UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Loyalty in a formal organization Corenblum, Allan Fred 1964

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1964_A4_5 C6.pdf [ 5.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0102377.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102377+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102377.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102377+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102377+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102377+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0102377 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0102377.txt
Citation
1.0102377.ris

Full Text

LOYALTY IN A FORMAL ORGANIZATION by  B.  ALLAN FRED CORENBLUM Comm., U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a ,  1961  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION  in  the  Faculty of  Commerce and Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  We accept t h i s t h e s i s t o the r e q u i r e d  as  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 196 4  In presenting this thesis i n p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t available for reference and study.  freely  I further agree that per-  mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives.  It i s understood that.copying or publi-  cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission®  Department of Commerce and Business Administration The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada Date  ,TnnP,  iqfiU  ABSTRACT This i s  a study of the occurrence of l o y a l t y w i t h i n  a formal o r g a n i z a t i o n . analysis  I t does not purport to be an  of a l l forms of l o y a l t y but r a t h e r i t  seeks  to  r e v e a l a p a r t i c u l a r type of l o y a l t y w i t h i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organization.  P u t t i n g i t more s h a r p l y , t h i s  thesis i n -  v e s t i g a t e s the occurrence of subordinate l o y a l t y toward a superior. The o b j e c t of the study was t w o f o l d :  (1) t o  investi-  gate the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y w i t h i n a t h e o r e t i c a l scheme as proposed by Blau and S c o t t i n t h e i r r e c e n t book Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s and (2) t o attempt isolate  and i n v e s t i g a t e  may be r e l a t e d to f e l t  to  those c o n d i t i o n s and f a c t o r s which subordinate l o y a l t y toward a s u p e r i o r .  The method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n  took the form of d i s t r i b u t -  i n g a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e to the employees  of one of  the  d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n a p u b l i c l y owned e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y . replies  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were t a b u l a t e d and are presented  i n the body of the  thesis.  The g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s reached were as 1.  The  follows:  The Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y seems t o be  too  narrow. 2.  S u p e r i o r s who command the f e l t  l o y a l t y of t h e i r s u b o r d i -  nates are more l i k e l y than others  to e s t a b l i s h  effective  i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over them and thus to i n f l u e n c e  them.  3.  The more that a superior perceives himself as maintaining emotional detachment, the greater i s the f e l t loyalty of his subordinates.  4.  A supervisor who i s consistent i n his enforcement of the working rules and practises w i l l be more l i k e l y to gain the loyalty of his  subordinates.  The following hypotheses were not  statistically  supported. 1.  The more independent a supervisor i s from his superior, the more l i k e l y i t i s that he w i l l have l o y a l subordinates.  2.  Loyalty to superiors i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organization tends to be pronounced on alternate  levels.  iv  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  I would l i k e to extend my thanks to Professor V.V. Murray for h i s supervision and constructive c r i t i c i s m of the research as well as many other members of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration for t h e i r advice on various aspects.  A debt of gratitude i s also  acknowledged to Mr. A. fowler for his aid i n the s t a t i s t i c a l  analysis.  F i n a l l y , I extend my sincere thanks to the employees of my research population whose cooperation made this study p o s s i b l e .  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT  ii  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  iv  CHAPTER I.  II.  III.  INTRODUCTION  1  Statement of Problem  1  What i s Loyalty?  2  The Function of Loyalty  4  The Organization and Authority  4  Role of Authority  11  The Informal Organization  12  A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  14  What are Loyalties?  14  Loyalty to the Organization  15  Loyalty and the Superior  18  Loyalty and the Group  19  Dual Loyalty  22  Conclusion  24  THEORETICAL ORIENTATION:  CONCEPTS AND HYPOTHESES  .  .  .  25  Hypothesized Relationships Between Loyalty and Various Aspects of Organizational Behaviour 1.  Loyalty and authority  2.  Loyalty and emotional detachment  3.  Loyalty and independence  25 .  .  .  .  .  29 30  CHAPTER  IV.  PAGE 4.  Consistency and l o y a l t y  33  5.  Loyalty and s o c i a l support  35  6.  Loyalty of subordinates and l o y a l t y to the superior  37  DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION  39  The Sample Population  39  The Questionnaire and Data Gathering Methods  .  .  .  44  The Research Population  46  Representativeness of the Research Population .  .  .  47  The Major Variable .-. Loyalty V.  LOYALTY ON ALTERNATE LEVELS  48 .  .  56  Conclusion VI.  59  THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FELT LOYALTY AND PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOUR  63  Design and Plan of Analysis  63  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Groups  63  Loyalty and Emotional Detachment  64  Loyalty and Informal Authority  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  69  Interpretation of Response  73  Analysis of Results  74  . Loyalty and Consistency  77  Conclusion (Part I) Conditions F a c i l i t a t i n g the Development of Loyalty Plan of the Investigation  79 .  81 81  CHAPTER  VII.  PAGE Loyalty and Independence  82  Loyalty and S o c i a l Support  88  Loyalty and S t y l e of Supervision  92  Conclusion  95  (Part I I )  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION  97  A Comment on the Theoretical D e f i n i t i o n  106  Suggestions for Further Research  107  BIBLIOGRAPHY  110  LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.  PAGE Organization Chart of the Sample Organization Studied  2.  Organization Chart of the Sample D i v i s i o n Studied  3.  41  42  Relationship Between Loyalty to a Superior and His Perceived Emotional Detachment (Composite Definition)  4.  70  Relationship Between Loyalty to a Superior and His Perceived Use of the Techniques of Informal Authority (Composite Definition)  5.  76  Relationship Between Consistency of Supervisory Practises and Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Definition)  80  LIST OF TABLES TABLE I.  PAGE Intercorrelations Among Mean Scale Values on Scales Comprising the Index of Loyalty  II.  53  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of the Blau and Scott D e f i n i t i o n  III.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of S a t i s f a c t i o n With or L i k i n g for a Superior  IV.  .  .  .  .  58  .  .  .  .  58  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of Unquestioning F a i t h and Trust i n a Superior  V.  56  D i s t r i b u t i o n of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of Direct E x p l i c i t Expression of Loyalty  VI.  59  Superior's Emotional Detachment and Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott D e f i n i t i o n )  VII.  68  Superior's Informal Authority and Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Measure)  VIII.  74  Relationship Between Consistency of Supervisory Practises and the Loyalty of Subordinates  IX.  78  Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Measure) and Superior H i e r a r c h i c a l Independence  X.  84  Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Score) and Superior H i e r a r c h i c a l Independence  XI.  84  Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott D e f i n i t i o n ) to a Superior, H i e r a r c h i c a l Independence and Supervisory Practises Scores  87  1  TABLE XII.  PAGE Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Composite D e f i n i t i o n ) to Superior, H i e r a r c h i c a l Independence and Supervisory Practises Scores  XIII.  88  Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty to Superior's Source of S o c i a l Support (Blau and Scott Definition)  XIV.  Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty to Superior's Source of S o c i a l Support (Composite Definition)  XV.  90  .  .  91  Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott D e f i n i t i o n ) and Propensity of Supervisor to Emulate His Superior's Style of Supervision  XVI.  93  Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Score) and Propensity of Supervisor to Emulate His Superior's Style of Supervision  94  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There are many techniques  by which a s u p e r v i s o r may t r y  to gain compliance with h i s d i r e c t i v e s .  These methods seem  to run a l o n g a continuum, r a n g i n g from b e h a v i o u r a l devices d e s c r i b e d as persuasion to those d e s c r i b e d as Recently,  threats.  there have been suggestions put f o r t h t h a t  form of behaviour u t i l i z e d by a s u p e r i o r to gain with h i s d i r e c t i v e s subordinate  the  compliance  i s r e l a t e d to the presence of s u p e r i o r  loyalty.  the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s  T h i s study w i l l undertake to which seem to encourage  research  the f o r m u l a -  t i o n of l o y a l t y and i n v e s t i g a t e some hypotheses which to p r e d i c t the occurrence of  -  attempt  loyalty.  Statement of Problem Although t h i s study i s  concerned with l o y a l t y ,  not p u r p o r t to be an a n a l y s i s it  it  does  of a l l forms of l o y a l t y .  Rather,  seeks to r e v e a l a p a r t i c u l a r occurrence of l o y a l t y i n a  hierarchical organization.  P u t t i n g i t more s h a r p l y , the main  theme of t h i s t h e s i s w i l l be an i n v e s t i g a t i o n  of a h y p o t h e s i s  put forward by Blau and Scott i n t h e i r r e c e n t  book  Organizations:  "...loyalty  to superiors i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l  o r g a n i z a t i o n would be pronounced on a l t e r n a t e  San  Formal  levels."  1  In  ! p e t e r M. Blau and W. Richard S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Francisco: Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company^ 1962, p. 162.  2 addition,  there  are  concerning  the  hypotheses  which  out  in  occurrence  Chapter  What i s  further  supporting  of  form the  basis  to  term  I  design  are  common c o n v e r s a t i o n  the  as  and  "unquestioning  "homage",  and  know, t h e r e have  ology  or  psychology.  aforementioned used  in its  than  as  term  set  I have  scheme.  " l o y a l t y " appears most  superior-subordinate  term has and  that  an  of  essential  been  that  relates  possible  trust",  is  to  used  to  it a  express  "allegiance", date,  fields  so  precise  of  that  sense  in  the  it  is  within  sciences  i n reference  employee-union  relationships.  soci-  rather  meaning  social  far  defini-  by t h o s e  understand  the  to  specific  vernacular  frequently  relationships,  or  i n the  s p e c i a l and regard  used  However, to  term  come  employee-organization  in  measurement.  descriptive,  With  sig-  occurrence  therefore  any u n i q u e  When t h i s  fields,  the  of  levels  same t i m e makes  faith  been  a t e r m h a v i n g some  and  to  p u b l i s h e d by those  everyday,  theoretical  is  "liking".  not  establishment  i n some m a n n e r  for  this  ships  defined  operationalization  of  term  It  the  ideas  theory  tions  a  study  on d i f f e r e n t  respect  at  "fealty", as  with  supervisor.  " l o y a l t y " be  suitable  such  the  upon the  among w o r k e r s  hierarchy  their  systematic  In  of  The  III.  differences  organizational  to  forward  Loyalty?  nificant  the  put  loyalty in organizations.  The i n v e s t i g a t i o n h i n g e s  loyalty  hypotheses  the  to relation-  This  study  3  w i l l be concerned  s o l e l y with the occurrence of l o y a l t y as  a r i s i n g i n the s u p e r i o r - s u b o r d i n a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p .  It is  intended to i n v e s t i g a t e the occurrence o f a s u b o r d i n a t e ' s loyalty to h i s superior. There a r e examples of l o y a l t y t o be found i n v a r i o u s p u b l i c a t i o n s , but they a l l d i f f e r  i n some r e s p e c t from one  another, and there does not seem t o be any s t a n d a r d i z e d instrument t o measure the q u a l i t y or a t t i t u d e d e s c r i b e d as "loyalty".  The use of l o y a l t y i n t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s  vary depending upon the o r i e n t a t i o n of the w r i t e r . of  the l i t e r a t u r e u t i l i z i n g  will  A review  the concept o f l o y a l t y w i l l be  presented i n Chapter I I . For the purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s , " l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r v i s o r " w i l l be d e f i n e d i n the same way as by Blau and S c o t t .  "Using  as index o f a l l e g i a n c e whether or not workers chose t h e i r own s u p e r v i s o r when asked which of the agency s u p e r v i s o r s they would most l i k e fied  t o work under, groups and workers were  i n t o l o y a l and n o n l o y a l o n e s . "  2  For the present  classiinvesti-  g a t i o n , I w i l l accept t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r : i f a subordinate e x h i b i t s a p r e f e r e n c e t o remain under the i n f l u e n c e o f h i s present s u p e r i o r , such a subordinate w i l l be c a t e g o r i z e d as l o y a l t o h i s s u p e r i o r .  2  I b i d . , p . 10 5.  This o p e r a t i o n a l ! z e d d e f i n i t i o n of " l o y a l t y " t o a s u p e r v i s o r has formed the b a s i s f o r the s e r i e s of hypotheses put forward by Blau and S c o t t . so d e f i n e d ,  is  In these p r e d i c t i o n s ,  loyalty,  r e l a t e d to such aspects of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l be-  h a v i o u r as e f f e c t i v e  i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y , emotional  of s u p e r i o r s , independence visory practises  detachment  of s u p e r i o r s , s t a b i l i t y  of  super-  and a p p r o v a l of the s u p e r i o r by s u b o r d i n a t e s .  For the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,  I w i l l accept  this  con-  c e p t u a l d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y to a s u p e r v i s o r , as proposed by Blau and S c o t t , tion,  (although i n d e v e l o p i n g an o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i -  as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter I V , t h i s  c l a r i t y of  definition  could not e n t i r e l y be m a i n t a i n e d ) . The F u n c t i o n of L o y a l t y Before f u r t h e r d e v e l o p i n g the main theme of t h i s -  the determinants of l o y a l t y - i t might be worthwhile  further j u s t i f y and e f f e c t s  the p r o j e c t by i n d i c a t i n g b r i e f l y the  of l o y a l t y i n l a r g e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  thesis to function  organizations.  T h i s w i l l be done by d e s c r i b i n g some aspects of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context w i t h i n which the phenomenon of l o y a l t y followed by an i n d i c a t i o n of how l o y a l t y i n f l u e n c e s  develops  such a  setting. The O r g a n i z a t i o n and A u t h o r i t y In a f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n much of the conduct of the members on the job i s u s u a l l y determined by the o r g a n i z a t i o n or o f f i c i a l  5 blueprint. the  time  rational this and  However, i t  and  official  the  society  in  the  This  the  which  men t e n d  to  and t h i s to  Concerning Merton  has  of  of  use  the  their  designing procedure  organization's  of  of  the  worker's  of his the  is  the  role  voluntary  is  of d i s c i p l i n e  administrative  to  I b i d . , p.5.  actions  in  (At the is  indus-  to  same  a condition  even h u r t f u l  its  3  power  to  human  superiors  limits.)  organizations  Robert K.  that:,.,  . . . t h e r e i s integrated a series of offices of h i e r a r c h i z e d s t a t u s e s , i n w h i c h i n h e r e a number o f o b l i g a t i o n s and p r i v i l e g e s c l o s e l y d e f i n e d by l i m i t e d and s p e c i f i c r u l e s . Each of these o f f i c e s c o n t a i n s an a r e a o f i m p u t e d competence and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A u t h o r i t y , the power o f c o n t r o l w h i c h d e r i v e s from an acknowledged s t a t u s , i n h e r e s i n the o f f i c e and n o t i n the p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n who p e r f o r m s t h e official role. O f f i c i a l action o r d i n a r i l y occurs within the framework o f p r e e x i s t i n g r o l e s o f the o r ganization. The s y s t e m o f p r e s c r i b e d r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i o u s o f f i c e s i n v o l v e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree o f f o r m a l i t y and c l e a r l y d e f i n e d  3  manuals,  submission  e s p e c i a l l y so where  authority  a  obviously crucial  work p r o c e s s .  of  members.  legitimacy of  irksome, perhaps  course  large  written  the  acceptance find  to  regardless  completely determine  acceptance  of  that  elaborate  industrial, enterprises  however,  inclined  and  expectation  o r d e r l y arrangement  dignity,  observed  by management  can never relations  time,  are  devoted  characteristics  is  authority.  relations the  plan  interpersonal  trial  been  organizational chart  One o f  to  effort  has  6 s o c i a l d i s t a n c e between the occupants of these positions. F o r m a l i t y i s manifested by means of a more or l e s s complicated s o c i a l r i t u a l which symbolizes and supports the ' p e c k i n g o r d e r ' of the v a r i o u s o f f i c e s . Such f o r m a l i t y , which i s i n t e g r a t e d with d i s t r i b u t i o n of a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n the system, serves to minimize f r i c t i o n by l a r g e l y r e s t r i c t i n g ( o f f i c i a l ) contact to modes which are p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d by the r u l e s of the o r g a n i z a tion. Ready c a l c u l a b i l i t y of o t h e r s ' behaviour and a s t a b l e s e t of mutual e x p e c t a t i o n s i s thus b u i l t up. Moreover, f o r m a l i t y f a c i l i t a t e s the i n t e r a c t i o n of the occupants of o f f i c e s d e s p i t e t h e i r ( p o s s i b l y h o s t i l e ) p r i v a t e a t t i t u d e s toward one another. In t h i s way, the subordinate i s p r o t e c t e d from the a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n of h i s s u p e r i o r , s i n c e the a c t i o n s of both are c o n s t r a i n e d by a m u t u a l l y r e c o g n i z e d set of r u l e s . Specific p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e s f o s t e r o b j e c t i v i t y and r e s t r a i n the quick passage of impulses i n t o a c t i o n s . 4  This long q u o t a t i o n a b l y d e s c r i b e s  many of the s t r u c t u r a l  f e a t u r e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n t h i s paper i s Before t a k i n g t h i s p o i n t f u r t h e r ,  to  consider.  I should l i k e to  develop  a theme which i s more c e n t r a l to my main argument. The e x e r c i s e of a u t h o r i t y i n i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g s c o n cerns the r e l a t i o n s in their roles  and  subordinates  as "the o r d e r e r and the ordered".  ious other r o l e s situation  between s u p e r v i s o r s  The v a r -  played by i n d i v i d u a l s o u t s i d e the work  are not u s u a l l y regarded as having r e l e v a n c e  the e x e r c i s e of a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n i t ; obey orders from h i s  a man i s  superior irrespective  expected  to to  of the k i n d of  attachments he has beyond the working p l a c e .  Putting  it  ^Robert K. Merton, " B u r e a u c r a t i c S t r u c t u r e and Persona l i t y " , S o c i a l F o r c e s , 18 (1940), p. 560.  7  another  w a y , a man's d e f i n i t i o n  more t h a n  a worker i s n o t expected  a u t h o r i t y and consent, requirements regarded  o f h i m s e l f as something t o impede t h e f l o w o f  so long as t h i s  o f t h e j o b a n d does n o t e n c r o a c h on m a t t e r s  as being the i n d i v i d u a l ' s personal concern.  a f o r e m a n may o r d e r a man t o p e r f o r m connection  Thus  a certain task i n  w i t h t h e terms o f h i s employment, b u t n o t t e l l  h i m how t o c a s t a v o t e  o r which r e l i g i o n t o f o l l o w ; con-  v e r s e l y , a worker's p o l i t i c a l not  i s confined t o the  g e n e r a l l y regarded  and r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s a r e  as grounds f o r d i s o b e y i n g  routine  5  work  instructions. What I w o u l d l i k e now t o s u g g e s t i s t h a t t h e r e i s a n  apparent dilemma i n h e r e n t i n a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  More  s p e c i f i c a l l y , who i s t o d r a w t h e l i n e b e t w e e n p e r s o n a l a n d organizational interests i ntheoperation of the enterprise/ I propose t h a t i t i s t h e i n f l u e n c e o f l o y a l t y which w i l l a i d i n s o l v i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s and thus somewhat d e c r e a s e t h e e f f e c t s o f t h i s a m b i g u i t y .  I shall  now go o n t o d i s c u s s t h i s a p p a r e n t d i l e m m a o f a u t h o r i t y . The  d i s c u s s i o n s o f a r h a s made u s e o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l  concept o f a u t h o r i t y as being delegated  down a h i e r a r c h i c a l  F r a n k Iorweth P a r k i n , C o n f l i c t i n the Lumber I n d u s t r y , Unpublished Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1962, p. 72. 5  8  s t r u c t u r e i n which o f f i c e  h o l d e r s become  increasingly  powerful the nearer the top of the o r g a n i z a t i o n stand.  