UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Task specialization and organizational attachment: an empirical study of industrial blue-collar workers… Jamal, Muhammad 1972

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 J34.pdf [ 5.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101700.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101700-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101700-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101700-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101700-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101700-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101700-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101700-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101700.ris

Full Text

TASK SPECIALIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF INDUSTRIAL BLUE-COLLAR WORKERS IN VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA by MUHAMMAD JAMAL M.A., Punjab University, 1967 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1972 In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y sha l l make i t f r ee ly a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is t h e s i s for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion . Department of ft Anthropology and Sociology The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date September 1 9 7 2 ABSTRACT The research reported i n this thesis is an attempt to test empirically the proposition that specialization i n jobs negatively affects the organizational attachment of industrial blue-collar workers. Task specialization refers to the condition where the components of work process are divided into various minute tasks and only a limited number of tasks are assigned to an individual job. In the present study task specialization was operationalized i n terms of production-line mechanization in workers' departments. Organizational attachment refers to a specific kind of relationship between a worker and his organization in which the worker (1) accepts and supports the goals and policies of the employing organization, (2) shows a willingness to exert effort for the success of his employing organization, and (3) shows a strong desire to remain a member of his employing organization. The above three dimensions of organizational attachment were measured by asking various questions of workers. The f i e l d work for this research was done among industrial workers in Vancouver, British Columbia. A total of fifteen companies were contacted over a period of four months. Of the nine companies which agreed to participate in the research, six were purposely selected in such a way as to have an equal number of workers at each level of production-line mechanization. Data were collected by the method of a structured questionnaire, as well as by direct observation. A total of 550 production workers in six companies were given the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire', and 68 percent (377) of these workers returned a completed questionnaire. An average of six to eight hours was spent in each company in observing the technological processes entailed i n workers' jobs. To measure the extent of association between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment, Somers' D, which i s a strong monotonic asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables, was computed. The zero order analysis suggested a negative association between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attachment. The first.order analysis suggested that there was a negative association between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attachment only for workers who were in the middle age group (30-44), who were male, who had been in the company for less than five years, and who held less than three jobs i n their employing organizations. It was also found that task repetition and task simplification were, respectively, negatively related with workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organiza-tion and workers' desire to remain in the employing organization for an indefinite period of time. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to a l l those who helped me i n completing the present research. Ily deepest appreciation and thanks go to Dr. Thomas C. Taveggia, my advisor, who supervised this thesis from the stage of i n i t i a l planning to the writing of the f i n a l draft. I sincerely feel that his advice has saved me from committing many serious mistakes which ,1 might not have otherwise avoided. liy thanks are'also due to Dr. iiartin Heissner who, i n spite of his various commitments, was always kind enough to discuss and cl a r i f y things for me whenever I approached him. i-iy appreciation also goes to Dr. IJoel A, Hall, Director, Institute of Industrial Relations, U.B.C., for the research grant that allowed me to complete the f i n a l stages of the thesis. I would like to thank my friend, Jayaratnam Saravanamuttu who, in spite of his tight schedule, devoted several hours in editing the draft of this thesis. Last but not least, would like to thank the management of the six companies I surveyed and the 559 blue-collar workers without whose cooperation the present research would not have been possible. - i i -T A B L E ' O F CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements .. . . . . . .. i Table of Contents.. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. i i List of Tables .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... iv List of Figures . . . . .-. . . v i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .. . . . . .. .. 1 Task Specialization .. ., . . . . .. . . 1 Organizational Attachment .. .. .. .. .. 3 Task Specialization and Organizational Attachment 7 Fragmentation and Goals .. .. .. .. 7 Repetition and Effort . . .9 Simplification and Desire .. .. .. .. 11 Measurement of Task Specialization and Organi-zational Attachment 13 Research Hypothesis .. .. .. .. .. .. 16 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH PROCEDURES . . . . 19 Sampling Procedure - . . IS "Measurement Instruments 25 Field Experiences.. .. .. .. .. .. 27 Decisions about Analysis 33 37 37 52 .55 61 70 CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS Testing of Hypothesis .. Alternative Explanations Re-analysis Multivariate Analysis .. Conclusions /Contd. - i i i -Page CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION 74 Direction for Future iiesearch .. .. . • .. 77 REFERENCES .. • . . . . .. . . . . 80 APPENDIX A Companies Contacted for Survey .. .. .. 85 APPENDIX B Organizational Attachment Questionnaire .. 87 APPENDIX C Tables of Multivariate Analysis .. .. 94 - iv — LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Workers having jobs in different production technologies are sufficiently represented 21 2. The data show a great amount of variation on various demo-graphic,, background and job characteristics among companies.. 23 3. A l i t t l e more than two-thirds of potential respondents returned completed questionnaires 23 4. The majority of the workers reported themselves working on handwork and hand-operated machine jobs .. 38 5. liarginal distribution on organizational attachment items .. 39 6. Organizational attachment items are significantly associated with each other when measured by Gamma Coefficient of association .. 42 7. Almost two-thirds of the workers reported moderate or high attachment to their companies 45 8. There is no association between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment.. 46 9. The data show a weak negative,association between production-line' mechanization and workers1 attachment to goi.ls and policies of the organization .. . . . . .. .. .. 40 10. There is no association between production-line mechanization and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the organization 49 11. There is no association between production-line mechanization and workers' desire to stay in their employing organizations. 50 12. Automated jobs appear to be less simplified whereas machine-line jobs appear to be highly simplified . 5 3 13. Automated jobs appear to be least repetitive whereas machine-line jobs appear to be greatly repetitive 54 /Contd. - V -Page 14. The data show a weak association between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment 57 15. There is a weak association between production-line mechanization and workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the organization 58 16. There is a weak association between production-line mechanization and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the organization .. .. 59 17. There i s l i t t l e i f any association between production-line mechanization and workers' desire to stay in their employing organizations . . .. . . . . 60 18. There i s a moderate association between task repetition and workers' willingness tc exert effort for the success of the organization.. ..64 19. There i s a weak negative association between task simplification and workers' desire to remain in the present organization for an indefinite period of time .. .. 65 20. There i s a moderate association between task repetition and organizational attachment .. 67 21. There is a moderate association between task simplification and organizational attachment. 68 22. There i s a moderate association between task repetition and task simplification .. 69 - v i -LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 6 Figure 2 , 44 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TASK SPECIALIZATION The research reported in this thesis is an attempt to test empirically the proposition that task specialization i n jobs affects the attachment industrial blue-collar workers have to their employing organization. Task specialization refers to the condition i n which the 'components of 'work process'' are divided into various minute 'tasks' and only a limited number of tasks' are assigned to an individual 'job'. The terms work process, component of a work process, task, job, and operation are defined as follows''": Work process The complete systematic sequence of work activities required to produce an item, or a complete product. Work component A discrete, self-contained portion of a process or procedure, usually involving several separate tasks, and undertaken to complete one functional phase i n making a part or in carrying out a procedure. Task A work activity assigned to a worker which may be as small as one operation or as large as a l l the operations i n one work component or a l l the components i n one work process . Job The total of the tasks assigned to a worker which may be.as small as one task or as large as a l l of the tasks composed i n one work component or in one work process. Operation The smallest unit of work activity a worker performs at the job. - 1 -A job may consist of two or any number of similar tasks i n one or more work components or i t may "consist of any number of dissimilar tasks in one or more work components. However, our concern i s not with the question of how tasks are allocated to jobs. What we are mainly concerned with are the typical results and consequences of this process and particularly with respect to task fragmentation, task repetition and task simplification as they relate tc workers' organizational attachment. Fragmentation of tasks is a typical outcome of the process of task specialization because when the work process is subdivided minutely the contribution of the individual job becomes a tiny fragment i n the whole work process. The job of an automobile assembly-line worker i s a good example of a high degree of task fragmentation. His job may be to tighten one or a few bolts on the bumper of a car, which might represent only a thousandth part of the completed car. When a limited number of tasks are assigned to an individual job, the work cycle becomes short and consequently the tasks are performed repetitively. Again, the job of an automobile-line worker offers a good example of task repetition. Because the worker is reponsible for tightening bolts in the bumper of a car, he does so again and again on a l l cars which come to his work station. Since the work process is divided into various minute tasks and only a limited number of tasks are assigned to a job, i t does not take long to learn the job. In most of the cases the jobs become so simplified that they can be learned in a matter of hours (Dubin, 1958, p.179). Although i t has been re.cognized since the beginning of ft 2 industrialization that an increase i n task specialization leads to an - 3 -increase in productivity and efficiency, many have argued that increased task specialization has given rise to a number of human as well as •. technical problems i n industrial organizations. Associated with increased task specialization are the problems of workers' negative attitudes towards work and company (Walker, 1950; Walker and Guest, 1952; Walker and Marriott, 1951; Chinoy, 1955; Wyatt and Marriott, 1956; Fairchild, 1930), alienation and dissatisfaction from work (Blauner, 1964; Shepard, 1971), lack of integration in the employing organization (Fullan, 1970) and lack of coordination of specialized tasks (Strauss and Sayles, 1967). There are an abundance of studies in industrial sociology and organizational behavior focusing on the problems associated with task specialization. The present research is an attempt to carry-forward our understanding of these problems. Specifically, the purpose of the present research is to examine the extent to which task specialization — as exhibited i n different man-machine relationships at each level of production-line mechanization — affects workers' attachment to their employing organizations. ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT The concept of organizational attachment has never been defined precisely in the literature of industrial sociology and organizational behavior. Rather, four different concepts have been put forward with l i t t l e difference in meanings. These concepts are organizational identi-fication, organizational commitment, organizational loyalty, and organizational attachment. Recently, Patchen (1970, pp.155-160) reviewed - 4 -the different meanings attached to the concept of organizational identi-fication and he concluded that the concept has been used to refer to three different but related attitudinal and behavioral traits i n social research, namely: "... feeling of solidarity with the organization; support of the organization; and perception of the shared interests and goals with other organization members." Porter and Smith (1971, p.2) in studying the organizational commitment of management trainees define commitment as ''.». a specific relationship between an individual and his organization in that a highly committed person w i l l indicate a strong desire to remain a member of the particular organization, a willingness to exert a high level of effort on behalf of the organization, and a definite belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of the organization." Lee (1968, pp.464-466) in his treatment of the concept of organizational loyalty provides us two similar definitions of the concept of 'loyalty 1. For him, "... organizational loyalty ... is compounded of pride of association, and a feeling of identity with and participation in the accomplishments of the company.'5 His second definition of organiza-tional loyalty includes "... an understanding of the organization's purposes and a respect for the goals, ideals, and activities of the organization, as well as the people in i t . " Blauner (1964, pp.162-64) in talking about organizational attachment among workers in automated jobs uses the concepts of organi-zational commitmenta identification, and loyalty interchangeably. Although he does not define any of'these concepts, one can infer from his measures that he uses these terms to refer to "... desire of the workers - 5 -to spend the r e s t of t h e i r l i f e i n the present o r g a n i z a t i o n . " C l e a r l y , there are many s i m i l a r i t i e s i n these d e f i n i t i o n s (see Figure 1). For example, i n Patchen's review, the f e e l i n g of s o l i d a r i t y w i t h o r g a n i z a t i o n , r e f e r s to a deep sense of belongingness t o , and oneness w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n , which i s very s i m i l a r to the d e s i r e to remain a member of the o r g a n i z a t i o n ( P o r t e r and Smith), p r i d e of a s s o c i a t i o n and f e e l i n g of i d e n t i t y w i t h the o r g a n i z a t i o n (Lee), and the d e s i r e to spend the r e s t of one's l i f e i n the same o r g a n i z a t i o n (Blauner). S i m i l a r l y , the p e r c e p t i o n of shared i n t e r e s t s and goals w i t h other o r g a n i z a t i o n members (Patchen) i s to some extent s i m i l a r to having a d e f i n i t e b e l i e f i n the goals and values of the o r g a n i z a t i o n (Porter and Smith), and respect f o r the go a l s , i d e a l s and a c t i v i t i e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n (Lee). P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n ' t h e accomplishments of the goals of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as i n Lee's d e f i n i t i o n i s another way of saying that a worker exerts a high l e v e l of e f f o r t on behalf of the o r g a n i z a t i o n as i n Po r t e r and Smith's d e f i n i t i o n , and supporting the o r g a n i z a t i o n by a c t i o n s and behavior as i n Patchen's review. Thus, i t i s c l e a r that these d e f i n i t i o n s r e f e r to a common phenomenon; a k i n d of emotional binding between a worker and h i s employing o r g a n i z a t i o n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l attachment r e f e r s to a k i n d of r e l a t i o n s h i p between a worker and h i s o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which the worker: 1. accepts and supports the goals and p o l i c i e s of h i s employing o r g a n i z a t i o n ; 2. shows a w i l l i n g n e s s to exert e f f o r t f o r the success of h i s employing o r g a n i z a t i o n ; and 3. shows a strong d e s i r e to remain a member of h i s employing o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r an i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d . FIGURE 1 Blauner 1964 DESIRE BEHAVIOR • GOALS Desire to spend the rest of l i f e in the employing organization. Lee 1968 Pride of associ-ation and feeling of identity with the organization. Participation in the accomplish-ments of the organization. Respect for goals, ideals, and activ i t i e s of the organization. Patchen 1970 Feeling of solidarity with the organization. Support of the organization. Perception of shared interests and goals with other organization members. Porter and Smith 1971 Strong desire to remain a member of the organization. Willingness to exert a high level of effort on behalf of the organization. Definite belief in and acceptance of goals and values of the organization. - 7 -TASK SPECIALIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT The main proposition of our research is that task specialization in jobs is negatively related to organizational attachment among indust-r i a l blue-collar workers. The present 'Organizational Attachment Survey' among Canadian industrial workers is an attempt to lend support to the above proposition. But before we turn to report the findings of the survey, let us see. i f we can draw any support for the proposition from the literature in industrial sociology and organizational behavior. Our review of the literature in industrial sociology and organizational behavior w i l l examine how the different components of task specialization affect the different dimensions of organizational attach-ment. It has been argued, for example, that task fragmentation affects workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organi-zation, task repetition affects workers' willingness to put forward effort for the success of the employing organization, and task simplification affects workers' desire to remainjin the employing organization for an indefinite period of time. In the following sections, we w i l l elaborate on the above relationships.between the components of task specialization and the dimensions of organizational attachment. I! FRAGMENTATION AND GOALS In highly specialized jobs the degree of task fragmentation is at i t s height and the individual worker .performs only a few minute operations in the whole work process. This subdivision of work gives the worker a feeling of incompleteness about his job. Many researchers - 8 -(Walker and Guest, 1952, p.58; Guest, 1957, p.9-16) have observed that the individual worker attaches great importance to doing work on the whole product. The lack of completeness in highly fragmented jobs is further accentuated when the worker f a i l s to observe a clear relationship between his work and the f i n a l finished product. Since his contribution to the f i n a l product is very limited, i t has been observed that in many instances the worker has only a vague idea of what his organization produces. His remoteness from the f i n a l product makes work simply an instrumental activity — an activity, as Marx (Chinoy, 1955, p.85) argues, "... not to satisfy a need, but only the means to satisfy the needs outside i t " . The work which f a i l s to give the worker a feeling of completeness about the job and to link his job with the finished product is less likely to attach him to the goals and policies of the employing organization. In contrast to highly specialized jobs,, in less specialized jobs, the degree of task fragmentation is low and the individual worker works on the whole product or on a big component of the whole product. This gives the worker a feeling of completeness about his job. Whenever he sees the finished product, he gets feelings of accomplishment and pride. Feelings of accomplishment help him to identify with the product and makes work a meaningful activity, or in the words of Marxian sociologists, "... an end in i t s e l f , rather than a means to an end". Thus, the less fragmented j ob, which appears to the worker as complete and meaningful, is likely to mean greater attachment to the goals and policies of the organization. In jobs where task specialization is neither very high nor - 9 -very low, the work appears to the worker as moderately fragmented. The worker working on the moderately fragmented job does not work on the whole product or on a big component of the whole product as the worker in the less fragmented job does, but his work is usually large enough to give him a feeling of partial completeness of the job. Unlike the highly fragmented jobs where i t is d i f f i c u l t for the average worker to link his work with the finished product, the moderately fragmented job gives the worker a greater share in the work process, which, in turn enhances his awareness of the f i n a l product. Thus5 i t is expected that the worker working on a moderately fragmented job w i l l show a moderate degree of attachment to the goals and policies of his employing organization. REPETITION AND EFFORT In highly specialized jobs the worker experiences a high degree of task repetition. Since he usually performs one or a few minute operations in the work process in a short time, he has to perform them again and again with l i t t l e or no change. Thus, the worker's chances.to show i n i t i a t i v e and originality are restricted and work becomes a mechanical activity devoid of emotional content. Since the worker's creative a b i l i t i e s are not used in the work process, as Sayles argues (1966, p.16), the worker often uses them in subversive a c t i v i t i e s . It has been found, for example, that in the automobile industry the incidence of walkouts and strikes i s much higher than in any other industries, both in the United States and Britain (Kerr, 1954, pp.189-212). The explanation for this i s the high degree of task repetition which production workers in this industry experience and particularly under 'Detroit automation'. Both Walker and Guest (1952) and Turner and Lawrence's (1965) studies report a high rate of absenteeism for workers having highly repetitive jobs. These findings clearly exhibit the worker's inherent dislike for and disinterest in repetitive jobs. The worker shows only that much behavioral involvement in work acti v i t i e s which is necessary to legitimize his stay in the organization. Thus, in highly repetitive jobs the chances are that workers w i l l put forward a low degree of effort for the success of the employing organization. In highly repetitive jobs, a worker's autonomy in planning and organizing his job is limited to the extent that even the tools of work are predetermined (Walker and Guest, 1952, p.12). In contrast, in a less repetitive job the worker exercises great autonomy in performing his large and usually unstandardized work. Autonomy in work provides the worker many chances to make certain decisions at the work station. It makes work challenging and gives the worker opportunities to show in i t i a t i v e and originality i n doing his work. The job which ut i l i z e s creative a b i l i t i e s increases the worker's involvement in his job. It i s , therefore, expected that workers in such jobs w i l l exert a high level of effort for the success of the employing organization. In jobs where task specialization is neither very high nor very low the worker experiences a moderate degree of task repetition. In a moderately repetitive job, the worker does not do his work again and again in a short time cycle like the worker in a highly repetitive job. Nor does he have to perform a variety of tasks at his job like the worker in a less repetitive job. Instead, he performs more or less routine work,but in a long time cycle.' This gives the worker some - 11 -opportunity to u t i l i z e his a b i l i t i e s in doing his work. Thus, the workers in jobs which provide them some opportunity to use their a b i l i t i e s are likely to put forward, at least, a moderate degree of effort for the success of their employing organizations. SIMPLIFICATION AND DESIRE A high degree of task specialization in jobs makes work highly simplified and easy to perform. Excessive task simplification in jobs deprives the worker of any real sense of s k i l l , The worker who exercises s k i l l takes pride in his achievement, but the worker who learns his job in no time knows that he can be easily replaced.. This feeling of easy replacement is further.accentuated because of the limited chances of advancement in simplified jobs. It has been observed that in departments where the majority of jobs are simplified there is a sharp distinction between ski l l e d and unskilled jobs. Since the majority of jobs are unskilled, and since there are few skilled jobs to which workers can be promoted, chances of advancement for an average worker are very limited. Therefore, jobs which make the worker an easily replaceable commodity and block his advancement are less likely to i n s t i l in him a desire to remain in his employing organization. In contrast to highly specialized jobs, in less specialized jobs the majority of workers are skilled craftsmen, who learn their jobs over a long period of time. Usually, the training in less simplified jobs is broad enough to be applied to a large part of the work process. The worker who exercises s k i l l i s not so easily replaced as one who has learned his job i n a short time. Turnover, both voluntary and involuntary, - 12 -has always been reported higher for workers in simplified unskilled jobs. The job security associated with less simplified jobs frees the worker from the constant fear of replacement which, in turn, helps him to concentrate fully on the development of his s k i l l . Therefore, i t is expected that workers in their less simplified and highly secured jobs w i l l exhibit a strong desire to stay in their employing,organizations. In jobs where task specialization is moderate the majority of production jobs are semi-skilled and require considerable time for learning. The worker working on a moderately simplified job does not face the constant fear of replacement as much as the worker in a highly simplified job, for the reason that whenever redundancy occurs, workers in highly simplified jobs are usually the f i r s t to be laid-off. Moreover, in moderately simplified jobs, the chances of advancement for the average worker are not as limited as in highly simplified jobs. In departments where most of the jobs are semi-skilled there tend to be enough opportunities for talented workers to find their way to the next higher position. Thus, we feel that jobs which are relatively secure and also provide some chances of advancement to workers might make workers moderately desirous to stay in their employing organizations. In sum, i t is clear from the preceding diccussion that the three components of task specialization affect the three dimensions of organizational attachment: task fragmentation affects workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization; task repetition affects workers' effort for the success of the employing organization; and task simplification affects workers' desire, to remain in the present organization. Since the main proposition of the present research is - 13 -about the relationship of task specialization in jobs with workers' overall attachment to their organizations, the principal focus of our analysis in Chapter III would be to test the main proposition rather than the relationship between the components of task specialization and the dimensions of organizational attachment. However, at certain points, we w i l l examine the relationship between the components of task special-3 ization and the three dimensions of organizational attachment . MEASUREMENT OF TASK SPECIALIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT As mentioned previously, task specialization occurs when the components of work process are divided into various minute tasks and only a limited number of tasks are assigned to an individual job. Recent writers in technology (Faunce, 1965, pp.149-160; Shepard, 1969, pp.185-194) have noted that each stage in the development of production technology is associated with a specific degree of task specialization. It has been argued, for example, that task specialization is highest at the stage of 4 machine-line technology ' because at this stage the majority of the production jobs are unskilled and;workers who occupy them perform one or a few minute operations on the total product. There is a high degree of functional dependence for the work involved in that one job is directly dependent on the work of others. A high degree of standardization of product coupled with minute task subdivision in machine-line technology makes work highly repetitive and simple to perform. Walker and Guest's classic study of automobile workers (1952, p.12) reports six dominant characteristics of the machine-line technology: mechanical pacing of work; - 14 -predetermination of work tools; repetitiveness; minimum s k i l l require-ments; minute subdivision of task worked on; and surface mental attention. These characteristics are primarily the results of a high degree of task specialization i n machine-line technology. It has been argued that'the hauling and handwork"* stages in the development of production technology represent a low degree of task specialization. At these stages the majority of production jobs are highly skilled and workers who occupy them are equipped with hand tools with which they fashion the product from raw materials. Workers in highly s k i l l e d jobs work on the whole product or on a big component of the whole product. Their work is characterized by l i t t l e or no differen-tiation in task. Almost every worker can work at any stage of the product. Since the nature of every product is quite different from others the degree of task repetition in less specialized jobs is minimal. In sum, task specialization i s low in these production systems. It has been