UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Loyalty in a formal organization 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 ]
UBC_1964_A4_5 C6.pdf
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
Citation
1.0102377.ris

Full Text

LOYALTY IN A FORMAL ORGANIZATION by ALLAN FRED CORENBLUM B. Comm., Univers i ty 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 i n the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administrat ion We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF June, BRITISH COLUMBIA 196 4 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Bri t i sh Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. 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 is 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 Brit ish Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada Date ,TnnP, i q f i U ABSTRACT This i s a study of the occurrence of l o y a l t y within a formal organizat ion . I t does not purport to be an analys i s of a l l forms of l o y a l t y but rather i t seeks to revea l a p a r t i c u l a r type of l o y a l t y wi th in a h i e r a r c h i c a l organizat ion . Putt ing i t more sharp ly , th i s thes is i n - vest igates the occurrence of subordinate l o y a l t y toward a super ior . The object of the study was twofold: (1) to i n v e s t i - 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 oya l ty within a t h e o r e t i c a l scheme as proposed by Blau and Scott i n t h e i r recent book Formal Organizations and (2) to attempt to i s o l a t e and invest igate those condit ions and factors which may be r e l a t e d to f e l t subordinate l o y a l t y toward a super ior . The method of inves t iga t ion took the form of d i s t r i b u t - ing a mai l quest ionnaire to the employees of one of the d i v i s i o n s wi th in 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 . The r e p l i e s to the questionnaire were tabulated and are presented i n the body of the thes i s . The general conclusions reached were as fo l lows: 1. The Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n of l oya l ty seems to be too narrow. 2. Superiors who command the f e l t l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordi - nates are more l i k e l y than others to e s tab l i sh e f fec t ive informal authori ty over them and thus to inf luence them. 3. The more that a superior perceives himself as maintain- ing emotional detachment, the greater is the fe l t loyalty of his subordinates. 4. A supervisor who is consistent in his enforcement of the working rules and practises w i l l be more l ike ly to gain the loyalty of his subordinates. The following hypotheses were not s ta t i s t i ca l l y supported. 1. The more independent a supervisor is from his superior, the more l ike ly i t is that he w i l l have loyal subordinates. 2. Loyalty to superiors in a hierarchical organization tends to be pronounced on alternate levels. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would l ike to extend my thanks to Professor V.V. Murray for his supervision and constructive cr i t i c ism of the research as well as many other members of the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration for their advice on various aspects. A debt of gratitude is also acknowledged to Mr. A. fowler for his aid in the s ta t i s t i ca l analysis. F ina l ly , I extend my sincere thanks to the employees of my research population whose cooperation made this study possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Problem 1 What is Loyalty? 2 The Function of Loyalty 4 The Organization and Authority 4 Role of Authority 11 The Informal Organization 12 II. 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 III. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION: CONCEPTS AND HYPOTHESES . . . 25 Hypothesized Relationships Between Loyalty and Various Aspects of Organizational Behaviour 1. Loyalty and authority 25 2. Loyalty and emotional detachment . . . . . 29 3. Loyalty and independence 30 CHAPTER PAGE 4. Consistency and loyalty 33 5. Loyalty and social support 35 6. Loyalty of subordinates and loyalty to the superior 37 IV. 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 48 V. LOYALTY ON ALTERNATE LEVELS . . 56 Conclusion 59 VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FELT LOYALTY AND PERCEIVED AND ACTUAL SUPERVISORY BEHAVIOUR 63 Design and Plan of Analysis 63 Distr ibution 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) 79 Conditions Fac i l i ta t ing the Development of Loyalty . 81 Plan of the Investigation 81 CHAPTER PAGE Loyalty and Independence 82 Loyalty and Social Support 88 Loyalty and Style of Supervision 92 Conclusion (Part II) 95 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 97 A Comment on the Theoretical Definition 106 Suggestions for Further Research 107 BIBLIOGRAPHY 110 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Organization Chart of the Sample Organization Studied 41 2. Organization Chart of the Sample Division Studied 42 3. Relationship Between Loyalty to a Superior and His Perceived Emotional Detachment (Composite Definition) 70 4. Relationship Between Loyalty to a Superior and His Perceived Use of the Techniques of Informal Authority (Composite Definition) 76 5. Relationship Between Consistency of Supervisory Practises and Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Definition) 80 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Intercorrelations Among Mean Scale Values on Scales Comprising the Index of Loyalty 53 II. Distr ibution of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of the Blau and Scott Definit ion 56 III. Distr ibution of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of Satisfaction With or Liking for a Superior . . . . 58 IV. Distr ibution of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of Unquestioning Faith and Trust in a Superior . . . . 58 V. Distr ibution of Loyalty Scores on the Basis of Direct Expl ic i t Expression of Loyalty 59 VI. Superior's Emotional Detachment and Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Definition) 68 VII. Superior's Informal Authority and Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Measure) 74 VIII. Relationship Between Consistency of Supervisory Practises and the Loyalty of Subordinates 78 IX. Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Measure) and Superior Hierarchical Independence 84 X. Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Score) and Superior Hierarchical Independence 84 XI. Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Definition) to a Superior, Hierarchical Independence and Supervisory Practises Scores 87 1 TABLE PAGE XII. Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Composite Definition) to Superior, Hierarchical Independence and Supervisory Practises Scores 88 XIII. Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty to Superior's Source of Social Support (Blau and Scott Definition) 90 XIV. Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty to Superior's Source of Social Support (Composite Definition) . . 91 XV. Relationship of Subordinate Loyalty (Blau and Scott Definition) and Propensity of Supervisor to Emulate His Superior's Style of Supervision 93 XVI. 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 supervisor 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 along a continuum, ranging from behavioural devices described as persuasion to those described as threats . Recent ly , there have been suggestions put forth that the form of behaviour u t i l i z e d by a superior to gain compliance with h i s d i r e c t i v e s i s r e la ted to the presence of superior - subordinate l o y a l t y . This study w i l l undertake to research the underlying factors which seem to encourage the formula- t i o n of l o y a l t y and invest igate some hypotheses which attempt to pred ic t the occurrence of l o y a l t y . Statement of Problem Although th i s study i s concerned with l o y a l t y , i t does not purport to be an analys i s of a l l forms of l o y a l t y . Rather, i t seeks to revea l a p a r t i c u l a r occurrence of l o y a l t y i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organizat ion . Putt ing i t more sharp ly , the main theme of th i s thes is w i l l be an inves t iga t ion of a hypothesis put forward by Blau and Scott i n t h e i r recent book Formal Organizat ions: " . . . l o y a l t y to superiors i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organizat ion would be pronounced on a l ternate l e v e l s . " 1 In !peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scot t , Formal Organizat ions , San Francisco: Chandler Publ ishing Company^ 1962, p. 162. 2 a d d i t i o n , t h e r e a r e f u r t h e r s u p p o r t i n g h y p o t h e s e s p u t f o r w a r d c o n c e r n i n g t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f l o y a l t y i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The h y p o t h e s e s w h i c h f o r m t h e b a s i s o f t h e s t u d y d e s i g n a r e s e t o u t i n C h a p t e r I I I . What i s L o y a l t y ? The i n v e s t i g a t i o n h i n g e s u p o n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f s i g - n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among w o r k e r s on d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l h i e r a r c h y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f l o y a l t y t o t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r . I t i s t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e t e r m " l o y a l t y " be d e f i n e d i n some m a n n e r t h a t r e l a t e s i t t o s y s t e m a t i c t h e o r y a n d a t t h e same t i m e makes p o s s i b l e a s u i t a b l e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r m e a s u r e m e n t . I n common c o n v e r s a t i o n t h e t e r m h a s b e e n u s e d t o e x p r e s s s u c h i d e a s a s " u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h a n d t r u s t " , " a l l e g i a n c e " , " f e a l t y " , " h o m a g e " , a n d " l i k i n g " . H o w e v e r , t o d a t e , s o f a r a s I k n o w , t h e r e h a v e n o t b e e n a n y u n i q u e o r s p e c i f i c d e f i n i - t i o n s o f t h i s t e r m p u b l i s h e d b y t h o s e i n t h e f i e l d s o f s o c i - o l o g y o r p s y c h o l o g y . When t h i s t e r m i s u s e d b y t h o s e i n t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d f i e l d s , I h a v e come t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i t i s u s e d i n i t s e v e r y d a y , d e s c r i p t i v e , v e r n a c u l a r s e n s e r a t h e r t h a n a s a t e r m h a v i n g some s p e c i a l a n d p r e c i s e m e a n i n g w i t h i n a t h e o r e t i c a l s c h e m e . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e s t h e t e r m " l o y a l t y " a p p e a r s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y i n r e f e r e n c e t o 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 s , e m p l o y e e - u n i o n r e l a t i o n - s h i p s a n d e m p l o y e e - o r g a n i z a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s s t u d y 3 w i l l be concerned s o l e l y with the occurrence of lo y a l t y as a r i s i n g i n the superior-subordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s intended to investigate the occurrence of a subordinate's l o y a l t y to his superior. There are examples of loyalty to be found i n various publications, but they a l l d i f f e r i n some respect from one another, and there does not seem to be any standardized instrument to measure the quality or attitude described as " l o y a l t y " . The use of loy a l t y i n t h e o r e t i c a l analysis w i l l vary depending upon the orientation of the writer. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e u t i l i z i n g the concept of lo y a l t y w i l l be presented i n Chapter I I . For the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s , " l o y a l t y to a supervisor" w i l l be defined i n the same way as by Blau and Scott. "Using as index of allegiance whether or not workers chose t h e i r own supervisor when asked which of the agency supervisors they would most l i k e to work under, groups and workers were c l a s s i - f i e d i n t o l o y a l and nonloyal ones." 2 For the present i n v e s t i - gation, I w i l l accept t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of lo y a l t y to a superior: i f a subordinate exhibits a preference to remain under the influence of his present superior, such a subordinate w i l l be categorized as l o y a l to his superior. 2 I b i d . , p. 10 5. This operat ional!zed d e f i n i t i o n of "loyalty" to a supervisor has formed the basis for the ser ies of hypotheses put forward by Blau and Scott . In these p r e d i c t i o n s , l o y a l t y , so def ined , i s re la ted to such aspects of organizat iona l be- haviour as e f f ec t ive informal a u t h o r i t y , emotional detachment of super ior s , independence of super iors , s t a b i l i t y of super- v i sory pract i ses and approval of the superior by subordinates. For the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , I w i l l accept th i s con- ceptual d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y to a superv i sor , as proposed by Blau and Scott , (although i n developing an operat ional d e f i n i - t i o n , as described i n Chapter IV, th i s c l a r i t y of d e f i n i t i o n could not e n t i r e l y be maintained). The Function of Loyalty Before further developing the main theme of th i s thes is - the determinants of l oya l ty - i t might be worthwhile to further j u s t i f y the project by i n d i c a t i n g b r i e f l y the funct ion and e f fects of l o y a l t y i n large administrat ive organizat ions . This w i l l be done by descr ib ing some aspects of the organiza- t i o n a l context within which the phenomenon of l o y a l t y develops followed by an i n d i c a t i o n of how l o y a l t y influences such a s e t t i n g . The Organization and Authori ty In a formal organizat ion much of the conduct of the members on the job i s usua l ly determined by the organizat ion or o f f i c i a l 5 b l u e p r i n t . H o w e v e r , i t h a s b e e n o b s e r v e d t h a t r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e t i m e a n d e f f o r t d e v o t e d b y managemen t t o d e s i g n i n g a r a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a r t a n d e l a b o r a t e p r o c e d u r e m a n u a l s , t h i s o f f i c i a l p l a n c a n n e v e r c o m p l e t e l y d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t i o n s a n d i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s m e m b e r s . 3 One o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e w o r k e r ' s r o l e i n i n d u s - t r i a l s o c i e t y i s t h e e x p e c t a t i o n o f h i s v o l u n t a r y s u b m i s s i o n t o a u t h o r i t y . T h i s a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f p o w e r r e l a t i o n s i n i n d u s t r i a l , e n t e r p r i s e s i s o b v i o u s l y c r u c i a l t o t h e o r d e r l y a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e w o r k p r o c e s s . ( A t t h e same t i m e , h o w e v e r , t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f d i s c i p l i n e i s a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h men t e n d t o f i n d i r k s o m e , p e r h a p s e v e n h u r t f u l t o human d i g n i t y , a n d t h i s o f c o u r s e i s e s p e c i a l l y s o w h e r e s u p e r i o r s a r e i n c l i n e d t o u s e t h e i r a u t h o r i t y t o i t s l i m i t s . ) C o n c e r n i n g l a r g e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s R o b e r t K . M e r t o n h a s w r i t t e n t h a t : , . , . . . t h e r e i s i n t e g r a t e d a s e r i e s o f o f f i c e s o f 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 n u m b e r o f o b l i g a t i o n s a n d p r i v i l e g e s c l o s e l y d e f i n e d b y l i m i t e d a n d s p e c i f i c r u l e s . E a c h o f t h e s e o f f i c e s c o n t a i n s a n a r e a o f i m p u t e d c o m p e t e n c e a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A u t h o r i t y , t h e p o w e r o f c o n t r o l w h i c h d e r i v e s f r o m a n a c k n o w l e d g e d s t a t u s , i n h e r e s i n t h e o f f i c e a n d n o t i n t h e 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 o f f i c i a l r o l e . O f f i c i a l a c t i o n o r d i n a r i l y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f p r e e x i s t i n g r o l e s o f t h e o r - g a n i z a t i o n . 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 b e t w e e n t h e 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 d e g r e e o f f o r m a l i t y a n d c l e a r l y d e f i n e d 3 I b i d . , p.5 . 6 s o c i a l distance between the occupants of these p o s i t i o n s . Formality i s manifested by means of a more or less complicated s o c i a l r i t u a l which symbolizes and supports the 'pecking order' of the various o f f i c e s . Such f o r m a l i t y , which i s integrated with d i s t r i b u t i o n of authori ty within the system, serves to minimize f r i c t i o n by large ly r e s t r i c t i n g ( o f f i c i a l ) contact to modes which are previous ly defined by the rules of the organiza- t i o n . Ready c a l c u l a b i l i t y of others' behaviour and a stable set of mutual expectations i s thus b u i l t up. Moreover, formal i ty 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 ices despite t h e i r (possibly h o s t i l e ) pr ivate at t i tudes toward one another. In th i s way, the subordinate i s protected from the a r b i t r a r y ac t ion of h i s su- p e r i o r , s ince the actions of both are constrained by a mutually recognized set of r u l e s . Spec i f i c procedural devices fos ter 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 in to ac t ions . 4 This long quotation ably describes many of the s t r u c t u r a l features of the organizat ion th i s paper i s to consider. Before taking th i s point f u r t h e r , 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 exercise of authori ty i n i n d u s t r i a l set t ings con- cerns the r e l a t i o n s between supervisors and subordinates i n t h e i r ro les as "the orderer and the ordered". The var - ious other ro les played by i n d i v i d u a l s outside the work s i t u a t i o n are not usual ly regarded as having relevance to the exercise of authori ty within i t ; a man i s expected to obey orders from his superior i r r e s p e c t i v e of the kind of attachments he has beyond the working p lace . Putt ing i t ^Robert K. a l i t y " , S o c i a l Merton, "Bureaucratic Structure Forces , 18 (1940), p. 560. and Person- 7 a n o t h e r way, a man's d e f i n i t i o n of h i m s e l f as something more t h a n a worker i s n ot ex p e c t e d t o impede t h e f l o w o f a u t h o r i t y and c o n s e n t , so l o n g as t h i s i s c o n f i n e d t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the j o b and does n o t encr o a c h on m a t t e r s r e g a r d e d as b e i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l c o n c e r n . Thus a foreman may o r d e r a man t o per f o r m a c e r t a i n t a s k i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e terms of h i s employment, but not t e l l him 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 and r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s a r e not g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as grounds f o r d i s o b e y i n g r o u t i n e 5 work i n s t r u c t i o n s . What I would l i k e now t o sug g e s t i s t h a t t h e r e i s an app a r e n t 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 draw t h e l i n e between p e r s o n a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s i n the o p e r a t i o n of the e n t e r p r i s e / 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 the 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 s h a l l now go on t o d i s c u s s t h i s a p p arent dilemma o f a u t h o r i t y . The d i s c u s s i o n so f a r has made use o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l c oncept o f a u t h o r i t y as b e i n g d e l e g a t e d down a h i e r a r c h i c a l 5 Frank Iorweth P a r k i n , C o n f l i c t in the Lumber Industry, Unpublished Master's Thes i s , Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, A p r i l 1962, p. 72. 8 s tructure i n which o f f i ce holders become increas ing ly powerful the nearer the top of the organizat ion they stand. We tend to use images l i k e "pyramid" or "ladder" to conceptualize th i s notion of the downward flow of a u t h o r i t y , and the numerous l eve l s to which i t i s dele- gated from "apex" to "base". 