We tend to use images l i k e  to c o n c e p t u a l i z e  "pyramid" or "ladder"  t h i s n o t i o n of the downward flow of  a u t h o r i t y , and the numerous l e v e l s to which i t gated from "apex" to " b a s e " . this  they  6  is  dele-  W. B. M i l l e r suggests  i s not a u n i v e r s a l l y accepted way of l o o k i n g at  a u t h o r i t y but d e r i v e s ceptions, originates  from " . . . E u r o p e a n r e l i g i o u s  many of which u t i l i z e  the n o t i o n t h a t  con-  power  i n a s u p e r n a t u r a l being or group of beings  l o c a t e d i n the heavens,  or some e l e v a t e d  Sometime before M i l l e r , however,  location".  C. I .  Barnard  suggested a view of a u t h o r i t y which I s h a l l t r y adapt to the argument presented above.  Barnard s t a t e d  that a u t h o r i t y does not emanate from "above" but with the person to whom an order i s  to  lies  g i v e n ; only i f  he  decides to obey the order can i t be s a i d to have a u thority.  That i s  to s a y ,  " . . . t h e d e c i s i o n as  to  whether an order has a u t h o r i t y or not l i e s w i t h the person to whom i t i n persons  is  addressed", and does not  of a u t h o r i t y " .  I f men r e f u s e  to  "reside accept  W i l l i a m H. Newman, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n , New York: P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1950, pp. 158-170. W a l t e r B. M i l l e r , "Two Concepts of A u t h o r i t y " , American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t , 57 (1955), p. 276. ^C. I.. B a r n a r d , T¥e Functions of the E x e c u t i v e , Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1948, pi 163T 6  7  9 orders t h e r e can be no a u t h o r i t y over them.  In a sense,  t h i s r e v e r s e s the u s u a l conceptual model t h a t we use by p u t t i n g the onus and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n on those who  stand a t the base of the power pyramid, i n s t e a d of  on those above.  T h i s i s so because  t h i s theory proposes  t h a t a manager or s u p e r i o r has no l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y unless and u n t i l the i n d i v i d u a l subordinate c o n f e r s i t upon him. whether or not men  w i l l agree t o accept orders de-  pends, i n Barnard's scheme, on the ••balance of i n t e r e s t s " involved.  Unless the irksomeness  of obeying an order i s  more than o f f - s e t by the advantages  a c c r u i n g i n so d o i n g ,  then t h e r e w i l l be no compliance; a u t h o r i t y w i l l have failed  because  the i n d i v i d u a l s " . . . r e g a r d the burden i n -  v o l v e d i n a c c e p t i n g necessary orders as changing the b a l ance o f advantage  a g a i n s t t h e i r i n t e r e s t , and they w i l l q  withdraw or h o l d the i n d i s p e n s i b l e C l e a r l y , however, men  contributions".  i n p o s i t i o n s of i n f e r i o r i t y  rarely  q u e s t i o n the orders they r e c e i v e i n t h i s c l i n i c a l f a s h i o n ; most tend to obey r o u t i n e i n s t r u c t i o n s more or l e s s without question.  T h i s , says Barnard, i s because most orders  w i t h i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s "zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e "  fall  that i s ,  they do not touch upon matters of concern or much moment  9  Ibid.,  p.  165.  10 t o him, of  and  their  are  "acceptable  authority".  o f i n d i f f e r e n c e as  10  without conscious  Barnard  goes on  questioning  to explain  the  zone  follows:  I f a l l the orders f o r a c t i o n s reasonably p r a c t i c a b l e be a r r a n g e d i n t h e o r d e r o f t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o the person a f f e c t e d , i t may be c o n c e i v e d t h a t t h e r e a r e a number which are c l e a r l y u n a c c e p t a b l e ; t h a t i s , w h i c h c e r t a i n l y w i l l n o t be o b e y e d ; t h e r e i s a n o t h e r g r o u p somewhat more o r l e s s on the n e u t r a l l i n e , t h a t i s , e i t h e r b a r e l y a c c e p t a b l e o r b a r e l y u n a c c e p t a b l e ; and a t h i r d group u n q u e s t i o n a b l y a c c e p t a b l e . T h i s l a s t g r o u p l i e s w i t h i n t h e 'zone o f indifference'. The p e r s o n a f f e c t e d w i l l a c c e p t o r d e r s l y i n g w i t h i n t h i s zone and i s r e l a t i v e l y i n d i f f e r e n t as t o what t h e o r d e r i s so f a r as t h e q u e s t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y i s c o n c e r n e d . . . T h e zone o f i n d i f f e r e n c e w i l l be w i d e r o r n a r r o w e r d e p e n d i n g upon t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e i n d u c e m e n t s t o exceed the burdens of s a c r i f i c e s which d e t e r mine t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a d h e s i o n t o t h e organization. I t f o l l o w s t h a t the range o f o r d e r s t h a t w i l l be a c c e p t e d w i l l be v e r y l i m i t e d among t h o s e who a r e b a r e l y induced t o c o n t r i b u t e to the s y s t e m . H This the  view of a u t h o r i t y  problem of the  superior's  w i t h h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s and analytical accepting lihood  assumptions  orders  will  concerning  be  o f i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d , and individual's  lOibid . , Ibid . ,  In  p. 16 8  a t t e n t i o n away  instead the  on  from  compliance  some o f  the  worker's m o t i v a t i o n  Barnard's terms, the  o b e y e d i s d e t e r m i n e d by these i n turn are  zone o f i n d i f f e r e n c e .  p. 167  out  dilemma i n s e c u r i n g  focuses  or r e j e c t i n g orders.  that  a  shifts  the  r e l a t e d to  in like-  balance the  11 Role o f A u t h o r i t y The  a u t h o r i t y o f s u p e r i o r s i n a formal  organization i s  u s u a l l y l e g i t i m a t e d by l e g a l c o n t r a c t r a t h e r than by t r a d i t i o n a l values  o r by an i d e o l o g i c a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with a 12  charasmatic l e a d e r .  Employees assume the c o n t r a c t u a l  o b l i g a t i o n t o c a r r y out and f o l l o w managerial d i r e c t i v e s , because, as Commons has s t a t e d , what the worker s e l l s "...when he s e l l s h i s l a b o r i s h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o use h i s f a c u l t i e s according to him.  t o a purpose t h a t has been p o i n t e d out 13  He s e l l s h i s promise t o obey commands".  formal a u t h o r i t y i s extremely l i m i t e d .  This  In the f i r s t  place,  an employee i s f r e e t o go t o another j o b i f he so d e s i r e s (and i f one i s a v a i l a b l e ) and s e c o n d l y , he i s only  required  to perform h i s o b l i g a t i o n s i n accordance w i t h the minimum standards.  Formal a u t h o r i t y may e x e r t compliance with d i r e c  t i v e s and d i s c i p l i n e , but i t does not encourage employees t o e x h i b i t behavioural  forms beyond t h a t which they are l e g a l l y  bound t o perform. The  narrow scope o f a u t h o r i t y o f t e n induces management  to t r y t o broaden i t s i n f l u e n c e over the employees w i t h i n i t s command. 1 2  1 3  Blau  T h i s may be necessary i n order and S c o t t ,  Ibid.,  p.  140.  op.  cit.,  p.  140.  t o broaden  12 Barnard's ing  'zone  personal  the  and  This  point  paper,  and  through vision  the  of  indifference ,  organizational will  I  feel  may i n c r e a s e  It  is  procedure operate  to  manuals  of  most  that  often  is  maximum e f f i c i e n c y .  gree  conduct  which of  developed  the  the  the to  organization, of  the  o r g a n i z a t i o n and procedures  fact,  ones  for  attaining  of,  and  partly  best  Regardless  e f f i c i e n c y through  in  formal organization there  organizations..  These  own p r a c t i s e s ,  values  or  the  of  the  the  here  stage  that  management  of  i t  and  is  super-  authority.  to,  the  and norms  procedure  organization's  l a c k o f any  allow  organization  the  therefore, conforms  its  the  official  company  may b e to  procedure  i n the  the  estimating  to  the the  the  de-  official  manuals.  manuals  are,  in  maximum e f f i c i e n c y . )  use  of  of  the  tends  which  manuals  attempts  organization to  arise  informal organizations  The a p p l i c a t i o n o f or  later  of  because  maximize  iour  separat- <  objective  members  the  counter  a  state  One w a y o f  that  every  at  of effective  (Only assuming the  to  loyalty that scope  area  interests.  sufficient  assume  of  blueprint  it  their  effectiveness to  further  the  Organization  fair  at  be  development  The I n f o r m a l  or narrow  1  to  structures,  informal  develop  their  work i n c o n j u n c t i o n i n determining  the  with,  behav-  members. official rules  rules  to  particular  i n a new s i t u a t i o n ,  cases,  often  13 pose problems aid  of  judgement,  i n providing solutions  informal  behavioural  in  part  will  of  procedures  is  that  The r e m a i n d e r cussion  of  cerning  l o y a l t y put  Formal I  of  this  as  thesis  the which  official  rules  "loyalty". will  examination  forward  the  often  One o f  i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n  application of  described  an  informal practises  these problems.  arising  the  l o y a l t y and  the  by Blau  be of  and  devoted  to  a  the  hypotheses  Scott  in their  disconbook  Organizations. would suggest here  loyalty superior dinates  for  forms  determine  and  among s u b o r d i n a t e s may e x t e n d  the  with a  is  scope  in a bureaucratic  relationship  that  the one  development of  of his  the  primarily legal  personal  means by w h i c h  influence  organization,  of  or  basis.  over  i n an  a  subor-  authority  CHAPTER I I A REVIEW OF THE  LITERATURE  There are examples of l o y a l t y to be found i n v a r i o u s w r i t i n g s but  they a l l d i f f e r i n some r e s p e c t from one  and t h e r e does not seem t o be any  standardized  another,  instrument  measure the q u a l i t y or a t t i t u d e d e s c r i b e d as l o y a l t y .  The  of the term as a component of t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s . w i l l depending upon the o r i e n t a t i o n of the w r i t e r .  This  to use  vary  chapter  w i l l d i s c u s s some of the concepts of l o y a l t y t h a t have thus f a r been proposed. What are L o y a l t i e s ? As has  a l r e a d y been suggested, d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s have  used the term i n v a r i o u s modes of a n a l y s i s . use  Blau and  Scott  the term t o d e s c r i b e those b e h a v i o u r a l p a t t e r n s of a  subordinate present  choosing  superior.  1  to remain under the i n f l u e n c e of h i s Webster's D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s the concept  of l o y a l t y i n terms of f i d e l i t y t o a s u p e r i o r ; f a i t h f u l t r u e t o whom one  and  i s s u b j e c t ; a f e e l i n g of sentiment accompany-  i n g a sense of a l l e g i a n c e . In a p r o v o c a t i v e are d e f i n e d  a r t i c l e by T. W.  Fletcher, loyalties  as:  ...a p a r t of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s s e t of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , by which he r e l a t e s h i m s e l f to other people and groups s h a r i n g the s o c i a l environment i n which he lives. Through l o y a l t i e s , which are emotional adjustments, the i n d i v i d u a l s o r t s out the d i f f e r e n t ' p u l l s ' he f e e l s - to h i s immediate f a m i l y , h i s parents and t r a d i t i o n s , h i s r e l i g i o n , h i s community  P e t e r M. Blau and W. Richard S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962. p. 105. Francisco: x  San  15 a n d h i s p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s among o t h e r s a n d e s t a b l i s h e s t h e k i n d s o f p r i o r i t i e s among these ' p u l l s * that enable him to minimize cons c i o u s c o n f l i c t s among c o m p e t i n g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s and to a c h i e v e a s u b s t a n t i a l degree o f s t a b i l i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y i n h i s s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 2  Thus vidual  Fletcher  may a c h i e v e  priority  an  As  him to  c a n be  of  employing  the  chapter have  Loyalty  the  to  Blau loyalties loyal his  to  and  these  few e x a m p l e s ,  It  has of  some as  been an  of  the  a means  to  individual  immediate and  used  the uses of  boss,  to  the  act  upon  i t .  definitions to  various  group,  which various  to  the  union, of  the  authors  analysis.  Organization discuss  implications of  when t h e y  discuss  conditions  his  the  loyalties  The r e m a i n d e r  behavioural  indi-  is  in relation  peer  like.  It  and  refer  Scott  employer  fessional  competing  from  organization  the  amongst  given situation  behaviour  term  complex w o r l d .  any  seen  presents  put  confers  organization,  professional  in a  a means by w h i c h an  assess  l o y a l t y may v a r y .  aspects  l o y a l t y as  identities  individual  which helps  of  views  professional (locals).  loyalty for  group  time  being,  competing  leading a person  (cosmopolitans)  Leaving aside the  these  this i t  as  to  be  opposed  to  question  might  be  of  pro-  noted  that  T . W. F l e t c h e r , "The Nature of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L o y a l t y " , P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Review, V o l . 18 (1958), pp. 37. 2  F o r a f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s aspect of l o y a l t y see Blau and S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , Chapter 3. 3  16  even  the  allegiance  unitary. very  Kerr  separate  allegiance there to  is  the  not  basic  "...an  guarantee h i s  other".  an  Stewart  organization is  outgrowth speaking "...a  o f the of  man's  quately  the  is  the  supervisor."  allegiance  of  not into  loyalty  or  Second,  He g o e s  other;  on one  is  divided  enterprise.  p o s i t i o n on t h e  has  noted  highly  organization strong  of his  that  of  and,  further these  conversely,  these but  although  individualized,  he  affiliated".  i n the  best  "Organization -  both  sources  loyalty  commitment t o  energy,  Using  that  (the  centered  personal  time,  courage  -  to  may b e  there  of the  enterprise  not  i t  employee is  on  talents,  interests this  centered  the  concept  o r g a n i z a t i o n and the  g i v e more  judgment,  of  loyalty  Stewart  of  must  refers than  he  be h a r n e s s e d It  to ade-  and  company w i t h  group).  the  When  ideas,  loyalty  loyalty  also  dynamics o f a c o h e s i v e work group.  moral is  loyalty  "First,  purpose  his  5  Nathaniel to  that  to  e m p l o y e e ' s , p o s i t i o n on one  an e m p l o y e r can d e s e r v e the  employee  observed  allegiance  explain that  does  the  allegiances.  to  the  has  of  which  states from  cannot  be  ^ W i l l a r d A. K e r r , "Dual A l l e g i a n c e and E m o t i o n a l Acceptance R e j e c t i o n i n I n d u s t r y " , P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 7 (1954) p. 5  Ibid.,  Kerr,  p.  59.  ^ N a t h a n i e l S t e w a r t , "A R e a l i s t i c View at O r g a n i z a t i o n a l L o y a l t y " , The Management Review, J a n u a r y , 1961. p. 21.  59.  17 demanded, manufactured, p r o c u r e d , or gimmicked - i t has  to  be earned." F u r t h e r , Stewart s t a t e s t h a t most management groups are l o o k i n g f o r b l i n d l o y a l t y , with u n q u e s t i o n i n g obedience and fidelity, ment.  with never a v o i c e r a i s e d i n p r o t e s t  or d i s a g r e e -  T h i s k i n d of b l i n d l o y a l t y should not be expected  even encouraged.  Even at best i f  or  t h i s k i n d of commitment  a t t a i n e d the employee r e a c t i o n i s s h a l l o w ,  is  t r a n s i e n t and  lacking in conviction. He goes on to say that " b l i n d l o y a l t y " may be a hindrance for behavioural analysis. employees  reactions  Often management tends to  to c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s  i n terms of  judge loyalty,  even though the s i t u a t i o n at hand has n o t h i n g to do with For i n s t a n c e , and r a i s e s i f he i s  it.  i f a man f e e l s t h a t he has been u n f a i r l y t r e a t e d  what he c o n s i d e r s  to be a l e g i t i m a t e  l e s s than e n t h u s i a s t i c  grievance,  in accepting a s i t u a t i o n  seems unreasonable to him - i n such i n s t a n c e s being d i s l o y a l to the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  the man i s  This man i s  or  that not  c e r t a i n to be  a " . . . m o r e v a l u a b l e member of the o r g a n i z a t i o n than the  ambitious  i n d i v i d u a l who w i l l go along with almost any change or d e c i s i o n because  7  8  it  seems expedient  I b i d . , Stewart, Ibid.,  to do so at the  p.  23.  Stewart, p.  23.  time".  18 L o y a l t y and the S u p e r i o r As s t a t e d above,  Stewart does not seem to t h i n k  that  l o y a l t y i m p l i e s going along with a d e c i s i o n simply because i t seems expedient  a t the time.  However, i n an i n t e r v i e w  with p o t e n t i a l management men, D i l l e t .  al.  interviewed  one respondent who f e l t t h a t i t would be dangerous f o r one to go out and look f o r a job on h i s satisfied  with h i s present s u p e r i o r .  own because he was  dis-  He reasoned t h a t with  the emphasis some people put on recommendations  from past  employers, a bad recommendation would r u i n a persons  poten-  Q  tial  chance f o r an employment o p p o r t u n i t y . Thus, i t  seems t h a t l o y a l t y to one's s u p e r i o r may be  f o r c e d upon an i n d i v i d u a l because he does not want to a r d i z e h i s chances  f o r openings which may seem to be  jeopdesire-  able to h i m . Dalton uses the term " l o y a l t y " i n terms of a candidate seeking a h i g h e r o f f i c e incumbent. candidate,  s e e i n g the job as does the  He sees h i g h e r o f f i c e r s , " . . . l o o k for attitudes  i n seeking a l o y a l  l i k e h i s own as  a b a s i s f o r understanding and c o o p e r a t i o n " . because a manager r e a l i z e s  present  1 0  assuring  This i s  the d i f f i c u l t y of g e t t i n g  d i s p o s i t i o n and probable behaviour of u n t r i e d p e o p l e ,  so  at  the  no  ^William R. D i l l e t . a l . , The New Managers, Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1962. p . 96.' Melville and Sons, I n c . , l 0  D a l t o n , Men Who Manage, New York: 1959. p . 188.  John Wiley  19 matter what c r e d e n t i a l s t o him.  and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  they may present  "Hence at v a r y i n g l e v e l s of conscious  a p p o i n t i n g c h i e f gropes  purpose,  f o r more v a l i d marks of  However, D a l t o n does not n e c e s s a r i l y cept to be at a l l times b e n e f i c i a l .  believe  the  loyalty." this  1 1  con-  Quoting F r e d e r i c k H .  W i l k i e , Dalton w r i t e s : The 'powerful e x e c u t i v e ' surrounds h i m s e l f with ' a corps of hardened yes - men . . . w h o p i c k up ideas from t h e i r s u p e r i o r , amplify them, and p a r r o t them impressively...'. In i n d u s t r y an 'unconscious cons p i r a c y ' develops ' a s t r o n g , s e c r e t , and t a c i t o r g a n i z a t i o n which maintains i t s e l f by a c c e p t i n g only those with s i m i l a r i d e a s , or those f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s , and c l a s s - conscious equals who can be counted on to support the h i e r a r c h y ' . 1 2 Blau and Scott view l o y a l t y as a means by which a super i o r may i n c r e a s e h i s sphere of e f f e c t i v e a u t h o r i t y . Dalton sees managers seeking  However,  l o y a l t y so as to l e s s e n " i n d i v i d u a l  dynamics" encouraging c r i t i c i s m of the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  "To d e a l  with the w o r l d , the o r g a n i z a t i o n must present an i n v i t i n g t e r i o r and a promise of s u p e r i o r e x e c u t i o n . the  l e a d e r must have assurance  acts."  ex-  Swamped i n d o u b t s ,  of i n t e r n a l l o y a l t y when he  1 3  L o y a l t y and the Group Seashore,  i n p r o v i d i n g evidence  of the power of the  goals  of cohesive groups, d e f i n e d h i s measurement of group l o y a l t y  1 3  1 2  - I b i d . , D a l t o n , P« 189. I b i d . , Dalton,  1 3 l b i d . , D a l t o n , P.  189. 188.  20 as group c o h e s i v e n e s s , and used questions f o l l o w i n g dimensions workers f e e l  to measure t h i s  d e a l i n g with  quality:  whether  a p a r t of the group, s t i c k t o g e t h e r ,  other and get a l o n g t o g e t h e r .  the  h e l p each  These dimensions are essen-  t i a l l y the same as those r e f e r r e d to by L i k e r t as  "peer-  15  group l o y a l t y " . (Seashore,  1954)  In g e n e r a l , most s t u d i e s  (Goodacre,  seem to i n d i c a t e that the concept of  1953) peer  group l o y a l t y may be u t i l i z e d i n d e v e l o p i n g a t h e o r e t i c a l scheme i n a n a l y z i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y . Seashore  found t h a t " . . . t h e g r e a t e r the  peer-group  l o y a l t y , the g r e a t e r the i n f l u e n c e which the goals of  the  group have on the performance of members of the group. i n groups with h i g h peer-group l o y a l t y , the v a r i a t i o n s  Thus, in  p r o d u c t i v i t y from worker to worker are l e s s than i n work groups with low peer-group l o y a l t y " .  L i k e r t goes on to  e x p l a i n t h a t i n c r e a s e d peer-group l o y a l t y i s e v i d e n t l y c i a t e d with g r e a t e r pressures the group f e e l s i s  asso-  to produce at a l e v e l which  appropriate.  Goodacre, i n h i s study of combat u n i t s , r e p o r t e d that those " . . . s q u a d s  making h i g h scores on the c r i t e r i o n problem  reported a s i g n i f i c a n t l y x  World,  * S t a n l e y E. Ann A r b o r ,  g r e a t e r number of men i n t h e i r  S e a s h o r e , Group C o h e s i v e n e s s i n t h e I n d u s t r i a l Mich.: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , 1954.  R e n s i s L i k e r t , New P a t t e r n s o f Management, M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, I n c . , 1 9 6 1 . p. 3 1 . 1 5  squads  Toronto:  21 •buddying around' t o g e t h e r on the post a f t e r duty hours and t a k i n g the i n i t i a t i v e  t o give orders to other  men  d u r i n g the problem without the a u t h o r i t y t o do so. men  The  i n the h i g h s c o r i n g squads a l s o r e p o r t e d fewer d i s -  agreements w i t h how  1  t h e i r squadron l e a d e r r a n the problem;  more s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the present p o s i t i o n s h e l d by the men  i n t h e i r squads; more p r i d e i n t h e i r squad; and the  f e e l i n g t h a t t h e i r squad i s one i n which more men l i k e t o be".  