The number of paired obser- vat ions w i l l be found i n 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 S O - USING P R I O R I D I M E N S I O N S C O R R E L a" I O N M A T R I X T S P 1 TSPT" "TSPD~ co« PI C O MP 2 C O N P D I S D E 1 "TSTJET" I S D E D C O N 0 E 1 I S P l i . C C O O I 5 P ? 0 . 7 9 ; 7 1 . OC C 0 ! S - 0 . J . : ' 4 9 9 C . 7 8 3 3 1 . ' " 0 C 0 C O ' - ! ! 1 L 0 . 6 \ 4 4 C . 5 2 5 : 0 . 1 1 4 1 I oooo C O N F 2 0 .<•'• ' - 0 C . 5 2 6 5 0 . 3 0 2 4 C 8 0 2 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 C O N P D 0 . 2 ' - '0 2 0 . 4 0 3 9 0 . 3 6 0 0 ' 0 ? 6 9 C 0 . 7 9 0 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 ;snc i C . 4 3 C 0 c . 4 7 1 1 0 . 2 5 7 C 0 2 0 5 8 0 . 1 8 4 4 - 0 . 1 6 7 4 1 . 0 0 0 0 1 S 0 E 2 0 . 4 5 2 7 ."1 . 2 5 8 6 0 . 2 5 0 1 0 4 2 4 7 0 . 3 7 2 7 0 . 5 3 1 8 0 . 2 6 1 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 I S 0 E 0 - 0 . 1 2 4 2 -o . 0 7 7 7 0 . 0 0 0 1 - 0 0 5 6 3 0 . 3 1 1 7 0 . 5 6 C 7 - 0 . 6 5 3 7 0 . 5 5 9 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 C O N D f . ) 0 . 6 2 4 8 o .36U - 0 . C 6 8 5 0 6 4 4 1 0 . 2 8 9 3 - 0 . 1 2 4 3 0 . 3 3 8 9 0 . 2 5 1 1 - 0 . 1 4 4 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 C 0 N 0 E 2 0 . 2 7 - 5 4 0 , 1 3 2 4 - • , . 0 4 8 4 0 2 1 7 0 0 . C 8 7 1 - 0 . 2 7 7 3 0 . 1 8 4 6 C . 2 4 1 9 - 0 . 1 6 7 ? 0 . 6 8 4 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 C O - i D E O - 0 . 5 7 6 2 - ̂  . 3C3^ 0 . 0 5 1 7 _ r 5 3 4 9 - 0 . 4 3 6 0 - 0 . 1 9 8 9 - 0 . 3 4 5 3 - 0 . 3 0 5 6 - 0 . 0 2 0 3 - C . 51 6 3 0 . 2 . ' 1 4 L O " - C I 0 . 5 0 1 7 0 . 9 1 2 3 0 . 6 4 3 5 0 5 9 2 5 0 . 5 7 9 4 0 . 2 3 9 9 0 . 2 8 5 9 0 . 3 0 7 1 - 0 . 1 6 5 6 0 . 6 8 3 2 0 . 7 4 5 4 L O P R 0 2 C . 5 6 0 0 0 . 6 7 1 4 0 . 6 3 3 0 r. 49 1 8 0 . 5 0 3 9 0 . 3 3 0 4 0 . 3 8 0 4 0 . 4 5 6 3 - 0 . 0 2 1 5 0 . 5 9 6 4 0 . 7 6 9 6 L D P R no o . i . 0 5 5 0 . 1 6 43 0 . 3 0 0 1 - 0 0 1 6 8 0 . 1 4 3 0 0 . 2 7 4 1 0 . 0 4 9 9 0 . 4 1 3 3 0 . 1 8 1 5 - 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 3 6 6 5 . " O T r 1 0 . 5 5 4 6 r . 3 6 1 0 0 . 5 2 7 9 C 4 0 3 9 0 . 5 3 5 ? 0 . 2 6 5 0 0 . 3 4 8 . 8 0 . 4 3 7 3 - 0 . 1 5 6 1 0 . 6 6 8 3 0 . 7 0 7 0 R O T F 2 0 . 6 C 9 2 0 . 5 1 9 3 0 . 7 1 4 0 0 4 6 5 9 0 . 5 9 3 7 0 . 4 6 7 5 0 . 3 3 7 3 C . 2 5 C 3 - 0 . 0 4 9 3 0 . 5 2 5 2 0 . 6 2 8 6 ( • • O T P ! ) 0.1618 L- . 8 5 4 3 0 . 6 2 5 5 c 1 2 9 4 0 . 2 3 7 7 0 . 5 2 8 7 - 0 . 1 6 7 2 - 0 . 0 2 0 2 0 . 1 3 4 9 - 0 . 0 3 3 1 0 . 2 6 2 6 C C f f U 0 . 4 4 1 2 0 . 8 5 2 6 0 . 7 1 5 6 0 5 1 6 5 0 . 3 5 3 8 0 . I O C S 0 . 3 9 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 5 - 0 . 3 2 5 0 0 . 5 9 4 3 0 . 7 9 8 3 C C : - « 2 0 . 3 5 < 6 r . 5 4 6 1 0 . 7 2 3 0 0 2 C 8 0 0 . 4 4 0 4 0 . 2 2 1 7 0 . 2 1 6 9 0 . 2 4 2 0 - O . O 3 0 2 0 . 3 9 9 2 0 - 7 9 7 7 C C ' - ' R O - 0 . 4 ^ 9 9 - 0 ,3C 8 9 - 0 . 0 2 4 3 -c 2 4 5 2 - 0 . 0 3 4 1 0 . 2 0 7 4 - 0 . 6 0 5 1 - 0 . 0 1 1 1 0 . 5 2 8 9 - 0 . 4 3 6 3 - 0 . C 9 5 4 I l - . T E R • 0 . 4 6 6 0 0 . 8 3 0 4 o . 4 3 3 3 C 4 S 2 9 0 . 3 1 8 4 - 0 . 0 0 7 3 0 . 3 5 4 0 C . 4 5 E 3 - 0 . 2 0 5 3 0 . 6 9 0 5 0 . 7 9 7 2 I N T E R 2 0 . 6 2 H c . 5 6 4 8 0 . 5 C 2 3 c 3 4 9 3 0 . 4 5 6 3 0 . 3 6 2 7 0 . 2 9 3 9 0 . 4 7 4 4 0 . 1 3 2 0 C . 5 0 3 9 0 . 6 9 7 3 1 N T E R 0 - 0 . 5 1 6 o . 4 0 9 I - 0 . : 7 6 3 - '.; 39 2 6 0 . C l 4 7 0 . 4 4 2 5 - 0 . 6 4 5 4 - 0 . 1 0 5 6 0 . 4 7 6 7 - 0 . 7 2 6 2 - 0 . 2 8 8 3 Dr: C. 1 0 . 2 8 7 4 0 . 5 6 5 6 0 . 6 0 6 7 0 5 31! 2 0 . 5 5 4 8 0 . 3 5 7 3 0 . 3 6 3 C C . 2 6 3 7 - 0 . 0 9 3 5 0 . 5 5 9 4 0 . 6 2 1 0 f , E C 2 0 . 3 5 6 5 c . 5 8 =5 0 . 6 7 6 6 0 4 6 0 3 0 . 5 2 8 2 0 . 3 8 2 5 0 . 1 3 7 3 0 . 4 7 4 7 0 . 1 7 8 0 0 . 5 2 9 4 0 . 7 5 6 7 C E C O C . 3 2 5 3 c . 2 2 7 1 0 . 1 6 7 3 0 0 t 3 5 0 . 1 4 3 4 0 . 1 4 6 4 - 0 . 2 5 9 1 0 . 4 7 8 0 0 . 4 5 9 5 0 . 2 8 6 1 0 . 3 8 3 3 G O A L 1 C . 1 6 6 5 c . 5 4 3 4 0 . 4 0 8 2 0 3 4 9 2 0 . 5 8 2 6 0 . 3 5 3 0 0 . 3 0 0 6 C . G 8 6 8 - 0 . 3 4 0 6 0 . 3 2 6 4 0 . 3 4 2 8 C C A 1 . 2 • 0 . 2 8 ; 4 c . 4 4 9 6 0 . 6 4 2 C 0 38 8 3 0 . 4 4 8 4 0 . 2 5 3 6 0 . 2 6 1 3 0 . 4 0 2 9 - 0 . 0 7 6 8 0 . 5 4 1 8 0 . 4 7 3 9 G C A L D - 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 8 « 5 - C . 0 2 5 7 - ( ! 2 9 1 5 - 0 . 3 3 3 7 - 0 . 2 2 0 0 - 0 . 2 9 7 2 0 . 2 2 2 7 0 . 3 9 3 8 0 . 1 2 3 7 C . 1 4 2 1 C O N T R I 0 . 1 7 <: C c . o 4 3 3 0 . 6 3 5 3 0 3 0 5 1 0 . 2 6 8 0 0 . 0 2 6 5 0 . 1 9 9 S - C . 1 7 C S - 0 . 3 5 5 8 0 . 3 8 8 3 0 . 5 7 3 6 C O N T P 2 0 . 4 3 7 ? 0 . 6 1 0 9 0 . 5 5 6 8 . r 3 9 0 0 0 . 5 0 3 5 0 . 4 3 5 8 - 0 . 0 1 9 2 0 . I 4 8 6 - 0 . 1 2 7 9 0 . 3 2 1 2 0 . 5 5 6 7 C 0 N 7 P D - 0 . 0 6 8 3 0 . 0 7 0 0 0 . 1 6 6 3 -c 1 5 6 5 0 . 2 2 5 0 0 . 5 2 3 5 - 0 . 3 5 6 4 C . 4 1 6 B 0 . 5 9 3 5 0 . 1 5 6 2 0 . 3 7 6 1 P E R F 1 0 . 4 2 6 9 c . 8 3 2 4 0 . 5 0 9 2 0 3 2 4 ? 0 . 3 1 3 2 0 . 0 1 5 2 0 . 4 9 2 6 0 . 4 8 1 8 - 0 . 3 9 6 0 0 . 5 3 7 2 0 . 6 6 2 2 P E R F 2 0- .4 4 4 4 c . 7 5 4 3 0 . 6 1 4 6 0 2 2 9 4 0 . 2 3 5 0 - 0 . 0 9 6 3 0 . 7 6 8 7 0 . 3 3 1 0 - 0 . 5 8 4 5 0 . 4 0 5 8 0 . 5 0 6 3 P E R F D - 0 . 7 6 3 6 . 6 3 5 0 - 0 . 2 0 3 6 - 0 3 9 1 0 - 0 . 3 6 8 1 - 0 . 1 6 8 0 - 0 . 5 2 6 7 - C . 6 2 5 7 - 0 . 0 0 1 6 - 0 . 7 7 4 1 - 0 . 5 4 9 2 ro C O R R E L A T I O N H A T R I x V A R I A E L E C L ' N O E D L D P R O 1 L U P R O ? L D P R D D M 0 T F 1 M O T F 2 M O T F D C O M M 2 C O M M D IN T E R 1 ^ C f C O E i ) l .oor-a J ( L O P R O I - 0 . 2 5 6 9 l . C O C C L D PP 0 2 0 . 0 2 3 6 0 . 8 ) 9 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 L O P R G Q 0 . " 6 2 7 0 . 0 8 4 1 0 . 6 4 0 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 X 0 T F 1 - 0 . 1 3 7 1 0 . ft i E 5 0 . 7 1 2 8 C . 1 5 4 7 ' 1 . 0 0 0 0 P C T F 2 0 . 1 3 o 8 0 . 3 3 6 8 0 . 5 9 0 8 0 . 2 7 5 4 0 . 7 6 9 3 1 . C C O C M C T F D 0 . 4 5 8 7 0 . 3 0 0 2 0 . 3 6 8 3 0 . 2 3 7 9 - 0 . 0 4 2 7 0 . 6 0 5 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 C C M 1 0 . 0 1 8 7 0 . 7 8 2 8 0 . / 4 8 8 0 . 1 6 4 6 C. 6 9 7 9 0 . 8 6 0 0 0 . 3 S 5 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 C 0 V . W 2 0 . 2 9 0 0 0 . 6 7 9 2 0 . 7 4 3 2 0 . 4 1 6 9 0 . 6 C 7 2 0 . 7 7 0 6 0 . 5 2 4 3 C . £ 4 2 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 C O M M O 0 . 4 7 2 3 - 0 . 2 6 12 - 0 . 0 3 3 3 0 . 4 2 5 6 - 0 . 3 4 4 2 - 0 . 1 3 8 9 0 . 2 1 1 5 - 0 . 3 5 1 9 0 . 2 0 7 4 1 . 0 0 0 0 I N T E R ! - 0 . 3 0 6 2 C . 7 1 £ 3 0 . 7 6 2 0 0 . 2 1 7 7 0 . 6 3 7 8 0 . 7 2 5 1 0 . 1 9 1 4 0 . 8 0 5 6 0 . 6 0 4 9 - 0 . 3 9 3 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 I N T F R 2 C. 1 7 1 9 C . 6 9 4 4 0 . 6 3 9 1 0 . 2 4 8 2 0 . 6 5 4 5 0 . 7 8 5 8 0 . 4 9 2 6 C . 7 7 5 7 0 . 7 9 8 8 - C . 0 3 6 5 0 . 7 6 4 0 I M T E R O 0 . 6 6 2 9 - C 4 6 2 1 - C . 3 31 9 - 0 . 0 4 4 9 . 4 0 1 0 - 0 . 1 3 7 9 0 . 2 8 4 0 - 0 . 3 1 8 5 - 0 . 0 0 6 7 0 . 5 6 7 2 - 0 . 6 4 9 3 C E C l 0 . 1 4 Z & 0 . 6 9 1 8 0 . 6 3 0 0 0 . 1 3 1 8 0 . 5 9 7 0 0 . 8 1 3 7 0 . 4 4 2 4 0 . 7 6 4 9 0 . . 8 1 3 M - 0 . 1 2 1 2 0 . 6 1 1 2 DEC 2 0 . 2 2 2 2 C . 7 9 5 I 0 . 8 0 5 9 0 . 3 7 4 4 0 . 6 7 1 1 0 . 6 7 3 3 0 . 5 0 3 0 0 . 7 9 9 8 0 . 8 4 0 2 o . i o i o - 0 . 6 5 4 9 C E C O - O . f t - C a 0 . 2 3 4 2 0 . 3 8 9 i C . 3 8 2 3 0 . 0 9 5 4 0 . 1 5 9 0 0 . 1 3 0 8 0 . 0 1 0 3 0 . 1 7 1 9 0 . 3 0 5 8 0 . 3 C 8 9 G 0 A L 1 - 0 . 1 8 2 0 0 . 4 1 5 8 0 . 4 2 9 0 - C . C 8 2 3 0 . 4 8 0 6 0 . 5 5 3 5 0 . 2 3 3 6 C . 6 1 2 2 0 . 4 9 5 7 - 0 . 4 1 1 0 0 . 4 5 4 0 G O A L 2 0 . C 0 6 9 C. 7 5 3 4 0 . 6 5 1 5 0 . 1 9 7 1 0 . 4 8 6 8 0 . 5 7 1 0 0 . 5 8 4 7 C . S 2 1 3 0 . 6 7 0 1 • - 0 . 0 4 3 9 0 . 6 e 5 4 G O A L 0 f> . 0 8 8 2 - 0 . 0 2 SO 0 . 1 1 0 5 0 . 2 3 2 6 - 0 . 1 2 7 5 0 . 0 7 9 8 0 . 2 7 4 5 - 0 . 0 7 9 1 0 . 1 5 6 9 0 . 4 5 0 1 0 . 1 8 6 4 C O N T R I 0 . 2 2 3 3 0 . 4 9 7 1 0 - . 5 4 2 7 0 . 1 2 7 9 0 . 3 8 4 9 0 . 7 1 3 1 0 . 7 2 3 7 C . 6 2 C 5 0 . 6 0 7 5 - 0 . 1 7 7 6 0 . 3 . 9 7 9 CON TR ? 0 . 2 6 2 1 0 . 6 3 ( 1 9 0 . 5 6 5 6 0 . 2 2 5 2 0 . 5 4 3 1 0 . 7 1 1 8 0 . 6 6 5 1 0 . 8 1 6 1 0 . 6 4 1 2 - 0 . 0 7 1 3 0 . 5 1 6 2 C C N T R D 0 . 1 9 3 0 0 . 1 1 9 0 0 . 3 5 5 6 0 . 4 7 9 7 0 . 3 6 6 6 0 . 2 8 0 6 - 0 . 0 0 5 4 0 . 1 5 9 9 0 . 4 1 4 7 0 . 4 8 3 6 0 . 2 2 0 6 . P F R F 1 - 0 . 3 1 6 9 C . 3 9 9 2 0 . 7 1 3 3 0 . 2 7 1 3 0 . 6 1 8 3 0 . 5 8 2 6 - 0 . 0 2 6 3 C . 5 9 1 1 0 . 5 9 0 6 - 0 . 4 3 2 7 . 0 . 5 2 9 8 P E R F 2 - 0 . 0 7 1 7 C . 5 6 2 4 0. 7 1 3 1 0 . 2 7 6 8 0 . 6 2 2 1 0 . 3 0 8 1 - C . 0 6 0 1 0 . 7 3 5 8 0 . 5 5 0 5 - 0 . 2 5 7 7 0 . 6 2 9 4 F E R F O 0 . 4 8 8 b - 0 . 5 6 3 4 - 0 . 5 1 0 2 - 0 . 1 2 5 3 - 0 . 5 4 3 7 - 0 . 4 5 4 0 - 0 . 0 3 2 7 - 0 . 4 8 3 6 - 0 . 2 4 8 2 0 . 4 4 7 3 - 0 . 6 8 5 5 C O R R E L A T I O N MA T R I X V A R I ABLE I N T E R 2 I N T E R C C E C l D E C 2 D E C D G 0 A L 1 C 0 A L 2 G O A L C C 0 N T R 1 C Q N T R 2 C O H T P . D I N T E R 2 1 . C 0 r. C I M T c R C - C . C 0 5 4 1 . 0 0 0 0 C E C l C o ' : : 6 - C .0 20 . 3 1 . 0 0 0 0 r E E C 2 0 . 72 fc £ 0 . 0 0 1 7 0 . 8 5 2 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 C E C O C . 3 8 0 6 - 0 . C 1 9 2 - 0 . I 7 2 6 0 . 3 6 8 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 C f . A L l 0 . 4 9 3 0 - 0 . 1 6 1 c 0 . 6 3 0 9 C . 5 6 6 1 - 0 . 2 5 2 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 G O A L 2 c . seei - 0 . 1 7 9 8 0 . 8 1 1 6 C . 7 4 0 8 0 . 0 5 4 8 0 . 7 5 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 G O A L C C . 1 9 4 3 - 0 . C 5 C 6 - 0 . 1 8 0 6 C. C 6 6 3 0 . 4 4 5 4 - 0 . 6 4 1 9 0 . 0 2 5 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 C 0 N T R 1 0 . 4 3 0 3 - 0 . 1 3 6 1 0 . 5 5 1 0 0 . 6 2 6 9 0 . 1 2 4 3 • 0 . 5 0 4 2 0 . 6 7 4 6 C . 2 2 3 9 1 . 0 0 0 0 C O N T R 2 0 . 5 7 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 8 0 . 8 7 5 0 0 . 6 0 7 7 - 0 . 0 9 8 6 0 . 6 5 7 7 0 . 5 9 2 9 - 0 . 0 6 3 3 0 . 8 5 2 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 c n r i T R o 0 .4 1 9 1 r,.! 6 2 0 0 . 3 2 4 5 0 . 3 7 8 9 0 . 2 C 8 i 0 . 1 5 2 5 0 . 2 3 2 5 0 . 1 1 4 4 - 0 . 2 4 1 4 0 . 3 0 2 4 1 . O C O O PEP.F 1 0 . 6 L 5 9 - 0 . 5 8 C 2 0 . 5 5 5 8 0 . 5 9 8 0 0 - 1 5 6 2 0 . 6 0 4 6 0 . 5 5 7 C - C . 0 5 8 5 0 . 4 5 5 4 0 . 4 6 8 2 0 . 1 7 7 1 P E R F 2 0 . 4 6 8 6 - C . 3 3 8 5 C . 5 5 ? 7 0 . 6 0 4 2 0 . 0 2 1 6 " 0 . 6 4 1 0 0 . 6 1 9 1 - 0 . 2 6 7 5 0 . 1 8 4 7 0 . 4 3 4 8 0 . 1 2 2 2 P i P. F D - 0 . 3 S 4 5 0 . 6 0 9 2 - 0 . 2 5 2 9 - 0 . 3 2 9 1 - 0 . 2 5 4 5 ' - 0 . 1 2 0 4 - 0 . 2 0 6 1 - 0 . 2 8 3 2 - 0 . 3 0 0 3 - 0 . 3 1 1 8 - 0 . 1 6 6 4 C O P . K E L A T I U N M A T R I X V A R I A E L t P E R F 1 P E R F 2 P E R F D P E R F 1 i . r e c o P ER r 2 0 . E 4 6 C I . O O C O " P f c R F C - C . 6 9 6 4 - 0 . 2 0 6 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 •-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 i n Table XI I . Before commenting on the data from the matrix, however, i t may be appropriate to examine the changes which took place i n the two experimental groups and the cont ro l group. For t h i s purpose Tables XIII & XIV were prepared showing the r e s u l t s for each department as wel l as combined r e s u l t s of a l l departments and combined re su l t s of departments A and B. With the large drop i n response on the second sampling there are two poss ible di f ferences between Time 1 and Time 2 r e s u l t s . For t h i s reason DIFF indicates the di f ference between the means shown d i r e c t l y above, while P DIFF indicates the mean of the paired (only) di f ferences between Time 1 and Time 2 for that v a r i a b l e . For each di f ference the t-prob for the relevant t - s t a t i s t i c i s shown d i r e c t l y fo l lowing the di f ferences i n d i - cated. For the paired di f ferences formula 2 was used whi le , for the others , formula 3 was used except where a 1 i s shown d i r e c t l y fo l lowing the t-prob. The use of formula 1 was based on the dec i s ion ru le indicated i n Appendix C. The more s ta- t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t di f ferences are flagged with * for .1 and * * for .05 s i gn i f i cance l e v e l . I f the leadership s ty le dimensions are considered f i r s t , one f inds that most of the di f ferences are consistent i n terms of s ign except for two anomalies. While the paired di f ference for department head IS i s po s i t i ve ( r i s i n g ) , the means d i f f e r - ence i s negative ( f a l l i n g ) . The reverse s i t u a t i o n i s indicated i n the Considerat ion di f ferences for department head C. These / V ro -o - 0 O D> iA i n n A •A O o o AJ A l - i A J n A - A J -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 subs tant ia l v a r i a t i o n between di f ference l e v e l s and/or t-prob values would indicate that there were some underlying di f ferences between the respondent samples for Time 1 and Time 2. The ent i re v a r i a t i o n can not be attached to the drop-out of f i r s t survey respondents as there were respondents to the second survey who had not responded on the f i r s t survey. The most consistent change across a l l three departments i s a drop i n C o n s i d e r a t i o n ^ ) for project leaders though that i n department C i s somewhat lower. On I n i t i a t i o n of Structure (IS) for pro ject leaders , department B had a r i s e , department A v i r t u a l l y had no change, and department C indicates a f a l l . The most notable changes i n s ty le appear to be i n the department head IS scores . The drop i n department A and the anomalous change i n B are subs tant i a l ly greater than that for department head C. The pos i t ive change i n both departments A and B con- t ra s t s with the anomalous change i n department C. The re su l t s for department head A would indica te some degree of acceptance of the re su l t s and information generated from survey 1. The r e s u l t s for department head B also indicate s i m i l a r s h i f t s p a r t i c u l a r l y when one has more information on how the depart- ment has been managed. As indicated by the survey 1 scores h i s IS score was the highest while h i s C score was lowest. The department head concerned was aware of a recent dec l ine i n com- munications and other C-related factors and saw the survey as a means of improving matters i n t h i s area. One of the actions taken after the f i r s t survey was to order, v i a a wri t ten memo, 97 new procedures for review and d i scuss ion of recent ly completed pro jec t s . This was seen as a means of improving communication and would involve a ce r t a in amount of confrontat ion amongst personnel as to what was wrong or r i g h t with previous pro jec t s . This I n i t i a t i o n of Structure a c t i v i t y which might he considered i n various manners by d i f f e rent i n d i v i d u a l s , along with an ap- parent increase i n Considerat ion, may wel l explain the anoma- lous r e su l t s for I n i t i a t i o n of S tructure . The changes i n department C are a l l general ly low, but d e c l i n i n g . This would probably r e f l e c t the types of change that would be expected i f there had been no in te rvent ion . When the combined r e s u l t s 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 l ead- ers) r e s p e c t i v e l y . The above t - te s t s were for paired d i f f e r - ences only and they were not i n d i c a t i v e of even a near s i g n i f i - cant change i n IS (department heads). When one looks to changes i n the a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions (Table XIV) one f inds a d i f f e rent p i c t u r e . Across most climate dimensions there would appear to be more s t a b i l i t y i n the climate dimensions than i n the leadership ones. Through t h i s s t a b i l i t y one can s t i l l d i scern a general tendency for department A ( p a r t i c u l a r l y ) and B to have l a rger pos i t ive changes or smaller negative changes than department C. This i s more evident for character of leadership processes, of moti- va t iona l forces tapped, of communications, of goa l - se t t ing , 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 O A l A •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 p r i o r i cl imate dimensions - both surveys 99 of cont ro l 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 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Though the evidence i s , s t a t i s t i c a l l y , very weak there i s an inference of a p o s i - t ive r e s u l t developing i n both departments A and B as a r e s u l t of the feedback of information when compared to the contro l department. The major question of research i n t e r e s t , however, was the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between leadership s ty le and organi- za t iona l c l imate . For t h i s purpose the cross-lagged corre- l a t i o n a l model as described by Lawler (1968) and Lawler and Sut t le (1972) was used i n an attempt to determine i f there were causal l inkages between leadership s ty le and organiza t iona l climate dimensions. The model uses the c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n - ships as i l l u s t r a t e d on Tables XV and XVI. For t h i s analys i s the (1) and (2) f igures are the cor re l a t ions between a leader- ship s ty le dimension and a climate dimension at Time 1 and 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The (5) f igure i s the c o r r e l a t i o n between a leadership s ty le dimension at Time 1 and a climate dimension at Time 2. The (6) f igure i s at the c o r r e l a t i o n for the opposite r e l a t i o n s h i p while cor re l a t ions (3) and (4) indicate the s ta- b i l i t y of the dimension concerned. The l o g i c underlying t h i s kind of analys i s res t s upon the time l ag that t y p i c a l l y ex i s t s when one var iab le causes another. The argument i s that i f A causes B then the present state of A should be more strongly re la ted to B's future state than to B's past or present s ta te . Thus, where A— » » B , then 100 &a where B i s measured af ter A should be greater than f^g where B i s measured e i ther before or at the same time as A. Thus, by comparing the r e l a t i v e s izes of fyst , /"ABZ » and ^3 where B i s measured before, a f te r , and at the same time as A, i t i s poss ible to determine whether the hypothesis A — » B or B—** A i s more tenable (Lawler, 1968, p. 463). As wel l as the above, the dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n (7) for each combination of dimensions i s also ind ica ted . This i s the c o r r e l a t i o n between the change i n the leadership s ty le dimension and the change i n the cl imate dimension under cons iderat ion . "When a s i g n i f i c a n t dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n i s found between two var iab les one can put more f a i t h i n the fact that one caused the other than one can when a s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i c c o r r e l a t i o n appears between two var iab les (Lawler, 1968, p . 464)." The cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e su l t s shown on the fo l lowing pages are a l l extracted from the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix shown e a r l i e r (Table XI I ) . .3 _^ =f .u —1 •u X IU •u x -+ 1— :c *: • r -f .JJ -~> — a -.1 7̂  _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 rv̂  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 J J — * •it '.U o — I 01 TABLE XV Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - a p r i o r i dimensions, dept. heads TABLE XV - (continued) —* .JJ — A <f •r •A — # rvj fl. » O A J J (A .n r\ o A J r- r n n u • • • J . n V ~p —» — a rr) •ft ~< a . •4- • J J n V— ' 0 r-t n —• 4-c >~ o J- •0 rn A o iA • u, * • • I I I 73 t o * r\l J — 'VI P~ rvj A l J J a 7TJ -—• _j X) T. r- o tn J r— 0 0 —« r- -1 4- 75 A J 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 r o ^~ 0 n ^~ t— rt _) m -t ~) 1A o + 7) n A J3 rA A •a h - O i— A J <— O \n - 4 - r A n O o n •O -j_ ; A LU A LL LL TO a • _ • — h— rt —* !- >-* — rt iA .x l <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" J J • • — • • < ( J J tV) • VI "̂ T VI • rvi - J A -j • J " 3 n CA A J '7J T •A A *n 4- •7 rt "TV -r •v m A -r- O A J •o A v j 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 V J £ 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 c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - a p r i o r i dimensions, pro ject leaders TJ 1 t 1 ' J •JJ 1 -I 1 r • t A >z A | -J i —* u -£ 1 CL 1 <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 l U -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 d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are found. I f a presumption i s made that a high c o r r e l a t i o n between re su l t s for a var iab le between two time periods ( i . e . (3) and (4)) i s an i n d i c a t i o n of s t a b i l i t y of that v a r i a b l e , then some i n t e r e s t i n g inferences can be made. The s t a b i l i t y of the climate dimensions i n a l l cases i s greater than that of the leadership s ty le dimensions of the department heads. The IS dimension for department heads with a c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.26 would indicate a great deal of v o l a t i l i t y . The s ty le dimensions for pro ject leaders , on the other hand, would indicate much less f l e x i b i l i t y i n s ty le than department heads. When a check i s made to see i f any combination of var- iab les meets the cross-lagged c r i t e r i o n , several good examples come f o r t h . The best of these, for department heads, i s the Cons iderat ion—interact ion- inf luence panel where the high dy- namic c o r r e l a t i o n (0.66) combined with an exce l lent f i t to the cross-lagged model would s trongly indicate that the character of in terac t ion- in f luence processes i s a causal var iable a f fec t - ing Cons iderat ion. Other climate dimensions which also would appear to have causal r e l a t ionsh ips with Considerat ion are character of performance, of communications, and of motivat ional forces being tapped. Even when the model c r i t e r i a are not wholly met, the (6) value i s cons i s tent ly higher than the (5) value except for the goa l - se t t ing dimension, but i n that case the dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n (7) i s quite smal l . 