6 W. B. M i l l e r suggests th i s i s not a u n i v e r s a l l y accepted way of looking at authori ty but derives from " . . .European r e l i g i o u s con- cept ions , many of which u t i l i z e the notion that power or ig inates i n a supernatural being or group of beings located i n the heavens, or some elevated locat ion" . Sometime before M i l l e r , however, C. I . Barnard suggested a view of authori ty which I s h a l l t r y to adapt to the argument presented above. Barnard stated that author i ty does not emanate from "above" but l i e s with the person to whom an order i s given; only i f he decides to obey the order can i t be sa id to have au- t h o r i t y . That i s to say, " . . . t h e dec is ion as to whether an order has authori ty or not l i e s with the person to whom i t i s addressed", and does not "reside i n persons of authori ty". I f men refuse to accept 6 W i l l i a m H. Newman, Administrat ive Act ion , New York: P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1950, pp. 158-170. 7 Walter B. M i l l e r , "Two Concepts of Authori ty", American Anthropologis t , 57 (1955), p. 276. ^C. I.. Barnard, T¥e Functions of the Execut ive , Cambridge: Harvard Univers i ty Press , 1948, pi 163T 9 orders there can be no authority over them. In a sense, th i s reverses the usual conceptual model that we use by putting the onus and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for action on those who stand at the base of the power pyramid, instead of on those above. This i s so because t h i s theory proposes that a manager or superior has no legitimate authority unless and u n t i l the i n d i v i d u a l subordinate confers i t upon him. whether or not men w i l l agree to 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 accruing i n so doing, then there w i l l be no compliance; authority w i l l have f a i l e d because the individuals "...regard the burden i n - volved i n accepting necessary orders as changing the b a l - ance of advantage against t h e i r i n t e r e s t , and they w i l l q withdraw or hold the indispensible contributions". Clearly, however, men i n positions of i n f e r i o r i t y r a r e l y question the orders they receive i n t h i s c l i n i c a l fashion; most tend to obey routine instructions more or less without question. This, says Barnard, i s because most orders f a l l within the individual's "zone of indifference" that i s , they do not touch upon matters of concern or much moment 9 I b i d . , p. 165. 10 to him, and are "acceptable without conscious q u e s t i o n i n g o f i n d i f f e r e n c e as f o l l o w s : I f a l l the orders f o r a c t i o n s r easonably p r a c t i c a b l e be arranged i n the order of 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 conceived t h a t there are a number which are c l e a r l y unacceptable; t h a t i s , which c e r t a i n l y w i l l not be obeyed; there i s another group somewhat more or 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 or b a r e l y unacceptable; and a t h i r d group unquestionably a c c e p t a b l e . T h i s l a s t group l i e s w i t h i n the 'zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e ' . The person a f f e c t e d w i l l a c c e p t orders 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 the order i s so f a r as the q u e s t i o n of author- i t y i s concerned...The zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e w i l l be wider or narrower depending upon the degree t o which the inducements to ex- ceed the burdens of s a c r i f i c e s which d e t e r - mine the i n d i v i d u a l ' s adhesion t o the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t f o l l o w s t h a t the range of orders t h a t w i l l be accepted w i l l be very l i m i t e d among those who are b a r e l y induced t o c o n t r i b u t e to the s y s tem.H T h i s view of a u t h o r i t y s h i f t s out a t t e n t i o n away from the problem of the s u p e r i o r ' s dilemma i n s e c u r i n g compliance with h i s i n s t r u c t i o n s and focuses i n s t e a d on some of the a n a l y t i c a l assumptions concerning the worker's m o t i v a t i o n i n a c c e p t i n g or r e j e c t i n g o r d e r s . In Barnard's terms, the l i k e - l i h o o d t h a t orders w i l l be obeyed i s determined by the balance of i n t e r e s t s i n v o l v e d , and these i n t u r n are r e l a t e d t o 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 . of t h e i r a u t h o r i t y " . 10 Barnard goes on to e x p l a i n the zone l O i b i d . , p. 167 a I b i d . , p. 16 8 11 Role of Authority The authority of superiors i n a formal organization i s usually legitimated by l e g a l contract rather than by t r a d i - t i o n a l values or 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 leader. Employees assume the contractual obligation to carry out and follow managerial d i r e c t i v e s , because, as Commons has stated, what the worker s e l l s "...when he s e l l s his labor i s his willingness to use his f a c u l t i e s according to a purpose that has been pointed out 13 to him. He s e l l s his promise to obey commands". This formal authority i s extremely l i m i t e d . In the f i r s t place, an employee i s free to go to another job i f he so desires (and i f one i s available) and secondly, he i s only required to perform his obligations i n accordance with the minimum standards. Formal authority may exert compliance with direc tives and d i s c i p l i n e , but i t does not encourage employees to exhibit behavioural forms beyond that which they are l e g a l l y bound to perform. The narrow scope of authority often induces management to t r y to broaden i t s influence over the employees within i t s command. This may be necessary i n order to broaden 1 2 B l a u and Scot t , op. c i t . , p. 140. 1 3 I b i d . , p. 140. 12 B a r n a r d ' s ' z o n e o f i n d i f f e r e n c e 1 , o r n a r r o w t h e a r e a s e p a r a t - < i n g p e r s o n a l a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . T h i s p o i n t w i l l b e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d a t a l a t e r s t a g e o f t h e p a p e r , a n d I f e e l i t s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e h e r e t h a t i t i s t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l o y a l t y t h a t managemen t a n d s u p e r - v i s i o n may i n c r e a s e t h e i r s c o p e o f e f f e c t i v e a u t h o r i t y . The I n f o r m a l O r g a n i z a t i o n I t i s f a i r t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e company p r o c e d u r e m a n u a l s m o s t o f t e n i s t o a l l o w t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n t o o p e r a t e a t maximum e f f i c i e n c y . One way o f e s t i m a t i n g t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , may be t h e d e - g r e e t o w h i c h c o n d u c t o f t h e members c o n f o r m s t o t h e o f f i c i a l b l u e p r i n t o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d i t s p r o c e d u r e m a n u a l s . ( O n l y a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e s i n t h e m a n u a l s a r e , i n f a c t , t h e b e s t o n e s f o r a t t a i n i n g maximum e f f i c i e n c y . ) R e g a r d l e s s o f , a n d p a r t l y b e c a u s e o f t h e a t t e m p t s t o m a x i m i z e e f f i c i e n c y t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s t r u c t u r e s , i n e v e r y f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n t h e r e t e n d s t o a r i s e i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . . T h e s e i n f o r m a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s d e v e l o p t h e i r own p r a c t i s e s , v a l u e s a n d n o r m s w h i c h w o r k i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h , o r c o u n t e r t o , t h e p r o c e d u r e m a n u a l s i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e h a v - i o u r o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s m e m b e r s . The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e o f f i c i a l r u l e s t o p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s , o r t h e l a c k o f a n y o f f i c i a l r u l e s i n a new s i t u a t i o n , o f t e n 13 p o s e p r o b l e m s o f j u d g e m e n t , a n d t h e i n f o r m a l p r a c t i s e s o f t e n a i d i n p r o v i d i n g s o l u t i o n s f o r t h e s e p r o b l e m s . One o f t h e i n f o r m a l b e h a v i o u r a l f o r m s a r i s i n g i n a n o r g a n i z a t i o n w h i c h i n p a r t w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e o f f i c i a l r u l e s o f p r o c e d u r e s i s t h a t d e s c r i b e d a s " l o y a l t y " . The r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s t h e s i s w i l l be d e v o t e d t o a d i s - c u s s i o n o f l o y a l t y a n d a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s c o n - c e r n i n g l o y a l t y p u t f o r w a r d b y B l a u a n d S c o t t i n t h e i r b o o k F o r m a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s . I w o u l d s u g g e s t h e r e t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p e r s o n a l l o y a l t y among s u b o r d i n a t e s i s o n e o f t h e means b y w h i c h a s u p e r i o r may e x t e n d t h e s c o p e o f h i s i n f l u e n c e o v e r s u b o r - d i n a t e s i n a b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r i n a n a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a p r i m a r i l y l e g a l b a s i s . CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There are examples of l o y a l t y to be found i n various writings but they a l l d i f f e r i n some respect from one another, and there does not seem to be any standardized instrument to measure the quality or attitude described as l o y a l t y . The use 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 vary depending upon the orientation of the writer. This chapter w i l l discuss some of the concepts of l o y a l t y that have thus far been proposed. What are Loyalties? As has already been suggested, d i f f e r e n t writers have used the term i n various modes of analysis. Blau and Scott use the term to describe those behavioural patterns of a subordinate choosing to remain under the influence of his present s u p e r i o r . 1 Webster's Dictionary defines the concept of l o y a l t y i n terms of f i d e l i t y to a superior; f a i t h f u l and true to whom one i s subject; a f e e l i n g of sentiment accompany- ing a sense of allegiance. In a provocative a r t i c l e by T. W. Fletcher, l o y a l t i e s are defined as: ...a part of the individual's set of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , by which he relates himself to other people and groups sharing the s o c i a l environment i n which he l i v e s . Through l o y a l t i e s , which are emotional ad- justments, the i n d i v i d u a l sorts out the d i f f e r e n t ' p u l l s ' he feels - to h i s immediate family, his parents and t r a d i t i o n s , his r e l i g i o n , his community San x P e t e r M. Francisco: Blau and W. Richard Scot t , Formal Organizat ions , Chandler Publ i sh ing Company, 1962. p. 105. 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 t h e s e ' p u l l s * t h a t e n a b l e h i m t o m i n i m i z e c o n - s 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 a n d t o a c h i e v e a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e o f s t a b i l i t y a n d 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 T h u s F l e t c h e r v i e w s l o y a l t y a s a means b y w h i c h a n i n d i - v i d u a l may a c h i e v e i d e n t i t i e s i n a c o m p l e x w o r l d . I t i s t h e p r i o r i t y a n i n d i v i d u a l c o n f e r s a m o n g s t c o m p e t i n g l o y a l t i e s w h i c h h e l p s h i m t o a s s e s s a n y g i v e n s i t u a t i o n a n d a c t u p o n i t . A s c a n b e s e e n f r o m t h e s e f e w e x a m p l e s , t h e d e f i n i t i o n s o f l o y a l t y may v a r y . I t h a s b e e n u s e d t o r e f e r t o v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t h e b e h a v i o u r o f a n i n d i v i d u a l i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e e m p l o y i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n , i m m e d i a t e b o s s , p e e r g r o u p , u n i o n , p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d t h e l i k e . The r e m a i n d e r o f t h e c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s some o f t h e u s e s t o w h i c h v a r i o u s a u t h o r s h a v e p u t t h e t e r m a s a means o f b e h a v i o u r a l a n a l y s i s . L o y a l t y t o t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n B l a u a n d S c o t t d i s c u s s i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e c o m p e t i n g l o y a l t i e s when t h e y d i s c u s s c o n d i t i o n s l e a d i n g a p e r s o n t o be l o y a l t o h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l g r o u p ( c o s m o p o l i t a n s ) a s o p p o s e d t o h i s e m p l o y e r ( l o c a l s ) . L e a v i n g a s i d e t h i s q u e s t i o n o f p r o - f e s s i o n a l l o y a l t y f o r t h e t i m e b e i n g , i t m i g h t be n o t e d t h a t 2T. W. Fletcher, "The Nature of Administrative Loyalty", Public Administrative Review, Vol. 18 (1958), pp. 37. 3For a f u l l e r discussion of this aspect of loyalty see Blau and Scott, Formal Organizations, Chapter 3. 16 e v e n t h e a l l e g i a n c e o f t h e e m p l o y e e t o h i s e n t e r p r i s e i s n o t u n i t a r y . K e r r h a s o b s e r v e d t h a t l o y a l t y may b e d i v i d e d i n t o v e r y s e p a r a t e a l l e g i a n c e s . " F i r s t , t h e r e i s t h e l o y a l t y o r a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e b a s i c p u r p o s e o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e . S e c o n d , t h e r e i s t h e a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e s u p e r v i s o r . " He g o e s f u r t h e r t o e x p l a i n t h a t " . . . a n e m p l o y e e ' s , p o s i t i o n o n one o f t h e s e d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e h i s p o s i t i o n o n t h e o t h e r ; a n d , c o n v e r s e l y , a n e m p l o y e r c a n d e s e r v e a l l e g i a n c e o n one o f t h e s e b u t n o t on t h e o t h e r " . 5 N a t h a n i e l S t e w a r t h a s n o t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h e m p l o y e e l o y a l t y t o a n o r g a n i z a t i o n i s h i g h l y i n d i v i d u a l i z e d , i t i s a l s o t h e o u t g r o w t h o f t h e d y n a m i c s o f a c o h e s i v e w o r k g r o u p . When s p e a k i n g o f o r g a n i z a t i o n - c e n t e r e d l o y a l t y S t e w a r t r e f e r s t o " . . . a m a n ' s s t r o n g p e r s o n a l c o m m i t m e n t t o g i v e m o r e t h a n a d e - q u a t e l y o f h i s t i m e , e n e r g y , t a l e n t s , j u d g m e n t , i d e a s , a n d m o r a l c o u r a g e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c o m p a n y w i t h w h i c h h e i s a f f i l i a t e d " . U s i n g t h i s c o n c e p t o f l o y a l t y h e s t a t e s t h a t " O r g a n i z a t i o n - c e n t e r e d l o y a l t y m u s t be h a r n e s s e d f r o m b o t h s o u r c e s ( t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d t h e g r o u p ) . I t c a n n o t be ^Wil lard A. K e r r , "Dual Al legiance and Emotional Acceptance - Rejection in Industry", Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954) p. 59. 5 I b i d . , K e r r , p. 59. ^Nathaniel Stewart, "A R e a l i s t i c View at Organizat ional Loyal ty" , The Management Review, January, 1961. p. 21. 17 demanded, manufactured, procured, or gimmicked - i t has to be earned." Further , Stewart states that most management groups are looking for b l i n d l o y a l t y , with unquestioning obedience and f i d e l i t y , with never a voice ra i sed i n protest or disagree- ment. This kind of b l i n d l oya l ty should not be expected or even encouraged. Even at best i f th i s kind of commitment i s attained the employee react ion i s shallow, trans ient and lacking i n conv ic t ion . He goes on to say that "bl ind loyal ty" may be a hindrance for behavioural a n a l y s i s . Often management tends to judge employees react ions to cer ta in s i tuat ions i n terms of l o y a l t y , even though the s i t u a t i o n at hand has nothing to do with i t . For instance , i f a man feels that he has been u n f a i r l y treated and ra ises what he considers to be a legi t imate grievance, or i f he i s less than enthus ias t i c in accepting a s i t u a t i o n that seems unreasonable to him - i n such instances the man i s not being d i s l o y a l to the organizat ion . This man i s c er ta in to be a ". . .more valuable member of the organizat ion 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 decis ion because i t seems expedient to do so at the time". 7 I b i d . , Stewart, p. 23. 8 I b i d . , Stewart, p. 23. 18 Loyalty and the Superior As stated above, Stewart does not seem to think that l o y a l t y implies going along with a dec i s ion simply because i t seems expedient at the time. However, i n an interview with p o t e n t i a l management men, D i l l e t . a l . interviewed one respondent who f e l t that i t would be dangerous for one to go out and look for a job on his own because he was d i s - s a t i s f i e d with h i s present super ior . He reasoned that with the emphasis some people put on recommendations from past employers, a bad recommendation would r u i n a persons poten- Q t i a l chance for an employment opportunity . Thus, i t seems that l o y a l t y to one's superior may be forced upon an i n d i v i d u a l because he does not want to jeop- ardize his chances for openings which may seem to be d e s i r e - able to him. Dalton uses the term "loyalty" i n terms of a candidate seeking a higher o f f i ce seeing the job as does the present incumbent. He sees higher o f f i c e r s , i n seeking a l o y a l candidate , " . . . l o o k for at t i tudes l i k e h i s own as assuring a basis for understanding and c o o p e r a t i o n " . 1 0 This i s so because a manager r e a l i z e s the d i f f i c u l t y of get t ing at the d i s p o s i t i o n and probable behaviour of untr ied people, 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.' l 0 M e l v i l l e Dalton, Men Who Manage, New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1959. p. 188. 19 matter what credent ia l s and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s they may present to him. "Hence at varying l eve l s of conscious purpose, the appointing ch ie f gropes for more v a l i d marks of l o y a l t y . " 1 1 However, Dalton does not necessar i ly bel ieve th i s con- cept to be at a l l times b e n e f i c i a l . Quoting Frederick H. W i l k i e , Dalton wri tes : The 'powerful executive' surrounds himself with 'a corps of hardened yes - men . . .who pick up ideas from t h e i r super ior , amplify them, and parrot them i m p r e s s i v e l y . . . ' . In industry an 'unconscious con- s p i r a c y ' develops 'a s trong , secre t , and t a c i t o r - ganizat ion which maintains i t s e l f by accepting only those with s i m i l a r ideas , or those f r i e n d s , r e l a - t i v e s , and c lass - conscious equals who can be counted on to support the h ierarchy ' .12 Blau and Scott view l o y a l t y as a means by which a supe- r i o r may increase h i s sphere of e f f ec t ive author i ty . However, Dalton sees managers seeking l o y a l t y so as to lessen " ind iv idua l dynamics" encouraging c r i t i c i s m of the organizat ion . "To deal with the world , the organizat ion must present an i n v i t i n g ex- t e r i o r and a promise of superior execution. Swamped i n doubts, the leader must have assurance of i n t e r n a l l o y a l t y when he a c t s . " 1 3 Loyalty and the Group Seashore, i n providing evidence of the power of the goals of cohesive groups, defined h i s measurement of group l o y a l t y 1 3 - I b i d . , Dalton, P« 189. 1 2 I b i d . , Dalton, 189. 13 lb id . , Dalton, P. 188. 