would  1 7  L i k e r t , i n h i s book New  P a t t e r n s of Management, has  attempted t o r e l a t e the concept of peer-group l o y a l t y t o 18 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l performance. the  He presents d a t a showing  r e l a t i o n of peer-group l o y a l t y t o the f o l l o w i n g  sions:  (1)  group p r o d u c t i v i t y , (2)  p r o d u c t i o n , (3)  work.  Thus may  v a r i a n c e on a c t u a l  a t t i t u d e toward s u p e r v i s o r , (4)  of t e n s i o n a t work, (5)  dimen-  p r o d u c t i v i t y , and (6)  feeling  absence from  be seen the wide range of t o p i c s t o which  peer-group l o y a l t y may  be r e l a t e d i n attempting t o analyze  v a r i o u s b e h a v i o u r a l forms w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n . D . M. Goodacre, "Group C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Good and Poor Performing Combat U n i t s " , Sociometry V o l . 16, (1953) pp. 179. 17  F o r a f u l l e r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s aspect of l o y a l t y Rensis L i k e r t , New P a t t e r n s of Management, pp. 29 - 42. 1 8  see  22 Dual  Loyalty Yet another  analysis As plex  is  that  of  described  a consequence  of  loyalty utilized as  "dual  groups  characteristics  w h i c h may a r i s e belong  or  of  to  behavioural  loyalty".  tend  to  groupings.  our  when t h e  opposed  in  our h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d and  c o m m u n i t i e s , many p e o p l e  many d i f f e r e n t the  concept  of  involved  As a r e s u l t ,  complex s o c i e t y  goals  each  become  the  is  groups  the to  non  of dual  union  is  possible  l o y a l t y amongst  and management  of  we  other.  1  i t  with  conflict  which  Nowhere i s t h i s more s h a r p l y i l l u s t r a t e d than i n the case of the worker i n the industrial field. He i s a m e m b e r o f a company, and s e e k s t h r o u g h s u c h members h i p t o f u l f i l l many o f h i s p r i m a r y n e e d s ... He a l s o o f t e n b e l o n g s t o a u n i o n . By s u c h a f f i l i a t i o n he h o p e s t o i m p r o v e h i s economic s t a t u s and i n a d d i t i o n seeks to satisfy security, status, belongingness, i n t e g r i t y n e e d s a n d many o t h e r s . This dual m e m b e r s h i p i s t h e n a p r i m e e x a m p l e o f one o f t h e phenomena o f o u r c o m p l e x c u l t u r e . . . However,  one  com- •  for  there  to  employees.  evolve,  Whyte n o t e s  arise  9  the  phenome-  As r e l a t i o n s three  between  interrelated  developments: (1)  The i s s u e s  between  (2)  Union  officers  group  relations  them become more  become within  complex.  increasingly occupied with the  inter-  local.  l^Walter Gruen, "A T h e o r e t i c a l Examination of the Concept of Dual A l l e g i a n c e " , Personnel P s y c h o l o g y , V o l . 7 (1954) p. 72  23 (3)  A l e g a l framework a r i s e s to r e g u l a t e the r e l a t i o n s between the p a r t i e s .  T h i s c o n s i s t s of both the w r i t t e n  law of c o n t r a c t c l a u s e s and the common law of past p r a c 2  1  t i s e s and understandings as t o how  t h i n g s should be done.  In h i s study of a meat packing p l a n t , P u r c e l l found t h a t the rank and f i l e workers want both t h e i r company and union 21 to coexist.  L o i s Dean came t o much the same c o n c l u s i o n  where i n a study of t h r e e o r g a n i z a t i o n s of v a r y i n g unionmanagement r e l a t i o n s , she found t h a t workers may a t t i t u d e s toward both employer  have p o s i t i v e  and union r e g a r d l e s s of the 22  degree of c o n f l i c t i n the union management r e l a t i o n s h i p . P u r c e l l u t i l i z e d t h i s concept of l o y a l t y t o suggest t h a t i f l e a d e r s would r e c o g n i z e the emergence of d u a l l o y a l t y , a t 23 l e a s t one source of i n d u s t r i a l c o n f l i c t would be d i m i n i s h e d . Whyte goes f u r t h e r and u t i l i z e s h i s concept of l o y a l t y t o suggest t h a t i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e f o r the two l o y a l t i e s t o f u n c t i o n independently of each o t h e r .  That i s , i t i s e n t i r e l y  pos-  s i b l e f o r an employee t o i n c r e a s e h i s f e e l i n g of l o y a l t y toward W i l l i a m Foote Whyte, Men At Work, Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey P r e s s , Inc. and Richard D. I r w i n , Inc., 1961. p. 299. 2 0  T h e o d o r e V. P u r c e l l , "Dual A l l e g i a n c e t o Company and Union-Packinghouse Workers, A Swift-U.P.W.A. Study i n a C r i s i s S i t u a t i o n , 1949-1952", P e r s o n n e l Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954) p. 57. 21  L o i s R. Dean, "Union A c t i v i t y and Dual L o y a l t y " , I n d u s t r i a l and Labor R e l a t i o n s Review, V o l . 7 (1954) pp. 526-536. 2 2  23p r»cell, op. c i t . , p. U  57.  24 the union without  necessarily  affecting  the  t o w a r d management.  Whyte even h y p o t h e s i z e s  loyalty  amongst m a n a g e r s .  even e x i s t s  l o y a l t y he that this  feels dual  (Management) men t e n d t o a c c e p t t h e u n i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n as p a r t o f t h e w h o l e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s y s t e m and r e c o g n i z e an o b l i g a t i o n t o u n i o n l e a d e r s i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n s as l e a d e r s , i n much t h e same way t h a t t h e y f e e l o b l i g a t i o n t o w a r d f e l l o w members o f m a n a g e m e n t . 24  Conclusion In t h i s  chapter  I have a t t e m p t e d  by w h i c h v a r i o u s w r i t e r s a t t e m p t a n a l y t i c a l schemes.  As  has  t o g i v e some  to u t i l i z e  been shown, t h i s  aspects  loyalty term  in  has  e m p l o y e d i n v a r i o u s c o n n o t a t i o n s , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e tion  of the w r i t e r .  term  i s put  will  continue  2  forth  i n an a c c e p t e d  t o be  **Whyte, op.  I t seems t h a t u n t i l  used  cit.,  29 8.  been orientaof  t h e o r e t i c a l scheme, t h e  i n i t s everyday,  p.  a definition  their  vernacular  the term  sense.  CHAPTER I I I THEORETICAL ORIENTATION:  CONCEPTS AND  HYPOTHESES  T h i s chapter o u t l i n e s the main concepts used i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and f o r the study  develops the hypotheses which form the  design.  Hypothesized R e l a t i o n s h i p s of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l 1.  Between L o y a l t y and  Various  authority.  The  r a t i o n a l e f o r the hypothe-  s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between l o y a l t y to a s u p e r v i s o r and of e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over  stems from s e v e r a l Blau and  Aspects  Behaviour  L o y a l t y and  establishment  basis  the  subordinates  sources.  S c o t t c l a i m t h a t a s u p e r v i s o r w i l l attempt t o  develop l o y a l t y among h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  They f e e l he w i l l  do  t h i s because he f i n d s i t necessary to extend the scope of h i s i n f l u e n c e over h i s subordinates formal  beyond the narrow l i m i t s of h i s  authority.  The  need t o extend the scope of formal a u t h o r i t y i s o f t e n  r e q u i r e d because a s u p e r v i s o r may t i v e l y discharge  h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s unless he i s able t o  more i n f l u e n c e on h i s subordinates alone p e r m i t s . concept of the  f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to e f f e c -  than h i s formal  exert  authority  Going back t o Chapter I and r e c a l l i n g  Barnard's  "zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e " , i t seems t h a t i n e f f e c t  what a s u p e r v i s o r must attempt to do i s widen a  subordinate's  "zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e " by f u r n i s h i n g s e r v i c e s which o b l i g a t e  him.  26 This i s a l l based on the b e l i e f t h a t u l t i m a t e l y a s u p e r i o r cannot be s a i d t o have a u t h o r i t y unless  a person t o whom  the order i s d i r e c t e d obeys i t . The  f u r n i s h i n g o f s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s by s u p e r i o r s t o  subordinates serves t o o b l i g a t e them.  Once o b l i g a t e d , the  subordinates w i l l f e e l t h a t they should r e c i p r o c a t e by comp l y i n g with t h e i r s u p e r i o r ' s r e q u e s t s and s p e c i a l demands. In t h i s way a s u p e r i o r w i l l i n c r e a s e h i s sphere o f i n f l u e n c e over those i n the h i e r a r c h y ordinates.  who a r e deemed t o be h i s sub-  1  Formal s t a t u s and o f f i c i a l powers o f the s u p e r i o r a i d him  i n p r o v i d i n g s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s t o h i s subordinates which  make the j o b e a s i e r and the work s i t u a t i o n more e n j o y a b l e . The  supervisor  i s i n a p o s i t i o n t o have e a s i e r access t o  management and other s u p e r v i s o r s sary s e r v i c e s and i n f o r m a t i o n Further,  a supervisor  and thus can o b t a i n  neces-  which w i l l a i d h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  i s i n the p o s i t i o n o f c r e a t i n g  social  o b l i g a t i o n s by r e f r a i n i n g from u s i n g a l l of h i s powers.  For  i n s t a n c e , he may be l e n i e n t i n e n f o r c i n g a no smoking r u l e ; thus c r e a t i n g a s o c i a l o b l i g a t i o n on the p a r t of s u b o r d i n a t e s . Influence  does not c o n s t i t u t e e s t a b l i s h e d a u t h o r i t y , as  i t i s only the group who can provide the l e g i t i m a t i o n o f authority.  However, i t can l e a d t o e s t a b l i s h e d a u t h o r i t y as  ^Peter M. Blau and W. Richard S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , „San F r a n c i s c o : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962. p. 142.  27  i t may become a group norm to share respect for and loyalty to the supervisor.  Once established, the group enforces  compliance to the supervisor's wishes as a l l may suffer i f some f a i l to repay t h e i r obligations. tend to a r i s e as a group norm.  Loyalty w i l l thus  "Informal authority,  i s legitimated by the common values that emerge i n a group, p a r t i c u l a r l y by the l o y a l t y the superior commands among group members, and group norms and sanctions enforce compliance." This then leads us to our f i r s t hypothesis: 1(a) are  superiors who command the loyalty of t h e i r subordinates more l i k e l y than others to establish effective  informal  3  authority over them and thus to influence them. Two studies are c i t e d which seem to be relevant i n support of t h i s hypothesis.  French and Snyder found that the  more accepted a leader was by the group, the more he attempted to influence i t and the more successful hxs attempts were. 2 I b i d . , p. 144. T h i s whole d i s c u s s i o n i s based on the assumption that a worker i s more than merely another cog i n a complex o r g a n i z a t i o n , and i s not e n t i r e l y manipulated by economic rewards as suggested by Amatai E t z i o n i i n h i s book Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s . 3 l b i d . , p. 144. **John R. P. French, J r . , and Richard Snyder, "Leadership and I n t e r p e r s o n a l Power", Dorwin Cartwright ( e d . ) , Studies i n S o c i a l Power, Ann Arbor: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1959. pp. 118-149.  28 F u r t h e r , L i p p i t and h i s c o l l e a g u e s found t h a t i n a camp setting,  boys t o whom others a t t r i b u t e d  much power made  more i n f l u e n c e attempts and enjoyed more success i n t h e i r attempts t o i n f l u e n c e .  5  On t h i s b a s i s I o f f e r the f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i o n s with r e g a r d t o the k i n d or b a s i s of a s u p e r i o r ' s c o n t r o l over l o y a l subordinates: Kb)  Those s u p e r v i s o r s with l o y a l subordinates w i l l g a i n  compliance  with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s  because t h e i r  subordinates  w i l l t h i n k of them as " n i c e guys", t h a t i s , because of t h e i r behaviour they are l i k e d , accepted and r e s p e c t e d . 1(c)  Those s u p e r v i s o r s w i t h l o y a l subordinates w i l l  g a i n compliance  with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s  s o l e l y because they  have the power t o p e n a l i z e or otherwise disadvantage who  not  those  do not cooperate with them.  1(d)  Those s u p e r v i s o r s with l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l o b t a i n  compliance  with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s  because they can give  s p e c i a l h e l p and b e n e f i t s t o those who 1(e)  cooperate w i t h them.  Those s u p e r i o r s with l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l not g a i n  compliance  with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s  because the subordinates  t h i n k that he has a l e g i t i m a t e r i g h t , c o n s i d e r i n g h i s t i o n , t o expect t h a t h i s suggestions w i l l be c a r r i e d  posiout.  R o n a l d L i p p i t t e t . a l . , "The Dynamics of Power", Human R e l a t i o n s , V o l . 5 (1952), pp. 37-64. 5  29 2.  L o y a l t y and emotional detachment.  s e v e r a l s t u d i e s conducted t e s t i n g  There have been  the s i g n i f i c a n c e , of  f e r i n g forms of behaviour as a r e s u l t of v a r y i n g the ness'' of a s u p e r i o r to h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . refers  to the a s s o c i a t i o n  and s u b o r d i n a t e s .  Closeness  leaders  "closehere  t h a t may e x i s t between s u p e r i o r s  F i e d l e r d e f i n e d h i s measure of  on the b a s i s of an Assumed S i m i l a r i t y s c o r e . score,  dif-  closeness  To d e r i v e  s e l e c t e d words t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e d the  workers they most and l e a s t p r e f e r r e d .  this  co-  I f a l e a d e r was  able  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between group members, he was deemed to have 6  v  been c l o s e r t o h i s men than one who c o u l d n o t . Gouldner s t u d i e d a gypsum p l a n t i n which the i n f o r m a l contracts  of a manager were "too i n d u l g e n t " .  This  resulted  i n him becoming so e m o t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d with h i s subordinates 7 * that he was confined by them. Because of h i s i n d u l g e n t methods he was not a b l e to make c h a l l e n g i n g demands stimulate  their interest  to  and a b i l i t y t o perform w e l l .  F i e d l e r a r r i v e s a t much the same c o n c l u s i o n i n h i s that those l e a d e r s with the most e f f e c t i v e work u n i t s  finding  perceived  themselves to be more p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y d i s t a n t from t h e i r men than those who p e r c e i v e d themselves t o be c l o s e r to t h e i r men.  F r e d E . F i e d l e r , "A Note o n . L e a d e r s h i p Theory", Sociometry, 20 (1957), pp. 87-94.  b  Vol.  A l v i n W. Gouldner, P a t t e r n s Glencoe, 1 1 1 . : F r e e , P r e s s , 195 4. 7  & F i e d l e r . , Op. c i t .  of I n d u s t r i a l B u r e a u c r a c y , pp. 45-56.  30 Blau and S c o t t c l a i m t h a t an i n d i c a t o r of a l a c k o f involvement w i t h s u b o r d i n a t e s i s an a b i l i t y t o maintain emotional detachment - t h a t i s , t o remain calm and r a r e l y , i f e v e r , l o s e h i s temper.  They found such detachment t o  be p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with the commanding o f l o y a l t y i n the s o c i a l s e r v i c e agency s t u d i e d . our second 2(a)  This then leads us t o  hypothesis:  The g r e a t e r the a b i l i t y  of a superior t o maintain  emotional detachment - t o remain calm and r a r e l y , i f e v e r , l o s e h i s temper - t h e more l i k e l y he i s t o command the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates. 3.  L o y a l t y and independence.  I t has o f t e n been noted  t h a t i n modern o r g a n i z a t i o n s , those who f i l l  o f f i c e s between  the "base" and "apex" of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l pyramid j e c t t o pressure from below as w e l l as above. t a i n i n g independence from s u b o r d i n a t e s seems a l s o t o be important  are sub-  Besides main-  (hypothesis 2 ) , i t  f o r a supervisor t o maintain i n -  dependence from one's s u p e r i o r .  By m a i n t a i n i n g independence  from h i s s u p e r i o r , a s u p e r v i s o r w i l l more e a s i l y be able to c o n t r o l the environment o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  I f a superior  enjoys independence he w i l l be b e t t e r a b l e t o grant the s p e c i a l r e q u e s t s o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s and thus make them indebted t o him.  9  Blau  and S c o t t , op. c i t . , p. 154.  31 P e l z found t h a t i n h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n Edison Company a s u p e r v i s o r ' s  of the D e t r o i t  a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l the  environment of h i s subordinates was j u s t as important as engaging i n good s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s , behaviour of to employees' if  ' s i d i n g with employees'  "...the  and ' s o c i a l  w i l l tend to r a i s e employee  the s u p e r v i s o r has enough i n f l u e n c e  supervisory closeness  satisfaction  to make these  pay o f f i n terms of a c t u a l b e n e f i t s f o r e m p l o y e e s . " t h e i r study of the s o c i a l s e r v i c e  agency,  10  only  benefits In  Blau and S c o t t  found t h a t "independent" s u p e r v i s o r s had more l o y a l s u b o r d i - nates.  Four of f i v e  independent s u p e r v i s o r s  commanded h i g h  l o y a l t y i n t h e i r work group, w h i l e only one of seven  others  commanded the l o y a l t y of t h e i r work group. Gn the b a s i s of t h i s e v i d e n c e ,  I w i l l now formulate a  third  hypothesis:  3(a)  The more independent a s u p e r v i s o r i s  the more l i k e l y i t On t h i s 3(b)  basis,  is  from h i s  t h a t he w i l l have l o y a l  I s h a l l make the f o l l o w i n g  subordinates. predictions:  A s u p e r i o r who commands the l o y a l t y of h i s  w i l l be more w i l l i n g t o change e x i s t i n g  superior,  subordinates  procedures  without  c o n s u l t i n g h i s s u p e r i o r than a s u p e r i o r who does not command l o y a l t y from h i s  subordinates.  l ° D o n a l d C. P e l z , " I n f l u e n c e : A Key t o E f f e c t i v e L e a d e r ship i n the F i r s t - L i n e S u p e r v i s o r " , P e r s o n n e l , V o l . 29 (1952), pp. 209-217.  32  3(c)  A s u p e r i o r who i s  enjoying  h i e r a r c h i c a l independence  supervisory of  his  archical  In his  boss  in  as  "good  to win the  who d o e s engage i n  not  M  loyalty  enjoy  "good"  hier-  super-  were  employed to  their  needs,  to  achieve  this  is  to  allow their  Sayles  that  have  by s u p e r i o r  i n reviewing the  authority,  to  (2)  subordinate,  "low pressure"  employees goals".  a sense  "good" behaviour  delegating  by  Pelz  were  to  "...  According  1 1  a c c o m p l i s h e d b e s t when t h e  and o f e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l over and  investigated  "good s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s "  leader  conclude  in  not  a  a l l o w s employees  Strauss  (1)  engaging  likely  a superior  and does  study  some a u t h o r i t i e s  visor  be more  supervisory practises"  which  satisfy to  than  and  subordinates  behaviour.  1952.  those  will  independence  "Good in  practises  subordinates  visory  p e r c e i v e d by h i s  of being their  their  such  minimization (3)  work  literature  includes  and  super-  h a v i n g the  supervisory practises.  environment. on s u p e r v i s i o n ,  acts  of  That  own  as:  detailed  orders  superior i s ,  a  engage  super-  12 visor  should not Because  ure  these  of  "push" h i s the  narrow  behaviours  Ibid.,  p.  men. limits  o f my t h e s i s  i n my q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  I  d i d not  Determining  meas-  the  213.  G e o r g e Strauss and Leonard R. S a y l e s , P e r s o n n e l : The Human Problems of Management, Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1960. p . 125. 12  33 existence separate  of  "good s u p e r v i s i o n " w o u l d i n i t s e l f  research  F o r the I attempted regarding  to determine qualities  B l a u and S c o t t disposed  to  to  of  the  of  role  latter  f o r m a n c e and i t s gested that  is  practises.  effects  the  Lack o f  effect  supe-  environment. advantages  Another dimension of  "bad" p r a c t i s e s  c l a r i t y i n d e f i n i n g the  of  "good  13  upon s u b o r d i n a t e s .  lack  an a d v e r s e  in  concerning consistency  behaviour.  job.  favourably  power o v e r t h e w o r k e r s '  erratic  t o have  he engaged  seemed t o n e u t r a l i z e  that  consistent  were  on t h e  and h a d enough autonomy f r o m h i s  effective  the  if  C o n s i s t e n c y and L o y a l t y .  supervisor's  of  subordinates  therefore,  respondent  o f s u p e r v i s i o n he r e c e i v e s  good s u p e r v i s o r y  f.  3(c),  p e r c e p t i o n of each  t h e i r supervisor only  exercise  The a b s e n c e  the  found t h a t  supervisory practises" rior  a  project.  purpose of p r e d i c t i n g hypothesis  the  entail  in role has  per-  been  are p r e f e r a b l e  consistency duties  It  a  sug-  to  i n s u p e r v i s i o n and of  subordinates  on l e a d e r s h i p a n d on t h e  seems  performance  subordinates. * 1 1  In t h e i r study and S c o t t  of  the  social  o b t a i n e d a measure  performance  of  the  organization,  consistency  e a c h s u p e r v i s o r by a s c e r t a i n i n g  Blau and S c o t t , Ibid.,  of  service  p . 15 7.  op. c i t . ,  p.  155.  of the  the  Blau role  degree  of  34  consensus among subordinates  when asked about the seven  f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n t aspects o f t h e i r superior's, behaviour: Procedure o r i e n t a t i o n , knowledge of procedures, c l o s e supervision, s o c i a l distance  from s u b o r d i n a t e s ,  excitability,  s t r i c t n e s s and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . : As i n the case of "good s u p e r v i s i o n " , i n order t o  1  minimize t h e complexity o f t h i s study, I only attempted t o gain a measure o f the p e r c e p t i o n regard  to consistency  o f the respondents with  r a t h e r than t r y i n g t o measure the  a c t u a l degree o f c o n s i s t e n c y . In t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the s o c i a l s e r v i c e agency, Blau and S c o t t found t h a t r o l e c o n s i s t e n c y  was p o s i t i v e l y  a s s o c i a t e d with worker l o y a l t y t o the s u p e r v i s o r .  