argued that task specialization is moderate in automated production technology. At this stage almost everything is built into machines and the worker's task is reduced to watching special purpose technical instruments within a completely integrated work process. The worker takes 'readings' of the various instruments under his jurisdiction at fixed time intervals and thus experiences a moderate degree of task repetition. The job i n automated technology involves more mental and visual s k i l l than manual and physical s k i l l . Therefore, . on-the-job training for workers in automated jobs is quite extensive. Though the worker in automated technology does not have as much say in - 15 -the production process as a craftsman in hauling and handwork stages, his share in the work process i s , usually, much greater than that of the worker in machine-line technology. Thus, in sum, i t is argued that automation reverses the historical trend of task specialization in industrial organizations (Blauner, 1964, p.169). As there is enough support in the literature for the proposition that each stage in the development of production technology represents a specific degree of task specialization, i t was decided to measure the degree of task specialization with the level of production-line mechanization. Recent writers concerned with technology, however, report that no industrial organization employs a single homogeneous production technology (Blauner, 1964, p.7; Shepard, 1969, p.189). Therefore, we classified departments in each company into different levels of technology on the basis of what types of technological work processes are present in the jobs of the majority of workers. In each company we assigned code 1 to departments where the majority of workers were not working on the line, code 2 to departments where the majority of workers were working on automated jobs, and code 3 to departments where the majority of workers were working on the machine, or machine-feeding line jobs. Organizational attachment refers to a kind of emotional binding between a worker and his employing organization whereby the worker exhibits the following characteristics; (1) accepts and supports the goals and policies of the organization; (2) shows willingness to put forward effort for the success of the organization; and (3) shows a strong desire to remain in the present organization for an indefinite period of time. - 16 -Each of the above characteristics was measured by asking four different questions of workers (see Table 5)• The questions were designed in such a way as to tap directly the idea involved in the characteristic. The four questions in each dimension had three response categories: agree, undecided, and disagree. To increase the va l i d i t y of the responses, questions were worded positively as well as negatively. Workers who agreed to a positive question by marking the Agree response category or disagreed with a negative question by marking the Disagree category were given a score of 1. Workers who disagreed with a question worded positively or agreed with a question worded negatively were assigned a score of 0. Workers who were undecided on a negative or a positive question by marking the Undecided response category were also given a score of 0. Thus, every respondent, potentially, had a chance to score from 0 to 12; zero by remaining undecided or disagreeing to a l l positively-worded questions and by agreeing or remaining undecided to a l l negatively-worded questions; twelve by agreeing to a l l positively-worded questions and disagreeing with a l l negatively-worded questions. Workers who scored from 9 to 12 were considered to have a high degree of organizational attachment; those who scored from 5 to 8 were labelled as having moderate organizational attachment; and those who scored from 0 to 4 were considered to have a low degree of organizational attachment. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS To test the main proposition of the research we formulate hypothesis 1 (HI). - 17 -Organizational attachment as measured with twelve questions in the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' w i l l be highest among workers working in departments where the majority of production jobs involve handwork and hand-operated machine-work, whereas organizational attachment w i l l be lowest among workers working in departments in which machine-line jobs predominate. - 18 -FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER I 1. Our discussion of task specialization i s a modified version of Louis Davis' Job Centered Approach on Job Design. See L. Davis and Canter. 1955, "Job Design". Journal of Industrial Engineering 5: 3-6. 2. Adam Smith (1937, p.7) was one of the earlier social scientists who emphasized the importance of increased task specialization in increasing productivity and efficiency in industrial organizations. Later on, in the beginning of the twentieth century Fredrick W. Taylor (1911) became the founding father of the Scientific Management Approach whose main emphasis was to increase productivity through increased task specialization. More recently, industrial engineers have also emphasized the importance of task specialization in increasing productivity. 3. In the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' we do not have data on task fragmentation. Therefore, we w i l l not examine the relationship between task fragmentation and workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization. 4. In recent years various classifications of production technologies have been set forth - unit/small batch, mass/large batch, continuous process/automation (Woodward, 1965), craft, mass, automation (Faunce, 1965), hauling, handwork, machine-line, automation (Meissner, 1969). We decided to use Meissner's classification because i t appeared to be more refined and appropriate for the problem under investigation. 5. We have combined these two production technologies simply because there is l i t t l e , i f any, difference between the two i n terms of the degree of task specialization. Both production technologies represent a low degree of task specialization. CHAPTER II RESEARCH PROCEDURE This chapter describes in detail the various steps and procedures involved in conducting the 'Organizational Attachment Survey'. The discussion has been organized into four sections: (1) the sampling procedure; (2) the research instruments for the collection of data; (3) response patterns; and ( 4 ) decisions about analysis. SAMPLING PROCEDURE The 'Organizational Attachment Survey' was conducted among industrial blue-collar workers in Vancouver, British Columbia. Since the main hypothesis of the research concerned variation in organizational attachment among workers at different levels of production technology, i t was necessary to have workers working at different levels of production technology in the sample. In a survey research, like ours, i t is very d i f f i c u l t to have a true random sample because of many uncontrollable factors; therefore, i t was decided to have a purposive sample of industrial organizations employing different types of technology in their production departments.. A total of 15 companies were contacted over a period of four months'*". Since the survey was conducted on an individual basis rather than by a research team, the companies were contacted one at a time. Two different methods were employed to contact the management in various companies. The. f i r s t method involved locating the names of senior management personnel for some chosen companies from the Directory of - 19 -- 20 -Influential Contacts (1970), calling one of them, and requesting an appointment. In subsequent meetings, the objectives of the survey were explained in detail to senior management personnel and they were asked for their cooperation. The second method of contacting companies involved writing to senior management personnel, explaining in brief the purposes of the survey and requesting their cooperation in the survey. As the main objective of the survey was to obtain information on workers' subjective feelings about their work and company, some management personnel and their plant unions refused to permit the survey to be undertaken in their organizations due to the sensitive nature of the area of investigation (Appendix A presents the l i s t of the companies contacted for the survey along with their responses to the 'Organizational Attachment Survey'). The refusal rate was higher among companies contacted by the second method. No definite reason can be put forward for the high refusal rate for companies contacted by the second method. One possible reason is that our i n i t i a l letter of contact may have met the 'bureaucratic fate'. '• Of the nine companies which agreed to participate in the survey, six were selected in such a.way as to have approximately an equal number of workers at each level of, production technology. Table 1 indicates that we were moderately successful in this attempt. Of the 550 potential respondents who were given questionnaires, 42 percsnt were working on machine-line jobs, 38 percent on craft-type jobs, and 20 percent had automated jobs. The main reason for the under-representation cf workers in automated jobs was a high refusal rate among companies (4 out of 5 - 21 -TABLE 1: WORKERS HAVING JOBS IN DIFFERENT PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES ARE SUFFICIENTLY REPRESENTED. Levels of Technology Potential Respondents Percentage Respondents Handwork and Hand-operated Machine Work 212 38% Ma chine-line 229 42% Automation 109 20% Total 550 100% - 22 refused to participate)' having an automated production technology. It was learned during our discussion with union o f f i c i a l s and senior management personnel in these companies that they had a six-months strike in 1969. For this reason, both management and union were afraid of allowing an attitude survey to be undertaken, which they f e l t might disturb the 'industrial peace' of their plants. Since we were primarily interested in examining the impact of production technology on organizational attachment among industrial workers, i t was decided to include in the sample only the production workers for the reason that the jobs of production workers are the only jobs which are greatly influenced by the production technology of the organization. Maintenance personnel, utilitymen, and delivery workers were excluded from the survey on the ground that their jobs are less affected by the production technology of the organization and, further-more, their jobs appear to differ l i t t l e from one type of production technology to another. I n i t i a l l y , the plan was to select twenty-five workers, randomly, from the production departments of each company. During the course of actual survey, i t became impossible because, in most cases, management did not like the idea of sampling the production workers and wanted a l l the production workers to be included in the sample. Therefore, we decided to include a l l the production workers in six companies in the sample. Our total sample thus comprised 550 production workers. Table 2 presents the marginal distributions on demographic (age, sex, marital status,, income, education), background (length of - 23 -TABLE 2: THE DATA SHOW A GREAT AMOUNT OF VARIATION CN VARIOUS DEMOGRAPHIC, BACKGROUND AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS AMONG COMPANIES. Companies Characteristics (A) (3) (C) '(D) (E) (F) Total N=63 N=39 N=34 N=13c N=27 N=78 N=377 Age -18-29 years 24 % 1 13% 27% 37% •0% 24% 26% 30-44 years 43 28 18 52 33 30 39 45-65 years 33 51 50 10 67 44 32 Sex Male 70 97 71 50 100 72 . 68 Female 30 3 29 49 0 26 31 Marital Status Single 11 15 35 . 15 0 21 16 Married 76 69 38 73 96 68 71 2 Others 13 15 27 12 4 12 13 Income per Month Under $600 70 41 50 55 r, 50 50 Over $600 29 59 50 43 100 50 49 Education Up to 10 Grade 62 41 50 27 30 60 44 Over 10 Grade 37 56 44 71 70 37 54 Length of Service Under 5 years 48 33 32 54 15 41 43 Over 5 years 52 67 0 L/ 46 85 59 57 /Contd. - 24 -TABLE 2 (contd.) Companies Characteristics (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) Total N=63 H=39 N=34 N=136 N=27 N=78 N=377 Shift-Time Morning 86% 13% 18% 77% ^' /a 63% 58% Afternoon & Night 11 21 0 2 0 27 10 Swing Shifts 2 67 - 82 18 100 9 30 >. of Jobs Held in the Company Less than 3 Jobs 51 62 32 .. 63 37 55 54 3 and More 44 39 65 34 63 45 45 1. The difference between the sum of the percentages and 100% in each characteristic indicates the non-response percentage. 2. "Other" category includes workers who were separated, widowed or divorced. - 25 -service, number of jobs held i n the present company), and job (shift-time) characteristics for each company and for the whole sample. Data presented in Table 2 indicate two important things. F i r s t , our sample is considerably heterogeneous on most of the demographic, background and job characteristics. Second, there is a great amount of variation on certain demographic, background and job characteristics among workers between some of the companies surveyed. However, the majority of workers in the sample are male, are below 45 years cf age, are earning up to $600 a month, are working on day-shifts, have over ten years of schooling, have held up to two jobs in the present company, and have been working i n i t for more than five years. MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS The chief research instrument used in the survey to collect information from workers was the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' (see Appendix B). This questionnaire was designed in such a way as to gather information not only on task specialization and organizational attachment but on a variety of other things including perceived techno-logical work constraints, workers' overall central l i f e interests, job satisfaction, company satisfaction, work histories, and demographic and background characteristics. I n i t i a l l y , i t was planned to interview workers either at their work place or at their homes. A number of factors did not allow us to carry out this i n i t i a l plan. The foremost reason was the disapproval of the senior management to interview workers at the work place on company - 26 -time. Furthermore, i t was impossible to interview workers, either at their work place during lunch and coffee breaks or at their homes, because of the limited resources (time and money) available for the survey. The second important reason for not interviewing workers was the problem of accent. Since we were conducting the survey in an entirely different culture than our own, and since we did not get enough chances to talk to workers in our sample before the survey, we realized that for both workers and ourselves i t would be d i f f i c u l t to understand each other's accent at the time of actual interviewing. Because of these factors we changed the early decision of interviewing workers in favour of a structured questionnaire. The 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' was distributed among production workers in a l l companies one by one over a period of three months. The inability to control the time factor in administering questionnaires might have introduced some bias in the sample of workers we studied. But we think that even i f i t did introduce bias, i t w i l l be of insignificant nature, because the period of year (January to March) in which the survey was undertaken i s , usually, least affected by the seasonal employment of students as compared to the period between May to August and the month of December. Another research technique used in the survey to collect information about workers' jobs was 'direct observation'. An average of six to eight hours was spent in each company observing the technological processes entailed in jobs in order to classify departments onto different levels of technology on the basis of what types of technical work processes are present in the jobs of the majority of workers. In - 27 -each company code 1 was assigned to departments1 where the majority of workers