20 as group cohesiveness, and used questions deal ing with the fo l lowing dimensions to measure th i s q u a l i t y : whether workers f e e l a part of the group, s t i c k together, help each other and get along together. These dimensions are essen- t i a l l y the same as those re ferred to by L i k e r t as "peer- 15 group l o y a l t y " . In general , most studies (Goodacre, 1953) (Seashore, 1954) seem to indicate that the concept of peer group l o y a l t y may be u t i l i z e d i n developing a t h e o r e t i c a l scheme i n analyzing p r o d u c t i v i t y . Seashore found that " . . . t h e greater the peer-group l o y a l t y , the greater the inf luence which the goals of the group have on the performance of members of the group. Thus, i n groups with high peer-group l o y a l t y , the v a r i a t i o n s i n product iv i ty from worker to worker are less 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 explain that increased peer-group l o y a l t y i s ev ident ly asso- c iated with greater pressures to produce at a l e v e l which the group fee ls i s appropriate . Goodacre, i n h i s study of combat u n i t s , reported that those ". . . squads making high 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 greater number of men i n t h e i r squads x * S t a n l e y E. Seashore , Group Cohes iveness i n the I n d u s t r i a l Wor ld , Ann A r b o r , M i c h . : I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Resea r ch , 1954. 1 5 R e n s i s L i k e r t , New Pa t t e rns of Management, To ron to : McGraw-Hi l l Book Company, I n c . , 1961. p. 31 . 21 •buddying around' together on the post a f t e r duty hours and taking the i n i t i a t i v e to give orders to other men during the problem without the authority to do so. The men i n the high scoring squads also reported fewer d i s - 1 agreements with how t h e i r squadron leader ran the problem; more s a t i s f a c t i o n with the present positions held by the men i n t h e i r squads; more pride i n t h e i r squad; and the f e e l i n g that t h e i r squad i s one i n which more men would l i k e to be". 1 7 L i k e r t , i n his book New Patterns of Management, has attempted to r e l a t e the concept of peer-group l o y a l t y to 18 organizational performance. He presents data showing the r e l a t i o n of peer-group lo y a l t y to the following dimen- sions: (1) group productivity, (2) variance on actual production, (3) attitude toward supervisor, (4) f e e l i n g of tension at work, (5) productivity, and (6) absence from work. Thus may be seen the wide range of topics to which peer-group lo y a l t y may be related i n attempting to analyze various behavioural forms within an organization. 1 7D. M. Goodacre, "Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing Combat Units", Sociometry Vol. 16, (1953) pp. 179. 1 8 F o r a f u l l e r discussion of this aspect of loyalty see Rensis L i k e r t , New Patterns of Management, pp. 29 - 42. 22 D u a l L o y a l t y Y e t a n o t h e r c o n c e p t o f l o y a l t y u t i l i z e d i n b e h a v i o u r a l a n a l y s i s i s t h a t d e s c r i b e d a s " d u a l l o y a l t y " . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f o u r h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d a n d c o m - • p l e x c o m m u n i t i e s , many p e o p l e t e n d t o become i n v o l v e d w i t h many d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s o r g r o u p i n g s . A s a r e s u l t , one o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f o u r c o m p l e x s o c i e t y i s t h e c o n f l i c t w h i c h may a r i s e when t h e g o a l s o f t h e g r o u p s t o w h i c h we b e l o n g o p p o s e d t o e a c h o t h e r . N o w h e r e i s t h i s m o r e s h a r p l y i l l u s t r a t e d t h a n i n t h e c a s e o f t h e w o r k e r i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l f i e l d . He i s a member o f a c o m p a n y , a n d s e e k s t h r o u g h s u c h m e m b e r - s 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 e c o n o m i c s t a t u s a n d i n a d d i t i o n s e e k s t o s a t i s f y s e c u r i t y , s t a t u s , b e l o n g i n g n e s s , i n t e g r i t y n e e d s a n d many o t h e r s . T h i s d u a l 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 p h e n o m e n a o f o u r c o m p l e x c u l t u r e . . . 1 9 H o w e v e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e r e t o a r i s e t h e p h e n o m e - n o n o f d u a l l o y a l t y a m o n g s t e m p l o y e e s . A s r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n u n i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t e v o l v e , W h y t e n o t e s t h r e e i n t e r r e l a t e d d e v e l o p m e n t s : (1) The i s s u e s b e t w e e n t h e m become m o r e c o m p l e x . (2) U n i o n o f f i c e r s become i n c r e a s i n g l y o c c u p i e d w i t h i n t e r - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e l o c a l . l^Walter Gruen, "A Theore t i ca l Examination of the Concept of Dual Al l eg iance" , Personnel Psychology, V o l . 7 (1954) p. 72 23 (3) A l e g a l framework arises to regulate the r e l a t i o n s between the p a r t i e s . This consists of both the written law of contract clauses and the common law of past prac- 21 t i s e s and understandings as to how things should be done. In his study of a meat packing plant, P u r c e l l found that the rank and f i l e workers want both t h e i r company and union 21 to coexist. Lois Dean came to much the same conclusion where i n a study of three organizations of varying union- management r e l a t i o n s , she found that workers may have posit i v e attitudes toward both employer and union regardless 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 to suggest that i f leaders would recognize the emergence of dual l o y a l t y , at 2 3 least one source of i n d u s t r i a l c o n f l i c t would be diminished. Whyte goes further and u t i l i z e s his concept of l o y a l t y to suggest that i t i s conceivable for the two l o y a l t i e s to func- t i o n independently of each other. 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 to increase h i s f e e l i n g of l o y a l t y toward 2 0 W i l l i a m Foote Whyte, Men At Work, Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press, Inc. and Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1961. p. 299. 2 1Theodore V. P u r c e l l , "Dual Allegiance to Company and Union-Packinghouse Workers, A Swift-U.P.W.A. Study in a C r i s i s S i t u a t i o n , 1949-1952", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 7 (1954) p. 57. 2 2 L o i s R. Dean, "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, Vol. 7 (1954) pp. 526-536. 23pUr»cell, op. c i t . , p. 57. 24 the union without n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t i n g the l o y a l t y he f e e l s toward management. Whyte even hyp o t h e s i z e s t h a t t h i s d u a l l o y a l t y even e x i s t s amongst managers. (Management) men tend t o accept the union o r g a n i z a t i o n as p a r t of the whole i n s t i t u - t i o n a l system and r e c o g n i z e an o b l i g a t i o n t o union 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 the same way t h a t they f e e l o b l i g a - t i o n toward f e l l o w members of management. 2 4 C o n c l u s i o n In t h i s chapter I have attempted t o g i v e some aspects by which v a r i o u s w r i t e r s attempt to u t i l i z e l o y a l t y i n t h e i r a n a l y t i c a l schemes. As has been shown, t h i s term has been employed i n v a r i o u s c o n n o t a t i o n s , depending upon the o r i e n t a - t i o n of the w r i t e r . I t seems t h a t u n t i l a d e f i n i t i o n of the term i s put f o r t h i n an accepted t h e o r e t i c a l scheme, the term w i l l continue to be used i n i t s everyday, v e r n a c u l a r sense. 2**Whyte, op. c i t . , p. 29 8. CHAPTER III THEORETICAL ORIENTATION: CONCEPTS AND HYPOTHESES This chapter outlines the main concepts used i n t h i s i nvestigation and develops the hypotheses which form the basis for the study design. Hypothesized Relationships Between Loyalty and Various Aspects of Organizational Behaviour 1. Loyalty and authority. The rationale for the hypothe- sized r e l a t i o n s h i p between lo y a l t y to a supervisor and the establishment of e f f e c t i v e informal authority over subordinates stems from several sources. Blau and Scott claim that a supervisor w i l l attempt to develop l o y a l t y among his subordinates. They f e e l he w i l l do t h i s because he finds i t necessary to extend the scope of his influence over his subordinates beyond the narrow l i m i t s of his formal authority. The need to extend the scope of formal authority i s often required because a supervisor may f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to e f f e c - t i v e l y discharge his r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s unless he i s able to exert more influence on h i s subordinates than his formal authority alone permits. Going back to Chapter I and r e c a l l i n g Barnard's concept of the "zone of i n d i f f e r e n c e " , i t seems that i n e f f e c t what a supervisor must attempt to do i s widen a subordinate's "zone of indifference" by furnishing services which obligate him. 26 This i s a l l based on the b e l i e f that ultimately a superior cannot be said to have authority unless a person to whom the order i s directed obeys i t . The furnishing of s p e c i a l services by superiors to subordinates serves to obligate them. Once obligated, the subordinates w i l l f e e l that they should reciprocate by com- plying with t h e i r superior's requests and spe c i a l demands. In t h i s way a superior w i l l increase his sphere of influence over those i n the hierarchy who are deemed to be his sub- ordinates. 1 Formal status and o f f i c i a l powers of the superior a i d him i n providing s p e c i a l services to his subordinates which make the job easier and the work s i t u a t i o n more enjoyable. The supervisor i s i n a position to have easier access to management and other supervisors and thus can obtain neces- sary services and information which w i l l a i d his subordinates. Further, a supervisor i s i n the position of creating s o c i a l obligations by r e f r a i n i n g from using a l l of his powers. For instance, he may be lenient i n enforcing a no smoking r u l e ; thus creating a s o c i a l obligation on the part of subordinates. Influence does not constitute established authority, as i t i s only the group who can provide the legitimation of authority. However, i t can lead to established authority as ^Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scot t , Formal Organizat ions , „San Francisco: Chandler Publ ishing 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 their obligations. Loyalty w i l l thus tend to arise as a group norm. "Informal authority, is legitimated by the common values that emerge in a group, part icularly by the loyalty 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) superiors who command the loyalty of their subordinates are more l ike ly than others to establish effective informal 3 authority over them and thus to influence them. Two studies are cited which seem to be relevant in sup- port of this 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. 2Ibid. , p. 144. This whole discussion i s based on the assumption that a worker i s more than merely another cog in a complex organization, and i s not en t i r e l y manipulated by economic rewards as suggested by Amatai E t z i o n i i n his book Complex Organizations. 3l b i d . , p. 144. **John R. P. French, J r . , and Richard Snyder, "Leadership and Interpersonal Power", Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Soci a l Power, Ann Arbor: Institute for S o c i a l Research, University of Michigan, 1959. pp. 118-149. 28 Further, L i p p i t and his colleagues found that i n a camp set t i n g , boys to whom others attributed much power made more influence attempts and enjoyed more success i n t h e i r attempts to i n f l u e n c e . 5 On this basis I offe r the following predictions with regard to the kind or basis of a superior's control over l o y a l subordinates: Kb) Those supervisors with l o y a l subordinates w i l l gain 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 think of them as "nice guys", that i s , because of t h e i r behaviour they are l i k e d , accepted and respected. 1(c) Those supervisors with l o y a l subordinates w i l l not gain 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 to penalize or otherwise disadvantage those who do not cooperate with them. 1(d) Those supervisors with l o y a l subordinates w i l l obtain 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 help and benefits to those who cooperate with them. 1(e) Those superiors with l o y a l subordinates w i l l not gain compliance with t h e i r d i r e c t i v e s because the subordinates think that he has a legitimate r i g h t , considering his posi- t i o n , to expect that his suggestions w i l l be carried out. 5Ronald L i p p i t t et. a l . , "The Dynamics of Power", Human Relations, Vol. 5 (1952), pp. 37-64. 29 2. Loyalty and emotional detachment. There have been severa l studies conducted t e s t ing the s igni f icance , of d i f - f e r i n g forms of behaviour as a r e s u l t of varying the "close- ness'' of a superior to h i s subordinates. Closeness here re fers to the assoc ia t ion that may ex i s t between superiors and subordinates . F i e d l e r defined h is measure of closeness on the basis of an Assumed S i m i l a r i t y score . To derive th i s score , leaders se lected words that character ized the co- workers they most and least pre ferred . I f a leader was able to d iscr iminate between group members, he was deemed to have 6 v been c loser to h i s men than one who could not . Gouldner studied a gypsum plant i n which the informal contracts of a manager were "too indulgent". This resu l ted i n him becoming so emotionally involved with h i s subordinates 7 * that he was confined by them. Because of h i s indulgent methods he was not able to make chal lenging demands to st imulate t h e i r i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y to perform w e l l . F i e d l e r arr ive s at much the same conclusion i n h i s f ind ing that those leaders with the most e f f ec t ive work uni ts perceived themselves to be more psycholog ica l ly d i s tant from t h e i r men than those who perceived themselves to be c loser to t h e i r men. b F r e d E . F i e d l e r , "A Note on.Leadership Theory", Sociometry, V o l . 20 (1957), pp. 87-94. 7 A l v i n W. Gouldner, Patterns of I n d u s t r i a l Bureaucracy, Glencoe, 111.: Free ,Press , 195 4. pp. 45-56. & Fiedler . , Op. c i t . 30 Blau and Scott claim that an in d i c a t o r of a lack of involvement with subordinates i s an a b i l i t y to maintain emotional detachment - that i s , to remain calm and r a r e l y , i f ever, lose his temper. They found such detachment to be p o s i t i v e l y associated with the commanding of lo y a l t y i n the s o c i a l service agency studied. This then leads us to our second hypothesis: 2(a) The greater the a b i l i t y of a superior to maintain emotional detachment - to remain calm and r a r e l y , i f ever, lose his temper - the more l i k e l y he i s to command the loy a l t y of his subordinates. 3. Loyalty and independence. I t has often been noted that i n modern organizations, those who f i l l o f f i c e s between the "base" and "apex" of the organizational pyramid are sub- je c t to pressure from below as well as above. Besides main- ta i n i n g independence from subordinates (hypothesis 2), i t seems also to be important f o r a supervisor to maintain i n - dependence from one's superior. By maintaining independence from his superior, a supervisor w i l l more e a s i l y be able to control the environment of his subordinates. I f a superior enjoys independence he w i l l be better able to grant the spe c i a l requests of his subordinates and thus make them indebted to him. 9 B l a u and S c o t t , op. c i t . , p. 154. 31 Pelz found that i n h i s inves t iga t ion of the D e t r o i t Edison Company a superv isor ' s a b i l i t y to contro l the environment of h i s subordinates was just as important as engaging i n good supervisory p r a c t i s e s , " . . . t h e supervisory behaviour of ' s i d i n g with employees' and ' s o c i a l closeness to employees' w i l l tend to r a i s e employee s a t i s f a c t i o n only i f the supervisor has enough inf luence to make these benefi ts pay of f i n terms of ac tua l benefi ts for employees ." 1 0 In t h e i r study of the s o c i a l serv ice agency, Blau and Scott found that "independent" supervisors had more l o y a l subord i - - nates. Four of f ive independent supervisors commanded high l o y a l t y i n t h e i r work group, while only one of seven others commanded the l o y a l t y of t h e i r work group. Gn the basis of th i s evidence, I w i l l now formulate a t h i r d hypothesis: 3(a) The more independent a supervisor 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 that he w i l l have l o y a l subordinates . On th i s b a s i s , I s h a l l make the fo l lowing pred ic t ions : 3(b) A superior who commands the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates w i l l be more w i l l i n g to change e x i s t i n g procedures without consul t ing h i s super ior than a superior 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 , "Influence: A Key to Ef f ec t i ve Leader- ship in the F i r s t - L i n e Supervisor", Personnel , V o l . 29 (1952), pp. 209-217. 32 3 ( c ) A s u p e r i o r who i s p e r c e i v e d b y h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s a s e n j o y i n g h i e r a r c h i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d e n g a g i n g i n " g o o d M s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s w i l l b e m o r e l i k e l y t o w i n t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s t h a n a s u p e r i o r who d o e s n o t e n j o y h i e r - a r c h i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d d o e s n o t e n g a g e i n " g o o d " s u p e r - v i s o r y b e h a v i o u r . " G o o d s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s " w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d b y P e l z i n 1 9 5 2 . I n h i s s t u d y " g o o d s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s " w e r e t h o s e w h i c h a l e a d e r e m p l o y e d t o a l l o w e m p l o y e e s t o " . . . s a t i s f y t h e i r n e e d s , t o a c h i e v e t h e i r g o a l s " . 1 1 A c c o r d i n g t o some a u t h o r i t i e s t h i s i s a c c o m p l i s h e d b e s t when t h e s u p e r - v i s o r a l l o w s e m p l o y e e s t o h a v e a s e n s e o f b e i n g t h e i r own b o s s a n d o f e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t . S t r a u s s a n d S a y l e s i n r e v i e w i n g t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n s u p e r v i s i o n , c o n c l u d e t h a t " g o o d " b e h a v i o u r i n c l u d e s s u c h a c t s a s : ( 1 ) d e l e g a t i n g a u t h o r i t y , ( 2 ) m i n i m i z a t i o n o f d e t a i l e d o r d e r s b y s u p e r i o r t o s u b o r d i n a t e , a n d ( 3 ) h a v i n g t h e s u p e r i o r e n g a g e i n " l o w p r e s s u r e " s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s . T h a t i s , a s u p e r - 12 v i s o r s h o u l d n o t " p u s h " h i s m e n . B e c a u s e o f t h e n a r r o w l i m i t s o f my t h e s i s I d i d n o t m e a s - u r e t h e s e b e h a v i o u r s i n my q u e s t i o n n a i r e . D e t e r m i n i n g t h e I b i d . , p. 213. 1 2 George Strauss and Leonard R. Sayles , Personnel: The Human Problems of Management, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1960. p . 125. 33 e x i s t e n c e o f "good s u p e r v i s i o n " would i n i t s e l f e n t a i l a s e p a r a t e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . F o r the purpose o f p r e d i c t i n g h y p o t h e s i s 3 ( c ) , t h e r e f o r e , I a t tempted t o determine the p e r c e p t i o n o f each respondent r e g a r d i n g the q u a l i t i e s o f s u p e r v i s i o n he r e c e i v e s on the j o b . B l a u and S c o t t found t h a t s u b o r d i n a t e s were f a v o u r a b l y d i s p o s e d to t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r o n l y i f he engaged i n "good s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s " and had enough autonomy from h i s supe - r i o r t o e x e r c i s e e f f e c t i v e power o v e r the w o r k e r s ' env ironment . The absence o f the l a t t e r seemed to n e u t r a l i z e the advantages 13 o f the good s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s . f . C o n s i s t e n c y and L o y a l t y . Another d imens ion o f a s u p e r v i s o r ' s r o l e i s t h a t c o n c e r n i n g c o n s i s t e n c y i n r o l e p e r - formance and i t s e f f e c t s upon s u b o r d i n a t e s . I t has been s u g - ges ted t h a t c o n s i s t e n t "bad" p r a c t i s e s are p r e f e r a b l e t o e r r a t i c b e h a v i o u r . Lack o f c o n s i s t e n c y i n s u p e r v i s i o n and l a c k o f c l a r i t y i n d e f i n i n g the d u t i e s o f s u b o r d i n a t e s seems to have an adverse e f f e c t on l e a d e r s h i p and on the performance o f s u b o r d i n a t e s . 