1 5  On  t h i s b a s i s I s h a l l now present  my f o u r t h  4(a)  p r a c t i s e s promotes the  S t a b i l i t y of supervisory  l o y a l t y o f workers t o t h e i r Arthur  hypothesis:  superior.  Cohen performed an experiment i n which the  l e a d e r or power f i g u r e gave the workers an ambiguous  def-  i n i t i o n o f the tasks t o be performed as w e l l as i n c o n s i s t e n t directives.  Moreover, the power f i g u r e a l s o v a r i e d the con- •  s i s t e n c y o f h i s suggestions as w e l l as the c l a r i t y o f the task a s s i g n e d .  Cohen found t h i s behaviour l e d t o l e s s  I b _ i d . , p . 158. Besides the wish to minimize the. comp l e x i t y of t h i s r e s e a r c h , I have not measured a l l seven of these items i n my q u e s t i o n n a i r e as i n order to get the f u l l meaning from them they would have to be r e l a t e d ' t o " s u p e r v i s o r p e r s o n a l i t y " , a procedure which I do not f e e l to be e i t h e r q u a l i f i e d or competent to perform. 1 5  35 favourable attitudes  toward the power f i g u r e and, as  well,  to lower worker p r o d u c t i v i t y . On the b a s i s of t h i s  evidence,  I s h a l l make the  follow-  ing prediction: 4(b)  A s u p e r v i s o r who i s  p e r c e i v e d by h i s subordinates  being c o n s i s t e n t i n h i s enforcement  as  of working r u l e s and  p r o c e d u r e s , s t r i c t n e s s and g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour w i l l be more l i k e l y to possess the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i nates than one who i s not so p e r c e i v e d . 5.  L o y a l t y and s o c i a l s u p p o r t .  s o c i a l service  In the study of  agencies Blau and S c o t t found t h a t  tended to be somewhat i s o l a t e d  the  supervisors  from s u p p o r t i v e c o n t r a c t s  with  17 t h e i r peers.  One would thus be mistaken to assume t h a t  p o r t i v e peer r e l a t i o n s  develop amongst those at the  sup-  super-  v i s o r y l e v e l t o the same extent t h a t they do among workers. Jaques, i n h i s s t u d y , found the top managers of the o r g a n i z a t i o n he s t u d i e d t o be somewhat i s o l a t e d . S c o t t found t h i s at the f i r s t  However, Blau and  s i t u a t i o n of i s o l a t i o n was i n e x i s t e n c e even  l i n e supervisory l e v e l .  were promoted from the worker l e v e l ,  Even though  supervisors  and at one time i n t h e i r  •••Arthur R. Cohen, " S i t u a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e s , Self-Esteetn, and T h r e a t - O r i e n t e d Reactions to Power", Dorwin Cartwright ( e d . ) , Studies i n S o c i a l Power, Ann Arbor: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Res e a r c h , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1959. p p . 35-52. Blau and S c o t t ,  op. c i t . ,  p.  161.  36  work h i s t o r y would have r e c e i v e d s o c i a l support from t h e i r present peer s u p e r v i s o r s when they were a l l workers t o g e t h e r , they d i d not seem t o f i n d s o c i a l support from the same people once they were promoted to the s u p e r v i s o r y l e v e l .  Having r e -  j e c t e d the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s u p e r v i s o r s w i l l o b t a i n t h e i r s o c i a l support from other s u p e r v i s o r s , Blau and  S c o t t put  f o r t h the suggestion t h a t one source of s o c i a l support t h a t enables  some s u p e r v i s o r s t o m a i n t a i n detachment and  independ-  18  ence was  the l o y a l t y of s u b o r d i n a t e s .  I f a s u p e r i o r i s a b l e t o o b t a i n the s o c i a l support  of  h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s , i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d there w i l l probably  be  l e s s need f o r him  to seek the support of h i s s u p e r i o r by  be-  coming attached t o him or by emulating h i s s t y l e of s u p e r v i s i o n . On the b a s i s of these o b s e r v a t i o n s the f i f t h h y p o t h e s i s to be i n v e s t i g a t e d i s the f o l l o w i n g : 5(a)  Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y t o one's s u p e r i o r may  reduce the  need of a s u p e r v i s o r t o win the r e s p e c t of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . This; i s supported of Blau and  i n p a r t by the r e s u l t s  of the s t u d i e s  S c o t t i n which they found t h a t one of the  super-  v i s o r s whose subordinates expressed h i g h l o y a l t y t o them f e l t l o y a l to t h e i r own who  s u p e r i o r , while f i v e of the s i x s u p e r i o r s  d i d not command h i g h l o y a l t y from t h e i r subordinates  pressed l o y a l t y t o t h e i r s e c t i o n c h i e f . 1 8  I_bid.,  p.  162.  1 9  Ibid.,  p.  162.  1 9  ex-  37 On  this  make t h e 5(b) of  following  and  from  his  5(c)  will  of the  his  subordinates  of  his  superior  style  will  be  less  of  important  of h i s  than  shall  the  loyalty  to win  the  one who commands  subordinates. degree  likely  by becoming attached  Loyalty loyalty  of subordinates  the  it  will  lessen  the  support  of his  superior.  presses  strong  ties  need this  to  of subordinates  seek  need  of  the  to  to  of  seek  the the  loyalty approval  him and e m u l a t i n g  loyalty  true,  ones  suggested  subordinates  important  Similarly, mand t h e  superiors  is  to his  then  p r o n o u n c e d on a l t e r n a t e been  his  loyalty  superior.  of s o c i a l seek  the  support, social  superior,  I  can present  of their  will  lessen  subordinates.  a sixth  hypothesis: tends  levels.  by B l a u  and S c o t t  that  n o t won by a s u p e r i o r ,  i n the  i t  ex-  i n a hierarchical organization  f o r him to win the  i f those  a source  and a l l e g i a n c e o f h i s  to  has  is  l o y a l t y , to, t h e  Alternately, i f a supervisor  Loyalty  It  and  a supervisor to  respect  prediction is to  for  6(a)  very  less  superiors  loyalty  If  be  I  of supervision.  6.  of  i t  degree  A s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r  of  If  feel  and a l l e g i a n c e o f h i s degree  findings  predictions:  subordinates  lesser  his  these research  A s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r  respect a  basis  loyalty  positions superiors,  i f the  then  of his  i t  loyalty  will  superiors.  o f s u p e r v i s i o n do n o t i t  will  be  be  important  comfor  1  38  the supervisor to obtain s o c i a l support by winning the loyalty 20  of t h e i r subordinates. This conclusion i s one which somewhat resembles that of C a u d i l l i n an observation put forth by him i n his study of the personnel i n a h o s p i t a l .  In this study C a u d i l l compares the  anthropological observation of a pattern of mutual indulgence and affection between alternate generations grandchildren) to the alternate positions h o s p i t a l hierarchy.  (grandparents and  of those i n the  In the case of grandchildren and grand-  parents, neither generation usually has d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the other, and the two groups are united i n haying expe21  rienced f r u s t r a t i o n with the intermediate  generation.  It may be possible, even though i t i s very speculative, to explain i n the same terms the hypothesis that  alternate  levels of the hierarchy of bureaucratic organization w i l l be more s i m i l a r i n orientation than adjacent ones.  2 0  I b i d . , p.  162.  W i l l i a m C a u d i l l , The P s y c h i a t r i c H o s p i t a l as a Small S o c i e t y , Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 195 8. pp. 155-157. 2 1  CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION T h i s chapter contains  a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the sample pop-  u l a t i o n and s e t t i n g i n which the data were g a t h e r e d , questionnaire ulation,  and data g a t h e r i n g methods,  the  the r e s e a r c h pop-  the d e r i v a t i o n of measures of major v a r i a b l e s ,  design of a n a l y s i s ,  and some comments on s t a t i s t i c a l  the  procedure.  The Sample P o p u l a t i o n The sample p o p u l a t i o n was drawn from one d i v i s i o n of a p u b l i c l y owned e l e c t r i c a l u t i l i t y .  I t s main o f f i c e s  are  l o c a t e d i n a m e t r o p o l i t a n area e x e r t i n g major economic i n fluence  upon the p o l i t i c a l u n i t .  The people  of the a r e a  engage i n many d i v e r s i f i e d p u r s u i t s of l i v e l i h o o d and come from varying ethnic  backgrounds.  The o p e r a t i o n s  of the o r g a n i z a t i o n are spread throughout  a l a r g e a r e a , although i t s of  main a d v i s o r y f u n c t i o n s  a u t h o r i t y are l o c a t e d w i t h i n one p r i n c i p a l a r e a .  one main s e r v i c e , work f o r c e i s of knowledge  and c e n t e r s It  offers  although there are a v a r i e t y of o t h e r s .  composed of employees from many d i f f e r e n t  The fields  and t r a i n i n g .  The employees number about 6,200, and about 360 or 6% are d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the r e s e a r c h The company's operations  sample.  are organized a c c o r d i n g to  of  f u n c t i o n performed, with 10 main d i v i s i o n s .  of  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and s u p e r v i s i o n i s  type  The h i e r a r c h y  of a p a t t e r n common i n  40  Canadian and American i n d u s t r i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . i n the sample chosen there i s Assistant,  one D i v i s i o n Manager, one  Special  twelve Department Managers, ten S u p e r v i s o r s and  seven Foremen. investigation 1 and 2.) file  For i n s t a n c e ,  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was r e a d i l y obtained upon of the company's o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t .  There are a number of d i v i s i o n s  (See  Figures  i n which the rank and  r e p o r t d i r e c t l y to a s u p e r v i s o r r a t h e r than to a foreman. G e n e r a l l y , each s e c t i o n i s  ized function includes  (e.g.  organized around some s p e c i a l -  information s e r v i c e s ,  publications,)  employees with a v a r i e t y of tasks ( e . g .  technical). different  Some operations  crews.  and  clerical,  are performed on a s h i f t  S e c t i o n s i z e may vary from two to  b a s i s by  forty  employees. A s u b s t a n t i a l number of the operations and t h e r e f o r e  are  specialized,  the m o b i l i t y w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s  limited.  A t r a n s f e r f o r most of the rank and f i l e  u s u a l l y takes the form  of doing the same work under a d i f f e r e n t  supervisor.  However,  t h i s t r a n s f e r may take p l a c e e i t h e r w i t h i n the department w i t h i n the  or  divisions.  The f u n c t i o n s  of the d i v i s i o n sample may be observed  in  F i g u r e s 1 and 2. The sample employees are predominantly male and vary i n age.  Most have been with the company a c o n s i d e r a b l e  of time  (5 - 15  years).  length  Bd. of D i r e c t o r s  ! Chairman Exec . C o m  Internal Auditor  I Sec r etary  A s s t . to th$ Chairman  Div. Mgr . Trans.  H_  Div. M g r Production  (Pomp. *Chf. 'Fin. O f f i c e r  H  ...,  ! Div-.-"Mgr-.--; •Purch. &:Sto^es  j j  Div r"Mgr . > Operation^  jExec . "A'S'STj &Ass't Seel;  ; Chf. Eng. & jDiy. M g r . J  p e n . ~Sofic S o l i c iite tor '& D i v . M g r HegaT  p i v; "Mgr" Land FIGURE 1 ORGANIZATION CHART OF THE SAMPLE ORGANIZATION STUDIED  j D i v . M g r . '. Ec , & .Com , jSrvs  ' D i v .'Mgr .1 jStaff S e r v i c e s  D i v i s ion Manager  jSpec ial ~ I Assistant  As sociate Manager Dept. Mgr. lLabour Mgr. Services  Dept. Mgr Qjjjaruzatioh izati i res  E  Pep t". Mg r . " I I n f o . Srvcs  Dept. Mgr. 14npwr . Ping Dev. iirvc s.  D i r e c t o r of  Supervisor I  Assistant Mgr  of. S p e c  Svxls .  £ up e r v i s o r  \—  of. P u b l i c Supervisor  n '  of P r e s_s _ L i J i i s o n  FIGURE 2  Jbldg. Srvcs A c c . & F i r e Prev. Services Security Services Library Disposal Office & Veh. S e r v i c e s H. Office P e r s o n n e l .  ORGANIZATION CHART OF THE SAMPLE DIVISION STUDIED  *  Separately Illustrated  ealth S r v c s  Associate  Division  Manager  s soc late  Div. Mgx_  Disposal Agent  Dept. H  Office  Mgr.  Dept.  t a f e t e r ia Supervisor  $n. I  Security Guard  Supvr.  1  i  P r o d . Cont Asst.  Shop F o r e man Foreman  ser p i c e s  Gaiety  i  upn.  Supvr.  "Service K e h Supvr.  Uhift  (nil)  Bldg.  ol  j~ D i b r a r ian  Dept. Mgr '  Ac Cg. & F i r e p  r V I  j,  Eng.  Mgr.  Heating & A i r C o n d , FJng  Printing Supvr.  2 (CONT'D)  j A s s r to  Mailing"  Stationery Supvr.  FIGURE  D e p t . M g r ."] B l d g . Srvcfs  Mgr.  Dept. M g r . ; 0ff. & Vehicle Security Srvcs J S e c u r i t y Lrds bteno. Supvr. ! Supvr.  Per^.  J a n i t o r Svc s SuperviSOT  Zhf~~ F i r e P r e v . Officer  -tr  44  The company s t u d i e d i s very p r o g r e s s i v e i n i t s p o l i c i e s w i t h e x c e l l e n t employee p r o v i s i o n s teria facilities,  personnel  (insurance,  cafe-  etc.).  The Questionnaire' and; Data G a t h e r i n g Methods During the l a t t e r months of 1963, company was s t u d i e d w i t h the o b j e c t i v e  one d i v i s i o n of of i n v e s t i g a t i n g  ous aspects of l o y a l t y among a l l employees engaged i n particular division.  the  The method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n  of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent to a l l of the d i v i s i o n  vari-  this  consisted  employees.  The p r e p a r a t i o n o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e followed  generally  accepted p r o c e d u r e s , i n c l u d i n g i n t e r v i e w s with the management and union o f f i c i a l s tionnaire. areas o f  concerned and the p r e t e s t i n g of the  The questions  ques-  were grouped a c c o r d i n g t o nine major  interest.  (1)  Expressed l o y a l t y to s u p e r v i s o r (Blau and S c o t t  (2)  L o y a l t y (defined as s a t i s f a c t i o n  (3)  Loyalty  definition)  or l i k i n g f o r a s u p e r i o r )  (defined as u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h and t r u s t i n a  superior. (4)  L o y a l t y (measured d i r e c t l y - i . e .  "how l o y a l do you f e e l ? " )  (5)  P e r c e i v e d i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y of s u p e r i o r .  (6.)  P e r c e i v e d emotional detachment of immediate s u p e r v i s o r .  (7)  P e r c e i v e d h i e r a r c h i c a l independence.  (8)  P e r c e i v e d s t a b i l i t y of s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s .  (9)  The a t t i t u d e  of a s u p e r v i s o r to ward h i s s u p e r i o r .  45 The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s the  employees  i n the  were  were  taken  questionnaires to  anyone  tribution  to  than  of the  management  of  undertake  to  insure  the  researchers. a  letter  that  had  sanction  study.  study,  b y means  that made  a l l available the  out  dis-  by  the  u n i v e r s i t y was  The l e t t e r  and a d v i s e d the  o f b o t h management  The c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  university  and p r e - <  was s e n t the  of  distributed  Previous to  company a d v i s i n g t h a t  d e s c r i p t i o n of the  cials.  They were  respondents  such a questionnaire  the  home o f e a c h  c o n f i d e n t i a l and not  general i t  the  questionnaire  the  the  on u n i v e r s i t y s t a t i o n e r y ,  w o u l d be  other  to  chosen sample.  by u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l cautions  sent  gave  employees  and u n i o n  were r e t u r n e d  o f an e n c l o s e d a d d r e s s e d  a  and  offi-  to  the  stamped  envelope. The d a t a level  i n the  on t h e  occurrence  h i e r a r c h y are  present  investigation.  without  their  of  of  loyalty  p a r t i c u l a r importance  The r e s p o n d e n t s  knowledge as  i t  according to  had  to  was r e a l i z e d t h e  vestigation  was  a most s e n s i t i v e  was t o h i d e  the  identification  one.  i n the  be  the  identified  area  The m e t h o d signature  to  the  of i n -<  utilized  of  the  researcher. A list tained place on t h e  from a set list.  of  a l l the  the of  employees  company. initials  On t h e  and t h e i r  The method o f beside  the  questionnaire  name  addresses  was  ob-  codification  was  to  of each  going out  to  respondent each  46respondent the  was  researcher's  was w r i t t e n signature  the  the  name.  (e.g.  list,  and  in  such  are pool  and  offices  (2)  (3)  1  of each  the  preceding  questionnaire  hidden  initials then  i n which he  division  are  were  codifying When  traced  the  back  coded a c c o r d i n g  was  to  employed.  for  at  are  least  locations. or  just  a  of  three  are  less  with  eluded  i n the  the  been  months.  However,  such  as  the  cases one  associated there  secretarial  throughout  are  to  various  composed o f  only  few. selected  from  the  total  division  basis:  tified  excluded  In most  proximity to  scattered  than  5 members  Groups and i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h  Groups w i t h  assigned  and have  Some s e c t i o n s  s a m p l e was  following  formally  i n close  Some s e c t i o n s ,  janitorial staff,  Sections  is  s i x such s e c t i o n s .  section  exceptions.  and  by the  a common s u p e r v i s o r ,  A research  (1)  end  i n the  of each  share  two p e o p l e ,  on t h e  At the  e m p l o y e e was  There  sections  some  initials  P o p u l a t i o n .•  a work s e c t i o n .  another,  of  level  employee  members  set  C D . C o r e n b l u m , E.L. C o r e n b l u m ) .  and the  The R e s e a r c h  the  same  was r e t u r n e d ,  department  Each  the  "Thank y o u " f o l l o w e d  questionnaire to  placed  respect  to  research  could  discarded.  not  be  hierarchical level  readily iden-< were  not  in- ;  population.  high non-response stationery  were  rates  and s e r v i c e  were  eliminated.  vehicles  sections.  These  47 (4)  Groups h a v i n g more as  this  would  taining  to  total  of  152  only  in  was  not  tion  lishments  is  with  permission of  the  process  Research  study.  loyalty  per-  s i x departments  having  Population  undertake  to  a random sample  groups,  The w r i t e r  representative its  those  to  o f the  internal about set  the  that  large  the  organiza-  business  books  estab-  There  organization  i n most  procedure  individual  organization.  its  out  or  feels  o f most  do t h e area  is  obtain l i t t l e  study.  this  introduced some b i a s  in this may h a v e  basis  (It  was  that  is  charts;  on  within i t  adminis-  Had more  necessary  suggest  that  connection, been  than  one,  much more consent any  i t  organiza-  the  many  gave  sensitive managements  be  undertaken  or  any  other  in division  time would have begin  important  although  introduced.  to  the  willingly  found that  investigation to  investigate,  the to  on t h e  division  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n rendered  permit  d e c i d e d on t o to  particular  primarily  organizations.)  needed There  to the  unwilling their  of  organization.  w a s made  nature  this  or mysterious  The c h o i c e  been  of  c l o s e l y resemble  trative  tion  after  regard  nothing unique they  analysis  o r g a n i z a t i o n , the  i n the  selected  the  discarded  one; s u p e r v i s o r .  possible to  s e l e c t i n g the  respondents  s u p e r v i s o r were  members.  Representativeness It  one  complicate  There remained a  than  is  the  bias  been  study. has  been  possible  that  48 Fleishman,  H a r r i s ; , and  gested  that  "close  supervisors"  that in  "non-production"  t h e r e was  the  most  ever,  of  contain  the  ability  of  within the  hypothesis  conditions,  Fleishman et.  of  chosen.  other  that  plan  there  and between  degree  definitions  clear, chosen  for  as  They the  found  foremen least  feel  w o u l d i n any  much t o  put  forth  that  this  Howdid  research  way s u g g e s t  limit  the  that  the  divisions".  and S c o t t  might however  fewer  They e x p l a i n  1  subject  d i d not  reported  contain  bias  generaliz-  herein.  Loyalty • of  are  the  investigation  measurable  various  of expressed  The i d e n t i t y relatively  It  sug-  operate w i t h the  "production  Blau I  al.  findings  Variable; -  The e n t i r e osition  those  not  have  divisions".  subordinates)".  as  to  marked tendency  d i v i s i o n s are  the  any  sample  The M a j o r  their  example,  d i v i s i o n s tend  divisions to  deadlines  because  finding in  (for  for  "production  "...fairly  in service  pressure  not  a  than  demanding  consideration those  Burtt,  l o y a l t y toward  this  as  described  for  differences  hierarchical  of  variable  this  in  rests  among  levels their  upon  investigation  I,  prop-  individuals  with respect  to  superiors.  i n systematic Chapter  the  and  theory the  conforms  is  operational substantially  J-Edwin A. Fleishman, Edwin F . H a r r i s , and Harold E . B u r t t , "Leadership and S u p e r v i s i o n i n I n d u s t r y " , People and P r o d u c t i v i t y , Robert A. S u t e r m e i s t e r ( e d . ) , Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1963. p . 420.  49. to the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t i o n . not i n c o n s i s t e n t  Four d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e but  meanings of the concept o f l o y a l t y were  i d e n t i f i e d and measured. (1)  The Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n , i . e . wish t o remain under the i n f l u e n c e  l o y a l t y as of ones  the  present  superior. (2)  L o y a l t y as s a t i s f a c t i o n with of l i k i n g f o r a s u p e r i o r .  (3.)  L o y a l t y as u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h and t r u s t i n a s u p e r i o r .  (4)  The e x p l i c i t l y expressed  f e e l i n g of l o y a l t y i n  response  to a d i r e c t q u e s t i o n . The index of l o y a l t y to a s u p e r i o r was based upon r e sponses to the f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t  questions:  To measure the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g questions Q. 1.  loyalty  were asked:  I f you had a chance t o do the same k i n d of work f o r the same pay i n another work group under the d i r e c - ' t i o n of another s u p e r v i s o r , how would you f e e l moving?  