106 When r e l a t i o n s between i n i t i a t i o n of structure ( for department heads) and climate are considered, fewer c lear -cut conclusions r e s u l t . With several dimensions where the dynamic cor re l a t ions i s greater than 0.4-5 there are no cross-lagged panels which t r u l y f i t the c r i t e r i a required ; though more often than not the (6) value i s l a rger than the (5) va lue . Worthy of note are a few cases where (1) and (2) values are higher than e i ther (5) or (6) values while the (7) value i s s i g n i f i c a n t . I t i s poss ible i n these cases that the l ag time i s very much shorter than the time period used between the two surveys on t h i s study. Examples of t h i s s i t u a t i o n are character of cont ro l processes, of goa l - se t t ing , and of decision-making. When the leadership s ty le of project leaders i s con- sidered somewhat d i f f e rent r e su l t s are found. Though there i s a consistent pattern of the (6) value being l a rger than the (5) value there are few panels that s a t i s fy both the panel c r i t e r i o n and the requirements for a substantive dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n . Most notable of these i s the i n i t i a t i o n of s tructure i n t e r a c t i o n with character of motivat ional forces tapped where the panel c r i t e r i o n i s met, and with character of leadership processes where the very high (6) value (0.91) indicates a r e l a t i o n s h i p between character of leadership processes and l a t e r i n i t i a t i o n of s tructure behaviour on the part of project leaders . The evidence given provides a c lear i n d i c a t i o n that rather than leadership s ty le being a causal var iab le i n t e r a c t i n g with organiza t iona l climate as suggested by the e a r l i e r 10? hypothesis (H3)» the d i r e c t opposite appears to be the case. I f one were to t r y to develop a regress ion model for p r e d i c t i n g leadership s ty le from climate dimensions there would be some d i f f i c u l t y . Of the 28 c o r r e l a t i o n values between climate d i - mensions, four are above 0.7, another nine are above 0.60, and only three are below 0.4 (Table XI I ) . There would, doubtless , be problems with multicc&linearity i f any attempt at regress ion was made. The requirement would then be to have orthogonal climate dimensions which would be more sa t i s f ac tory i n terms of a theo- r e t i c a l des ire for " c l ean" dimensions as wel l as meeting the idea l i zed requirements for sa t i s f ac tory regress ion analys i s ( i . e . orthogonal independent v a r i a b l e s ) . To t h i s end, i t was decided to carry out a f ac tor-ana lys i s of the climate var iab les as described i n the fo l lowing sec t ion . Factor Analyses The fo l lowing analyses were car r i ed out af ter the re - su l t s from the cros s - lag analys i s had been s tudied. I f a s tate- ment was to be made, that changes i n leadership s ty le followed changes i n organizat iona l climate dimensions, i t was important to be able to d i s t i n g u i s h which dimensions were most re levant , and to ascer ta in the extent to which the a p r i o r i ca tegor i - zat ion of dimensions was v a l i d . Another important matter to be considered was the independence of the dimensions from each other. I f there was high c o r r e l a t i o n between climate dimensions 108 the poss ible problem of m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y would make s e l ec t ion of appropriate or relevant dimensions hazardous, and the s h i f t - ing values of c o e f f i c i e n t s with d i f f e rent se lec t ions would cloud any conclusions drawn. Analys i s using data from t h i s study. The i n i t i a l cor- r e l a t i o n matrix used for the f i r s t factor analys i s would, of course, be the same as that seen e a r l i e r i n Table V I . With the object ive of f ind ing independent dimensions, only orthogonal ro ta t ions were considered. The choice of the p r i n c i p a l com- 2 ponents method and the use of mult ip le R values on the diago- n a l was not based on any untheoret ica l reasoning, but, as sug- gested by Rummel (1970, p . 319), was guided by the choice made i n other studies and the need to use s i m i l a r techniques for purposes o f comparison. Varimax r o t a t i o n was used because "The varimax r o t a t i o n c r i t e r i o n for orthogonal r o t a t i o n comes c loses t to the graphica l simple structure so lu t ion . . . [andj i s now general ly accepted as the best ana ly t i c orthogonal r o t a t i o n technique (Rummel, 1970, p . 392)." I f these procedures had not developed re su l t s that were meaningful or useful other pro- cedures may wel l have proven worthwhile. Table XVII on the fo l lowing page indicates the r e su l t s when a maximum of eight factors i s al lowed. The associated eigenvalues, proport ion of var iance , communality f igures , f ac tor- load ing matrix before r o - t a t i o n , an ordered fac tor- load ing matrix a f ter r o t a t i o n , and a complete c o r r e l a t i o n matrix with var iab les reordered w i l l be found i n Appendix J . N A T . - . I X O F C O R P E L A n C t l S h lTK V A R I A B L E S R6CRCCRKC A C C O R D I N G T O HIGHEST C O R R E L A T I O N WITH A F A C T O R . * I N D I C A T E S A V A L U E G R E A T E R T H A N TIP, E Q U A L T O 0 . 6 0 V A P . I A B L E 9 2 E A T M E 3 C 7 0 S H 2 4 4!.'. T E A " 1INTV/M - 1 . 4 4 5 1 - 0 . 5 1 3 3 - r . 4 ! cF - 0 . 5 2 9 0 - 0 . = 0 6 8 - 0 . 6 , 7 I ? - 0 . 6 8 6 6 - 0 . 6 9 6 ! - 0 . 7 1 2 1 " 3 G L C 0 R C . 1 6 4 6 o . 1 8 4 7 0 . 1 4 2 6 C . 1 6 7 1 < " > . 0 2 3 1 0 . 1 4 7 9 • 0 . 0 4 1 5 . 0 6 2 1 GPROCM 0 . ? 1 1 0 - u . 0 2 2 0 2PRC0H 0 . 3 4 6 7 0 . 3 2 7 6 7 INFOR - 0 . 1 1 5 2 - 0 . 0 4 ° 0 itCONPR 0 . 2 1 3 7 0 . 3 4 1 7 5UPC0M 0 . 1 1 4 1 0 . 2 5 5 7 8DECMK - 0 . 0 0 5 1 - 0 . 1 5 9 7 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 ? 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 4 !.'. A " 5 n l 3 L E V 3 G F P I E '<••••'• I f l I 3 C 1 0 I N 0 . 1 5 4 1 s*** *** * * 0 . 7 0 0 9 •' 0 . 6 9 0 5 > 0 . 6 7 f ' h * 0 . 6 1 4 9 0 . 1 5 9 3 - 0 . 1 0 4 6 - 0 . 0 3 4 4 0 . 3 3 3 1 0 . C 7 8 4 . 0 9 5 5 0 . 2 6 1 2 0 . 2 7 8 3 0 . 2 4 2 1 0 . 2 5 1 4 0 . 0 1 4 1 0 . 1 5 3 2 —•j - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 , 0 . 0 2 7 9 3 2 0 8 1 7 2 5 . 1 3 8 3 0 8 1 8 2 6 3 1 0 . 3 3 0 7 0 . 0 2 2 1 C . 4 1 1 1 0 . 2 8 9 2 0 . 0 0 0 8 0 . 0 4 7 4 0 . 0 7 2 9 0 8 4 C 0 7 8 7 0 5 8 2 1 2 31 ! C 5 7 - 0 . 0 8 7 3 - 0 . 3 2 0 6 - 0 . 2 4 1 0 - 0 . 0 5 o 3 0 . 0 8 I P - 0 . 2 5 6 5 7 20. A T I T 4? 8tp»nr, 6 2 A I - - 0 1 I 4 2 3 ! ; S E P 4 4 3 C >. A S T I 0 2 F S A T F 3 2 0 2 E S P I I 3 A C C M J - 0 . 4 " 6 2 0 . 1 1 2 3 • „ ' . ' • • 7 2 1 - 0 . I 5 7 C 0 . 2 I f 1 - 0 . 5 4 4 9 - 0 . 4 I 7 0 - 0 . 3 2 5 2 0 . 5 7 6 2 " 0 . 5 5 0 5 0 . 5 3 9 3 . " . 5 1 8 5 C . 1 0 8,9 0 . 2 / 6 4 0 . (.'4 5 6 0 . 0 7 1 5 - 0 . 1 0 3 4 C . 2 6 3 7 ~ - " . 0 4 7 5 0 . 1 7 9 0 0 . 2 C C 7 - 0 . 0 4 3 6 0 . 2 1 0 5 o . 1 3 2 4 0 . C 9 4 9 - 0 . 0 3 6 4 . ! . 3 14 1 ' i . 0 2 3 4 0 . 0 7 5 4 0 . 0 7 5 3 " O . 1 4 4 4 9 . 3 1 2 : ' . - 0 . 0 1 8 0 - 0 . 1 8 3 ! - " . 1 1 5 5 0 . 2 6 0 8 0 . 0 0 9 7 0 . 0 2 1 3 0 . 2 7 1 1 0 . 4 2 1 6 C.22T4- O . 0 4 1 0 O . 2 3 4 2 0 . 1 8 1 0 - 0 . 1 8 6 3 -<-. .Lii r 0 . 0 2 5 5 - 0 . 1 2 6 1 - 0 . 1 1 3 5 - 0 . 2 5 7 6 1-3 > trJ rH W X < M t—1 2 1 2 F S A D f . | " 2 ^ ~ 3 F S T l T r 1 8 3n2!J0S 1 5 3 C 4 U A C 3 6 6 B G L E V 1 5 3 C 3 E A C 7 A C C N A 3 3 \ E S C 5 2 " I N F 7 0 P! JN I 8 0 Aw A ? , 4 r - F c S T - 0 . 0 3 6 3 - 0 . 2 2 4 y - - 0 . 3 4 5 7 - 0 . 2 4 ; 7 - 0 . 1 7 0 4 - 0 . 2 4 3 0 0 . 3 7 8 3 0 . 1 6 8 4 0 . 0 9 9 9 0 . 1 8 9 4 * * * * * •: * t 0 . 8 5 9 9 0 . 3 1 3 - F 0 . 2 9 4 3 0 . 1 2 8 3 - 3 . 0 0 0 I - 0 . 2 1 9 7 - 0 . C 2 O 0 - 0 . 1 1 . 2 6 - 0 . 1 0 5 4 * 0 . 7 1 3 5 0 . 5 4 4 6 ******** - 0 . 1 3 7 7 0 . 3 6 1 3 - O . 0 2 3 0 0 . 1 7 7 0 O . C 5 4 9 0 . 1 0 7 4 0 . 0 6 7 9 - 0 . 1 7 3 9 0 . 2 4 2 3 0 . 0 4 7 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 4 0 0 3 * * * * * a * * * 0 . 7 9 9 4 » 0 . 6 7 2 3 * 0 . 6 5 1 0 0 . 0 6 1 5 - O . 1 9 4 7 - 0 . 0 7 1 6 0 . 1 2 4 2 - 0 . 0 3 9 0 - o . 2 4 4 7 - 0 . 1 5 3 8 - 0 . 0 9 2 0 0 . 0 6 3 8 - 0 . 1 7 7 8 0 . 2 5 1 4 . 1 8 0 7 0 . 1 0 1 8 0 . 2 0 1 8 O . 0 6 0 6 0 . 2 7 5 9 0 . 1 2 2 4 0 . 3 1 . 5 6 0 . 1 C 5 4 0 . 2 3 5 4 0 . 1 5 6 8 0 . 1 2 3 9 " . 0 5 3 6 0 . 0 2 7 1 - 0 . I I 4 r ' - O . 1 5 6 6 - 0 . 1 7 3 5 43 3 0 -': 1 3 i 2 3 - 0 . 1 3 1 9 0 9 2 - 0 . 0 0 6 0 - 0 . 2 6 5 3 - • ' ' . 4 0 0 P. - 0 . 3 6 9 5 0 . 5 9 8 8 0 . 5 4 1 9 0 . 5 2 4 3 0 . 5 1 2 1 C . 5 0 6 4 •0 . 4 4 3 0 0 . 1 8 5 9 0 . 0 7 4 9 0 . 1 6 7 5 0 . 0 6 2 e - 0 . 1 4 3 6 - 0 , 0 , 0 . 0 . 0 . " ^ 0 . 1 4 7 8 0 . 2 4 2 5 - 0 . 1 1 5 2 C . 0 3 0 4 - 0 . 0 3 0 5 0 . 0 5 4 9 - 0 . 2 8 2 5 - 0 . 2 7 4 7 - C . 2 8 6 2 - 0 . 1 3 6 3 - 0 . 1 8 9 9 3 7 6 - C O f . C R 3 9 7 C . C O N C 4 3 7 C r t . F C "^oTTTo'r 0 . 0 1 3 7 - 0 . 2 2 1 7 - ' : . ; 5 5 4 0 . 2 6 5 V 0 . 2 7 8 8 - 0 . 0 4 6 1 0 . eg 49 o . l 3 0 0 0 . 0 2 9 1 0 . 3 1 . 3 6 - 0 . 0 4 7 7 - 3 . 2 6 4 0 * * * * * * * * * - 0 . 6 3 9 0 * - 0 . 7 1 9 8 * - 0 . 9 C 1 8 * * * * * * * * — - 0 . 1 1 7 2 0 . C 7 6 1 - 0 . 2 3 4 3 - o . 1 8 1 7 0 . 0 7 0 3 0 . 2 9 2 . T 2 7 4 4 2 4 3 5 2 9 2 2 4 2 3 1 2 0 3 8 3 2 7 9 0 . 0 2 7 5 0 . C 6 4 S - 0 . 0 1 0 6 0 . 1 4 2 5 C . 0 4 59 0 . 4 2 4 ' . * * * * * * * * 0 . 5 0 4 4 - 0 . 1 3 2 4 0 . 0 6 4 / , IT 1 2 6 3 -2 3 5 XcTlTTr i A C f . T S 4 C 21 N B 5 F I N V O i f l C S T P 6 A O Q L S - 0 . 1 1 2 5 -•< . 1 9 6 6 - 0 . 1 8 2 8 - 0 . 3 0 4 3 - ' ' ' . 1 9 2 4 - 9 . 2 5 ' . 4 T 5 T ~ 1 7 7 8 1 3 2 5 0 . 1 9 2 2 - 0 . 0 1 1 1 O . 2 9 4 3 - 0 . 0 5 0 4 0 . C 8 6 5 - 0 . 2 2 ! 9 " o T T 5 T ; : ~ 0 . 1 7 9 9 0 . 1 3 3 6 0 . 2 0 8 0 0 . 2 3 9 f 0 . 2 6 9 7 0 . 1 5 2 0 0 . 1 8 5 0 0 . 0 7 0 0 0 . 3 6 7 6 0 . 0 6 R f ~ ~~oToTvr - 0 . 1 5 1 7 0 . 21 9 5 - 0 . 3 7 6 7 - 0 . 1 3 8 1 - 0 . 3 6 3 3 0 . I 3 0 0 2 8 1 0 3 5 9 I ' * * * * * * * * 0 . 0 6 7 6 0 . 2 6 4 7 0 . 0 1 5 6 0 . 3 2 7 3 * * * * * * * * * 0 . 7 3 0 4 '•• 0 . 6 9 7 2 * 0 . 6 2 4 5 0 . 6 0 5 8 ******** 12 J ' 3 0 P T M 1 6 5 D 1 ' J A C 2 7 4 0 I A C T 1 7 3 D 2 0 P E - 0 . 2 2 6 9 - 0 . 2 7 ? 6 - 0 . 1 8 7 2 • 0 . 1 1 8 4 0 . 1 6 6 1 0 . 1 7 8 ; . 0 . 3 3 4 9 0 . 0 5 6 8 0 . 1 4 2 0 o . O l l l 0 . 2 6 0 2 0 . 2 0 6 1 C . 1 1 6 1 - 0 . 0 2 3 ? - C . 2 5 2 ? ' - 0 . 1 0 2 7 * * * * S * * * ~ 3 2 5HTEpr 29 5 A C F C L -oTiliTyr - 0 . 1 5 5 7 0 . 3 6 3 3 0 . 1 6 1 1 0 . 0 9 5 9 0 . 1 7 6 1 - 0 . 0 4 9 9 - 0 . 1 5 0 6 0 . 2 2 0 4 0 . C O 5 5 0 . 2 3 9 9 0 . 0 2 5 4 - 0 . 5 7 2 9 ******** 0 . 0 6 5 2 . 1 5 8 0 . 1 3 C 7 %Xif- O F S Q U A R E D F A C T O P - L O A D I N O S D I V I D E D B Y SUM C F C C C M U N A L ! T I E S 3 . 1 3 0 7 0 . 1 . 4 3 5 1 0 1 5 0 . 1 7 4 6 0 . 0 3 3 9 110 One of the most d i f f i c u l t choices to be made during the analys i s was the number of factors to be extracted'. The i n i t i a l s e l ec t ion of e ight , i n t h i s case, was based on the number of a p r i o r i dimensions, but f ive and ten factor attempts were made. The p lo t of eigenvalues i n F i g . 9 reveals more than one d i s - cont inu i ty though the one between f ive and s ix i s the l a rge s t . The scree tes t (Rummel, 1970, p. 3&1) would suggest going fur- ther than f ive factors to a point where the proport ion of variance being added by each factor was beginning to l e v e l o f f (13 or 16 f a c t o r s ) . When the dimensions were compared to those derived ( l a te r i n the chapter) from the L i k e r t data matrix the eighth factor i n the r e s u l t s given was thought to be s i m i l a r to one of the L i k e r t data factors concerning l e v e l o f d e c i s i o n - making. Though going to eight might be considered overfactor- ing , i t was f e l t that for a prel iminary study i t would be advisable to hold on to as many factors as poss ible and allow future studies to determine i f any should be cast as ide . There would appear to be a general b e l i e f that overfactor ing was l e s s l i k e l y to r e su l t i n undue d i s t o r t i o n s than underfactoring (Rummel, 1970, p. 365)• The f i n a l considerat ion was the extent to which the dimensions found were definable or sens ib le . With the intimate knowledge of the operating circumstances of the f irm being s tudied, the inves t iga tor was able to "make sense" of the pattern that came from the eight factor r e s u l t . The foregoing statement might wel l draw the c r i t i c i s m that there was biased opinion as far as i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and —r— try «\1 L U 5: < \- LU i d o EJ T" t o <3 Q <3 G» <3 <! i <1 i 1/ «3 O B <3 <3 a o / i • • a i l l • CO <3 Q - i n <3 Q * ± L3 . £^ UJ —- O UJ Z > < - J D U i FIG. 9 Eigenvalues vs no, of factors O 10> CO 112 d e f i n i t i o n of the dimensions. For t h i s reason the var iab le items were l i s t e d according to factors and presented to an expert panel . The panel was given ins t ruc t ions (see l a s t page of Appendix J) and asked to provide a name or l a b e l for each factor and i f necessary for c l a r i f i c a t i o n and/or, i f time allowed, to give a d e f i n i t i o n and/or any exceptions or unsui t - able connotations to the name or l a b e l chosen i f i t was con- sidered inexact ( i . e . i f the given l a b e l and the " t rue" d e f i n i t i o n d id not have the same connotat ions) . In Tables XVIII to XXV on the fo l lowing pages w i l l be found the var iab le items which comprise the factors found i n the ana ly s i s . On the page fo l lowing each Table w i l l be found the d e f i n i t i o n ar r ived at a f ter consul ta t ion with the panel . Also on t h i s page w i l l be found the l a b e l provided by the panel members and the i n v e s t i - gator before consu l ta t ion , a l i s t i n g of the items as given to the panel for that f ac tor , and a l i s t i n g of the items used i n generating dimensions scores for use i n further ana ly s i s . The items l i s t e d for the panel included a l l items which had a loading as high on that factor as the lowest loading item which f e l l into that factor by v i r tue of having i t s highest loading on that f a c to r . This was done because i t was f e l t that any item which loaded highly on a fac tor would be useful i n ascer- t a i n i n g i t s " t rue " nature. The items used l a t e r for dimensions include only those items for that dimension which d id not load any greater than O.35 (considered roughly as a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l ) on any other f ac to r . This c r i t e r i o n was not used to 113 el iminate items from factors or dimensions which had three or l e s s items included with that f ac tor . These exceptions affected only the l a s t three factors (6, 7, 8 t ) which accounted for com- para t ive ly low percentages of t o t a l var iance . The exercise of ge t t ing the opinions of a panel on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the fac tor dimensions proved very va luable . Several important aspects of various dimensions were pointed out by the panel and incorporated into the f i n a l l abe l s and d e f i n i t i o n s that fo l low. I t should be noted that the d e f i n i t i o n s provided by the panel were more consis tent than the short l a b e l names would i n d i c a t e . In each case the number 5 l a b e l was that conceived by the inves t iga tor before considerat ion of panel responses. E x t e n t to w h i c h s u p e r i o r s behave so that s u b o r d i - nates f e e l f r e e to d i s c u s s i m p o r t - ant t h i n g s about t h e i r jobs w i t h t h e i r i m m e d i a t e supe r i o r E x t e n t to w h i c h i m m e d i a t e s u p e r i o r i n s o l v - i n g j o b p r o b l e m s g e n e r a l l y t r i e s to get s u b o r d i n a t e s ' ideas and o p i n i o n s and make con- s t r u c t i v e use of them. Downward com- m u n i c a t i o n : S u b o r d i n a t e s f e e l c o m p l e t e l y f r e e to d i s c u s s things about the j o b w i t h t h e i r supe r i o r (1) Where - i n i t i a t e d C h a r a c t e r of i n t e r a c t i o n - i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s A mount and c h a r a c t e r of int e r a c t i o n S u b o r d i n a t e s f e e l r a t h e r f r e e to d i s c u s s things about the j o b w i t h t h e i r s u p e r i o r J I L S u b o r d i n a t e s do not f e e l v e r y f r e e to d i s c u s s things about the j o b w i t h t h e i r s u p e r i o r J I L S u b o r d i n a t e s do not f e e l at a l l f r e e to d i s - c u s s things about the j o b w i t h t h e i r supe r i o r 1C A l w a y s get i d e a s and o p i n i o n s and a l w a y s t r i e s to make c o n s t r u c t i v e use of them U s u a l l y gets ideas and o p i n i o n s and u s u a l l y t r i e s to make c o n s t r u c - t i v e use of them S o m e t i m e s gets ideas S e l d o m gets .ideas and and o p i n i o n s of sub- o p i n i o n s of s u b o r d i - o r d i n a t e s i n s o l v i n g nates i n s o l v i n g j o b j o b p r o b l e m s p r o b l e m s J I L J I I L I n i t i a t e d at a l l l e v e l s P a t t e r n e d on com- P r i m a r i l y at top o r m u n i c a t i o n f r o m top but p a t t e r n e d on com- w i t h some i n i t i a t i v e at m u n i c a t i o n f r o m l o w e r l e v e l s top A t top of o r g a n i z a t i o n o r to i m p l e m e n t top d i r e c t i v e 3Ci E x t e n s i v e , f r i e n d l y i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h h i g h d e g r e e of c o n f i d e n c e and t r u s t M o d e r a t e i n t e r a c t i o n , often w i t h f a i r amount of c o n f i d e n c e and t r u s t L i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n and L i t t l e i n t e r a c t i o n and a l w a y s u s u a l l y w i t h some w i t h f e a r and d i s t r u s t c o n d e s c e n s i o n by s u p e r i o r s ; f e a r and Ji i ca u t i o n by s u b o r d i - nates F r i e n d l i n e s s between s u p e r i o r s and s u b o r d i n a t e s U s u a l l y v e r y c l o s e F a i r l y c l o s e C a n be m o d e r a t e l y c l o s e i f p r o p e r r o l e s a r e kept F a r a p a r t 3G A r e d e c i s i o n s made at the best l e v e l i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n as f a r as: a v a i l a b i l i t y of the m o s t ade- quate and a c c u r - ate i n f o r m a t i o n b e a r i n g on the d e c i s i o n A m ount of c o - o p e r a t i v e t e am- w o r k p r e s e n t O v e r l a p p i n g groups and group d e c i s i o n p r o c e s s e s tend'to p u sh d e c i s i o n s to a poin t w h e r e i n f o r - m a t i o n i s m o s t adequate o r to p a s s the r e l e v a n t i n f o r - m a t i o n to the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p o i n t V e r y s u b s t a n t i a l amount (2) E x t e n t to w h i c h s u p e r - i o r s w i l l i n g l y s h a r e i n f o r - m a t i o n w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d o t h e r m e m b e r s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n Some tendency f o r d e c i s i o n s to be made at h i g h e r l e v e l s than w here m o s t adequate and a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t s A m o d e r a t e amount D e c i s i o n s often made D e c i s i o n s u s u a l l y made at at l e v e l s a p p r e c i a b l y l e v e l s a p p r e c i a b l y h i g h e r h i g h e r than l e v e l s than l e v e l s w h e r e m o s t where m o s t adequate adequate and a c c u r a t e and a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t s i n f o r m a t i o n e x i s t s 5E R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e None 4B P r o v i d e m i n i m u m of i n f o r m a t i o n G i v e s s u b o r d i n a t e s only G i v e s i n f o r m a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n s u p