were not working on the line, code 2 to departments where the majority of workers were working on automated jobs, and code 3 to departments where the majority o f workers were working on the machine-line jobs. FIELD EXPERIENCES As mentioned previously, a total of 15 companies were contacted over a period of four months. The actual f i e l d work was started in the f i r s t week of January and was finished in the last week of March, 1972. As the survey was conducted by an individual rather than by a research team, when we contacted a company and found i t suitable for the research we distributed questionnaires there. • After distributing questionnaires in the f i r s t company, we approached the second company and in this way surveyed workers in a l l six companies. Companies were visited i n the same chronological order as they are reported in Table 3. Table 3 also indicates that 68 percent production workers in six co-ipanies returned completed questionnaires. Response.rates vary from 49 percent to 83 percent for individual companies. In the following section we w i l l describe our f i e l d experiences in each o f the six. companies. Company A is one of the leading meat-packing companies in the country. This company has not been studied by social scientists for over the last 25 years. Therefore, when we approached the company i t appeared to be a great surprise for management. From the very beginning, management showed great interest in the survey and assured us of their - 28 -TABLE 3: A LITTLE MORE THAN TOO-THIRDS OF THE POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS RETURNED COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES. Company Type of Work Nature of Product Size of Plant Potential"*" Respondents % Res-pondents A Machine Feeding & Assembly-Line Meat Packing 200 106 03/£ B Automatic Work Sugar Refining 300 70 56 C Assembly-Line and Handwork Sugar Packing 300 70 49 D Hand and Machine Work Telephone Transmission 350 170 83 E Automatic Work Power Generation and Distribution 400 34 79 F Assembly-Line & Machine Work. Milk Products 250 100 78 Total ' 5 5 0 68% 1. Only production workers were included in the survey; utilitymen, maintenance personnel and delivery workers were excluded. - 29 -f u l l cooperation. The union o f f i c i a l s had somewhat mixed feelings. They neither showed great interest nor clearly refused to cooperate. Some of them even had the impression that the survey was being conducted under the auspices of management. One week after the i n i t i a l contacts both with management and union o f f i c i a l s , the questionnaires were distributed in self-addressed stamped envelopes among the production workers who were asked to f i l l them out and mail them. Since i t was our f i r s t experience we did not realize the importance of direct communication with workers. Though we had a chance to attend a 'Safety Meeting' in one department we could not talk to workers because of the brief duration of the meeting. In spite of an indifferent attitude by the union and the lack of communication on our part a substantive percentage (63%) of workers returned the completed questionnaires, which indicated that our f i r s t effort was neither too good nor too bad when compared with the response rates of the companies surveyed afterwards. Companies B and C are tw separate divisions of the same organization. Our main reason for treating them separately as companies B and C was that they had l i t t l e or nothing in common. Division A was responsible for the processing of raw sugar and its production technology \<ras largely automated.. Division B was chiefly involved in the packing of finished sugar of various kinds and had an assembly-line technology. Moreover, the management i t s e l f emphasized the difference between the two divisions in daily conversation. For example, when we approached the plant superintendent for the f i r s t time, the f i r s t thing he asked was, "Are you interested in conducting the - 30 -survey in the whole plant or in Division A or Division B?" We also heard a senior management representative saying to a guide for a group of students, "Take these kids to the packing division only. It might be too much for them to walk in both divisions 1'. For these considerations, we decided to treat these divisions as companies B and C, respectively. When we approached the management of the plant, i t appeared to us that management did not have much confidence in the union and, in turn, the union was suspicious of the intentions of management. The senior management gave i t s approval for the survey after a brief discussion on some of the sections of the questionnaire. When we approached union o f f i c i a l s we faced a hard time in convincing them that the survey was not being conducted for management. With reluctance, the union also agreed to cooperate in the survey. Since our f i r s t effort was not very successful i t was decided to do two different things in companies B and. C. One was to communicate the research to as many workers as possible on the shop floor. To achieve maximum communication, a notice was prepared describing the objectives of the survey and informing the workers that the survey had the approval of both management and union. This notice was posted on bulletin boards at different places in the plant approximately one week before the distribution of the questionnaires. Our second decision concerned the way in which questionnaires were to be returned. Instead of distributing the questionnaires In self-addressee! stamped envelopes, in consultation with management and union, we distributed the question-naires in sealable envelopes and advised the workers to put them in a box kept for this purpose in the office after f i l l i n g them out. The box was - "31 -opened after five days and to our surprise the returns were much lower than expected. Fifty-six percent workers in.company B and only 49 percent in company C returned the completed questionnaires. The tense union-management relationships and management's disapproval to undertake a follow-up were, probably, the main reasons for these response rates. Company D was among those companies which encourage social scientists to do research in their plants. From the very beginning senior management was extremely enthusiastic about the survey and assured us of their cooperation. Personally, I was amazed at the extent of their cooperation, interest, and help in my research. Unfortunately, at the time of the survey, the union and management were on the verge of a conflict. (Recently we heard that the company had a six-weeks strike on this issue in the months of May and June, 1972.) The dispute was about the classification of certain new jobs into skilled and semi-skilled categories. The management's stand was that the new jobs require less time for learning, while the union was insisting that they take more time. In spite of this serious problem, the union o f f i c i a l s approved the survey. Approximately one week before the actual survey the management informed the workers through the f i r s t - l i n e supervisors that a graduate student from U.B.C would be conducting a survey in the plant. A notice describing the objectives of the survey and mentioning the approval of both management and union for the survey was also posted on different bulletin boards in the plant. The questionnaires were distributed in sealable envelopes, in each department through the f i r s t -line supervisors. Workers ware asked to return filled-out questionnaires, - 32 -after sealing the envelopes, to their supervisors, who, in turn, were responsible for depositing them in the office of the production manager, Eighty-three percent workers returned the completed questionnaires in five days. This remarkable return rate was due mainly to greater communication of the research to the shop-floor workers and a highly favourable attitude towards sc i e n t i f i c research both by management and union. Company E was the smallest of the six companies surveyed i n terms of production workers. Both management and the shop-floor workers showed considerable interest in the research. The same techniques of communication and questionnaire distribution were used in this company as those used in company D. The response rate in this company proved to be second best in the survey — 79 percent of the workers returned the completed questionnaires. The last company we surveyed, company F, is also one of those companies which encourage and, very often, participate in social researches in their plants. In addition to the techniques employed in companies D and E, a handout describing the goals and objectives of the survey was prepared and distributed with the help of the union, to a l l shop-floor workers participating in the survey. Because of the extensive communication with workers a substantial percentage (77 percent) returned completed questionnaires. 2 In conclusion, our f i e l d experiences confirmed the importance of communication with shop-floor workers and the role of the f i r s t - l i n e supervisors in increasing the response rate in survey-type research. - 33 -DECISIONS ABOUT ANALYSIS As soon as a l l the questionnaires from a company were returned 3 we transferred the precoded information onto IBM cards. Two days after the completion of the survey in company F we had a l l the data trans-ferred on cards. Immediately, a complete run of marginal distribution was made on each item of the questionnaire so that punching errors would be eliminated. After correction, punching errors were reduced to below 0.5 percent level. We examined the marginal distributions on each item carefully and decided to combine the response categories in some questions so as to appear, in the words of John Galtung (1969, pp.250-265), "more meaningful" to the research. After combining categories we ran SPSS Sub-Program Fastab (Hie et a l . , 1970) for cross-tabulating a l l the items in the questionnaire. This run produced over 1,300 cross-tables along with ten measures of association: Chi-quare, Crammer's Vs Contingency Coefficient, Kendall's tau b, and tau c, Lambda, Gamma, Somers' D, Eta, Percentage Difference. The two variables (task specialization and organizational attachment) in the main hypothesis of our research are ordinal variables, that i s , they have a natural ordering and an underlying continuum. It is evident from the theoretical discussion in Chapter I that the relationship between task specialization and organizational attachment is asymmetrical, i.e. task specialization in jobs can affect the organizational attachment of the workers but i t s converse is not likely to be possible. Since the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' was - 34 -undertaken not to examine the phenomenon of workers' attachment to their employing organizations in an exploratory or descriptive fashion but to test a specific research hypothesis about workers' attachment to their organizations at different levels of production technology in a limited sample of industrial blue-collar workers, we decided to measure the relationship between task specialization and organizational attachment under the condition of strong monotonicity. Strong monotonic relation-ship, as Somers argues (1962, p.801), is "... represented by a situation in which for two variables X and Y, the value of X increases as Y increases, and conversely, regardless of the rate of increase". Because the relationship between task specialization and organizational attach-ment is asymmetrical, in this research a strong monotonic relationship would mean a situation where task specialization increases, organizational attachment decreases. Since we were measuring an asymmetric relationship between two ordinal variables under strong monotonicity, i t was decided to use Somers' D as a measure to find out the extent of association between task specialization and organizational attachment. Somers' D is a strong monotonic asymmetric measure of association for ordinal variables which, in the xrords of i t s originator (Somers, 1962, p.804), expresses the "... difference between conditional probabilities of like and unlike order, under the condition that we ignore ties on the independent variable (although they w i l l be present, in general, on the dependent variable)". Along with dyx, we decided to use percentage difference to get an idea of what other things., i f any, the data presented in the tables suggested. - 35 Since no book in statistics suggests explicitly what should be the ideal degree of association which should be termed as significant we solved this problem arbitrarily. For dyx, i t was decided that i f the amount of association between two variables is between -0.10 to +0.10, i t w i l l mean that there is no association between them. If the amount of association is between 0.10 and 0.30, i t w i l l mean that there i s a weak association between two variables.. If the amount of association is between 0.30 to 0.60> i t w i l l mean that there is a moderate association between them. And, i f the amount of association is over 0.60, i t w i l l mean that there is a strong association between two variables. - 36 -FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER II 1. The l i s t of the companies was compiled mainly from three different sources. Contacts Influential, Commerce and Industry Directory for Greater Vancouver, l i s t s a l l the companies in the area of Greater Vancouver, every year. Names of some of the companies were taken from i t s 1970 volume. Second,.some of my family friends, especially Mrs. R. A. C. Doughlas, helped me in contacting some of the industries. Third, Dr. Philip H.. White, Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administrations U.B.C., recom-mended some of the companies which encourage social scientists to undertake research in their plants. 2. A similar conclusion has been arrived at by the research team of the 'Attachment to Work Survey', conducted by R. Dubin, A. Hedley and T. Taveggia. See Hedley. 1971. "A Study of British Factory Workers". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Taveggia. 1971, "The Necessity of Work: An Empirical Study of British Factory Workers". Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. 3. A l l questions, with the exception of the question inquiring about departments in which the worker worked, in the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' were precoded and were thus transferred onto cards immediately. Departments were coded after observing their technical processes a week later. 4. Most of the books in statistics and research methodology ignore the discussion on the amount of association which should be labelled as significant, A recent book by James Davis (1971), however, devotes a few pages on the discussion of this issue. Our decision, though arbitrary, is close to the criterion set by Davis (p.49). CHAPTER III DATA ANALYSIS TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS Hie present chapter deals with the testing of the main hypothesis of the research, namely; ... Organizational attachment as measured with twelve questions in the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' w i l l be highest among workers working in departments where the majority of production jobs involve handwork and hand-operated machine-work, whereas organizational attachment w i l l be lowest among workers working in departments in which machine-line jobs predominate. Table 4 shows the marginal distribution on production-line mechanization. It is evident from the table that we are considerably removed from the ideal distribution of an equal number of workers at each level of production-line mechanization. Workers working in depart-ments where the majority of jobs involve automated work are almost 50 percent less in number to workers who work on handwork and hand-operated machine jobs and to workers who work on machine-line jobs. Table 5 reports the marginal distribution on organizational attachment items under their three separate sub-headings. One thing which is evident from the examination of this table is the low percentage of non-response, which suggests that the questions were i n t e l l i g i b l e to the majority of workers. Table 6 presents the coefficients of inter-item association (Gamma values) between the twelve items of organizational attachment. Inter-item association, as John Galtung argues (1967, - 37 -- 38 -TABLE 4: THE MAJORITY OF THE WORKERS REPORTED THEMSELVES WORKING ON HANDWORK AND HAND-OPERATED MACHINE JOBS. Production-Line Total Percentage Mechanization Respondents Respondents Machine-Line 148 39% Automation 66 18 Handwork and Hand-Operated Machine Work Non-Response 155 41 Total 377 100% - 39 -TABLE 5; MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHi'lENT ITEMS. Organizational Attachment Items: Total Percentage GOALS Respondents Respondents (1) The things this company makes, are important to Canada. Agree 303 82% Undecided 39 10 Disagree 27 7 K.R. 3 1 (2) I find my goals and this company's very similar. Agree 139 37 Undecided 104 28 Disagree 131 35 . . . . , , Q -I (3) Often I find i t d i f f i c u l t to agree with company's policies on important matters relating to workers. Disagree 108 29 • Undecided 79 21 Agree 186 50 N.I!'