about  CHECK ONE  • 1)  I would very much p r e f e r t o move  2)  I would s l i g h t l y p r e f e r to move  3)  I t would make no d i f f e r e n c e  4)  I would s l i g h t l y p r e f e r to stay where I am  .- • • 5 ) 1  to me  would very much p r e f e r to s t a y where I am  T h e m a j o r i t y of these questions were drawn from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e of Stanley E . Seashore i n h i s study of N o r t h western Mutual L i f e Insurance Company under the auspices of Survey Research C e n t e r , The U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , Ann A r b o r , Michigan. z  50 Q. 2.  I f your boss was t r a n s f e r r e d and only you and you alone i n your work group were given a chance  to  move w i t h him (doing the same work at the same p a y ) , would you f e e l  •  CHECK ONE  • • 1)  I would f e e l  very much l i k e making the move  • 2)  I would f e e l  a little  '• ; • 3) :  •  l i k e making the move?  ;  l i k e making the move  I wouldn't care one way or the  other  4)  I would f e e l  a little  .5)  I would f e e l  very much l i k e not moving with him  To measure  l i k e not moving with him  l o y a l t y as s a t i s f a c t i o n  with or l i k i n g f o r a  s u p e r i o r , the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s were asked: Q.  3.  Is your boss the k i n d of man you r e a l l y l i k e working f o r ? CHECK ONE  ,  Q.  4.  1)  Y e s , he r e a l l y i s  t h a t k i n d of man  2)  Y e s , he i s  3)  He i s  4)  No, he i s not i n many ways  5)  No, he r e a l l y  i n many ways  i n some ways and not i n others  isn't  A l l i n a l l , how s a t i s f i e d  are you with your boss?  CHECK ONE ;  ; 1)  • • 2) ;  •  3)  Very d i s s a t i s f i e d A little Fairly  dissatisfied satisfied  : • • ; 4)  Quite  • . ; 5)  Very s a t i s f i e d  ;  with my s u p e r i o r  satisfied with my s u p e r i o r  51  To in  the  measure  l o y a l t y as  respondent's  unquestioning  superior,  the  faith  following  and  trust  questions  were  inserted. Q.  5.  Generally speaking, do you have 1) _^ 2 ) 3) : 4) 5)  Q.  6.  Superiors be  against  When t h i s trust  , Q.  7.  Almost  .  and  trust  which  seem  CHECK ONE  none  N o t much Some Quite a  lot  Complete at  times  the  in  must  current  happens  the  to  make d e c i s i o n s interests  you as  that  long run?  Complete  2)  A considerable  3)  Some  4)  Only a  5)  No t r u s t  Very  2)  Quite  their  to  subordinates.  subordinate,  how much  decision is  in  your  CHECK ONE  trust amount  of  trust  trust little  is  at  trust  a l l  your boss  i n your work u n i t ? 1)  a  of  your boss'  1)  A b o u t how o f t e n takes  your boss?  do you have  interests  :  in  how much c o n f i d e n c e  often often  responsible  CHECK ONE  for  the  mis-  52  •  ;  3)  Occasionally  . 4)  Very  5)  Never  To m e a s u r e superior,  rarely  the the  direct  to  a  Q.  22.Mow much l o y a l t y  explicit  following  expression  q u e s t i o n was  do you f e e l  of  loyalty  asked:  toward your  boss?  CHECK ONE  _____  1)  A l m o s t none  2)  A  3)  Some  4)  Quite a  • 5) Table responses  response  A very great  to  these  questions.  ing  the  question  As  the  to  the  eight  correlation  judged  the  be is  among  sufficiently  high  a common e l e m e n t  in  questions.  a l l the  Blau  this  to  there  observation  two from  seen,  are  of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n  conclusion that  and  willingness of  c a n be  degree  correlations  to  pertained  deal  the  An i n t e r e s t i n g of  bit  shows  justify  a l l  little  I  These to  at  is  other  Scott  the  questions.  definition  a subordinate  question  coefficient.  apparent  of  independence This  question  loyalty  t o move w i t h  his  regard- ' superior.  achieved a r e l a t i v e l y low  inter-  TABLE I INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG MEAN SCALE VALUES ON SCALES COMPRISING THE INDEX OF LOYALTY (N = 152)  Q.I group  Q.2  Q.3  Q.5  Working i n another  Q. 2.  Moving with the present boss  .485  . -  .494 .55 3 .473 .372  Q.  3.  L i k e working f o r boss  .65 4 . 49 4  Q.  4.  Satisfaction  .654. .553 . 817  -  .6 40  T r u s t i n boss'  .525 .372 .637 .681 .778  Q. 22. L o y a l t y toward boss  .395  .778 .610  0> 6.  Mistakes of boss  .286  .636  .636 .473 .718 .734  7.  Q.22,  .734 .681 .512  Confidence and t r u s t i n boss  Q.  Q.7  .817 .718 .63 7 .571 .636  Q. 5.  decision  Q.6  -. ' .485 . 65 4 .654 .636 .525 .425 .501  Qv 1.  with boss  Q.4  -.  -  .425 .2 86 .571 .512 .610  .5 45  .501 .395  .512  .636 .636  .640  .545 .512 - •  .401  .401 -  54  Although comments to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were not solicitated  from the r e s p o n d e n t s ,  number of respondents question.  there were a l a r g e  who e x p l a i n e d t h e i r answer to  I t may be added here t h a t comments  with the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  p e r t a i n e d t o only two  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as a whole and the second  this  submitted subjects;  question.  The comments p e r t a i n i n g to the second q u e s t i o n  usu-  a l l y d e a l t with the other aspects one c o n s i d e r s when c o n t e m p l a t i n g a t r a n s f e r other than j u s t a l i k i n g f o r a superior.  The respondents  seem to a l s o c o n s i d e r  their  present work group, the desk they now occupy and t h e i r g e n e r a l s t a n d i n g i n t h e i r i n f o r m a l group when d e c i d i n g whether or not they should make a move.  Perhaps  this  c r i t i c i s m of the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n c o u l d b e s t be i l l u s t r a t e d by q u o t i n g the comment of one of the r e s p o n d ents:  "Although I r e s p e c t my immediate s u p e r i o r - 1 would  p r e f e r to s t a y where I am s u p e r v i s i n g the very able  crew  I now s u p e r v i s e " .  "'From correspondence with P e t e r M. Blau the w r i t e r was informed that Blau and Scott used two d e f i n i t i o n s of l o y a l t y , both based on the same i n t e r v i e w i n g q u e s t i o n . They asked a l l case workers i n t e r v i e w e d i n which superv i s o r y u n i t they would want to work i f they c o u l d work i n any u n i t of t h e i r c h o i c e . I f an i n d i v i d u a l named, i n answer to the q u e s t i o n , h i s own s u p e r v i s o r , they c o n s i d ered him l o y a l to h i s s u p e r v i s o r ; i f he d i d n o t , they d i d not c o n s i d e r h i t t l o y a l . In a d d i t i o n , they computed f o r each s u p e r v i s o r whether the m a j o r i t y of a l l h i s subordinates named him i n answer to t h i s question or n o t , and i f they d i d , Blau and Scott considered t h a t he commanded the l o y a l t y of his subordinates.  55  Nevertheless,  i n order t o o b t a i n the maximum meaning  from these measures, they w i l l be a n a l y z e d i n four groups: The Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n , l o y a l t y as  satisfaction  with or l i k i n g f o r a s u p e r i o r , l o y a l t y as u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h and t r u s t i n a s u p e r i o r , and the e x i s t e n c e of l o y a l t y as an a t t i t u d e . S e r i a l values were assigned t o the response  categories  f o r each q u e s t i o n , w i t h the value " 5 " a s s i g n e d to the most favourable category.  Group means were then c a l c u l a t e d ,  g i v i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n , of indexes as i s to f o l l o w .  shown i n the  tables  In cases of non-response t o a q u e s t i o n which a t -  tempted t o measure l o y a l t y , the i n d i v i d u a l was assigned  the  response he most f r e q u e n t l y gave t o the other q u e s t i o n s measuring l o y a l t y . answer a l l . of the  There were two respondents who d i d not questions.  CHAPTER V LOYALTY ON ALTERNATE LEVELS Let us now i n v e s t i g a t e the hypothesis occurrence of l o y a l t y .  concerning the  This chapter w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e  Blau and S c o t t hypothesis  that " . . . l o y a l t y  the  to s u p e r i o r s  in  a h i e r a r c h i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n would be pronounced on a l t e r n a t e levels". Scott  1  Table I I gives the d i s p e r s i o n of the Blau and  l o y a l t y scores a c c o r d i n g to the respondent's  position  i n the h i e r a r c h y . TABLE I I . DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF THE BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION  Level  No. of Respondents  Average Score  1  1  2.5  2  7  4.5  3  24  3.3  4  32  3.0  5  42  3.6  6  38  3.5  7  8  3.7  ^ e t e r M. Blau and W. Richard S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , San F r a n c i s c o : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962. p. 162.  57 For ease of computation, i n a p p l y i n g the test (1,  (Student's t )  the mean of scores  statistical  on the odd l e v e l s  3, 5, and 7) were compared t o the mean of scores on  the even l e v e l s  (2,  4, and 6 ) .  The formula a p p l i e d f o r  a n a l y s i s took the f o l l o w i n g form: 2  A" -  t =  r<B - B~) + ^ ( A - A") 2  2  (1  + 1 )  Where 1) The b a r r e d symbols, f o r example, B", stand f o r means. 2) B and A are the average l e v e l  scores.  3) n . and n_ are the number of l e v e l s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A  o  On t h e b a s i s of the data presented i n Table I I , R e f e r r i n g the c a l c u l a t e d value of t t o t a b l e s  t = .16.  of S t u d e n t ' s  we f i n d t h a t we are not able to r e j e c t the n u l l  t,  hypothesis.  The f o l l o w i n g three t a b l e s w i l l give the d i s p e r s i o n of the a l t e r n a t e l o y a l t y d e f i n i t i o n s .  Again a p p l y i n g these data  t o the above f o r m u l a , no c a l c u l a t e d t i s a l l o w us to r e j e c t the n u l l  l a r g e enough t o  hypothesis.  ^Sidney S i e g e l , Nonparametrie S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Behavi o u r a l S c i e n c e s , Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 195 6. p . 155.  58 TABLE I I I DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTION WITH OR LIKING FOR A SUPERIOR  Level  No. of Respondents  1  1  2.5  2.5  2  7  28.5  4.1  3  24  96.0  4.0  •4  32  104.0  3.3  5  42  149.5  3.6.  6  38  148.0  3.8  7  8  28.0  3.5  df = 5; t = 0; p = n .  Total Score  Average Score  s. TABLE IV  DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THEBASIS OF UNQUESTIONING FAITH AND TRUST IN A SUPERIOR  Level  No. of Respondents  1  1  3.5  3.5  2  7  19.0  3.9  3  24  91.0  3.8  4  32  117.5  3.7  42  15 7.0  3.8  6  38  131.0  3.5  7  8  28.0  3.5  5  -  df = 5; t = 1.071; p = n . s •  Total Score  Average Score  59 TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF DIRECT EXPLICIT EXPRESSION OF LOYALTY  Level  No. of Respondents  1  1  4.0  4.0  2  7  33.0  4.7  3  24  102.0  4.3  4  32  132.0  4.2  5  42  172.0  3.9  6  38  165.0  4.4  7  8  29.0  3.6  d f = 5 ; t = . 2 ; p = n .  Total Score  Average Score  s.  We are not able on any measure to accept the h y p o t h e s i s . Conclusion I t was the aim of t h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter t o i n v e s t i gate the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r w i l l be p r o nounced on a l t e r n a t e l e v e l s . cal  Therefore, i n applying  statisti-  t e s t s the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t there w i l l be no  d i f f e r e n c e i n the l o y a l t y shown to a s u p e r i o r on a l t e r n a t e hierarchical levels.  A p p l y i n g the S t u d e n t ' s t  statistical  t e s t I was not able t o r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis f o r any of  60  the d e f i n i t i o n s . be e s t a b l i s h e d .  Significance of differences  could not  T h e r e f o r e , on the b a s i s o f my d a t a I  cannot a c c e p t the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r w i l l be pronounced on a l t e r n a t e  levels.  Although the s i g n i f i c a n c e of d i f f e r e n c e s be e s t a b l i s h e d , i t i s s t i l l  could not  p o s s i b l e t o make some i n t e r -  e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s from T a b l e s I I I , I V , and V . In a l l three tables there i s a n o t i c e a b l e  difference  of average l o y a l t y s c o r e s a s s i g n e d t o those i n d i v i d u a l s near t h e top o f the d i v i s i o n s t u d i e d , and on Tables and IV t h e r e i s a l s o a n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e  III  of average  s c o r e s between h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s o c c u p y i n g p o s i t i o n s o c c u r r i n g near the bottom of the d i v i s i o n ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n chart. I t i s i n t h e t e s t i n g o f t h o s e i n the a r e a d e s c r i b e d as " m i d d l e management" where t h e h y p o t h e s i s meets i t s greatest resistance.  T h i s seems t o h o l d somewhat w i t h  the t h e o r y e x p r e s s e d by E t z i o n i .  He has observed t h a t a  foreman may be caught i n the dilemma of d u a l l o y a l t y . To the management he conveys t h e i d e a o f a l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e e a g e r l y r e p o r t i n g about o p i n i o n s , a c t i v i t i e s and moods o f t h e workers. He t r i e s t o a v o i d t r a n s m i t t i n g w o r k e r s ' r e q u e s t s and demands i n o r d e r n o t t o be c o n s i d e r e d as i d e n t i f y i n g w i t h the w o r k e r s . He w i l l t e n d t o promise h i g h performance and t o put the blame on t h e workers f o r f a i l u r e t o keep t h e s e p r o m i s e s . To the workers he c o n - i veys l o y a l t y and u n d e r s t a n d i n g ; he a t t e n u a t e s  61 management's orders and demands; and he promises t o t r a n s f e r t h e i r r e q u e s t s and demands upwards and t o ' r a i s e h e l l ' i f they are not accepted. He t r i e s not t o be i d e n t i f i e d with management. P l a y i n g on the 'conspiracy psychology' of the workers (as he does on t h a t of management), he c l a i m s the demands have not been f u l f i l l e d because management i s uncooperative and hardhearted. He i s not only an 'expert of double t a l k ' , but a l s o an e x p e r t on double behaviour. His success i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the a v a i l a b i l i t y and e f f e c t i v e ness of other l i n e s of communication, e.g. steward-superintendent or steward-business agent-management. The s t r o n g e r and b e t t e r they a r e , the s m a l l e r i s h i s maneuvering margin and h i s chances of s u c c e s s . Unp l e a s a n t as the r o l e may seem, one should keep i n mind t h a t , although the f i n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y over one's behaviour l i e s i n one's s e l f , the p o s i t i o n of foreman e x e r t s s t r o n g p r e s s u r e toward such behaviour. The requirements of the human r e l a t i o n s approach, i t seems, do not decrease and may even i n c r e a s e the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t such behaviour w i l l occur.3 I f one accepts t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , then i t : would seem t h a t l o y a l t y need not vary u n i f o r m l y throughout  the whole  o r g a n i z a t i o n , but r a t h e r would develop where the e f f e c t s of t h i s dilemma tends t o be minimal. reason why  Perhaps t h i s i s the  the Blau and S c o t t h y p o t h e s i s seems t o h o l d a t  the extreme ends of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , but not i n the middle. Furthermore,  there i s the D a l t o n h y p o t h e s i s t h a t o f -  f i c e r s a t a l l l e v e l s , when r e c r u i t i n g f o r vacant  positions,  A m i t a i E t z i o n i , "Human R e l a t i o n s and the Foreman", The P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 1 (1958), pp. 37-38 3  62  begin to look f o r a t t i t u d e s  l i k e h i s own as a s s u r i n g  a b a s i s f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g and c o o p e r a t i o n .  The s u p e r i o r  seeks s u b o r d i n a t e s w i t h q u a l i t i e s and i n t e r e s t s  like his  own i n t h e hope t h a t they w i l l t h i n k l i k e he does.** Because o f t h i s , one would e x p e c t c o n f o r m i t y down t h e l i n e r a t h e r t h a n v a r y i n g o r i e n t a t i o n on a l t e r n a t e  ^ M e l v i l l e D a l t o n , Men Who Manage, New York: and Sons, I n c . , 1959. p . 190.  levels.  John Wiley  CHAPTER V I  THE R E L A T I O N S H I P  BETWEEN F E L T L O Y A L T Y AND P E R C E I V E D  AND A C T U A L S U P E R V I S O R Y  This  chapter  investigating measures certain dusive will  of  supervisory  the  the  defined  over h i s when t h e y  The a n a l y s i s be  differentiated  loyalty. only  practise.  of  analyzed  Each  plan requires  that  significantly with  and  presented  proposed  relationships.  null  hypothesis  is case  posed is  i n which  chapter  variables: practises  of  these  by  a  terms w i l l  be  chapter.  the  population  respect  to  the  III  of  only the  and t e s t e d ,  In  testing each  using  groups  index  of  concern  of  Therefore, the  instance,  techniques  directhe des-  presented.  Groups  The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f form  This  three  that  con- <  d i r e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  of  of  stated  be more  i n Chapter  tion  Distribution  three  Analysis  requires  each  been  will  in this  analysis  as  has  to  informal authority  an a d e q u a t e  cribed  analysis  of supervisory  of effective  are  existence  the  an  loyalty to  consistency  The h y p o t h e s e s  the  It  behaviour  subordinates.  Plan, o f  of  loyalty in relation  relationship  detachment,  and  findings  l o y a l t y of subordinates.  establishment  superior  the  of supervisory  to w i n n i n g the  analyze  Design  subordinate  forms  emotional and  presents  BEHAVIOUR  this  the  analysis  groups is  to  was  determined  be p r e s e n t e d .  by  the  Because  of  64  the c r i t i c i s m made of the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n  (see  Chapter I V , page 5 4 ) , the s u p e r v i s i o n v a r i a b l e s w i l l be r e l a t e d to two d e f i n i t i o n s  of l o y a l t y :  t h a t based on the  Blau and S c o t t measure and t h a t based on the o v e r a l l loyalty  measures.  1  Let us now proceed to i n v e s t i g a t e  some of the  rela-  t i o n s h i p s of l o y a l t y i n accordance with the aforementioned conditions. L o y a l t y and Emotional Detachment P r e d i c t i o n 2(a) presented i n Chapter I I I reads follows:  as  "The g r e a t e r the a b i l i t y of a s u p e r i o r t o m a i n t a i n  emotional detachment - t o remain calm and r a r e l y i f l o s e h i s temper, the more l i k e l y he i s h i s subordinates".  ever  to win the l o y a l t y of  T h e r e f o r e , the n u l l hypothesis  t o be  posed would s t a t e i n e f f e c t t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of emotional detachment on the p a r t of a s u p e r i o r i s winning of the l o y a l t y of h i s  i r r e l e v a n t i n the  subordinates.  The q u e s t i o n upon which t h i s p r e d i c t i o n focuses i s  the  following: Q. 8.  When t h i n g s d o n ' t go smoothly, how l i k e l y i s your s u p e r v i s o r w i l l  l o s e h i s temper or get  it  that  excited?  CHECK ONE 1) He almost never l o s e s h i s temper or gets e x c i t e d .  ^ R e c a l l that the a l t e r n a t i v e measure of l o y a l t y i s on s i x questions as presented i n Chapter I V .  based  65  ;  2) He only seldom l o s e s h i s temper or gets 3) He f a i r l y often  l o s e s h i s temper or gets  4) He f r e q u e n t l y l o s e s h i s temper or gets ;  excited. excited.  excited.  5) He almost always l o s e s h i s temper and gets excited.  Values of one through f i v e were assigned t o these response categories,  and a mean response was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each group.  I f a respondent checked the f i r s t answer, h i s answer was given a w e i g h t i n g of f i v e ; and i f he checked the l a s t answer, i t was given a w e i g h t i n g of one.  The other i n t e r v e n i n g p o s s i b l e  answers were weighted a c c o r d i n g l y . The a n a l y s i s took two forms:  one based on the Blau and  S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y and the other based on the o v e r a l l loyalty score.  This form of a n a l y s i s w i l l be u t i l i z e d t h r o u g h -  out the remainder of t h i s  chapter.  Let us now look at the r e s u l t s on the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n .  of t h i s q u e s t i o n as based The respondents were  g o r i z e d i n t o l o y a l and n o n - l o y a l groups on the b a s i s answers given t o the f i r s t  two questions  cate-  of  on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  I f a respondent cheeked o f f e i t h e r of the l a s t  two answers  to  q u e s t i o n one and e i t h e r of the l a s t two answers t o q u e s t i o n two, he was c l a s s i f i e d as l o y a l .  I f a respondent r e t u r n e d any  other combination of answers t o these questions he was  See f;aE.ges,;:tf;9 and 5 0 . .  66  categorized as "not l o y a l " .  This method of categorization  w i l l be also u t i l i z e d i n the presentation of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n concerning the other two hypotheses of this chapter. The rationale behind the decision to categorize on the basis described above was determined by the wording of the alternative answers available to the respondents upon t h e i r consideration of the f i r s t two questions.  As may be  seen from the questionnaire, the last two answers of question one and the f i r s t two answers of question two indicate a "positive loyalty" (a preference to remain under the i n fluence of the present superior); the t h i r d alternative indicates an i n d i f f e r e n t attitude toward the superior as to the existence of loyalty (there i s no preference to remain or be removed from the influence of the present superior); the f i r s t two answers of question one and last two answers of question two indicate a "negative loyalty" (a preference to be removed from the influence of the present superior). Because the hypotheses to be tested are concerned with an examination of "positive loyalty", i t was decided to i n d i cate the respondent as l o y a l i f he indicated "positive loyalty"; not l o y a l was used to categorize a l l other respondents. I t was decided by the writer that the study of the f i r s t three hypotheses presented i n this chapter would be more meaningful i f the categorization of respondents took  67  a more minute form than merely " l o y a l " and "not l o y a l " . Consequently, two s t a t i s t i c a l  t e s t s were used:  the 3  t e s t and the r t e s t . The o r i g i n a l impetus f o r t h i s  study was d e r i v e d  from the s t u d i e s of Blau and S c o t t . testing  t h e i r concept of l o y a l t y ,  of a n a l y s i s which they used. t e s t , as the d i f f e r e n c e s  Consequently, i n  I used t h e same form  T h i s meant u s i n g the 3  of means i n a l a r g e  sample  were t o be compared. The composite d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y was used f o r the more minute c a t e g o r i z a t i o n .  