e r i o r needed and a n s w e r s f e e l s they need m o s t q u e s t i o n s _L J L J L Seeks to give s u b o r d i n a t e s a l l r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n and a l l i n f o r m a t i o n they want 3C2 _ J L_JL I I F a v o r a b l e , c o - o p e r a t i v e a t t i t u d e s throughout the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h m u t u a l t r u s t and c o n f i d e n c e C o - o p e r a t i v e , r e a s o n - a b l y f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d o t h e r s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n ; m a y be some c o m p e t i t i o n between p e e r s w i t h r e s u l t i n g h o s t i l i t y and some c o n d e s c e n s i o n t o w a r d s u b o r d i n a t e s S u b s e r v i e n t attitudes t o w a r d s u p e r i o r s ; c o m p e t i t i o n f o r status r e s u l t i n g i n h o s t i l i t y t o w a r d p e e r s ; c o n d e s c e n - s i o n t o w a r d s u b o r d i n a t e s S u b s e r v i e n t a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s u p e r i o r s c o u p l e d w i t h h o s - t i l i t y ; h o s t i l i t y t o w a r d p e e r s and contempt f o r s u b o r d i - nates; d i s t r u s t i s w i d e - s p r e a d 2E TABLE XVIII Factor 1—INTWM - Interaction-warmth 115 1. INTWM—Interaction-warmth. This dimension i s concerned with the extent and warmth of i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r a c t i o n par- t i c u l a r l y between immediate subordinates and super iors . Labels from panel members: 1. Openness for v e r t i c a l communication 2. Openness, sharing 3. Humane s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s 4. Problem-solving s ty le 5. Discuss ion - cooperation - f r i e n d l i n e s s Items included i n 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 F a i r l y 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 cont ro l communications 117 2. PRCON—Performance and contro l communications. This dimension concerns the type, extent and impl ica t ions of communications re la ted to the repor t ing of performance and the contro l of performance. Labels from the panel members: 1. L a t e r a l compat ib i l i ty 2. Organizat ional in tegra t ion 3. Leadership processes and products (not s ty le ) 4. Communication for contro l 5. Performance and cont ro l communications Items included i n the dimension f o r : 1. panel 2. f ac tor 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 K i n d s of a t t i t u d e s d eveloped t o w a r d o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole and i t s goals P e rfo r m a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s P r o d u c t i v i t y A t t i t u d e s a r e s t r o n g - ly f a v o r a b l e and p r o v i d e p o w e r f u l s t i m u l a t i o n to b e h a v i o r i m p l e - menting o r g a n i - z a t i o n ' s goals M e d i o c r e p r o d u c - t i v i t y A t t i t u d e s u s u a l l y a r e f a v o r a b l e and s u p p o r t b e h a v i o r i m p l e m e n t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals F a i r to good p r o d u c t i v i t i t y A t t i t u d e s a r e some- t i m e s h o s t i l e and c o u n t e r to o r g a n i - zation's goals and a r e s o m e t i m e s f a v o r a b l e to the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals and s u p p o r t the b e h a v i o r n e c e s - s a r y to a c h i e v e t h e m Good p r o d u c t i v i t y A t t i t u d e s u s u a l l y a r e h o s t i l e and c o u n t e r to o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals 2G E x c e l l e n t p r o d u c t i v i t y 8A C h a r a c t e r of m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s Unde r l y i n g m o t i v e s tapped M a n n e r i n w h i c h m o t i v e s a r e u s e d L o s t o r w a s t e d t i m e and e f f o r t S a t i s f a c t i o n d e r i v e d P h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y , E c o n o m i c needs and e c o n o m i c needs, and m o d e r a t e use of ego m o t i v e s , e.g. d e s i r e s ome use of the d e s i r e f o r status F e a r , t h r e a t s , punishment, and o c c a s i o n a l r e w a r d s R e l a t i v e l y h i g h u n l e s s p o l i c e d c a r e f u l l y R e l a t i v e l y high s a t i s f a c t i o n t h r o u g h - out the o r g a n i z a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to mem- b e r s h i p i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , s u p e r - v i s i o n , and one's own a c h i e v e m e n t s f o r s t atus and a c h i e v e m e n t R e w a r d s and some a c t u a l o r p o t e n t i a l p u n i s h m e n t M o d e r a t e l y hi g h u n l e s s p o l i c e d Some d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n to m o d e r a t e l y hi g h s a t i s - f a c t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to m e m b e r s h i p i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , s u p e r - v i s i o n , and one's own ach i e vements E c o n o m i c needs and c o n s i d e r a b l e use of status and o t h e r m a j o r m o t i v e s , e.g. , d e s i r e f o r new e x p e r i e n c e s R e w a r d s , o c c a s i o n a l punishment, and some i n v o l v e m e n t M o d e r a t e D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n to m o d e r a t e s a t i s f a c - t i o n w i t h r e g a r d to m e m b e r s h i p i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , s u p e r - v i s i o n , and one's own a c h i e v e m e n t s F u l l use of e c o n o m i c , s t a t u s and other m a j o r m o t i v e s , a s , f o r e x a m p l e , m o t i v a t i o n a l f o r c e s a r i s i n g f r o m g r o u p goals 2A E c o n o m i c r e w a r d s b a s e d on c o m p e n s a t i o n s y s t e m d e v e l - oped t h r o u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; g roup p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n - v o l v e m e n t i n s e t t i n g g o a l s , i m p r o v i n g methods, a p p r a i s - in g p r o g r e s s t o w a r d g o a l s , etc. 2B M e m b e r s t h e m s e l v e s w i l l use m e a s u r e m e n t s and o t h e r steps i n e f f o r t to keep l o s s e s to a m i n i m u m QQ U s u a l l y d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h m e m b e r s h i p i n the o r g a n i - z a t i o n , w i t h s u p e r v i s i o n , and w i t h one's own a c h i e v e m e n t s 2F A m o u n t of r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f e l t by e a c h m e m b e r of o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r a c h i e v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s g o a l s P e r s o n n e l at a l l l e v e l s f e e l r e a l r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals and behave i n ways to i m p l e m e n t them C h a r a c t e r of c om- m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e s s A mount of i n t e r - V e r y l i t t l e a c t i o n and c o m - m u n i c a t i o n a i m e d at a c h i e v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s o b j e c t i v e s | | | S u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of p e r s o n n e l , e s p e c i - a l l y at h i g h e r l e v e l s , f e e l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and g e n e r a l l y behave i n ways to a c h i e v e the o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s goals L i t t l e M a n a g e r i a l p e r s o n - n e l u s u a l l y f e e l r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y ; rank and f i l e u s u a l l y f e e l r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c h i e v i n g o r g a n i - zation's goals Q u i t e a bi t H i g h l e v e l s of m anagement f e e l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; l o w e r l e v e l s f e e l l e s s ; r a n k and f i l e f e e l l i t t l e and often w e l c o m e o p p o r t u n i t y to behave i n ways to defeat o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s g o a l s 2D M u c h w i t h both i n d i v i d u a l s and g roups 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, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and s a t i s f a c t i o n with organizat iona l goals . I t also includes some aspects of the mechanics (e .g . mot ivat ional aspects) of inducing goal congruence. Labels from panel members* 1. Corpora te / se l f in te re s t 2. Organizat ional goal commitment 3. Mot ivat iona l climate 4. Goal centredness 5. Congruence, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , s a t i s f a c t i o n with organiza t iona l goals . Items included i n the dimension for* 1. panel 2. f ac tor 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; st i l l 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 a l l 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 a l l 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 - Conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion 121 4. CONPR—Confidence-participation. This dimension i s con- cerned with the p a r t i c i p a t i o n and influence of subordinates and the extent to which they are r e l i e d upon (or trusted) by super iors . Labels from panel members: 1. P a r t i c i p a t i o n 2. Mutual t rus t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n 3. V e r t i c a l mutuality and intimacy 4. Subordinate involvement 5. Confidence-influence Items included i n the dimension f o r : 1 . panel 2. f ac tor 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 D i r e c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w D o w n w a r d M o s t l y downward Down and up Down, up, and w i t h p e e r s 3B U p w a r d com- m u n i c a t i o n : (1) A d e q u a c y of V e r y l i t t l e L i m i t e d Some A g r e a t d e a l 3D1 i i I l l I I __L_ I I I I I i i l I I I u p w a r d com- m u n i c a t i o n Amount of a c t u a l i n f l u e n c e w h i c h s u p e r i o r s can e x e r c i s e o v e r the g o a l s , a c t i v i t y and methods of t h e i r u n i t s and - de p a r t m e n t s B e l i e v e d to be sub- s t a n t i a l but a c t u a l l y m o d e r a t e u n l e s s c a p a c i t y to e x e r c i s e s e v e r e p u n i s h m e n t i s p r e s e n t M o d e r a t e to somewhat m o r e than m o d e r a t e ; e s p e c i a l l y f o r h i g h e r l e v e l s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n M o d e r a t e to sub- s t a n t i a l , e s p e c i a l l y f o r h i g h e r l e v e l s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n S u b s t a n t i a l but often done i n d i r e c t l y , as, f o r e x a m p l e , by s u p e r i o r b u i l d i n g e f f e c t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n - i n f l u e n c e s y s t e m 4D (2) S u b o r d i n a t e s 1 f e e l i n g of r e - s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r i n i t i a t i n g a c c u r a t e up- w a r d com- m u n i c a t i o n a l o n g p r o j e c t l i n e s None at a l l _ L _ J L _ L R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e , u s u a l l y c o m m u n i c a t e s " f i l t e r e d " i n f o r m a t i o n and only when re q u e s t e d , may " y e s " the boss 1 Some to m o d e r a t e d e g r e e of r e s p o n s i - b i l i t y to i n i t i a t e a c c u r a t e u p w a r d c o m m u n i c a t i o n C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f e l t and m u c h i n i t i a t i v e ; g r oup c o m m u n i c a t e s a l l r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n 3D2 J I L TABLE XXII Factor 5—UPCOM - Upward communications 123 UPCOM—Upward communications. This dimension i s concerned with the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of communications and influence or more p a r t i c u l a r l y with the extent of upward communications and in f luence . Labels from panel members* 1. V e r t i c a l communication 2. D i r e c t i o n a l i t y of inf luence 3. Subordinate l i b e r a t i o n 4. Communication openness 5. Upward communication Items included i n the dimension f o r : 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 F a i r l y poor because of F a i r 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 F a i r l y poor because of F a i r 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 - Pro ject communications 125 6. PROCM—Project communications. This dimension i s concerned with the extent and q u a l i t y o f communication outside of the department on pro ject matters. Labels from panel members: 1. L a t e r a l communication 2. Communication q u a l i t y 3. Communication 4. Lack of communication bias (or l a t e r a l com- munication) 5» Project communications Items included i n the dimension fo r : 1. panel 2. f ac tor 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 E x t e n t to w h i c h t h e r e i s an i n f o r - m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n p r e s e n t and sup- p o r t i n g o r oppos- ing goals of f o r m a l o r g a n i - z a t i o n I n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a - t i o n p r e s e n t and oppos i n g goals of f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n I n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n u s u a l l y p r e s e n t and p a r t i a l l y r e s i s t i n g goals I n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a - t i o n m ay be p r e s e n t and may e i t h e r s u p p o r t o r p a r t i a l l y r e s i s t goals of f o r - m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n I n f o r m a l and f o r m a l o r g a n i - z a t i o n a r e one and the same; hence a l l s o c i a l f o r c e s s u p p o r t e f f o r t s to a c h i e v e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s g o a ls 70 J L I I E x t e n t to w h i c h the r e v i e w and c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n s a r e c o n c e n t r a t e d H i g h l y c o n c e n t r a t e d in top management R e l a t i v e l y h i g h l y con- c e n t r a t e d , w i t h some de l e g a t e d c o n t r o l to m i d d l e and l o w e r l e v e l s M o d e r a t e downward R e v i e w and c o n t r o l done at de l e g a t i o n of r e v i e w a l l l e v e l s w i t h l o w e r u n i t s at and c o n t r o l p r o c e s - t i m e s i m p o s i n g m o r e v i g o r - s e s ; l o w e r as w e l l as ous r e v i e w s and t i g h t e r h i g h e r l e v e l s pe r f o r m c o n t r o l s than top m a n a g e m e n t these t a s k s A r e t h e r e f o r c e s to a c c e p t , r e s i s t , o r r e j e c t g o a l s ? G o a l s a r e o v e r t l y a c c e p t e d but a r e c o v e r t l y r e s i s t e d s t r o n g l y G o a l s a r e o v e r t l y a c c e p t e d but often c o v e r t l y r e s i s t e d to at l e a s t a m o d e r a t e degree G o a l s a r e o v e r t l y G o a l s a r e f u l l y a c c e p t e d both a c c e p t e d but at t i m e s o v e r t l y and c o v e r t l y w i t h some c o v e r t r e s i s t a n c e 60 TABLE XXIV Factor 7—INFOR - Presence of informal organiza t ion 12? 7. INFOR—Presence of informal organizat ion . This dimension i s concerned with the degree or extent to which there i s an informal organizat ion operating independently of the formal organiza t ion . Labels from panel memberss 1. Informal support 2. H i e r a r c h i c a l formal iza t ion 3« " A l t e r " organizat ion v i s formal organizat ion 4. Organizat ional un i ty 5« Presence of informal organizat ion Items included i n the dimension f o r : 1 . panel 2. f ac tor 3. dimension score 7 C 7 B 6 C 7 C 7 B 6 C 7 C 7 B 6 C 128 C h a r a c t e r of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s At what l e v e l i n B u l k of d e c i s i o n s at P o l i c y at top, many B r o a d p o l i c y d e c i s - D e c i s i o n m a k i n g w i d e l y done o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e top of o r g a n i z a t i o n d e c i s i o n s w i t h i n p r e - ions at top, m o r e throughout o r g a n i z a t i o n , d e c i s i o n s f o r m - s c r i b e d f r a m e w o r k s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s although w e l l i n t e g r a t e d a l l y m a d e ? made at l o w e r l e v e l s at l o w e r l e v e l s t h r o u g h l i n k i n g p r o c e s s p r o - but u s u a l l y c h e c k e d v i d e d by o v e r l a p p i n g g r o u p s w i t h top b e f o r e a c t i o n E x t e n t to w h i c h U s e d only i f pos- M u c h of what i s a v a i l - M u c h of what i s M o s t of what i s a v a i l a b l e t e c h n i c a l and s e s s e d at h i g h e r able i n h i g h e r and a v a i l a b l e i n h i g h e r , anywhere w i t h i n the o r g a n i - p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l s m i d d l e l e v e l s i s u s e d m i d d l e and l o w e r z a t i o n i s u s e d knowledge i s u s e d l e v e l s i s u s e d ' i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g | 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 i s con- cerned with the l e v e l of decision-making p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to t echnica l decis ions re la ted to the work i n progress. Labels from panel members: 1. ? 2. Decision-making locus 3« Decision-making p a r t i c i p a t i o n 4. Dec i s ion d i f f u s i o n 5. Leve l of decision-making Items included i n the dimension fo r : 1. panel 2. factor 3. dimension score 5 A 5 D 5 A 5 D 5 A 5 D 130 Analys i s us ing L i k e r t data . As mentioned b r i e f l y be- fore , a factor analys i s was also ca r r i ed out using the corre- l a t i o n matrix from L i k e r t (1967, pp. 193-5)• As the FAN program i s able to accept a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix as data i t was a simple matter to carry out an ana ly s i s . For t h i s purpose, only the var iab les which corresponded to the questions that were used i n t h i s study were used (37 out of 43) so that the re su l t s of the two analyses could be compared. Table XXVI ind ica tes a f i ve factor r e s u l t . The other numerical output of in te re s t along with the o r i g i n a l matrix used i s included i n Appendix K. As the raw data were not ava i l ab l e , RSQ values could not be used on the diagonal and the o r i g i n a l values (ones) were used. In t h i s respect the procedure was not exact ly p a r e l l e l to that used on the data from t h i s study. The problem of determining the number of factors again had to be faced. A study of the two c o r r e l a t i o n matrices or to the F i g . 9 graph of eigenvalues w i l l indicate that the two sets of data had some d i s t i n c t i v e d i f ferences . For example, when an attempt was made to rotate with eight factors no items loaded most heav i ly on the l a s t f ac tor . The combination of having a much fas ter drop-off i n proport ion of t o t a l variance accounted f o r , and a d i s cont inu i ty i n eigenvalues between f ive and s i x , led to a choice of f ive factor s o l u t i o n . The f i ve factor so- l u t i o n also provided " sens ib le " dimensions while going to more factors at the same time maintaining t h i s s e n s i b i l i t y would l i k e l y 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+ a 1 <! 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» 6 A G U L S 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 . 3 8 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 . 14 a0 .1941 - C . 3 7 4 0 ******** -0.6188 -C.(225 f- -C. 7482 * -0.8118 -0.3519 -0 .160 4 -0.3467 -0.2274 ^ 2 6 0 7 _ 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 ^ 7 4 **** * * * * -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 . 3 U 8 -0 .1675 -0.3614 * * * * * * * * -0.5105 -0-5185 10 22 14 3 12 .1 ?C ;DAC 4EEFST 3CALAC 33OR TN 3C2URF 4 C 2 IN o ' l l 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 . 1 S 1 1 -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 F A C T O R - L O A D I N G S OIVIOcD BY SUM CF CCMMUNALITIES 0.2 1 4 0 0. 176 1 0.1949 0. 1883 0.2266 132 data were c o l l e c t e d . A l s o , the s tar t from 3? items as compared to 45 items i n the previous analys i s might wel l lead one to expect fewer factors to emerge. The b r i e f d e f i n i t i o n s a r r ived at for these factors are as fo l lows : 1. This dimension re la te s to the character and l e v e l of decision-making and to some extent the goa l - se t t ing process. 2. This dimension re la te s to the character of product ion. 3. This dimension re la te s to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with organizat iona l goals and the character of processes involved i n a f f ec t ing t h i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and/or s a t i s f a c t i o n with goals . 4. This dimension re la te s to the character and f r i e n d l i n e s s of hor i zonta l communi- ca t ions . 