. 4 1 (4) I really care about the fate of this company. Agree 243 65 Undecided 50 16 Disagree 72 19 - R O -TABLE 5 (Contd.) Organizational Attachment Items: EFFORT Total Respondents Percentage Respondents (5) I am willing to work extra hard at my job in order to help this company be successful. Agree Undecided Disagree N.R. 233 74 66 Ix 62% 20 18 1 (6) This company really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. Agree Undecided Disagree N.R. (7) I don't mind putting in extra time i f the company needs me to. Agree Undecided Disagree N.R. 122 100 151 4 260 39 76 2 33 27 40 1 70 10 20 1 (3) It bothers me very much to be absent from work. Agree Undecided Disagree N.R. 259 51 65 2 69 14 17 1 - 41 -TABLE 5 (Contd.) Organizational Attachment Items; DESIRE Total Respondents Percentage Respondents (?) I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this company. Agree Undecided .Li. 149 74 151 3 40% 20 40 1 (10) There is not too much to be gained by sticking with this company indefinitely. Disagree Undecided Agree N.R.,. 147 110 117 3 39 2Q 31 1 (11) I would keep working for this company even i f I were offered more money to work somewhere else. Agree Undecided Disagree j.'?»R. • • 107 74 193 3 29 20 51 1 (12) I could just as well be irorkihg for a different company as long as the type of work were similar. Disagree Undecided Agree 130 108 133 6 34 29 36 2 - 42 -TABLE 6: ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT ITEMS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OTHER WHEN liEASURED BY GAIIIA COEFFICIENT OF ASSOCIATION. Organizational Gamma Coefficient Attachment Items 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 0.0 2 0.60 0.0 3 0.40 0.45 0.0 4 0.60 0.62 0.63 0 .0 ; 5 0.80 0.62 0.40 0.77 0 .0 6 0.81 0.67 0.51 0.74,0.83 0.0 7 0.64 0.69 0.55 0.84 0.60 0.70 0.0 3 0.58 0.35 0.33 0.63 0.68 0.71 0.72 0.0 9 0.56 0.68 0.54 0.67 0.68 0.77 0.71 0.66 0 .0 10 0.44 0.25 0.41 0.59; 0.70 0.58 0.53 0.51 0.53 0.0 11 0.54 0.66 0.69 0.73 0.69 0.72 0.75 0.61 0.79 0.69 0.0 12 0.33 0.17 0.28 0.39 0.42 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.31 0.44 0.52 0.0 - 43 -pp.292-300), is one criterion to measure the internal consistency among the items of an index. Examination of the table suggests that a l l the items on organizational attachment are significantly related to each other, which suggests that a l l of these items 'tap' the same phenomenon, whatever i t may be. To observe clearly the structure underlying the inter-item associations of organizational attachment items, i t was decided to use the Guttman and Lingoes Smallest Space Analysis (Lauman and Guttman, 1966; Bloombaum, 1968; Guttman, 1968; Bloombaum, 1970). Figure 2 presents the two dimensional smallest space analysis solution for the relationship among twelve items of the organizational attachment (coefficient of alienation is = .16). It is evident from this figure that these items tap three dimensions of organizational attachment and that the three dimensions of organizational attachment appear to greatly overlap. Table 7 shows the marginal distribution on the index of organi-zational attachment. It is clear from the table that the largest percentage of production workers in our sample, when measured by the 'Organizational Attachment Questionnaire' are moderately attached to their organizations. Approximately an equal number of workers reported high and low attachment to their organizations. Table 8 is the result of cross-tabulation of production-line mechanization with the index of organizational attachment. Data in this table suggest that there is IIO association between production-line mechanization and the overall organizational attachment; that i s , the knowledge of the independent variable does not help in predicting the - 45 -TABLE 7: ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF THE WORKERS REPORTED MODERATE OR HIGH ATTACHMENT TO THEIR COMPANIES. Organizational Total Percentage Attachment: INDEX Respondents Respondents High 91 24% Moderate 178 Low 105 28 Total 1 374 100% 1. Three respondents did not respond to any statement on organizational attachment. - 46 -TABLE 3: THERE IS MC ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT. Production-Line Mechanization Organizational Attachment: INDEX Handwork and . ^  . Machine- _ _ .. . - , . r 7 , Automation _. Total iiachine Work Line High 21% 44% . 19% 24% Moderate 53 39 47 48 Low 27 17 34 28 Total 101% 100% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (154) (66) (146) (366) dyx = -0.04 pd = -02 1. For the sake of convenience, we w i l l use Handwork and Machine Work instead of Handwork and Hand-Operated Machine Work in a l l of our tables of analysis. - 47 -dependent variable. Closer inspection of this table, however, suggests that the relationship between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attachment may not be a direct" one as was originally proposed. Rather that i t may be a curvelinear relationship, that i s , organizational attachment is lowest among machine-line workers, i s moderate among workers in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs, and i s highest among workers in automated jobs. To carry the analysis further i t was decided to examine the relationship between production-line mechanization and the three sub-indices of organizational attachment (see note 1 for the construction of sub-indiees). Table 9 presents the joint biyariate distribution on the production-line mechanization and the f i r s t sub-index of organizational attachment. Data in this table indicate a weak negative relationship between production-line mechanization and workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization. Our knowledge of the values of the independent variable would give us 10 percent reduction in error in predicting the values on the dependent variable. The percentage difference between workers who had high attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization in machine-line jobs and in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs is -10. Table 10 reports the joint bivariate distribution on production-line mechanization and the second sub-index of organizational attachment. Data presented in this table suggest that there is no association between production-line mechanization and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization. Table 11 presents the joint bivariate distribution on production-line mechanization and the third sub-- 48 -TABLE.9: THE DATA SHOW A WEAK NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANICATIGN AND WORKERS' ATTACHMENT TO GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE ORGANIZATION. Production-Line Mechanization Organizational Attachments GOALS Handwork and a•. • machine- „, . . , . -T , Automation T . Total machine Work Lxne High 42% 58% 32% 41% Hoderate 30 24 30 29 Low 18 38 30 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (154) 100% (66) 100% (146) 100% (366) dyx = -0.10 pd = -10 - 49 -TABLE 10: THERE IS NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE LIE CH AN IZATI ON AND WORKERS* WILLINGNESS TO EXERT EFFORT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE ORGANIZATION. Production-Line Mechanization Organizational Attachment: EFFORT Handwork and . ^. Machine- _ .. ,. , . Automation , . Total ixachine won.; Line High 52% 67% 46% 52% Moderate 17 15 IS 17 Low 32 18 36 31 Total 101% 100% 101% 100% (No. of Cases) (155) (66) (146) (367) dyx = pd = -0.04 -06 50 -TABLE 11: THERE IS NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND WORKERS' DESIRE TO STAY IN THEIR EMPLOYING ORGANIZATIONS. Organizational Attachment: DESIRE Handwork and Machine Work Production-Line Mechanization Automation Machine-Line Total High 17% 36% 23% 23% Moderate 19 18 18 Low 64 46 61 60 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (155) 100% (66) 99% 101% (145) (366) dyx = 0.04 - 51 -index of organizational attachment. Data in this table indicate that there i s no association between production-line mechanization and workers' desire to stay in the employing organization. However, a close inspec-tion of this table suggests that although the association between production-line mechanization and workers' desire to stay in the organi-zation is almost negligible, the direction of relationship is contrary to the major proposition of the research. Surprisingly, workers in machine-line jobs reported themselves more desirous to stay in the employing organization as compared to workers in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs. In sum, a close examination of the data presented in Tables 9, 10 and 11 also suggests the same conclusion as suggested by the data in Table 8, that i s , there is a curvelinear relationship between production-line mechanization and the three sub-indices of organizational attachment. In brief, our analysis, up to this point, has suggested that the relationship between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment and i t s three sub-indices is not'a.direct one but a curvelinear one, that i s , in the language of our theoretical argument, organizational attachment is lowest among workers in highly specialized jobs, i s highest among workers in moderately specialized jobs, and is moderate among workers in less specialized jobs. This finding leads to two main alter-native explanations; either the major, proposition of the research that task specialization in jobs i s negatively related to organizational attachment is incorrect, or the proposition prevalent in the literature of industrial sociology and organizational -behavior that automation represents a moderate degree'in task .specialization is not true. - 52 -In the next section we w i l l examine these two alternative explanations with the data available in the 'Organizational Attachment Survey'. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS If we accept the f i r s t alternative explanation;, then we may conclude the analysis with the observation that the association between task specialization and overall organizational attachment is not a direct one as was proposed earlier. Rather.that i t is a curvelinear relationship, that i s , organizational attachment is lowest in machine-line jobs, is moderate in handwork and hand-operated jobs, and is highest in automated jobs. If we reject the f i r s t alternative explanation and accept the second one, then i t is necessary to test this proposition with the 'outside' measures of task specialization such as task simplification, task repetition, and task fragmentation. In the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' data were available on two of the three measures of 2 3 task specialization, namely, task simplification and task repetition . Tables 12 and 13, respectively, present the joint bivariate distribution on production-line mechanization and task simplification and production-line mechanization and task repetition. Data presented in Table 12 indicate that automated jobs appear to be less simplified to workers. Seventy-seven percent in automated jobs.;as compared to 54 percent in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs, and only 13 percent of the workers in machine-line jobs reported that they spent more than three months in learning their present jobs. Twenty-three percent of workers in automated - 53 -TABLE 12: AUTOMATED JOES APPEAR TO BE LESS SIMPLIFIED WHEREAS MACHINE-LIME JOBS APPEAR TO BE HIGHLY SIMPLIFIED. Production-Line Mechanization Task Simplification ' , , , ,,. , . Handwork and . uachme- _, . . -, , . rr i Automation T . Total ilachine Work Line High 47% 23% 87% 58% Low 54 77 13 42 Total (No. of Cases) 101% (155) 100% (66) 100% 100% (146) (367) - 54 -TABLE 13: AUTOMATED JOBS APPEAR TO BE LEAST REPETITIVE WHEREAS MACHINE-LINE JOBS APPEAR TO BE GREATLY REPETITIVE. Production-Line Mechanization ietition , , , . . handwork and . ^  . machine-.. , . ,., , Automation . Total High 26% 11% 46% 31% Low 74 89 54 69 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (154) (65) (347) (366) - 55 -jobs in comparison to 47 percent in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs and 87 percent in machine-line jobs spent less than three months in learning their present jobs. Examination of the data in Table 13 suggests the same conclusion suggested by the data in Table 12 —automated jobs appear to be less repetitive to workers. Eighty-nine percent of the workers working in automated jobs as compared to 74 percent working in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs, and 54 percent working in machine-line jobs reported that they do many different things on their jobs. Eleven percent of the workers in automated jobs in comparison to 26 percent i n handwork and hand-operated jobs and 46 percent in machine-line jobs had to do the same thing again and again in their jobs. In sum, data in Tables 12 and 13 suggest that both task simplification and task repetition are lowest in automated jobs, are ' t moderate in handwork and hand-operated machine jobs, and are highest in machine-line jobs. RE-ANALYSIS Since both outside measures clearly suggest that automation represents not a moderate degree of task specialization but a low degree of task specialization, i t was decided to re-analyze our data after assigning different scores on the independent variable. We assigned score 1 to departments where the automated jobs predominated considering them as having a low degree in task specialization, and assigned score 2 to departments where the majority of production jobs involved handwork and hand-operated machine work considering them as representing a moderate degree in task specialization. Table 14 reports the joint bivariate distribution on the production-line mechanization and overall organi-zational attachment. Data presented in this table suggest a weak negative association between production-line mechanization and overall organi-zational attachment. Knowledge of the departments in which the workers work gives us 16 percent reduction in error in predicting their organizational attachment. The percentage difference between workers who had high organizational attachment in machine-line jobs and in automated jobs i s -25. The percentage difference between workers.who had low organizational attachment in machine-line jobs and in automated jobs is +17. Tables 15, 16 and 17 present the joint bivariate distributions on production-line mechanization and the three sub-indices of organi-zational attachment. Data in Table 15 indicate that there i s a weak negative association between production-line mechanization and workers' i attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization. The -0.18 value of dyx suggests that knowledge about workers' departments reduces 18 percent error in predicting about workers' attachment to the goals and policies of the organization. The percentage analysis indicates that the difference between workers who had high organizational attachment to the goals and policies of the employing organization in machine-line jobs and in automated jobs is -26. Data presented in Table 16 do not suggest anything different to the data presented in Table 15. Examination of Table 16 indicates that there is a weak association between production-line mechanization and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing - 57 -TABLE 14: THE DATA SHOW A WEAK ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT. Organizational Attachment: INDEX Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork and Machine Work Machine-Line Total High 44% 21% 19% 24% Moderate 39 53 47 48 Low 17 27 34 28 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (66) .101% (154) 100% (146) 100% (366) dyx = -0.16 -25 - 58 -TABLE 15: THERE IS A WEAK ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND WORKERS' ATTACHMENT TO THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE ORGANIZATION. Organizational At ta chmen t: GOALS Pr o due tion-- Line Me chani za t ion Automation Handwork and Machine Work Machine-Line Total High 58% 42% 321 41% Moderate 24 30 30 29 Low 18 2 r> o 38 30 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (66) 100% (154) 100% (146) 100% (366) dyx = pd = -0.18 -26 - 59 -TABLE 16: THERE IS A WEAK ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND WORKERS' WILLINGNESS TO EXERT EFFORT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE ORGANIZATION. Organizational Attachment: EFFORT Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork and Machine Work Machine-Line Total High 67% 52% 46% 52% Moderate 15 17 19 17 Low 18 32 36 31 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (66) 101% (155) 101% (146) 100% (367) dyx = -0.12 -21 - 60 -TABLE 17: THERE IS LITTLE IF ANY ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND WORKERS' DESIRE TO STAY IN THEIR EMPLOYING ORGANIZATIONS. Organizational Attachment: DESIRE Automation Production-Line Mechanization Handwork and Machine-Machine Work Line Total High 36% 17% 23% 23% Moderate 18 19 15 18 Low 46 64 61 60 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (66) 100% (155) 100% 101% (145) (366) dyx ,'.