This second system of  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was used because of the d e s i r e t o study the way i n which the values  of l o y a l t y are  w i t h , or r e l a t e d t o , the values  of emotional  i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y and c o n s i s t e n c y tises.  I t was e a s i e r  associated detachment,  of supervisory prac-  t o see t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p by i n -  c r e a s i n g the number of c a t e g o r i e s from two t o f i v e , and t o t e s t the r e l a t i o n s h i p the r t e s t was u s e d . The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e presents the r e l a t i o n s h i p between worker l o y a l t y and a s u p e r i o r who i s p e r c e i v e d to e x h i b i t emotional  detachment.  68 TABLE VI SUPERIOR'S EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION) (n = 152)  Worker L o y a l t y t o S u p e r i o r  Emotional Detachment of  Loyal  (A)  JT = 4.65  (B)  K - 3.85  Not  (61)  L o y a l (91) :  :  : C A  2  -  .3271;  Superior  G*B = 1.1881 2  From t h i s t a b l e , our n u l l h y p o t h e s i s would take the form U  1  - U  2  = d  Q  ; namely, t h a t there i s no d i f f e r e n c e  between  the p o p u l a t i o n means.  Our a l t e r n a t i v e would then have the  form o f U  McCarthy s t a t e s t h a t i f  between  A  - U  2  i d . Q  0 * 2.5 8 \ C  +  (X^ '- X" ) i s 2  we: may accept the hypothesis  t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the p o p u l a t i o n means at the one per cent l e v e l of s i g n x f i e a n c e .  Utilizing  formula above, we a r r i v e a t a f i g u r e of * .3612. d i f f e r e n c e of my sample means (.80). f a l l s  the  Because the  o u t s i d e of these  l i m i t s we a r e a b l e t o r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l t e r n a t i v e ( U may  1  - U ) * 0. g  T h e r e f o r e , on t h i s b a s i s we  conclude that the emotional detachment of a s u p e r i o r i s  r e l a t e d t o h i s b e i n g able t o command the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates.  P h i l i p J . McCarthy, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S t a t i s t i c a l ReasonToronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1957. p. 261.  3  ing,  69 The next p a r t of t h i s a n a l y s i s p l a n concerns measurement of emotional detachment on the b a s i s c a t e g o r i z i n g the respondents i n t o s i g n i f i c a n t groups.  The r e s u l t s  F i g u r e 3.  (See page  For t h i s coefficient  is  the of  loyalty  of t h i s a n a l y s i s are presented i n 70.)  f i g u r e , the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n .925.  R e f e r r i n g t o a c h a r t of 95 per  cent confidence i n t e r v a l s f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n  coefficient,  we f i n d t h a t f o r a sample s i z e of 155, the two values P are approximately P^ = +.89 we can accept the h y p o t h e s i s  and P^ = +.95. t h a t there i s  of  Therefore,  a relationship  between the l o y a l t y of a s u b o r d i n a t e and the emotional detachment of h i s s u p e r i o r .  On the b a s i s  of these d a t a ,  one i s a b l e t o conclude a t the 95 per cent confidence  level  t h a t the l e v e l of l o y a l t y e x h i b i t e d by a subordinate toward a s u p e r i o r w i l l be c o n d i t i o n e d by the degree of emotional detachment which a subordinate p e r c e i v e s h i s s u p e r i o r as e x h i b i t i n g i n h i s attempts t o have h i s subordinates comply with the d i r e c t i v e s . L o y a l t y and Informal A u t h o r i t y Hypothesis K a )  presented i n Chapter I I I reads as  follows:  "Superiors who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates are more l i k e l y than others t o e s t a b l i s h e f f e c t i v e i t y over them and thus t o i n f l u e n c e them". hypothesis  informal author-  T h e r e f o r e , , the  to be t e s t e d would s t a t e t h a t the commanding of  null the  70 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOYALTY TO A SUPERIOR AND HIS PERCEIVED EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) High Detachment 5-  1Low Detachment  L o y a l t y Score  Mean Emotional Detachment No.  of  Respondents  1-2.5 ( Low)  3  3.5  4  4.5  5 (High)  2. 88  3.99  4.24  4.50  4.56  4.91  22  18  43  24  21  27  FIGURE 3  71 l o y a l t y of one's subordinates  is: not r e l a t e d to the  form  of a u t h o r i t y which a s u p e r i o r e x e r c i s e s i n g a i n i n g comp l i a n c e with h i s  directives.  A l s o presented i n Chapter I I I were f o u r p r e d i c t i o n s [1(b)  - 1(c)]  concerning the occurrence of l o y a l t y and the  manner by which a s u p e r i o r would gain compliance with h i s directives.  These p r e d i c t i o n s were not i n d i v i d u a l l y t e s t e d  but r a t h e r presented as a s c a l e of " i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y " . I t may be noted t h a t by d e f i n i t i o n i t i s  these forms of  behaviour which have been used t o define  informal  authority.  The degree of i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y possessed by a s u p e r i o r was based on response  t o the f o l l o w i n g f i v e q u e s t i o n s :  what e x t e n t do you do what your s u p e r v i s o r wants (Check one answer i n each  To  because:  line).  Not a t To a very To some To a To a very all little extent considgreat extent erable extent extent (1) (2) (3) O) (5) 1) He's a n i c e guy and you d o n ' t want to h u r t him. 2) You r e s p e c t h i s competence and good judgment. 3) He can p e n a l i z e or otherwise disadvantage those who do not cooperate  72 (1)  (2)  (3)  (4)  (5)  4) He can give s p e c i a l help and b e n e f i t s to those who cooperate with him. 5) He has a l e g i t imate r i g h t , considering his p o s i t i o n , to expect t h a t h i s suggestions w i l l be c a r r i e d out S e r i a l values of one through f i v e were assigned t o these response c a t e g o r i e s group. all  and a mean response c a l c u l a t e d ; f o r each  These mean responses were then combined i n t o an o v e r -  " i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y " s c o r e as w i l l be p r e s e n t e d . A c h o i c e of a l t e r n a t i v e f i v e was weighted as the h i g h e s t  degree of i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y f o r q u e s t i o n s one and f o u r .  A  c h o i c e of a l t e r n a t i v e one i n d i c a t e s the h i g h e s t degree of p e r c e i v e d i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y f o r questions three and f i v e . The d e r i v a t i o n of an i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y score w i l l now be e x p l a i n e d .  The responses  were given a h i g h r a t i n g  (5)  was chosen and a low r a t i n g 1 was chosen.  to questions one, two and f o u r i f a l t e r n a t i v e answer number 5 (1)  i f a l t e r n a t i v e answer number  The w e i g h t i n g process f o l l o w e d a s i m i l a r form  f o r the choice of any of the three other p o s s i b l e In weighting the responses  t o questions  choices.  three and f i v e , a  h i g h w e i g h t i n g (5) was given t o answer number 1 and a low rating  (1) given i f the respondent answered q u e s t i o n number  73  five.  Intervening values  depending upon the  were  answer  assigned  chosen  along the  i n response  to  scale  each  question. From t h e determined informal the by  answers  for  the  four.  given to  number  question,  to  fourth  superior  rating  of  the  number  first  of  his  is  able  to  subordinates  number  3 to  1 to  the  sum  the  number  fifth  5  question.  authority  that  in  g a i n i n g the  provide which a  his  superior  he  can give s p e c i a l help  because  loyal  a superior  loyalty  subordinate the  the  to  superior  will  of h i s  special services  loyal  from  III,  make t h e m i n d e b t e d  of  be r e c a l l e d  ~)  i n Chapter  felt  with  have  third question,  I  was  superior  may  r e c e i v e d an i n f o r m a l  it  will  this  Response  was s t a t e d  more s u c c e s s f u l he  felt  i . e . (4 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 5)  Interpretation  if  and d i v i d i n g  respondent  and number  (  As  a  was  c a l c u l a t e d by summing  question,  the  there  respondent  was  response  2 to  would have  questions,  of each  a typical  question  4.2  the  This  each  4 to  second  His  score.  For example,  answered  the  superior  authority  weights  given to  will is  and  subordinates  cited  favours  will  not  for  to him.  Therefore,  obey  directives  a nice  in  much  subordinates  t h o s e who c o o p e r a t e  studies  be  the guy,  with  Chapter gain  because him.  III,  a  compliance  As  74  simply because he has a l e g i t i m a t e  r i g h t to expect t h a t  h i s demands w i l l be complied w i t h , or because he possesses the r i g h t to A n a l y s i s of  penalize. Results  F i r s t of a l l , l e t us analyze these r e s u l t s of  the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n .  on the  basis  The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e p r e -  sents the r e l a t i o n s h i p between worker l o y a l t y and a s u p e r i o r who i s  p e r c e i v e d to gain compliance with h i s  through the use of i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y  directives  practises.  TABLE VII SUPERIOR'S INFORMAL AUTHORITY AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT MEASURE) (n = 152)  Worker L o y a l t y t o Superior  Informal A u t h o r i t y R a t i n g of S u p e r i o r  L o y a l (61)  (A)  X = 3.14  L o y a l ( 9 1 ) (B)  X = 2.48  Not  CA  2  =  .635;  .865  U t i l i z i n g McCarthy's a n a l y s i s , we f i n d t  2 . 5 8 ^ Cx^* +  The n u l l hypothesis difference  that  w i l l y i e l d values r a n g i n g from t again takes the form U  between the means).  1  - U  2  = d  Q  .3612,  (ho  The a l t e r n a t i v e then has  the  75 form U • - UL * d . 1 2 O is  .66.  The d i f f e r e n c e of means i n Table VII  Because t h i s f a l l s  o u t s i d e 1 .3212 we are able  to r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s and accept the t h a t there i s  alternate  a d i f f e r e n c e between the means (U, - U„ / d )  at the one per cent l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  O  2  i.  T h e r e f o r e , on  the b a s i s of t h i s d a t a we may r e j e c t the n u l l  hypothesis  and accept the a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t those s u p e r i o r s who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s are l i k e l y to e s t a b l i s h e f f e c t i v e  i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over them.  The next p a r t of t h i s a n a l y s i s plan i s  concerned with  a n a l y z i n g the occurrence of i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y on the of c a t e g o r i z i n g the respondents i n t o s i g n i f i c a n t groups. (See page  basis  loyalty  The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are present i n F i g u r e  '4.  76.)  The product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s  .931.  Referring to a  c h a r t of 9 5 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l s f o r the c o r r e l a t i o n coefficient, P  T  Li  = +.89  the sample s i z e of 155 gives the values of  and P.. = +.95.  As my product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s  U  . 9 3 1 , a t the 95 per cent confidence l e v e l I am able t o r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s and accept the a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s i s  that  a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p does e x i s t between subordinate l o y a l t y and a s u p e r i o r ' s a b i l i t y t o e x e r c i s e a u t h o r i t y over them.  effective  informal  76 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOYALTY TO A SUPERIOR AND HIS PERCEIVED USE OF THE TECHNIQUES OF INFORMAL AUTHORITY (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) High Informal Authority  5-  4-  » H  (—t  Q « WO > 35 M H O OS  3-  <  W >J (X < PS  2-  o  1Low Informal Authority  Loyalty  Score  Mean Informal A u t h o r i t y Score No. of  Respondents  1-2.5 (Low)  3  3.5  4  4.5  2.3  2.3  2.8  3.0  3.1  '22  18  43  24  21  FIGURE 4  5 (High)  3.3  27  77  L o y a l t y and Consistency In Chapter I I I i t was hypothesized who i s  p e r c e i v e d by h i s subordinates  i n h i s enforcement  that  "A s u p e r v i s o r  as b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t  of working r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s ,  strict-  ness and g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour w i l l be more l i k e l y to possess the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates not so p e r c e i v e d " . therefore  The n u l l hypothesis  than one who i s  to be t e s t e d would  c l a i m t h a t the p e r c e p t i o n of c o n s i s t e n t  visory practises  super-  by a subordinate would not have any e f f e c t  upon the s u p e r i o r ' s his subordinates.  l i k e l i h o o d of winning the l o y a l t y of The method of a n a l y s i s  took the same form  as the two p r e c e d i n g t e s t s . A measure of c o n s i s t e n c y following Q. 18.  was obtained from asking  the  question:  Would you say t h a t your s u p e r v i s o r i s h i s enforcement  consistent i n  of the working r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s ,  supervision, strictness,  etc.,  or do you t h i n k h i s  behaviour v a r i e s from time to time and from worker to worker? .  CHECK ONE  1)  His behaviour i s  almost always  2)  His behaviour i s u s u a l l y  .  3)  Sometimes he i s not  .  •*+)  Most often he i s not  5)  He h a r d l y ever i s  consistent.  consistent.  consistent. consistent.  consistent.  78 On the b a s i s of the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e was d e r i v e d from the answers of  the  respondents. TABLE V I I I RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSISTENCY OF SUPERVISORY PRACTISES AND THE LOYALTY OF SUBORDINATES (n = 152)  Worker L o y a l t y to Superior Loyal Not  (A)  X = 4.2 7  (91) (B)  X = 3.58  (61)  Loyal CT  2  Perceived c o n s i s t e n c y of S u p e r i o r ' s Supervisory P r a c t i s e s  = .458;  CT  = 1.103  2  In Table V I I I the n u l l hypothesis would take the form U.  X  - U- = d 2  o  (there i s no" d i f f e r e n c e between means) and the  a l t e r n a t e would take the form U . - U„ i d ference between means). find that ± 2 . 5 8  \ CT* +  (there i s  a dif-  Using the data of Table V I I I we C¥*  As our d i f f e r e n c e of means i s  y i e l d s a range of t  .4012.  .69 we are a b l e to r e j e c t  the  n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l t e r n a t e at the one per cent l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . sistency  T h e r e f o r e , we may conclude t h a t c o n -  of s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s as p e r c e i v e d by subordinates  w i l l have some e f f e c t  i n the winning of subordinate l o y a l t y .  79 Let us now proceed to i n v e s t i g a t e  the p o s s i b i l i t y of  l o y a l t y v a r y i n g i n accordance with the degree of s u p e r v i s o r y consistency. (See page  This i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l be analyzed i n F i g u r e  80.)  The product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s to a c h a r t of 95 per cent confidence relation coefficient P  T  5.  = +.89  Again r e f e r r i n g  i n t e r v a l s f o r the c o r -  the sample s i z e of 155 y i e l d s values  and P., = +.95.  L  .915.  of  As the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n  U  of F i g u r e 5 i s  .915 we may r e j e c t  accept the a l t e r n a t e consistency  the n u l l hypothesis and  t h a t on the b a s i s  of supervisory practises  nates w i l l i n f l u e n c e l o y a l t y of h i s  of the data gathered  as p e r c e i v e d by s u b o r d i -  the a b i l i t y of a s u p e r i o r to command the  subordinates.  Conclusion SECTION  I t was the aim of t h i s  chapter to investigate A  three hy-  potheses d e s c r i b i n g s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour which may be r e l a t e d to a s u p e r i o r p o s s e s s i n g the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . the b a s i s  of the data c o l l e c t e d from the sample I was able  conclude t h a t the establishment  of e f f e c t i v e  On to  informal author-  i t y over s u b o r d i n a t e s , the a b i l i t y to m a i n t a i n emotional detachment from subordinates and the use of c o n s i s t e n t tives is feel  direc-  s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the l o y a l t y which subordinates  for their superior.  80 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSISTENCY OF SUPERVISORY PRACTISES AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE  DEFINITION)  High Consistency  co M GO  o o 1-  Low  Consistency i,  L o y a l t y Score  Mean S u p e r v i s o r y Consistency Score No.  of  Respondents  1-2.5 (Low)  •3 .  3.5  -  .  4  4.5  5 (High)  2.57  3.70  4.00  4.05  4.18  4.69  22  18  43  24  21  27  FIGURE 5  81  Conditions Predicting the Development of Loyalty The next part of t h i s chapter investigates three hypotheses which attempt to predict the formulation of a superior l o y a l t y scheme.  One hypothesis  the degree of l o y a l t y from subordinates  subordinate-  states i n effect that which a superior i s able  to enjoy w i l l be r e l a t e d to the degree of independence the supervisor enjoys from his superior; the second i s that strong t i e s of l o y a l t y to h i s own  superior may  reduce the need of a  supervisor to win the l o y a l t y of his subordinates; l o y a l t y of subordinates  and  thirdly,  lessens the need of a supervisor to  seek the approval of h i s superior by becoming attached to him and emulating h i s s t y l e of supervision.  Plan of the Investigation This analysis x ^ i l l investigate some conditions which are r e l a t e d to the degree of l o y a l t y of supervisors, superiors subordinates.  For the purpose of t h i s analysis, supervisors  be deemed to be those who superior.  and  have authority over a  will  subordinate's  Because of the complexity of the analysis t h i s chapter  section w i l l follow only one form of s t a t i s t i c a l analysis.  As  might be imagined, i t i s very possible for there to e x i s t , on given l e v e l of an organization, subordinates not l o y a l to t h e i r superiors.  who  are l o y a l  Consequently, i t would be  most d i f f i c u l t to test the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these scores  on  and  any  82 the  basis  would less  the  be  of a c r i t i c a l so  c o m p l i c a t e d as  to  anyone  As  a result,  pattern  Student's However, based  t  is  of  this  Test  and  his  the  of  the  Blau  and  will  Scott  have  his  commands  to  only  Probability  definition  loyal  and once  his  procedures he w o u l d  the  Test.  on  once  the  has  will  If  subordinates".  For the  ability  him.  loyalty  of his  as  a  own r a t h e r  of his to  likely purpose  or  supervisor's than  in  able  c o n t r o l the  consulto  change  that  subordinates  to  opportunity  indebted  to win their  i t  loyalty.  make a  to him,  the  (Hypothesis  "A superior will  was  environment  opportunities  The more  states  i n -  own r e a s o n i n g ,  subordinates  Thus p r e d i c t i o n 3(b) the  a superior,  a supervisor is  able  to  t o make h i s  be h i s  from  t h u s h a v e more  indebted  "The more the more  basis  be b e t t e r  that  superior,  on h i s  on t h e  and  III  was d e f i n e d  superior.  subordinates  ).  scores  assume  be i n v e s t i g a t e d t w i c e :  from  independence,  subordinates  greater  mathematics^  score.  he w i l l  with  that  of  results  meaning-  analysis w i l l  Fisher Exact  a supervisor is  supervisor  1(a)  and  t o make d e c i s i o n s  existing  his  design  student  i n v e s t i g a t i o n independence  ability  of  them a l m o s t  the  Independence  hierarchical  felt  render  was h y p o t h e s i z e d i n C h a p t e r  that  tation  the  loyalty  dependent it  (Further,  an advanced  each hypothesis  composite  It  but  to  score.  o f s u b j e c t i n g mean l o y a l t y  on t h e  Loyalty  ratio  be more  who willing  83 to change e x i s t i n g procedures  without  consulting his  s u p e r i o r than a s u p e r i o r who does n o t command l o y a l t y from h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s " .  Therefore,, the n u l l  hypothesis  would s t a t e t h a t h i e r a r c h i c a l independence would not be of any consequence i n a s u p e r v i s o r ' s a b i l i t y t o win the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates. A measure o f h i e r a r c h i c a l independence was d e r i v e d through  responses  from the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s :  Q. 14. To what extent are you w i l l i n g t o change e x i s t i n g procedures  without  c o n s u l t i n g your s u p e r i o r ?  CHECK ONE 1) . .  Never w i l l i n g t o change them  2) ...Occasionally w i l l i n g t o change them 3)  Sometimes w i l l i n g t o change them  4)  U s u a l l y w i l l not h e s i t a t e t o change them  5)  Never h e s i t a t e t o change them  The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e presents the c o l l e c t e d data i n summary form. (See page 84) Let us now proceed  t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s h y p o t h e s i s on t h e  b a s i s o f t h e composite l o y a l t y s c o r e . with the p r e v i o u s t e s t , the respondents  To m a i n t a i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i l l be c a t e g o r i z e d on  the same c r i t e r i a , i . e . those who s c o r e d 4.0 - 5.0 on the l o y a l t y measure w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as l o y a l , and the o t h e r s be deemed not l o y a l f o r the purposes o f the r e s e a r c h .  will  84 TABLE IX SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT MEASURE) AND SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE (n =25  groups)  L o y a l t y Status of Subordinate Group  S u p e r v i s o r y Independence Score  Loyal  X = 3.78  (11)  Not L o y a l df  (14)  X = 3.57  = 23; t = .42 ; p = n . s .  