5» This dimension re la te s to the character of in terac t ion- in f luence or more par- t i c u l a r l y with d i r e c t i o n a l i t y and extent of v e r t i c a l communications. Note that l e s s time and e f for t went into the above d e f i n i t i o n s as compared to that for the previous ones i n t h i s study. The produc t iv i ty factor (2) i s the only one to f a l l out p r e c i s e l y as would be indicated on the a p r i o r i ca tegor i za t ion . The f i r s t factor i s dominated by decision-making var iab les but the add i t iona l items b r i n g i n l inkages , for that sample, be- tween decision-making and goa l - se t t ing . The t h i r d factor i s dominated by motivat ional force items but has a d i f f e rent tone from that suggested by the a p r i o r i ca tegor iza t ion . The fourth and f i f t h factors are dominated by communication items but 133 there would appear to be sharp d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the impl ica t ions between f r i e n d l y hor i zonta l or f r i e n d l y v e r t i c a l communications. Comparison of the two analyses r e s u l t s . When consider- ing the r e s u l t s from both analyses some i n t e r e s t i n g s i m i l a r i t i e s and contrasts can be noted. A l l of the factors from the L i k e r t data can be matched up roughly, i n terms of d e f i n i t i o n , with a factor from t h i s study except for the p roduc t iv i ty factor which has no p a r a l l e l . This i s true even though the i n d i v i d u a l items which const i tute each of the p a r a l l e l factors are often quite d i f f e r e n t . This would indicate that for the two samples there were d i f f e rent " r u l e s " for ca tegor iz ing the items. Even when the same general topic or dimension was being considered, a d i f - ferent perspective upon impl ica t ions of the dimension was present. The above f ind ing i s not surpr i s ing when one considers the two sources of data. The L i k e r t data were gathered from managers only and was l i k e l y from manufacturing organizat ions . The data for t h i s study was gathered from non-managers i n an organizat ion with many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which would d i s t i n g u i s h i t from a manufacturing organiza t ion . I f the factor analyses are considered as a means of d e r i v i n g the mental " set" of d i f - ferent groups, the di f ferences noted e a r l i e r are not too unexpected. The lack of a p roduc t iv i ty o r i e n t a t i o n by non- managers i n an organizat ion where p roduc t iv i ty i s very d i f f i c u l t to measure accurately might be expected along with the poss ib ly 134 subtle d i s t i n c t i o n s i n types of communications i n an organi- za t ion , which has a very complex pattern of communication l inkages . Second Survey re su l t s - f i n a l The analys i s that follows i s p a r a l l e l to that done be- fore factor ana lys i s , but makes use of climate dimensions de- r i v e d from the factor ana ly s i s . As indicated e a r l i e r a number of var iab les that loaded s i g n i f i c a n t l y on more than one dimension were el iminated from the factor dimensions for the r e su l t s that fo l low i n order to have climate dimensions that were as " c lean" as pos s ib le . The fo l lowing c o r r e l a t i o n matrix i n Table XXVII would indicate that the new dimensions are more towards being orthogonal than the a p r i o r i dimensions and therefore more s u i t - able for use as independent var iab les i n a regress ion ana lys i s . Of the 28 corre la t ions between climate dimensions only three are above 0.50 as compared to twenty prev ious ly , while eight are below 0.40 as compared to three prev ious ly . The dynamic cor re l a t ions amongst dimensions, when compared as a group with those for the a p r i o r i dimensions, are also found to have much lower values . The number of paired observations and means us ing factor dimensions w i l l be found i n Appendix L . When the changes i n dimensions between the two surveys are examined i n Table XXVIII, one f inds that there are again some small d i f ferences between the groups given feedback and the contro l group. The di f ference now becomes l o c a l i z e d c h i e f l y r * r- u-, i P- ex. V - o | - •S: L> rn AJ f i 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 - c r 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 r j r - i o c o c «:. iA rt ~r- r-- • lJ» , - , _ L"l rvj * i o -A ir. <r A J v iA O J rv rt) n*. m u cv j -j- rn r » -r rt AJ ,-n A l «£: co t r ;o -JJ o — — c-v Vj rt ..<;. r 1 CA CJ i v A. c- cr o O cv rv, i i v r - cv A J cc. • -T cn NO -- 'J ' - ^ c o cv O i o o C ' o o c i r - -jj • L A JA. c:- m r>. rvi rt vc -4 r. m i n j - . g l"A CA A. A i A V CV -4 AJ o.i o rv «J . c At rv ,-4 cr C A O ' . A cr, LA J J c W «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 C C O vC A J 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 „ r v <-< 1 c o - r - ^j- rt o rt rvi m o r— CP LT. j - n"i A %j CVI -> O A l 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 - C 0 A - rt • » CC tn rA A J a A - - J - r v o"t r > A <"-J C ' A,' (T. (A LA LA p- CO rt *f -T -s-x c vr v i A i P— rA I LT. -C fA LA rv. • c r 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 A j 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 ^» ^ i n r-j c"- • •n o j - . rt r - , • ; J -j- f/- A J 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 r v r~ • IM c r~ <\ ! A; vr - • A ; A A J ( vC; rO ^ IA r v 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 C o r r e l a t i o n matrix - leadership scores and factor dimensions with di f ferences - both surveys V. O v f v * c <\' r>-zfi LA -o c n cv f> O rt A J 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„ f r , <f rt m C t.j O  O O —1i f 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 ^ N N . a O r-J r- 0 to o .• rt P-- vJ- CO c vf; r- C" CA 33 vO cr AJ cj v t r* 4; p* c O.J c r i ^ - 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 a j rxi T\l in •vi' r- ^•,« 0 t v t id -r "-• c rv C c-'i C-co n <! v t or. r*j P- cc - j m AJ G) to a- A cc 0 — .0 -r c cn o rt ,-j n if .;n x r -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 L J 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 I f sC 0 c-A-ee- '-< ' V r-l -O (X e'- '•V a ; <-r <J m <"v O — J fA vT. A i A J ^. J vr vT A ; A- vu o er X" •vT f * i <r NT (A >T A j X vC L J 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< ĉ  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 i n 0 r- vO 0-1 —t <T LO. C-CM in H c a j (A 5 ! b 1 -̂ •O A- c- r~ rj- v r cr p . m m C 1 rt rt rn m ^ ..T —* m •-•« rv 0 0 0 ^ LA, X1- O vt v f r iu 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 I I o. 0 33 , - t cc cc rv 0:1 l A r— l A CT CC' i A 0 o> 0 „ cr x t LA -r cc CM 0 0 ^1 AJ r- -D X- exf cr 0 v t <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- A j rt 0 -J- r- r- rt LA rt a X- -J' CM 0 m i V r<~. x . c sD vT LA O P I 0 0 LA m A. r A 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- L l 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 v t •A c - J r-- CO r- •-• •c VJ O O "vT iA. 0 o- O v r -t; A J •—. CO A J vtJ CO Pvl cr y, rt in vr rv CO sC" cc. LTi -u m ^ rt CO O vO Lf i O C ' <r cr u\ LA C" IA tA MJ A J LT. CC -,A CA N _X c m <V rt 1 rt c c •_-> - J . O C , rt C> t n 0 r-j rvj O 0 cA C J m <r CV f-4 tA -O .'P. r - c 0 O 1 r ° ^ ° " c 0 O C"> 0 c I t 1 1 a 7 L,1 0 ' "J C ' —' c - 0 x t •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 x r r n c 0 a- rt CCJ LA ,— PJ A ' cr. - rj- rt 27  c CS; rt P J ;r. r- r- CM rt C " if- CJ -c r- cr cc rn . - 1 rv <£, - J - i n 5" r- LA G*- A l vj- A J r r _pt rt ^ > O "_< . J ~J — cx Cv, r-- rv •x- s i ' tr. sD r - r-. 0 rt A- < ... a L IA rA r~ A: A - '.1 vt A - rt c;> L J U - '~ ~ ' ~ ^ CJ 0 0 -j> ' U t T *** a C >' c. ° T - — CI ir ^ xt J" L7 '"V r- a" <• vr â  , ~ " p- r x -v. 1 - L„ rt C"' CC v.-; C 1 i r rt ' A *r <" c- f . r- cv p- PJ r n cv. rn a - AI r~- A" U'. .~ rt cr ,TI " r- c A l ' 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 - < ̂  A J a. rt '-- iv .-v rA ^ - f-> - J - t I c C ' ^ '•- 1 •:_ 0 c x : 0 C J L J O 0 v_ I. . C" O V • 1 O rt :A ."V rn px u- vO A l 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 t o fi c n ^j •n < xT x j r-v >: AJ ' • j ' •-'* A i n r— ^~ rt L"* n- x - -c rt P J CV — aj — 0 P. fXJ x ; -J- \I\ 1' V —' 0 0 —1 C —1 — —' —* LA r A 0 ,-1 XJ j t ,A C- CO 0 — > r- ! A -v- 0 AJ A i C\i P I rt <J •A 0. r - i A rt —1 l— V J • * *J cr. c ^ c ..J ^. 0 0 <I u — O CJ U.1 1 1 1 :'- LJ 1 1 0 L) LJ *— L J 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 L J — rt n j 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~ L J C.J O I J 0 C 1 '"1 _ i —J - J rt — J _J —1 ^. - 4 . K- ĉ  0 0 ;* L J O L.1 L J I.J L, LL LL L J L J L_J C.V \z - • ' L_' L J C L J LL LL t,- 0 ( „ ; 0 C J CV <• 7* i t 0 „ _ u 0 C O. a U Ci *.r- : ; >r uu L-J U C J < ~i i-J C CI a Q' Lu C JT 1;- UJ iL- r " L1J i t ' LU 0 a. a a C LJ LJ • J 1 ) C a . a f _ rt LJ LJ C J •_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 1̂1 —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 c o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i - pa t ion . The t-prob values when the two groups comparison i s made are O.23 and 0.19 r e spec t ive ly . The drop i n project com- munications for department C i s understandable i f one i s f a m i l i a r with the time context that t h i s department was enter- i n g . On large projects the most c r i t i c a l areas information-wise and schedule-wise s h i f t s gradual ly as time progresses from departments concerned with outside underground service to depart- ments concerned with ins ide d e t a i l s such as instrumentation. For several pro jec t s , department C was entering a phase where poor information or co-operation from other departments was becoming increas ing ly c r i t i c a l . The change i n climate dimemsions does not help a great deal i n provid ing more information on the poss ible di f ferences between the experimental and contro l groups with respect to H 2. The evidence i n support of H 2 i s , s ta- t i s t i c a l l y , very weak. When the cross-lagged panels for department heads s ty le (Table XXIX) are extracted from the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix (Table XXVII) some new general features become evident . In the previous panels (Tables XV and XVI) there were some general s h i f t s to- wards higher cor re l a t ions between climate and s ty le dimension between survey I and survey II but the factor-dimension panels show a more consistent pattern i n t h i s regard ( i . e . (2)> (1) ) (For explanation of numbers i n parentheses see p. 9 9 )• This trend could poss ib ly give more i n d i c a t i o n that there were some q u a l i t a t i v e di f ferences between the "populat ions" being sampled on the two surveys. *•» • u — 139 rt S. iJ- — — rrr TABLE XXIX Cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l 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 c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels - factor dimensions, pro ject 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 X 1 <t 1 - j X 11 r L* V— rt • _ J ~« — 1 . J A ~1 A ^* ' IJ X r v 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 0 s ry —' i •?* C >-y | u: •—. r- if LL1 u Is- X* X r - r - & '0 r»» i P '.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 ' t i -J X c/1 rfl •v. f*- tv) •1 t— i _^ l j «i X •t r— o i j 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 t- -ft ; r « • • _ J -ft b 1 UJ 'JJ ft «-.f — * —» — —• •ft OC ~7 -1 1 r— l i . 3 . J- — <— C : C - J ij- ft — t -.J O c. -t X <f ft ft •ft fM n tp a . p •ft U i n • 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 i s so dominant that fewer panels can meet the c r i t e r i o n (6)>(li2)>(5) that would i n d i c a t e a lagged r e l a t i o n - s h i p because (2) i s g r e a t e r than (1) and i n s e v e r a l instances greater than ( 6 ) . Several of the new c l i m a t e dimensions are more dynamic than any o f the a p r i o r i ones as f i v e o f them have (4) values lower than 0.75 which i s the lowest (4) value f o r any of the a p r i o r i dimensions. As with the a p r i o r i dimensions there i s a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of (6) being higher than (5) ex- cept f o r i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e w i t h presence of an i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , performance and c o n t r o l communications, and interaction-warmth. The panels which most c l o s e l y meet the cross-lagged c r i t e r i a and have substantive dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n s are as f o l l o w s t C o n s i d e r a t i o n — g o a l congruence, Consideration—upward communications, and I n i t i a t i o n o f S t r u c t u r e — u p w a r d communi- c a t i o n . I f one were able to r e c o n c i l e the lowering o f c o r r e - l a t i o n (2) s e v e r a l other panels would also i n d i c a t e d e f i n i t e r a t h e r than vague lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p s . As before, there are a few panels where both (1) and (2) are g r e a t e r than (5) or (6) while having a r e l a t i v e l y high dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n ( 7 ) . These are* i n i t i a t i o n of s t r u c t u r e with l o c u s o f d e c i s i o n making, and w i t h performance and c o n t r o l communications. Again t h i s may i n d i c a t e t h a t these p a r t i c u l a r changes i n s t y l e or c l i m a t e are more d i r e c t l y a s s o ciated timewise r a t h e r than having a lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p . 144 The cross-lagged panels for project leaders (Table XXX) ind ica te even more pronounced d i s t o r t i o n s from the cross-lagged panel requirements that may be due to a change i n the population and the decrease i n sample s i z e . There i s also the increased p o s s i b i l i t y that there were changes i n project leaders between surveys which resu l ted i n more short-run impressions o f ' l e a d e r - ship s t y l e . As indicated e a r l i e r , the decl ine i n work and i n the s ize of the company would also mean more short term s h i f t - ing of personnel as major projects were completed. Though some i n t e r e s t i n g conclusions can be in fer red from some of these r e s u l t s they depend heav i ly upon an intimate knowledge of the p a r t i c u l a r departments and f irm being studied as wel l as un- substantiated assumptions and are therefore not inc luded . Though the trend of (5) and (6) values would indicate causal l inkages from climate to leadership s ty le there are some i n - d ica t ions that the d i r e c t i o n of causa l i ty may be i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n for f i r s t - l e v e l supervis ion with respect to some climate dimensions. With the accumulated evidence that leadership s ty le i s dependent upon climate dimensions, i t was decided to carry out regressions with the f i r s t data set us ing s ty le dimensions as dependent v a r i a b l e s . The regress ion re su l t s are shown i n Table XXXI on the fo l lowing two pages. These are the r e s u l t s when a l l climate dimensions are reta ined as independent v a r i - ables i r r e spec t ive of t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e . H3 > W tri W X X X r R E G R E S S I O N R E S U L T S A L L O E P T S . * * D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E I S I S P 1 R S O C . 2 4 6 7 r r R C E - O . C C l c S I C E R R Y = C . 264 7 V " R C O E F F S T D E R R F - R A T I G F P R G B . C C N S T . 2 . 3 0 S 3 0 . 3 5 9 1 1 I N T 1 . M C . C 3 1 0 0 . 0 3 2 3 6 . 4 2 3 6 0 . 0 1 3 6 2 P R C C N 0 . 8 5 I 4 O - 0 2 C . C 2 7 8 0 . 1 C 2 9 0 . 7 4 4 9 3 C L G G P 0 . 0 6 8 3 0 . 0 2 6 0 7 . 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 1 0 2 4 C C N P K C . 2 1 9 i D - 0 2 0 . 0 2 7 4 0 . 6 3 8 8 C - 0 2 0 . 8 9 5 7 5 ' J P C C M - 0 . 0 2 0 5 0 . 0 S 1 6 0 . 8 5 6 9 0 . 3 5 0 4 6 P R C C " - 0 . 0 1 3 0 0 . 0 2 4 5 0 . 2 8 2 7 0 . 6 C 3 4 7 1 N F G R - 0 . 0 2 1 9 C . C 2 C 9 1 . 2 0 3 0 0 . 2 9 8 8 3 D E C I V C . 7 1 0 4 C - 0 2 0 . C 2 4 8 O . C 81 9 0 . 7 6 7 7 O E P E S O E M V A R I A B L E I S C C N P 1 R S O C . 4 5 4 3 FFPCe. 0 . 0 0 0 0 S T C E R R Y = C . 3 2 0 0 V i R C O E F F S T O E R R F - R A T I 0 F P R C B . C C N S T . 1 . 1 3 3 7 0 . 4 3 4 1 IT N T U ('•* C . 1 4 1 5 0 . 0 3 9 1 1 2 . 1 0 3 7 C . C 0 C 8 2 P R C O N 0 . C 6 0 1 0 . 0 3 3 6 3 . 1 5 6 7 0 . 0 7 5 7 3 G L C G R C . 0 1 5 3 0 . 0 2 1 4 0 . 2 3 6 1 0 . 6 3 4 2 ' C C N P R 0 . 0 5 5 5 0 . 0 3 3 . 1 2 . P . C 7 9 0 . 0 9 5 6 S U P C C M - 0 . 0 3 3 4 0 . 0 2 6 2 1 . 6 2 8 5 0 . 2 0 4 6 6 P 2 C C M - 0 . 0 4 9 ? O . C 2 S 6 2 . S 2 4 1 C . C 9 4 1 7 I M F O R - C . C 4 S 6 0 . 0 2 5 3 . 3 . 7 1 2 0 0 . 0 5 6 2 S C E C L V C . 0 3 0 2 0 . 0 3 C Q 1 . 0 1 5 1 0 . 3 1 9 5 H» J f > w X X X o o 3 c+ g a. REGRESSION RESULTS ** ALL U EPTS. ** CEP ENCFNT V AR IA8L E IS ISOE1 RSC 0 . 2 1 5 1 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 . 2 1 0 6 0 . 6 5 2 3 JPRCCN C.C73 7 0 . 0 3 6 4 4 . 0 9 4 9 0 . 0 4 5 4 2CLCOP C.0235 0. C341 0 . 7 1 69 0 .4055 i C C N F R 0 . 9 5 8 R C - 0 2 O.C259 0 . 0 7 1 2 0. 7802 e u r C C M C. 4 1 2 5 0 - 0 2 0.C284 0 . 0 2 1 2 0 . 8 5 6 5 fcPROcy - C . 4 4 1 7 0 - 0 2 0.C3 2 1 C.CI 90 0 . 8 6 1 2 7!NF C R -0 .0176 0.0274 O.'i 122 C . 5 3 0 3 SOECLV C. 0 1 0 9 0.C3.25 0 . 1 1 1 5 C . 7 3 6 2 OE P EN CENT V A R I A B L E 15 COM3 E I RSC 0 . 5 7 7 3 F P R 0 3 . C.COOC STC ERR Y = 0.2752 VCR CCEFF STD ERR F-RAT10 FPROB. C O N S T . C .8026 C. 3 7 3 3 1! NT V. M 0 .1026 0 .0 2 36 9.3218 0 . 0 0 3 6 2PR.CCN - C . 4 1 6 6 0 - 0 2 0 . 0 2 8 9 0.0 208 0 . 8 5 7 3 3GLCCR 0.C592 0.C270 4.7584 0 . 0 3 1 0 4CC.FR 0.C79 7 0.02E5 7 . 3 1 6 8 0 . 0 0 7 0 f l i P C C M - 0 . 195 3C-02 " 0.C225 0 . 7 7 7 2 C - 0 2 0 . 8 9 0 8 6PRO CM - 0 . 0 3 0 2 0.0254 1.4C63 0 . 2 3 9 1 71 NF C R - 0 . 0 1 6 2 0 . 0 2 1 7 0.5 5 3 8 0 . 4 6 4 2 ECECLV 0. 022 5 0 . 0 2 5 8 0 . 7 6 0 0 0 . 3 9 1 3 ON 147 I f the re su l t s for department head s ty le and project leader s ty le are compared, there are marked contrasts and s i m i - l a r i t i e s . For both there i s a higher p red ic t ive power ( i . e . RSQ values) for Considerat ion s ty le than there would be for I n i t i - a t ion of Structure s t y l e , but IS for pro ject leaders would be more predictable than for department heads. (RSQ values of O.35 and 0.49). For department head IS there i s only one s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t , performance and contro l communications, while for pro ject leader IS, performance and cont ro l i s r e l a t i v e l y un- important while interaction-warmth and goal congruence are significatnt with one or two others climate dimensions tending towards s i g n i f i c a n c e . While interaction-warmth i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i - able for both project leader and department head cons iderat ion, the remaining s i g n i f i c a n t var iab les are d i f f e r e n t . For depart- ment heads, conf idence-par t ic ipa t ion and goal congruence are most important, while for project leaders , performance and con- t r o l communications and presence of an informal organizat ion are most s i g n i f i c a n t with par t ic ipat ion-conf idence and project communications also tending to be s i g n i f i c a n t . The fo l lowing Tables and Figures show the re su l t s of stepwise regress ion when only var iab les with concluding F-prob values of l e s s than 0.05 are reta ined i n the regress ion 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 S T E P W I S E R E G R E S S I O N R E S U L T S * * A L L D E P T S . F P R O R L E V E L A C C E P T C . C 5 0 0 0 R E J E C T 0 . 0 6 0 0 1 D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E I S I S P 1 S T E P N C . I R S O FFRCiE. S T D E R R V A R 0 . 2 3 4 3 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 . 2 6 9 9 C O E F F S T D E R R F - R A T I O F P R O B . C C N S T . 1 I N T W M 2 . 3 7 1 8 0 . C 9 8 1 0 . 2 R 7 3 0 . C 2 2 5 1 8 . 9 7 3 6 0 . 0 0 0 1 P O T E N T U L I N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S : P A R T I A L C C P R . T O L E R A N C E F P R C R 2 P R C O N 0 . 1 1 6 6 0. 7 1 6 0 0 . 2 7 0 ? 3 0 L C G R 0 . 3 2 0 3 0 . 7 7 1 9 Q . 0 1 C 1 4 C 0 N P R C . C 5 3 7 0 . 6 3 3 3 0 . 6 7 8 4 5 U F C C M C . C 2 4 6 0 . 7 4 0 7 C . 6 2 7 9 6 F S C C " 0 . 0 1 1 8 0 . 8 1 2 9 C . 8 6 8 6 7 I N F C R C . C 9 C 0 0 . £ 3 7 5 0 . 4 8 9 9 8 C E C L V 0 . C 6 6 5 0 . 7 5 1 7 0 . 6 C E 6 S T E P N C . R S O F P R O R . . 3 1 2 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 S T D E R R Y = C . 2 5 7 c V A R C O E F F S T O E R R F - R A T I O F P R O R . . . . C C N S T . 2 . 1 . 6 6 2 0 . 2 8 5 2 11 N T 0 . C 6 7 2 0 . C 2 4 5 7 . 5 3 3 5 0 . 0 0 7 3 3 G L C G R 0 . 0 5 8 1 0 . 0 2 2 0 6 . 9 8 1 0 C . 0 1 0 1 P O T E N T I A L I N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S : P A R T I A L C O R P . T O L E R A N C E F P R C B 2 F P . C C N 0 . 0 2 4 1 0 . 6 5 4 6 C . e 2 1 4 4 C 0 N P R . C . C 2 3 5 0 . 5 9 8 3 0 . 8 3 4 0 5 U P C 0 M 0 . 1 4 9 2 0 . 6 5 5 9 C . 2 4 5 E 6 F R C C H 7 I N F C R fcOECLV 0 . 1 0 7 6 0 . 