1 1 * In t h e i r s tudy o f the s o c i a l s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n , B l a u and S c o t t o b t a i n e d a measure o f the c o n s i s t e n c y o f the r o l e performance o f each s u p e r v i s o r by a s c e r t a i n i n g the degree o f Blau and Scot t , op. c i t . , p. 155. I b i d . , p. 15 7. 34 consensus among subordinates when asked about the seven following d i f f e r e n t aspects of t h e i r superior's, behaviour: Procedure orientation, knowledge of procedures, close supervision, s o c i a l distance from subordinates, e x c i t a b i l i t y , s t r i c t n e s s and self-confidence.: As i n the case of "good supervision", i n order t o 1 minimize the complexity of thi s study, I only attempted to gain a measure of the perception of the respondents with regard to consistency rather than t r y i n g to measure the actual degree of consistency. In t h e i r investigation of the s o c i a l service agency, Blau and Scott found that r o l e consistency was p o s i t i v e l y associated with worker l o y a l t y to the s u p e r v i s o r . 1 5 On this basis I s h a l l now present my fourth hypothesis: 4(a) S t a b i l i t y of supervisory practises promotes the lo y a l t y of workers to t h e i r superior. Arthur Cohen performed an experiment i n which the leader or power figure gave the workers an ambiguous def- i n i t i o n of the tasks to be performed as well as inconsistent d i r e c t i v e s . Moreover, the power figure also varied the con- • sistency of his suggestions as well as the c l a r i t y of the task assigned. Cohen found t h i s behaviour led to less 1 5 I b _ i d . , p. 158. Besides the wish to minimize the. com- p lex i ty of th i s research , I have not measured a l l seven of these items i n my questionnaire as in 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 "supervisor persona l i ty" , a procedure which I do not f e e l to be e i ther q u a l i f i e d or competent to perform. 35 favourable a t t i tudes toward the power f igure and, as w e l l , to lower worker p r o d u c t i v i t y . On the basis of th i s evidence, I s h a l l make the fo l low- ing p r e d i c t i o n : 4(b) A supervisor who i s perceived by h i s subordinates as being consistent i n h i s enforcement of working ru les and procedures, s t r i c t n e s s and general supervisory 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 subord i - nates than one who i s not so perceived. 5. Loyalty and s o c i a l support. In the study of the s o c i a l serv ice agencies Blau and Scott found that supervisors tended to be somewhat i s o l a t e d from supportive contracts with 17 t h e i r peers. One would thus be mistaken to assume that sup- port ive peer r e l a t i o n s develop amongst those at the super- v i sory l e v e l to the same extent that they do among workers. Jaques, i n h i s study, found the top managers of the organiza- t i o n he s tudied to be somewhat i s o l a t e d . However, Blau and Scott found th i s s i t u a t i o n of i s o l a t i o n was i n existence even at the f i r s t l i n e supervisory l e v e l . Even though supervisors were promoted from the worker l e v e l , and at one time i n t h e i r •••Arthur R. Cohen, "S i tua t iona l S truc tures , Self-Esteetn, and Threat-Oriented Reactions to Power", Dorwin Cartwright ( e d . ) , Studies in S o c i a l Power, Ann Arbor: Ins t i tu te for S o c i a l Re- search, Univers i ty of Michigan, 1959. pp. 35-52. Blau and Scot t , op. c i t . , p. 161. 36 work hist o r y would have received s o c i a l support from t h e i r present peer supervisors when they were a l l workers together, they did not seem to f i n d s o c i a l support from the same people once they were promoted to the supervisory l e v e l . Having re- jected the hypothesis that supervisors w i l l obtain t h e i r s o c i a l support from other supervisors, Blau and Scott put forth the suggestion that one source of s o c i a l support that enables some supervisors to maintain detachment and independ- 18 ence was the l o y a l t y of subordinates. I f a superior i s able to obtain the s o c i a l support of his subordinates, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d there w i l l probably be less need f o r him to seek the support of his superior by be- coming attached to him or by emulating his s t y l e of supervision. On the basis of these observations the f i f t h hypothesis to be investigated i s the following: 5(a) Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y to one's superior may reduce the need of a supervisor to win the respect of his subordinates. This; i s supported i n part by the r e s u l t s of the studies of Blau and Scott i n which they found that one of the super- visors whose subordinates expressed high l o y a l t y to them f e l t l o y a l to t h e i r own superior, while f i v e of the s i x superiors who did not command high l o y a l t y from t h e i r subordinates ex- pressed l o y a l t y to t h e i r section c h i e f . 1 9 1 8 I _ b i d . , p . 162. 1 9 I b i d . , p . 162. 37 On t h i s b a s i s a n d f r o m t h e s e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s I s h a l l make t h e f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i o n s : 5 ( b ) A s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r d e g r e e o f t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l f e e l i t l e s s i m p o r t a n t t o w i n t h e r e s p e c t a n d a l l e g i a n c e o f h i s s u p e r i o r s t h a n one who commands a l e s s e r d e g r e e o f t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . 5 ( c ) A s u p e r i o r who commands a h i g h e r d e g r e e o f t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l b e l e s s l i k e l y t o s e e k t h e a p p r o v a l o f h i s s u p e r i o r b y b e c o m i n g a t t a c h e d t o h i m a n d e m u l a t i n g h i s s t y l e o f s u p e r v i s i o n . 6 . L o y a l t y o f s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d l o y a l t y , to , t h e s u p e r i o r . I f t h e l o y a l t y o f s u b o r d i n a t e s i s a s o u r c e o f s o c i a l s u p p o r t , i t w i l l l e s s e n t h e n e e d f o r a s u p e r v i s o r t o s e e k t h e s o c i a l s u p p o r t o f h i s s u p e r i o r . A l t e r n a t e l y , i f a s u p e r v i s o r e x - p r e s s e s s t r o n g t i e s o f l o y a l t y t o h i s s u p e r i o r , i t w i l l l e s s e n h i s n e e d t o s e e k t h e r e s p e c t a n d a l l e g i a n c e o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . I f t h i s p r e d i c t i o n i s t r u e , t h e n I c a n p r e s e n t a s i x t h h y p o t h e s i s : 6 ( a ) L o y a l t y t o s u p e r i o r s 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 t e n d s t o b e p r o n o u n c e d o n a l t e r n a t e l e v e l s . I t h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d b y B l a u a n d S c o t t t h a t i f t h e l o y a l t y o f o n e s s u b o r d i n a t e s i s n o t won b y a s u p e r i o r , t h e n i t w i l l be v e r y i m p o r t a n t f o r h i m t o w i n t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u p e r i o r s . S i m i l a r l y , i f t h o s e i n t h e p o s i t i o n s o f s u p e r v i s i o n d o n o t c o m - 1 mand t h e l o y a l t y o f t h e i r s u p e r i o r s , i t w i l l be i m p o r t a n t f o r 38 the supervisor to obtain social support by winning the loyalty 2 0 of their subordinates. This conclusion is one which somewhat resembles that of Caudil l in an observation put forth by him in his study of the personnel in a hospital . In this study Caudil l compares the anthropological observation of a pattern of mutual indulgence and affection between alternate generations (grandparents and grandchildren) to the alternate positions of those in the hospital hierarchy. In the case of grandchildren and grand- parents, neither generation usually has direct responsibil i ty for the other, and the two groups are united in haying expe- 21 rienced frustration with the intermediate generation. It may be possible, even though i t is very speculative, to explain in the same terms the hypothesis that alternate levels of the hierarchy of bureaucratic organization w i l l be more similar in orientation than adjacent ones. 2 0 I b i d . , p. 162. 2 1 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 Hosp i ta l as a Small Soc ie ty , Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univers i ty Press , 195 8. pp. 155-157. CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE INVESTIGATION This chapter contains a descr ip t ion of the sample pop- u l a t i o n and s e t t i n g i n which the data were gathered, the questionnaire and data gathering methods, the research pop- u l a t i o n , the d e r i v a t i o n of measures of major v a r i a b l e s , the 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 procedure. The Sample Population The sample population 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 . Its main of f ices are located i n a metropol i tan area exert ing major economic i n - fluence upon the p o l i t i c a l u n i t . The people of the area engage i n many d i v e r s i f i e d pursui ts of l i v e l i h o o d and come from varying ethnic backgrounds. The operations of the organizat ion are spread throughout a large area , although i t s main advisory functions and centers of author i ty are located with in one p r i n c i p a l area. I t offers one main s e r v i c e , although there are a var ie ty of others . The work force i s composed of employees from many d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s of knowledge 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 involved i n the research sample. The company's operations are organized according to type of funct ion performed, with 10 main d i v i s i o n s . The hierarchy of adminis trat ion and supervis ion i s of a pattern common i n 40 Canadian and American i n d u s t r i a l organizat ions . For ins tance , i n the sample chosen there i s one D i v i s i o n Manager, one Spec ia l A s s i s t a n t , twelve Department Managers, ten Supervisors and seven Foremen. This information was r e a d i l y obtained upon inves t iga t ion of the company's organizat ion chart . (See Figures 1 and 2.) There are a number of d i v i s i o n s i n which the rank and f i l e report d i r e c t l y to a supervisor rather than to a foreman. Genera l ly , each sect ion i s organized around some s p e c i a l - i zed funct ion (e .g . information s e r v i c e s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , ) and includes employees with a v a r i e t y of tasks (e .g . c l e r i c a l , t e c h n i c a l ) . Some operations are performed on a s h i f t basis by d i f f e r e n t crews. Section s ize may vary from two to f o r t y employees. A s u b s t a n t i a l number of the operations are s p e c i a l i z e d , and therefore the mobi l i ty within the organizat ion i s l i m i t e d . A trans fer for most of the rank and f i l e usual ly takes the form of doing the same work under a d i f f erent supervisor . However, th i s t rans fer may take place e i ther within the department or within the d i v i s i o n s . The functions of the d i v i s i o n sample may be observed i n Figures 1 and 2. The sample employees are predominantly male and vary i n age. Most have been with the company a considerable length of time (5 - 15 years ) . Internal Auditor Bd. of Directors ! Chairman Exec . Com I Sec r etary Asst. to th$ Chairman jExec . "A'S'STj H &Ass't Seel; H_ ..., Div. Mgr . T r a n s . Div. Mgr j Production j ! Div-.-"Mgr-.--; •Purch. &:Sto^es (Pomp. *Chf. 'Fin. Officer p i v; "Mgr" Land Div r"Mgr . > Operation^ ; Chf. Eng. & jDiy. Mgr . J ~Sofic ite j Div. Mgr . '. Ec , & .Com , jSrvs p e n . l o r '& Div. Mgr HegaT ' D i v .'Mgr .1 jStaff Services FIGURE 1 ORGANIZATION CHART OF THE SAMPLE ORGANIZATION STUDIED D i v i s ion Manager jSpec ial ~ I Assistant As sociate Manager Dept. Mgr. lLabour Mgr. Services Dept. Mgr izati i res Qjjjaru ioh Dept. Mgr. 14npwr . Ping Dev. iirvc s. Assistant Mgr FIGURE 2 ORGANIZATION CHART OF THE SAMPLE DIVISION STUDIED Pep t". Mg r . " I I n f o . Srvcs S u p e r v i s o r I of. S p e c Svxls . £ up e r v i s o r \— of. P u b l i c n S u p e r v i s o r ' of P r e s_s _ L i J i i s o n Jbldg. Srvcs Acc.&Fire Prev. Services Security Services Library Disposal Office & Veh. Services H. Office Personnel. E D i r e c t o r of ealth Srvcs * Separately Illustrated A s s o c i a t e D i v i s i o n M a n a g e r D i s p o s a l A g e n t s soc late Div. Mgx_ H D e p t . M g r . Off ice P e r ^ . t a f e t e r ia S u p e r v i s o r FIGURE 2 (CONT'D) Dept. M g r . S e c u r i t y S r v c s Dept . M g r . ; 0ff. & V e h i c l e Dept . M g r ."] B l d g . Srvcfs S e c u r i t y Lrds S u p v r . ! $n. S e c u r i t y I G u a r d J bteno. S u p v r . j A s s r to 1 M g r . Mai l ing" S u p v r . i (nil) i Stat ionery S u p v r . Heat ing & A i r C o n d , FJng P r i n t i n g S u p v r . B l d g . u p n . S u p v r . P r o d . Cont A s s t . o l J a n i t o r Svc s Superv iSOT "Service K e h S u p v r . Shop F o r e - m a n Uhift F o r e m a n D e p t . M g r ' j~ Ac Cg. & F i r e p r V I j , ser p ices D i b r a r ian Gaiety E n g . Zhf~~ F i r e P r e v . O f f i c e r -tr 44 The company studied i s very progressive i n i t s personnel p o l i c i e s with exce l lent employee provis ions ( insurance, cafe- t e r i a f a c i l i t i e s , e t c . ) . The Questionnaire' and; Data Gathering Methods During the l a t t e r months of 1963, one d i v i s i o n of the company was studied with the object ive of i n v e s t i g a t i n g v a r i - ous aspects of l o y a l t y among a l l employees engaged i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r d i v i s i o n . The method of inves t iga t ion consisted of a quest ionnaire sent to a l l of the d i v i s i o n employees. The preparat ion of the questionnaire followed general ly accepted procedures, inc lud ing interviews with the management and union o f f i c i a l s concerned and the pretes t ing of the ques- t i o n n a i r e . The questions were grouped according to nine major areas of i n t e r e s t . (1) Expressed l o y a l t y to supervisor (Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n ) (2) Loyalty (defined as s a t i s f a c t i o n or l i k i n g for a superior) (3) Loyalty (defined as unquestioning f a i t h and t r u s t i n a super ior . (4) Loyalty (measured d i r e c t l y - i . e . "how l o y a l do you feel?") (5) Perceived informal authori ty of super ior . (6.) Perceived emotional detachment of immediate superv i sor . (7) Perceived h i e r a r c h i c a l independence. (8) Perceived s t a b i l i t y of supervisory p r a c t i s e s . (9) The a t t i tude of a supervisor to ward h is super ior . 45 The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e s e n t t o t h e home o f e a c h o f t h e e m p l o y e e s i n t h e c h o s e n s a m p l e . T h e y w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d b y u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l on u n i v e r s i t y s t a t i o n e r y , a n d p r e - < c a u t i o n s w e r e t a k e n t o i n s u r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w o u l d b e c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d n o t made a v a i l a b l e t o a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e r e s e a r c h e r s . P r e v i o u s t o t h e d i s - t r i b u t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l e t t e r was s e n t o u t b y t h e managemen t o f t h e company a d v i s i n g t h a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y was t o u n d e r t a k e s u c h a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t u d y . T h e l e t t e r g a v e a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t u d y , a n d a d v i s e d t h e e m p l o y e e s t h a t i t h a d t h e s a n c t i o n o f b o t h managemen t a n d u n i o n o f f i - c i a l s . The c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e t u r n e d t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y b y means o f a n e n c l o s e d a d d r e s s e d a n d s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e . The d a t a o n t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f l o y a l t y a c c o r d i n g t o t h e l e v e l i n t h e h i e r a r c h y a r e o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e t o t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The r e s p o n d e n t s h a d t o be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h o u t t h e i r k n o w l e d g e a s i t was r e a l i z e d t h e a r e a o f i n - < v e s t i g a t i o n was a m o s t s e n s i t i v e o n e . The m e t h o d u t i l i z e d was t o h i d e t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n t h e s i g n a t u r e o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r . A l i s t o f a l l t h e e m p l o y e e s a n d t h e i r a d d r e s s e s was o b - t a i n e d f r o m t h e c o m p a n y . T h e m e t h o d o f c o d i f i c a t i o n was t o p l a c e a s e t o f i n i t i a l s b e s i d e t h e name o f e a c h r e s p o n d e n t on t h e l i s t . On t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e g o i n g o u t t o e a c h 46- r e s p o n d e n t was p l a c e d t h e same s e t o f i n i t i a l s p r e c e d i n g t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s n a m e . A t t h e e n d o f e a c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e was w r i t t e n " T h a n k y o u " f o l l o w e d b y t h e h i d d e n c o d i f y i n g s i g n a t u r e ( e . g . C D . C o r e n b l u m , E.L. C o r e n b l u m ) . When t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was r e t u r n e d , t h e i n i t i a l s w e r e t r a c e d b a c k t o t h e l i s t , a n d t h e e m p l o y e e was t h e n c o d e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t a n d l e v e l i n w h i c h h e was e m p l o y e d . The R e s e a r c h P o p u l a t i o n .• E a c h e m p l o y e e i n t h e d i v i s i o n i s f o r m a l l y a s s i g n e d t o a w o r k s e c t i o n . T h e r e a r e s i x s u c h s e c t i o n s . I n m o s t c a s e s t h e members o f e a c h s e c t i o n a r e i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o one a n o t h e r , s h a r e a common s u p e r v i s o r , a n d h a v e b e e n a s s o c i a t e d i n s u c h s e c t i o n s f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e m o n t h s . H o w e v e r , t h e r e a r e some e x c e p t i o n s . Some s e c t i o n s , s u c h a s t h e s e c r e t a r i a l p o o l a n d j a n i t o r i a l s t a f f , a r e s c a t t e r e d t h r o u g h o u t v a r i o u s o f f i c e s a n d l o c a t i o n s . Some s e c t i o n s a r e c o m p o s e d o f o n l y t w o p e o p l e , o r j u s t a f e w . A r e s e a r c h s a m p l e was s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e t o t a l d i v i s i o n o n t h e f o l l o w i n g b a s i s : ( 1 ) 1 S e c t i o n s o f l e s s t h a n 5 members w e r e d i s c a r d e d . ( 2 ) G r o u p s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s w h i c h c o u l d n o t be r e a d i l y i d e n - < t i f i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l w e r e n o t i n - ; e l u d e d i n t h e r e s e a r c h p o p u l a t i o n . ( 3 ) G r o u p s w i t h h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e s w e r e e l i m i n a t e d . T h e s e e x c l u d e d t h e s t a t i o n e r y a n d s e r v i c e v e h i c l e s s e c t i o n s . 47 ( 4 ) G r o u p s h a v i n g m o r e t h a n one s u p e r v i s o r w e r e d i s c a r d e d a s t h i s w o u l d c o m p l i c a t e t h e a n a l y s i s o f l o y a l t y p e r - t a i n i n g t o o n l y one; s u p e r v i s o r . T h e r e r e m a i n e d a f t e r t h i s p r o c e s s s i x d e p a r t m e n t s h a v i n g a t o t a l o f 152 m e m b e r s . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f t h e R e s e a r c h P o p u l a t i o n I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o u n d e r t a k e a r a n d o m s a m p l e p r o c e d u r e i n s e l e c t i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e g r o u p s , o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e s t u d y . The w r i t e r f e e l s t h a t t h e o r g a n i z a - t i o n s e l e c t e d i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f m o s t l a r g e b u s i n e s s e s t a b - l i s h m e n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o i t s i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e r e i s n o t h i n g u n i q u e o r m y s t e r i o u s a b o u t i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t s ; t h e y c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e t h o s e s e t o u t i n m o s t b o o k s on a d m i n i s - t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The c h o i c e o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r d i v i s i o n w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a - t i o n was made p r i m a r i l y o n t h e b a s i s t h a t i t w i l l i n g l y g a v e p e r m i s s i o n t o d o t h e s t u d y . ( I t was f o u n d t h a t t h e s e n s i t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e a r e a o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e n d e r e d many m a n a g e m e n t s u n w i l l i n g t o p e r m i t t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o be u n d e r t a k e n i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s . ) H a d more t h a n o n e , o r a n y o t h e r d i v i s i o n b e e n d e c i d e d on t o i n v e s t i g a t e , much m o r e t i m e w o u l d h a v e b e e n n e e d e d t o o b t a i n t h e n e c e s s a r y c o n s e n t t o b e g i n t h e s t u d y . T h e r e i s l i t t l e t o s u g g e s t t h a t a n y i m p o r t a n t b i a s h a s b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , a l t h o u g h i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some b i a s may h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d . 48 F l e i s h m a n , H a r r i s ; , a n d B u r t t , f o r e x a m p l e , h a v e s u g - g e s t e d t h a t " n o n - p r o d u c t i o n " d i v i s i o n s t e n d t o c o n t a i n f e w e r " c l o s e s u p e r v i s o r s " t h a n " p r o d u c t i o n d i v i s i o n s " . T h e y f o u n d t h a t t h e r e was a " . . . f a i r l y m a r k e d t e n d e n c y f o r t h e f o r e m e n i n t h e m o s t d e m a n d i n g d i v i s i o n s t o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e l e a s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n ( f o r t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s ) " . 1 T h e y e x p l a i n t h a t t h o s e i n s e r v i c e d i v i s i o n s a r e n o t s u b j e c t a s much t o t h e p r e s s u r e o f d e a d l i n e s a s t h o s e " p r o d u c t i o n d i v i s i o n s " . H o w - e v e r , b e c a u s e t h e h y p o t h e s i s B l a u a n d S c o t t p u t f o r t h d i d n o t c o n t a i n a n y c o n d i t i o n s , I d i d n o t f e e l t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g o f F l e i s h m a n e t . a l . w o u l d i n a n y way s u g g e s t b i a s i n t h e s a m p l e c h o s e n . I t m i g h t h o w e v e r l i m i t t h e g e n e r a l i z - a b i l i t y o f o t h e r f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d h e r e i n . The M a j o r V a r i a b l e ; - L o y a l t y • The e n t i r e p l a n o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e s t s u p o n t h e p r o p - o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e m e a s u r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s among i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a n d b e t w e e n v a r i o u s h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d e g r e e o f e x p r e s s e d l o y a l t y t o w a r d t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . The i d e n t i t y o f t h i s v a r i a b l e i n s y s t e m a t i c t h e o r y i s r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r , a s d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r I , a n d t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s c h o s e n f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n f o r m s s u b s t a n t i a l l y J-Edwin A. Fleishman, Edwin F . H a r r i s , and Harold E . B u r t t , "Leadership and Supervision in Industry", People and P r o d u c t i v i t y , Robert A. Sutermeister ( 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 conception. Four d i s t inguishable but not incons i s tent meanings of the concept of l o y a l t y were i d e n t i f i e d and measured. (1) The Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n , i . e . l o y a l t y as the wish to remain under the inf luence of ones present super ior . (2) Loyalty as s a t i s f a c t i o n with of l i k i n g for a super ior . (3.) Loyalty as unquestioning f a i t h and t r u s t i n a super ior . (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 quest ion. The index of l o y a l t y to a super ior was based upon r e - sponses to the fo l lowing d i r e c t questions: To measure the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y the fo l lowing questions were asked: Q. 1. I f you had a chance to do the same kind of work for the same pay i n another work group under the d i r e c - ' t i o n of another superv i sor , how would you f e e l about moving? CHECK ONE • 1) I would very much prefer to move 2) I would s l i g h t l y prefer to move 3) I t would make no di f ference to me 4) I would s l i g h t l y prefer to stay where I am .- • • 5 ) 1 would very much prefer to stay where I am z The majority of these questions were drawn from the questionnaire of Stanley E . Seashore in his study of North- western Mutual L i f e Insurance Company under the auspices of Survey Research Center, The Univers i ty of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 50 Q. 2. I f your boss was transferred and only you and you alone i n your work group were given a chance to move with him (doing the same work at the same pay) , would you f e e l l i k e making the move? 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 l i t t l e l i k e making the move '• ; • : 3) I wouldn't care one way or the other • ; 4) I would f e e l a l i t t l e l i k e not moving with him .5) I would f e e l very much l i k e not moving with him To measure l oya l ty as s a t i s f a c t i o n with or l i k i n g for a s u p e r i o r , the fo l lowing questions were asked: Q. 3. Is your boss the kind of man you r e a l l y l i k e working for? CHECK ONE 1) Yes, he r e a l l y i s that kind of man , 2) Yes, he i s i n many ways 3) He i s i n some ways and not i n others 4) No, he i s not i n many ways 5) No, he r e a l l y i s n ' t Q. 4. 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) Very d i s s a t i s f i e d with my superior • • ; 2) A l i t t l e d i s s a t i s f i e d • 3) F a i r l y s a t i s f i e d : • • ; 4) Quite s a t i s f i e d • ; . ; 5) Very s a t i s f i e d with my superior 51 To m e a s u r e l o y a l t y a s u n q u e s t i o n i n g f a i t h a n d t r u s t i n t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s u p e r i o r , t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s w e r e i n s e r t e d . Q . 5 . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , how much c o n f i d e n c e a n d t r u s t d o y o u h a v e i n y o u r b o s s ? CHECK ONE 1 ) A l m o s t n o n e _^ 2 ) N o t much 3 ) Some : 4 ) Q u i t e a l o t 5) C o m p l e t e Q. 6 . S u p e r i o r s a t t i m e s m u s t make d e c i s i o n s w h i c h s e e m t o be a g a i n s t t h e c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r s u b o r d i n a t e s . When t h i s h a p p e n s t o y o u a s a s u b o r d i n a t e , how much t r u s t d o y o u h a v e t h a t y o u r b o s s ' d e c i s i o n i s i n y o u r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e l o n g r u n ? CHECK ONE 1 ) C o m p l e t e t r u s t 2 ) A c o n s i d e r a b l e a m o u n t o f t r u s t : 3 ) Some t r u s t 4 ) O n l y a l i t t l e t r u s t , 5 ) No t r u s t a t a l l Q . 7 . A b o u t how o f t e n i s y o u r b o s s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m i s - t a k e s i n y o u r w o r k u n i t ? CHECK ONE . 1 ) V e r y o f t e n 2 ) Q u i t e o f t e n 52 ; • 3 ) O c c a s i o n a l l y . 4 ) V e r y r a r e l y 5 ) N e v e r To m e a s u r e t h e d i r e c t e x p l i c i t e x p r e s s i o n o f l o y a l t y t o a s u p e r i o r , t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n was a s k e d : Q . 2 2 . M o w much l o y a l t y d o y o u f e e l t o w a r d y o u r b o s s ? CHECK ONE 1 ) A l m o s t n o n e a t a l l 2 ) A l i t t l e _ _ _ _ _ 3 ) Some 4 ) Q u i t e a b i t • 5 ) A v e r y g r e a t d e a l T a b l e I s h o w s t h e d e g r e e o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n among r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . T h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e j u d g e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h t o j u s t i f y t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a common e l e m e n t i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e e i g h t q u e s t i o n s . A n i n t e r e s t i n g o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h e a p p a r e n t i n d e p e n d e n c e o f q u e s t i o n t w o f r o m a l l t h e o t h e r q u e s t i o n s . T h i s q u e s t i o n p e r t a i n e d t o t h e B l a u a n d S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n o f l o y a l t y r e g a r d - ' i n g t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f a s u b o r d i n a t e t o move w i t h h i s s u p e r i o r . A s c a n be s e e n , t h i s q u e s t i o n a c h i e v e d a r e l a t i v e l y l o w i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . TABLE I INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG MEAN SCALE VALUES ON SCALES COMPRISING THE INDEX OF LOYALTY (N = 152) Q.I Q.2 Q.3 Q.4 Q.5 Q.6 Q.7 Q.22, Qv 1. Working i n another group -. ' .485 . 65 4 .654 .636 .525 .425 .501 Q. 2. Moving with the present boss .485 . - .494 .55 3 .473 .372 .286 .395 Q. 3. Like working for boss .65 4 . 49 4 .817 .718 .63 7 .571 .636 Q. 4. Sa t i s fac t ion with boss .654. .553 . 817 - .734 .681 .512 .636 Q. 5. Confidence and t rus t i n boss .636 .473 .718 .734 -. .778 .610 .6 40 0> 6. Trust i n boss' dec is ion .525 .372 .637 .681 .778 - .545 .512 Q. 7. Mistakes of boss .425 .2 86 .571 .512 .610 .5 45 - • .401 Q. 22. Loyalty toward boss .501 .395 .636 .636 .640 .512 .401 - 54 Although comments to the questionnaire were not s o l i c i t a t e d from the respondents, there were a large number of respondents who explained t h e i r answer to t h i s quest ion. I t may be added here that comments submitted with the questionnaire pertained to only two subjects ; the quest ionnaire as a whole and the second quest ion. The comments perta in ing to the second question usu- a l l y deal t with the other aspects one considers when con- templating a t rans fer other than just a l i k i n g for a super ior . The respondents seem to a l so consider t h e i r present work group, the desk they now occupy and t h e i r general standing i n t h e i r informal group when deciding whether or not they should make a move. Perhaps th i s c r i t i c i s m of the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n could best be i l l u s t r a t e d by quoting the comment of one of the respond- ents: "Although I respect my immediate superior - 1 would prefer to stay where I am supervis ing the very able crew I now supervise". "'From correspondence with Peter M. Blau the wri ter was informed that Blau and Scott used two de f in i t i ons of l o y a l t y , both based on the same interviewing quest ion. They asked a l l case workers interviewed in which super- visory unit they would want to work i f they could work in any unit of t h e i r choice. I f an i n d i v i d u a l named, in answer to the quest ion, his own superv isor , they consid- ered him l o y a l to his supervisor; i f he did not , they did not consider h i t t l o y a l . In a d d i t i o n , they computed for each supervisor whether the majority of a l l his subordinates named him in answer to th i s question or not , and i f they d i d , Blau and Scott considered that he commanded the loya l ty of his subordinates. 55 Nevertheless , i n order to obtain the maximum meaning from these measures, they w i l l be analyzed i n four groups: The Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n , 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 for a s u p e r i o r , l o y a l t y as unquestioning f a i t h and t r u s t i n a super ior , and the existence 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 to the response categories for each quest ion , with the value " 5 " assigned to the most favourable category. Group means were then c a l c u l a t e d , g iv ing the d i s t r i b u t i o n , of indexes as i s shown i n the tables to fo l low. In cases of non-response to a question which a t - tempted to 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 frequently gave to the other questions measuring l o y a l t y . There were two respondents who d id not answer a l l . of the quest ions. CHAPTER V LOYALTY ON ALTERNATE LEVELS Let us now invest igate the hypothesis concerning the occurrence of l o y a l t y . This chapter w i l l invest igate the Blau and Scott hypothesis that " . . . l o y a l t y to superiors i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l organizat ion would be pronounced on a l ternate l e v e l s " . 1 Table II gives the d i spers ion of the Blau and Scott l o y a l t y scores according to the respondent's pos i t i on i n the h ierarchy . TABLE II . DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF THE BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION No. of Average Level Respondents 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 Scot t , Formal Organiza- t i o n s , San Francisco: Chandler Publ i shing Company, 1962. p. 162. 57 For ease of computation, i n applying the s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t (Student's t ) the mean of scores on the odd leve l s (1, 3, 5, and 7) were compared to the mean of scores on the even l eve l s (2, 4, and 6) . The formula appl ied for analys i s took the fo l lowing form: Where 1) The barred symbols, for example, B", stand for means. 2) B and A are the average l e v e l scores . 3) n. and n_ are the number of l eve l s under cons iderat ion . A o On the basis of the data presented i n Table I I , t = .16. Referr ing the ca l cu la ted value of t to tables of Student's t , we f i n d that we are not able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis . The fo l lowing three tables w i l l give the d i spers ion of the a l ternate l o y a l t y d e f i n i t i o n s . Again applying these data to the above formula, no ca lcu lated t i s large enough to allow us to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis . ^Sidney S i e g e l , Nonparametrie S t a t i s t i c s for the Behav- i o u r a l Sciences , Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 195 6. p . 155. 2 t = A" - r<B - B~)2 + ^ (A - A")2 (1 + 1 ) 58 TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTION WITH OR LIKING FOR A SUPERIOR Level No. of Respondents T o t a l Score Average Score 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 . s. TABLE IV DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE OF UNQUESTIONING FAITH AND TRUST IN A SUPERIOR BASIS Level No. of Respondents T o t a l Score Average Score 1 1 3.5 3.5 2 7 19.0 3.9 3 24 91.0 3.8 4 32 117.5 3.7 5 - 42 15 7.0 3.8 6 38 131.0 3.5 7 8 28.0 3.5 df = 5; t = 1.071; p = n. s • 59 TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF LOYALTY SCORES ON THE BASIS OF DIRECT EXPLICIT EXPRESSION OF LOYALTY No. of T o t a l Average Level Respondents Score Score 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 . s. We are not able on any measure to accept the hypothesis . Conclusion I t was the aim of th i s sect ion of the chapter to i n v e s t i - gate the hypothesis that l o y a l t y to a superior w i l l be pro- nounced on a l ternate l e v e l s . Therefore , i n applying s t a t i s t i - c a l tests the n u l l hypothesis i s that there w i l l be no di f ference i n the l o y a l t y shown to a superior on a l ternate h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s . Applying the Student's t s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t I was not able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis for any of 60 the d e f i n i t i o n s . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d not be e s t a b l i s h e d . T h e r e f o r e , on the b a s i s of my d a t a I cannot accept 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 l e v e l s . Al though 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 c o u l d not be e s t a b l i s h e d , i t i s s t i l l 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 Tables I I I , I V , and V . I n a l l t h r e e t a b l e s t h e r e i s a n o t i c e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e of average l o y a l t y scores ass igned t o those i n d i v i d u a l s near the top of the d i v i s i o n s t u d i e d , and on Tables I I I 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 of average scores between h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s occupying 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 c h a r t . I t i s i n the t e s t i n g of those i n the area d e s c r i b e d as "middle management" where the h y p o t h e s i s meets i t s g r e a t e s t r e s i s t a n c e . This seems t o h o l d somewhat w i t h the theory expressed 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 the i d e a of 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 of the work- e r s . 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 not 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 tend t o promise h i g h performance and t o put the blame on the workers f o r f a i l u r e t o keep these promises . To the workers he con- 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 to transfer t h e i r requests and demands upwards and to 'raise h e l l ' i f they are not accepted. He t r i e s not to be i d e n t i f i e d with management. Playing on the 'conspiracy psychology' of the workers (as he does on that of management), he claims 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 also an expert on double behaviour. His success i s inversely related 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 stronger and better they are, the smaller i s h i s maneuvering margin and his chances of success. Un- pleasant as the r o l e may seem, one should keep i n mind that, 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 position of foreman exerts strong pressure toward such behav- iour. The requirements of the human r e l a - tions approach, i t seems, do not decrease and may even increase the p r o b a b i l i t y that such behaviour w i l l occur.3 If one accepts t h i s hypothesis, then i t : would seem that l o y a l t y need not vary uniformly throughout the whole organization, but rather would develop where the effects of t h i s dilemma tends to be minimal. Perhaps t h i s i s the reason why the Blau and Scott hypothesis seems to hold at the extreme ends of the organization, but not i n the middle. Furthermore, there i s the Dalton hypothesis that of- f i c e r s at a l l l e v e l s , when r e c r u i t i n g for vacant positions, The 3Amitai E t z i o n i , "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, Vol. 1 (1958), pp. 37-38 62 b e g i n 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 l i k e h i s own i n the hope t h a t they w i l l t h i n k l i k e he does.** Because of t h i s , one would expect c o n f o r m i t y down the l i n e r a t h e r than 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 l e v e l s . ^Melv i l l e Dalton, Men Who Manage, New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1959. p . 190. 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 BEHAVIOUR T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s e n t s t h e f i n d i n g s o f a n a n a l y s i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g s u b o r d i n a t e l o y a l t y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h r e e m e a s u r e s o f s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e . I t h a s b e e n s t a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n f o r m s o f s u p e r v i s o r y b e h a v i o u r w i l l be m o r e c o n - < d u s i v e t o w i n n i n g t h e l o y a l t y o f s u b o r d i n a t e s . T h i s c h a p t e r w i l l a n a l y z e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f l o y a l t y t o t h r e e v a r i a b l e s : e m o t i o n a l d e t a c h m e n t , c o n s i s t e n c y o f s u p e r v i s o r y p r a c t i s e s a n d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f 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 b y a s u p e r i o r o v e r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s . E a c h o f t h e s e t e r m s w i l l be d e f i n e d when t h e y a r e a n a l y z e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . D e s i g n a n d P l a n , o f A n a l y s i s The a n a l y s i s p l a n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f g r o u p s be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n d e x o f l o y a l t y . The h y p o t h e s e s p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r I I I c o n c e r n o n l y t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d d i r e c t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h e r e f o r e , a n a d e q u a t e a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e s o n l y t h e t e s t i n g o f t h e d i r e c - t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n e a c h i n s t a n c e , t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s p o s e d a n d t e s t e d , u s i n g t e c h n i q u e s d e s - c r i b e d a s e a c h c a s e i s p r e s e n t e d . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f G r o u p s The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e g r o u p s was d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e f o r m i n w h i c h t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t o b e p r e s e n t e d . B e c a u s e o f 64 the c r i t i c i s m made of the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n (see Chapter IV, page 5 4 ) , the supervis ion var iables 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 : that based on the Blau and Scott measure and that based on the o v e r a l l l o y a l t y measures . 1 Let us now proceed to invest igate some of the r e l a - t ionships of l oya l ty i n accordance with the aforementioned condi t ions . Loyalty and Emotional Detachment Pred ic t ion 2(a) presented i n Chapter III reads as fo l lows: "The greater the a b i l i t y of a superior to maintain emotional detachment - to remain calm and r a r e l y i f ever lose h i s temper, the more l i k e l y he i s to win the l oya l ty of h i s subordinates". Therefore , the n u l l hypothesis to be posed would state i n e f fec t that the existence of emotional detachment on the part of a superior i s i r r e l e v a n t i n the winning of the loya l ty of h i s subordinates. The question upon which th i s pred ic t ion focuses i s the fo l lowing: Q. 8. When things don't go smoothly, how l i k e l y i s i t that your supervisor w i l l lose h i s temper or get excited? CHECK ONE 1) He almost never loses h i s temper or gets exc i t ed . ^Recal l that the a l t ernat ive measure of loya l ty i s based on s ix questions as presented in Chapter IV. 65 ; 2) He only seldom loses h i s temper or gets exc i ted . 3) He f a i r l y often loses h i s temper or gets exc i t ed . 4) He frequently loses h i s temper or gets exc i t ed . ; 5) He almost always loses h i s temper and gets exc i t ed . Values of one through f ive were assigned to these response ca tegor ies , and a mean response was ca lcu lated for each group. I f a respondent checked the f i r s t answer, h i s answer was given a weighting of f i v e ; and i f he checked the l a s t answer, i t was given a weighting of one. The other intervening possible answers were weighted accordingly . The analys i s took two forms: one based on the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n of l oya l ty and the other based on the o v e r a l l l o y a l t y score . This form of analys is w i l l be u t i l i z e d through- out the remainder of th i s chapter. Let us now look at the re su l t s of th i s question as based on the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n . The respondents were cate- gorized in to l o y a l and non- loya l groups on the basis of answers given to the f i r s t two questions on the quest ionnaire . I f a respondent cheeked of f e i ther of the l a s t two answers to question one and e i ther of the l a s t two answers to question two, he was c l a s s i f i e d as l o y a l . I f a respondent returned any other combination of answers to these questions he was See f;aE.ges,;:tf;9 and 5 0.. 66 categorized as "not loyal". This method of categorization w i l l be also u t i l i zed in the presentation of the investiga- tion 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 their consideration of the f i r s t two questions. As may be seen from the questionnaire, the last two answers of ques- tion 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 third alternative indicates an indifferent attitude toward the superior as to the existence of loyalty (there is 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 loyal i f he indicated "positive loyalty"; not loyal was used to categorize a l l other respondents. It was decided by the writer that the study of the f i r s t three hypotheses presented in this chapter would be more meaningful i f the categorization of respondents took 6 7 a more minute form than merely " loyal" and "not l o y a l " . Consequently, two s t a t i s t i c a l tests were used: the 3 tes t and the r t e s t . The o r i g i n a l impetus for th i s study was derived from the studies of Blau and Scot t . Consequently, i n t e s t ing t h e i r concept of l o y a l t y , I used the same form of analys i s which they used. This meant using the 3 t e s t , as the di f ferences of means i n a large sample were to be compared. The composite d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y was used for the more minute ca tegor i za t ion . This second system of ca tegor iza t ion was used because of the des ire to study the way i n which the values of l o y a l t y are associated wi th , or r e l a t e d t o , the values of emotional detachment, informal author i ty and consistency of supervisory prac- t i s e s . I t was eas ier to see th is r e l a t i o n s h i p by i n - creasing the number of categories from two to f i v e , and to tes t the r e l a t i o n s h i p the r tes t was used. The fo l lowing table presents the r e l a t i o n s h i p be- tween worker l o y a l t y and a superior who i s perceived to exh ib i t emotional detachment. 68 TABLE VI SUPERIOR'S EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION) (n = 152) Worker Loyalty to Superior Emotional Detachment of Superior Loyal (61) (A) JT = 4.65 Not Loyal (91) (B) K - 3.85 : : : C A 2 - .3271; G*B2 = 1.1881 From th i s t a b l e , our n u l l hypothesis would take the form U 1 - U 2 = d Q ; namely, that there i s no di f ference between the populat ion means. Our a l t ernat ive would then have the form of U A - U 2 i d Q . McCarthy states that i f (X^ '- X"2) i s between 0 * 2.5 8 \ C + we: may accept the hypothesis that there i s no di f ference between the population means at the one per cent l e v e l of s ignxf ieance. U t i l i z i n g the formula above, we a r r i v e at a f igure of * .3612. Because the d i f ference of my sample means (.80). f a l l s outside of these l i m i t s we are able to 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 1 - U g ) * 0. Therefore, on th i s basis we may conclude that the emotional detachment of a superior i s r e la ted to h i s being able to command the l oya l ty of h i s subordinates . 3 P h i l i p J . McCarthy, Introduction to S t a t i s t i c a l Reason- ing, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. p. 261. 69 The next part of th i s analys is plan concerns the measurement of emotional detachment on the basis of categor iz ing the respondents into s i g n i f i c a n t l o y a l t y groups. The re su l t s of th i s analys i s are presented i n Figure 3. (See page 70.) For th i s f i g u r e , the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t i s .925. Referr ing to a chart of 95 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l s for the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , we f i n d that for a sample s ize of 155, the two values of P are approximately P^ = +.89 and P^ = +.95. Therefore, we can accept the hypothesis that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l o y a l t y of a subordinate and the emotional detachment of h i s super ior . On the basis of these data , one i s able to conclude at the 95 per cent confidence l e v e l that the l e v e l of l o y a l t y exhibi ted by a subordinate toward a superior w i l l be conditioned by the degree of emotional detachment which a subordinate perceives h i s superior as e x h i b i t i n g i n h i s attempts to have h i s subordinates comply with the d i r e c t i v e s . Loyalty and Informal Authori ty Hypothesis K a ) presented i n Chapter III reads as fo l lows: "Superiors who command the l oya l ty of t h e i r subordinates are more l i k e l y than others to e s tab l i sh e f f ec t ive informal author- i t y over them and thus to inf luence them". Therefore,, the n u l l hypothesis to be tested would state that the commanding of the 70 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOYALTY TO A SUPERIOR AND HIS PERCEIVED EMOTIONAL DETACHMENT (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) High Detachment 5- 1- Low Detachment Loyalty Score 1-2.5 ( Low) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 (High) Mean Emotional Detachment 2. 88 3.99 4.24 4.50 4.56 4.91 No. of Respondents 22 18 43 24 21 27 FIGURE 3 71 l o y a l t y of one's subordinates is: not re la ted to the form of authori ty which a superior exercises i n gaining com- pl iance with h i s d i r e c t i v e s . Also presented i n Chapter III were four predic t ions [1(b) - 1(c)] concerning the occurrence of l o y a l t y and the manner by which a superior would gain compliance with h i s d i r e c t i v e s . These predict ions were not i n d i v i d u a l l y tested but rather presented as a scale of "informal author i ty" . I t may be noted that by d e f i n i t i o n i t i s these forms of behaviour which have been used to define informal author i ty . The degree of informal authori ty possessed by a superior was based on response to the fol lowing f ive questions: To what extent do you do what your supervisor wants because: (Check one answer i n each l i n e ) . Not at To a very To some To a To a very a l l l i t t l e extent cons id- great extent erable extent extent (1) (2) (3) O ) (5) 1) He's a nice guy and you don't want to hurt him. 2) You respect h i s competence and good judgment. 3) He can penal ize 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 benef i ts to those who cooperate with him. 5) He has a l e g i t - imate r i g h t , cons idering h i s p o s i t i o n , to expect that h i s suggestions w i l l be carr i ed out S e r i a l values of one through f ive were assigned to these response categories and a mean response calculated; for each group. These mean responses were then combined in to an over- a l l "informal authority" score as w i l l be presented. A choice of a l t ernat ive f ive was weighted as the highest degree of informal authori ty for questions one and four . A choice of a l t ernat ive one indicates the highest degree of perceived informal authori ty for questions three and f i v e . The der iva t ion of an informal authori ty score w i l l now be explained. The responses to questions one, two and four were given a high r a t i n g (5) i f a l t ernat ive answer number 5 was chosen and a low r a t i n g (1) i f a l t ernat ive answer number 1 was chosen. The weighting process followed a s i m i l a r form for the choice of any of the three other poss ible choices . In weighting the responses to questions three and f i v e , a high weighting (5) was given to answer number 1 and a low r a t i n g (1) given i f the respondent answered question number 73 f i v e . I n t e r v e n i n g v a l u e s w e r e a s s i g n e d a l o n g t h e s c a l e d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e a n s w e r c h o s e n i n r e s p o n s e t o e a c h q u e s t i o n . F r o m t h e a n s w e r s g i v e n t o t h e q u e s t i o n s , t h e r e was d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e s u p e r i o r o f e a c h r e s p o n d e n t a f e l t i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y s c o r e . T h i s was c a l c u l a t e d b y s u m m i n g t h e w e i g h t s g i v e n t o e a c h r e s p o n s e a n d d i v i d i n g t h i s sum b y f o u r . F o r e x a m p l e , a t y p i c a l r e s p o n d e n t may h a v e a n s w e r e d n u m b e r 4 t o t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n , n u m b e r 3 t o t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n , n u m b e r 2 t o t h e t h i r d q u e s t i o n , n u m b e r 5 t o t h e f o u r t h q u e s t i o n a n d n u m b e r 1 t o t h e f i f t h q u e s t i o n . H i s s u p e r i o r w o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d a n i n f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y r a t i n g o f 4 . 2 i . e . ( 4 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 5 ) ( I ~) I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f R e s p o n s e A s was s t a t e d i n C h a p t e r I I I , a s u p e r i o r w i l l b e much m o r e s u c c e s s f u l i n g a i n i n g t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s i f h e i s a b l e t o p r o v i d e s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s a n d f a v o u r s f o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s w h i c h make t h e m i n d e b t e d t o h i m . T h e r e f o r e , i t was f e l t t h a t a l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e w i l l o b e y t h e d i r e c t i v e s o f h i s s u p e r i o r b e c a u s e t h e s u p e r i o r i s a n i c e g u y , b e c a u s e h e c a n g i v e s p e c i a l h e l p t o t h o s e who c o o p e r a t e w i t h h i m . A s w i l l b e r e c a l l e d f r o m t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d i n C h a p t e r I I I , a s u p e r i o r w i t h l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l n o t g a i n c o m p l i a n c e 74 simply because he has a legi t imate r i g h t to expect that 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 penal ize . Analys i s of Results F i r s t of a l l , l e t us analyze these r e s u l t s on the basis of the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n . The fo l lowing table pre- 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 superior who i s perceived to gain compliance with h i s d i r e c t i v e s through the use of informal authori ty p r a c t i s e s . TABLE VII SUPERIOR'S INFORMAL AUTHORITY AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT MEASURE) (n = 152) Worker Loyalty to Informal Authori ty Rating Superior of Superior Loyal (61) (A) X = 3.14 Not Loyal (91) (B) X = 2.48 C A 2 = . 6 3 5 ; .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 that t 2 .58^ Cx^* + w i l l y i e l d values ranging from t .3612, The n u l l hypothesis again takes the form U 1 - U 2 = d Q (ho di f ference between the means). The a l t ernat ive then has the 75 form U • - UL * d . The di f ference of means i n Table VII 1 2 O i s .66. Because th i s f a l l s outside 1 .3212 we are able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l ternate that there i s a di f ference between the means (U, - U„ / d ) i. 2 O at the one per cent l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Therefore, on the basis of th i s data we may r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l ternate hypothesis that those superiors who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates are l i k e l y to e s t a b l i s h e f f ec t ive informal authori ty over them. The next part of th is analys i s plan i s concerned with analyzing the occurrence of informal author i ty on the basis of categor iz ing the respondents in to s i g n i f i c a n t l oya l ty groups. The r e s u l t s of th i s analys is are present i n Figure ' 4 . (See page 76.) The product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s .931. Referr ing to a chart of 9 5 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l s for the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t , the sample s ize of 155 gives the values of PT = +.89 and P.. = +.95. As my product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s Li U .931, at the 95 per cent confidence l e v e l I am able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l ternate hypothesis that a pos i t ive r e l a t i o n s h i p does ex i s t between subordinate l o y - a l t y and a super ior ' s a b i l i t y to exercise e f f ec t ive informal authori ty over them. 76 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOYALTY TO A SUPERIOR AND HIS PERCEIVED USE OF THE TECHNIQUES OF INFORMAL AUTHORITY (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) High Informal Authori ty 5- 4- » H (—t Q « W O > 35 M H O < OS W >J (X < PS o 3- 2- 1- Low Informal Authori ty Loyalty Score 1-2.5 (Low) 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 (High) Mean Informal Authori ty Score 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.3 No. of Respondents '22 18 43 24 21 27 FIGURE 4 77 Loyalty and Consistency In Chapter III i t was hypothesized that "A supervisor who i s perceived by h i s subordinates as being consistent i n h i s enforcement of working rules and procedures, s t r i c t - ness and general supervisory 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 than one who i s not so perceived". The n u l l hypothesis to be tested would therefore c laim that the perception of consistent super- v i sory pract i ses by a subordinate would not have any e f fec t upon the super ior ' s l i k e l i h o o d of winning the l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates . The method of analys is took the same form as the two preceding t e s t s . A measure of consistency was obtained from asking the fo l lowing quest ion: Q. 18. Would you say that your supervisor i s consistent i n h i s enforcement of the working ru les and procedures, superv i s ion , s t r i c t n e s s , e t c . , or do you think h i s behaviour var ies from time to time and from worker to worker? CHECK ONE . 1) His behaviour i s almost always cons i s tent . 2) His behaviour i s usual ly cons is tent . . 3) Sometimes he i s not cons is tent . . •*+) Most often he i s not cons is tent . 5) He hardly ever i s cons is tent . 78 On the basis of the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n of l o y a l t y the fo l lowing table was derived from the answers of the respondents. TABLE VIII RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSISTENCY OF SUPERVISORY PRACTISES AND THE LOYALTY OF SUBORDINATES (n = 152) Worker Loyalty to Perceived consistency of Superior's Superior Supervisory Pract ises Loyal (61) (A) X = 4.2 7 Not Loyal (91) (B) X = 3.58 C T 2 = .458; CT 2 = 1.103 In Table VIII the n u l l hypothesis would take the form U. - U- = d (there i s no" di f ference between means) and the X 2 o al ternate would take the form U. - U„ i d (there i s a d i f - ference between means). Using the data of Table VIII we f i n d that ± 2 . 5 8 \ CT* + C¥* y i e lds a range of t .4012. As our di f ference of means i s .69 we are able to re j ec t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l ternate at the one per cent l e v e l of confidence. Therefore, we may conclude that con- s is tency of supervisory pract i ses as perceived by subordinates w i l l have some ef fect i n the winning of subordinate l o y a l t y . 79 Let us now proceed to invest igate the p o s s i b i l i t y of l o y a l t y varying i n accordance with the degree of supervisory consistency. This inves t iga t ion w i l l be analyzed i n Figure 5. (See page 80.) The product moment c o r r e l a t i o n i s .915. Again r e f e r r i n g to a chart of 95 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l s for the c o r - r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t the sample s ize of 155 y i e l d s values of PT = +.89 and P., = +.95. As the product moment c o r r e l a t i o n L U of Figure 5 i s .915 we may r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the a l ternate that on the basis of the data gathered consistency of supervisory pract i ses as perceived by subordi - nates w i l l inf luence the a b i l i t y of a superior to command the l oya l ty of h i s subordinates. Conclusion S E C T I O N I t was the aim of th i s chapter A to invest igate three hy- potheses descr ib ing supervisory behaviour which may be re la ted to a superior possessing the l o y a l t y of h is subordinates. On the basis of the data c o l l e c t e d from the sample I was able to conclude that the establishment of e f f ec t ive informal author- i t y over subordinates , the a b i l i t y to maintain emotional detachment from subordinates and the use of consistent d i r e c - t ives i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y re la ted to the l o y a l t y which subordinates f e e l for t h e i r super ior . 80 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSISTENCY OF SUPERVISORY PRACTISES AND SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) High Consistency co M GO o o 1- Low Consistency Loyalty Score 1-2.5 (Low) •3 . i, - 3.5 . 