The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e presents  the c o l l e c t e d data based  on the composite l o y a l t y s c o r e . TABLE X SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE SCORE) AND SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status of Subordinate Group Loyal  (9)  Not L o y a l  Supervisory Independence Score X == 2.83  (16)  X == 3.15  85  On  the b a s i s of t h i s s c o r e , i t seems t h a t the  pothesis  becomes r e v e r s e d .  The  supervisors  of  hy-  loyal  groups c l a i m t o have l e s s h i e r a r c h i c a l independence than those of l e s s l o y a l groups. This may  not be as s u r p r i s i n g upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n  the m o d i f i c a t i o n esis.  Blau and  S c o t t put  C i t i n g the study of P e l z  pothesis  f o r t h to t h e i r hypoth-  , they q u a l i f y t h e i r  hy-  to s t a t e t h a t to be e f f e c t i v e , h i e r a r c h i c a l  independence must be accompanied by good practises. 3(c);  of  supervisory  Let us then proceed to i n v e s t i g a t e p r e d i c t i o n  namely, t h a t "A s u p e r i o r who  i s perceived  subordinates  as engaging i n 'good  and  h i e r a r c h i c a l independence w i l l be more l i k e l y  enjoying  t o win  1  supervisory  by h i s  the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates  than a s u p e r i o r  does not enjoy h i e r a r c h i c a l independence and good s u p e r v i s o r y  behaviour".  practises  who  does not engage  Thus, the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t o  be t e s t e d would s t a t e t h a t the winning of subordinate l o y a l t y would not be a f f e c t e d by h i e r a r c h i c a l independence good s u p e r v i s o r y  and  practises.  A measure of good s u p e r v i s o r y through responses to the f o l l o w i n g  p r a c t i s e s was  obtained  questions:  ^ D o n a l d C. P e l z , " I n f l u e n c e : A Key t o E f f e c t i v e L e a d e r s h i p i n the F i r s t - L i n e S u p e r v i s o r " , Personnel, V o l . 29 ( 1 9 5 2 ) pp 209 - 217.  86' Q. 15.  Does your s u p e r v i s o r engage i n "good" s u p e r v i s o r y practises? .  CHECK ONE  1) • 2)  Yes, he u s u a l l y does Yes, he does i n many ways  :. - • 3) ______ . Q. 16.  He does i n some ways and not i n others  •+)  No, he does not i n many ways  5)  No, he u s u a l l y does not  How c o n f i d e n t do you f e e l t h a t your s u p e r v i s o r keeps you f u l l y and f r a n k l y informed about t h i n g s t h a t might concern you? • 1) 2) • ,, 3) :  Q. 17.  CHECK ONE  None a t a l l Some, t o a very  little  extent  To some extent  4)  To a c o n s i d e r a b l e  5)  To a very g r e a t  extent  extent  In s o l v i n g problems or making d e c i s i o n s which conf r o n t him, how o f t e n does your s u p e r i o r seek the o p i n i o n o f h i s subordinates? 1) . •  :  Almost never  2)  Seldom  3)  About h a l f the time  . 4) 5)  CHECK ONE  Quite  often  Almost always  Perhaps a b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n would be a p p r o p r i a t e here d e s c r i b i n g the methods u t i l i z e d i n a n a l y z i n g the three factors  (subordinate  loyalty score, supervisory practises  87 and h i e r a r c h i c a l independence s c o r e s ) .  Each s u p e r v i s o r y  score was m u l t i p l i e d  by the corresponding  independence s c o r e .  The products  hierarchical  were then summed and  an average score f o r s u p e r i o r s i n the l o y a l - n o n - l o y a l c a t e g o r i e s was obtained by d i v i d i n g the sum by the number of respondents i n each category.  For example, a t y p i c a l  s u p e r v i s o r may have r e c e i v e d a s u p e r v i s o r y score o f 4 and a h i e r a r c h i c a l independence score o f 4.  T h i s would give  him  a s u p e r v i s o r y independence and behaviour  The  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f the s u p e r i o r s was determined on the  b a s i s o f the subordinate The  score o f 16.  loyalty scores.  f o l l o w i n g t a b l e w i l l present these data as based  on t h e Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n . TABLE XI RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE AND SUPERVISORY PRACTISES SCORES (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status of Subordinate Group  Supervisory Independence and Behaviour Score  L o y a l (11)  X = 15.00  Not  X = 12.48  L o y a l (14)  df = 23; t = .43; P = n.s.  88 On the Blau and S c o t t b a s i s , the data which I c o l l e c t e d do not y i e l d a l a r g e enough " t " score t o a l l o w me t o r e j e c t the n u l l  hypothesis.  Let us now i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s hypothesis on the b a s i s of the a l t e r n a t e d e f i n i t i o n . TABLE X I I RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE AND SUPERVISORY PRACTISES SCORES (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status of Subordinate Group  Supervisory Independence and Behaviour Score  L o y a l (9)  X = 11  Not  X = 9  L o y a l (16)  df = 23; t = .45; p = n.s. From the data c o l l e c t e d , the " t " t e s t does not y i e l d a score h i g h enough t o allow us t o r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . Thus, on the b a s i s o f the Student's  " t " t e s t when a p p l i e d  to my data, I am n o t able t o p r e d i c t the r e s u l t a n t  loyalty  f a c t o r which h i e r a r c h i c a l independence and good s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s w i l l have upon s u b o r d i n a t e s . L o y a l t y and S o c i a l  Support  As may be r e c a l l e d from Chapter  I I I , i t was  suggested  t h a t the source of s o c i a l support o f a s u p e r v i s o r would be  89 an important  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the p o s s i b i l i t y of the  occurrence of subordinate l o y a l t y .  Hypothesis  5(a)  s t a t e d t h a t "Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y t o one's s u p e r i o r may  reduce  the need of a s u p e r v i s o r to win the r e s p e c t  of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s " .  P r e d i c t i o n 5 ( b ) , which was  on t h i s h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e d t h a t "A s u p e r i o r who  commands  a h i g h e r degree of the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s f e e l i t more important t o win the r e s p e c t and of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s than one who  based  will  allegiance  commands a l e s s e r degree  of the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s " . The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t o be t e s t e d would, t h e r e f o r e , s t a t e t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the winning subordinate l o y a l t y and the source of s o c i a l  of  support.  The a l t e r n a t i v e i s t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e . These concepts were measured on the b a s i s of the responses Q. 18.  g i v e n t o the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n :  With you a t work are people a t h i g h e r l e v e l s ,  lower  l e v e l s and the same l e v e l as y o u r s e l f i n the  organ-  ization.  I f you were f o r c e d t o choose, which group's  f r i e n d s h i p and r e s p e c t do you value most? most the f r i e n d s h i p and r e s p e c t o f : .  1) - 2)  ,  3)  I value  (Check one  only)  My s u p e r i o r s My  subordinates  Those a t the same l e v e l i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n as  myself  90 The f o l l o w i n g t a b l e p r e s e n t s the data c o l l e c t e d on the b a s i s o f the Blau and S c o t t concept of l o y a l t y . TABLE X I I I RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT (BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION) Cn = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status o f Subordinates  Source o f S o c i a l Support Superior Subordinate Peer  L o y a l (11)  2  7  2  Not L o y a l (14)  6  2  6  The  f o l l o w i n g formula w i l l be used t o t e s t the s i g n i f i -  cance o f the d a t a : X  2  =  k i—=l  Where x, = 2  and -o-  (x. - n . £ ) ni ,  2  5  i ) 4  n_ = 8  7  n  2  n.  2  = 9  11 25  A p p l y i n g t h i s data t o the above formula, we f i n d  that  2 X  w i l l come t o v a l u e of 6.39.  R e f e r r i n g t o a t a b l e of  J o h n E. Freund, Mathematical S t a t i s t i c s , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1962. p. 277. 5  calculated the  Chi-Square, we f i n d t h i s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t  .05 l e v e l .  n u l l hypothesis The  T h e r e f o r e , a t t h i s l e v e l we can r e j e c t the and accept the a l t e r n a t i v e .  f o l l o w i n g t a b l e w i l l present the same i n f o r m a t i o n  as the one immediately of the subordinates  p r e c e d i n g , only the l o y a l t y s t a t u s  w i l l be determined on the b a s i s o f the  proposed composite l o y a l t y  definition.  TABLE XIV RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT . (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status o f Subordinates  S u p e r i o r ' s Source of S o c i a l Superior Subordinate  Support Peer  Loyal  2  6  1  Not  8  3  5  Loyal  A p p l y i n g the same s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t as t o the previous s e t o f r e s u l t s , we fxnd t h a t X at the .05 l e v e l .  =6.13, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t  Again, measuring l o y a l t y on the composite  s c o r e , we a r e a b l e t o r e j e c t  the n u l l and accept the a l t e r n a t e  hypothesis.  ° H a s t y c o n c l u s i o n s should not be drawn from these f i n d ings as the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s determined from a weak t e s t because of the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l sample s i z e .  92 L o y a l t y and S t y l e of S u p e r v i s i o n I t was claimed  t h a t i f a s u p e r i o r wins t h e l o y a l t y  of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s ,  he would not experience as much need  to seek the approval  of h i s s u p e r i o r s .  claimed  t h a t one method::of seeking  take the form o f becoming attached his. s t y l e o f s u p e r v i s i o n .  superior approval  approval  Thus, p r e d i c t i o n 5(c)  w i l l be l e s s l i k e l y  emulating h i s s t y l e of s u p e r v i s i o n " .  t o seek t h e t o him and  Therefore,  h y p o t h e s i s t o be t e s t e d would s t a t e t h a t l o y a l w i l l i n no way a f f e c t the p r o p e n s i t y  stated  degree of the l o y -  o f h i s s u p e r i o r by becoming attached  the a l l e g i a n c e o f h i s  would  t o him and emulating  t h a t "A s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r a l t y of h i s subordinates  Blau and S c o t t  the n u l l subordinates  of a s u p e r v i s o r  t o win  superior.  I attempted t o gain a measure o f a subordinate's  desire  to emulate h i s s u p e r i o r ' s s t y l e o f s u p e r v i s i o n through the following Q. 20.  question:  To what extent subordinates ,  1) . 2) 3) ; 4)  : • • ; 5)  would you say your way of h a n d l i n g  resembles t h a t of your boss?  Almost completely s i m i l a r Very s i m i l a r Somewhat s i m i l a r Very d i s s i m i l a r Almost completely d i s s i m i l a r  CHECK ONE  I f the respondents checked o f f e i t h e r of the f i r s t three p o s s i b l e answers, f o r the purposes o f a n a l y s i s , they were deemed t o use the same form of s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour as t h a t of t h e i r s u p e r i o r s .  A response t o  e i t h e r of the l a s t two a l t e r n a t i v e s was taken t o i n d i c a t e a d i f f e r e n t form of s u p e r v i s i o n from t h a t u t i l i z e d by the superior. Again, the data w i l l be presented i n two t a b l e s :  one  t a b l e based on the Blau and Scott concept o f l o y a l t y , and the other based on the composite l o y a l t y s c o r e . The  f o l l o w i n g t a b l e presents  Blau and S c o t t  the data based on the  definition. TABLE XV  RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION) AND PROPENSITY OF SUPERVISOR TO EMULATE HIS SUPERIOR'S STYLE OF SUPERVISION (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status o f Subordinates -  7  4  Loyal ( ^  14  0  Loyal Not  C  Supervisory Method Same as Superior D i f f e r e n t from  Investigated  Superior  on the b a s i s o f the Blau and S c o t t concept  of l o y a l t y , o f the eleven of t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s ,  s u p e r v i s o r s who command the l o y a l t y  f o u r i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r methods of  94 s u p e r v i s i o n d i f f e r from those of t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . fourteen  Of the  s u p e r v i s o r s who do not command the l o y a l t y o f  their, s u b o r d i n a t e s ,  none of them i n d i c a t e d t h a t  methods of s u p e r v i s i o n are i n any way d i s s i m i l a r  their from  t h a t o f t h e i r superiors-. Subjecting  t h i s data t o the F i s h e r Exact  Probability  7  Test  , we f i n d t h a t we are able t o r e j e c t the n u l l hypoth-  e s i s a t the .05 l e v e l and conclude t h a t the more l i k e l y it  i s f o r a s u p e r v i s o r t o win the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i -  n a t e s , the l e s s probable i t w i l l be t h a t the s u p e r v i s o r w i l l exhibit  a d e s i r e t o i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f with h i s  s u p e r i o r by emulating h i s s t y l e of s u p e r v i s i o n . To conclude t h i s chapter,  l e t me present  on the b a s i s o f the composite l o y a l t y  the data  score.  TABLE XVI RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE SCORE) AND PROPENSITY OF SUPERVISOR TO EMULATE HIS SUPERIOR'S STYLE OF SUPERVISION (n = 25 groups)  L o y a l t y Status of Subordinates Loyal Not  Loyal  Siegel,  Supervisory Method Same as S u p e r i o r D i f f e r e n t from 4  5  16  0  op. c i t . , pp. 96 - 101.  Superior  95 This t a b l e was drawn up i n accordance  with the same  standards as the preceding t a b l e . I n v e s t i g a t e d on the composite f i v e o f the respondents  loyalty  definition,  with l o y a l subordinates  a s u p e r v i s o r y behaviour d i f f e r e n t  indicated  from t h a t o f t h e i r  s u p e r i o r s , while none of the s u p e r i o r s who d i d not command the l o y a l t y o f t h e i r subordinates i n d i c a t e d  different  s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s from t h a t of t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . s u b j e c t i n g these f i n d i n g s t o the F i s h e r Exact  Again,  Probability  T e s t , we f i n d them t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .002 l e v e l . On the b a s i s o f t h i s l o y a l t y s c o r e , we can r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s with a g r e a t e r degree o f confidence than was p o s s i b l e when we measured l o y a l t y on the b a s i s of the Blau and  Scott score.  Conclusion I t was the aim of t h i s s e c t i o n of the chapter t o i n - < v e s t i g a t e t h r e e hypotheses  concerning the r e l a t i o n o f  subordinate l o y a l t y t o the h i e r a r c h i c a l enjoyed by a s u p e r i o r , the d i r e c t i o n  independence  from which a s u p e r i o r  seeks h i s s o c i a l support, and the p r o p e n s i t y o f a superv i s o r with l o y a l subordinates t o emulate h i s s u p e r i o r ' s s t y l e of s u p e r v i s i o n .  On the b a s i s o f the responses  sub-  mitted by my chosen sample, I was able t o conclude t h a t the a b i l i t y o f a s u p e r i o r t o win the l o y a l t y of h i s  96  subordinates  w i l l i n p a r t be c o n d i t i o n e d by h i s source  of s o c i a l support. the hypothesis  F u r t h e r , I was  a l s o able to  t h a t i f a s u p e r v i s o r looks to h i s supe-  r i o r f o r s o c i a l support  and r e c o g n i t i o n , he w i l l  emulate the s u p e r i o r ' s s t y l e of s u p e r v i s i o n . I was  not a b l e to come to any  garding  accept  likely  However,  d e f i n i t e conclusions  re-  the combination of h i e r a r c h i c a l independence  which a s u p e r v i s o r may  enjoy and  the use  of good super-  v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s with r e l a t i o n to the a b i l i t y of a s u p e r v i s o r t o win  the l o y a l t y of h i s  subordinates.  The r a m i f i c a t i o n s and uses which may from these s t u d i e s w i l l be presented chapter.  be  derived  i n the f o l l o w i n g  CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS  P r i o r s p e c u l a t i o n on the s u b j e c t a l t y to h i s s u p e r i o r has  of subordinate l o y -  suggested t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e  be of c o n s i d e r a b l e  consequence i n the a n a l y s i s of  t i o n a l behaviour.  Various  and  other  i t and, has  organiza-  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between l o y a l t y  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s have been  However, there has  may  discussed.  been l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h  i n f a c t , no c o n s i s t e n t d e f i n i t i o n of the  involving concept  been developed. For the present  on the b a s i s of two  i n v e s t i g a t i o n , l o y a l t y was definitions.  S c o t t concept of l o y a l t y , was  One,  investigated  based on the Blau  seen as a subordinate's  and  desire  to remain under the i n f l u e n c e of h i s present  superior.  second d e f i n i t i o n proposed viewed l o y a l t y as  incorporating  the Blau and  Scott p r o p o s a l  but broadened i t by  t h a t u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h and s u p e r i o r , together  t r u s t , and  with the present  The  suggesting  the l i k i n g f o r a  working environment would  be important components of f e l t l o y a l t y . The  o b j e c t of t h i s study has  bureaucratically-organized  been t o explore  economic o r g a n i z a t i o n some of  c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t e d to the e x i s t e n c e The r e s e a r c h hypotheses were as 1.  Superiors  who  a u t h o r i t y over them, and  the  of l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r ,  follows:  command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r  are more l i k e l y than others  i n a large  subordinates  to e s t a b l i s h e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a l  thus to i n f l u e n c e them.  98  2.  The  greater  the a b i l i t y of the s u p e r v i s o r  emotional detachment - to remain calm and  to m a i n t a i n  r a r e l y lose h i s  temper - the more l i k e l y he i s to command the l o y a l t y of his 3.  subordinates. The  more independent a s u p e r v i s o r  i s from h i s s u p e r i o r , /  the more l i k e l y i t i s t h a t he w i l l have l o y a l 4.  S t a b i l i t y of s u p e r v i s o r y  of workers to t h e i r 5.  subordinates.  p r a c t i s e s promotes the l o y a l t y  superior.  Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y to h i s own  the;.need of a s u p e r v i s o r to win  s u p e r i o r may  the r e s p e c t  reduce  of h i s  subordinates. 6.  Loyalty to superiors i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organization  tends to be pronounced on a l t e r n a t e l e v e l s . For the purpose of h y p o t h e s i s d e r i v a t i o n , l o y a l t y considered  was  as the independent v a r i a b l e and measures of  d e s i r e to work i n other groups, l i k i n g f o r one's boss, s a t i s f a c t i o n with h i s boss and  confidence  and  s u p e r i o r were t r e a t e d as dependent v a r i a b l e s . were drawn from a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  t r u s t i n the The  completed by 152  from 25 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t s ranging  data  respondents  i n s i z e from 5 t o over  40 members. The  major f i n d i n g s r e l e v a n t to the hypotheses o u t l i n e d  above were as  follows:  1.  who  Superiors  command the f e l t l o y a l t y (as measured on  both concepts) of t h e i r subordinates  are more l i k e l y  than  99 others t o e s t a b l i s h e f f e c t i v e i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y over them and thus t o i n f l u e n c e them.  We may then conclude t h a t  those s u p e r i o r s who command t h e l o y a l t y of t h e i r s u b o r d i nates w i l l be more accepted by t h e group and thus able t o extend the scope o f t h e i r i n f l u e n c e over t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s beyond the narrow l i m i t s o f t h e i r f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y .  They  w i l l g a i n compliance with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s f o r reasons other than, or i n a d d i t i o n t o , t h e i r having a l e g i t i m a t e r i g h t i n h e r i n g i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the h i e r a r c h y o f the organization. The f i n d i n g s o f French and S n y d e r to  t h e v a l i d i t y o f my f i n d i n g s .  1  seem t o lend support  As may be r e c a l l e d from the  d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter I I I , French and Snyder found t h a t the more accepted a l e a d e r was by the group, the more he attempted to i n f l u e n c e i t and the more s u c c e s s f u l h i s attempts were. We may conclude from my r e s e a r c h data and t h e f i n d i n g s of French and Snyder  t h a t those who command t h e l o y a l t y of t h e i r  s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l be able t o widen t h e i r span o f a u t h o r i t y (and thus i n c r e a s e t h e i r power) beyond t h a t given by t h e i r o f f i c e i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n .  On t h i s b a s i s we may a l s o  hypoth-  e s i z e t h a t those who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinatesw i l l f i n d i t e a s i e r t o i n f l u e n c e them than a s u p e r i o r who does not command t h e l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  This hypothesis  J o h n R. French, J r . , and Richard Snyder, "Leadership and I n t e r p e r s o n a l Power", Studies i n S o c i a l Power, Dorwin Cartwright (ed.) Ann Arbor: I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1959. pp. 118 - 149. i  100 i s tenable s i n c e L i p p i t t and h i s c o l l e a g u e s found  that i n  a camp s e t t i n g , boys to whom others a t t r i b u t e d much power made more i n f l u e n c e attempts and.enjoyed more success i n t h e i r attempts to i n f l u e n c e . 2.  The more that a s u p e r i o r p e r c e i v e s h i m s e l f as  i n g emotional  maintain-  detachment, the g r e a t e r i s the. 'fe.lt l o y a l t y  of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  Superiors who  do not l o s e t h e i r temper  when the a c t i v i t i e s of the work group do not go smoothly are l i k e l y to win concepts  t h e i r subordinates  l o y a l t y as measured by  both  of l o y a l t y .  