1 5 1 8 0 . C 2 6 5 0 . 7 5 3 7 0 . 8 1 5 6 0 . 6 9 0 6 0 . 4 0 5 7 0 . 2 3 7 2 0 . 3 1 7 4 t—1 00 V A R I A B L E C A T E E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S I S P i \ A P I A B L E C N T H E H C R I Z C N T A L A X I S I S 1 I N T W M T H E " . " A N D " * " A R E P R E D I C T E D F G I N T S ; T H E " * • 5 . C C C I S L S E D W H E R E P R E D I C T E C P C I N T S C O V E R D A T A P O I N T S 5 . 0 0 0 4 . <3 5 C 3 H* c+ H' P c+ H' O 3 o •dra 4 c+ O rj c . r j 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 . 9 0 0 4 . 3 5 0 4 . 8 0 0 4 . 7 5 0 4 . 7 0 0 4 . 6 5 0 4 . 5 C 0 4 . 6 0 0 4 . 5 5 0 4 . 5 C 0 4 . 4 5 C 4 . 4 0 0 4 . 3 5 0 1 1 1 1 4 . 3 0 0 4 . 2 5 0 4 . 2 C O 4 . 1 5 0 4 . 1 0 0 4 . 0 5 0 4 . C C C 1 1 1 1 1 2 . 1 1 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 9 5 0 3 . 9 G 0 3 . 8 5 0 3 . 8 C 0 3 . 7 5 0 •CO 1 1 . 1 . 1 * . . 1 3 . 7 0 0 3 . 6 5 0 3 . 6 0 0 3 . 5 5 0 3 . 5 0 0 3 . 4 5 0 1 - 1 3 . 4 0 0 3 . 3 5 0 3 . 3 0 0 3 . 2 5 0 3 . 2 0 0 3 . 1 5 0 i . C C C . 1 1 . 1 1 2 3 . 1 C O 3 . 0 5 0 3 . 0 C 0 2 . 9 5 0 2 . 9 0 0 2 . 8 5 0 1 1 1 2 . 8 0 0 2 . 7 5 0 2 . 7 0 0 2 . 6 5 0 2 . 6 0 0 2 . 5 5 0 2 . 5 0 0 2 . 5 C 0 //I I! 111 /1111 4 . 4 C 0 D I S T A N C E 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 . 0 0 0 9 . 6 0 0 1 2 . 2 0 1 4 . 8 0 1 7 . 4 0 E N S L A S H E S O N T H E X - A X I S I S 0 . 1 3 C C 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 V A R I A B L E C N T H E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S I S P 1 *\ V A R I A B L E C N T H E H O R I Z O N T A L A X I S . I S 3 G L C G R T H E " . " « N C A R E P R E C I C T E C P O I N T S ; T E E " * " I S L S E D WH6SE P R E D I C T E D P O I N T S C O V E R D A T A F C I N T S 5 . C C C _ 1 5 . 0 C 0 / A . 9 5 0 / ? / 4 . 9 0 0 N / 4 . 3 5 0 / 4 . 8 0 0 / 4 . 7 5 0 / 1 4 . 7 0 0 / 4 . 6 5 0 / 4 , 6 C O / 4 . 5 5 0 4 . 5 C C - 1 1 4 . 5 0 0 / 4 . 4 5 0 / 1 1 4 . 4 0 0 / 4 . 3 5 0 / 1 4 . 3 0 0 / • 4 . 2 5 0 / 1 . 1 4 . 2 0 0 / 4 . 1 5 0 / l 1 4 . 1 0 0 / 4 . 0 5 0 4 . C C 0 - 1 ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . 0 C 0 / • • • • 3 . 9 5 0 / 1 1 1 • 3 . 9 0 0 / 3 . 8 5 0 / 2 1 3 . 8 0 0 / 3 . 7 5 0 / 1 * 1 3 . 7 0 0 / • • 3 . 6 5 0 / 1 1 • * . 1 1 1 • . • 1 1 3 . 6 0 0 / 3 . 5 5 0 3 . f C C - 3 . 5 0 0 / 3 . 4 5 0 / 1 * 3 . 4 0 0 / m 3 . 3 5 0 / . 1 . i 3 . 3 0 0 / 3 . 2 5 0 / 1 i 3 . 2 0 0 / • 3 . 1 5 0 /• 2 3 . 1 0 0 / 3 . 0 5 0 3 . C O G - 1 1 3 . 0 0 0 / 2 . 9 5 0 / 1 1 1 2 . 9 0 0 / • 2 . 3 5 0 / I ! 1 1 2 . 8 0 0 / 2 . 7 5 0 / 1 2 . 7 C O / 2 . 6 5 0 / 2 . 6 0 0 / 2 . 5 5 0 2 . 5 0 0 - 2 . 5 0 0 I l\l1II11III Ml I I I I I I I i / / / / / / / / / I I I I I III 111/////////I / / / / / / / / / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / l \ II nil illI/////////1II11/1/111 I—' 3 . 7 0 0 6 . 3 C 0 F . 9 0 0 1 1 . 5 0 1 4 . 1 0 1 6 . 7 0 V/» C I S T A N C E B E T W E E N S L A S H E S O N T E E X - A X I S I S 0 . 1 3 C 0 O 5 7 C C F I E T E O P . f E P V A T i r N S H E R E R E C O V E R E D P G R P L O T S , P E S T C U A L S O R P R E D I C T E D V A L U E S 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 o r CX X - CD X M M 4 c+ M O H* c_i. O CD 3 o rt- CD H t i CD CD SO 3 P. CD CD 4 3 CO c+ S T E P W I S E R E G R E S S ICIS R E S U L T S * * A L L 0 E P T S . * * - - - - D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E I S C 0 W 1 S T E P N C . 1 R S Q F F E O E . S f O E R R V = 0 . 3 5 6 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 3 4 2 " / VAP. C O N S T . CD E P F 1 . 1 3 7 5 S T D E R R 0 . 3 7 9 2 F - R A T I 0 F P R O B . ! I N T W M 3 G L C C R 0 . 1 5 7 5 0 . 0 1 5 ' . 0 . C 3 2 6 O . C 2 9 2 2 3 . 4 0 2 3 0 . 2 7 8 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 6 0 6 0 P O T E N T I A L I N C H P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S : P A R T I A L C 0 P . R . T O L E R A N C E f P R Q R 2 o R C C N 0 . 2 3 5 0 0 . 6 5 4 6 0 . 0 7 5 ? 4 C 0 W 5 U P C Q M 6 F R C C « 7 T N F O k eneciv 0 . 1 7 7 5 0 . 1 7 3 2 0 . 2 2 6 7 C . 1 9 2 3 0 . 0 2 3 1 0 . 5 9 8 3 0 . 6 5 5 9 0 . 7 5 3 7 0 . E! 5 6 C . 6 9 0 6 0 . 1 6 3 9 0 . 1 7 4 8 0 . 0 7 3 0 0 . 1 3 0 2 0 . 7 6 1 6 S T E P N C . R S C F P R O G . S T D E R R Y = 0 . 3 5 3 8 0 . 0 C 0 C C . 3 4 C 7 V A S C C N S T . 1 I N T W M C O t f F 1 . 1 9 ? ] C . 1 6 5 7 S T 0 E R R 0 . 3 6 2 7 C . C 2 8 4 F - R A T I O 3 3 . 9 5 1 8 F P P . O B . 0 . 0 0 0 0 P O T E N T IAI I N C E F E N O E N T V t P j A R L E S : 2 P R C 0 N 3 0 L C C - R 4 C 0 N P P 5 U P C C M 6 P R C CM P A R T I A L C . C R R . 0 . 2 2 4 4 0 . 0 6 7 4 C . 1 8 8 0 0 . 1 3 9 3 0 . 1 9 9 6 T O L E R A N C E 0 . 7 1 6 G 0 . 7 7 1 9 0 . 6 3 3 3 0 . 7 4 0 7 0 . 8 1 2 9 F P R C B 0 . 0 6 1 2 0 . 6 C 6 0 0 . 1 3 6 2 0 . 2 7 4 1 0 . 1 1 2 9 7 I N F O R S C E C L V C. 1 7 8 5 0 . 0 = 5 7 0 . 6 3 7 5 0 . 7 5 1 7 0 . 1 5 7 9 0 . 6 6 8 1 M Vn V A R I A B L E G N V A R I A B L E C K THE " . " A N D A . 9 C 0 T H E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S C C N ' P l T H E H C P I Z C N T A L A X I S I S 1 I N T W M " * " A R E P R E C I C T E C F C I N T S ; T H E IS USED WHERE PREDICTED POINTS COVER DATA POINTS A . 9 0 0 A . 8 3 0 o o 3 CO H - P. CD ^ P c+ ••d O CD" CQ O cr M H* 3 f t c+ ^ 2 p- *i h J». (D O rj c+ o 3 I P 3 c+ 1 A . 3 A O 1 1 A . 2 7 0 A . 2 C C - A . 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 A . 1 3 0 1 • A . 0 6 0 1 1 1 3 . 9 9 0 1 1 1 1 3 . 9 2 0 1 3 . 8 5 0 1 1 1 3 . 7 3 0 1 1 3 . 7 1 0 1 ... 3 . 6 A 0 1 1 3 . 5 7 0 A . 7 6 0 A . 6 9 0 A . 6 2 0 A . 5 5 0 A . A 8 0 A . A 1 0 300 1 1 1 3 . 5 0 0 3 . A 3 0 3 . 3 6 0 3 . 2 9 0 3 . 2 2 0 3 . 1 5 0 / 1 1 3 . 0 3 0 / 1 1 1 1 3 . 0 1 0 / 2 . 9 A O / . . 1 1 2 . 8 7 0 2 . 6 C C - 1 2 . 8 0 0 / 1 1 • 1 2 . 7 3 0 / 2 . 6 6 0 / 1 1 2 . 5 9 0 / 1 . . 1 2 . 5 2 0 / 2 . A 5 0 / 1 1 2 . 3 8 0 /. 1 l 1 1 2 . 3 1 0 / 2 . 2 A 0 / 2 . 1 7 0 2 . 1 0 0 - 2 . 1 0 0 1 2 . 0 3 0 1 I . 9 6 0 1 1 1 . 8 9 0 1 . 8 2 0 1 . 7 5 0 1 . 6 8 0 1 . 6 1 0 1 . 5 A O i . A 7 0 l . A C C - 1 . A 0 0 //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 . A O O 7 . 0 0 0 9 . 6 0 C 1 2 . 2 0 1 A . 8 0 1 7 . A O C I S T A N C E B E T W E E N S L A S H E S C N T E E X - A X I S I S 0 . 1 3 0 0 5 6 C O M P L E T E O B S E R V A T I O N S W E R E R E C O V E R E D F O R P L O T S , R E S I D U A L S O P P R E D I C T E D V A L U E S 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 L J O — CO (\J *-* -4 o ro vr >f Lfl CC m h - OJ m tj> LT. o r\j r - —« J - n r r u n r-- cc cu o- n co LT. a- r-t ry PJ r*- vT t—* 4*—A O CJ C r H o o O CJ >. 5" cc > U U J cj a u_ o U- t y , U J ' XJ a -« o LP O- LL,' O O O ' u. >- <.[ L/1 r~ > ^: [C h h H O C O (V r n 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- (_) <— C J O v-' C - J O O O C ' o o u c 11- - J L J LY. O u D a - n <i 111 'G N TABLE XXXIV Stepwise regress ion — IS dependent, cl imate 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 t n LL o c r LU ' C- eg o-, -o cr : I CM Cvi -"I L C l VJ rt CJ HI r- o vT - H fv. rt ^ 1 ' f\J C ~ * o o • O O i l l o U.J LJ r - 2 - or: LLI -vt a. a. LU S cr. .% u a r - U 2 J U c j U >: 3i cn > L' L/ U J U O LL O CL CX -C LU _ j a — a ui ^ ai TABLE XXXIV - (continued) V A R I A S L E C N V A R I A B L E C N T H E " . " A N C 4 . E C C T H E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S I S D E 1 T H E H C R I Z C N T A L A X I S I S 2 P R C 0 N • • * " A R E P R E D I C T E D F C I N T S ; T H E " * " I S U S E D W H E R E P R E D I C T E C P O I N T S C O V E R D A T A P O I N T S 4 . 8 0 0 4 . 7 4 0 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 C T W O 3 03 4 . 6 8 0 4 . 6 2 0 4 . 5 6 0 4 . 5 0 0 4 . 4 4 0 4 . 3 8 0 4 . 2 C C 1 1 1 1 4 . 3 2 0 4 . 2 6 0 4 . 2 0 0 4 . 1 4 0 4 . 0 8 0 4 . 0 2 0 1 1 . 9 6 0 , 9 0 0 . 3 4 0 . 7 8 0 . 7 2 0 3 . 6 6 0 3 . 6 C C - 1 1 1 * . 1 1 3 . 6 0 0 / .. . 3 . 5 4 0 / 1 . . . 1 1 3 . 4 8 0 / * * 1 1 3 . 4 2 0 / 3 . 3 6 0 / 1 1 3 . 3 0 0 3 . C C 0 3 . 2 4 0 3 . 1 8 0 3 . 1 2 0 3 . 0 6 0 3 . 0 0 0 2 . 9 4 0 2 . s e e 2 . 8 2 0 2 . 7 6 0 2 . 7 0 0 2 . 6 4 0 2 . 5 8 0 2 . 5 2 0 2 . 4 6 0 2 . 4 0 0 2 . 3 4 0 2 . 2 8 0 2 . 2 2 0 i . 8 0 0 2 . 1 6 0 2 . 1 0 0 2 . 0 4 0 1 . 9 8 0 1 . 9 2 0 1 . 8 6 0 I l\l111 3 . 7 0 0 C I S T A N C E i . e o o / / / / / I I I 1 1 I I I i l\ 1111111111 11/ I III 11 \ IIIIII i 1l\ I I 1 1 I I I III 111/11111\ 111111111 \ l IIII l / l l\ I I 1 1 1 I I / I I r-» 6 . 3 0 0 E . 9 0 0 11 . 5 0 1 4 . 1 0 1 6 . 7 0 C E T W E E N S L A S H E S C N T H E X - A X . I S I S C . 1 3 C 0 v/\ 5 6 C O M P L E T E 0" . S F P ' / A T I f i N S W E R E R E C O V E R E D F O R " L O T S , F E S I C U A L S C P P R E D I C T E D V A L U E S 156 UJ LD I O O a : o CL o o I <r co c r 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. L J v , a. i—• cr. u. L/i X • o o u - J a . o ^ U J vj- L O O f*- a : TABLE XXXV Stepwise regress ion — Considerat ion 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 v A > f< W X X X < o o 3 ct H* 3 CD S T F P V . I S E R E G R E S S I C N R E S U L T S * * A L L C E P T S . * * S T E P HC. 4 R S C C . 5 1 5 6 F P R C ' 5 . C . C C 0 C S T C E R R Y ^ 0 . 2 7 8 5 V A R C C E F F S T D E R R F - R A T I O F F R O B . C C N S T . C . 7 2 9 3 0 . 2 1 C 1 1 I N T ' / M 0 . 1 1 5 1 0 . 0 2 9 2 1 5 . 5 2 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 3 4 0 C N P R C . C £ 8 7 C . C 2 7 1 1 0 . 6 7 0 2 . 0 . 0 0 1 9 P O T E N T I A L I N C E P E N O E N T V A R I A B L E S : P A R T I A L C C R R . T O L E R A N C E fPP.C8 2 P R C C N C C S ? 0 . 6 8 1 2 0 . 7 G 2 3 3 G L C G R 0 . 2 8 1 3 0 . 7 2 9 2 0 . 0 2 5 1 i P C C M C . C o l 3 0 . 7 0 4 1 0 . 6 : 0 . 0 5 9 6 0 . 1 2 9 9 0 . 5 5 2 ! 0 . 6 4 9 6 0 . 3 1 5 6 6 P R O C " , 7 I N F C R 6 0 E C L V C . 7 9 C 9 0 . 8 2 0 2 0 . 7 3 9 0 S T E P N O . R S O F P R O B . S T C E R R Y = _y_AR_ TONSTT" 1 ! N T f c M 2 G L C OR 4 C C N P R C . 5 5 7 8 C . O C O C C . 2 6 9 5 0 . 0 9 5 9 0 . C 5 3 8 C . C 7 4 2 0 . 0 2 9 5 0 . C 2 3 6 0 . C 2 7 0 F - R A T I O F P R O B . 1 0 . 5 7 5 8 5 . 1 7 7 2 7 . 5 4 5 4 0 . 0 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 5 1 C . C C 7 8 P O T E N T I A L I N D E P E N D E N T V A R I A B L E S : T O L E R A N C E 0 . 6 3 7 2 0 . 6 3 9 9 C . 7 4 5 C 0 . 8 0 5 7 0 . 6 8 7 5 F P R C B 0 . 8 3 3 2 0 . 3 2 5 8 0 . 2 2 5 4 0 . 4 3 9 2 " • ^ C 9 2 P P C C N 5 U P C C . ° 6 P F C C N 71 N F C R «nr-r.Lv A L 0 . 0 2 3 9 C . 0 2 5 4 0 . 1 5 6 6 0 . 1 C 2 1 C - C P r - 5 00 V A R I A B L E C N T H E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S C C N C E 1 V A R I A B L E C M T H E H C R I Z C N T A L A XIS \S 1 I N T W R T H E " . " A N C A R E P R F D I C T E C P O I N T S : T H E " * " I S U S E D W H E R E P R E D I C T E D F O I N T S C O V E R D A T A F C I N T S A . 7 0 0 A . 7 C 0 4 . 6 3 0 4 . 5 6 0 4 . 4 9 0 4 . 4 2 0 4 . 3 5 0 4 . 2 B O 4 . 2 1 0 4 . C C 0 1 1 * 1 1 4 0 . 0 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 9 3 0 . 3 6 0 . 7 9 0 I-l Q w m 1 1 1 1 1 . . i . i i . . i * i 3 . 7 2 0 3 . 6 5 0 3 . 5 8 0 3 . 5 1 0 3 . 4 4 0 3 . 3 7 0 I . 3 C 0 *1 .* 1 * 1 1 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 6 0 0 9 0 0 2 0 9 5 0 b C C . * 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 8 0 8 10 7 4 0 6 7 0 6 0 0 5 3 0 4 6 0 , 3 9 0 3 2 0 . 2 5 0 . 1 8 0 1 1 0 1 . 9 C 0 0 4 0 9 7 0 9 0 0 3 3 0 7 6 0 6 9 0 6 2 0 5 5 0 4 8 0 4 1 0 3 4 0 2 7 0 1 . 2 0 0 1 . 2 0 0 //I IIIIII111 I/////////I/////////I II111II11 \ III 1 1 1 1 / l \ l 1 1 ! I / 1 1 1 1 I III!IIIII I I 1 1 I I I I I \ / I I I I I I I I \ I i l l l l l l l I 4 . 4 0 0 7 . 0 0 0 O . f c O O 1 2 . 2 0 1 4 . 8 0 1 7 . 4 0 D I S T A N C E E E T W E E N S L A S H E S O N T H E X - A X I S I S 0 . 1 3 C C V A R I A B L E C N T H E V E R T I C A L A X I S I S C C N D E 1 V A R I A B L E C N T H E H O R I Z O N T A L A X I S I S 3 G L C G R T H E " . » A N D " * " A R E F P E C I C T E C F C I N T S ; T H E 4 . 7 C C ' * " I S U S E O W H E R E P R E D I C T E D P O I N T S C O V E R D A T A P C 1 N T S 4 . 7 0 0 4 . 6 3 0 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 . 5 6 0 A . 4 9 0 4 . 4 2 0 4 . 3 5 0 4 . 2 3 0 4 . 2 1 0 4 . C C C 1 1 1 1 * 4 . ] 4 0 4 . 0 7 0 4 . 0 0 0 3 . 9 3 0 3 . 8 6 0 3 . 7 9 0 1 1 3 . 7 2 0 3 . 6 5 0 3 . 5 8 0 3 . 5 1 0 3 . 4 4 0 3 . 3 7 0 3 . 3 C 1 . 1 1 . . 1 1 1 I 1 * 3 . 3 0 0 3 . 2 3 0 3 . 1 6 0 3 . 0 9 0 3 . 0 2 0 2 . 9 5 0 2 . 6 C 1 1 2 . 8 8 0 2 . 8 1 0 2 . 7 4 0 2 . 6 7 0 2 . 6 0 0 2 . 5 3 0 2 . 4 6 0 2 . 3 9 0 2 . 3 2 0 2 . 2 5 0 2 . 1 8 0 2 . 1 1 0 1 . 9 C 0 2 . 0 4 0 1 . 9 7 0 1 . 9 0 0 1 . 8 3 0 1 . 7 6 0 1 . 6 9 0 1 . 6 2 0 1 . 5 5 0 1 . 4 8 0 1 . 4 1 0 1 . 3 4 0 1 . 2 7 0 1 . 2 C C - 1 . 2 0 0 //111ii1111/ \n11iiir/ \ tiiiiiiii\iiiii///i\ii/inf//u////i///\t/i//t//i\iiii/iiii\iiiiiiiii\iiiiiiin\ 3 . 7 0 0 6 . 3 0 0 . 3 . 9 0 0 1 1 . 5 0 . 1 4 . 1 0 1 6 . 7 0 C I S T A N C E B E T W E E N S L A S H E S C N T H E X - A X I S I S O . 1 3 C 0 ON o V A P i m F C1K THE V E R T I C A L A X I S IS C CM D E I V A R I A B L E CN THE H C R I 2 C N T A L A X I S IS 4C0NPR THE "." AND ARE PREDICTED F C I N T S : THE "*" I S LSED WHERE PR E D I C T E D POINTS COVER DATA P O I N T S 4.7CC 1 4.700 4. 630 o o 3 01 o. CD P3 C T 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 . 2 3 0 4.210 / 1 •A. 1 40 / 4 . 0 7 0 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 . 6 7 0 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 \ l l 11II111 \ II1111111 \ 111111111\ 4. ECO 7.600 I DIS T A N C E BETWEEN SLASHES CN THE > - A X I J I S i IIIIIi i I t ) I t 111 It It 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ l l I I It 111 \l11111111\ll1111111\ 0.40 13.20 16.00 I S . 8 0 • 14C0 ON 68 COMPLETE CPSEPVAT IONS WERE RECOVERED FDR PLOTS. f.ESIOUALS OP P R E D I C T E D VALUES 162 The stepwise r e g r e s s i o n f o r p r o j e c t leader IS leaves only interaction-warmth and goal congruence as s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s with no other c l i m a t e v a r i a b l e s coming c l o s e to s t a - t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . Though the RSQ value i s marginally- lower than f o r the complete r e g r e s s i o n (O.313 compared to 0*3^7) the lower standard e r r o r and higher F-prob combined w i t h the convenience of fewer v a r i a b l e s would make the stepwise r e s u l t more u s e f u l . The subsequent p r i n t e r p l o t s of the dependent v a r i a b l e against each of the independent v a r i a b l e s help to provide a " f e e l " f o r the relevance of the c o e f f i c i e n t s , F - r a t i o s , and F-probs. The stepwise r e g r e s s i o n f o r p r o j e c t leader G leaves interaction-warmth as the only s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e though the r e d u c t i o n of the RSQ value from 0.-4-9 to 0.35 along with three or four v a r i a b l e s tending toward s i g n i f i c a n c e (F-prob below 0.16 or 0.1^-) i t may be appropriate to include at l e a s t per- formance and c o n t r o l communications as a p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e . The stepwise r e s u l t s f o r department head IS provide a sharp c o n t r a s t to tha t of p r o j e c t l e a d e r s . I n t h i s case per- formance and c o n t r o l communication i s the only s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e r e t a i n e d i n the equation though goal congruence would tend to s i g n i f i c a n c e (e.g. step 1 F-prob o f 0.08) as i s the case f o r p r o j e c t l e a d e r s . This c o n t r a s t s with the r e s u l t f o r p r o j e c t leaders where interaction-warmth i s the most important v a r i a b l e . 163 The stepwise regression r e s u l t s for department head Con- sideration provide three s i g n i f i c a n t variables as opposed to only one for project leaders. These variables, i n 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 i s only marginally l e s s than O.58 for the regression with a l l eight climate variables r e- tained. For a l l these r e s u l t s the exceptionally low c o e f f i c i e n t F-probs, and o v e r a l l equation F-probs along with observation of the p r i n t e r plots leave l i t t l e doubt of the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g - nificance of these r e s u l t s . With previously mentioned indications (p. Ikj) that there i s a time l a g i n the response of leadership style to organizational climate variables, an attempt was made to de- velop regression equations with Time 2 leadership s t y l e dimensions as dependent variables and Time 1 climate dimensions as independent ones. When t h i s was attempted using the o r i g i n - a l c o r r e l a t i o n matrix developed from a l l r e s u l t s from both surveys, some improbable r e s u l t s 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 c o r r e l a t i o n values i t i s possible to generate t h e o r e t i c a l l y im- possible r e s u l t s ( i . e . standard error equal 0.0 or RSQ values equal to or greater than 1.0). In order to circumvent t h i s problem, regressions were run using a c o r r e l a t i o n 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 r e s u l t s of regressions carried out on t h i s basis. vC t-n -D rj <• O O O O c x o <J- r~- o i n rv r-* o 1 (M <U f l — J: *;i L; a. c: t~ (.j o -T t_j 7J ^ - f J L ' O . : ' : — -» C Lv r (N,' p i s-f i." 1 ^ r\j - t -t CC C ' <-* O PO ro o 0 l - i vf l A . •.r >—i r\j r~- i cn f ~ O M , ' • • i IP CO ; c c r - j f ! ,-\J f-.; , o c c- c, ' _ 165 TABLE XXXVI Regression r e s u l t s — 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 r v {jl -V. Og H r - . f ' C. OJ < i ; >u r- o ' " i c c ; > vT _,i-yj .j- 7 ^ J C 21 X t l ' 1 J" 1 M; r- co TABLE XXXVII Stepwise regress ion — Time 2 IS dependent, Time 1 climate dimensions independent, Dept. heads rO LA 05 r n r*i *-* i n - J - f A TJ f A r— Al O VCI *" < •—1 cA aj m o (7» ! iJ ' J J co U ' L J L J CL O r-'l fN~ U"% L ; O - C <' ^ vf LA - H < <I* O -vt • m -cr :£1 cr. > vJ O _J ' LL L J 16? TABLE XXXVII - (continued) 168 U J m -o 2: i r 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 re su l t s from these regressions are nothing short of s t a r t l i n g . Even with the reduced degrees of freedom, the s i g - n i f i cance l e v e l s for the equations and c o e f f i c i e n t s can leave l i t t l e doubt that there i s a strong though lagged causal l inkage from climate var iab les to leadership s ty le thus provid ing sup- port for the opposite of hypothesis H 3» For example, the RSQ value for the stepwise regress ion for department head IS i s 0.53 along with an F-prob of .0013 while for department head C the RSQ value i s 0.82 with an F-prob of l e s s than O.OOOo! Of in te re s t are the s h i f t s as to which climate dimensions are more important when a time l ag i s taken into cons idera t ion . For I n i t i a t i o n of Structure s ty le by department heads the s h i f t i s from performance and contro l communications to confidence- p a r t i c i p a t i o n though l e v e l of dec i s ion making, presence of an informal organizat ion , and performance and cont ro l communi- cat ions had s ign i f i cance l e v e l s l e s s than O.075. For Consider- a t ion s ty le by department heads the important var iab les would appear to be upward communication rather than interaction-warmth or goal congruence, though conf idence-par t ic ipa t ion may also be important. The circumstances of the study may wel l have placed undue emphasis upon the importance of upward communications. 170 CHAPTER IV Conclusions and Discuss ion Though a large volume of r e su l t s has been presented i n the previous chapter, few conclusions have been drawn. In t h i s chapter there w i l l be a review of the r e su l t s with the presen- t a t i o n of conclus ions . In p a r t i c u l a r there w i l l be an attempt to re l a te the f indings of various port ions of the data analys i s to the hypotheses presented e a r l i e r as wel l as r e l a t i n g con- c lus ions to broader impl ica t ions i n the study and organizat ions and t h e i r management. In drawing these conclusions reference w i l l be made to the v a l i d i t y of the f indings from experimental, s t a t i s t i c a l , and p r a c t i c a l viewpoints . The problems of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are such, however, that a number of d i f f e rent conclusions may be drawn from the same information. Though an e f for t has been made to present a con- s i s t ent viewpoint i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s , there has been enough information and background provided so that others may make t h e i r own analys i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The foregoing should by no means be considered an exhaustive analys i s of a l l the data gathered. A more extensive in tegra t ion of part I , I I I and IV re su l t s with those of parts II (A) and (B) would c e r t a i n l y be poss ible as wel l as more study of the company and i d e a l cl imate scores i n r e l a t i o n to other port ions of the sur- veys. Results and conclusions concerning each hypothesis w i l l 171 be considered i n turn , followed by review of other r e su l t s and supplemental conclusions which flowed from the analys i s before d i scuss ing poss ible broad impl ica t ions o f the r e s u l t s o f the study and the needs for further research i n t h i s area. Hypothesis 1 H 1. There are high pos i t ive r e l a t i o n - ships between organizat iona l climate dimensions for departments and the leadership s ty les of department heads. Strong support for t h i s hypothesis i s seen i n the r e - gress ion re su l t s of Table XI I I . A l l of the a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions were found to have a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (0.05 l e v e l ) r e l a t i o n s h i p with Cons iderat ion. With I n i t i a t i o n of Structure there are general ly le s s s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t ionsh ip s as compared to those above, but for character o f performance, and of communications with F-probs le s s than 0.05 and character of dec i s ion making and of goa l - se t t ing ( less than 0.1) support for the hypothesis i s s t i l l c l e a r . Support i s also found i n Tables XXXI, XXXIV, and XXXV when factor cl imate dimensions are used i n regress ion equations rather than a p r i o r i ones. Again the re l a t ionsh ip s with Con- s idera t ion are more common and general ly more s i g n i f i c a n t than with I n i t i a t i o n of S tructure . With the factor dimensions "orthogonal" i t becomes c l ea r that there i s almost no support for the hypothesis when c e r t a i n dimensions are considered. 