= -0.07 pd = -13 - 61 -organization. Knowing the values on the independent variable reduces 12 percent error in predicting the values on the dependent variable. The percentage difference between workers who were willing to exert a high level of effort for the success of the employing organization in machine-line jobs and in automated jobs is -21. Table 17 suggests that there is no association between produc-tion-line mechanization and workers' desire to remain in the employing organization according to dyx. However, the percentage analysis reveals that there is a weak association between the two. The percentage difference between workers who were highly desirous to stay in the present organization in machine-line jobs and in automated jobs is -13. In sum, our re-analysis of data in the light of the second alternative explanation has, so far, suggested two things. F i r s t , there is a direct negative relationship between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attachment. Second, the relationship between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment and i t s sub-indices though negative is generally weak. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS In order to observe whether or not the zero order association between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attach-ment is spurious, the association between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment was examined after controlling test variables — age, sex, marital status, education, income, length of service, number of jobs held in the present organization, shift-time. Tables C.l to C.10 (see Appendix C) present the joint bivariate d i s t r i -- 62 butions on production-line mechanization and organizational attachment after controlling each of the above test variables, respectively. Examination of these tables indicates that four (age, sex, length of service in the company, number of jobs held in the present company) out 4 of eight test variables appear to be interacting (Blalock, 1965; Anderson and Zelditch, 1968, pp.170-183; Rosenberg, 1968, pp.105-168; Sonquist, 1970, p.55) with production-line mechanization in affecting organizational attachment. Data presented in (interacting) Tables C.3, C.4, C.8, C.9 (in Appendix C) suggest that there is an association between production-line mechanization and overall organizational attach-ment only for workers who are in the middle age group (30-44), who are male, who have been in the company for less than five years, and who have held less than three jobs in the present company. For workers who are in the age groups of 18-29 and 45-64, who are female, who have been in the company for more than five years, and who have held three or more jobs in the present company, production-line mechanization is not related to organizational attachment. Our f i r s t order analysis is important in two respects. F i r s t , i t is important because i t , in agreement with Rosenberg's (1968, p.24) argument, "... increases our understanding of the original two variables relationship" between production-line mechanization and organizational attachment by specifying conditions,under which this relationship remains intact, increasesor disappears. Put differently, i t suggests that the organizational attachment of industrial blue-collar workers is influenced not only by the extent of task specialization in their jobs but also by their demographic (age, sex) and background (length of - 63 -service, number of jobs held in the present company) characteristics. Second, i t is important because i t challenges the earlier empirical findings which suggest that task specialization in jobs affects the attitudes and behavior of industrial blue-collar workers notwithstanding i demographic and background characteristics of workers. Our analysis i n this section has suggested that task specialization affects the attitudes of only those workers who are in the middle age group, who are male, who have been in the company for less than five years and. who have held less than three jobs in the present company. Since in the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' data were available on two of the three measures of task specialization, namely, task repetition and task simplification, we decided to examine the relationship between task repetition and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization and between task simplification and.workers' desire to remain in the employing organi-zation. Tables 18 and 19, respectively, present the joint bivariate distributions on task repetition and the second aub-index (effort) of organizational attachment and task simplification and the third sub-indttX (desire) of organizational attachment. Data in Table 18 indicate that there is a moderate association between task repetition and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization. Our knowledge about the degree of task repetition in workers' jobs reduces 36 percent error in predicting their willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization. The percentage difference between workers who were willing to exert high level of effort for the success of their employing organizations in high repetitive jobs and - 64 -TABLE 18: THERE IS A MODERATE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TASK REPETITION-AND WORKERS' WILLINGNESS TO EXERT EFFORT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE ORGANIZATION. Task Repetition Organizational Attachment: EFFORT Low High Total High 62% 30% 52% Moderate 16 20 18 Low 22 50 31 Total " 100% 100% 101% (No. of Cases) (257) (114) (371) dyx = -0.36 -32 - 65 -TABLE 19: THERE IS A WEAK ASSOCIATION BETWEEN.TASK SIMPLIFICATION AND.WORKERS' DESIRE TO REMAIN IN THE PRESENT ORGANIZATION FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME. . . n Task Simplification Organizational Attachment: DESIRE _ . _ t , Low High Total High 33% 17% 23%. Moderate 20 16 18 Low 48 67 59 Total 101% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (157) (215) (372) dyx = pd . = -0.22 -16 - 66 -in low repetitive jobs is -32. Table 19 suggests that there i s a weak association between task simplification and workers' desire to remain in the employing organization. Knowledge of the distribution on the independent variable gives 22 percent reduction in error in predicting the dependent variable. The percentage difference between workers who were highly desirous to remain in the presant employing organization in high simplified jobs and in low simplified jobs is -16. In order to observe whether or not the two components of task specialization on which data were available in the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' are related to workers' overall attachment to their organization, we decided to cross-tabulate task repetition and organi-zational attachment, and task simplification and organizational attach-ment. Tables 20 and 21 report the joint bivariate distributions on task repetition and overall organizational attachment and task simplification and overall organizational attachment, respectively. It i s clear from Table 20 that there is a moderate association between task repetition and organizational attachment. Our knowledge of the values on the independent variable reduces 41 percent error in predicting the values of the dependent variable. Data presented in Table 21 also indicate a moderate negative association between task specialization and organi-zational attachment. Knowing the degree of simplification in workers' jobs would bring 31 percent reduction in error in predicting their overall organizational attachment. The percentage difference between workers who had high organizational attachment i n high simplified jobs and i n low simplified jobs is -23. - 67 -TABLE 20: THERE IS A MODERATE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TASK REPETITION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT. Organi za tional Attachment: INDEX Task Repetition Low High Total High 32% 8% 25% moderate 42 48 Low 50 28 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (256) 100% (114) 101% (370) dyx = pd --0.41 -24 TABLE 21: THERE IS A MODERATE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TASK SIMPLIFICATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT. Organizational Attachment: INDEX Task Simplification Low High Total High 38% 15% 25% Moderate 45 50 48 Low 17 36 28 Total 100% 101% 101% (No. of Cases) .(157) (213) (375) dyx = -0.31 pd = -23 - 69 -TABLE 22: THERE IS A MODERATE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TASK REPETITION AND TASK SIMPLIFICATION Task Simplification Task Repetition Low High Total High 47% 84% 58% Low 53 17 42 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (257) 101% (115) 100% (372) dyx = 0.37 pd •- 37 - 70 -In sum, our analysis in this section has suggested that task repetition and task simplification in jobs, respectively, not only related to workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization and to workers' desire to stay in the employing organization but also to workers' overall attachment to their organi-zations, which gives additional support to our main proposition that task specialization in jobs is negatively related to organizational attachment among industrial blue-collar workers. It is quite evident from our analysis in this chapter that though task specialization in jobs, as operationalized in terms of production-line mechanization in departments, is negatively related to organizational attachment and its three sub-indices, yet these relation-ships are generally low in comparison to relationships between 'outside' measures of task specialization (i.e. task repetition and task simpli-fication) and organizational attachment and its sub-indices, which suggests two things. First, production-line mechanization may not be an adequate measure of task specialization. Second, classifying workers' departments instead of workers' jobs into different degrees of task specialization may have introduced' error in measurement thereby keeping these relationships low. CONCLUSIONS Our analyses in this chapter have suggested the following important conclusions; First, the proposition prevalent in the literature of industrial sociology and organizational behavior that - 71 -automation represents a moderate degree of task specialization may not be true. The data on two 'outside' measures of task specialization clearly indicate that task specialization is lowest at the stage of automation. Second, task specialization in jobs as exhibited by the production-line mechanization in departments is negatively related to overall organizational attachment for male workers, for workers in the middle age group (30-44), for workers who have been in the company for less than five years and for workers who have held less than three jobs in the present employing company. Third, task repetition in jobs is negatively related to workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the employing organization. Fourth, task simplification in jobs is negatively related to workers' desire to remain in the employing organization. Fifth, task repetition in jobs i s negatively related to workers' overall organizational attachment. Sixth, task simplification in jobs is negatively related to workers' overall organizational attachment. - 72 -FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER III 1. Since each sub-index was based on four questions, every respondent, potentially, had a chance to score from 0 to 4 in each sub-index; zero by remaining undecided or disagreeing to a l l positively worded questions and by agreeing or remaining undecided to a l l negatively worded questions; four by agreeing with a l l positively worded questions and disagreeing with a l l negatively worded questions. Workers who scored 3 and 4 on any sub-index were considered high on that sub-index; those who scored 2 were termed moderate; and those who scored 0 and 1 were labelled low on that sub-index. 2. Task simplification was measured with the amount of time spent by a worker in learning his present job. Workers who spent less than three months were considered as having a high degree of task simplification in their jobs. Workers who spent more than three months were considered low on task simplification. The following question was used to obtain information on task simplification in workers' j obs. How long does a person have to spend in training or experience to be able to handle a job lik e yours? Less than a month 1-3 months 3 months to 2 years Over 2 years MARGINAL DISTRIBUTION ON TASK SIMPLIFICATION Task Simplification Frequency Percentage High 218 58% Low 157 42% Non-Response 2 1% Total 377 101% - 73 -3. The following question was used to measure the degree of task repetition in workers' jobs: In your jobs, Do you do many different things? Do you do the same thing over and over? MARGINAL DISTRIBUTION ON TASK REPETITION • ' • Task Repetition Frequency Percentage High 115 • •-• • 31% Low 258 68% Non-Response 4 ' 1% Total 377 100% Different writers use different terms for the phenomenon of "interaction". For example, some c a l l i t Specification, while others c a l l i t Interpretation or Conditional Relationship. But a l l of them agree that i t refers to the condition where the original relationship is more pronounced in some partial tables than others when the total sample is divided by any third variable. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION It was argued i n the f i r s t chapter that although task speciali-zation i n jobs has increased efficiency and productivity, i t has also given rise to a number of human as well as technical problems i n indust-r i a l organizations. Since the research reported in this thesis is an attempt to carry forward our understanding of the human problems associated with increased task specialization, in the present chapter we would like to discuss the major findings of our research i n the light of the available empirical researches on task specializations task repetition, and task simplification. The following are- the major findings suggested by the 'Organizational Attachment Survey': 1. There is a negative relationship between task specialization and the overall organizational attachment among industrial blue-collar workers. 