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n seems to be supported 3 ducted by F i e d l e r  i n studies  con-  4 and Gouldner , although  they used  ent i n d i c a t o r s to measure a l a c k of involvement.  differ-  In h i s  s t u d i e s of bombing crews, F i e d l e r i n d i c a t e d a l a c k of i n -  1  volvement to e x i s t when a s u p e r i o r was minimum l e v e l of s o c i a l d i s t a n c e ;  a b l e to maintain  a  The degree of s o c i a l  d i s t a n c e between a s u p e r i o r and subordinate was  derived  from the score from a q u e s t i o n n a i r e known as "Assumed S i m i l a r i t y between  Opposites".5  Ronald L i p p i t t et a l . , "The Dynamics of Power", Human R e l a t i o n s , V o l . 5 (1952) pp. 37 - 64. F r e d E. F i e d l e r , "A Note on Leadership metry, V o l . 20 (1957) pp. 87 - 94. 3  A l v i n W. Glencoe, 111.: 5  Theory", S o c i o -  Gouldner, P a t t e r n s of I n d u s t r i a l Bureaucracy, Free P r e s s , 195 4. pp. 45 - 56.  F i e d l e r , op. c i t .  101 He concluded  t h a t the a b i l i t y  of a l e a d e r to remain i n -  dependent and not get i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d with h i s group would allow him to develop an atmosphere r e s u l t i n g i n more e f f e c t i v e work u n i t s than a l e a d e r who to m a i n t a i n emotional  was  not able  detachment.  Gouldner, i n h i s study of a gypsum p l a n t , found when the i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t s of a manager were "too  that  indul-  gent" the manager would become e m o t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d with his  subordinates and would be c o n f i n e d by them.  of h i s i n d u l g e n t mathods he was  not able t o make c h a l -  l e n g i n g demands t o s t i m u l a t e t h e i r i n t e r e s t and to perform 3.  Because  ability  well.  A s u p e r v i s o r who  i s c o n s i s t e n t i n h i s enforcement of  the working r u l e s and p r a c t i s e s w i l l be more l i k e l y  to  g a i n the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s .  find-  ings suggest  The r e s e a r c h  t h a t l o y a l subordinates p e r c e i v e t h e i r supe-  r i o r s as being c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e i r enforcement of working r u l e s and procedures,  s t r i c t n e s s and g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y  behaviour. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n seems to f o l l o w along the l i n e s of t h a t reached  by Cohen.  Cohen conducted  an experiment i n  which the l e a d e r or power f i g u r e gave the workers an .ambiguous d e f i n i t i o n of the t a s k s t o be performed as w e l l  A r t h u r R. Cohen, " S i t u a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , Self-Esteem, and T h r e a t - O r i e n t e d Reactions to Power", Studies i n S o c i a l Power, Dorwin Cartwright (ed.) Ann Arbor: Institute for S o c i a l Research, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1959. pp. 35 - 52. b  102 as i n c o n s i s t e n t d i r e c t i v e s .  F u r t h e r , he a l s o v a r i e d the  c o n s i s t e n c y of h i s suggestions the task a s s i g n e d . haviour  as w e l l as the c l a r i t y o f  He found t h a t t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t be-  l e d t o l e s s f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the power  figure. 4.  L o y a l t y t o one's s u p e r i o r i s r e l a t e d t o the l i k e l i -  hood of the s u p e r v i s o r winning the l o y a l t y of h i s s u b o r d i nates.  My r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t those  who look t o t h e i r s u p e r i o r s f o r s o c i a l support  supervisors are not  l i k e l y t o win the l o y a l t y of t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s .  Further,  the f i n d i n g s a l s o p o i n t out t h a t a s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r degree o f the l o y a l t y o f h i s subordinates l e s s l i k e l y t o see h i m s e l f as seeking s u p e r i o r by becoming attached  w i l l be  the approval  of h i s  t o him and emulating  his style  of s u p e r v i s i o n . This f i n d i n g seems t o f o l l o w along the same 7 as reached by both Jaques  conclusions  8 and Blau and S c o t t .  Jaques, i n  h i s study, found t h a t top managers tended t o be somewhat isolated.  However, Blau and S c o t t i n t h e i r study  of a  s o c i a l s e r v i c e agency found t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n of i s o l a t i o n was i n e x i s t e n c e even a t the f i r s t - l i n e s u p e r v i s o r y They put f o r t h the suggestion  t h a t one source  level.  of s o c i a l  ' E l l i o t t Jaques, The Changing Culture of a F a c t o r y , New York: Dryden, 19 52. pp. 2 78 - 2 79. 8  San  Peter M. Blau and W. Richard S c o t t , Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s , F r a n c i s c o : Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962. p. 161.  103 support t h a t enables some s u p e r v i s o r s t o m a i n t a i n detachment and independence was 5.  the l o y a l t y of s u b o r d i n a t e s .  The degree of a s u p e r i o r ' s p e r c e i v e d h i e r a r c h i c a l i n d e -  pendence was  not found t o have any r e l a t i o n s h i p t o h i s  subordinate's l o y a l t y .  T h i s hypothesis was  based  on the  Q  study performed he proposed  by P e l z ,  where i n h i s theory of i n f l u e n c e  t h a t the a b i l i t y of a s u p e r i o r t o c o n t r o l the  environment of h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s would enable the s u p e r i o r t o extend h i s c o n t r o l of the subordinates would enable  the  s u p e r i o r t o extend h i s c o n t r o l of the subordinates beyond the narrow l i m i t s d e f i n e d by h i s p o s i t i o n i n the h i e r a r c h y , (and hence develop h i g h subordinate  loyalty).  However, P e l z a l s o found there t o e x i s t some c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s depending upon the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the employee sample being s t u d i e d . For example, there was the s u p e r v i s o r y measure of ' t a k i n g s i d e s with employees i n cases of employee-management c o n f l i c t s ' . In s m a l l work groups, employees thought more h i g h l y of the l e a d e r who took t h e i r s i d e i n cases of conf l i c t s with management. But, i n l a r g e whitec o l l a r work groups, employees were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s a t i s f i e d with such a s u p e r v i s o r ; they p r e f e r r e d the s u p e r v i s o r who s i d e d with management.! 0  The sample chosen f o r my i d e n t i f i e d as predominantly  study can very e a s i l y  be  a w h i t e - c o l l a r work group.  D o n a l d C. P e l z " I n f l u e n c e : A Key t o E f f e c t i v e Leadership i n the F i r s t - L i n e S u p e r v i s o r " , P e r s o n n e l , V o l . 29 (1952) pp. 209 - 217. 9  1 0  I b i d . , P e l z , p.  212.  10 4 Perhaps my f i n d i n g s can be i n t e r p r e t e d a l s o as meaning t h a t l a r g e group w h i t e - c o l l a r workers are l e s s s a t i s f i e d with a s u p e r i o r who s i d e s with them i n cases of c o n f l i c t . 6.  L o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  pronounced  on a l t e r n a t e l e v e l s of the h i e r a r c h y . E t z i o n i has claimed  t h a t the foreman may be i n a  dilemma d e c i d i n g which l e v e l o f the o r g a n i z a t i o n  to iden-  t i f y w i t h , and o f t e n w i l l v a c i l l a t e between h i s s u p e r i o r s and  subordinates.  From my f i n d i n g s I would suggest t h a t  E t z i o n i ' s observation  of the dilemma of the foreman may  even extend t o the upper l e v e l s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Further,  the theory  advanced by Dalton  1 1  would suggest  t h a t l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r need not be pronounced on alternate levels.  Dalton has advanced the theory  that  when r e c r u i t i n g f o r a vacancy, o f f i c e r s tend t o choose 12 candidates with a t t i t u d e s much l i k e t h e i r own. quently,  there would be a tendency toward  Conse-  conformity  w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n r a t h e r than d i f f e r i n g o r i e n t a t i o n amongst employees. In a d d i t i o n t o the above f i n d i n g s d e a l i n g with the e x p l i c i t research  hypotheses, there were a l s o some obser-  v a t i o n s which deserve mention. -Amitai E t z i o n i , "Human R e l a t i o n s and the Foreman", P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review V o l . 1 (1958) pp. 37 - 38. XJ  The  M e l v i l l e Dalton, Men Who Manage, New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. 1 2  John  105 1.  Although  l o y a l t y d i d not vary u n i f o r m l y  throughout  the o r g a n i z a t i o n , the " a l t e r n a t e l e v e l " h y p o t h e s i s d i d tend t o h o l d a t the extreme ends of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t was 2.  i n the middle where i t tended  The responses  t o break down.  to the d i r e c t e x p l i c i t e x p r e s s i o n of  l o y a l t y were h i g h e r than the score on l o y a l t y from the i n d i r e c t measures o f the concept. appears t h a t although a subordinate may toward h i s s u p e r i o r , h i s behaviour  inferred  Thus, i t  f e e l he i s l o y a l  and a t t i t u d e s expressed  i n more i n d i r e c t f a s h i o n are o f t e n a t v a r i a n c e with d i r e c t measure.  Thus, one may  expect  to f i n d  the  inconsist-  ency i n b e h a v i o u r a l a n a l y s i s . To conclude  t h i s s e c t i o n of the c h a p t e r , I would l i k e  to quote a comment submitted Although  by one of the  I d i d not s t a t i s t i c a l l y prove t h a t l o y a l t y  vary u n i f o r m l y throughout comment was  there i s any his f a u l t .  submitted by a respondent  at one  of the  "In our department i f  t r o u b l e with the S u p e r v i s o r , i t i s very Should  rarely  there be a q u e s t i o n about something, the  lowest S u p e r v i s o r has t h i s boss a l s o has  will  the h i e r a r c h y , the f o l l o w i n g  extreme ends of the h i e r a r c h y .  i n my  respondents.  to go with t h i s to h i s next boss and  t o go h i g h e r up e t c .  The h i g h e r  bosses,  o p i n i o n , do not know the p r a c t i c a l s i d e of our job  and can see i t only t h e o r e t i c a l l y , which does not h e l p us very much.  A l s o , because the lower S u p e r v i s o r s have t o ask  106 the h i g h e r ups, things h a r d l y get changed, because the lower bosses are a f r a i d t o bother the h i g h e r  ups".  Thus, from t h i s comment, i t would seem t h a t a superv i s o r would be able to gain: the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates without h i e r a r c h i c a l independence i f the s u b o r d i n a t e s  feel  t h a t i t i s because the "higher ups" prevent a change i n the working environment. A Comment on the T h e o r e t i c a l  Definition  I would suggest t h a t the Blau and S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y may  be too narrow.  Although  I found there t o be  no d i f f e r e n c e which d e f i n i t i o n was  used i n a c c e p t i n g or  r e j e c t i n g the proposed  I found t h a t i n some  circumstances  I was  hypotheses,  a b l e t o r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  with more s t a t i s t i c a l confidence u s i n g the proposed  com-  p o s i t e measures of l o y a l t y . I t seems t h a t when a subordinate contemplates t r a n s f e r , he c o n s i d e r s other f a c t o r s than merely p e r t a i n i n g t o h i s present s u p e r i o r .  a those  For.example, there  i s the q u e s t i o n of s o c i a l c o n t a c t s w i t h i n the present work group, the present l o c a t i o n of one's desk or o f f i c e ,  and  i f a move with a s u p e r i o r means a move o u t s i d e the present area of employment, there i s evidence t o suggest one  also  c o n s i d e r s the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n problem and/or the problem of moving to a d i f f e r e n t a r e a .  Consequently,  because a sub-  o r d i n a t e might i n d i c a t e he would not want t o remain under  10 7 the i n f l u e n c e of h i s present s u p e r i o r , i t would not  neces-  s a r i l y f o l l o w he would e x h i b i t q u a l i t i e s of an u n l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e , or t h a t h i s s u p e r i o r does not u t i l i z e  super-  v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s which induces l o y a l t y i n a s u b o r d i n a t e . Suggestions  f o r Further  During my  Research  review of the l i t e r a t u r e i t came t o l i g h t  t h a t the concept of l o y a l t y i s a r e l a t i v e l y new i n the a n a l y s i s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour. my  variable Consequently,  suggestions w i l l concentrate on those aspects of opera-  t i o n which o r g a n i z a t i o n s analyze t o b e t t e r a b l e them t o meet t h e i r  objectives.  F i r s t of a l l ,  i t would be u s e f u l to compare E t z i o n i * s 13  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s amongst Namely, does the amount of f e l t  themselves.  l o y a l t y vary a c c o r d i n g t o the  type of o r g a n i z a t i o n which i s i n v e s t i g a t e d : c o e r c i v e and u t i l i t a r i a n o r g a n i z a t i o n s ?  normative,  F u r t h e r , would the  form i n which the f i n a l product or s e r v i c e which the  organ-  i z a t i o n presents to the community a f f e c t the subordinate l o y a l t y to a superior?  That i s , would work a c t i v i t y i n  groups as opposed t o assembly l i n e methods of p r o d u c t i o n have an e f f e c t upon a s u b o r d i n a t e ' s f e l t l o y a l t y t o h i s superior? A second r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l would concern i t s e l f  with  an e x p l a n a t i o n and perhaps p r e d i c t i o n of the occurrence l Amatai 3  E t z i o n i , A Comparative A n a l y s i s of Complex  O r g a n i z a t i o n s , The  Free Press of Glencoe, I n c . ,  1961.  of  108  employee turnover.  I t would seem t h a t those s u p e r i o r s  who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates experience  the same degree of subordinate  would not  turnover as  those s u p e r i o r s who do n o t command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates. In view of the f a c t t h a t one of the main o b j e c t i v e s of most business  organizations  i s the o p t i m i z a t i o n of  p r o f i t s , i t may be w e l l t o r e l a t e ity.  loyalty to productiv-  I t would not make much economic sense t o undertake  programs which may induce l o y a l t y of subordinates  to their  s u p e r i o r s i f i t would n o t show up i n terms of g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y o r reduced o p e r a t i n g  costs  (turnover,  absentee-  ism and q u a l i t y ) . My f i n a l suggestion  f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h would be one  which would cover q u i t e a lengthy p e r i o d of time.  In a n a l y z -  i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behaviour i t may be u s e f u l t o p r e d i c t the changing o r i e n t a t i o n of s u p e r i o r s as t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of potential  advancement o p p o r t u n i t i e s change.  Does a super-  v i s o r change h i s methods o f s u p e r v i s i o n and/or become attached to h i s s u p e r i o r as he s t a r t s  "bucking f o r promotion"?  t h i s t o the second r e s e a r c h s u g g e s t i o n , groups e x p e r i e n c i n g  could i t be t h a t those  the g r e a t e s t turnover  a r e s u p e r v i s e d by  ambitious s u p e r i o r s who have been over-looked f o r promotion?  Relating  i n t h e i r attempts  Perhaps i n t h e i r attempts t o gain promotion  109 they are u s i n g s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s which do not induce subordinate l o y a l t y .  (However, t h i s may  or may  matter i n the l e a s t i f l o y a l t y has no e f f e c t on or  turnover.)  not output  110 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press, 1948.  Cambridge:  Bennis, W.G., Berkowitz, N., A f f i n i t o , M. and Malone, M. "Authority, Power, and the A b i l i t y to Influence" i n Human Relations, V o l . 11 (1958), pp. 143-155. "Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power" by Reinhard Bendix i n Public Administration Review, V o l . 5 (1945), pp. 194-209. Blau, Peter M. and S c o t t , W. Richard. Formal Organizations. Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.  San  C a u d i l l , William. The Psychiatric Hospital as a Small Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958. "The Corporation as an Organization" by N e i l W. Chamberlain i n I n d u s t r i a l C o n f l i c t by Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin, Arthur M. Ross ( e d s . ) . McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1954, pp. 153-163. Cohen, Arthur R. " S i t u a t i o n a l Structure, Self-Esteem, and ThreatOriented Reactions to Power", i n Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies i n S o c i a l Power, Ann Arbor: I n s t i t u t e for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959, pp. 35-52. Dalton, M e l v i l l e . I n c . , 1959.  Men Who Manage.  New York:  John Wiley and Sons,  Dean, Lois R. "Union A c t i v i t y and Dual Loyalty", I n d u s t r i a l and Labor Relations Review, V o l . 7 (1954), pp. 526-536. D i l l , William R., H i l t o n , Thomas L. and Reitman, Walter R. The New Managers. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, I n c . , 1962. E t z i o n i , Amitai. "Human Relations and the Foreman", P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 1 (1958), pp. 33-38. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. Press of Glencoe, I n c . , 1961.  The Free  F i e d l e r , Fred E. "A Note on Leadership Theory: The Effect of Social Barriers Between Leaders and Followers" i n Sociometry, V o l . 20, pp. 87-94.  Ill  F l e t c h e r , T.W. "The Nature of Administrative Loyalty" i n Public Administration Review, (1958), V o l . 18, pp. 37-42. Fleishman, Edwin A . , H a r r i s , Edwin F. and B u r t t , Harold E. "Leadership and Supervision i n Industry" i n Robert A. Sutermeister (ed.), People and Productivity. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1963. French, John R.P. J r . and Snyder, Richard. "Leadership and I n t e r personal Power", i n Dorwin Cartwright ( e d . ) , Studies i n , S o c i a l Power. Ann Arbor: I n s t i t u t e for S o c i a l Research, University of Michigan, 1959, pp. 118-149. Goodacre, D.M. 'Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing Combat U n i t s " , Sociometry, 1953, V o l . , pp. 168-179. Gauldner, A l v i n W. Patterns of I n d u s t r i a l Bureaucracy. Free Press, 1954.  Glencoe, 111.:  Gruen, Walter. "A Theoretical Examination of the Concept of Dual Allegiance" i n Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954), pp. 72-80. Jaques, E l l i o t t . 1952.  The Changing Culture of a Factory.  New York:  Dryden,  Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G. and F l o o r , L.C. Productivity, Superv i s i o n and Morale Among Railroad Workers. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Katz, D., Maccoby, N. and Morse, N. Productivity, Supervision and Morale i n an O f f i c e S i t u a t i o n , Part I. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Kerr, Willard A. "Dual Allegiance and Emotional Acceptance-Rejection i n Industry" i n Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954), pp. 59-66. L i k e r t , Rensis. New Patterns of Management. Book Company, Inc., 1961.  Toronto:  L i p p i t t , Ronald, Polansky, Norman and Rosen, Sidney. Power", Human Relations, 5 (1952), pp. 37-64.  McGraw-Hill "The Dynamics of  Merton, Robert K. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" i n S o c i a l Forces, 18 (May, 1940), pp. 561-568.  112  M i l l e r , Walter B. "Two Concepts of A u t h o r i t y " , American Anthropologist 57 (1955), pp..271-289. O'Donnel, C y r i l J . "The Source of Managerial Authority" i n Readings i n Management by H. Koontz and C. O'Donnel, McGrawrHill Book Company, I n c . , 1959, pp. 26-38. Page, Charles Hunt. "Bureaucracy's Other Face" i n S o c i a l Forces, V o l . 25 (1946), pp. 88-94. Parkin, Frank Iowerth. C o n f l i c t i n the Lumber Industry. B r i t i s h Columbia, unpublished Master's Thesis.  University of  P e l z , Donald C. "Influence: A Key to E f f e c t i v e Leadership i n the F i r s t Line Supervisor", Personnel, 29 (1952), pp. 209-217. P u r c e l l , Theodore V. "Dual Allegiance to Company and Union - Packinghouse Workers, A Swift ? UPWA Study i n a C r i s i s S i t u a t i o n , 1949-1952" i n Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954), pp. 48-58. Rosen, Ajalmar. "Dual Allegiance: A Critique and a Proposed Approach" i n Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954), pp. 67-71. Seashore, Stanley E. Work Cohesiveness i n the Industrial Work Group. Survey Research Center Series Publication #14, University of Michigan. Stewart, Nathaniel. "A R e a l i s t i c View at Organizational L o y a l t y " , The Management Review, V o l . 50 (1961), pp. 19-24. Strauss, George and Sayles, Leonard R. Personnel: The Human Problems of Management. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, I n c . , 1960 Tannenbaum, Robert. "Managerial Decision-Making" i n Journal of Business. University of Chicago Press, V o l . 23 (1950), pp..22-39. Whyte, William Foote. Men at Work. Homewood, 111.: Inc. and Richard D. Irwin, I n c . , 1961.  The Dorsey Press,  113 Statistics Blalock, Hubert M. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . Company, I n c . , 1960.  Toronto:  McGraw-Hill Book  Edwards, A l l e n L. S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis (revised e d i t i o n ) . Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1946. Freund, John E. Mathematical S t a t i s t i c s . Prentice-Hall, I n c . , 1962.  Englewood C l i f f s ,  New York: N.J.:  Lewis, Edward E. Methods of S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis i n Economics and Business (second e d i t i o n ) . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1963, 1953. McCarthy, P h i l i p J . Introduction to S t a t i s t i c a l Reasoning. McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1957.  Toronto:  S i e g e l , Sidney. Non Parametric S t a t i s t i c s for the Behavioural Sciences. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 9 24
United States 5 0
France 2 0
Germany 2 8
Poland 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 5 8
Ashburn 4 0
Guangzhou 4 0
Beijing 4 0
Shenzhen 1 24
Dallas 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102377/manifest

Comment

Related Items