172 With C o n s i d e r a t i o n there i s l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h performance and c o n t r o l communications, upward communications, l o c u s of decision-making, and presence of i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , while only performance and c o n t r o l communications c l e a r l y r e l a t e d to I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e . Figures 13» 1^» 15 and 16 are also h e l p f u l i n i l l u s t r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Though the evidence w i l l not support a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a l l c l i m a t e dimensions are s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to both aspects of l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e considered, i t d e f i n i t e l y can support the con- c l u s i o n t h a t there are very s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between C o n s i d e r a t i o n or I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e and s e v e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate dimensions. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t can be concluded t h a t there are p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Co n s i d e r a t i o n l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and interaction-warmth, c o n f i - d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and goal congruence. I t can a l s o be concluded that there i s a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between I n i t i - a t i o n o f S t r u c t u r e l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and performance and c o n t r o l communication. Though the foregoing conclusions are based upon a strong t e s t of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i t should be noted t h a t almost a l l of the c o r r e l a t i o n s between l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e and c l i m a t e dimensions are p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t . I t would a l s o appear t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , expectations of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with C o n s i d e r a t i o n would be higher than those w i t h I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e . 173 Hypothesis IA H IA. There are high pos i t ive r e l a t i o n - ships between organizat iona l climate dimensions and the leadership s ty le d i - mensions of "project l eaders " . However, these re l a t ionsh ip s w i l l not be as great as the re l a t ionsh ip s of Hypothesis 1. General support for t h i s hypothesis i s found i n the regress ion r e s u l t s of Table IX. Because of the po ten t i a l m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y problems ind ica ted , t h i s evidence i s not very u s e f u l . The regress ion r e s u l t s of Tables XXXI, XXXII, and XXXIII where factor climate dimensions are used, rather than a p r i o r i ones, are much more u s e f u l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between Consider- a t ion and interaction-warmth i s c l e a r l y supported, though a l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with performance and cont ro l communi- cat ions , pro ject communications, conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion , and presence of informal organizat ion i s also ind ica ted . For pro ject leaders , the re l a t ionsh ip s with I n i t i a t i o n of Structure are again le s s common though the resul tant RSQ (or p red ic t ive ) values are higher than they were for department heads. The important climate dimensions i n t h i s case are interaction-warmth and goal congruence. As with the previous hypothesis the evidence provides only for support of the hypothesis i n ce r t a in instances . I t can be concluded that there are high pos i t i ve r e l a t ionsh ip s 174 between Considerat ion and interaction-warmth, performance and contro l communications, and project communications. I t can also be concluded that there are high pos i t i ve r e l a t ionsh ip s between I n i t i a t i o n of Structure and interaction-warmth, and goal congruence. With respect to the l a t t e r statement i n the hypothesis (H IA) a simple statement can not be made. As wel l as quant i - t a t ive di f ferences between the re l a t ionsh ip s for project leaders and project leaders the evidence indicates q u a l i t a t i v e d i f fe rences . That i s to say, the climate dimensions most s trongly associated with Considerat ion or I n i t i a t i o n of Structure are dependent upon the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of the leader . With the evidence shown i t would be hazardous to make comparative genera l izat ions about r e l a t ionsh ip s of leadership s ty le to organizat iona l climate dimensions without f i r s t con- s i d e r i n g i n d e t a i l the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of a leader and pos- s i b l y serious considerat ion of s t r u c t u r a l and other components of the organizat ion under cons iderat ion . Hypothesis 2 H 2. There w i l l be a pos i t ive change i n organizat iona l cl imate r e s u l t i n g from the feedback to a group of the r e s u l t s from a suggestion-box type quest ionnaire . Rather weak support for the hypothesis i s found i n the comparison of Time 1 and Time 2 r e s u l t s for a p r i o r i dimensions 175 i n Table XIV and the re su l t s d i scuss ion re la ted to i t . As i n d i - cated, support comes only when character of leadership processes i s considered and only vaguely when character of communications and of contro l processes used are considered. When the same comparison i s made with fac tor dimensions (Table XXVIII) the evidence i s s t i l l s t a t i s t i c a l l y weak. Con- f idence-par t i c ipa t ion and goal congruence are the only d i - mensions where any dif ference between the experimental and contro l group changes can be noted. On a les s s c i e n t i f i c bas i s , the comparison of d i f f e r - ences between the contro l and experimental group changes i s genera l ly consistent through a l l a p r i o r i or factor dimensions even though, as indicated above, the s t a t i s t i c a l tests o f these di f ferences leaves many doubts as to t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e . I f one considers that not a l l of any change i n climate would occur within the time period used (110-130 days) a s l i g h t - l y more opt imi s t i c p o s i t i o n may be taken. The inves t iga tor i s of the opinion that d e f i n i t e changes i n climate resul ted d i - r e c t l y from the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s u l t s , and that they continued for some time af ter the second measure of climate dimensions was taken. Hypothesis 3 H 3« There i s a high pos i t i ve r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leadership s ty le of department heads i n one time period and the organizat ional c l i - mate of departments i n a fo l lowing time per iod . 176 In making any conclusions with the use of the second survey i t would be necessary to discuss the loss of a large port ion of the o r i g i n a l sample. The evidence indicated e a r l i e r (Table XI) could e a s i l y lead to a conclusion that the second survey respondents were not representat ive of the f i r s t survey populat ion. This conclus ion , of course, colours a l l further conclusions to be made from the r e s u l t s . For the time being, t h i s major point w i l l be ignored. The pre l iminary re su l t s from the two surveys would ind ica te that t h i s hypothesis was e n t i r e l y re futed . The cross- lagged c o r r e l l a t i o n a l panel r e s u l t s with a p r i o r i cl imate d i - mensions (Table XV and XVI) lead to the conclus ion that some organiza t iona l climate dimensions were causal var iab les a f fec t - ing leadership s t y l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y that of department heads. The most important climate dimension for both leadership s ty les i s character of i n t e r a c t i o n - i n f l u e n c e . Other climate dimensions that affected Considerat ion are character of performance, of communications, and of motivat ional forces being tapped. Even when the cross-lagged panel c r i t e r i a are not f u l l y met, there i s no h int that leadership s ty le i s a causal var iab le a f fec t ing organizat ional climate over the time period considered. As found with hypothesis H IA the r e s u l t s with project leaders are considerably l e s s c lear cut though most of these r e su l t s i n d i - cate support for the fo l lowing conclus ions . When the cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels with factor climate dimensions (Tables XXIX and XXX) are examined, s i m i l a r 17? r e s u l t s are found. The best f i t s to the panel c r i t e r i a for department heads are Considerat ion with goal congruence and upward communications, and I n i t i a t i o n of Structure with up- ward communications. The r e su l t s for project leaders are much l e s s c l ea r with a few marginal ind ica t ions of support for the hypothesis . The usefulness of the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p , of course, a r i ses when pred ic t ions concerning cause and ef fect can be made. When the regress ion equation re su l t s us ing Time 1 cl imate dimensions as independent var iab les and Time 2 leadership s ty le dimensions as dependent var iab les (Tables XXVI and XXXVII) the most dramatic evidence i n support of the opposite conclusion from that of the hypothesis i s found. The high RSQ values and low F-probs for both the f u l l and stepwise regressions provide exce l lent s t a t i s t i c a l support o f the f o l - lowing conclus ions . Again, the evidence w i l l not provide d e f i n i t e support for the conclusion with respect to a l l cl imate dimensions. The evidence does provide very strong support for a conclusion that c e r t a i n organiza t iona l climate dimensions i n one time period are re la ted i n a pos i t ive way with leadership s ty le i n a f o l - lowing time per iod . In p a r t i c u l a r , i t can be concluded that current upward communications and conf idence-par t ic ipa t ion are p red ic t ive var iab les for future Considerat ion leadership . S i m i l a r l y i t can be concluded that current c o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i - pat ion (and probably l e v e l o f dec i s ion making, presence of 178 i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and performance and c o n t r o l communi- c a t i o n s ) are p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r f u t u r e I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e l e a d e r s h i p . The s h i f t , when a time l a g i s considered, from interaction-warmth as the most s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e f o r C o n s i d e r a t i o n and from performance and c o n t r o l communications f o r I n i t i a t i o n of S t r u c t u r e should a l s o be noted. I t can be concluded t h a t there can and w i l l be q u a l i t a t i v e as w e l l as q u a n t i t a t i v e s h i f t s as to what are the most important or s i g - n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e when a time lapse i n measurement i s taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Ignored up to now, the drop i n sample s i z e should be discussed and taken i n t o account. The low F-probs would i n d i c a t e that the r e g r e s s i o n s from p a i r e d r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i - cant. The question would remain as to whether the response of department head s t y l e was to the c l i m a t e as f e l t by the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n of the department or to the climate as f e l t by the " l o y a l * employee. I t i s probable t h a t the l a t t e r i s the case. The high l o y a l t y employee i s l i k e l y to have more contact with and i n f l u e n c e upon the department heads (perhaps one source of l o y a l t y ) . The a t t r i t i o n of the sample may w e l l have been f o r t u n a t e . I f the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n had responded on both surveys these i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s might not have come to l i g h t . There i n t e r e s t would demand that they be v e r i f i e d i n f u r t h e r study to determine whether or not the climate as perceived by a s p e c i a l group of employees, as opposed to the e n t i r e popu- l a t i o n of employees, was important. Further study would a l s o 179 be required to determine i f these f indings could be general ized to other types of organizations and other l e v e l s of superv i s ion . Supplementary Findings The fo l lowing review of r e su l t s w i l l concentrate on those top ics and f indings not s p e c i f i c a l l y re la ted to the tes t s of o r i g i n a l hypotheses. For more complete d i scuss ion of r e s u l t s i n any p a r t i c u l a r por t ion the sect ion i n the r e s u l t s chapter with the same t i t l e should be re ferred t o . F i r s t survey. The main research value of the general questionnaire (parts III and IV) was br ing ing to l i g h t poss ible dimensions of climate that should be considered i n future study. There were several topics brought up on a regular basis i n res- ponse to open-end questions (Appendices D & E) which are not included i n any manner i n the climate dimension used i n the study. Of p a r t i c u l a r in te re s t i n t h i s regard are the open-end questions asking what respondents considered good or needed improvement i n t h e i r department or company. The most pert inent o f these i s the topic of job s e c u r i t y . As indicated e a r l i e r , the f irm under study was i n a contract ing phase and the open-end questions revealed some degree of person- a l concern with job secur i ty which l i k e l y affected even those quite secure about t h e i r own continued employment as wel l as those who saw a d e c l i n i n g s i t u a t i o n as a d i r e c t threa t . I f there i s comparison with other studies along p a r a l l e l l i n e s i t would be wel l to account for di f ferences amongst expanding, 180 stable or contract ing firms and the ef fects upon general cl imates of personal employment s ecur i ty , organizat iona l s t a b i l i t y , or various i n t e r a c t i o n and communications dimensions. Another topic that might be worth explor ing i s general fee l ings about phys ica l f a c i l i t i e s and working environment. Though these may only be important where there are extremes beyond current norms, i t may wel l be worth explor ing the climate aspects of super-luxurious f a c i l i t i e s or dingy quarters . Pos- s i b l y re la ted to t h i s would be concerns for equi ty . In a world becoming ever more conscious of i n e q u i t i e s and d i s p a r i t i e s there may wel l need to be concern for l e v e l s o f climate d i - mensions which re l a te to senses of equity i n sa la ry , f r inge benef i t s , s ecur i ty , phys ica l working f a c i l i t i e s , and et cetera , as we l l as psychologica l payments o f s tatus , in f luence , freedom of expression, and et ce tera . A general sense of equity with respect to the employment and/or psychologica l contract may wel l have pervasive ef fects upon performance l e v e l s and superior-subordinate i n t e r a c t i o n as wel l as s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s . The l a s t of poss ib le climate dimensions to be discussed i s d i f f i c u l t to def ine . In the open-end question responses as wel l as some closed-end items there was a general eagerness for more education and personal growth. Associated with t h i s was an eagerness for more p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n goa l - se t t ing and goal-implementation as wel l as partaking i n the rewards of suc- cess. The l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n and in terac t ion- in f luence i s probably re f l ec ted i n the climate dimension indicated above 181 but, t h i s has not usua l ly included a component concerned with wi l l ingness to work at self-improvement. The high re l i ance by most employees i n the f irm upon technica l expertise and the high average education l e v e l may wel l have accentuated the recept ive- ness found i n t h i s f i rm, but i t may wel l prove f r u i t f u l to develop a climate dimension which measures t h i s receptiveness i n l e s s extreme circumstances. Though most of the climate and leadership s ty le aspects derived from survey one are discussed elsewhere i n r e l a t i o n to survey two r e s u l t s , some points are worth not ing now. One of the poss ible hazards i n a non-equivalent contro l group design i s the i n t e r a c t i o n of s e l ec t ion and maturation, et ce tera . The r e s u l t s from the i d e a l (I) climate p r o f i l e s (Figures 1, 3» 5 & 7) of the departments studied would allow a conclusion that the cont ro l group was e s s e n t i a l l y equivalent to the experimental group insofar as the underlying c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n d i - v i d u a l s . The small d i f ferences could c e r t a i n l y be a t t r ibuted to the context of the department concerned. Ideal climate scores would need to r e f l e c t i d e a l i n the context of what the actual duties o f the department concerned were and the r e - s t r a i n t s and actual leadership personnel of the departments concerned. A comparison of demographic items for the three departments also leads to a conclusion that the contro l group was very close to equivalent i n terms of personnel . There were s i m i l a r ranges and d i s t r i b u t i o n i n education, age, p o s i t i o n , length of serv ice , and experience. 