2. There i s a negative relationship between task repetition and workers' willingness to exert effort for the success of the organization. 3. There i s a negative relationship between task simplification and workers' desire to remain in the present employing organization. We feel, however, that no direct comparison is possible between the findings of this research and those of the available empirical researches in the area for two reasons. F i r s t , the uniqueness of the sample of workers we selected for the 'Organizational Attachment Survey'. Most of the researchers in the area of task specialization included in their samples not only production workers but also maintenance personnel, utilitymen, and delivery workers. Our sample consisted only of production - 74 ~ - 75 workers on the ground that a true representation of different degrees of task specialization is found only among production workers. Second, the phenomenon of organizational attachment, to our knowledge has never been examined, prior to this study, among industrial blue-collar workers 1. Therefore, nothing is available in the literature with which we could directly compare the findings of the 'Organizational Attachment Survey'. However, we feel that the researches focusing on workers' attitudes towards their jobs and the employing company are somewhat similar to organizational attachment and, therefore, might be useful for comparison purposes. Social scientists and especially industrial social scientists have assumed that the degree of task specialization in jobs affects the attitudes and behavior of industrial workers, and as a result quite a few empirical researches have been conducted in this direction. But, unfortunately, the results of these researches are, as Warren argues (1958, pp.435-439), "... not as clear as we need them to be". A bird's eye view of the literature in industrial sociology and organizational behavior suggests that there is an on-going debate among scholars about whether or not increased task specialization in jobs adversely affects the attitudes and behavior of industrial workers. Scholars who believe that task specialization i s not undesirable put forward the argument that workers' attitudes are not merely a function of the job, rather i t is a function of both man and machine; a function of the man-job inter-action (MacKinney, et a l . , 1962, pp.8-17). They also argue that i f industry were to start reducing task specialization, i t would end by finding i t s e l f back where the Industrial Revolution began. A l l auto-- 76 -mobiles would be individually hand-crafted and mass production would cease to exist. Thus for these scholars task specialization is neither an important factor in influencing workers' attitudes and behavior nor something to be avoided. Scholars who believe that task specialization is undesirable advance the argument that though the majority of industrial workers are 2 satisfied with their wages, general working conditions and supervision , yet for a substantial percentage of workers work does not appear to be a "meaningful activity" (Chinoy, 1956; Blauner, 1964; Shepard, 1969, 1971, 1972). They argue that the widespread feelings of alienation among industrial workers is primarily due to a high degree of task speciali-zation in jobs. Thus, for these scholars task specialization per se is the main cause of workers' negative attitudes towards work and enterprise. The empirical studies available in the area of task speciali-zation and workers' attitudes and behavior overwhelmingly support the 3 point of view of the writers in the latter category . As early as 1930, Fairchild observed a significant as .-.ociation between -ask simplification and work satisfaction. The work of Charles Walker and his associates (Walker, 1950; Walker and Guest, 1952; Guest, 1954; Guest, 1957) at the Yale University under the 'Technology Project' has clearly shown the adverse effects of task specialization on workers' attitudes and behavior in different organizational settings. Turner's (1935) research indicated that task repetition was one of the most important sources of workers' dissatisfaction with work and company.- Both Blauner's (1964) and Chinoy's researches suggested that workers high on task specialization tended to be less satisfied with their work and company. Turner and Lawrence (1965) - 77 -found a significant association between 'task complexity' and absence behavior. Alderfer (1969), after reviewing several empirical researches on job enlargement concludes that "... overall job satisfaction tends to be higher in enlarged jobs, and that the meaningfulness of the job tends to be higher in the enlarged job than in the more routine kind of blue-collar job". More recently, Shepard (1971) observed that workers high on 'functional specialization' were also high on the various dimensions of alienation —powerlessness', normlessness, meaninglessness, self-evaluative involvement, and instrumental work orientation. We, thus, feel that the results of the 'Organizational Attach-ment Survey' are the logical extension of the findings of the researchers who believe that task specialization affects workers' attitudes and behavior. Whereas the available empirical researches i n the area clearly suggest that workers' overall satisfaction with work and company is influenced largely by the degree of task specialization i n jobs, the 'Organizational Attachment Survey' suggests that workers' overall attachment to their employing organizations is also influenced by the extent of specialization i n jobs. DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The research reported in this thesis has suggested the importance of task specialization in affecting workers' attachment to their employing organizations. We feel empirical research of this kind is helpful i n understanding the relationship between the worker and his employing organization, and thus the industrial relations of the plant. - 78 -But before anything definite can be said about the role of this kind of research in understanding industrial relations, i t is necessary to have extensive empirical researches in this direction not only among indust-r i a l workers in different socio-cultural settings but also among workers in a variety of occupational settings. Another possible direction for further research in this area might be to examine whether or not the organizational attachment has any relationship with job performance. Empirical research in the area of job attitudes and job performance (Brayfield and Crockett, 1955, pp.268-282; Miles, 1970, pp.405-407) has, so' far, failed to show a clear relationship between work satisfaction and work performance. We feel that workers who support the goals and policies of their employing organizations, are willing to exert effort for the success of their organizations and are highly desirous to remain in their present employing organizations are also likely to be highly productive workers. - 79 FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER IV 1. However, there are some researches conducted on organizational attachment among supervisory personnel. See Porter and Smith. 1971. "The Etiology of Organizational Commitment: A Longitudinal Study of I n i t i a l Stages of Employee-Organization Relationships". Department of Business Administration, University of California, Irvine. 0. Grusky. 1966. "Career Mobility and Organizational Commitment". Administrative Science Quarterly. 10: 488-503. 2. For example, Blauner (1960) reports that more than two-thirds of the industrial workers in many industrially developed countries are satisfied. See R. Blauner. "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society". In W. Ga'lenson and S. Lipset. Editors. 1960. Labor and Trade Unionism. New York: Wiley, pp.339-366. 3. There are, however, few studies which concluded contrarily, for example, Kennedy and O'Neill (1958), Kilbridge (1961), and Goldthorpe (1966, 1968). - 80 -REFERENCES 1. Alderfar, C. 1969. "Job Enlargement and the Organizational Context". Personnel Psychology. 22: 418-426. 2. Anderson, T. and M. Zelditch. 1968. A Basic Course i n Statistics with Sociological Application. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 3. Blalock, H.M. 1965. "Theory Building and the Concept of Interaction". American Sociological Review. 30: 374-380. 4. Blauner, R. 1960. "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends in Modern Society". In Labor and Trade Unionism. Edited by W. Galenson and S. Lipset. New York: Willey, pp.339-360. 5. Blauner, R. 1964. Alienation and Freedom. The Factory Worker and his Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 6. Bloombaum, M. 1968. "Tribes and Traits: A Smallest Space Analysis of Cross-Cultural Data". American Anthropologist. 70: 328-330. 7. Bloombaum, M. 1970. "Doing Smallest Space Analysis". Conflict Resolution. 14: 409-416. 8. Brayfield, A.H. and W.H. Crockett. 1955. "Employee Attitudes and Employee Performance". Psychological Bullet.n. H I : 396-424. 9. Chinoy, E. 1955. Automobile Workers and the American Dream. New York: Doubleday, Inc. 10. Contacts Influential: Commerce and Industry Directory for Greater Vancouver, 1970. Vancouver: Harris Anderson Publisher. 11. Davis, J. 1971. Elementary Survey Analysis. Nev Jersey: Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, Inc. 12. Davis, L. and R. Canter. 1955. "Job Design". Journal of Industrial Engineering. 5: 3-6. 13. Dubin, R. 1958. The World of Work. New Jersey: Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, Inc. - 81 -14. Fairchild, M. 1930. "The Significance of S k i l l " . Personnel Journal. 9: 128-175. 15. Faunce, W. 1965. "Automation and Division of Labor". Social Problems. 13s 149-159. 16j- Fullan, M; 1970* "Industrial Technology and Worker Integration i n the Organization". American Sociological Review. 35: 1028-1039. 17* Galtung, J. 1969. Theory and Methods of Social Research. New York; Columbia University Press. 18. Goldthorpe, J. 1966. "Automation and Behavior of Car Assembly Workers: A Deviant Case and a Theoretical Critique". British  Journal of Sociology. 17: 227-244. 19. Goldthorpe, J.H. et a l . 1963. The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and Behavior. Cambridge: University Printing Press. 20. Grusky, 0. 1966. "Career Mobility and Organizational Commitment". Administrative Science Quarterly. 10: 488-503. 21. Guest, R. 1954. "Work, Careers and Aspirations of Automobile Workers". American Sociological Review. 19: 155-163. 22. Guest, R. 1957. "Job Enlargement — A Revolution in Job Design". Personnel Administration. 20: 9-16. i 23. Guttman, L. 1968. "A General Nonmetric Technique for Finding the Smallest Coordinate Space for a Configuration of Points". Psychometrika. 33: 469-506. 24. Hedley, A. 1971. "A Study of British Factory Workers". Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. 25. Kemp, P.E. 1967- '/Commitment and Job Satisfaction"'. Journal of Cooperative Extension. 5: 171-177. 26. Kennedy, J. and H. O'Neill. 1958. "Job Content and Workers' Opinions". Journal of Applied Psychology. 42: 372-375. -82 -27. Kerr, C. and A. Siegel. 1954. "The Inter-industry Propensity to Strike —- An International Comparison". In A. Kornhauser et a l . Editors. Industrial Conflict. Hew York." McGraw H i l l . 28. Kilbridge, M. 1961. "Turnover, Absence, and Transfer Rates as Indicators of Employee Dissatisfaction with Repetitive Work". Industrial and Labour Relations Review. 15s 21-32. 29. Laumann, E. and L. Guttman. 1966. "The Relative Associational Contiguity of Occupations in an Urban Setting". American  Sociological Review. 31s 16S-I78. 30. Lee, J. 1968. "Organizational Loyalty: A Second Looki:. Personnel Journal. 47: 464-466. 31. MacKinney, A. et a l . 1962. 'lias Specialization Reduced Job Satisfaction?". Personnel. 39: 3-17. 32. Meissner, M. 1969. Technology and the Worker. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company. 33. Miles, R. 1970. ''Introduction to a Complementary Collection: Work Performance and Satisfaction". Industrial Relations. 9: 405-407. ' 34. Nie, N. et a l . 1970. St a t i s t i c a l Package for the Social Sciences. Naw York: McGraw-Hill. 35. Patchen, M. 1970. Participation, Achievement and Involvement on the Job. New Jersey: Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, Inc. 36. Porter, L. and F. Smith. 1971. "Etiology of Organizational Commit-ment". A Research Study under Preparation. University of California, Irvine. 37. Rosenberg, M. 196C. The Logic of the Survey Analysis. New York. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. 38. Sayles, L. 1966. human Behavior i n Organization. New Jersey: Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, Inc. I 83 39. Shepard, J. 1969. "Functional Specialization and Work Attitudes 1'. Industrial Relations. 3: 185-194. 40. Shepard, J. 1970. "Functional Specialization, Alienation and Job Satisfaction". Industrial and Labour Relations Review. 23: 207-219. 41. Shepard, J. 1971. Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and Factory Workers. Cambridge, Mass.r The HIT Press. 42. Shepard, J. Editor. 1972. Organizational Issues in Industrial Society. New Jersey: Englewood C l i f f s , Prentice-Hall, Inc. 43. Smith, Adam. 1937. The Wealth of Nations. New York: I-IcGraw H i l l . 44. Somers, R. 1962. "A New Asymmetric Measure of Association for Ordinal Variables". American Sociological Review. 27: 799-811. 45. Sonquist, J. 1970. Multivariate Model Buildings. Michigan: Ann Arbor, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 46. Strauss, J. and L. Sayles. 1967. Personnel: The Human Problems of Management. 2nd edition. New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc. 47. Taveggia, T. 1971. "The Necessity of Work: An Empirical Study of British Factory Workers". Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon. 48. Taylor, W.F. 1919. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Brothers. 49. Turner, A. 1955. "Management and the Assembly-Line1'. Harvard Business Review. 33: 40-48. 50. Turner, A. and P. Lawrence. 1965. Industrial Jobs and the Worker. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. 51. Walker, C. 1350. "The Problem of the-Repetitive Job". Harvard Business Review. 28: 54-59. 52. Walker, C. and R. Guest. 1952. The-Man on the Assembly-Line. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. - 84 -53. Walker, J. and R. Harriott. 1951. "A Study of Some Attitudes to Factory Work". Occupational Psychology. 25: 181-191. 54. Warren, N. 1958. "Job Simplification Vs. Job Enlargement". Journal of Industrial Engineering. 9: 435-439. 55. Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organizations: Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press. 56. Wyatt, S. and R. Harriott. 