4 4.5 5 (High) Mean Supervisory Consistency Score 2.57 3.70 4.00 4.05 4.18 4.69 No. of Respondents 22 18 43 24 21 27 FIGURE 5 81 Conditions Predicting the Development of Loyalty The next part of this chapter investigates three hypo- theses which attempt to predict the formulation of a subordinate- superior loyalty scheme. One hypothesis states i n effect that the degree of loyalty from subordinates which a superior i s able to enjoy w i l l be related to the degree of independence the supervisor enjoys from his superior; the second is that strong ties of loyalty to his own superior may reduce the need of a supervisor to win the loyalty of his subordinates; and thirdly, loyalty of subordinates lessens the need of a supervisor to seek the approval of his superior by becoming attached to him and emulating his style of supervision. Plan of the Investigation This analysis x ^ i l l investigate some conditions which are related to the degree of loyalty of supervisors, superiors and subordinates. For the purpose of this analysis, supervisors w i l l be deemed to be those who have authority over a subordinate's superior. Because of the complexity of the analysis this 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 is very possible for there to exist, on any given level of an organization, subordinates who are loyal and not loyal to their superiors. Consequently, i t would be most d i f f i c u l t to test the significance of these scores on 82 t h e b a s i s o f a c r i t i c a l r a t i o s c o r e . ( F u r t h e r , t h e r e s u l t s w o u l d be s o c o m p l i c a t e d a s t o r e n d e r t h e m a l m o s t m e a n i n g - l e s s t o a n y o n e b u t a n a d v a n c e d s t u d e n t o f m a t h e m a t i c s ^ A s a r e s u l t , t h e d e s i g n o f t h e a n a l y s i s w i l l a s s u m e t h e p a t t e r n o f s u b j e c t i n g mean l o y a l t y s c o r e s t o o n l y t h e S t u d e n t ' s t T e s t a n d t h e F i s h e r E x a c t P r o b a b i l i t y T e s t . H o w e v e r , e a c h h y p o t h e s i s w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d t w i c e : o n c e b a s e d o n t h e B l a u a n d S c o t t d e f i n i t i o n a n d o n c e on t h e c o m p o s i t e l o y a l t y s c o r e . L o y a l t y a n d I n d e p e n d e n c e I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d i n C h a p t e r I I I t h a t " T h e m o r e i n - d e p e n d e n t a s u p e r v i s o r i s f r o m h i s s u p e r i o r , t h e m o r e l i k e l y i t i s t h a t h e w i l l h a v e l o y a l s u b o r d i n a t e s " . F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m a s u p e r i o r , o r h i e r a r c h i c a l i n d e p e n d e n c e , was d e f i n e d a s a s u p e r v i s o r ' s a b i l i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s on h i s own r a t h e r t h a n i n c o n s u l - t a t i o n w i t h h i s s u p e r i o r . I f a s u p e r v i s o r i s a b l e t o c h a n g e e x i s t i n g p r o c e d u r e s on t h e b a s i s o f h i s own r e a s o n i n g , i t was f e l t t h a t h e w o u l d be b e t t e r a b l e t o c o n t r o l t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s a n d t h u s h a v e more o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o make h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s i n d e b t e d t o h i m . The m o r e o p p o r t u n i t y a s u p e r v i s o r h a s t o make h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s i n d e b t e d t o h i m , t h e g r e a t e r w i l l b e h i s a b i l i t y t o w i n t h e i r l o y a l t y . ( H y p o t h e s i s 1 ( a ) ) . T h u s p r e d i c t i o n 3 ( b ) s t a t e s t h a t " A s u p e r i o r who commands t h e l o y a l t y o f h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s w i l l be m o r e w i l l i n g 83 to change e x i s t i n g procedures without consulting his superior than a superior who does not command loy a l t y from his subordinates". Therefore,, the n u l l hypothesis would state that h i e r a r c h i c a l independence would not be of any consequence i n a supervisor's a b i l i t y to win the loy a l t y of his subordinates. A measure of h i e r a r c h i c a l independence was derived through responses from the following questions: Q. 14. To what extent are you w i l l i n g to change e x i s t i n g procedures without consulting your superior? CHECK ONE 1) Never w i l l i n g to change them . 2) ...Occasionally w i l l i n g to change them . 3) Sometimes w i l l i n g to change them 4) Usually w i l l not hesitate to change them 5) Never hesitate to change them The following table presents the collected data i n summary form. (See page 84) Let us now proceed to investigate t h i s hypothesis on the basis of the composite loyalt y score. To maintain consistency with the previous t e s t , the respondents w i l l be categorized on the same c r i t e r i a , i . e . those who scored 4.0 - 5.0 on the loy- 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 others w i l l be deemed not l o y a l for the purposes of the research. 84 TABLE IX SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (BLAU AND SCOTT MEASURE) AND SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE (n =25 groups) Loyalty Status of Subordinate Group Supervisory Independence Score Loyal (11) X = 3.78 Not Loyal (14) X = 3.57 df = 23; t = .42 ; p = n . s . The fo l lowing table presents the co l l ec ted data based on the composite l o y a l t y score . TABLE X SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE SCORE) AND SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE (n = 25 groups) Loyalty Status of Subordinate Group Supervisory Independence Score Loyal (9) X = = 2.83 Not Loyal (16) X = = 3.15 85 On the basis of t h i s score, i t seems that the hy- pothesis becomes reversed. The supervisors of l o y a l groups claim to have less h i e r a r c h i c a l independence than those of less l o y a l groups. This may not be as surprising upon consideration of the modification Blau and Scott put forth to t h e i r hypoth- e s i s . C i t i n g the study of Pelz , they q u a l i f y t h e i r hy- pothesis to state that 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 supervisory practises. Let us then proceed to investigate prediction 3(c); namely, that "A superior who i s perceived by his subordinates as engaging i n 'good1 supervisory practises and enjoying 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 to win the l o y a l t y of his subordinates than a superior who does not enjoy h i e r a r c h i c a l independence and does not engage good supervisory behaviour". Thus, the n u l l hypothesis to be tested would state that the winning of subordinate loy- a l t y would not be affected by h i e r a r c h i c a l independence and good supervisory practises. A measure of good supervisory practises was obtained through responses to the following questions: ^Donald C. P e l z , " I n f l u e n c e : A Key to 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. 86' Q. 15. Does your supervisor engage i n "good" supervisory practises? CHECK ONE . 1) Yes, he usually does • 2) Yes, he does i n many ways : .- • 3) He does i n some ways and not i n others ______ •+) No, he does not i n many ways . 5) No, he usually does not Q. 16. How confident do you f e e l that your supervisor keeps you f u l l y and frankly informed about things that might concern you? CHECK ONE • 1) None at a l l 2) Some, to a very l i t t l e extent • ,, 3) To some extent : 4) To a considerable extent 5) To a very great extent Q. 17. In solving problems or making decisions which con- front him, how often does your superior seek the opinion of h i s subordinates? CHECK ONE 1) Almost never . 2) Seldom • 3) About h a l f the time . 4) Quite often : 5) Almost always Perhaps a b r i e f explanation would be appropriate here describing the methods u t i l i z e d i n analyzing the three factors (subordinate l o y a l t y score, supervisory practises 87 and h i e r a r c h i c a l independence scores). Each supervisory score was multi p l i e d by the corresponding h i e r a r c h i c a l independence score. The products were then summed and an average score for superiors i n the l o y a l - non-loyal categories 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 supervisor may have received a supervisory score of 4 and a h i e r a r c h i c a l independence score of 4. This would give him a supervisory independence and behaviour score of 16. The categorization of the superiors was determined on the basis of the subordinate l o y a l t y scores. The following table w i l l present these data as based on the Blau and Scott 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) Loyalty Status of Subordinate Group Supervisory Independence and Behaviour Score Loyal (11) X = 15.00 Not Loyal (14) X = 12.48 df = 23; t = .43; P = n.s. 88 On the Blau and Scott basis, the data which I collected do not y i e l d a large enough " t " score to allow me to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis. Let us now investigate t h i s hypothesis on the basis of the alternate d e f i n i t i o n . TABLE XII RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR HIERARCHICAL INDEPENDENCE AND SUPERVISORY PRACTISES SCORES (n = 25 groups) Loyalty Status of Supervisory Independence Subordinate Group and Behaviour Score Loyal (9) X = 11 Not Loyal (16) X = 9 df = 23; t = .45; p = n.s. From the data c o l l e c t e d , the " t " test does not y i e l d a score high enough to allow us to re j e c t the n u l l hypothesis. Thus, on the basis of the Student's " t " test when applied to my data, I am not able to predict the resultant l o y a l t y factor which h i e r a r c h i c a l independence and good supervisory practises w i l l have upon subordinates. Loyalty and Soc i a l Support As may be r e c a l l e d from Chapter I I I , i t was suggested that the source of s o c i a l support of a supervisor would be 89 an important consideration 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) stated that "Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y to one's superior may reduce the need of a supervisor to win the respect of his subordinates". Prediction 5(b), which was based on t h i s hypothesis stated that "A superior who commands a higher degree of the l o y a l t y of his subordinates w i l l f e e l i t more important to win the respect and allegiance of his subordinates than one who commands a lesser degree of the l o y a l t y of his subordinates". The n u l l hypothesis to be tested would, therefore, state that there i s no difference between the winning of subordinate l o y a l t y and the source of s o c i a l support. The al t e r n a t i v e i s that there i s a difference. These concepts were measured on the basis of the responses given to the following question: Q. 18. With you at work are people at higher l e v e l s , lower levels and the same l e v e l as yourself i n the organ- i z a t i o n . I f you were forced to choose, which group's friendship and respect do you value most? I value most the friendship and respect of: (Check one only) . 1) My superiors - 2) My subordinates , 3) Those at the same l e v e l i n the organization as myself 90 The following table presents the data c o l l e c t e d on the basis of the Blau and Scott concept of l o y a l t y . TABLE XIII RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT (BLAU AND SCOTT DEFINITION) Cn = 25 groups) Loyalty Status of Source of Social Support Subordinates Superior Subordinate Peer Loyal (11) 2 7 2 Not Loyal (14) 6 2 6 The following formula w i l l be used to tes t the s i g n i f i - cance of the data: X 2 = k (x. - n . £ ) 2 5 —- i i i = l n , 4 ) Where x, = and -o- 2 7 2 11 25 n_ = 8 n 2 = 9 n. Applying t h i s data to the above formula, we fin d that 2 X w i l l come to value of 6.39. Referring to a table of 5John E. Freund, Mathematical S t a t i s t i c s , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. p. 277. calculated Chi-Square, we f i n d t h i s to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Therefore, at t h i s l e v e l we can r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis and accept the al t e r n a t i v e . The following table w i l l present the same information as the one immediately preceding, only the loyalty status of the subordinates w i l l be determined on the basis of the proposed composite lo y a l t y d e f i n i t i o n . TABLE XIV RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY TO SUPERIOR SOURCE OF SOCIAL SUPPORT . (COMPOSITE DEFINITION) (n = 25 groups) Loyalty Status of Superior's Source of Social Support Subordinates Superior Subordinate Peer Loyal 2 6 1 Not Loyal 8 3 5 Applying the same s t a t i s t i c a l test as to the previous set of r e s u l t s , we fxnd that X =6.13, which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Again, measuring lo y a l t y on the composite score, we are able to r e j e c t the n u l l and accept the alternate hypothesis. ° H a s t y conclusions should not be drawn from these f i n d - ings as the l e v e l of s ign i f i cance is determined from a weak test because of the r e l a t i v e l y small sample s i z e . 92 Loyalty and Style of Supervision I t was claimed that i f a superior wins the loyalty of h i s subordinates, he would not experience as much need to seek the approval of his superiors. Blau and Scott claimed that one method::of seeking superior approval would take the form of becoming attached to him and emulating his. s t y l e of supervision. Thus, prediction 5(c) stated that "A superior who commands a higher degree of the loy- a l t y of his subordinates w i l l be less l i k e l y to seek the approval of his superior by becoming attached to him and emulating his s t y l e of supervision". Therefore, the n u l l hypothesis to be tested would state that l o y a l subordinates w i l l i n no way a f f e c t the propensity of a supervisor to win the allegiance of his superior. I attempted to gain a measure of a subordinate's desire to emulate his superior's s t y l e of supervision through the following question: Q. 20. To what extent would you say your way of handling subordinates resembles that of your boss? CHECK ONE , 1) Almost completely s i m i l a r . 2) Very s i m i l a r 3) Somewhat s i m i l a r ; 4) Very d i s s i m i l a r : • • ; 5) Almost completely d i s s i m i l a r If the respondents checked o f f either of the f i r s t three possible answers, for the purposes of analysis, they were deemed to use the same form of supervisory behaviour as that of t h e i r superiors. A response to either of the l a s t two alternatives was taken to indicate a d i f f e r e n t form of supervision from that u t i l i z e d by the superior. Again, the data w i l l be presented i n two tables: one table based on the Blau and Scott concept of l o y a l t y , and the other based on the composite l o y a l t y score. The following table presents the data based on the Blau and Scott d e f i n i t i o n . 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) Loyalty Status of Subordinates Same Supervisory Method as Superior Different from Superior Loyal C - 7 4 Not Loyal ( ̂  14 0 Investigated on the basis of the Blau and Scott concept of l o y a l t y , of the eleven supervisors who command the l o y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates, four indicated that t h e i r methods of 94 supervision d i f f e r from those of t h e i r superiors. Of the fourteen supervisors who do not command the lo y a l t y of their, subordinates, none of them indicated that t h e i r methods of supervision are i n any way d i s s i m i l a r from that of t h e i r superiors-. Subjecting t h i s data to the Fisher Exact Probability 7 Test , we f i n d that we are able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypoth- esis at the .05 l e v e l and conclude that the more l i k e l y i t i s f o r a supervisor to win the l o y a l t y of his subordi- nates, the less probable i t w i l l be that the supervisor w i l l exhibit a desire to i d e n t i f y himself with his superior by emulating his s t y l e of supervision. To conclude t h i s chapter, l e t me present the data on the basis of the composite lo y a l t y score. TABLE XVI RELATIONSHIP OF SUBORDINATE LOYALTY (COMPOSITE SCORE) AND PROPENSITY OF SUPERVISOR TO EMULATE HIS SUPERIOR'S STYLE OF SUPERVISION (n = 25 groups) Loyalty Status of Subordinates Same Supervisory Method as Superior Different from Superior Loyal 4 5 Not Loyal 16 0 Siege l , op. c i t . , pp. 96 - 101. 95 This table was drawn up i n accordance with the same standards as the preceding table. Investigated on the composite l o y a l t y d e f i n i t i o n , f i v e of the respondents with l o y a l subordinates indicated a supervisory behaviour d i f f e r e n t from that of t h e i r superiors, while none of the superiors who did not com- mand the lo y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates indicated d i f f e r e n t supervisory practises from that of t h e i r superiors. Again, subjecting these findings to the Fisher Exact Probability Test, we f i n d them to be s i g n i f i c a n t at the .002 l e v e l . On the basis of thi s lo y a l t y score, we can r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis with a greater degree of confidence than was possible when we measured lo y a l t y on the basis of the Blau and Scott score. Conclusion I t was the aim of thi s section of the chapter to i n - < vestigate three hypotheses concerning the r e l a t i o n of subordinate l o y a l t y to the h i e r a r c h i c a l independence enjoyed by a superior, the d i r e c t i o n from which a superior seeks his s o c i a l support, and the propensity of a super- vi s o r with l o y a l subordinates to emulate his superior's s t y l e of supervision. On the basis of the responses sub- mitted by my chosen sample, I was able to conclude that the a b i l i t y of a superior to win the lo y a l t y of his 96 subordinates w i l l i n part be conditioned by his source of s o c i a l support. Further, I was also able to accept the hypothesis that i f a supervisor looks to h i s supe- r i o r for s o c i a l support and recognition, he w i l l l i k e l y emulate the superior's s t y l e of supervision. However, I was not able to come to any d e f i n i t e conclusions re- garding the combination of h i e r a r c h i c a l independence which a supervisor may enjoy and the use of good super- visory practises with r e l a t i o n to the a b i l i t y of a supervisor to win the l o y a l t y of his subordinates. The ramifications and uses which may be derived from these studies w i l l be presented i n the following chapter. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Prior speculation on the subject of subordinate loy- a l t y to his superior has suggested that t h i s variable may be of considerable consequence i n the analysis of organiza- t i o n a l behaviour. Various relationships between loyalt y and other organizational variables have been discussed. However, there has been l i t t l e empirical research involving i t and, i n f a c t , no consistent d e f i n i t i o n of the concept has been developed. For the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , l o y a l t y was investigated on the basis of two d e f i n i t i o n s . One, based on the Blau and Scott concept of l o y a l t y , was seen as a subordinate's desire to remain under the influence of his present superior. The 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 proposal but broadened i t by suggesting that unquestioning f a i t h and t r u s t , and the l i k i n g f o r a superior, together with the present working environment would be important components of f e l t l o y a l t y . The object of t h i s study has been to explore i n a large bureaucratically-organized economic organization some of the conditions related to the existence of l o y a l t y to a superior, The research hypotheses were as follows: 1. 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 to establish e f f e c t i v e informal authority over them, and thus to influence them. 9 8 2. The greater the a b i l i t y of the supervisor to maintain emotional detachment - to remain calm and r a r e l y lose his temper - the more l i k e l y he i s to command the l o y a l t y of his subordinates. 3. 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. 4. S t a b i l i t y of supervisory practises promotes the lo y a l t y of workers to t h e i r superior. 