182 The response rate of 35% on the f i r s t survey would lead one to quest ion the p o s s i b i l i t y of a bias i n the sample. As indicated e a r l i e r , the opinion was that the respondents were indeed somewhat o lder , more experienced, and more h ighly edu- cated than the o v e r a l l population of the departments. There i s also the inference that more " l o y a l " employees would be more l i k e l y to respond. As already discussed, t h i s b ia s , rather than being detrimental to the study, may have been an asset . Prom the cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n panel r e su l t s (Tables XV & XVI) several i n t e r e s t i n g f indings should be noted. From the f igures which indicate the s t a b i l i t y of various dimensions i t can be concluded, at l ea s t for t h i s sample, that the s ty le of leadership of department heads was more dynamic than the climate dimensions measured, p a r t i c u l a r l y I n i t i a t i o n of S tructure . On the other hand, i t can be concluded that the leadership s ty le of project leaders c o l l e c t i v e l y was much le s s dynamic than that of department heads. From the panel r e s u l t s i t also becomes apparent that some climate dimensions may be more d i r e c t l y associated with leadership s ty le rather than having lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Of note i n t h i s regard i s the pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between I n i t i a t i o n of Structure and character of contro l processes, of goal s e t t ing and of dec i s ion making. Factor analyses. The dec i s ion to accept the factor dimensions as being meaningful has, of course, already been 183 made. One i n t e r e s t i n g aspect of the two factor analyses i s the di f ferences between the a p r i o r i ca tegor iza t ion , the factor r e s u l t from the L i k e r t (196?) data (Table XXVI), and the factor r e s u l t from the current study data (Table XVII ) . Only one of the a p r i o r i dimensions came out p r e c i s e l y i n a factor analys i s and that was character of performance with the manager data . Though a l l of the other manager factors had rough p a r a l l e l s i n the employee fac tor s , there was d e f i n i t e l y no p a r a l l e l for character of performance. The comparison of p a r a l l e l factors with apparently s i m i l a r l abe l s b r i n g out rather i n t e r e s t i n g po in t s . Though there are some items common to p a r a l l e l dimensions, there are s u f f i c i e n t noncommon items which ind ica te that there was a d i f f e rent o r i e n t a t i o n or viewpoint by which these items would be categor ized. Even though s i m i l a r l abe l s may be applied to p a r e l l e l dimension i t would appear that there are various " r u l e s " or mental sets amongst d i f f e r e n t groups or amongst d i f f e rent f i rms . In other words, we may conclude that there was a d i f f e rent mental set for ordinary employees i n one type of organizat ion as opposed to that o f managers i n another organiza t ion . A bet ter t e s t , perhaps, would be to have a t a r - get f ac tor-ana lys i s performed on both matrices where an attempt to inf luence the r o t a t i o n of each matrix i s made. In t h i s way a more d e f i n i t i v e statement on di f ferences between groups or firms could be made. 184 Also of in tere s t i s a comparison of the factor d i - mensions derived i n t h i s study with dimensions c i t e d i n the in t roduc t ion . There would appear to be l i t t l e commonality with , for example, the synthesis dimensions as set out by Campbell et a l (1970). The di f ference i n o r i e n t a t i o n may wel l account for lack of commonality. The attempt at synthesis was to f ind common dimensions across var ied groups and with a va r i e ty of instruments while an attempt was made i n t h i s study to f ind climate dimensions which were of p a r t i c u l a r in te re s t and r e l e - vance i n the study of a spec i a l i zed group. The presence of three communication dimensions rather than the expected two (hor izonta l arid v e r t i c a l ) i s c e r t a i n l y a funct ion of the task- force structure and the extreme complexity of communications patterns i n the f i rm studied. There i s also the important fact that many of the dimensions developed on previous studies would not be measurable with the items used on t h i s study. The r e - verse, o f course, i s also t rue . The f i n a l point that should be noted, however, i s that most previous studies genera l ly r e - f l e c t management o r i e n t a t i o n to climate rather than general employee o r i e n t a t i o n . Despite the lack of commonality, one s i m i l a r i t y occurs . The d e f i n i t i o n of interaction-warmth d i - mension from t h i s study compares wel l with the cons iderat ion , warmth, and support dimension from the synthesis (p .21) . The synthesis dimensions though i n t e r e s t i n g , c e r t a i n l y would leave much to be des ired i n studying re l a t ionsh ip s be- tween organiza t iona l climate and other organiza t iona l factors 185 of i n t e r e s t . I f meaningful r e l a t ionsh ip s are to be der ived , the climate dimensions used must r e f l e c t the predominant aspects of the organizat ion under study, not the general ized aspects derived from a composite of other types of organi- zat ions . This would be p a r t i c u l a r l y true where in te rpre ta t ion for consul t ing purposes i s invo lved . The cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panel r e su l t s us ing factor dimensions (Tables XXIX & XXX) general ly support the f indings found us ing a p r i o r i dimension though i t i s also found that the factor dimensions are somewhat more v o l a t i l e than the a p r i o r i dimensions. Although the source of v o l a t i l i t y could be open to debate, the inves t iga tor i s of the opinion that t h i s increased v o l a t i l i t y indicates the tapping of more sens i t ive and important dimensions than was the case with a p r i o r i d i - mensions. Future Study - t echn ica l considerations This b r i e f por t ion w i l l discuss t echn ica l improvements that could be made i n studies us ing the LBDQ or L i k e r t quest ion- n a i r e s . The use of more of the LBDQ dimensions may be appropr i- ate to a study. With hindsight i t was seen that at l ea s t one other dimension could have been useful i n t h i s study as i t was bel ieved to be an important var iab le i n the f irm being s tudied . This would be p a r t i c u l a r l y true i f one was t r y i n g to f ind out i f any of the dimensions were causal var iab les a f fec t ing organi- za t iona l climate dimensions e i ther i n the long or short run . 186 I f at a l l pos s ib le , the name of the person being described should be included as indicated i n the in s t ruc t ions ( S t o g d i l l , 1963)« The omission of t h i s information for project leaders made these responses from the second survey of l i t t l e value i n the ana ly s i s . I f the L i k e r t questionnaire items are to be used for measurement, several points should be taken into cons iderat ion . I f the respondents are general employees rather than managers, considerable e f for t should be made to s impl i fy the wording of the items. There were many complaints about the d i f f i c u l t y and length of the climate por t ion of the quest ionnaire . The ef fect upon the response rate was probably quite subs t an t i a l . In s impl i fy ing the items considerat ion might also be given to changing the emphasis of some items so that they would have le s s tendency to load on more than one f ac tor . In the fore- going cons iderat ion , one should also decide i f the dimensions to be used are those from t h i s study, those from other s tudies , or new a p r i o r i dimensions. In s i m p l i f y i n g , p a r t i c u l a r care should be taken with those items which received a lower response rate i n t h i s study. Discuss ion There are two items from the previous conclusions that warrant further d i scuss ion as to t h e i r imp l i ca t ion i n terms of organiza t iona l theory and as to the d i r e c t i o n of future r e - search. The f i r s t of these items to be discussed w i l l be the 18? r e s u l t s and conclusions from the factor-analyses followed by a d i scuss ion of the causal l inkage r e s u l t s . The comparison of the factor r e s u l t for two sets of data was not t r u l y s a t i s f ac tory . Though both analyses were done with e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a l l e l techniques i t may have been pos- s i b l e to f i n d greater s i m i l a r i t y i n the factor dimensions i f a sui table target r o t a t i o n technique had been used. There i s more than one such technique, but there i s l i t t l e study to i n d i - cate which one i s most su i t ab l e . The se l ec t ion of a target matrix also poses very r e a l problems i n terms of others accept- ing r e su l t s which could be subs tant i a l ly biased by the form of a target matrix . These problems should be reduced, however, when pa i r s of r e su l t s are subjected to target r o t a t i o n with the same technique and the same target matrix i n order to make com- parisons i n r e s u l t s . Despite any misgivings about not car ry ing out such a comparison procedure, some conclusions were drawn. E s s e n t i a l l y the comparison y ie lded the conclusion that there were some marked di f ferences between climate or ienta t ions for two l e v e l s of employees (or two d i f f e rent types of organi- z a t i o n ) . The character of performance dimension was pers i s tent with the manager data for fewer or greater than f ive factors while nothing resembling a character of performance dimension was evident from the employee data for f i v e , e ight , or ten-factor so lu t ions . The impl i ca t ion for future research i s very c l e a r . There must be careful checks made i n any further development of climate dimensions as to the v a l i d i t y of dimensions for 188 d i f f e rent l e v e l s of employee as wel l as poss ible checks on s u i t a b i l i t y of p a r t i c u l a r dimensions for use i n organizat ions with various s t ructures , technologies , and et ce tera . The development of a project communication dimension on t h i s study i s an example. I t could only be used i n organizations with a task-force s t ructure . The dif ference i n outlook on s i m i l a r topics between employees and managers i n the same organizat ion should come as no surpr i se . For t h i s reason, great care should be taken i n future studies that checks be made on the s u i t - a b i l i t y of a dimension (or i n d i v i d u a l items associated with a dimension) for the category of respondent where climate d i - mensions are being measured. The value of a factor analys i s for determining d i - mensions should also be noted. In a recent study (Golembiewski & Munsenrider et a l , 1971) 18 L i k e r t items were used to measure a change i n openness or a s h i f t towards or away from L i k e r t System IV. The i m p l i c i t presumption of the study and of L i k e r t i s that a l l items are re la ted to a s ingle f ac tor . There might have been a great deal more information derived from the study i f the 18 items had been categorized into dimension. Being able to publ i sh more numerical r e s u l t s and poss ib ly f ind out which p a r t i c u l a r dimensions were sens i t ive i n various circum- stances would have been more useful than vague comments on i n d i v i d u a l item score changes that were not able to be published because of space l i m i t a t i o n s . 189 The complete lack of support f o r H 3 concerning the causal l i n k a g e from l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e was somewhat of a s u r p r i s e to the i n v e s t i g a t o r . The develop- ment of the hypothesis depended upon a presumption that l e a d e r - s h i p s t y l e was independent of cl i m a t e and that the s t y l e of l e a d e r s h i p would i n f l u e n c e c l i m a t e . This presumption i s im- p l i c i t i n most l e a d e r s h i p or management t r a i n i n g courses. The assumption i s made as w e l l t h a t " b e t t e r " s t y l e w i l l r e s u l t i n b e t t e r performance, s a t i s f a c t i o n , morale, or what have you. These assumptions are c e r t a i n l y i m p l i c i t i n the reasoning used to develop and use the LBDQ, Wofford and other l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e dimensions. When i t i s discovered "what" good leaders d i d and "how" they do them the i m p l i c i t assumption was t h a t others could be taught the "what" and the "how" with expectations of s i m i l a r outcomes. The r e s u l t s from t h i s study would i n d i c a t e that these assumptions may have been presumptuous. I f change i n l e a d e r - s h i p s t y l e i s , g e n e r a l l y , a response to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l climate the c o n t r a d i c t o r y and weak r e s u l t s from a host o f s t u d i e s attempting to t i e l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e to work group performance or other v a r i a b l e s (Korman, 1966) would be expected. The variance i n performance could be r e l a t e d to s t y l e , but not i n a simple manner as p r e v i o u s l y assumed. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study would c e r t a i n l y provide sup- port f o r the argument against u n i d i r e c t i o n a l views on the r o l e of l e a d e r s h i p behaviour as expressed by Campbell et a l (1970, Ch. 17). 190 The basic factor that i s missing from these u n i l a t e r a l views i s that persons who in te rac t undoubtedly behave as i f r e l a t ionsh ip s were r e c i p r o c a l rather than u n i l a t e r a l . . . . The argument here i s that descr ip t ions of managerial i n i t i a t i o n have u n i d i r e c t i o n a l overtones, and t h i s has diverted a t tent ion from the basic fact that expectancies concerning exchange af fect the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a manager and a subordinate (pp. 422-423). In a small way, t h i s study has pointed towards the mechanisms of exchange that surround leader behaviour which c e r t a i n l y should be explored i n a more de ta i l ed study. The state of c e r t a i n organiza t iona l climate dimensions may wel l provide the cues that leaders depend upon to guide t h e i r behaviour with subordinates. An attempt was made to f ind other studies which would help to expla in or v e r i f y the f indings of t h i s study. Zdep's (1969) study of reinforcement ef fects upon leadership behaviour provides complementary and explanatory f ind ings . As the t i t l e would ind ica te Zdep found that the type of reinforcement r e - ceived by a leader had marked ef fects upon h i s behaviour. The r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h i s study i s quite c l e a r . I f the climate as f e l t by employees had reinforcement ef fects ( d i r e c t l y or i n - d i r e c t l y ) upon the leader a response could be expected. The previous assumptions with regard to the inf luence of " l o y a l " employees would also be strengthened. The group of employees with which the leader had most contact and i n t e r - a c t i o n would provide the most e f fec t ive reinforcements to h i s s ty l e o f leadership . The less c l ea r cut r e su l t s for project leaders 191 could also be pred ic ted . The pro ject leaders of t h i s study- were exposed to a much wider v a r i e t y of reinforcement s t i m u l i than the department heads. They have more every-day contact with i n d i v i d u a l s i n other departments ( inc lud ing other project leaders and employees), peers and others i n t h e i r own depart- ment, and pro ject s t a f f , as we l l as with t h e i r own subordinates. Lowin and C r a i g ' s (1968) study of inf luences upon managerial s ty l e also re l a te s to t h i s study. I t indica tes that performance l e v e l s of subordinates could have a marked ef fect upon the managerial s t y l e . The study gives l i t t l e comfort to those who wish to maintain the presumption that s ty le a f fects performance or other outcomes. In one sense the r e su l t s from t h i s study provide answers to the o ld c l a s s i c a l arguments concerning the source of au thor i ty . The responsiveness of leadership s ty le to the desires of subordinates would weaken the argument that any leader would act f r e e l y without concern for h i s subordinates because of l e g i t i m i z e d author i ty . The concept of the inducements-contributions contract (March & Simon, 1958, Ch. IV) i s given new meaning as a r e s u l t of t h i s study. Now leadership s t y l e by a manager can be seen as an inducement by the employee and a contr ibut ion by the manager. The current state of organizat ion climate dimensions can then be seen as ind ica tor s of future inducements or contr ibut ions by leaders and subordinates. As r e f l e c t i o n s of past and current (or trends i n states of balance) cont r ibu t ion- 192 -inducement r e l a t ionsh ip s the future state of inducements of contr ibut ions would thus be pred ic tab le . I f performance i s seen (consciously or unconsciously) by employees as an induce- ment (to managers) and by managers as a contr ibut ion s i m i l a r pred ic t ions from sui table climate dimensions should be pos s ib le . Thus f a r , the assumption has been made that the r e su l t s o f t h i s study are t o t a l l y general izable and that s i m i l a r r e l a t ionsh ip s between cl imate dimensions and other outcome var iab le s can be der ived . Such i s not the case. The i m p l i - cations are i n t e r e s t i n g enough, however, to demand further study i n a wider va r i e ty of circumstances. To t h i s end, development of climate quest ionnaire items which are simpler and eas ier to use than the L i k e r t items i s requi red . There also needs to be some study of which dimensions w i l l be apparent i n d i f f e rent technologies ( i . e . u n i t , mass product ion, process) or i n organizat ions with d i f f e rent s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i . e . ta sk- force , c e n t r a l i z e d , bureaucra t i c ) . The usefulness of several important dimensions may be r e s t r i c t e d to p a r t i c u l a r types o f organizat ions . The t ime-lag aspects of the re l a t ionsh ip s studied as wel l as a great number of other re l a t ionsh ip s need to be more thoroughly inves t iga ted . The l ag effect of some re l a t ionsh ip s could be much longer or shorter than the three to four month period used i n t h i s study. When appropriate lags are used for several cl imate dimensions the proport ion of variance i n leader- ship s ty le (or other var iables ) accounted for could be much 193 higher than shown i n t h i s study. Of p a r t i c u l a r in te re s t as wel l would be the determination of causal var iab les a f f ec t ing climate dimensions. Again the time l ag aspects would heed to be con- s idered . F i e d l e r ' s studies ( 1 9 6 7 . 1970) could provide some help i n analysing leadership s ty le r e su l t s for l arger samples of managers. The 1970 study indicated that previous leadership experience had l i t t l e or no bearing upon group performance while the e a r l i e r book (1967) indicated that high or low LPC leaders could be successful or unsuccessful depending upon the task and ro le s i t u a t i o n . His l a t e s t studies also indicate that high LPC leaders might be expected to respond with high IS s ty le i n a s i t u a t i o n where a low LPC leader might respond with high C s t y l e . I f the same type of s i t u a t i o n was true i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s ty le and organiza t iona l climate we may f i n d that d i f - ferent cl imate dimensions are important for high or low LPC leaders or that opposite r e l a t ionsh ip s may be true for high and low LPC leaders . In l a rger studies i t may therefore be prudent to s p l i t the data between that for low and for high LPC leaders to avoid cance l ing out of opposite but poss ib ly large e f f ec t s . In t h i s study no s p l i t was made but i t i s poss ible that a l l three department heads had s i m i l a r LPC scores . Another aspect of "good" leadership should also be inves t iga ted . The re su l t s indicated that the leadership s ty l e of the department heads was more dynamic than that o f the pro- ject leaders . The observation could also be made that the three department heads who par t i c ipa ted i n the study are general ly 194 recognized by peers, super iors , and subordinates as being com- para t ive ly (within the firm) superior managers. Though they have widely d i f f e r i n g approaches to managing t h e i r departments, consistency and a knowledge by subordinates of the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p with the department head which w i l l be most suc- cess fu l i s a common feature for a l l three . I t should also be noted that the r e l a t i o n s h i p of s ty le to organizat iona l climate for department heads was more c l e a r l y defined to fewer climate dimensions than was the case with project leaders . I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g to te s t the hypothesis that superior leaders or managers were thosewho were most sens i t ive to , and responded most r e a d i l y to , s p e c i f i c organiza t iona l climate s h i f t s . I f such s e n s i t i v i t y was associated with superior leadership , i t could c e r t a i n l y give credence to ideas concerned with T-group or s e n s i t i v i t y t r a i n i n g though major a l t e ra t ions i n object ives and/or procedures may be required before " e f f e c t i v e " leadership t r a i n i n g becomes an outcome of such t r a i n i n g . I f we returned to the inducements-contributions concept and reinforcement theory i t would not be d i f f i c u l t to expla in that the most e f fec t ive " leader" was i n ef fect the most responsive fol lower of group pressures r e f l ec ted by organiza t iona l climate d i - mensions. B i o l o g i c a l s tudies would indicate that the most successful species or i n d i v i d u a l s are those who are most f l e x - i b l e and adaptable. In other words, i s the most e f fec t ive leader one who c l a r i f i e s or recognizes the psychologica l and other contract arrangements with h i s subordinates and in te rac t s 195 and adapts i n a su i table manner to pressures generated by h i s subordinates? This study while provid ing a few clues i n the t rack ing down of organizat iona l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , though by no means proving them, has pos s ib ly opened up more areas of relevant study. Hopefully these areas w i l l receive t h e i r j u s t i f i e d a t tent ion and provide more d e f i n i t e information on that e lus ive character- i s t i c known as "good l eader sh ip" . 