1956. A Study of Attitudes to Factory Work. London: H.n.S.O. APPENDIX A Companies Contacted for Survey - 86 -1 Nature of Product Response to OAS R.easons for not Including i n Survey 1. Textile Rejected Concern over Organiza-tional Attachment 2. Printing uejected Union Refusal 3. Oil Refining Rejected Union Refusal 4. Meat Packing Accepted - Surveyed -5. Engineering Accepted - Not Surveyed Plant was in Edmonton 6 . Refining and Packing Accepted - Surveyed -7. Truck Manufacturing Rejected Management Refusal 8 . Telephone Transmission Accepted - Surveyed -9 . O i l Refining Rejected Union Refusal 10. Power Generation and Distribution Accepted - Surveyed -11. Gas Distribution Accepted - Not Surveyed Time and Motion Research was in Progress 12. Milk Products Accepted - Surveyed -13. Paper Products Accepted - Not Surveyed Over-Representation of Machine-Line Jobs 14. Truck Manufacturing Accepted - Not Surveyed Over-Representation of Machine-Line Jobs 15. Chemical Products Rejected Plant Extension was in Progress -•87 -APPENDIX £ Organizational Attachment Questionnaire T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A V A N C O U V E R 8. C A N A D A DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY' I a m a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f w o r t - people do a r c how ' b e y f e e l a b o u t t h e i r w o r k . I a i r a s k i n g y o u t o help m e i n tnv r e s e a r c h . T h e i n f o r m a t i o n y o u p r o v i d e w i l l be i m p o r t a n t i n e x t e n d i n g rr.y u r d e r s t a r . d i n g o f t h e l i n k a g e s b e t w e e n p e o p l e a n d t h e i r work. T h e a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s h o u l d t a k e o n l y a few m i n u t e s o f y o u r t i m e . M o s t o f t h e q u e s t i o n s c a n be ansvered by a s i m p l e c h e c k m a r k . P l e a s e i g n o r e a n y n u m b e r s y o u s e e o n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e — I w i l l u s e t h e m s i m p l y t o t a b u l a t e a n s w e r s . Y o u r i n d i v i d u a l a n s w e r s w i l l b e h e l d i n s t r i c t c o n f i d e n c e . T h i s i s a s c i e n t i f i c s t u d y w h i c h I a m d o i n g a s p a r t of m y g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g . N o s i n g l e p e r s o n c a n b e i d e n t i f i e d o n t h e b a s i s o f h i s a n s w e r s s i n c e n o o n e i s r e q u i r e d t o p u t h i s n a m e o n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . F u r t h e r m o r e , a n s w e r s w i l l a l w a y s b e s t u d i e d a n d r e p o r t e d a s g r o u p s t a t i s t i c s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e e n t i r e g r o u p o f p e o p l e who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r y r e s e a r c h . T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r i n t e r e s t i n s u p p o r t i n g m y r e s e a r c h . Yours s i n c e r e l y , Muhammad Jamal SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU WORKING HISTORY The following questions are about your working history. Please anaver these questions to the best of your a b i l i t y by checking the appropriate boxes and f i l l i n g in the info motion about your present job. How long have you worked for this company? Leas than 6 months 2 j 1 6 months to 2 years 3 j " ' , 2 years to 5 years 4 • i 5 years to 10 years 5 f j Over 10 years How long does & person have to spend i n training or experience to be able to handle a job l i k e yours? 1 r ~ ~ i Less than 1 month 2 <~~3 1 - 3 raonths 3 L Z J 3 months to 2 years *[ ~ Over 2 Years 20 si What department or section do you work in? M What shift do you work? ! d i Morning 2 f j Afternoon ^ CZZ2 Night u fc'hat i s your present job title? i 1 L J " How many different jobs have you held altogether In this company? j Jobs 26 2 7 How many full-time jobs have you held for 6 months or more since you finished school? I I ! j Jobs 2829 How many different compf.ni.es have you w o r k e d for full-time, for 6 months ox Kt>r»» s i n c e you finished s c h o o l ? j Companies PLEASE TURN TO NEXT P'AGE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU As a starting point, I'd like to find out a l i t t l e about you. Other research has shown that a person's age, sex, etc. influence the way he thinks about work. I want to see i f this Is true. Could you please answer the following questions as accurately as possible. Remember, your answers are  confidential and w i l l only be reported in group st a t i s t i c s . «• What is your status in Canada? , j j Citizen , I ) Landed Immigrant a | j Other How old were you on your last birthday? Years old Are you: j |^ Male f j Female How many years of regular school have you completed? j Years Are you: Single »:| \ Married .» 1 Separated ,H I Widowed 'tZZl Divorced Do you have any children living at home? r*n No Yes- tHow many? Children If married, does your spouse also work? • c n NO 2 f l Yes About bow much does your spouse earn a month before taxes? j rSpouse doesn't work 2 | T Under $300 5 C H I $300 - $450 . X—1 $600 - $750 • CZ3 $ 7 5 0 o r m o r e On the average, approximately how much do you earn a month before taxes? tl j Under $300 A 1 $300 - $450 3] \ $450 - $600 4;i I $600 - $750 s f n $750 or more Do you have, sources of income other than your (and your spouses salaries?) No | — ~ j Yes PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR WORKING HISTORY The following questions are about your working history. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability by checking the appropriate boxes and f i l l i n g in the information about, your present job. How long have you worked for this »« How long does a person have to spend company? .if 'j Less than 6 months t;f*~1 6 months to 2 years »| | 2 years to 5 years 4 f" j 5 years to 10 years 5 j 1 Over 10 years in training or experience to be able to handle a job like yours? 1 f" I Lass than 1 month J 1 " ^ months s CZ3 '^ ra°nths to 2 years *'CTT3 t"'ver 2 years What department or section do you work in? How many different jobs have you held altogether in this company? Jobs What shift do you work? i j jMorning 2i;|—"j Afternoon 4 r ~ l Swing Shifts What is your present job title? s« n How many full-time jobs have you held for 6 months or more since you finished school? Jobs is? How many different companies have you worked for full-time, for 6 months or more, since you finished school? Companies PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR JOB Here are some questions about your job. I have reason to believe that certain things about a person's job influence how he feels about work. Please^ describe your job by checking the appropriate answers to the following questions. » Can you talk to the people around 3« In your job are there, . you when you are working? . , iZZl Slack periods when you can do ,]')• No what ycu want? 3 i 1 Yes 21 1 No breaks except for lunch and Il I tan .•, nn I coffee breaks? J<: • Can you think about things other than your job when you are working, • CZ3 Never? »2Sr~~1 Hardly ever? 3inm Some of the time? 4j[""*"$ Most of the time? 3s In your j ob , lf*~~] Do you do many different things? 2 [ \ Do you do the same thing over and over? 3 6 Can you move around the factory while » Does your job require you to work doing your job? at a certain speed? ,i 1 No . ; m NO j\ I Yes. 4 1 Yes ».. • In working at. your job, ^an Y o u s t o P working when \ you need to? f"""] Must you wait to be re-lieved before you can stop working? •ii Does your job require that you watch your machine or whatever you are doing, « CHI A i l the time? 3 Cm M o s t o f t h e time? * r ~ l Now and then? PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT WORK Listed below and on the next page are a fin a l series of statements about feelings people might have about work. Please indicate whether you agree, disagree or are undecided about each of these statements with a check mark. » In my free time, I most like to talk about work. .AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE I believe that work is more important than anything else. «: Work is my major' interest. • 3 C I prefer work over everything else I do. row? • The things this company makes are important to Canada. I am willing to work extra hard at my job in order to help this company be successful. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this company. •« I find my goals and this company's : are verv similar. There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this company indefinitely.' | 1 This company really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE Often, I find i t d i f f i c u l t to agree with company policies on important matters relating to employees. AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE I would keep working for this company even i f I were offered more money to work somewhere else. I don't mind putting In extra time i f the company needs me to. It bothers me very much to be absent from work. r - j I could just as well be working for a different company as long as the type of work were similar. I really care about the fate of this company. 5 *;! Overall, how do you feel about working for this company? 'tZH V e r y Satisfied CI3 Satisfied Indifferent AEZ3 Dissatisfied SCZ] V e r Y Msatisf ied s».': Overall, how do you feel about your job? ,[^3 Very Satisfied 2r~~1 Satisfied 3 CID. Indifferent * C m Dissatisfied 5;Cm V e r Y Dissatisfied THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION - 94 -APPENDIX C Tables of Multivariate Analysis - 95 -TABLE 0.1: ONLY AGE, LENGTH OF SERVICE AND COMPANY APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT. Test Variables Organizational Attachment Low Moderate High Total Age 45-64 years 30-44 years Under 30 years Sex Male Female Education Over 10 years Up to 10 years Income per Month Over $600 Under $600 Length of Service Over 5 years Under 5 years Marital Status Single Married Others 121 148 98 256 117 204 164 184 190 214 163 62 266 49 18% 26 43 26 32 31 24 23 31 19 39 34 26 27 53% 47 44 49 45 46 51 52 44 54 40 44 50 43 29% 28 13 25 23 24 26 25 25 27 22 23 24 31 100% 101 100 100 100 101 101 100 100 100 101 101 100 101 /Contd. - 96 -TABLE C l (Contd.) Organizational Attachment Test Variables N [ Low Moderate High Total Shift-time Morning 216 Afternoon/Evening 39 Swing Shift 113 No. of Jobs held  in the Company 3 and more Jobs 169 Up to 2 Jobs 204 Company A 63 B 39 C 34 D 135 E 27 F 76 29% 26 25 24 30 35 10 27 28 26 33 49% 39 49 55 42 43 49 51 49 26 54 22% 36 27 21 28 22 41 21 23 48 13 100% 101 101 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 - 97 -TABLE C.2: AGE, SES, EDUCATION, INCOME, SHIFT-TIME AMD COMPANY ARE RELATED TO PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION. Test Variables Production-Line Mechanization » ^• j - Machine- _ . -Automation iiandwortc _ . Total Lxne 45-64 years 118 31% 30-44 years 146 13 Under 30 years 97 5 Sex Male 250 26 Female 115 0 Education Over 10 years 202 20 Up to 10 years 158 16 Income per Month Over $600 179 27 Under $600 187 9 Length of Service Over 5 years 208 24 Under 5 years 161 11 Marital Status Single 62 10 narried 261 21 Others 46 13 16% 54 57 34 58 53 29 4'4 35 52 '•39 43 44 53% 32 •3.3 40 42 28 55 34 47 42 33 52 37 44 100% 99 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 101 101 101 101 101 /Contd. - 98 -TABLE C.2 (Contd.) , Production-Line Mechanization Test Variables N » . . • ,, , Machine- „ ^ , Automation Handwork ,. Total Line Shift-time Morning 214 Afternoon/Evening 39 Swing Shift 110 No. of Jobs held  in the Company 3 and more Jobs 167 Up to 2 Jobs 198 Company A 63 B 39 C 34 D 133 E 27 F 75 2% 21 49 19 17 0 95 9 1 100 0 53% 15 28 37 47 2 0 19 99 0 21 45% 64 23 44 36 98 5 72 0 0 79 100% 101 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 r TA3LE C.3: THERE IS A MODERATE NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT ONLY FOR WORKERS IN THE MIDDLE AGE GROUP (30-44). Organizational Attachment AGE 18- 29 3 0-44 45- 64 Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Auto-mat ion Hand-work Machine-Line Total Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total High 40% 11% 11% 12% 70% 27% 13% 29% 32% 21% 30% 29% Moderate 40 45 43 44 10 54 52 47 54 68 46 52 Low 20 44 46 43 20 19 35 24. 14 11 25 19 Total (No. of Cases) 100% (5) 101% (55) 100% (37) 99% (97) 100% (20) 100% (74) 100% (46) 100%. (144) 100% (37) 100% (19) 101% (61) 100% (117) dyx pd = -0.09 = -29 dyx pd = -0.30 = -57 dyx = -pd = -0.08 2 TABLE C4: THERE IS A WEAK NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT ONLY FOR MALE WORKERS. SEX Organizational iiale Female Attachment Production-Line I iechanization Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total High 44% 17% 19% 25% 0% 27% 20% 24% Moderate 39 59 47 49 0 44 .48 46 Low 17 25 34 26 0 29 33 30 Total 100% 101% 100% 100% 0% 100% 101% 100% (No. of Cases) (66) (85) (99) (250) (0) (66) (46) (112) - dyx = -0.20 dyx = -0.08 pd = -25 pd = -•07 TABLE C.5; PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION IS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT FOR SINGLE WORKERS , liARRIED WORKERS AND FOR WORKERS WHO WERE SEPARATED, WIDOWED OR DIVORCED. MARITAL STATUS Organizational Attachment Sin gle Married Other Product ion-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechani za t i on Production-Line Mechanization Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total Auto-mation Hand-work L-iachine-Line Total High 33% 25% 19% 23% 43% 19% 18% 24% 67% 25% 26% 31% Moderate 5u 38 41 40 39 56 51 51 33 50 42 44 Low 17 38 41 37 19 25 32 26 o 25 32 24 Total 100% 101% 101% 100% 101% 100% 101% 101% 100% 100% 100% 99% l(No. of Cases) i (7) (24) (32) (62) (54) (110) (95) (259) (6) (20) (19) (45) dyx = -0.11 dyx = -0.16 dyx = -0.22 pd = -14 pd = -25 pd = -41 TABLE C.6: PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION IS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT FOR WORKERS WHO HAD 10 YEARS OF EDUCATION AND FOR WORKERS WHO HAD OVER 10 YEARS OF EDUCATION. EDUCATION Organizational Up to 10 Grade Over 10 Grade Attachment Production-Line i iechanization Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total High ->2/b 22% 21% 26% 40% 19% 18% 23% Moderate 36 59 51 51 40 51 41 46 Low 12 20 23 23 20 . 30 41 31 Total 100% 101% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (25) (46) (85) (156) (40) (105) (56) (201) dyx = -0.20 dyx = -0.18 pd = -31 pd = -22 TABLE C.7: PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION IS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT FOR WORKERS WHO WERE EARNING LESS THAN $600 A MONTH AND FOR WORKERS WHO WERE EARNING OVER $600 A MONTH. INCOME PER MONTH Organi zational Under $600 Over $600 Attachment Production-Line Mechanization Produc tion-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total .'automation Handwork Machine-Line Total High 53% 27% 19% 26% 41% 14% 20% 24% Moderate J j 44 46 44 41 • 63 50 53. Lew 12 29 35 30 18 14 30 24 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (17) (82) (85) (184) (49) (70) (60) (179) dyx = -0 .18 dyx = -0.15 pd = -34 pd = -21 TABLE C.3: THERE IS A NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT ONLY FOR WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN THE COMPANY FOR LESS THAN FIVE YEARS. • LENGTH Or SERVICE Organizational Up to 5 Years Over 5 Years Attachment Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total High 65% 18% 13% 21% 37% 24% 24% 27% Moderate 24 45 • 39 41 45 61 53 54 Low 12 37- 48 38 18 •.  15 24 19 Total 101% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 101% 100% (No. of Cases) (17) (82) (61) (160) (49) (72) (85) (206) dyx = -0.26 dyx = -0.09 pd = -52 Pd = -13 TABLE C.9: THERE IS A NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT ONLY FOR WORKERS WHO HELD LESS THAN THREE JOBS IN THE PRESENT COMPANY. NO. OF JOBS HELD IN THE COMPANY Org an i za t i ona1 Less than 3 Jobs 3 and more Jobs Attachment Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total Automation Handwork Machine-Line Total High 59% 23% 20% 28% 28% 18% 20% 21% Moderate 29 51 ' 33 43 50 ; . 55 56 55 Low 12 26 42 29 ' 22 27 24 25 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% " 100% 100% 101% (No. of Cases) • (34) (92) (71) (197) (32) • (62) (71) (165) dyx = • -0.27 dyx = -0.03 pd -• 739 pd- = -8 TABLE C.10: PRODUCTION-LINE MECHANIZATION IS RELATED TO ORGANIZATIONAL ATTACHMENT FOR WORKERS WORKING IN MORNING, AFTERNOON AND NIGHT SHIFTS AND FOR WORKERS WHO SWING SHIFTS. SHIFT--TIME Organizational Morning Afternoon/Night Swing Attachment Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Production-Line Mechanization Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total Auto-mation Hand- Machine-work Line Total Auto-mation Hand-work Machine-Line Total High 75% 23% 17% 21% 75% 17% 28% 36% 37% 16% 20% 27% Moderate 25 52 49 50 25 33 44 39 43 58 48 48 Low 0 25 34 28 0 50 28 26 20 26 32 25 Total 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 101% 100% 100% 100% 100% (No. of Cases) (4) (113) (94) (211) (8) (6) (25) (39) (54) (31) (25) (110) dyx = -0.15 dyx = -0.27 dyx = -0.17 pd = -58 pd = -47 pd = -17 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101700/manifest

Comment

Related Items