5. Strong t i e s of l o y a l t y to his own superior may reduce the;.need of a supervisor to win the respect of his 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 alternate l e v e l s . For the purpose of hypothesis derivation, l o y a l t y was considered as the independent variable and measures of desire 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 his boss and confidence and trust i n the superior were treated as dependent variables. The data were drawn from a questionnaire completed by 152 respondents from 25 administrative units ranging i n size from 5 to over 40 members. The major findings relevant to the hypotheses outlined above were as follows: 1. Superiors who 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 to esta b l i s h e f f e c t i v e informal authority over them and thus to influence them. We may then conclude that those superiors who command the loy a l t y of t h e i r subordi- nates w i l l be more accepted by the group and thus able to extend the scope of t h e i r influence over t h e i r subordinates beyond the narrow l i m i t s of t h e i r formal authority. They w i l l gain 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 addition to, t h e i r having a legitimate - r i g h t inhering i n t h e i r position i n the hierarchy of the organization. The findings of French and Snyder 1 seem to lend support to the v a l i d i t y of my findings. As may be r e c a l l e d from the discussion i n Chapter I I I , 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 his attempts were. We may conclude from my research data and the findings of French and Snyder that those who command the loy a l t y of t h e i r subordinates w i l l be able to widen t h e i r span of authority (and thus increase t h e i r power) beyond that given by t h e i r o f f i c e i n the organization. On thi s basis we may also hypoth- esize that those who command the loy a l t y of t h e i r subordinates- w i l l f i n d i t easier to influence them than a superior who does not command the loy a l t y of his subordinates. This hypothesis iJohn R. French, J r . , and Richard Snyder, "Leadership and Interpersonal Power", Studies i n Social Power, Dorwin Cartwright (ed.) Ann Arbor: Institute for So c i a l Research, University of Michigan, 1959. pp. 118 - 149. 100 i s tenable since L i p p i t t and his colleagues found that i n a camp s e t t i n g , boys to whom others attributed much power made more influence attempts and.enjoyed more success i n t h e i r attempts to influence. 2. The more that a superior perceives himself as maintain- ing emotional detachment, the greater i s the. 'fe.lt l o y a l t y of his subordinates. Superiors who do not lose 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 t h e i r subordinates l o y a l t y as measured by both concepts of l o y a l t y . This conclusion seems to be supported i n studies con- 3 4 ducted by F i e d l e r and Gouldner , although they used d i f f e r - ent indicators to measure a lack of involvement. In h i s studies of bombing crews, Fiedler indicated a lack of i n - 1 volvement to e x i s t when a superior was able to maintain a minimum l e v e l of s o c i a l distance; The degree of s o c i a l distance between a superior and subordinate was derived from the score from a questionnaire known as "Assumed Simi- 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 Relations, Vol. 5 (1952) pp. 37 - 64. 3Fred E. F i e d l e r , "A Note on Leadership Theory", Socio- metry, Vol. 20 (1957) pp. 87 - 94. Alvin W. Gouldner, Patterns of I n d u s t r i a l Bureaucracy, Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 195 4. pp. 45 - 56. 5 F i e d l e r , op. c i t . 101 He concluded that the a b i l i t y of a leader to remain i n - dependent and not get intimately involved with his 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 units than a leader who was not able to maintain emotional detachment. Gouldner, i n his study of a gypsum plant, found that when the informal contacts of a manager were "too i n d u l - gent" the manager would become emotionally involved with his subordinates and would be confined by them. Because of h i s indulgent mathods he was not able to make chal- lenging demands to stimulate t h e i r i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t y to perform well. 3. 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 l o y a l t y of h i s subordinates. The research f i n d - ings suggest that l o y a l subordinates perceive t h e i r supe- r i o r s as being consistent i n t h e i r enforcement of working rules and procedures, s t r i c t n e s s and general supervisory behaviour. This conclusion seems to follow along the lines of that reached by Cohen. Cohen conducted an experiment i n which the leader or power figure gave the workers an .ambiguous d e f i n i t i o n of the tasks to be performed as well bArthur R. Cohen, " S i t u a t i o n a l Structure, Self-Esteem, and Threat-Oriented Reactions to Power", Studies in S o c i a l Power, Dorwin Cartwright (ed.) Ann Arbor: Institute for S o c i a l Research, University of Michigan, 1959. pp. 35 - 52. 102 as inconsistent d i r e c t i v e s . Further, he also varied the consistency of his suggestions as well as the c l a r i t y of the task assigned. He found that this inconsistent be- haviour led to less favourable attitudes toward the power figure. 4. Loyalty to one's superior i s related to the l i k e l i - hood of the supervisor winning the l o y a l t y of his subordi- nates. My research findings suggest that those supervisors who look to t h e i r superiors for s o c i a l support are not l i k e l y to win the lo y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates. Further, the findings also point out that a superior who commands a higher degree of the lo y a l t y of his subordinates w i l l be less l i k e l y to see himself as seeking the approval of his superior by becoming attached to him and emulating his s t y l e of supervision. This finding seems to follow along the same conclusions 7 8 as reached by both Jaques and Blau and Scott. Jaques, i n his study, found that top managers tended to be somewhat i s o l a t e d . However, Blau and Scott i n t h e i r study of a s o c i a l service agency found that 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 existence even at the f i r s t - l i n e supervisory l e v e l . They put forth the suggestion that one source of s o c i a l ' E l l i o t t Jaques, The Changing Culture of a Factory, New York: Dryden, 19 52. pp. 2 78 - 2 79. 8 Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations, San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. p. 161. 103 support that enables some supervisors to maintain detachment and independence was the l o y a l t y of subordinates. 5. The degree of a superior's perceived h i e r a r c h i c a l inde- pendence was not found to have any r e l a t i o n s h i p to his subordinate's l o y a l t y . This hypothesis was based on the Q study performed by Pelz, where i n his theory of influence he proposed that the a b i l i t y of a superior to control the environment of his subordinates would enable the superior to extend his control of the subordinates would enable the superior to extend his control of the subordinates beyond the narrow l i m i t s defined by his position i n the hierarchy, (and hence develop high subordinate l o y a l t y ) . However, Pelz also found there to e x i s t some contra- dictory 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 studied. For example, there was the supervisory measure of 'taking sides with employees i n cases of employee-management c o n f l i c t s ' . In small work groups, employees thought more highly of the leader who took t h e i r side i n cases of con- f l i c t s with management. But, i n large white- c o l l a r work groups, employees were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less s a t i s f i e d with such a supervisor; they preferred the supervisor who sided with manage- ment.!0 The sample chosen for my study can very e a s i l y be i d e n t i f i e d as predominantly a white-collar work group. 9Donald C. Pelz "Influence: A Key to E f f e c t i v e Leader- ship i n the F i r s t - L i n e Supervisor", Personnel, Vol. 29 (1952) pp. 209 - 217. 1 0 I b i d . , Pelz, p. 212. 10 4 Perhaps my findings can be interpreted also as meaning that large group white-collar workers are less s a t i s f i e d with a superior who sides with them i n cases of c o n f l i c t . 6. Loyalty to a superior was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y pronounced on alternate levels of the hierarchy. E t z i o n i has claimed that the foreman may be i n a dilemma deciding which l e v e l of the organization to iden- t i f y with, and often w i l l v a c i l l a t e between his superiors and subordinates. From my findings I would suggest that Etz i o n i ' s observation of the dilemma of the foreman may even extend to the upper levels of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 1 1 Further, the theory advanced by Dalton would suggest that l o y a l t y to a superior need not be pronounced on alternate l e v e l s . Dalton has advanced the theory that when r e c r u i t i n g for a vacancy, o f f i c e r s tend to choose 12 candidates with attitudes much l i k e t h e i r own. Conse- quently, there would be a tendency toward conformity within an organization rather than d i f f e r i n g orientation amongst employees. In addition to the above findings dealing with the e x p l i c i t research hypotheses, there were also some obser- vations which deserve mention. X J-Amitai E t z i o n i , "Human Relations and the Foreman", The P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review Vol. 1 (1958) pp. 37 - 38. 1 2 M e l v i l l e Dalton, Men Who Manage, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. 105 1. Although l o y a l t y did not vary uniformly throughout the organization, the "alternate l e v e l " hypothesis did tend to hold at the extreme ends of the organization. I t was i n the middle where i t tended to break down. 2. The responses to the d i r e c t e x p l i c i t expression of lo y a l t y were higher than the score on l o y a l t y i n f e r r e d from the i n d i r e c t measures of the concept. Thus, i t appears that although a subordinate may f e e l he i s l o y a l toward his superior, his behaviour and attitudes expressed i n more i n d i r e c t fashion are often at variance with the d i r e c t measure. Thus, one may expect to f i n d i n c o n s i s t - ency i n behavioural analysis. To conclude t h i s section of the chapter, I would l i k e to quote a comment submitted by one of the respondents. Although I did not s t a t i s t i c a l l y prove that l o y a l t y w i l l vary uniformly throughout the hierarchy, the following comment was submitted by a respondent at one of the extreme ends of the hierarchy. "In our department i f there i s any trouble with the Supervisor, i t i s very r a r e l y his f a u l t . Should there be a question about something, the lowest Supervisor has to go with t h i s to his next boss and t h i s boss also has to go higher up etc. The higher bosses, i n my opinion, do not know the p r a c t i c a l side 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 help us very much. Also, because the lower Supervisors have to ask 106 the higher ups, things hardly get changed, because the lower bosses are a f r a i d to bother the higher ups". Thus, from this comment, i t would seem that a super- v i s o r would be able to gain: the l o y a l t y of his subordinates without h i e r a r c h i c a l independence i f the subordinates f e e l that i t i s because the "higher ups" prevent a change i n the working environment. A Comment on the Theoretical D e f i n i t i o n I would suggest that the Blau and Scott 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 to be no difference which d e f i n i t i o n was used i n accepting or r e j e c t i n g the proposed hypotheses, I found that i n some circumstances I was able to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis with more s t a t i s t i c a l confidence using the proposed com- posite measures of l o y a l t y . I t seems that when a subordinate contemplates a transfer, he considers other factors than merely those pertaining to h i s present superior. For.example, there i s the question of s o c i a l contacts within the present work group, the present location of one's desk or o f f i c e , and i f a move with a superior means a move outside the present area of employment, there i s evidence to suggest one also considers the transportation problem and/or the problem of moving to a d i f f e r e n t area. Consequently, because a sub- ordinate might indicate he would not want to remain under 10 7 the influence of his present superior, i t would not neces- s a r i l y follow he would exhi b i t q u a l i t i e s of an unloyal subordinate, or that his superior does not u t i l i z e super- visory practises which induces loyalt y i n a subordinate. - Suggestions for Further Research During my review of the l i t e r a t u r e i t came to l i g h t that the concept of l o y a l t y i s a r e l a t i v e l y new v a r i a b l e i n the analysis of organizational behaviour. Consequently, my suggestions w i l l concentrate on those aspects of opera- ti o n which organizations analyze to better able them to meet t h e i r objectives. F i r s t of a l l , i t would be useful to compare Etzio n i * s 13 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of complex organizations amongst themselves. Namely, does the amount of f e l t l o y a l t y vary according to the type of organization which i s investigated: normative, coercive and u t i l i t a r i a n organizations? Further, would the form i n which the f i n a l product or service 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 to assembly l i n e methods of production have an e f f e c t upon a subordinate's f e l t l o y a l t y to his superior? A second research proposal would concern i t s e l f with an explanation and perhaps prediction of the occurrence of l 3Amatai E t z i o n i , A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. 108 employee turnover. I t would seem that those superiors who command the lo y a l t y of t h e i r subordinates would not experience the same degree of subordinate turnover as those superiors who do not command the loy a l t y of t h e i r subordinates. In view of the fac t that one of the main objectives of most business organizations i s the optimization of p r o f i t s , i t may be well to re l a t e l o y a l t y to productiv- i t y . I t would not make much economic sense to undertake programs which may induce l o y a l t y of subordinates to t h e i r superiors i f i t would not show up i n terms of greater productivity or reduced operating costs (turnover, absentee- ism and q u a l i t y ) . My f i n a l suggestion for further research would be one which would cover quite a lengthy period of time. In analyz- ing organizational behaviour i t may be useful to predict the changing orientation of superiors as t h e i r perception of pote n t i a l advancement opportunities change. Does a super- v i s o r change his methods of supervision and/or become attached to his superior as he sta r t s "bucking for promotion"? Relating t h i s to the second research suggestion, could i t be that those groups experiencing the greatest turnover are supervised by ambitious superiors who have been over-looked i n t h e i r attempts for promotion? Perhaps i n t h e i r attempts to gain promotion 109 they are using supervisory practises which do not induce subordinate l o y a l t y . (However, this may or may not matter i n the least i f loyalt y has no e f f e c t on output or turnover.) 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnard, Chester I. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948. Bennis, W.G., Berkowitz, N., A f f in i to , M. and Malone, M. "Authority, Power, and the Ab i l i t y to Influence" in Human Relations, Vol . 11 (1958), pp. 143-155. "Bureaucracy and the Problem of Power" by Reinhard Bendix in Public Administration Review, Vol . 5 (1945), pp. 194-209. Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962. Caudi l l , William. The Psychiatric Hospital as a Small Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958. "The Corporation as an Organization" by Neil W. Chamberlain in Industrial Confl ict by Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin, Arthur M. Ross (eds.). McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954, pp. 153-163. Cohen, Arthur R. "Situational Structure, Self-Esteem, and Threat- Oriented Reactions to Power", in Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959, pp. 35-52. Dalton, Me lv i l l e . Men Who Manage. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Dean, Lois R. "Union Act iv i ty and Dual Loyalty", Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol . 7 (1954), pp. 526-536. D i l l , William R., Hi l ton, Thomas L. and Reitman, Walter R. The New Managers. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. E tz ion i , Amitai. "Human Relations and the Foreman", Pacif ic Sociologi- cal Review, Vol . 1 (1958), pp. 33-38. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. F iedler , Fred E. "A Note on Leadership Theory: The Effect of Social Barriers Between Leaders and Followers" in Sociometry, Vol . 20, pp. 87-94. I l l Fletcher, T.W. "The Nature of Administrative Loyalty" in Public Administration Review, (1958), Vol . 18, pp. 37-42. Fleishman, Edwin A . , Harr is, Edwin F. and Burtt, Harold E. "Leadership and Supervision in Industry" in Robert A. Sutermeister (ed.), People and Productivity. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963. French, John R.P. Jr. and Snyder, Richard. "Leadership and Inter- personal Power", in Dorwin Cartwright (ed.), Studies in,Socia l Power. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959, pp. 118-149. Goodacre, D.M. 'Group Characteristics of Good and Poor Performing Combat Units" , Sociometry, 1953, Vol . , pp. 168-179. Gauldner, Alv in W. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1954. Gruen, Walter. "A Theoretical Examination of the Concept of Dual Allegiance" in Personnel Psychology, Vo l . 7 (1954), pp. 72-80. Jaques, E l l i o t t . The Changing Culture of a Factory. New York: Dryden, 1952. Katz, D., Maccoby, N., Gurin, G. and Floor, L.C. Productivity, Super- v is ion and Morale Among Railroad Workers. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Katz, D., Maccoby, N. and Morse, N. Productivity, Supervision and Morale in an Office Situation, Part I. Survey Research Center, University of Michigan. Kerr, Willard A. "Dual Allegiance and Emotional Acceptance-Rejection in Industry" in Personnel Psychology, Vo l . 7 (1954), pp. 59-66. L iker t , Rensis. New Patterns of Management. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. L ipp i t t , Ronald, Polansky, Norman and Rosen, Sidney. "The Dynamics of Power", Human Relations, 5 (1952), pp. 37-64. Merton, Robert K. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality" in Social Forces, 18 (May, 1940), pp. 561-568. 112 M i l l e r , Walter B. "Two Concepts of Authority", American Anthropologist 57 (1955), pp..271-289. O'Donnel, Cyr i l J . "The Source of Managerial Authority" in Readings in Management by H. Koontz and C. O'Donnel, McGrawrHill Book Company, Inc., 1959, pp. 26-38. Page, Charles Hunt. "Bureaucracy's Other Face" in Social Forces, Vol . 25 (1946), pp. 88-94. Parkin, Frank Iowerth. Confl ict in the Lumber Industry. University of Br i t i sh Columbia, unpublished Master's Thesis. Pelz, Donald C. "Influence: A Key to Effective Leadership in the F i rst- Line Supervisor", Personnel, 29 (1952), pp. 209-217. Purcel l , Theodore V. "Dual Allegiance to Company and Union - Packinghouse Workers, A Swift ? UPWA Study in a Cr is is Situation, 1949-1952" in Personnel Psychology, Vol . 7 (1954), pp. 48-58. Rosen, Ajalmar. "Dual Allegiance: A Critique and a Proposed Approach" in Personnel Psychology, Vol . 7 (1954), pp. 67-71. Seashore, Stanley E. Work Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Survey Research Center Series Publication #14, University of Michigan. Stewart, Nathaniel. "A Real ist ic View at Organizational Loyalty", The Management Review, Vo 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, Inc., 1960 Tannenbaum, Robert. "Managerial Decision-Making" in Journal of Business. University of Chicago Press, Vo l . 23 (1950), pp..22-39. Whyte, William Foote. Men at Work. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, Inc. and Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1961. 113 Stat ist ics Blalock, Hubert M. Social S ta t i s t i cs . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Edwards, Al len L. S ta t i s t i ca l Analysis (revised edit ion). New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1946. Freund, John E. Mathematical S ta t i s t i cs . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. Lewis, Edward E. Methods of S ta t i s t i ca l Analysis in Economics and Business (second edit ion). Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1963, 1953. McCarthy, Phi l ip J . Introduction to S ta t i s t i ca l Reasoning. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Siegel , Sidney. Non Parametric Stat ist ics for the Behavioural Sciences. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 4 24
United States 3 0
Germany 2 5
France 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 4 5
Beijing 4 0
Ashburn 2 0
Dallas 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items