196 CHAPTER V Summary For those who have read a l l of the previous chapters there i s no new information being presented i n t h i s chapter. The fo l lowing w i l l be a summary of the more important aspects of the study for the benef i t of those who are not disposed to read the ent i re t h e s i s . The headings w i l l p a r a l l e l those i n the previous chapters so that any requirements for further information or numerical data can be met by r e f e r r i n g to the same heading i n the main t ex t . As the in t roduct ion i s es- s e n t i a l l y an informational ra ther than an ana ly t i c review of the l i t e r a t u r e on leadership s ty le and organizat iona l climate i t w i l l not be summarized. Design of the Study Descr ip t ion of the sub.iect company. The f irm i n which the study was conducted i s a large engineering f i rm provid ing a comprehensive range of engineering serv ices . The structure of the company i s we l l character ized by Thompson's (1967, p . 80) d e f i n i t i o n of a task-force organiza t ion . That i s to say, there are a large number of funct iona l departments with t h e i r own geographical space while groups i n many departments w i l l work on common pro jects under the d i r e c t i o n of r e l a t i v e l y small pro ject s t a f f s . 197 The department heads have a great deal of autonomy and, wi thin budget cons t ra int s , have f u l l cont ro l of h i r i n g and f i r i n g , s t a f f i n g for each pro jec t , phys ica l arrangements and layout within t h e i r department, and contro l over the product that leaves t h e i r department. Though there are few formal ru le s concerning communication channels, a very complex matrix of accepted norms of communication and p r i o r i t i e s have evolved which preclude extensive p o l i c i n g of organizat iona l e f f o r t . Circumstances o f i n i t i a t i o n of the study. Through con- tact with the personnel manager, the inves t iga tor became aware of a des ire to conduct a suggestion-box quest ionnaire survey throughout the company. The i n t e n t i o n was to provide feedback of r e su l t s to a l l pa r t i c ipant s rather than to just the manage- ment. In order to tes t for change generated by the survey and d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s u l t s , an organiza t iona l climate questionnaire was to be added to the survey. In order to check on a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p from leadership s ty le to organiza t iona l climate a leadership s ty le questionnaire was also added. Once approval from the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r 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 organiza t iona l climate and leadership s ty le por t ion completed i n a t h i r d department which would act as a contro l group. 198 Survey questionnaire des ign, a d e s c r i p t i o n . As may be seen i n Appendix M, the survey was d iv ided into four major por t ions . Part I—Background was used to provide demographic information on respondents so that the opportunity of s p l i t t i n g the data set would be ava i lab le as wel l as providing a basis of comparison between the respondents and the t o t a l populat ion. Part II consisted of the two research quest ionnaires . Part 11(A) consisted of 45 items derived from L i k e r t ' s (1967) The Human Organizat ion; I t s Management and Value. Though the items had been developed as a means of evaluat ing a f irm or department i n terms of L i k e r t ' s four categories of organi- za t ion , the in ten t ion was to use these items to measure eight organiza t iona l climate dimensions within each department. Part 11(B) consisted of 20 items derived from the I n i t i a t i o n of Structure and Considerat ion dimensions of the Leadership Behaviour Descr ip t ion Questionnaire (LBDQ). The respondents were asked to provide the s ty le o f t h e i r pro ject leader as wel l as t h e i r 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 j u r i s d i c t i o n or cont ro l of department heads while Part IV was d i rec ted at more general items as wel l as several o f d i r e c t in tere s t to the personnel manager. Procedure for d i s t r i b u t i o n and re turn of the quest ion- n a i r e . The i n i t i a l survey was issued to a l l three departments 199 on the same day while the second survey with only the research port ions was issued 110 to 130 days l a t e r . The i n i t i a l survey to the contro l group d id not contain the suggestion-box questions and the ins t ruc t ions to the contro l group were modi- f i e d . In a l l cases a stamped, addressed envelope was provided with the survey so that i t could be returned to the inves t iga tor at the u n i v e r s i t y without passing through company hands. Hypotheses to be tes ted . There were three major hypotheses to be tested i n the study, the f i r s t of which was d iv ided into two statements. H 1. There are high pos i t i ve r e l a t ionsh ip s between organizat iona l climate dimensions for departments and the leadership s ty le s of department heads. H IA. There are high p o s i t i v e re l a t ionsh ip s between organiza t iona l cl imate dimensions and the leadership s ty le of "project l eaders " . However, these re l a t ionsh ip s w i l l not be as great as the re l a t ionsh ip s of hypothesis 1. H 2. There w i l l be a p o s i t i v e change i n organizat iona l climate r e s u l t i n g from the feedback to a group of the re su l t s from a suggestion-box type quest ionnaire . 200 H 3. There i s a high pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between the leadership s ty le of department heads i n one time period and the organi- za t iona l climate of departments i n a fo l lowing time per iod . A b r i e f d i scuss ion of experimental v a l i d i t y was or iented around arguments presented by Campbell and Stanley (19&3) con- cerning "nonequivalent contro l group des ign" . Results F i r s t survey. The response rate was just over 35$ and was f e l t to be biased away from representing the t o t a l popu- l a t i o n by having respondents with higher age, education, and service length as wel l as " l o y a l t y " . Appendix F gives a sum- mary of the r e s u l t s of the general por t ion of the quest ionnaire . I t was noted that while I n i t i a t i o n of Structure (IS) and Considerat ion (C) were r e l a t i v e l y independent (r = 0.34) for department heads, that there were high cor re l a t ions ( r>0.6) between IS and C for project leaders and between pro ject leader s ty le s and department head C. The regress ion r e s u l t s us ing department head s ty le s as independent var iab les demonstrated the pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p between s ty le and climate p a r t i c u l a r l y for Considerat ion. The in te rpre ta t ion of r e su l t s where pro ject leader s ty le s were included was hampered by poss ible m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y problems though there were ind ica t ions that po s i t i ve re l a t ionsh ips ex i s ted . 201 Second survey - pre l iminary . The combination of a lengthy quest ionnaire , turnover i n the department, and the im- minent decl ine of the f irm contributed to the d i sa s t rous ly low response rate on the second survey of only 14$. The low res- ponse rate prompted a comparison of di f ferences between Time 1 and 2 on a l l dimensions. There was one di f ference between mean scores at Time 1 and 2 and an average of paired di f ferences between Time 1 and 2. This comparison indicated that there could be some underlying di f ferences i n the sample of respond- ents on the two surveys. Though s t a t i s t i c a l l y weak, there was a consistent pattern of l a rger changes i n the experimental group and department heads when compared with the cont ro l group. In order to tes t hypothesis H 3 on d i r e c t i o n of c a u s a l i - ty , cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels (Lawler, 1968) were used. As wel l as i n d i c a t i n g that the organiza t iona l climate dimensions were r e l a t i v e l y stable as compared to leadership s ty le d i - mensions there were several instances of very good f i t s to the cross-lagged panel c r i t e r i a . Even for those panels where the c r i t e r i a were not met, there was no evidence to indicate that the d i r e c t i o n of causa l i ty was from leadership s ty le to organiza t iona l c l imate . The panels indicated that character of i n t e r - a c t i o n inf luence , of performance, of communications, and of mot ivat ional forces being tapped w i l l have ef fects upon leadership Considerat ion i n the near future . The above f indings indicated that our e a r l i e r regressions should have been performed with cl imate dimensions as independent 202 v a r i a b l e s . As there were many high corre la t ions amongst the a p r i o r i cl imate dimensions i t was decided to factor analyse the data i n order to develop orthogonal climate dimensions. Factor analyses. A varimax orthogonal r o t a t i o n from a p r i n c i p a l components so lu t ion was performed i n each case. 2 For the data from t h i s study mul t ip le R values were used on the diagonal while for the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix data taken from L i k e r t ' s ( 1 9 6 ? ) book the matrix was unal tered . Eight factors were extracted from the study data while f i ve factors were extracted from L i k e r t ' s data which was gathered from managerial s t a f f and most l i k e l y i n manufacturing organizat ions . In order to derive appropriate l abe l s for the factors the items i n each factor were presented to an expert panel for eva luat ion. The r e s u l t i n g l abe l s and d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l be found on pages 114 through 1 2 9 . A panel was not used for the L i k e r t data r e s u l t s but d e f i n i t i o n s for the f i ve factors i s on page 1 3 2 . Character of performance was the only fac tor to f a l l out p r e c i s e l y i n the form of an a p r i o r i dimension. This was true for the L i k e r t data only and there was no p a r a l l e l d i - mension i n the factors from t h i s study. For a l l other factors i n the L i k e r t data there was a dimension from t h i s study which was roughly p a r a l l e l , though there would appear to be d i f f e rent or ienta t ions or areas of concern even when both dimensions were concerned with the same broad t o p i c . 203 Of in te re s t was a dimension concerned with pro ject communications which would only be found i n a task-force structured organizat ion . Second survey r e s u l t - f i n a l . The attempt to derive orthogonal cl imate dimension was f a i r l y successful with i n t e r - -dimension c o r r e l a t i o n being much lower than with the a p r i o r i dimensions. The change i n climate between Time 1 and 2 becomes l o c a l i z e d to only two dimensions: goal congruence and conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion . The factor dimensions are more dy- namic than the a p r i o r i ones, but fewer cross-lagged panels are able to meet the causal c r i t e r i a because of a more pers i s tent trend for Time 2 cor re l a t ions between s ty le and climate to higher than for Time 1. Again there i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n that there are causal l i n k s from leadership s ty le to organizat ion c l imate . The r e l a t i o n s h i p for department head re su l t s were much c learer than those for pro ject leaders . The panels meeting both the cross-lagged and dynamic c o r r e l a t i o n c r i t e r i a ares Considerat ion — goal congruence, Considerat ion - - upward communications, and I n i t i a t i o n of Structure —upward communi- ca t ions . Standard and stepwise regressions were performed using climate dimensions as independent v a r i a b l e s . The most s i g - n i f i c a n t climate dimensions were as fo l lows : pro ject leader IS - Interaction-warmth goal congruence project leader C - interaction-warmth - performance and cont ro l communications 204 department head IS - performance and contro l communications goal congruence department head C - interaction-warmth conf idence-par t ic ipa t ion goal congruence As a lagged r e l a t i o n s h i p had been ind ica ted , regres- sions with Time 1 climate dimensions as independent var iab les and Time 2 leadership s ty le dimensions as dependent var iab les were performed. With the combined ac t ion of high c o r r e l a t i o n and large segments of missing data (second survey response only 1/3 that of f i r s t survey) severe d i s t o r t i o n s i n regress ion re su l t s were pos s ib le . Further regressions were performed using a l l data from the second survey and a l l matching r e s u l t s from the f i r s t survey. The re su l t s i n t h i s case showed a s h i f t i n the important var iab les as f o l l o w s « department head IS - conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion l e v e l of dec i s ion making presence of informal organizat ion performance and contro l communications department head C - upward communications conf idence-par t i c ipa t ion The R (RSQ) values for these regressions were sub- s t a n t i a l l y higher than those for the previous regress ions . Conclusions and Discuss ion The fo l lowing sect ions are f a i r l y d i f f i c u l t to summarize as the main text presents the d i scuss ion of corroborat ing r e su l t s i n condensed form. Only the major conclusions w i l l be s tated. 205 for development and d i scuss ion of many of these conclusions the main text should be referred t o . Hypothesis 1. Strong se lec t ive support for the hypothe- s i s i s provided i n regress ion analyses with both a p r i o r i and factor climate dimensions. That i s to say, a conclusion that c e r t a i n climate dimensions have a pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p with leadership s ty l e dimensions i s made. I t was also noted that general ly the re l a t ionsh ip s would be stronger and more common with Considerat ion. Hypothesis IA. Support for the hypothesis allowed a conclusion that i t was t rue , though i t was noted that the q u a l i t a t i v e as wel l as quant i ta t ive di f ferences as to s i g n i f i - cant climate dimensions would make genera l i za t ion about re l a t ionsh ip s between leadership s ty le and c l imate , without f i r s t taking account of the p o s i t i o n power of the leader , d i f f i c u l t . Hypothesis 2. The re su l t s concerning t h i s hypothesis were s t a t i s t i c a l l y very weak, though the inves t iga tor was of the opinion that a pos i t ive change i n organiza t iona l climate had been brought about as a r e s u l t of the feedback of f i r s t survey r e s u l t s . Hypothesis 3. Evidence from the cross-lagged cor- r e l a t i o n a l panels us ing both a p r i o r i and factor climate d i - mensions provides absolutely no support for the hypothesis . In f ac t , the evidence supported a reverse conclusion that 206 c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e dimensions were causal v a r i a b l e s w i t h respect to l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e . The r e g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s with Time 1 c l i m a t e dimensions independent and Time 2 l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e dimensions with high RSQ values and low F-probs provided e x c e l l e n t s t a t i s t i c a l support f o r the c o n c l u s i o n . I t was con- cluded that upward communications and c o n f i d e n c e - p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and probably l e v e l of d e c i s i o n making, presence of i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , and performance and c o n t r o l communications are p r e d i c t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r futu r e I n i t i a t i o n o f S t r u c t u r e l e a d e r - s h i p . I n view o f the l a r g e drop i n survey r e s u l t s there was a d i s c u s s i o n as to whether the r e s u l t s were i n d i c a t i v e of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between " l o y a l " employee impressions of climate and l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e . Supplementary f i n d i n g s . From the f i r s t survey general q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s u l t s i t was p o s s i b l e to d e r i v e dimensions that may be of value i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s o f c l i m a t e . Dimensions con- ce r n i n g job s e c u r i t y , p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s , and a d e s i r e f o r self-improvement of employees as r e l a t e d to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n g o a l - s e t t i n g , goal-implementation, and sh a r i n g o f rewards were described. From the cross-lagged c o r r e l a t i o n a l panels i n second s u r v e y — p r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s , c o n c l u s i o n s on the s t a b i l i t y o f va r i o u s dimensions were d e r i v e d . The l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e d i - mensions o f department heads were more dynamic than cl i m a t e dimension measured. On the other hand, the l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e of p r o j e c t leaders was found to be much l e s s dynamic than t h a t of department heads. 207 With the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p turning out as i t d id i t was considered e s sent i a l to develop orthogonal climate dimensions with the use of factor ana lys i s so that the regress ion model could be reversed. For comparison purposes a s i m i l a r factor analys i s was conducted us ing L i k e r t ' s (1967) c o r r e l a t i o n matrix developed from another data set . In both these analyses only one factor came out as the a p r i o r i ca tegor iza t ion would suggest. This was character of performance for the L i k e r t data which was gathered from management personnel . There was no p a r a l l e l for character o f performance i n the study factors though for the remainder of the f ive management data factors there was a rough s i m i l a r i t y to one factor of the eight extracted from study data though there appeared to be d i f f e rent or ienta t ions to s i m i l a r l y l a b e l l e d f ac tor s . This l ed to a conclusion that there could be d i f f e rent mental sets for ordinary employees as compared to that of managerial personnel . There was an argument put f o r - ward that organizat iona l climate dimensions should be developed for p a r t i c u l a r types of organizat ion or c lasses of employee rather than wide synthesis dimensions. The fac tor climate dimensions were found to be more v o l a t i l e than the a p r i o r i dimensions. Although open to debate, the inves t iga tor concluded that the increased v o l a t i l i t y i n d i - cated the tapping of more sens i t ive and important dimensions. Future study - t echn ica l cons iderat ions . The d i scuss ion or iented around the need to s impl i fy the climate dimension items 208 and the care needed i n s e l ec t ing leadership dimension as wel l as organizat iona l climate dimensions i n future s tudies . Di scus s ion . The d i scuss ion was or iented around i m p l i - cat ions of the factor analyses re su l t s and the causal l inkage r e s u l t s . The factor analyses d i scuss ion indicated a need for a general ly accepted t a rge t - ro ta t ion technique for comparing data from d i f f e rent s tudies . There was also a statement of the need for care fu l checks of a p p l i c a b i l i t y of climate dimensions for various types of organizat ion or l e v e l s of employee. The complete lack of support for hypothesis H 3 was discussed i n terms of the presumptions i m p l i c i t i n the develop- ment of the hypothesis and much of the e f for t i n the study and research of leadership , as wel l as the " t r a i n i n g " of managers. The presumption i s that once a "pa t tern" of "good" management i s discovered others could be taught the pat tern . The discovery that , at l ea s t for two s ty le dimensions considered, s ty le i s more of a response to a s i t u a t i o n rather than an i n i t i a t i n g factor gives l i t t l e support for the presumptions. The re su l t s support the argum